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.
21501
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:43pm
Subject: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> I'm resisting the "neutral" concept, even when you throw in Pialat
and
> Eustache. The word seens too strong: it's hard to have a really
neutral
> frame. Maybe I'm just a little
> worried that "neutral" evokes the (mistaken, I think) believe that
TV
> isn't about the visuals. - Dan
It's one of the important modern visual styles, and it can be seen on
tv as well as in major arthouse directors. It remains pretty well
undocumented, because by its nature it flies under the radar. When
someone talks about style in a tv film they always mean something
flashy, like Spielberg.
The implications of neutral style are vast and unexamined. I'll stick
by the word. Call it a flaunting (paradoxically) of the mechanical
recording function of the camera.
One of Barthes' late seminars was a year devoted to the concept
of "The Neutral."
21502
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 19, 2005 10:45pm
Subject: Kubrick Yells! (was Re: Home Movies)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jaketwilson"
wrote:
>
.
>
> But again, does reasonable=moral? Maybe I'm being sentimental but I
> would hate to think that "size of personality" was unrelated to
> qualities that might be considered moral, e.g. generosity, loyalty,
> courage. What I've read about Welles suggests he was lovable both
> despite his waywardness and because of it. And Welles was saying
this
> himself when he put forward Falstaff as the paradigm of the Good
Man.
Right on all counts, but Fred's example, as I recall, was
Riefenstahl - whom I don't consider much of a director, actually.
21504
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Jan 19, 2005 11:08pm
Subject: Filmmaker personalities (was: Kubrick Yells!)
jaketwilson wrote:
> ...Maybe I'm being sentimental but I
> would hate to think that "size of personality" was unrelated to
> qualities that might be considered moral....
Hmm. Here's a thought. How many of us have been "moral" most all of our
lives? Or maybe more tellingly, for how many of us would almost everyone
we had contact with call us "moral." I think we have a too easy tendency
to think of people as either good or bad.
Brakhage is one great filmmaker I knew fairly well, and for almost four
decades. He could be incredibly generous, deeply concerned with the
state of the world, putting his efforst into trying to improve it,
helping people individually, showing great concern for other filmmakers,
helping preserve their work (sometimes almost single-handledly), and on
and on.
He also would sometimes take friends with artistic ambitions of one sort
or another and sit them down and tell them in no uncertain terms that
they absolutely were not "artists." And when it came to, uh, personal
relatoinships, he didn't always tell the truth. The fact that he knew
and admitted that -- he titled several reels of his film autobiography
"Duplicity" -- doesn't help the people who he hurt over the years.
While I'd like to think that a sensitivity to great art does help make
us better people -- hence my example of not knowing any Bush voters who
shared my aesthetic -- it could be that the "better people" also happen
to be sensitive to the best art. There's a neutrality, an almost
orgasmic amorality, to the most intense aesthetic experiences that I
think should be respected. A Vermeer painting or a Bresson film take you
to some kind of limit, but they do not necessarily cause you to be
kinder to animals, or people.
To repeat a story I believe I told in this group's early months, after
he died in South America some of the details of Josef Mengele's life
came out. (He was the doctor at Auschwitz who performed utterly hideos
medical "experiments.") He hung out with two sympatico Nazi friends, an
Austrian couple. One of their favorite passtimes was listening to Bach
and Beethoven. My guess is that if I could have had a conversation with
Mengele about Bach without knowing his identity (if I knew his identity
I might try to strangle him), I would have found a really sensitive
appreciator.
Many if not most great artists have a kind of arrogance about them. In a
way you have to be arrogant to push your vision, whether you're doing so
by writing poetry alone or directing a huge cast and crew. The sort of
feel good model of art, that good or moral or whatever people make great
artists, strikes me as just not true.
One of few genuinely kind and genuinely moral people I've known, who is
also one of my very closest friends, I met when I was 17 (he was 18).
I've never heard anyone say a bad word about him. He deeply involved in
cinema when I first knew him. He also tried to make a film of his own,
as many of us did. But he had some doubts. He told me he didn't like
bossing people around, telling his cast and crew what to do. He probably
didn't like bossing film strips around either, because I think he never
finished editing it. That's just the way he was, and that's the way he
is today.
Fred Camper
21505
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 0:03am
Subject: Re: coming sooner or later
--- Gabe Klinger wrote:
>
> * Last Days, by Gus Van Sant, starring Michael Pitt
Gus' grunge-rock movie with Michael Pitt as somebody
very much like Curt Cobain.
>
> * Untitled Jim Jarmusch project, starring Bill
> Murray
>
Well great.
> * Mary, by Abel Ferrara, starring Vincent Gallo
>
Well NOT great.
> * Klimt, by Raul Ruiz, starring (heya!) John
> Malkovich
On loan from Manoel de Oliviera
>
> * The Man from London, Béla Tarr (apparently this
> has finished
> shooting)
>
And it's how long?
> * Brokeback Mountain, Ang Lee
>
Jake and Heath get snugggly in the sadlle.
> * El Carnaval de Sodoma, Arturo Ripstein
>
John Rechy's favorite director.
>
> * Crossing the Bridge, Fatih Akin
>
One teriffic new talent. Don't miss "Head On"!
> * Unkenrufe, by Robert Glinski, director of the very
> good Hi,
> Tereska
>
> * Vers le sud, first film in a while by Laurent
> Cantet, director of
> L'emploi du temps
>
Something to look forward to.
>
> * Mrs. Henderson Presents, Stephen Frears
>
A far greater filmmaker than Bill would allow.
> * Oliver Twist, Roman Polanski
>
Inevitably.
>
> * Tristram Shandy, Michael Winterbottom
>
A REAL challenge. Ruiz, of course, could do it in a
heartbeat.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21506
From: Noel Vera
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 0:24am
Subject: Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>BAD GUY's substitution of broken plate
> glass for fish hooks didn't seem like a big improvement! Kim Ki-
duk is
> just not for me. - Dan
What interested me more was the man's treatment of the woman, the
object of his desire/resentment. Sort of putting her on a pedestal
and pimping her out at the same time.
I enjoyed Foul King , but I'd hesitate to include it in a ten best
list.
I'd agree, Jang San Woo makes seriously flawed films, but I also
have to confess, I think they're superior porn. Lively, kinky,
realistic, with an emotional potency you don't get from most
American porn. Packs an erotic wallop. Well, speaking for myself,
that is.
21507
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:47am
Subject: Re: coming sooner or later
Quoting David Ehrenstein :
> > * Oliver Twist, Roman Polanski
> >
> Inevitably.
Why inevitably?
21508
From:
Date: Wed Jan 19, 2005 9:05pm
Subject: Tristram Shandy (WAS: coming sooner or later)
In a message dated 01/20/2005 12:06:57 AM, cellar47@y... writes:
<< > * Tristram Shandy, Michael Winterbottom
>
A REAL challenge. Ruiz, of course, could do it in a heartbeat. >>
Yes, Ruiz would be the ideal candidate. But IMDb offers the following for the
plot outline: "Director Michael Winterbottom (Jeremy Northam) attempts to
shoot the adaptation of Laurence Sterne's essentially unfilmable novel, "The Life
and Opinions of Tristram Shandy, Gentleman." So at least Winterbottom's
intentions are properly meta. And the dazzling 24-HOUR PARTY PEOPLE sets him up as
a rather protean talent to keep following.
Kevin John
21509
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:48am
Subject: Re: coming sooner or later
> * Mary, by Abel Ferrara, starring Vincent Gallo
Gallo is no longer involved with this project.
21510
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:30am
Subject: Re: Home movies
.
>
> Was the Falkenau footage in color? I remember it in black and white.
I just checked my tape, and you're right, it's black and white. I had
a vivid memory of it being in color.
21511
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:34am
Subject: Re: Tristram Shandy (WAS: coming sooner or later)
Kevin:
> And the dazzling 24-HOUR PARTY PEOPLE sets him up as
> a rather protean talent to keep following.
No, WONDERLAND set him up as a protean talent to keep following! Or
if you're Michael Atkinson, you'd insist maybe that BUTTERFLY KISS
(sitting sadly untouched in video collection for too long now) set
him up as a protean talent to keep following! Winterbottom was a
major presence well before 2002.
--Zach, great admirer of WONDERLAND
21512
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:38am
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
Bill:
> It's one of the important modern visual styles, and it can be seen
> on tv as well as in major arthouse directors. It remains pretty
> well undocumented, because by its nature it flies under the radar.
It may not line up exactly with the aesthetic you and Dan are
discussing, Bill, but our own Adrian Martin goes a way towards
documenting something pretty close to it in an excellent essay on
THE MAN IN THE MOON for The Film Journal's Mulligan feature:
http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue11/balanceandlinkage.html
--Zach
21513
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:44am
Subject: Re: Home Movies
> Yes, but that wasn't what I was thinking of. I'm pretty sure that
the
> home movie footage I had in mind appeared in an episode of THE
SOUTH
> BANK SHOW (a UK television arts programme) dedicated to Powell's
work.
I have a copy of this if you'd like me to check.
21514
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:28am
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
> It's one of the important modern visual styles, and it can be seen on
> tv as well as in major arthouse directors. It remains pretty well
> undocumented, because by its nature it flies under the radar. When
> someone talks about style in a tv film they always mean something
> flashy, like Spielberg.
>
> The implications of neutral style are vast and unexamined. I'll stick
> by the word. Call it a flaunting (paradoxically) of the mechanical
> recording function of the camera.
Well...would you say that anonymous TV style, such as you often find in
soap operas or episodic TV, is part of the neutral style? Or is it
something that a filmmaker has to deploy, some kind of abstraction of the
conventions?
I don't see a lot in common in the visual styles of the directors you
named, other than a certain restraint. But I presume you are using the
concept as a sort of umbrella, and are allowing for distinctions between
different "neutral" styles.
Probably the biggest distinction among the directors you chose is the one
between a functional, Griffith-derived decoupage (i.e., TV conventions)
and a reactive, back-to-the-Triangle-days attitude that consciously
devalues editing (even Griffith's) and expressionist elements (i.e.,
Rohmer, Eustache).
(Even these concepts are a little too general for my particularizing
taste: Rohmer's camera style doesn't have a lot in common with Eustache's,
really.)
- Dan
21515
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:50am
Subject: Re: coming sooner or later
--- Mathieu Ricordi wrote:
>
> Why inevitably?
>
>
>
It's a very short trip from the Warsaw ghetto to the
back alleys of London. And who better to dal with
Fagin (a far more interesting "problematic literary
Jew" than Shylock?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
21516
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 8:51am
Subject: Re: Re: coming sooner or later
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
>
> > * Mary, by Abel Ferrara, starring Vincent Gallo
>
> Gallo is no longer involved with this project.
>
Why am I not surprised?
A genuine talnet like Ferrara has no need of a
preening phony like Gallo.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
21517
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:13am
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- .
> >
> > The implications of neutral style are vast and unexamined. I'll
stick
> > by the word. Call it a flaunting (paradoxically) of the
mechanical
> > recording function of the camera.
>
Seems to me the term "neutral" is fraught with ambiguity.
And "neutral style" sounds almost like an oxymoron. Where there
is 'style" there is aesthetic decision, and that can't be neutral.
We might be able to use "neutral" for very early films (e.g.,
Lumiere, early Triangle as Dan suggested, maybe) but today a
filmmaker's decision to limit him/herself to "the mechanical
recording function of the camera" is as much an aesthetic option as
the choice of a "flashy" style (Spielberg's, per Bill K.)And it is
just as self-conscious, if not more.
Coincidentally I watched the opening sequence of "The Man in the
Moon" last night, then read Adrian's fine article about it this
morning. Mulligan's style there is definitely not "neutral" --
almost the opposite.
JPC
21518
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:19am
Subject: The adventurous ten-best film list of Contracampo in 2004
1. Elephant, by Gus Van Sant
2. The Village, by M. Night Shyamalan
3. O Prisioneiro da Grade de Ferro (Prisoner of the Iron Bars), by Paulo
Sacramento
4. Lost in Translation, by Sofia Coppola
5. La Ciénaga/The Swamp, by Lucrecia Martel
6. Kill Bill, by Quentin Tarantino
7. Before Sunset, by Richard Linklater
8. Stuck on You, by Peter e Bobby Farrelly
9. Filme de Amor (A Love Movie), by Julio Bressane
10. Yadon Ilaheyya/Divine Intervention, by Elia Suleiman
+ Ten, by Abbas Kiarostami (commercially unreleased in Rio but screened on
Sessão Cineclube)
other 10 (i.e., 9)
12. El Bonaerense, by Pablo Trapero
13. Zatoichi, by Takeshi Kitano
14. Kill Bill Volume 1, by Quentin Tarantino
15. Peões, by Eduardo Coutinho
16. Garotas do ABC, by Carlos Reichenbach
+ Big Fish, by Tim Burton
18. Respiro/Grazia's Island, by Emanuele Crialese
19. Speaking of Sex, by John McNaughton
20. Ken Park, by Larry Clark and Ed Lachman
21519
From:
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:29am
Subject: Re: The adventurous ten-best film list of Contracampo in 2004
In a message dated 01/20/2005 11:24:57 AM, ruygardnier@t... writes:
<< 5. La Ciénaga/The Swamp, by Lucrecia Martel >>
This was one my top ten a few years ago. Why did it take so long to hit
Brazil?
kevin John
21520
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:42am
Subject: Kim Ki-duk (Was: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
>> BAD GUY's substitution of broken plate
>> glass for fish hooks didn't seem like a big improvement! Kim Ki-
> duk is
>> just not for me. - Dan
>
> What interested me more was the man's treatment of the woman, the
> object of his desire/resentment. Sort of putting her on a pedestal
> and pimping her out at the same time.
Yeah, that is interesting, but he manages to irritate me on both counts!
That mixture of sadism and sentimentality is a little familiar: I see
something like it in Wilder, and before that in von Stroheim. The two
qualities don't really counteract each other, to my mind. - Dan
21521
From: Travis Miles
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:41am
Subject: Re: coming sooner or later
This is already out on DVD (the third in a trio of Andy Lau, Sammi Cheng
comedies). Meanwhile, To is wrapping two other films, one of which sounds at
least nominally based on Pickpocket, and starting production on a
"Hollywood" (by which I hope he means "Hollywood-produced") production.
The dude is on fire.
> * Yesterday Once More, Johnnie To
21522
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:40am
Subject: Re: The adventurous ten-best film list of Contracampo in 2004
Go figure. It was first screened on Festival do Rio in 2001, then made
Cinesul (latin american film festival) in 2002, when I saw it. Generally big
budget american films get released in Rio one or two months after they open
in the US; arthouse films generally one year later, when they arrive.
Anyway, this list consists only of commercially released films in Rio.
Platform and Ten opened in São Paulo only (Platform still awaits release
here; Ten will definitely not be released, so we put it on the list anyway).
Ruy
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 3:29 PM
< 5. La Ciénaga/The Swamp, by Lucrecia Martel >>
This was one my top ten a few years ago. Why did it take so long to hit
Brazil?
kevin John
21523
From: J. Mabe
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 11:50am
Subject: Andrew Repasky McElhinney
Looking over this directors’s website
(http://www.armcinema25.com/index.html), I see quite a
few positive quotes from folks in this group. I’m
going to definitely buy a DVD copy of Story of the Eye
and I’m curious if anyone has a strong opinion on his
two earlier films available on DVD: Magdalen & A
Chronicle of Corpses. Any reason I shouldn’t start
out with “Story of the Eye?”
-Josh
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21524
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 0:05pm
Subject: Re: Andrew Repasky McElhinney
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
I'm
> going to definitely buy a DVD copy of Story of the Eye
> and I'm curious if anyone has a strong opinion on his
> two earlier films available on DVD: Magdalen & A
> Chronicle of Corpses. Any reason I shouldn't start
> out with "Story of the Eye?"
>
> -Josh
>
Andy is the most original new American indy filmmaker whose work I've
seen in a long time. Start with A Chronicle of Corpses - I did. I saw
it at the San Francisco Festival, lured by Dave Kehr's blurb, and
loved it. I ended up writing the DVD box essays for the other two,
which are not the ones to start with, because Magdalen is earlier and
Story is very, very X-rated, and both are much less well-funded than
Chronicle - a veritable super-production for Andy. I can't add to
what Dave said, except my standard line: a slasher film directed by
Manuel de Oliveira. Andy is currently waiting for spring to resume
shooting on a film that is more in the Noel Coward vein.
21525
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 0:11pm
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
>
> Bill:
> > It's one of the important modern visual styles, and it can be
seen
> > on tv as well as in major arthouse directors. It remains pretty
> > well undocumented, because by its nature it flies under the
radar.
>
> It may not line up exactly with the aesthetic you and Dan are
> discussing, Bill, but our own Adrian Martin goes a way towards
> documenting something pretty close to it in an excellent essay on
> THE MAN IN THE MOON for The Film Journal's Mulligan feature:
>
> http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue11/balanceandlinkage.html
>
> --Zach
That's a fantastic article, Zach - thanks for directing my attention
to it. I'll watch Man in the Moon and get back to you.
21526
From: Raymond P.
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 0:15pm
Subject: Another Best of 2004 list...(sorry!)
Just want to bring a slightly stranger perspective to the best of
2004... Here's my 10 best of the year, out of the 170+ mostly
art/indie films I saw:
1. Five (Abbas Kiarostami)
2. Tony Takitani (Jun Ichikawa)
3. The World (Jia Zhangke)
4. Dealer (Benedek Fliegauf)
5. Los Muertos (Lisandro Alonso)
6. This Charming Girl (Lee Yoon-Ki)
7. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (Michel Gondry)
8. Tropical Malady (Apichatpong Weerasethakul)
9. The Time We Killed (Jennifer Reeves)
10. Two Great Sheep (Liu Hao)
Honourable mentions:
The Soup, One Morning (Izumi Takahashi)
Henri Langlois: Phantom of the Cinematheque (Jacques Richard)
Most promosing young directors (with only 2 films under their belts):
Ning Hao (Incense, Mongolian Pingpong (2005))
Lisandro Alonso (La Liberdad, Los Muertos)
Benedek Fliegauf (Forest, Dealer)
Ho Yuhang (Min, Sanctuary)
21527
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 0:17pm
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Well...would you say that anonymous TV style, such as you often
find in
> soap operas or episodic TV, is part of the neutral style? Or is it
> something that a filmmaker has to deploy, some kind of abstraction
of the
> conventions?
Exactly. I said earlier that it's like a studio style within which
personal expression is possible
>
> Probably the biggest distinction among the directors you chose is
the one
> between a functional, Griffith-derived decoupage (i.e., TV
conventions)
> and a reactive, back-to-the-Triangle-days attitude that consciously
> devalues editing (even Griffith's) and expressionist elements
(i.e.,
> Rohmer, Eustache).
There's a difference between the French directors whose names I threw
out and American tv style, but I'm trying to get at common ground -
actually, the idea came to me as I was discussing back and forth with
you, because many of these are directors you like, and you are a
foremost practitioner of this kind of filmmaking. But I'm trying to
see if "neutral" does something for the discussion that "restraint"
doesn't. If you just look at the two words side by side, the very
different connotations jump off the page.
21528
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 0:22pm
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"neutral style" sounds almost like an oxymoron. Where there
> is 'style" there is aesthetic decision, and that can't be neutral.
>
> We might be able to use "neutral" for very early films (e.g.,
> Lumiere, early Triangle as Dan suggested, maybe) but today a
> filmmaker's decision to limit him/herself to "the mechanical
> recording function of the camera" is as much an aesthetic option as
> the choice of a "flashy" style (Spielberg's, per Bill K.)And it is
> just as self-conscious, if not more.
Absolutely. And you're right - "neutral style" is an oxymoron. But if
you look at William Graham's The Amazing Howard Hughes you'll see a
real filmmaker achieving just that - same thing for Eustache's first
films, or a Truffaut film like L'Argent de poche. And it isn't easy
to do, as Scorsese learned when he tried to do it (using tv style as
his point of reference) in King of Comedy.
21529
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 0:24pm
Subject: Re: coming sooner or later
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> It's a very short trip from the Warsaw ghetto to the
> back alleys of London. And who better to dal with
> Fagin (a far more interesting "problematic literary
> Jew" than Shylock?
Unfortunately, Ben Kingsley will be playing Fagin. Sigh.
21530
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 0:29pm
Subject: Re: coming sooner or later
Quoting David Ehrenstein :
>
> --- Mathieu Ricordi wrote:
>
> > Why inevitably?
> It's a very short trip from the Warsaw ghetto to the
>
> back alleys of London. And who better to dal with
>
> Fagin (a far more interesting "problematic literary
>
> Jew" than Shylock?
Ah, I see it now...thanks
21531
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 0:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Neutral Style
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> And it isn't easy
> to do, as Scorsese learned when he tried to do it
> (using tv style as
> his point of reference) in King of Comedy.
>
>
>
>
I wouldn't describe Scorsese's style in "The KIng of
Comedy" as neutral atall.
Paranoid would be more like it , particularly in
relation to cutting and framing.
I'm sure you recall the man in the booth behind DeNiro
in the restauruant scene, repepeating his every
gesture in a mocking style as DeNiro woos Dihanne
Abbott -- trying to impress her with his auotograph
collection.
Then there's the way he films the waiitng room at the
"Jerry Langford Show," with the receptionist (Irwin
Winkler's wife, Margot) not reallysure what the
ceiling materialis made of,and the fantasy insert of
Rupert marrying Rita on the show with Dr.Joyce
Brothers in attendnace and Victor Borge playing the
wedding march.
The overall mise en scene may SEEM "simple" atfirst,
but it's very deceptive.
When I think of a "Neutral " style James L. Brooks
comes to mind, along with the worst of Sydney Pollack.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21532
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:04pm
Subject: Re: The adventurous ten-best film list of Contracampo in 2004
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> 1. Elephant, by Gus Van Sant
> 2. The Village, by M. Night Shyamalan
> 3. O Prisioneiro da Grade de Ferro (Prisoner of the Iron Bars), by
Paulo
> Sacramento
> 4. Lost in Translation, by Sofia Coppola
> 5. La Ciénaga/The Swamp, by Lucrecia Martel
> 6. Kill Bill, by Quentin Tarantino
> 7. Before Sunset, by Richard Linklater
> 8. Stuck on You, by Peter e Bobby Farrelly
> 9. Filme de Amor (A Love Movie), by Julio Bressane
> 10. Yadon Ilaheyya/Divine Intervention, by Elia Suleiman
> + Ten, by Abbas Kiarostami (commercially unreleased in Rio but
screened on
> Sessão Cineclube)
>
Four or five of the ten don't seem very 'adventurous" to me
(#1,4,6,7, maybe even 2). I haven't seen the others, so can't judge.
JPC
21533
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:03pm
Subject: Re: Another Best of 2004 list...(sorry!)
my own list of new films first seen this year:
1. Tropical Malady (Apichatpong Weerasethakul)
2. The Village (M. Night Shyamalan)
3. Five (Abbas Kiarostami)
4. L'Intrus (Claire Denis)
5. Kill Bill (Quentin Tarantino)
6. Stuck on You (Peter & Bobby Farrelly)
7. Tarnation (Jonathan Caouette)
8. Bens Confiscados (Carlos Reichenbach)
9. Peões (Eduardo Coutinho)
10. Oh Uomo (Yervant Gianikian & Angela Ricci-Lucchi)
+ La Blessure (Nicolas Klotz)
caught later (and loved) in divx:
The Virgin Stripped Bare By Her Bachelors (Hong Sang-Soo)
first saw in 35mm and is a true masterpiece:
Giu la testa (Sergio Leone), his best film.
didn't see:
Cafe Lumiere (Hou Hsiao-Hsien)
West of the Tracks (Wang Bing)
The World (Jia Zhangke)
La Porte du soleil (Yousri Nasrallah)
L'Esquive (Abdellatif Quechiche)
Woman Is the Future of the Man (Hong Sang-Soo)
Rois et reine (Arnaud Desplechin)
hate list:
Sideways (Pain [sic])
Vera Drake (Leigh)
Land of Plenty (Wenders)
29 Palms (Dumont)
Born into Brothels (ehr?)
Bin jip (Kim)
Pagoda na Jutro (Stuhr)
Promised Land (Gitai)
The Grudge (Shimizu)
Nina (Dhalia)
21534
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:12pm
Subject: The Farrelly Brothers (Was Re: Another Best of 2004 list)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> my own list of new films first seen this year:
>
> 6. Stuck on You (Peter & Bobby Farrelly)
I didn't dislike the two Farrelly Brothers films I've seen (OSMOSIS
JONES and SHALLOW HAL), but I'm curious as to why many people whose
opinions I respect rate the Farrellys so highly. Would anyone care to
elaborate? Or to recommend some good auteurist writing on the
Farrellys?
21535
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: The adventurous ten-best film list of Contracampo in 2004
Do I need to say that I only picked "adventurous" because of your exchange
with Bill a propos of lists, and that I was only kidding, and that I
actually don't make a case for my magazine's ten-best list being or not
being really adventurous?
----- Original Message -----
From: "jpcoursodon"
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 5:04 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: The adventurous ten-best film list of Contracampo
in 2004
Four or five of the ten don't seem very 'adventurous" to me
(#1,4,6,7, maybe even 2). I haven't seen the others, so can't judge.
JPC
21536
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:20pm
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> The overall mise en scene may SEEM "simple" atfirst,
> but it's very deceptive.
*****
But, if I may, I think that's what Neutral style is in its essence:
deceptively simple; something that might elementary until you actually
start to look at it. You're not going to catch it if you just glance
at it.
I'm coming into this thread a little late, so I don't know if anyone
has mentioned Kastle's "The Honeymoon Killers", but that film seems to
me almost the model of a Neutral, seemingly art-less
'mise-en-scene'that has endless dimensions once one starts paying
attention to it.
Tom Sutpen
21537
From:
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:34pm
Subject: Re: The Farrelly Brothers (Was Re: Another Best of 2004 list)
Because not since Cronenberg has a North American director shoved the body and all its hidden grotesqueries in our faces. The Hollywood body is one that
doesn't fart, shit, scab, peel, flake, ooze pus, etc. The body in The Farrelly Brothers' films does (save for the extremely problematic SHALLOW HAL).
I recall an interview with Matt Damon about the challenges of STUCK ON YOU. He said he was willing to pee with Greg Kinear but he drew the line at having to
take a shit with him. How many interviews with a major star address taking a shit?
Given the "ideal" bodies paraded in front of us in movies, TV, magazines and advertising, I think The Farrelly Brothers' attention to all of our "gory"
details is community service enough.
Kevin John
21538
From: filipefurtado
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:42pm
Subject: Re: The Farrelly Brothers (Was Re: Another Best of 2004 list)
> Would anyone care to
> elaborate? Or to recommend some good
auteurist writing on the
> Farrellys?
>
Brad, i wrote this last year:
http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue10/farrelly.html
Filipe
>
>
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo!
Groups Sponsor --------------------~-->
> What would our lives be like without
music, dance, and theater?
> Donate or volunteer in the arts
today at Network for Good!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pkgkPB/SOnJAA/Zx0JAA/b5IolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
>
>
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________________________________
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br/
21539
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Neutral Style
> almost the model of a Neutral, seemingly art-less
> 'mise-en-scene'that has endless dimensions once one starts paying
> attention to it.
But we're supposed to be paying attention the whole time, aren't we?
That's why we make the big bucks. - Dan
21540
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:49pm
Subject: Re: The Farrelly Brothers bibliography
Cahiers du Cinéma 530 (in french): articles by Kent Jones on american comedy
and review of There's Something about Mary by Antoine de Baecque.
Cahiers #596: review of Stuck on You by Stéphane Delorme & Jean-Phillipe
Tessé
Film Comment (in english): article by Kent Jones on the Farrellys:
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m1069/is_4_36/ai_63973785
Trafic 50 (in french): article by Bill Krohn on Stuck on You (don't know if
it's available on english somewhere)
The Film Journal (in english): article by Filipe Furtado on the Farrellys
(first published in Contracampo):
http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue10/farrelly.html
Contracampo (in portuguese): article by Gilberto Silva Jr. on the Farrellys:
"Between love and sperm" http://www.contracampo.com.br/50/farrelly.htm
review of Shallow Hal by Filipe Furtado:
http://www.contracampo.com.br/criticas/shallowhal.htm
review of Stuck on You by Eduardo Valente:
http://www.contracampo.com.br/criticas/stuckon-polly.htm
----- Original Message -----
From: "thebradstevens"
21541
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 1:54pm
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > almost the model of a Neutral, seemingly art-less
> > 'mise-en-scene'that has endless dimensions once one starts paying
> > attention to it.
>
> But we're supposed to be paying attention the whole time, aren't we?
> That's why we make the big bucks.
*****
Well it's true that, in theory, one in an exalted sphere such as film
writing should keep their eyes open if they want to continue to
luxuriate in the rare 'fin de siecle' lifestyle which naturally
obtains from it. I'm not sure how many actually pay attention all the
time, though.
Tom Sutpen
21542
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:06pm
Subject: Re: The adventurous ten-best film list of Contracampo in 2004
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> Do I need to say that I only picked "adventurous" because of your
exchange
> with Bill a propos of lists, and that I was only kidding, and that
I
> actually don't make a case for my magazine's ten-best list being
or not
> being really adventurous?
>
You DO need to say, Ruy! The irony totally escaped me! I'm a
little slow-witted, you should have put "adventurous" between
quotes. And some people outside our elite circle might indeed think
the list "adventurous" (again, i have seen only half of the ten+1)
JPC
21543
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:11pm
Subject: Re: Kim Ki-duk
> THE ISLE, ADDRESS UNKNOWN, BAD GUY, and the Seasons
> movie felt to me repetitious; the last of the bunch was *really*
> grating. I know a lot of people liked it, but I thought it was a dull
> match for his sensibility.
The first I saw was The Isle. Saw twice, and I must say I like this film,
more for the rhythm than for its strangeness. Didn't like Address Unknown at
all. Don't even remember a bit of it now. Loathed "the Seasons movie"
> 3-IRON hasn't resonated with me as
> well, and it's the more conventional of the two. But all I can say is
> that it was a satisfying movie in the realm of Tsai Ming-liang and
> Kiyoshi Kurosawa. In fact, sometimes it seemed so foreign that I
> forgot I was watching a Kim Ki-duk film. But that's to his credit, if
> he can keep it up, I think he should always be as versatile as
> these two films proved.
Really, Gabe? I haven't seen Samaria/Samaritan Girl, but if 3-Iron is Bin
Jip (which will be released 2005 in Brazil by the name "Empty House") it
felt more like Jeunet's Amélie Poulain than anything else.
21544
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:19pm
Subject: Re: coming sooner or later
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Travis Miles
wrote:
> This is already out on DVD (the third in a trio of Andy Lau,
Sammi Cheng
> comedies). Meanwhile, To is wrapping two other films, one of
which sounds at
> least nominally based on Pickpocket, and starting production
on a
> "Hollywood" (by which I hope he means "Hollywood-produced")
production.
> The dude is on fire.
Damn. Last year I missed THROW DOWN and BREAKING
NEWS. Heard one of them was good.
The film I mentioned was shooting in August or even early fall I
think. Can't keep up with these guys!
Of course there's a new Takashi Miike film set to hit fests -- but I
refrained from listing that one for obvious reasons.
And speaking of new films, the Rotterdam Film Festival program
is up:
http://www.filmfestivalrotterdam.com/en/list/2005/film-A.html
Gabe
21545
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:22pm
Subject: The Farrelly Brothers (Was Re: Another Best of 2004 list)
Brad:
> Would anyone care to elaborate?
A good starting point is what Kevin John already mentioned. The
Farrelly Brothers are doing something very unusual--and that alone
doesn't make them terrific filmmakers, but it at the very least
merits serious consideration on their part.
Although I enjoy all the Farrelly films (ME MYSELF & IRENE is more
borderline and I should see it again), I think with their last two
films the Farrellys have started to actually engage with ideas--
initially social and aesthetic ones, but they're constantly trying
to direct these inquiries of theirs (e.g., Where does one situate
love's gaze on the loved one, the body or elsewhere? What are the
ways in which we use our "flaws" as crutches?) towards very human,
almost practical concerns for everyday life. Not only
filmmakers "of the body," they are filmmakers of the everyday. The
Farrellys are very much "mere" entertainers in the final analysis,
let's not forget, but in achieving these ends they're starting to do
more and more weird and beautiful things. And that's worth
something! They're among the very small group of filmmakers in
Hollywood on whom I can consistently depend on to make something of
great interest.
> Or to recommend some good auteurist writing on the Farrellys?
In addition to Ruy's bibliography, the last update of Senses of
Cinema had this fascinating piece by Meghan Sutherland on SHALLOW
HAL: http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/04/33/shallow_hal.html
--Zach
21546
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:28pm
Subject: Re: The Farrelly Brothers (Was Re: Another Best of 2004 list)
On Thu, 20 Jan 2005 19:12:54 -0000, thebradstevens
wrote:
> Or to recommend some good auteurist writing on the
> Farrellys?
I'm sure he'll chime in, but you can check out Bill Krohn's piece on "Stuck On
You" in the 50th issue of Trafic.
Jonathan Takagi
21547
From:
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:39pm
Subject: Johnnie To (was: Re: Re: coming sooner or later)
> Damn. Last year I missed THROW DOWN and BREAKING
> NEWS. Heard one of them was good.
They're both good, but Throw Down is great. To seems to be on some kind of
a hot streak. Recommended if you haven't seen it: Fat Choi Spirit. An
action comedy about Mahjong.
Fred.
21548
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:41pm
Subject: Re: Kim Ki-duk
> Really, Gabe? I haven't seen Samaria/Samaritan Girl, but if
3-Iron is Bin
> Jip (which will be released 2005 in Brazil by the name "Empty
House") it
> felt more like Jeunet's Amélie Poulain than anything else.
Empty House is a hilarious title.
Yeah, I was curious why you didn't like this. Did the scene when
the guy got hit mercilessly by golf balls remind you of Amelie? Or
when the transient resident-hero of the film gets his organs
pounded in near the end? No, seriously, I'll bite on this, since
you have a point -- if it's what you're implying -- that this is Kim's
most conventional film. But assuming you're referring to the love
story element -- which ends badly (if memory serves) -- and the
systematization of different elements, such as the way he enters
the houses and leaves them which, yes, reminds you of the
whimsical things that Amelie Poulain did to change the world, I
have to say I was more taken in 3-IRON with the tone of
uncertainty, the elegant and spare framing (the sequence in the
jail cell is absolutely *great*) than with Amelie's consistently
pleasing tone and marshmallowy visuals.
21549
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 2:48pm
Subject: The Farrelly Brothers (Was Re: Another Best of 2004 list)
> > Or to recommend some good auteurist writing on the
Farrellys?
>
> In addition to Ruy's bibliography, the last update of Senses of
> Cinema had this fascinating piece by Meghan Sutherland on
SHALLOW
> HAL:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/04/33/shallow_hal.ht
ml
Thanks for plugging the piece we ran in 24fps, Zach (!!!!):
http://www.24fpsmagazine.com/StuckOnYou.html
(by me, though I submit Kent Jones' piece, naturally, is the one to
go to for a greater understanding of the F-bros -- and published
at a time when they needed a critical reappraisal.)
21550
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Tristram Shandy (WAS: coming sooner or later)
WELCOME TO SARAJEVO set him up as a rather protean talent to keep avoiding.
I didn't obey my own vows and watched 24 HOUR PARTY PEOPLE and IN THIS
WORLD. Have JUDE on tape and CODE 46 is on the theaters right now, but I'm
not sure I'll ever catch one of these. Haven't seen WONDERLAND, but maybe I
will sometime soon, disobeying my vows once again.
How could anyone believe that one day someone would make a flashy digital
cinema-verité style fiction film about refugees? A mix of Zinnemann and
Pontecorvo in the times of Matrix.
> Kevin:
> > And the dazzling 24-HOUR PARTY PEOPLE sets him up as
> > a rather protean talent to keep following.
> Zach:
> No, WONDERLAND set him up as a protean talent to keep following! Or
> if you're Michael Atkinson, you'd insist maybe that BUTTERFLY KISS
> (sitting sadly untouched in video collection for too long now) set
> him up as a protean talent to keep following! Winterbottom was a
> major presence well before 2002.
21551
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:22pm
Subject: The Farrelly Brothers (Was Re: Another Best of 2004 list)
> Thanks for plugging the piece we ran in 24fps, Zach (!!!!):
What can I say, I am apparently braindead ...
--Zach, who dressed up as DUMB & DUMBER's Harry for a Halloween
party in '03.
21552
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:42pm
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
>
> > And it isn't easy
> > to do, as Scorsese learned when he tried to do it
> > (using tv style as
> > his point of reference) in King of Comedy.
> >
> I wouldn't describe Scorsese's style in "The KIng of
> Comedy" as neutral atall.
> >
> The overall mise en scene may SEEM "simple" atfirst,
> but it's very deceptive.
>
> When I think of a "Neutral " style James L. Brooks
> comes to mind, along with the worst of Sydney Pollack.
It's all true, but Scorsese did tell me he was using tv framing
throughout.
Brooks is a good example, because he is transferring formal
principles from tv sitcoms to film, particularly in Broadcast News.
I'd say Pollack only at his best: Tootsie (idem.). Otherwise he's
much too flashy for what I mean.
21553
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:40pm
Subject: Re: The Farrelly Brothers (Was Re: Another Best of 2004 list)
I'm a little bit ashamed to discover just right now that I never wrote on
the Farrellys. I always felt that they are taking a kind of cinema that John
Waters abandoned since "trash movies" became a genre and he started making
movies to fit that market. But their territory is american comedy, not Andy
Warhol. I don't really think that wathcing their films as american-comedy
remakes of Freaks would be too far of the mark.
The only one I haven't seen is Osmosis Jones. The segment crap/ice cream
(Me. Myself and Irene) that Kent Jones picked up for the start of his piece
is a matrix image. The semen/hair cream in There's Something About Mary is
another one. Shallow Hal, as Kevin pointed, is problematic, and not good
troughout, but has some moments of true great cinema in it. My preferred is
Stuck on You: it is a treatise, a profession of faith on their cinema, but
not with the self-consciousness that generally follows with this kind of
films. Or, as Godard would say about Mann's Man of the West, it is "art and
at the same time theory of its art".
Ruy
21554
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:45pm
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> > The overall mise en scene may SEEM "simple" atfirst,
> > but it's very deceptive.
>
> *****
> But, if I may, I think that's what Neutral style is in its essence:
> deceptively simple; something that might elementary until you
actually
> start to look at it. You're not going to catch it if you just glance
> at it.
>
> I'm coming into this thread a little late, so I don't know if anyone
> has mentioned Kastle's "The Honeymoon Killers", but that film seems
to
> me almost the model of a Neutral, seemingly art-less
> 'mise-en-scene'that has endless dimensions once one starts paying
> attention to it.
>
I mentioned it in my first post on this, because the neutral style is
very good for dealing with madness and lunacy and especially serial
killers. Madness and lunacy: The Amazing Howard Hughes and Guyana
Tragedy: The Jim Jones Story, both by William A. Graham. Serial
killers, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer and The Honeymoon Killers
for sure. Was Scorsese actually fired after shooting a week of that?
If so, I bet he was being flashy. It was a drole de chemin that led
him jusqu'a Rupert Pupkin.
21555
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:49pm
Subject: Re: The Farrelly Brothers (Was Re: Another Best of 2004 list)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
wrote:
> > Would anyone care to
> > elaborate? Or to recommend some good
> auteurist writing on the
> > Farrellys?
My piece on Stuck on You appeared in Trafic, so it's not online.
Anyone interested in seeing it in English, let me know at
kaybarr35@a....
I interviewed Peter at some length for a piece on the Ringer for
Spirit, the Magazine of the Special Olympics, and put what he told me
about the Rocket Valliere documentary (which Gabe had tipped me to)
in a short piece in CdC.
I don't see anything problematic about Shallow Hal. It's wonderful!
21556
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 3:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: The adventurous ten-best film list of Contracampo in 2004
You have to remember that this is a list of films released in Brazil, JP.
Lost in Translation was a critic-darling, but Elephant was not. Anyway, they
have been discussed in Brazil this year, and their critical "place" is not
really established here as in the US, where their discussion has already
quit, stable. And The Village having only one vote on the Village Voice
poll, I don't think it is very consensual to place it as one of the year's
best. Anyway, I think that magazines' ten-best lists don't exist by
themselves, but as a sum-up of the year, and the films in it stand not only
for themselves, but also for how they were defended (as an editor, that's my
main point, in fact) and what kind of cinema is being praised. And, well,
not having Eternal Sunshine and Dogville on our best-list will be pretty
much an adventure for some here in Brazil that will send us countless emails
bragging about how much we don't have taste for the art.
But, JP, how can one self-propose its own list as adventurous not on an
irony basis?
Ruy
> You DO need to say, Ruy! The irony totally escaped me! I'm a
> little slow-witted, you should have put "adventurous" between
> quotes. And some people outside our elite circle might indeed think
> the list "adventurous" (again, i have seen only half of the ten+1)
> JPC
21557
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:07pm
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Was Scorsese actually fired after shooting a week of that?
> If so, I bet he was being flashy.
*****
According to Leonard Kastle he was; but it wasn't a case of Scorsese
being too flashy. He was apparently wasting time shooting footage that
wasn't specifically called for in the script.
Tom Sutpen
21558
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: Neutral Style
> Absolutely. And you're right - "neutral style" is an oxymoron. But if
> you look at William Graham's The Amazing Howard Hughes you'll see a
> real filmmaker achieving just that - same thing for Eustache's first
> films, or a Truffaut film like L'Argent de poche. And it isn't easy
> to do, as Scorsese learned when he tried to do it (using tv style as
> his point of reference) in King of Comedy.
Bill,
one recommendation for neutral: "The Virgin Stripped Bare by her Bachelors"
by Hong Sang-Soo
one recommendation for SK: "Memories of Murder" by Bong Joon-ho (I don't
know if anyone has already mentioned this to you, but it's about the first
serial killer case in SOUTH Korea)
21559
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:14pm
Subject: Re: The adventurous ten-best film list of Contracampo in 2004
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
.
> But, JP, how can one self-propose its own list as adventurous not
on an
> irony basis?
> Ruy
>
One can. Actually you have just argued that the list is indeed
somewhat adventurous for Brasil.
21560
From: Travis Miles
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:16pm
Subject: Re: The Mortal Storm
Went to see THE MORTAL STORM last night, which continues to grow in my
estimation as a truly wonderful film. Reading later in my newly-acquired
copy of J.P.C.'s book, I was disturbed to read that Victor Saville took over
the production from Frank Borzage quite soon after shooting began. I was
wont to see the excruciatingly moving "marriage cup" scene, as well as the
pub and university scenes, as pure Borzage, but now I don't know. Can anyone
shed any light on the breakdown of sequences? I've seen little of Saville,
but if this can be reasonably attributed to him, I'd like to see more.
Thanks,
Travis
21561
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: Neutral Style
I'd count Kiyoshi Kurosawa's "Cure" as that also.
----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
To:
Sent: Thursday, January 20, 2005 7:45 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Neutral Style
Serial
> killers, Henry: Portrait of a Serial Killer and The Honeymoon Killers
> for sure.
21562
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Neutral Style
--- hotlove666 wrote:
Was Scorsese actually fired after shooting
> a week of that?
> If so, I bet he was being flashy.
Uh no. Mr.Kastle was particularly interested in the
leading man and so decided to take charge of the shoot
himself.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21563
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:36pm
Subject: Re: The Mortal Storm
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Travis Miles wrote:
> I was disturbed to read that Victor Saville took over
> the production from Frank Borzage
I was wondering about this too after coming across the Saville story after revisiting the film yesterday.
Kent Jones debunks it at the end of his Film Comment piece at http://www.klaxo.net/hofc/other/sanctum.htm : "Saville ... took over for only a few days when
Borzage drowned his sorrows over his separation with his wife Rena in drink."
21564
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:03pm
Subject: Re: The Mortal Storm
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Travis Miles
wrote:
> Went to see THE MORTAL STORM last night, which continues to grow
in my
> estimation as a truly wonderful film. Reading later in my newly-
acquired
> copy of J.P.C.'s book, I was disturbed to read that Victor Saville
took over
> the production from Frank Borzage quite soon after shooting began.
I was
> wont to see the excruciatingly moving "marriage cup" scene, as
well as the
> pub and university scenes, as pure Borzage, but now I don't know.
Can anyone
> shed any light on the breakdown of sequences? I've seen little of
Saville,
> but if this can be reasonably attributed to him, I'd like to see
more.
> Thanks,
> Travis
My Borzage piece was written at least 25 years ago and I don't even
remember where I got the information. Saville was involved,
uncredited, in the production, and had talked Louis B. Mayer into
buying the rights of the book and making a film out of it, a daring
move at the time (it was one of the very first "anti-Nazi" films).
When he came to Hollywood in 1938 Saville is said to have been given
a secret mission by the British government to promote pro-British
and anti-nazi feelings in the USA, which would account for his
special interest in The Mortal Storm. However James Stewart and
Robert Stack have denied that Saville directed any part of the film.
JPC
21565
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> I'd count Kiyoshi Kurosawa's "Cure" as that also.
>
> The style lends itself well to the subject. I also love Ed Gein - a
direct-to-video SK film by Chuck Parello, who comes off as John
Badham's dumber younger brother when you listen to his commentary on
The Hillside Stranglers, one of the most shocking SK films I've seen.
It's used in Robert Succo, but NOT in Sombre, for sure!
21566
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:06pm
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> Bill,
> one recommendation for neutral: "The Virgin Stripped Bare by her
Bachelors"
> by Hong Sang-Soo
> one recommendation for SK: "Memories of Murder" by Bong Joon-ho (I
don't
> know if anyone has already mentioned this to you, but it's about
the first
> serial killer case in SOUTH Korea)
I've long wanted to see anything whatsoever by Hong Sang-Soo, and
that one's at the top of my list. And thanks a lot for the Bong Joon-
Ho recommendation - I'm not it like fleas on a weasel's tit.
21567
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:39pm
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
> Uh no. Mr.Kastle was particularly interested in the
> leading man and so decided to take charge of the shoot
> himself.
So did any of Scorsese's footage survive?
I'm sure I read somewhere that Scorsese was removed from the film
because he wanted to shoot it in color.
21568
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 5:41pm
Subject: Re: The Mortal Storm
Elliott Stein's Village Voice blurbs frequently astonish me, but he outdid himself for The Mortal Storm: "MGM's polished adaptation [takes place in] what
seems to be a pretty all-American town, and the film, although sincere and well-intentioned, is hardly convincing."
(http://www.villagevoice.com/nycguide/ev64212,5.html) "Hardly convincing"? For someone who's been around as long as he has, such a rudimentary aesthetic is
hardly convincing.
Hmmm ... Stein's "all-American town" (America 2005, maybe?), "touching" couple, and "sincerity and good intentions" can also be found in Time Out's review
(http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:RFykwQeg3s0J:www.timeout.com/film/73515.html+%22The+Mortal+Storm%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8). Unlike Stein, Time Out also includes
the Saville story ("almost the entire film was directed, uncredited, by Victor Saville") -- which seems to be all over the Web.
21569
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Mortal Storm
> Elliott Stein's Village Voice blurbs frequently astonish me, but he
> outdid himself for The Mortal Storm: "MGM's polished adaptation [takes
> place in] what seems to be a pretty all-American town, and the film,
> although sincere and well-intentioned, is hardly convincing."
> (http://www.villagevoice.com/nycguide/ev64212,5.html) "Hardly
> convincing"? For someone who's been around as long as he has, such a
> rudimentary aesthetic is hardly convincing.
>
> Hmmm ... Stein's "all-American town" (America 2005, maybe?), "touching"
> couple, and "sincerity and good intentions" can also be found in Time
> Out's review
> (http://66.102.7.104/search?q=cache:RFykwQeg3s0J:www.timeout.com/film/73515.html+%22The+Mortal+Storm%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8).
> Unlike Stein, Time Out also includes the Saville story ("almost the
> entire film was directed, uncredited, by Victor Saville") -- which seems
> to be all over the Web.
Do you remember a few years back on another list, where we traced a Stein
mistake on ANTOINE ET ANTOINETTE back through a series of other reference
books? It's of course quite natural for someone with Stein's beat to need
to refresh his memory, but he does tend to reproduce his sources a little
too faithfully. - Dan
21570
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:05pm
Subject: Re: The Mortal Storm
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
"'Hardly convincing'? For someone who's been around as long as he
has, such a rudimentary aesthetic is hardly convincing."
I saw the film with the poet Fredrick Pollack who's also ane expert
on the transitional period of German history when THE MORTAL STORM
took place. He didn't find it historically convincing but admired
the film's conviction and emotional power. I think it's one of
Borzage's best pictures; in fact I'd put it on my top 100 of all time.
Richard
21571
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 6:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Neutral Style
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> So did any of Scorsese's footage survive?
>
Part of a scene or two.
> I'm sure I read somewhere that Scorsese was removed
> from the film
> because he wanted to shoot it in color.
>
Not true.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21572
From:
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 4:13pm
Subject: SHALLOW HAL (Was: The Farrelly Brothers)
In a message dated 01/20/2005 3:55:13 PM, hotlove666@y... writes:
<< I don't see anything problematic about Shallow Hal. It's wonderful! >>
SHALLOW HAL is problematic because after showing us scabby, pusy and
cum-stained bodies, the Brothers Farrelly turned their (and our) heads away from the
one thing their movie was about - a fat body. At the end of the day, a thin
actress got 90% of the screen time and a fat actress was relegated to the few
moments she almost always gets anyway.
To quote the great Mo'Nique: it is fat bitches' time!
Kevin John
21573
From: Saul
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 0:07am
Subject: Pollack (Was: Neutral Style)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> When I think of a "Neutral " style James L. Brooks
> comes to mind, along with the worst of Sydney Pollack.
What constitutes "the worst" of Pollack?
I always thought he was rather good at what he does - though he falls
into the category of those directors who need a good script to make a
good film, unable to do much with a bad script, in the way that say,
Scorsese can handle a bad script. Thereby, his best work is "Jeremiah
Johnson", (where Milius shines) and "The Yakuza", (not sure with 100%
certainty what came from the Schrader's and what was Towne - but so
much of Mitchum's journey resonantes with many other films Paul
Schrader has written and/or directed).
Particularly in the work of Pollack that I don't like at all, e.g.
"Sabrina", he makes it clear that he excels in the Hollywood style.
For instance, in the scene where Ford goes to Paris at the end of the
film to see Ormond, Pollack used standard coverage and cutting, but
holds each shot for just right amount of time, cuts on just the right
line of dialogue, creates a pause at just the right moment, etc, so
that in the end it stands out from other films employing this same
'neutral' style.
(And Greg Kinnear made a great modern-day William Holden - I can't
think of another actor who could have carried that role and character)
21574
From: Noel Vera
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 0:10am
Subject: Re: Kim Ki-duk (Was: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > What interested me more was the man's treatment of the woman, the
> > object of his desire/resentment. Sort of putting her on a
pedestal
> > and pimping her out at the same time.
>
> Yeah, that is interesting, but he manages to irritate me on both
counts!
He touched a nerve in you, perhaps.
> That mixture of sadism and sentimentality is a little familiar: I
see
> something like it in Wilder, and before that in von Stroheim. The
two
> qualities don't really counteract each other, to my mind. - Dan
Wilder I'd argue both sadism and sentiment are subservient to an
overall need to be good boxoffice (except maybe in his later works,
when he seemed to have lost the touch and was struggling). Stroheim,
absolutely. No, I don't think either qualties contradict each other
either.
For the record, I didn't like Address Unknown either; haven't seen
the Seasons film.
21575
From: Noel Vera
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 0:15am
Subject: Robert Mulligan on Netflix
Bill, are you the Mulligan fan? Wanted to ask you, Netflix lists the
following films of his. Which would you recommend (aside from the
obvious To Kill a Mockingbird)?
Baby the Rain Must Fall (1965) UR
Come September (1961) NR
Fear Strikes Out (1957) NR
Same Time, Next Year (1978) PG
Summer of '42 (1971) PG
The Man in the Moon (1991) PG-13
21576
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 0:16am
Subject: Re: SHALLOW HAL (Was: The Farrelly Brothers)
Kevin John wrote:
> SHALLOW HAL is problematic because after showing us
scabby, pusy and
> cum-stained bodies, the Brothers Farrelly turned their (and
our) heads away from the
> one thing their movie was about - a fat body. At the end of the
day, a thin
> actress got 90% of the screen time and a fat actress was
relegated to the few
> moments she almost always gets anyway.
I disagree with you -- if the film wants to challenge us, first it
must engage us with the norm.
Seeing the non-fat version of Rosemary reaching for an
enormous piece of chocolate cake confronts us with something
more complex than it would if she were wearing the body suit.
Coincidentally, I saw bits of Shallow Hal again today in the
waiting room of an auto shop while getting a jump on my car. In
between commercials, the announcer would freeze on Paltrow's
prosthetic fat stomach and talk about the problems of obese
Americans ... never thought I'd see the Farrellys used to join the
USDA's cause.
Gabe
21577
From: Saul
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 0:22am
Subject: Re: OT: "Les Pétroleuses" (was: "Plainsong" and Feminist Westerns)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "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?)
Well, this is the Australian DVD title - I don't know about theatrical
release. What's so bad about it? "The Legend of Frenchy King" puts all
the focus on Frenchy and her 'legend' - and although the 'legend' vs.
the reality of a gunfighter is a common theme in Westerns, (perhaps
most eloquently in "The Left Handed Gun" if I remember the film
correctly), it is only in this film in passing. Plus, "Petroleum
Girls", apart from hinting to male audiences that there will be some
girl-girl action, (a fight's almost as good as a kiss), it focuses our
attention evenly towards Bardot and Cardinale, and on their struggle
and eventual partnership.
> 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
Yeah - I guess that would be like me saying "Bad Girls" was a feminist
Western! I guess a movie like "Dances with Wolves" was a very 'soft'
Western - unlike either the earlier American of Itaian incarnations.
The only film I can think of that has a FEMININE 'feel' to it is Sofia
Coppola's "Lost in Translation" which 'feels' like it was made by a
woman - watching a film by Wertmüller, for example, you wouldn't be
able to guess the sex of the director.
>
>
>
>
> 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".
21578
From:
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 7:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: SHALLOW HAL (Was: The Farrelly Brothers)
In a message dated 01/21/2005 12:17:36 AM, gcklinger@y... writes:
<< if the film wants to challenge us, first it must engage us with the norm.
>>
Oh, that's absurd, Gabe. We don't know the norm already from countless other
films, pounds of commercials on TV, myriad ads in magazines, etc.? Imagine a
major Hollywood production starring a fat actress on screen 90% of the time.
Now THAT'S a challenge!
Kevin John
21579
From:
Date: Thu Jan 20, 2005 9:59pm
Subject: Re: Robert Mulligan on Netflix
I'm not Bill, but I can recommend every one of those films, Noel. (Actually,
I'm not so crazy about "Come September," but Filipe tells me that I need to
have another look at it.) "Summer of '42," "Same Time Next Year," and "The Man
in the Moon" are particular favorites of mine, though I guess my very
favorite at this moment - "The Other" - isn't currently available on DVD to view.
You may be interested to check out the Robert Mulligan 'symposium' I edited
for The Film Journal. Adrian's wonderful article on "The Man in the Moon" is
part of this feature.
www.thefilmjournal.com
Peter
21580
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:13am
Subject: Re: SHALLOW HAL (Was: The Farrelly Brothers)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
never thought I'd see the Farrellys used to join the
> USDA's cause.
>
Osmosis Jones is loaded with public health lessons for kids. I assume
the tv series was too.
21581
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 3:16am
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
Rich and Famous looks like a tv movie, whereas Travels with my Aunt
doesn't. And Rich and Famous is a beautiful movie.
21582
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 8:47am
Subject: Re: Robert Mulligan on Netflix
> Bill, are you the Mulligan fan? Wanted to ask you, Netflix lists the
> following films of his. Which would you recommend (aside from the
> obvious To Kill a Mockingbird)?
>
> Baby the Rain Must Fall (1965) UR
> Come September (1961) NR
> Fear Strikes Out (1957) NR
> Same Time, Next Year (1978) PG
> Summer of '42 (1971) PG
> The Man in the Moon (1991) PG-13
I haven't seen COME SEPTEMBER, and was a little disappointed in BABY, THE
RAIN MUST FALL - I don't remember it well now. The last four are all
worthwhile. SUMMER OF '42 and THE MAN IN THE MOON share a gentle, even
mood and rhythm, despite big ups and downs in the plot; I slightly prefer
the latter. SAME TIME NEXT YEAR is a play adaptation and doesn't hide it,
but has more emotional authenticity than the material warrants. FEAR
STRIKES OUT has more instability and a wider range of moods, and is quite
striking at times.
I like every one of these films better than TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. In
fact, I actively dislike that film. - Dan
21583
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:17am
Subject: Re: Pollack (Was: Neutral Style)
--- Saul wrote:
>
> What constitutes "the worst" of Pollack?
>
> I always thought he was rather good at what he does
> - though he falls
> into the category of those directors who need a good
> script to make a
> good film, unable to do much with a bad script, in
> the way that say,
> Scorsese can handle a bad script.
Rught.
Thereby, his best
> work is "Jeremiah
> Johnson", (where Milius shines) and "The Yakuza",
> (not sure with 100%
> certainty what came from the Schrader's and what was
> Towne - but so
> much of Mitchum's journey resonantes with many other
> films Paul
> Schrader has written and/or directed).
>
Uh, no. His best work is "They Shoot Horses Don't
They" and "The Way We Were."
> Particularly in the work of Pollack that I don't
> like at all, e.g.
> "Sabrina", he makes it clear that he excels in the
> Hollywood style.
Not really. "Sabrina" is terrible precisely because of
its Hollywood style.
More than script, Pollack needs actors. Redford makes
him a lazy director. Streisand gave him the hotfoot
that made "The Way We Were" we[work -- despite his
egregious cutting of Laurents' key scenes. "Tootsie"
marks him more a New York director (a la Lumet) than a
Hollywood one.
His Oscar-win "Out of Africa"is incredibly bland.
Streep always seems on the very of snoring in
Redford's face.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21584
From: thebradstevens
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:21am
Subject: Re: Pollack (Was: Neutral Style)
>
> Uh, no. His best work is "They Shoot Horses Don't
> They" and "The Way We Were."
No way! His best work is CASTLE KEEP. Nothing else in Pollack's
oeuvre even comes close.
21585
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:36am
Subject: Re: Robert Mulligan on Netflix
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> I like every one of these films better than TO KILL A
MOCKINGBIRD. In
> fact, I actively dislike that film. - Dan
What?! I thought disliking "Mockinbird" was considered positively
un-American!
Seriously, the Netflix list is woefully incomplete and misses at
least three major works: the highly original and very underrated
western "The Stalking Moon," "The Other" (perhaps his most ambitious
film) and "The Nickel Ride" (the latter was discussed here a few
months ago I think.) Also the 1963 "Love With the proper Stranger".
And "Up the Down Staircase" was pretty good too. Tavernier loved it
and wrote the paragraph on it in our book. They all should be
available on DVD!
JPC
21586
From: Yoel Meranda
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:21am
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
I'm trying to understand what people mean by "neutral style". I've
got two questions:
1. Can a film that has a "neutral style" be formal at the same time?
2. Are there any examples of "neutral style" in the arts other than
film and photography?
(In painting or in music, for example)
Thanks in advance,
Yoel
21587
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:41am
Subject: Re: Pollack (Was: Neutral Style)
>. Thereby, his best work is "Jeremiah
> Johnson", (where Milius shines) and
The Hollywood version of "Dog Star Man" ! ;-)
-Sam Wells
21588
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 10:46am
Subject: Re: SHALLOW HAL (Was: The Farrelly Brothers)
Imagine, even, Steve Martin ending up with Queen Latifah in
whateverthefuck that movie was.
Never in a million years, you're more likely to see Sadie Benning directing
Catwoman II
-Sam
> Oh, that's absurd, Gabe. We don't know the norm already from countless other
> films, pounds of commercials on TV, myriad ads in magazines, etc.? Imagine a
> major Hollywood production starring a fat actress on screen 90% of the time.
> Now THAT'S a challenge!
>
> Kevin John
21589
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:13am
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Yoel Meranda"
wrote:
>
> I'm trying to understand what people mean by "neutral style".
So am I.
I've
> got two questions:
>
> 1. Can a film that has a "neutral style" be formal at the same time?
Yes. "Neutral" is not pejorative. And "neutral style" is an oxymoron,
as JP pointed out, because one meaning of style makes it a personal
idiosyncracy. But personal idiosyncracies always occur within larger
period styles, another meaning of the term. I'm suggesting that
neutral style is a period style contemporary with the growth of
television and practiced in idiosyncratic ways by people making
features, as well as by a few people making television films.
>
> 2. Are there any examples of "neutral style" in the arts other than
> film and photography?
> (In painting or in music, for example)
I don't know enough about those arts to answer that. I would hazard
that neutral style in film has been influenced by photography.
21590
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 0:16pm
Subject: re: Mulligan (avant-garde postscript)
How many FILM BY members have seen the massacre of a fragment of TO KILL A
MOCKINGBIRD in Martin Arnold's PASSAGE A L'ACTE? It gets repeated in a
stammering, one-frame-forward-two-frames-back fashion (mathematically and
rigorously so!), in both image and sound, creating incredible, sensational
effects ... and hinting (as all Arnold's films do) at the 'repressed
content' of a certain kind of American mainstream cinema ...
I was once in a routine arthouse cinema in Melbourne where this was shown as
a short (which was why I was there) before a very banal American indie
movie: the placid-looking crowd went BERSERK with rage - echoes of the L'AGE
d'OR affair! - pounding the walls of the projection booth, yelling
obscenities, prowling around the darkened auditorium, throwing things at the
screen ... and all this within the first minute !!!
It is one of my favourite avant-garde films, from that great Austrian
flowering of the 1990s. Arnold later did the same (but differently) with a
few bits of an Andy Hardy musical - the result is called ALONE. Sublime
stuff - Judy Garland can never be seen or listened to in the same way ever
again, and Mickey Rooney kissing his Mom looks rather charged with
perversity ...
Adrian
21591
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:26am
Subject: Re: Re: Neutral Style
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Yoel Meranda"
>
> wrote:
> >
> > I'm trying to understand what people mean by
> "neutral style".
>
> So am I.
>
Well a good place to start is with what's NOT neutral.
Orson Welles, Stanley Kurbrick, Ken Russell and
jean-Luc Godard - to tak a few names straight off the
top of my head -- have in their works exhibited a
styles of filmmaking that are distinctive to the point
of idosyncracy. Their presence as "auteurs" is
continually indicated by the text. William Wyler -- a
non-"auteur" -- also has a distinctive style,as Andre
Bazin has examined at length.
"A film by" is devoted to examining the stylistic
traits of countless directors -- some obvious, many
subtle.
But there's a world of routine filmmaking outside of
this purview, and that's where "neutrality"chiefly
resides.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
21592
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:28am
Subject: Re: Mulligan (avant-garde postscript)
Arnold's films are a great leap forward.
A leap to what I'm not sure, but you begin to touch on it in your
post, Adrian.
Gregory Peck saw PASSAGE A L'ACTE at the New York Film
Festival and said: "I don't get it."
The first film of his I saw was PIECE TOUCHE, which takes a
dull (one might say "neutral") 15 second sequence from a
Hollywood film whose title I can't recall and completely
reconfigures the space to suddenly make it a total eye-opener.
ALONE. LIFE WAS WASTES ANDY HARDY is one of my favorite
films. I don't think I've witnessed anything creepier than Andy
Hardy at his mother's bedside, slowly -- I mean s-l-o-o-o-o-w-l-y
-- planting a kiss on her.
If his films aren't well-known to a_film_by members, for
chrissakes, seek 'em out!
Gabe
21593
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:40am
Subject: Re: Neutral Style
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Yoel Meranda"
wrote:
>> 2. Are there any examples of "neutral style" in the arts other
than
> film and photography?
> (In painting or in music, for example)
>
> Thanks in advance,
>
> Yoel
In music I don't think so (except perhaps Muzak). In painting
perhaps Warhol -- although the neutrality is there to attract
attention to itself, thus ceasing to be neutral. JPC
21594
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:47am
Subject: Re: Mulligan (avant-garde postscript)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
>
>
> I was once in a routine arthouse cinema in Melbourne where this
was shown as
> a short (which was why I was there) before a very banal American
indie
> movie: the placid-looking crowd went BERSERK with rage - echoes of
the L'AGE
> d'OR affair! - pounding the walls of the projection booth, yelling
> obscenities, prowling around the darkened auditorium, throwing
things at the
> screen ... and all this within the first minute !!!
>
> Adrian
Why were people so enraged by the film, exactly? It would have
been interesting to interview some of them. It was an unusual
experience, because audiences these days are SO passive.... Maybe
they had never seen anything "avant garde" -- which i suspect is the
case for most general audiences. JPC
21595
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:51am
Subject: Re: SHALLOW HAL (Was: The Farrelly Brothers)
> << if the film wants to challenge us, first it must engage us with
the norm.
> >>
>
> Oh, that's absurd, Gabe. We don't know the norm already from
countless other
> films, pounds of commercials on TV, myriad ads in
magazines, etc.?
1. If the film were Gwyneth Paltrow in a fat suit 90% of the time it
wouldn't have given her the chance to turn in the very fine
"physical" performance that she did.
2. If another actress -- a fat one -- had been cast for 100% of the
film, there would be absolutely no way to convincingly tell this
story to a mainstream audience. What you're looking for you're
not going to find in the Farrelly brothers, who are mainstream
filmmakers. Take 'em or leave 'em.
3. I don't think what you're asking for is as simple as "put in more
fat people". (And by the way, did you see ME, MYSELF, AND
IRENE?) There's something way too clumsy and simplistic for
that kind of thing to work.
Gabe
21596
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:02pm
Subject: re: neutral style
Bill, A FILM BY is going to have to pull together and organise a World Tour
- equal priority with establishing the English-language edition of 50 ANS DE
CINEMA AMERICAIN - so you can give us the illustrated version of your
lecture "What is Neutral Style in Cinema?" Because, like Godard says, it's a
case of needing to "bring in the evidence" - show us the clips! So far, we
are batting around words - like 'neutral' itself - that are sparking vastly
different semantic associations in diverse minds, and I don't think we are
getting near 'the same page' on it. I don't think we're all seeing the same
thing, in the same films, at all. That's why some are responding to this
thread like it's a kind of mystery - which it is!
Therefore, let me proceed to confused matters further! What you're calling
neutral style - if I am indeed understanding you correctly, even a little
bit - is something that has fascinated me for a long time. I tend to think
of it as a 'presentational' style - an effort (which is no less stylistic
than any other more expressionistic style) to present things, scenes,
situations, interactions, in a sort-of direct - and even flat - way. (I
hasten to add: this has nothing whatsoever to do with Bazinian
'photo-realist' or ontology ideas, or anything to do with a documentary
impulse.) Just how that tone of flatness gets to be established, in both
image and sound, is something we still have to make clear.
Would you agree with me, Bill, that this 'neutral style' is something that
is found across telemovies - of a certain type and era, as you make clear -
and also B movies, again of a certain type and era? I got into studying the
'presentational' mode through a love of B films, like Larry Cohen's PRIVATE
FILES OF J EDGAR HOOVER. A swirl of associations here: HONEYMOON KILLERS has
been mentioned several times already; it's indeed a great film, and as Tom
rightly says, its apparent flatness/neutrality hides an incredible
artfulness. Now, this film was/is a favourite of Manny Farber and
Jean-Pierre Gorin, they taught and lectured on it in the '70s, and it comes
up again in the CAHIERS 1982 interview translated in the FRAMEWORK Farber
dossier. Curiously, when Gorin was in Australia a few years after that, he
lectured on Scorsese's KING OF COMEDY - precisely as a 'televisual film' -
and for him the TV effect (which is, I believe, profoundly worked into the
texture of the film's style, at every level) was fundamentally a matter of
the visual strategy of CENTERING everything in the framing and mise en
scène. Some key scenes in yhe film certainly correspond to that (and not to
other Scorsese films).
Another thought: maybe flatness/neutrality/presentation has something also
to do with a deliberate LACK OF POV STRUCTURES in a film - lacking these, we
tend to 'observe' more from the outside, detached, we are not 'taken into'
the scene à la Hitchcock, De Palma, or - thinking of SOMBRE - Grandrieux.
HENRY: PORTRAIT OF A SERIAL KILLER has been mentioned: another key
contemporary film - and I think McNaughton is a very undervalued director,
maybe BECAUSE he has stuck so much to a presentational style. NORMAL LIFE
(1996) is an amazing film and, as often, McNaughton develops his style
through observing psychological states - people cracking up, following
unconscious impulses, etc - but in a non-psychologising way - hence the
sense of a 'neutrality' in his regard. Another fascinating example of the
neutral style, too little discussed: Lodge Kerrigan.
But, as I say, it's easy to get the terms and associations mixed up. I am
very grateful to Zach for citing my Robert Mulligan piece in the new FILM
JOURNAL, and also to those who have followed that up with kind remarks (let
me merely add that the contributions by other FILM BY members including
Peter T, Bob K and Zach himself are equally good!) - but I am not certain
that what I describe there as Mulligan's even/smooth style, with its
Truffaut-style principles of 'linkage and balance', is the same as what Bill
means by neutrality. For starters, I peg Mulligan as a LYRICAL filmmaker -
and the kind of neutrality we are trying to nail down is not, I suspect,
lyrical. (It's interesting to think of BADLANDS as a film that mixes both
neutrality and lyricism - and it's a serial killer film, of course!).
I'll transcribe an interesting quote - which offers yet another vexing
synonym for 'neutral' - in a separate post.
Adrian
21597
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 1:02pm
Subject: re: neutral style (Routt essay)
A key essay for me in thinking about the neutral/flat/presentational/etc
style in cinema is "Todorov Among the Gangsters" by Australian
scholar/critic William Routt, published in the special film issue of ART &
TEXT (no. 34, Spring 1989 - the whole issue is a gem). He calls it the
LITERAL style.
In part, this essay is concerned with non-canonised gangster B films. Routt
(who has often often written brilliantly of B cinema and the
theoretical/philosophical/aesthetic questions it raises) argues that these
films are "peculiarly of the cinema" because of their "reliance upon literal
discourse". He goes on to explain this concept:
"The cinema appears to present a facile opportunity to approach pure
denotation, while pure denotation in literature is something which belongs
to the avant-garde. Doubtless this cinematic facility arises from the
medium's kinship with other printing technologies - the sense in which
cinema is not seen to 'create' but only to 'reproduce' - and of course that
semblance is open to question. Nonetheless, as with other forms of printing,
the question of reproduction, thus of literalism, is at the heart of the
question of the cinema in a way that it cannot be in purely verbal discourse
(discourse, that is, which represses its medium, its technology).
Among gangster films, INSIDE THE MAFIA (Edward L. Cahn, 1959) is an example
of what edges nearest to the literal. Nothing in INSIDE THE MAFIA (until the
last sequence) remains unexplained - no volitions, no competencies demand to
be inferred, for they are spelled out explicitly, leaving the imagination
nowhere to roam. Characters move stolidly without discernible intent through
a series of mundane acts, about which the film says absolutely nothing
except that they have occurred. Beside this, the films of Andy Warhol seem
to seethe with undercurrents and connotations, not to say absurd pretenses
and refinements. This is paracinema, a film from beyond cinema: raw film
which pleases no one, which everyone calls 'bad' or 'boring', but which,
despite that, is one of the few places where our orphan of the nineteenth
century actually encounters the period in which it has grown up, one of the
few places where the cinema appears an art of today rather than of
yesterday." (pp. 113-4).
'The film says absolutely nothing except that they have occurred': sounds to
me like a motto of neutral cinema!
Adrian
21599
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 0:26pm
Subject: Re: re: neutral style (Routt essay)
> 'The film says absolutely nothing except that they have occurred': sounds to
> me like a motto of neutral cinema!
There's something interesting to work with here. "Pure denotation"....
To me, this wouldn't be Johnson or Sargent or Rohmer. But it could be
deMille! I might be able to accept "neutral style" as a refusal of
obvious "connotative" elements. - Dan
21600
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Fri Jan 21, 2005 0:36pm
Subject: Re: neutral style
As Bill recommended in an earlier post as a supreme example
of "neutral style", I took another look at William A. Graham's "The
Amazing Howard Hughes" (admittedly, I viewed the truncated version
put out by Anchor Bay, but I think I've got the idea) and would
recommend it to anyone having a hard time grasping what Bill meant by
using "neutrality" to discuss the visuals of this film.
In comparison to Scorsese's Hughes film, in which we're sometimes
asked to relate to Hughes and sympathize with his madness, Graham
stands back from all of it and simply gives us an objective view of
Hughes' life with no explanations. There are no pseudo-Freudian ideas
about why he does what he does; just the plain facts as Graham
presents them to us. There are no subjective or POV camera moves,
Graham stays at a distance. Colors are golden, almost autumnal with
reference to the two-strip used later in "The Aviator". At any rate,
the film is quite remarkable and the final scene out-does Scorsese's
picture.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact