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.
21801
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:10pm
Subject: Re: What is "Classic Cinema"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne
wrote:
>
> In brief, I am writing to second Kyle Westphal's categorization.
It makes a lot of sense to me..
>
> Peter Henne
>
>
> "K. A. Westphal" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
> wrote:
> I've used this arbitrary five-tier system for a few years:
>
> 1893-1928 Silent Cinema
> 1929-1959 Classical Cinema
> 1959-1975 Age of European Modernism
> 1975-1999 Age of American Blockbuster
> 2000-Present Digital Revolution
>
> This is a limited system; the bias towards Western styles reflects
the
> dominant paradigm of style at the time.
>
> --Kyle Westphal
>
>
I find Kyle's chronological taxonomy confusing to say the least.
For one thing it keeps shifting criteria from one category to the
next. #1 and #5 are purely technical/mechanical, with no
consideration of content or form. #3 shifts to aesthetical; #4
shifts again, to economic ("blockbuster": a movie that "achieves
enormous sales" according to the American Heritage Dictionary .)
Each category, moreover, is more or less arbitrary. There is very
little in common between early and late silent films. Only their
lack of sound places them in the same group. Same thing for
the "classical cinema" category (and "classical" still has to be
defined!): what does a 1929 or 1930 movie have in common with a
movie of the fifties or even forties? Why is a 25-year period
typified by "the American blockbuster" when the vast majority of the
best, most important films of the period are not blockbusters?
etc... I really don't see how such a breakdown can help us better
understand the evolution of the cinema. JPC
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
21802
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:29pm
Subject: Re: contemporary oepra on film
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "alfred eaker" wrote:
>
> there is a good number of highly innovative stagings of both modern
> and classic operas on video. good luck finding them. usually there
> are released for about a week and yanked.
A recent example that you didn't include on your list is "The Death of
Klinghoffer" (2003) by Penny Woolcock, worth noting if only for its
sheer ambition.
The film is a bizarre hybrid of docudrama [the black and white
prologue that looks like it's come from Paul Greengrass' "Bloody
Sunday"], documentary [actual documentary footage littered throughout
the film], and, of course, opera -- almost without warning, after at
least five minutes of docudrama/documentary, one of the characters
begins to sing directly to the camera and audience. Later, one of the
characters sings underwater, while drowning.
The film's a little schizophrenic, of course -- it flashes back and
flashes forward, and there's a constant tension between its two
contradictory styles [one can't help but be reminded of Godard's term
"neo-realist musical"] -- but it's definitely an interesting enough
project, if not a wholly satisfying one.
21803
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 4:31pm
Subject: Re: What is "Classic Cinema"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> > 1893-1928 Silent Cinema
> > 1929-1959 Classical Cinema
> > 1959-1975 Age of European Modernism
> > 1975-1999 Age of American Blockbuster
> > 2000-Present Digital Revolution
>
> >
> I find Kyle's chronological taxonomy confusing to say the least.
> For one thing it keeps shifting criteria from one category to the
> next.
That may be why it is able to propose credible periods - it starts from
observation, not from a priori definitions.
>
> Each category, moreover, is more or less arbitrary. There is very
> little in common between early and late silent films. Only their
> lack of sound places them in the same group.
But this is in fact a period division that most histories of cinema use as a
matter of course. It's technical, not formal, but it describes a revolution that
affected all aspects of film. You even use it when you say "early and late silent
films," which is a perfectly valid sub-division based on the Great Divide in film
history - one which your own language in formulating the sub-divison
acknowledges, JP.
What does a 1929 or 1930 movie have in common with a
> movie of the fifties or even forties?
Periods have to start somehwere, and a lot of 1929 work was still silent, but
Morocco (1930) is already at least as akin to Sternberg's forties work as it is to
his 20s work - there's a shift with Morocco. At the same time, I wil
lacknowledge that there is a formal/technical overlap going on in the first two
categories: The Cahiers usage of "classical cinema" - the only one I'm
interested in - encompasses their study of Intolerance, so I'd be inclined to
acknowledge that the conventions of the forties and fifties grew out of silents.
I'd call both the silent and the sound period part of "classical cinema," and
draw sharp distinctions between them.
Why is a 25-year period
> typified by "the American blockbuster" when the vast majority of the
> best, most important films of the period are not blockbusters?
Because most of the tickets sold and money spent and screens used are for
blockbusters, and that affects everything, including form. The last Linklater film
isn't made like a blockbuster, but it is a sequel - part of the culture created by
Star Wars et al. It's a lot of territory to cover, but I would also point to hints like
Kent Jones' argument that Olivier Assayas tries to give audiences an
experience like that of a blockbuster in his films - analogous in some ways,
but not identical. Cutting has changed today. Look at how we do biopics now!
Etc.
The digital divide is technical, and it will be as important as the sound divide,
both to high- and low-end filmmaking. I much prefer this kind of mixed,
empirically sound division of periods to, say, Daney's "Classical, modern,
mannerist," which is valid in its own way, but purely formal and derived from
painting.
21804
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:08pm
Subject: Re: What is "Classic Cinema"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> >
>
> > > 1893-1928 Silent Cinema
> > > 1929-1959 Classical Cinema
> > > 1959-1975 Age of European Modernism
> > > 1975-1999 Age of American Blockbuster
> > > 2000-Present Digital Revolution
> >
> > >
> > I find Kyle's chronological taxonomy confusing to say the
least.
> > For one thing it keeps shifting criteria from one category to
the
> > next.
>
> That may be why it is able to propose credible periods - it starts
from
> observation, not from a priori definitions.
But it is totally unscientific! It is saying in effect, "
a 'period' is whatever I decide a period to be based on whatever
criteria I adopt."
I'd call both the silent and the sound period part of "classical
cinema," and
> draw sharp distinctions between them.
>
At least we can agree on that point.
>
. I much prefer this kind of mixed,
> empirically sound division of periods to, say, Daney's "Classical,
modern,
> mannerist," which is valid in its own way, but purely formal and
derived from
> painting.
At least Daney is not all over the place.
21805
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Napoleon DVD?
Aha. That would explain it.
-Matt
hotlove666 wrote:
>Matt Teichman wrote:
>
>
>> <>Hello all, I was wondering whether anyone recommended the Region 4
>> DVD of Gance's _Napoleon_. I think it's the only one available,
>> though I might be wrong...
>
>
>Didn't Coppola block a US DVD release by demanding a percentage? I'm
>really quoting a vague memory sloshing arouynd in my head...
>
>
21806
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 5:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: What is "Classic Cinema"?
jpcoursodon wrote:
> I find Kyle's chronological taxonomy confusing to say the least.
....
What division of all world cinema into five parts, whether chronological
or not, would not be "confusing to say the least."
Try narrative, documentary, experimental, instructional/industral, and
amateur/home movie, and you'd get into all sorts of issues about how
much narrative an experimental film has to have to be switched, and the
recent decades' films that mix documentary and narrative, and on and on.
All taxonomies are inherently reductive. I don't know too much about the
history of Egyptian cinema, to say the least, but my guess is his
taxonomy wouldn't be too relevant there. Nor does it make a lot of sense
to me to group the first decade's films with the late silents.
But all that aside, I think his chronology is kind of relevant to
Hollywood cinema, actually, including the fact that starting in '59
Hollywood was kind of influenced by the New Wave, and that a greater
self-consciousness started to enter around then, and soon directors were
thinking of themselves as "auteurs," not necessarily to the advantage of
the films they made. Something like Penn's "Mickey One" just could not
have been made a decade earlier, I think.
One sharp break that I think is under-emphasized in most histories is
the shift that began around the time of "Citizen Kane," and that picked
up with the emergence of film noir. The classical directors like Ford
and Walsh had a relatively stable view of space, and the world; Ray and
Fuller were something else. In the late 40s you have "They Live By
Night" and "The Lady From Shanghai" getting made alongside things like
"My Darling Clementine," and then, in the same town, Kenneth Anger's
"Fireworks." Three different "periods" of film history were coexisting,
not for the first time and not for the last.
Fred Camper
21807
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:01pm
Subject: Re: What is "Classic Cinema"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne wrote:
"'Classical' necessarily implies a dominant system, which Hollywood
is. Approx. 1930-1959 forms a period in which norms of editing,
framing, performance (including talking), and the illusion of a story
are held fast. Of course there are exceptions--but none of them
actually halt practicing the norms; the system marches on through
this period. For many reasons (shifts in the studio system, the well-
articulated and broad challenges to the norms from Italian cinema,
the NV, etc.), the late 1950s usher in a period of experiment and
cross-examination."
I think this is a pretty good description of classical Hollywood
cinema, but I don't think it necessarily accounts for other national
cinemas.
Of the non-Hollywood (and non-USA) cinemas I'm most familiar with
Japan's cinema, and here just among Western critics we have two
contrasting views. Noel Burch describes a formative period lasting
from 1914 to 1931, a classical period lasting from 1931 until 1948
and an "internationalization" (where Japanese cinema becomes
contaminated by Hollywood and neo-realist "codes" and loses its
unique identity,) and then from 1960 until around 1980 when it's
revitalized by the Japanese new wave's synthesis of Western and
Japanese modes of representation.
On the other hand, Donald Richie sees Japanese cinema gradually
developing under the impact of contact with Western (or Euro-
Anerican) cinema from its inception until the 1930s when it reaches a
plateau, after which it suffers a decline brought about the
successive censorships of the facist government and then the American
Occupation, after which it finally enters its classical period,
lasting from around 1950 until 1965. There follows an anamalous new
wave and then decline into soft core pornography, violent genre
movies and sentimental comedies, all brought about by the
popularization of television and the "economic miracle" that started
after 1964.
Japanese historians (and there are three standard multi-volume
histories of Japanese cinema) use a cultural-political model and see
cinema as a late-developing art that recapitulated the changes that
Japanese literature and theatre underwent during the Meiji era(1868-
1912,) noting that early Japanese cinema adapted Meiji-era drama and
fiction to the screen (somewhat like McLuhan's thesis that the
content of the current medium is the previous medium, e.g., TV
contains cinema, cinema contains theatre, and so on.) These
historians see Japanese cinema entering its classical period in the
mid-1920s and being interrupted by the Pacific War (1941-45)only to
undergo a "second Meiji" under the Occupation and emerge the equal of
any other national cinema and enjoying another plateau of excellence
until the 1960s when the new wave appears in tandem with the
political upheavals of the era, (the AMPO riots, the Shinjuku riots,
the student movement, the anti-war movement, all preceded by the anti-
nuclear movement of the 1950s.) These histories end in the 1970s with
the Japanese cinema in crisis, forced to compete with television and
Hollywood.
But this little cross-cultural comparison still brings us back to
J-P's observation that we use the term classical without precisely
knowing what it means.
Richard
21808
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:04pm
Subject: Re: What is "Classic Cinema"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Hollywood cinema, actually, including the fact that starting >
> One sharp break that I think is under-emphasized in most histories
is
> the shift that began around the time of "Citizen Kane," and that
picked
> up with the emergence of film noir. The classical directors like
Ford
> and Walsh had a relatively stable view of space, and the world;
Ray and
> Fuller were something else. In the late 40s you have "They Live By
> Night" and "The Lady From Shanghai" getting made alongside things
like
> "My Darling Clementine," and then, in the same town, Kenneth
Anger's
> "Fireworks." Three different "periods" of film history were
coexisting,
> not for the first time and not for the last.
>
> Fred Camper
True. The so-called "classical cinema" (Hollywood classical
cinema, silents excluded)breaks down into at least two chronological
sections: pre-Kane and post-Kane. And within the "post-Kane" period
you can easily sub-divide: forties films and fifties films, which
are quite different despite overlaps. All those films from early
thirties to around 1960 may belong to so-called "classical cinema"
but in very different ways. There isn't much use (although I'll
grant there may be "sone") in sticking the same label on all of them.
21809
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 7:21pm
Subject: Re: What is "Classic Cinema"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
.
>
> But this little cross-cultural comparison still brings us back to
> J-P's observation that we use the term classical without precisely
> knowing what it means.
>
> Richard
Thanks. Your description of three different "models" of approach
of Japanese cinema just goes to prove that "classical" is a relative
concept and entirely in the eye of the beholder.
Let's also remember that no "classical" period in the history of
any of the arts has ever thought of itself (written about itself)
as "classical". Classical is always an after-the-fact concept, a
historical construct. And as such must be viewed with suspicion
(although, like all such concepts, it comes in handy in conversation
and even supposedly serious critical writing).
21810
From:
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 2:30pm
Subject: Re: What is "Classic Cinema"?
In a message dated 05-01-25 17:46:54 EST, Kyle writes:
> > 1893-1928 Silent Cinema
> > 1929-1959 Classical Cinema
> > 1959-1975 Age of European Modernism
> > 1975-1999 Age of American Blockbuster
> > 2000-Present Digital Revolution
> >>
Agreed - this is a pretty good breakdown of film history periods, for
"commercial fiction" films, as my original post noted. It probably has little to do
with the history of experimental, documentary, home movie, educational and
other kinds of films.
Also agree with the posts that say there must be a break between Early Silent
and Later Silent films. Perhaps:
1895 - 1908 Early Silent
1909 - 1928 Later Silent
By 1909 we have narrative silent film in full swing, with a masterpiece like
"Corner in Wheat" (D. W. Griffith). That is why my original post used
1909-1975 as the boundaries of "classical cinema". Griffith and his disciples such as
Stroheim, Vidor, and even Walsh made films about the very poor, that were the
direct ancestors of both Renoir and Neorealism in the 1940's and 1950's. So
there is lots of continuity here.
Agree with Fred Camper: The rise of Welles and Film Noir in 1941 marked huge
changes in Hollywood visual style. Perhaps this should be noted in chronology.
Some other points:
1959-1975 Age of European Modernism
This also was the tail end of Studio era Hollywood. Filmmakers like Hawks and
Hitchcock, Ford, Preminger made many masterpieces during this era. This is
directly continuous with 1929-1959 in Hollywood terms.
1975-1999 Age of American Blockbuster
While the Americans were making their blockbusters, the British were making
music videos and "heritage films" (historical dramas - what US critics always
call "Masterpiece Theater productions"). These might ultimately prove far more
artistically important when people look back on this era.
Mike Grost
21811
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 8:06pm
Subject: NYC: corrections for Yang schedule
It appears I accidentally truncated some of the showtimes for the Yang
retro. Trying again. - Dan
Edward Yang
TAIPEI STORY
1985, 110 minutes, 16mm.
–Friday, January 28 at 7:00, Sunday, January 30 at 3:00 &
Tuesday, February
1 at 7:00.
Edward Yang
THE TERRORIZER
1987, 120 minutes, 16mm.
–Friday, January 28 at 9:30, Sunday, January 30 at 5:30 &
Tuesday, February
1 at 9:30.
Edward Yang
THAT DAY, ON THE BEACH
1982, 166 minutes, 16mm.
–Saturday, January 29 at 3:00, Monday, January 31 at 7:30 &
Wednesday,
February 2 at 7:30.
Edward Yang
YI YI
2000, 173 minutes, 35mm.
–Saturday, January 29 at 7:00, Sunday, January 30 at 8:00 &
Thursday,
February 3 at 7:30.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
21812
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Napoleon DVD?
> Didn't Coppola block a US DVD release by demanding a percentage? I'm
> really quoting a vague memory sloshing arouynd in my head...
I heard Nelly Kaplan's sitting on it.
Kevin Brownlow's spent a good part of his life restoring it, and it's
now upto 5hrs+
--
The R4 DVD is just the early 80s *shorter* version which Coppola
released theatrically (ie. Kevin's first restoration).
This R4 DVD is well worth seeing though.
-Nick>-
21813
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:33pm
Subject: Re: Classical cinema
Richard defined what the term means in general use post-1968. I
should add that classical cinema was originally the enemy, along with
modernism (Bresson, the NV, Bertolucci etc.), because the people who
came up w. the term wanted to overthrow capitalism and saw both
periods of H'wd cinema as bourgeois propaganda. Resistance to the
term often goes hand-in-hand, understandably, with objections to that
whole pov. And it seems to mme that Fred is as aware of this in his
way as the Cahiers were, because he also is advocating a different
cinema, and one way to define it is to set it against the Hollywood
model.
Fred: We use the Classical, Baroque, Romantic, Modern periodization
of western music without getting confused because it doesn't cover
jazz or Dervish dances. And people don't die when their period ends
ends: Brahms studied counterpoint with Haydn; Ford was still making
films in the 60s. But Brahms and Haydn are writing very diferent
kinds of music, and Ford and Kubrick are making very diferent kinds
of cinema.
I think a lot of confusion about the term classical is that cinema,
being as Godard says "a nineteenth century invention," was born
Romantic. Griffith really isn't anything like Aeschylus - he's more
akin to 19th century melodrama, and when he adapts a poem it's Gray
or Whitman. Welles is a continuation and radicalization of that
Romanticism. So within the Hollywood model (another term that the
Cahiers used during the Red era) there is obviously evolution and
change. But what happend in the late 50s is something else, something
very much like the death of that model and its replacement with a new
model that enabled Coppola to keep making gangster films and Chabrol
to keep making thrillers without really being in the same paradigm as
Walsh and Hitchcock. This is something that many people on this list
experienced viscerally when it happened because something we loved
was disappearing - I certainly did.
Of course there is more than one way to carve up the continuum - some
good, some not so good, I would add. Godard's perspective in Histoire
(s) makes WWII the Great Divide, and consequently keeps circling back
to it. Anyone want to evaluate that?
21814
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 9:37pm
Subject: Re: David Walsh shoots down The Aviator
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/avia-j13.shtml
>
Interesting point of view, true, particularly since everything he
says goes double for Gibson (who doesn't even have the excuse of
being talented) and his religous snuff flick. I disagree that it's
completely a celebration, of course; the subtext of the film seems
to be that a fucked-up mind and spirit makes all that wealth and
success only transitory glory.
21815
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 10:33pm
Subject: Re: What is "Classic Cinema"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> >
>
> > > 1893-1928 Silent Cinema
> > > 1929-1959 Classical Cinema
> > > 1959-1975 Age of European Modernism
> > > 1975-1999 Age of American Blockbuster
> > > 2000-Present Digital Revolution
> >
> > >
> > I find Kyle's chronological taxonomy confusing to say the least.
> > For one thing it keeps shifting criteria from one category to the
> > next.
>
> That may be why it is able to propose credible periods - it starts from
> observation, not from a priori definitions.
It's somewhat gratifying that a doodle of film history can generate
such strong reactions.
Obviously, dividing a century's worth of art in any given medium
(especially one where whole national cinemas and styles remain
obscure) is not meant to be precise. Any partisan on this board can
argue for any particular year. (But 1955 was the year of LOLA MONTES!
The height of baroque feminism!) I just thought it said more than the
simple "Classical Cinema 1909-1970" post or whatever the particular
dates were.
I think that all those categories are aesthetic. The thing dividing
the silent era and the talkies is more than a technical barrier. That
is, while the films are similar in many respects, taking the sound out
of L'ATALANTE doesn't make it into SUNRISE. Of course, silent film is
a broad category; my only exposure to the very early stuff has been
the Treasures from American Archives box. Still, I see silent film as
a progression towards a level of expression that had to re-evaluated
almost from the ground up with the coming of sound.
As for the definition of "classical cinema," an aesthetic prevails out
of the studio system which evolves but still remains fixed in a
specific genre plane until the full effects of the monopoly decision
are dealt. I see the end of classical Hollywood cinema as the
mid-1960s, when the studio heads were struggling to understand why
STAR! and DR. DOOLITTLE couldn't be another SOUND OF MUSIC.
The European modernism is a broad category and not one an especially
critical one. That is to say, it's modernism because the filmmakers
wish to define themselves as 'modern film artists' (with all the
aesthetic implications), not so much because historians have said that
Godard is any more modern than H.C. Potter. (And Godard isn't an
exciting filmmaker to me because he's "modern"; I don't care for the
self-regard of CONTEMPT, but I think ALPHAVILLE is a great film
because it defines a precisely atmospheric world, in the manner of
Murnau, from such unlikely materials.)
The American Blockbuster era is a contentious bit, and not one I'm too
comfortable with. Mast, writing in the late 80s, called 1977-Present
"A Return to Myth." American blockbusters surely aren't the whole of
cinema, and nowhere near the most interesting place for me. But the
aesthetic movement that gives us a BLADE RUNNER strikes me as very
different from what has come before. (And as for Bill's Linklater
comment, while I hadn't thought of BEFORE SUNSET in that context
before, I would be cautious: sequels, spin-offs, and remakes have been
par-for-course since, at least in the genre filmmaking I'm familiar
with, the early '30s).
The digital age is even rougher to define and though I haven't seen
T2, I do meant something like what Bill was getting at. It's not even
photographing a real thing anymore; it's the cinema going inward
instead of outward. The digital films I've enjoyed (and have talked
about before on a_film_by) are RUSSIAN ARK and ATANARJAUT which are,
in their own ways, possible only in the digital cinema world.
However, that's more of a technical/chemical consideration and has yet
to develop into an aesthetic one. I just hope we don't wind up with a
PIECES OF APRIL-aesthetic.
--Kyle Westphal
21816
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:55pm
Subject: David Walsh on MILLION DOLLAR BABY
David Walsh's take on MILLION DOLLAR BABY is even more incendiary than his
demolition of THE AVIATOR! Go, Dave !!
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/mill-j22.shtml
21817
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: Classical cinema
hotlove666 wrote:
>
> ....Fred: We use the Classical, Baroque, Romantic, Modern periodization
> of western music....
>
I was going to mention that one of the meanings of "classical" as a
style is something balanced and harmonious, as opposed to for example
the idea of "excess" in Romanticism. In this sense one could argue that
Ford and Walsh were "classical" and Ray and Welles "romantic." I
wouldn't push this too far.
> I think a lot of confusion about the term classical is that cinema,
> being as Godard says "a nineteenth century invention,"...
An alternative view was offered to me by Stuart Byron, circa 1970. At 22
or so I hadn't really been used to thinking historically. He suggested
that the richness of cinema was due to the fact that it was an invented
medium, and thus a range of styles were possible because they hadn't yet
been exhausted in cinema as they had in literature or painting. Thus we
could have the equivalent in cinema of Keats or Worsworth. I don't think
he was exactly correct, or that Sitney's case for a comparison between
Brakhage and Wordworth is exact, but I also think Stuart did have a
point. He also suggested to me that the "classical" phase of Hollywood
filmmaking had now been exhausted, and I think he was right there.
Fred Camper
21818
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:38pm
Subject: Re: David Walsh on MILLION DOLLAR BABY
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
> David Walsh's take on MILLION DOLLAR BABY is even more incendiary
than his
> demolition of THE AVIATOR! Go, Dave !!
>
> http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/mill-j22.shtml
I would expect anyone writing for the web site of the
International Committee of the Fourth international to be slightly
prejudiced, so nothing Walsh wrote in this review (or the one on The
Aviator) particularly surprises me. It's in a venerable old
tradition of ideological criticism that has actually very little to
do with serious film criticism. All the great boxing movies were
made by leftists, Eastwood is no leftist, therefore his film is
despicable. Anyway he is wealthy and as such hopeless. Etc... The
article doesn't go much beyond that kind of argument. "Go, Dave!" --
he's sure going, but where?
21819
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jan 25, 2005 11:40pm
Subject: Re: David Walsh on MILLION DOLLAR BABY
It's not as incendiary as all that. He didn't need all
that space to make a simple statement that"Million
Dollar baby" is no "Body and Soul." He's far more on
target when he gets to the scene where her family
rejects the house. That was the end of the movie for
me. Totally unbelievable.
I predict that "Million Dollar Baby" will in years to
come be an embarassment on the order of "Kramer vs.
Kramer" to the critics showering it with praise today.
--- Adrian Martin wrote:
> David Walsh's take on MILLION DOLLAR BABY is even
> more incendiary than his
> demolition of THE AVIATOR! Go, Dave !!
>
>
http://www.wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/mill-j22.shtml
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
21820
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:23am
Subject: Re: David Walsh on MILLION DOLLAR BABY
I haven't seen the film yet. Walsh does seem to make some good
points, and as David points out, that thing with the family sounds
extravagant. But this:
"In a serious artistic representation of an inner conflict the
individual is shown weighing the implications of his actions—
including the real possibility that his entire course of action is
wrong and should be abandoned—and either not committing the act or
living differently afterward, atoning for it somehow, not simply
looking glum."
sounds like backseat screenwriting to me.
21821
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:00am
Subject: Re: David Walsh on MILLION DOLLAR BABY
I haven't seen the film, so I can't judge how it is on class issues,
but SPOILER it seems relevant somehow that the President's monstrous
brother in Florida forced a feeding tube down the throat of a woman
whose brain is permanently shut down, in order to encourage the
Religious Right to keep supporting his family's imperial ambitions.
Whether the film is good or bad, blueblood or blue collar, Clint's
taking a shot at that kind of nonsense, and that seems like a good
idea to me. (The Academy nominations for this film and Vera Drake are
a one-two punch to the head and groin of those who only value human
life if it isn't sentient.) The byplay with Moore described in the
first paragraph is so obviously a crowd-pleasing joke that
interpreting it as a right-wing jibe is downright paranoid.
21822
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:42am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Okay, here's a quick and dirty top 11, in rough order of
preference - but
> the same directors will pop up on it a lot, coz I haven't really
covered
> the waterfront on Korean cinema.
>
> The Day a Pig Fell Into the Well (Hong)
> Jealousy Is My Middle Name (Park Chan-ok)
> The Virgin Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors (Hong)
> Turning Gate (Hong)
> Memories of Murder (Bong)
> Oasis (Lee)
> Peppermint Candy (Lee)
> The Power of Kangwon Province (Hong)
> Woman Is the Future of Man (Hong)
> Christmas in August (Jin Ho-hur)
> Green Fish (Lee)
>
> - Dan
Based on seeing Virgin Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors about three
times in the last 24 hours, I'd say that you have a lot of Hong Sang-
Soo in your list because Hong Sang-Soo is a great filmmaker. Charles
Tesson compared him to Mizoguchi - an odd comparison, but a measure
of Charles' admiration. Song's black-and-white long-shots aren't
dazzling in and of themeselves, but his patient accumulation of shots
and behaviors creates a whole that is mysterious, profound and more
pleasurable every time you experience it. It could change your life a
little.
His working method, as described to Charles: He gets an idea for a
film and then makes notes of small scenes and bits of scenes, until
he's ready to write the script. (Truffaut worked a bit like this
too.) Then he cherry-picks the list until he has the structure he
wants - apparently that part of the process is fast. And of course he
keeps fiddling with the material until the film is finished. His
bible is Bresson's book on filmmaking; his theoretical model is
Cezanne -- finding the invisible forms in Nature. The structure of
Virgin would sound tricky if I described it, but it's part of the
alchemy.
The three characters are the best I've seen in any recent film, bar
none. The hero's goofy niceness (and incredible gaffs: "I said
someone else's name, didn't I..."), his pal's somehow benign
posturing (they appear to have been cast as unromantic vague
reminiscences of Jim and Jules) and the heroine's seeming perversity,
which gradually reveals itself as something else masking something
else that we only see emerge after the fight about the name, and the
winter landscape of Seoul, as mysteriously right for the slow
revelation of forms and characters as the landscape in My Night at
Maud's - this is what I became a film lover for. Pink cloud time.
21823
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:44am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?) erratum
I mean Hong! Another thing that's interesting - he started out to be
a non-narrative filmmaker and decided to switch after seeing A Man
Escaped.
21824
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:10am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Based on seeing Virgin Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors about three
> times in the last 24 hours, I'd say that you have a lot of Hong Sang-
> Soo in your list because Hong Sang-Soo is a great filmmaker.
"Virgin" was the first Hong film I saw. And it was like being hit by a
lightning bolt. I simply was not prepared for either how visually
beautiful or how funny it was. And I could scarcely contain my
impatience to watch it again. (Indeed, I think I started replaying
bits and pieces immediately -- and I watched it all the way through
the next night).
> The three characters are the best I've seen in any recent film, bar
> none. The hero's goofy niceness (and incredible gaffs: "I said
> someone else's name, didn't I..."), his pal's somehow benign
> posturing (they appear to have been cast as unromantic vague
> reminiscences of Jim and Jules) and the heroine's seeming perversity,
> which gradually reveals itself as something else masking something
> else that we only see emerge after the fight about the name, and the
> winter landscape of Seoul, as mysteriously right for the slow
> revelation of forms and characters as the landscape in My Night at
> Maud's -
It's a shame the film's real name didn't make it in to English ("Oh!
Soo-jung") ;~}
I also found the characters (for all their faults) remarkably
engaging. My first impression was that this film was rather like Ozu
crossed with Godard. Thers have suggested other equally plausible
(implausible) descriptions.
I finally managed to see all of his films -- and really think few
"young" directors have such a uniformly outstanding body of work.
> this is what I became a film lover for. Pink cloud time.
Exactly my reaction.
MEK
21825
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:14am
Subject: Re: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
> The structure of Virgin would sound tricky if I described it, but it's
> part of the alchemy.
In a Q&A, I once asked Hong about the persistent doubling that
characterizes his structure. (It's interesting how building a work around
two occurances or episodes has a completely different effect from building
it around three or more.) He simply said that conventional storytelling
wasn't compelling enough to him, and that he needed the doubling to
maintain interest.
In his fifth and most recent film, WOMAN IS THE FUTURE OF MAN, one can
detect an underpinning of shaggy-dog absurdism that can be read into the
other films retroactively.
> the winter landscape of Seoul, as mysteriously right for the slow
> revelation of forms and characters as the landscape in My Night at
> Maud's
Rohmer was the filmmaker I recall him citing as an influence in that Q&A.
There may have been others.
Hong speaks softly, and doesn't speak English, so I was braced for a slow
Q&A requiring lots of concentration. But everything he said was smart,
interesting and pointed. - Dan
21826
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:51am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> In his fifth and most recent film, WOMAN IS THE FUTURE OF MAN, one can
> detect an underpinning of shaggy-dog absurdism that can be read into
the
> other films retroactively.
Isn't this "shaggy dog absurdism" pretty flagrant by "Power of Kangwon
Province" already. I think it is also there in his first film "Day
the Pig Fell into the Well" -- but I really need to re-watch this more
enigmatic (and darker overall) film to be absolutely sure.
MEK
21827
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:59am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
Dan:
> Hong speaks softly, and doesn't speak English, so I was braced for
> a slow Q&A requiring lots of concentration. But everything he
> said was smart, interesting and pointed. - Dan
Dan, we were at different NYFF screenings for WOMAN IS THE FUTURE OF
MAN, correct? (Or was there only one?) He seemed to speak English
fairly well at the Q&A I saw for that film. When an audience member
confronted him about his "sexist" (!) film and the way one of the
male leads treats the female, his soft-spoken deflection was
priceless: "Well, clearly he is a very stupid man ..." CBF & I
clapped in relief.
Somebody at this same Q&A asked Hong who his favorite directors
were, and he did mention Rohmer, and two or three others. I want to
say Ozu was mentioned, too, but I could be misremembering.
I think Hong is close to being the most intelligent person directing
narrative features right now. I've seen only three of his five
films, but each time I struggle to keep up with a completely
unpretentious, unforced wisdom and perspicacity about things like
time, memory, and human behavior. One can even change a little from
a Hong Sang-soo experience, as Bill suggests.
--Zach
21828
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:00am
Subject: Re: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
> Isn't this "shaggy dog absurdism" pretty flagrant by "Power of Kangwon
> Province" already. I think it is also there in his first film "Day
> the Pig Fell into the Well" -- but I really need to re-watch this more
> enigmatic (and darker overall) film to be absolutely sure.
Well, maybe you just intuited it more quickly than I did! The doubling,
which is so weird and distinctive, has the effect for me of masking the
film's attitude to some extent: it's got a built-in incompleteness, like
an indeterminate system of equations. Is it contrast? Generalization of
a particular? - Dan
21829
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:09am
Subject: Re: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
> Dan, we were at different NYFF screenings for WOMAN IS THE FUTURE OF
> MAN, correct? (Or was there only one?) He seemed to speak English
> fairly well at the Q&A I saw for that film.
I missed the Q&As for that film - the one I saw was after a screening of
TURNING GATE. I wonder if I'm misremembering about him having a
translator. - Dan
21830
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:15am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Well, maybe you just intuited it more quickly than I did! The
doubling,
> which is so weird and distinctive, has the effect for me of masking the
> film's attitude to some extent: it's got a built-in incompleteness,
like
> an indeterminate system of equations. Is it contrast?
Generalization of
> a particular?
Maybe I just tend to look for comnedy everywhere? ;~}
As soon as I started noticing the nature of the discrepancies between
version 1 and version 2 of "Virgin" (on first watching -- once I got
to the second half, obviously), I became increasingly convinced that I
was watching what could possibly be the most brilliant "sex comedy" I
had ever encountered. That's why I started looking for some of the
more obvious (mis)matches immediately after I made it to the end of
the DVD.
I find this becomes more intelligently comic and (at times) outright
funny (but also more poignant) with each re-visit.
MEK
21831
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:17am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I wonder if I'm misremembering about him having a
> translator.
Since HSS attended the film school at the Art Institute in Chicago
(and did a fair amount of study in California too), I would guess he
must be able to speak English reasonably well.
MEK
21832
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:51am
Subject: Re: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
Did the b&w long shots photography and the love-as-obsession thing remind
you of La Maman et la putain?
----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
>
> Based on seeing Virgin Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors about three
> times in the last 24 hours, I'd say that you have a lot of Hong Sang-
> Soo in your list because Hong Sang-Soo is a great filmmaker. Charles
> Tesson compared him to Mizoguchi - an odd comparison, but a measure
> of Charles' admiration. Song's black-and-white long-shots aren't
> dazzling in and of themeselves, but his patient accumulation of shots
> and behaviors creates a whole that is mysterious, profound and more
> pleasurable every time you experience it. It could change your life a
> little.
21833
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 8:13am
Subject: Re: Re: Kim Ki-duk
(Gabe says:)
>>>>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, that reminded me of Kim Ki-Duk regular signature effects that make him
"polemical", "scandalous".
>>>>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.
I think "Spring Summer" is by far more conventional and arthouse pleasing
(but as boring).
>>>>>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.
The pleasing tone is right there on 3-Iron, together with the cuteness of
the characters. "Odd but cute" is all over on that Jeunet and in this Kim.
The pictures they take on the houses they pass through, the way the guy
fixes broken objects, so Amelie-ish. I feel, in a way, that Kim's elegance
is very second-hand and self-conscious (=sameness) of its
exoticism(=supposed otherness).
Yesterday I read the article on Kim that Tony Rayns wrote for the January
edition of Cahiers du Cinéma and there's a guy who dislikes Kim more than
me. He complains (and I agree) about the similarities with "Vive l'amour",
about the forced lack of dialogue, absurd moralism and the "pseudo-buddhist
proverb" at the end. And the fact that Kim has been turned into a festival
and critical darling certainly annoys him a lot (not me, necessarily).
Ruy
21834
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:54am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
> > He seemed to speak English
> > fairly well at the Q&A I saw for that film.
>
> I missed the Q&As for that film - the one I saw was after a screening of
> TURNING GATE. I wonder if I'm misremembering about him having a
> translator. - Dan
My recollection of the TURNING GATE screening was that he not only spoke perfect English, but struck me as one of the most articulate filmmakers I'd ever
heard, to the point where (I fear I've made this "complaint" before, but hopefully not here) I nearly despaired of seeing his films since I'd never
"understand" them even remotely as well as he did. (At the same time, for some reason I had somewhat distrusted this memory and wondered if I had the right
filmmaker! -- so it's reassuring to learn of his Chicago Art Institute background; didn't Weerasethakul study there?)
21835
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:05am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
I wonder if I'm misremembering about him having a
> translator. - Dan
He lived in Chicago for a few years in the process of becoming a
filmmaker, and he went back for a year before actually starting. He
wasn't studyingI gather, just looking for what he wanted to do.
21836
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:08am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> Did the b&w long shots photography and the love-as-obsession thing
remind
> you of La Maman et la putain?
Oh yes. But Eustache isn't on the list of directors he cited to
Charles: Bresson, Rohmer, Murnau, Ozu.
21837
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:09am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> > I wonder if I'm misremembering about him having a
> > translator.
>
> Since HSS attended the film school at the Art Institute in Chicago
> (and did a fair amount of study in California too), I would guess
he
> must be able to speak English reasonably well.
>
> MEK
An interesting interview published in POSITIF June 2004 was
conducted in both Korean and English, with an interpreter.
To those who read French I strongly recommend Jacques Aumont's
excellent article "Lointaines vanites, Presentation de Hong Sang-
sou" in CINEMA/07 (Spring 2004).
Reading through this thread I note that everybody seems not only
to be very familiar with Hong's work but to have his films on DVD.
Are they available in the US? Netflix doesn't even know who Hong is!
I saw "Virgin"/"Oh sou-jong" once at the Toronto (or Montreal?) Film
Fest but nothing else. I know some of his films are on DVD in France
but that means buying! Can anyone help? JPC
21838
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:13am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> An interesting interview published in POSITIF June 2004 was
> conducted in both Korean and English, with an interpreter.
>
> To those who read French I strongly recommend Jacques Aumont's
> excellent article "Lointaines vanites, Presentation de Hong Sang-
> sou" in CINEMA/07 (Spring 2004).
For the record, he did spend some time in Paris too. That's where he
says he just saw movies. He must have some money - like the second
man in Virgin.
21839
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:20am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> I know some of his films are on DVD in France
> but that means buying! Can anyone help?
All of his films have been released on DVD in Korea -- and all these
releases have English subtitles (or unsuccessful but well-intentioned
_attempts_ at English subtitles -- as in the case of "Pig"). I
bought "Virgin" initially on the basis of pure whim -- and after that
snapped up anything I could find, as soon as I could find it. I have
yet to see any of his worked screened.
I'm not sure whether all of his Korean DVDs are currently "in print".
MEK
21840
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:25am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
I know some of his films are on DVD in France
> but that means buying! Can anyone help? JPC
I rented Virgin at Cinefile - I don't know if they have more Hongs.
(It may be a British DVD - they have a big shelf of those.) It has a
very nice making-of with no narration. Buying might be a good idea in
this case, but if you want I can dupe Virgin and send it to you.
(Sorry, habelove! PS - Get all the Hongs and give him his own
section. I'll write the e-mail reviews.)
21841
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 11:37am
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
> everybody seems not only
> to be very familiar with Hong's work but to have his films on DVD.
> Are they available in the US? Netflix doesn't even know who Hong is!
I'm not a subscriber to Nicheflix (like netflix for imports) but I see that, while they don't list him by name, they do have his films: Virgin, Pig, Power
of.., Turning Gate ...
21842
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 0:32pm
Subject: Re: NYC: corrections for Yang schedule
No BRIGHTER SUMMER DAY? (saw it at the MoMa two years ago, blew YI
YI away)
Looking forward to seeing Hou Hsiao Hsien in an early onscreen gig in
TAIPEI STORY (that is if my wife lets me out of the house).
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> It appears I accidentally truncated some of the showtimes for the
Yang
> retro. Trying again. - Dan
>
>
> Edward Yang
> TAIPEI STORY
> 1985, 110 minutes, 16mm.
> –Friday, January 28 at 7:00, Sunday, January 30 at 3:00 &
> Tuesday, February
> 1 at 7:00.
>
> Edward Yang
> THE TERRORIZER
> 1987, 120 minutes, 16mm.
> –Friday, January 28 at 9:30, Sunday, January 30 at 5:30 &
> Tuesday, February
> 1 at 9:30.
>
> Edward Yang
> THAT DAY, ON THE BEACH
> 1982, 166 minutes, 16mm.
> –Saturday, January 29 at 3:00, Monday, January 31 at 7:30 &
> Wednesday,
> February 2 at 7:30.
>
> Edward Yang
> YI YI
> 2000, 173 minutes, 35mm.
> –Saturday, January 29 at 7:00, Sunday, January 30 at 8:00 &
> Thursday,
> February 3 at 7:30.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
21843
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 0:47pm
Subject: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
> Many cinephiles in France (especially most of
> the original POSITIF gang) hated her because she was "flat-chested"
> and "looked like a boy" (sic). Kyrou kept writing that only faggots
> could like her (gay bashing was quite fashionable among the
> cinephilic left.)And of course Cahiers's endorsement of Audrey
> clearly meant that they were all a bunch of reactionary faggots.
The "reactionary faggots" phrase is interesting. My sense is that the
American left in the 30's had a kind of pro-masculine slant and a tendency
to machismo. Some works of fiction from leftist writers (can't think of a
lot of examples: Trumbo's script for LONELY ARE THE BRAVE comes to mind)
seem to associate women with the siren call of security that tempts men
away from the fearlessness needed to fight the good fight. This tinge of
machismo seemed to fade out slowly in the 60s with the rise of what used
to be called the New Left.
Rightly or wrongly, I always felt a connection between POSITIV and that
period of American leftism: at least some of their articles in the 50s
revealed an affinity for the Hollywood left of the time.
And the early Cahiers, who were tagged as rightists (with varying degrees
of justice) by the POSITIVists, were of course quite favorably disposed to
"women's pictures" and to directors who were associated with them. To
this day, I seem to notice that films with women's names in the title turn
up more often on auteurist lists. I do not think this is a testimony to
the feminism of auteurists: many of these auteurist favorites are about
women enduring hardship. It may be that "enduring hardship," more than
women, is the key concept here. Which is, of course, quite the opposite
of a call to political action. - Dan
21844
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 0:49pm
Subject: Hong Sang-Soo (Re: Corean cinema, recommendations?)
Apart from falling even more hopelessly in love with Sooyung,
rewatching the making of Virgin, I heard "Hey Jude" playing on a
litle CD player during filming of the MOS shot where he trails after
her coming out of the restaurant. No one has mentioned Ok's lovely
little theme - Deleruesque, but played by a beginner: like them.
21845
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 0:49pm
Subject: Re: David Walsh on MILLION DOLLAR BABY
It's interesting that while FAHRENHEIT and KINSEY got stonewalled by
the Oscars, MILLION DOLLAR BABY and VERA DRAKE slipped by under the
radar. I don't think either film has experienced Right Wing protests
outside their screening rooms (yet). Sometimes no publicity is a
good thing.
I have to wonder though why MYSTIC RIVER or MILLION DOLLAR BABY don't
get passionately fought about in the public sphere. I would love to
see that. Their content is just as morally contentious. Why should
it just be Michael Moore or Mel Gibson being served as fodder for
half-witted pundits? Is it this aura of reverence for Clint and his
films that mutes dissent? Is it because they are framed as "art" by
critics and publicists and deftly skirted away from any real
sociopolitical relevance that they can bask in overwhelming praise?
This is something that both Walsh and Rosenbaum discuss in their
reviews of MYSTIC RIVER.
On the other, louder end of things, I can't believe all this
hullaballoo about PASSION OF THE CHRIST being shut out of Best
Picture. Michael ("I'm a Jew and I loved THE PASSION so all the
other Jews are wrong") Medved was shouting down Elvis Mitchell on the
Today Show this morning. Get a life!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> I haven't seen the film, so I can't judge how it is on class
issues,
> but SPOILER it seems relevant somehow that the President's
monstrous
> brother in Florida forced a feeding tube down the throat of a woman
> whose brain is permanently shut down, in order to encourage the
> Religious Right to keep supporting his family's imperial ambitions.
> Whether the film is good or bad, blueblood or blue collar, Clint's
> taking a shot at that kind of nonsense, and that seems like a good
> idea to me. (The Academy nominations for this film and Vera Drake
are
> a one-two punch to the head and groin of those who only value human
> life if it isn't sentient.) The byplay with Moore described in the
> first paragraph is so obviously a crowd-pleasing joke that
> interpreting it as a right-wing jibe is downright paranoid.
21846
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 0:53pm
Subject: Re: David Walsh on MILLION DOLLAR BABY
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
Michael ("I'm a Jew and I loved THE PASSION so all the
> other Jews are wrong") Medved was shouting down Elvis Mitchell on
the Today Show this morning. Get a life!
I think he's about to be born again. Seriously!
21847
From: programming
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 0:50pm
Subject: Media City festival
The schedule for the Media City festival is now online at:
http://www.houseoftoast.ca/mediacity/festival.html
This is a great festival of experimental film and video.
Of particular interest to Mike Grost as it is in Windsor, Ontario - right
across the river from Detroit.
Do you know this festival, Mike? You were mentioning recently that Detroit
needs more experimental film showings. This isn't there, but darned close.
Best,
Patrick Friel
21848
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 0:55pm
Subject: Re: lotsa sound and fury signifying... ? (Scorsese's last two films)
> I think the last two films (and BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, come to think of
> it) there's definitely a kind of mania surging through, as if Scorsese
> is afraid that the whole thing will collapse unless he keeps
> horsewhipping the narrative to keep charging forward.
Yeah. I must say that I find this approach a bit on the immature side.
> who otherwise swung from half-baked psychobabble (the
> opening bathing scene, a total misrepresentation of the factual causes
> of OCD all for the sake of paying homage to 8 1/2)
I've never found Scorsese's films very thoughtful, but John Logan's script
for THE AVIATOR struck me as unusually bad and clunky. - Dan
21849
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:08pm
Subject: The Big Clock (Was: neutral style)
> Incidentally, the film came up talking to Joe about The Big Clock, a
> film he selected for Locarno's 1995 retrospective of overlooked
> American masterpieces (the subject of the book). Joe considers the
> way that everything in Big Clock serves the plot - cause and effect
> with no pauses - to be ne of the film's virtues.
Odd - I've always had the feeling that the direction of THE BIG CLOCK is
an attempt to make a different movie than the script suggests: less
light-hearted, more about serious danger and evil and less about
serio-comic action. - Dan
21850
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 1:21pm
Subject: Charles Lane is 100 Years-Old Today!
http://www.miami.com/mld/miamiherald/entertainment/10723107.htm
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
21851
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:07pm
Subject: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> The "reactionary faggots" phrase is interesting. My sense is that
the
> American left in the 30's had a kind of pro-masculine slant and a
tendency
> to machismo. Some works of fiction from leftist writers (can't
think of a
> lot of examples: Trumbo's script for LONELY ARE THE BRAVE comes to
mind)
> seem to associate women with the siren call of security that
tempts men
> away from the fearlessness needed to fight the good fight. This
tinge of
> machismo seemed to fade out slowly in the 60s with the rise of
what used
> to be called the New Left.
>
> Rightly or wrongly, I always felt a connection between POSITIV and
that
> period of American leftism: at least some of their articles in the
50s
> revealed an affinity for the Hollywood left of the time.
>
This is quite true. But the POSITIF leftists were also -- at
least many of them -- influenced by surrealism and subscribed to the
concept of "amour fou" and Breton's idealization/deification of
Woman -- Kyrou being the most enthusiastic of the lot (see the
title of his book: "Amour, erotisme et cinema"). Early POSITIF
worshipped a collection of female idols ranging from Louise Brooks
to Kim Novak. I wasn't close enough to them to know much about their
attitude to actual women in real life. It's interesting to note that
the first female critic writing for the mag.(between 1959 and 1965)
was a communist and far-left militant, Michele Firk, who joined the
guerillas in Guatemala in 1967 and commtited to escape torture by
the police. (Firk wrote a very myopic -- actually idiotic -- pan
of "Vertigo" for POSITIF but that's the way things were then).
> And the early Cahiers, who were tagged as rightists (with varying
degrees
> of justice) by the POSITIVists, were of course quite favorably
disposed to
> "women's pictures" and to directors who were associated with
them. To
> this day, I seem to notice that films with women's names in the
title turn
> up more often on auteurist lists. I do not think this is a
testimony to
> the feminism of auteurists: many of these auteurist favorites are
about
> women enduring hardship. It may be that "enduring hardship," more
than
> women, is the key concept here. Which is, of course, quite the
opposite
> of a call to political action. - Dan
All "women's pictures" are about women enduring hardships. And
you're right, early auteurists were not feminists by any stretch of
imagination. As to the call to political action, women's pictures
were always firmly rooted in conservative values and tradition. Even
in Sirk (All That heaven Allows) Jane Wyman's tiny defiance of
social convention is shown as an earth-shatteringly revolutionary
stance. After all, what is more traditional than the ideal offered
by her gardener-lover?
21852
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 2:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
> All "women's pictures" are about women enduring hardships.
And some men's pictures. My underlying point is that auteurists showed a
certain tendency to appreciate pictures about enduring (and, ideally,
transcending) hardship. (This is far from a hard and fast rule, of course
- just a certain skew in that direction.) And I suspect this has
something to do with the influence of religious thought on that movement.
There's no reason that a political activist can't share such tastes (our
list is full of left-oriented people who love Ophuls and Sternberg), but
the criticism of Cahiers at the time sometimes seemed to come from writers
who thought that movies should promote social change. - Dan
21853
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:48pm
Subject: A notable critic
Dear friends - At the end of last year, Ruy called for nominations/praise of
some exceptionally good critics read during 2004. As I recall, maybe only
Ruy himself proposed anybody: Alain Bergala's 'letter to ...' column in
CAHIERS, an excellent choice.
Another worth singling out, I feel, is Olaf Moeller and his 'Olaf's World'
column in FILM COMMENT, which is not only very astute criticism, but truly
groundbreaking stuff in its opening up of regions, filmmakers, etc, many of
us have not previously heard of. He really is an 'explorer'. And there is
none of that bullish 'territoriality' in his writing - the kind of writing
where every second sentence screams to the reader: 'I was here before you',
'if you haven't seen this you're uncool' or 'I've seen a lot more than you
and know the culture too so whatever you think is null and void' - which we
read a lot of in English-language commentary on Asian cinema at present. No
names ...
Adrian
21854
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > All "women's pictures" are about women enduring
> hardships.
>
> And some men's pictures.
But not at all in the same way or for the same
reasons. My initial engagement with auteurism came in
the 1960's through Sarris in "Film Culture" and
through "Movie." The major emphasis was on Hawks,
Hitchcock, Ford and a "masculine" ethos whose
so-gendered importance was beyond question.
In the 1970's feminism and theory in all its
manifestations (Lacan, Barthes, Derrida, et.al.)
opened things up to a great degree and -- coupled with
fassbinder's enthusaiasm -- led to serious detailed
investigation of Sirk for the first time. Ophuls'
"Letter From a Unknown Woman" became a focal point of
film analysis. As a result Jane Wyman's problems in
living in suburbia became every bit as daunting as
John Wayne's on the lone prarie.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
21855
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
> But not at all in the same way or for the same
> reasons. My initial engagement with auteurism came in
> the 1960's through Sarris in "Film Culture" and
> through "Movie." The major emphasis was on Hawks,
> Hitchcock, Ford and a "masculine" ethos whose
> so-gendered importance was beyond question.
>
> In the 1970's feminism and theory in all its
> manifestations (Lacan, Barthes, Derrida, et.al.)
> opened things up to a great degree and -- coupled with
> fassbinder's enthusaiasm -- led to serious detailed
> investigation of Sirk for the first time. Ophuls'
> "Letter From a Unknown Woman" became a focal point of
> film analysis. As a result Jane Wyman's problems in
> living in suburbia became every bit as daunting as
> John Wayne's on the lone prarie.
Is this really the order of events, though? I remember Sarris's ordered
list of his favorite directors, which started with Ophuls, Renoir, and
Mizoguchi. And he was following Cahiers on all these counts.
Cahiers loved Hawks and Hitchcock, but loved Renoir and Rossellini no
less. And at that time the two Europeans were off on woman-centered movie
binges, with Rossellini doing the critically dismissed Bergman films, and
Renoir turning out stuff like THE GOLDEN COACH and ELENA.
(Not that Hawks and Hitchcock didn't pay a lot of attention to women, but
I know what you mean. And it's true that auteurism in America seemed to
go broad with the Hawks-Ford-Hitchcock trio as the cutting edge, and that
Sirk and Ophuls had to wait for mass interest until the film school
generation and the assimilation of feminism into director study.) - Dan
21856
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:19pm
Subject: Re: lotsa sound and fury signifying... ? (Scorsese's last two films)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > I think the last two films (and BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, come to
think of
> > it) there's definitely a kind of mania surging through, as if
Scorsese
> > is afraid that the whole thing will collapse unless he keeps
> > horsewhipping the narrative to keep charging forward.
>
> Yeah. I must say that I find this approach a bit on the immature
side.
>
> > who otherwise swung from half-baked psychobabble (the
> > opening bathing scene, a total misrepresentation of the factual
causes
> > of OCD all for the sake of paying homage to 8 1/2)
>
> I've never found Scorsese's films very thoughtful, but John Logan's
script
> for THE AVIATOR struck me as unusually bad and clunky. - Dan
full disclosure, for what it's worth (perhaps more for David than for
you -- well I guess it's more for anyone who wants to know where I'm
really coming from):
http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000010/thread/15236949?
d=15263522#15263522
21857
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 3:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: lotsa sound and fury signifying... ? (Scorsese's last two films)
--- Kevin Lee wrote:
>
> full disclosure, for what it's worth (perhaps more
> for David than for
> you -- well I guess it's more for anyone who wants
> to know where I'm
> really coming from):
>
> http://www.imdb.com/board/bd0000010/thread/15236949?
> d=15263522#15263522
>
>
How can this be Scorsese's "Kane"? Who plays
Thompson? Who plays Thatcher? Who plays Raymond the
butler? Who plays Susan Alexander?
Sorry, this won't wash.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21858
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Is this really the order of events, though? I
> remember Sarris's ordered
> list of his favorite directors, which started with
> Ophuls, Renoir, and
> Mizoguchi. And he was following Cahiers on all
> these counts.
>
Sarris never discussed feminism -- nor did he speak of
Sirk as anything other than "Hollywood's King of
Camp."
> Cahiers loved Hawks and Hitchcock, but loved Renoir
> and Rossellini no
> less. And at that time the two Europeans were off
> on woman-centered movie
> binges, with Rossellini doing the critically
> dismissed Bergman films, and
> Renoir turning out stuff like THE GOLDEN COACH and
> ELENA.
>
Again -- films with entirely conventional views of
women, stressing the beauty of victimhood (or in the
case of ELENA Untouchable Goddesshood.)
> (Not that Hawks and Hitchcock didn't pay a lot of
> attention to women, but
> I know what you mean. And it's true that auteurism
> in America seemed to
> go broad with the Hawks-Ford-Hitchcock trio as the
> cutting edge, and that
> Sirk and Ophuls had to wait for mass interest until
> the film school
> generation and the assimilation of feminism into
> director study.)
What's interesting is that Sarris at first prized
"Lola Montes" as the greatest film ever made and then
took it back. Much of the controversy surrounding the
film centers on the presumed inadequacy of Martine
Carroll -- as opposed to the presumbaly more luminous
Danielle Darrieux. This in turn is tied to the
realization that Lola is, in and of herself,
uninteresting -- which is the film's entire point.
"Lola Montes" isn't in and of itself feminist in any
active way, but unlike any number of films I can name
it clearly indicates the void at the heart of
"femininity." Lola isn't a person at all but rather a
locus of desire. Consequently Ophuls becomes
fascinated by what others would dismiss as "mere
distractions" (the needle and thread scene) and the
film becomes a catalogue raisonee of entrances and
exits.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21859
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
> Sarris never discussed feminism --
Well, he did discuss it at times. But my point was that the auteurist
interest in women's pictures was not motivated by feminism.
> nor did he speak of
> Sirk as anything other than "Hollywood's King of
> Camp."
I don't remember the content of the Film Culture writeup, but he's
certainly much more complimentary than that in THE AMERICAN CINEMA.
> Again -- films with entirely conventional views of
> women, stressing the beauty of victimhood (or in the
> case of ELENA Untouchable Goddesshood.)
But that's (sort of) what I was saying.
> What's interesting is that Sarris at first prized
> "Lola Montes" as the greatest film ever made and then
> took it back.
But he demoted it to, like, #3 of all time. - Dan
21860
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> But he demoted it to, like, #3 of all time. - Dan
>
While saying "Madame de. . " was better. I think
Sarris either lost his nerve or became aware of what
"Lola Montes" was really about ie. the void.
it peers, ever so delicately, over the edge towards
the nothingness that awaits us all.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
21861
From:
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:46pm
Subject: Re: lotsa sound and fury signifying... ? (Scorsese's last two films)
"I think the last two films (and BRINGING OUT THE DEAD, come to think of it) there's definitely a kind of mania surging through, as if Scorsese is afraid
that the whole thing will collapse unless he keeps horsewhipping the narrative to keep charging forward."
Not sure who wrote this. But the mania goes all the way back to the 1960s shorts (which I just saw for the first time last night). Mania is his style, no? It
certainly surges through CASINO and GOODFELLAS. Maybe even KUNDUN and LAST TEMPTATION on some level, no? And I'm not saying this style automatically brands
his films as immature or whanot. I do think that the sound and fury is signifying nothing in AVIATOR and, to a lesser extent, GANGS. But it wor
ked for me in BRINGING and others.
Kevin John
21862
From:
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:55pm
Subject: Sirk/Sarris (Was: Machismo and the left)
<< Sarris never discussed feminism -- nor did he speak of Sirk as anything other than "Hollywood's King of Camp." >>
That's not true. He speaks of him as MUCH more than the mere King of Camp (which would be enough) in his Sirk entry from The American Cinema. Now the Ida
Lupino entry...eh, that's a bit more problematic (and worthy of a book all to itself).
Kevin John
21863
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:24pm
Subject: Re: A notable critic
Quoting Adrian Martin :
> Dear friends - At the end of last year, Ruy called for nominations/praise of
>
> some exceptionally good critics read during 2004. As I recall, maybe only
>
> Ruy himself proposed anybody: Alain Bergala's 'letter to ...' column in
>
> CAHIERS, an excellent choice.
> Another worth singling out, I feel, is Olaf Moeller and his 'Olaf's World'
>
> column in FILM COMMENT, which is not only very astute criticism, but truly
>
> groundbreaking stuff in its opening up of regions, filmmakers, etc, many of
>
> us have not previously heard of.
>
> Adrian
Though he has been around for a while, somehow 2004 felt like
a breakthrough year for Armond White. I truly feel this is one
of our great critics (along with Jonathan Rosenbaum, Adrian Martin,
Kent Jones, Raymond Bellour, James Naremore, and Michel Ciment).
Oh he is contreversial to be sure, and it's taken me years
to get over his Spielberg love/Michael Mann hatred, and the
way he seems to do summer-salts to protect the likes of
De Palma, Altman, and Walter Hill; but putting up with
such idiosyncratic behaviour in exchange for the knowledge
he puts forth on a frequent basis is a trade I'm willing
to make. He also seems to have an acute 'bullshit detector"
(as he himself calls it), not being swayed easily and pointing
out the scams of previous years such as "Memento", "Crouching
Tiger Hidden Dragon", "Trafic", "Gladiator", and this years'
very own "Farenheight 9/11" and "Before Sunset".
He's been called nutty for the very reasons that make him
great, the care and effort he puts into the movies themselves,
not the hype that surrounds them; as well as
his constant beckoning for critics to be held
accountable for ignoring the former and indulging
in the latter. And
his regard and knowledge
for the revival of old films is what makes his current opinions
based on such a great foundation. He always makes a case for
linking old masterpieces with the new, and that is precious as well
(as is his tireless scanning of World Cinema, and
almost never coming back with praise for the usual suspects, but
for new and fresh findings). Finally, he has impressed me most
by being that rarity nowdays, speaking of the visual capacity
of cinema and focusing on the images that fuel the films.
This makes him treat art films and recycled Hollywood genre
pieces with the same scrutiny, giving each a fair shot and
holding them both equally acountable for cinematic deffiencies.
This is something to be applauded in the 'story first'
mentality circles.
Despite my endless blabber here, I don't think of him as my
favourite critic (the gentlemen cited previously are excellent
and have probably played a more integral part in my cinephilia),
but if I had to nominate the most impactful, or best
of 2004, it would have to be Armond. And I'm still wondering
why Jonathan Rosenbaum didn't include him in the list of
America's inteligent film critics he cites near the end of
"Movie Wars".
Mathieu Ricordi
21864
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:31pm
Subject: Re: Fuller Falkenau Weiss
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
> wrote:
> >
> > Haven's seen Falkenau, the Impossible (Weiss, 88), but a 2004
Weiss
> > film about Fuller/Falkenau is shown on French TV soon? Appears to
be
> > slighlty shorter than the '88 version (40 mns). Any idea about
the
> > differences between the two films, if any?
>
> No clue, Maxime. I'll ask Christa.
The film just shown on ARTE was simply a shortened 34-minute version
of FALKENAU, L'IMPOSSIBLE, retitled FALKENAU, SAMUEL FULLER TEMOIGNE
and with a 2004 copyright date. 20 minutes, including the entire
closing section, have been removed.
21865
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 5:48pm
Subject: Re: Sirk/Sarris (Was: Machismo and the left)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> << Sarris never discussed feminism -- nor did he speak of Sirk as
anything other than "Hollywood's King of Camp." >>
>
> That's not true. He speaks of him as MUCH more than the mere King
of Camp (which would be enough) in his Sirk entry from The American
Cinema. Now the Ida Lupino entry...eh, that's a bit more problematic
(and worthy of a book all to itself).
>
> Kevin John
The remarkable thing about the Lupino entry is that only the
first two lines deal (pejoratively) with Lupino. The rest is a list
of women directors, all of whom Sarris found wanting. Of course a
woman director at the time was an oddity -- which is probably why
Lupino found herself relegated to the "oddities" section (with none
of her films italicized in the filmo -- so why did he include her at
all? Just for oddness's sake?).
On Sirk Sarris seemed to take his cue from Rivette,
writing: "...his films require no elaborate defense. The evidence of
his style is visible on the screen." Sirk "never shirks away from
the ridiculous, but ... his art transcend the ridiculous." The
defensiveness in acknowledging "the ridiculous" is typical of a time
when the genre ("women's pictures" or, as Sarris puts it quoting
Durgnat, "female weepies")was widely scorned and not considered
worthy of serious attention. JPC
21866
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 6:36pm
Subject: Re: The Big Clock (Was: neutral style)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
I've always had the feeling that the direction of THE BIG CLOCK is
> an attempt to make a different movie than the script suggests: less
> light-hearted, more about serious danger and evil and less about
> serio-comic action. - Dan
It is pretty serious. I think Joe was talking about the script in
that case.
21867
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 7:57pm
Subject: Re: A notable critic
Mathieu Ricordi wrote:
> Though he has been around for a while, somehow 2004 felt like
> a breakthrough year for Armond White.
White is indeed an excellent critic as well as a crazy one, though I
can't say 2004 felt any different to me than the last several
years. White's critical judgment is often suspect, his
pronouncements can sometimes be complete bullshit, his taste
ricochets from impeccable to maddening in the space of a week ...
but he is a veritable FACTORY for ideas, pumping out more raw
material for a reader to digest than almost anyone else in the
American press.
I have to confess that I only read Film Comment from time to time
these days. But I really like a few of the regular writers, and
Olaf Moller is one of them. I second everything Adrian says about
him. If only there were easier ways to see the films he writes
on ...
--Zach
21868
From:
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 4:22pm
Subject: Lupino/Sarris (Was: Sirk/Sarris)
Ever since reading Sarris' Lupino entry, I've wanted to write a book that
runs through the careers of the women he mentions...something like The Great
Women Directors in Hollywood: 1895-1960. But I would include Monta Bell and Marion
Gering (don't want to confuse anybody....plus it might lend a slight
deconstructive edge to the whole affair). Also, "the widow of Dovjenko" and Leni
Riefenstahl. And Lupino. But who would publish it? Who would read it?
And was the jury REALLY still out on Agnes Varda and Vera Chytilova in 1968?
I mean, if Charles Laughton counts, why not Shirley Clarke? (I'm sure these
are ancient complaints but there it is.)
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
21869
From: samfilms2003
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 9:55pm
Subject: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
"Madame de..." is not TOO shabby, hey ?
I'm not sure it's worth getting too worked up here over
which is Ophuls' better, or even darker film.
I wonder if the restoration of "Lola Montes" is done yet,
(I saw 4 or 5 mins of the restoration at a Kodak tech seminar 2 years ago)
then we can all see what we think now, should be
interesting.
-Sam
> > But he demoted it to, like, #3 of all time. - Dan
> >
> While saying "Madame de. . " was better. I think
> Sarris either lost his nerve or became aware of what
> "Lola Montes" was really about ie. the void.
> it peers, ever so delicately, over the edge towards
> the nothingness that awaits us all.
21870
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:16pm
Subject: Re: Lupino/Sarris (Was: Sirk/Sarris)
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Ever since reading Sarris' Lupino entry, I've wanted
> to write a book that
> runs through the careers of the women he
> mentions...something like The Great
> Women Directors in Hollywood: 1895-1960. But I would
> include Monta Bell and Marion
> Gering (don't want to confuse anybody....plus it
> might lend a slight
> deconstructive edge to the whole affair). Also, "the
> widow of Dovjenko" and Leni
> Riefenstahl. And Lupino. But who would publish it?
> Who would read it?
>
Well some academics have already started. There's a
book on Dorothy Arzner for example.
> And was the jury REALLY still out on Agnes Varda and
> Vera Chytilova in 1968?
SING OUT LOUISE! The former gains cinematic
immortality for"Cleo de 5 a 7" alone, likewise the
latter for "Daisies" alone!
> I mean, if Charles Laughton counts, why not Shirley
> Clarke?
For not only "The Cool World" but her last film -- the
amazing but little seen "Ornette: Made in America."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
21871
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:28pm
Subject: Re: Lupino/Sarris (Was: Sirk/Sarris)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
"Ever since reading Sarris' Lupino entry, I've wanted to write a book
that runs through the careers of the women he mentions...something
like The Great Women Directors in Hollywood: 1895-1960. But I would
include Monta Bell and Marion Gering (don't want to confuse
anybody....plus it might lend a slight deconstructive edge to the
whole affair). Also, "the widow of Dovjenko" and Leni Riefenstahl.
And Lupino. But who would publish it? Who would read it?"
If you gave it an international spin I'd read it, especially if you
had a chapter on Tanaka Kinuyo. Four of her six movies were screened
last year at the Japan-America Theatre in Los Angeles with sub-
titles, so I guess you could see them somehow. One, TSUKI WA
NOBORINU/THE MOON HAS RISEN (1955) had a screenplay co-written by
Ozu. OGIN SAMA/LOVE UNDER THE CRUCIFIX (1960)may be available on
video tape with sub-titles, but a lot of it's effect depends on the
use of color, so a bad color print wouldn't give a fair account of
her talent. As for finding a publisher, maybe you could pitch it to
some feminist press.
According to Yoda's biography of Mizoguchi, Mizo didn't want her to
become a director until she assured him that she wouldn't give up
acting. Afterward he professed to be amazed at the excellence of her
first picture (made in 1953 and not shown here as far as I know.)
Richard
21872
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:32pm
Subject: Re: Lupino/Sarris (Was: Sirk/Sarris)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> And was the jury REALLY still out on Agnes Varda and Vera Chytilova
in 1968?
Nope.
> I mean, if Charles Laughton counts, why not Shirley Clarke? (I'm
sure these
> are ancient complaints but there it is.)
The last one can't be repeated often enough. The neglect of Shirley
Clarke during the last part of her working life, neglect that
continues after her death, is scandalous. Some of the work is flawed
because of her generous and sometimes uncritical openness to her
collaborators, but everything Spielberg has done except AI is flawed,
and Shirley's films contain scenes or sequences so formally brilliant
that they trump everything ever done by Spielberg, Altman and
Wiseman - to pick three innovators all buffs know better - "put
together." She also pioneered the limited partnership/tax shelter
model for financing independent films that everyone used till Teddy
Kennedy shut it down in the late seventies - that alone makes her the
mother of all indie filmmakers of the "60s." When the Cahiers
discovered American independent filming not long before May 68, the
four figures they profiled were Warhol, Cassavetes, Kramer and
Clarke, and they were right. There's a sequence lifted from The
Connection - one of her flawed films - in Weekend, and Shirley's
version is better.
21873
From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:35pm
Subject: Re: What is "Classic Cinema"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 05-01-25 17:46:54 EST, Kyle writes:
>
> > > 1893-1928 Silent Cinema
> > > 1929-1959 Classical Cinema
> > > 1959-1975 Age of European Modernism
> > > 1975-1999 Age of American Blockbuster
> > > 2000-Present Digital Revolution
> > >>
>
Was writing a reply to an email, when I realized: "Why, this is as
good a sketch of historical periods of Philippine Cinema as any."
Hence:
http://journals.aol.com/noelbotevera/MyJournal/entries/651
21874
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Jan 26, 2005 10:36pm
Subject: Re: Lupino/Sarris (Was: Sirk/Sarris)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> > Ever since reading Sarris' Lupino entry, I've wanted
> > to write a book that
> > runs through the careers of the women he
> > mentions...something like The Great
> > Women Directors in Hollywood: 1895-1960. But I would
> > include Monta Bell and Marion
> > Gering (don't want to confuse anybody....plus it
> > might lend a slight
> > deconstructive edge to the whole affair).
But where there really any "great" women directors in Hollywood
1895-1960? Was achieving director status sufficient proof of
greatness for a woman? That would sound terribly condescending.
Arzner was O.K., Lupino was very good, that's about it.
.
>
> > And was the jury REALLY still out on Agnes Varda and
> > Vera Chytilova in 1968?
>
The jury wasn't out. Sarris was. But you can't blame people for
being of their time. I'm sure he regrets some of the stuff he wrote
way back then. Wait till you're his age, or even younger. You might
regret a lot.
21875
From: Peter Henne
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 0:18am
Subject: Shirley Clarke/Ornette Coleman (Was: Lupino/Sarris)
I found Shirley Clarke's Ornette Coleman doc surprisingly conventional toward the subject, with some arty inserting of material at times but nothing really
interesting. Plus you hear a rag-tag performance of Ornette's "Skies of America," and not in a good way. The musicians, recruited from the Fort Worth
Symphony, are insensitive to Coleman's approach to improvisation and the interfacing of jazz with a classical music orchestration. They fumble with the
piece, and on camera seem hurried in preparation and confused what is asked of them. Somebody must have had the idea that musicians from the composer's home
town would make a good fit for his music, and the symphony's conductor John Giordano had had an association with Ornette, but the music on this occasion
didn't come off well. The earlier recording of "Skies" with the London Symphony Orchestra soars in comparison, though that date too was beset with
limitations. Both sessions are documented in the book "Ornette Coleman: A
Harmolodic Life" by John Litweiler.
Peter Henne
David Ehrenstein wrote:
> I mean, if Charles Laughton counts, why not Shirley
> Clarke?
For not only "The Cool World" but her last film -- the
amazing but little seen "Ornette: Made in America."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
Yahoo! Groups Links
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
21876
From: Andy Rector
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 0:30am
Subject: Re: A notable critic
I think that James Quandt (in general and this year in particular)
is worth singling and seeking out.
Though I can't say that I've read everything he's published this
year (its hard to know where he'll appear), his somewhat regular
contributions to ArtForum and CinemaScope have been remarkably
trenchant. He has a seemingly baroque style of writing that, once re-
read and possibly aided by a dictionary (in my case), turn out to be
absolutely utilitarian, in the service of lucidity. There is a
contemporaneous quality in his writing that I find lacking
elsewhere. Politics are usually present.
His piece in ArtForum on sex and violence in French cinema has
become for me the last word on the subject, until further
developments...
http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m0268/is_6_42/ai_113389507
His piece on Notre Musique, Five, etc. at Cannes 2004 (appearing in
CinemaScope) shows up all sorts of relationships; he can really
unveil the resonance amongst a given selection of films.
His piece on A Talking Picture in ArtForum is worth mentioning. Last
but definitely not least, his more autobiographical piece in the
book FOR EVER GODARD about organizing a Godard retrospective at the
Cinematheque Ontario is an impressive ocean of titles, links, woes
and delights.
andy
21877
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:12am
Subject: critics of the year
Two teenage girls outside of Virgin Megastore discussing why
Jessica Simpson is "really smart" and only fakes being dumb to
be popular.
Jay Mohr and Werner Herzog hashing out the aesthetics of the
documentary (just seen on the Sundance Channel).
Mom and dad on why DOGVILLE is the only movie that lingered
with them throughout the year (you'd have to be there).
Jon Stewart on CNN Crossfire -- awesome.
Paris Hilton on why sex is overrated (in Rolling Stone), a polemic
causing many, many men to be frustrated
And finally, Olaf, Armond, and James -- but to add to them, a few
catalogue pieces which I'll be happy to copy for any interested
parties:
Simon Field, an A to Z of Jonas Mekas (Buenos Aires Festival of
Independent Cinema)
Kent Jones on Benoit Jacquot (International Film Festival
Rotterdam) -- this one's online
Lacrimae rerum materialized by Tag Gallagher (writing on the
Straubs) and J-Rosenbaum's The Doddering Relics of a Lost
Cause: John Ford's The Sun Shines Bright (Vienna Int'l Film
Festival)
Worst piece of criticism: review of Brad Stevens' The Moral Vision
in Psychotronic.
Has Pyschotronic gone downhill, or have I just outgrown it?
And, there were many more bests and worsts. Why don't I keep
track of these things??!!!
Gabe
21878
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:03am
Subject: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
Of course it took the Left decades to catch up with homosexuality.
Gay people -- and gay fictional characters -- were perceived by the
Left as the quintessence of effete self-indulgence -- and the
antithesis of the leftist collective ideal. Gay men would rather
have a martini and listen to Wagner rather than pulling up their
sleeves and shoveling manure.
21879
From: Noel Vera
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 2:54am
Subject: Olaf Moeller (was: A notable critic)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
> Another worth singling out, I feel, is Olaf Moeller and
his 'Olaf's World'
> column in FILM COMMENT, which is not only very astute criticism,
but truly
> groundbreaking stuff in its opening up of regions, filmmakers,
etc, many of
> us have not previously heard of.
Oof. Olaf Moeller's taste and enthusiasm I can't say anything
against--he after all put a Filipino films in his "Terra Incognita:
Top 10 Unkown Pleasures" list:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/416
The other one, the list of which I can't find anymore (except it
must have been 2001 or 2002), included Mario O'Hara's "Pangarap ng
Puso" (Demons).
That said, he tapped me sometime September 2001 to creat a Filipino
film retrospective in the Frankfurt film festival. The endshot of
which was that I managed to snage nine or ten prints, and had them
sent there, where they played to what I hear are empty houses. It
took me more than a year to get those prints back, on top of which
I've never been paid for my efforts.
21881
From: Andy Rector
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:58am
Subject: Re: critics of the year
> Lacrimae rerum materialized by Tag Gallagher (writing on the
> Straubs) and J-Rosenbaum's The Doddering Relics of a Lost
> Cause: John Ford's The Sun Shines Bright (Vienna Int'l Film
> Festival)
I second that emotion. Tag's piece is brilliant, and Straub
reportedly loved it. It's also exemplary in its use of precise
stills; Tag works with the image.
Another great moment of film criticism at the Viennale: a
deliriously tired film critic in a dim hotel room, ruminating on
whether or not to see Jean-Claude Rosseau's FAIBLES AMUSEMENTS
blurts out "Rosseau is one of Straub's favourites", adding "not that
I give a fuck".
andy
21882
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:43am
Subject: Re: critics of the year
Worst piece of criticism: review of Brad Stevens' The Moral Vision
> in Psychotronic.
I didn't even know about this.
21883
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:46am
Subject: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
"Of course it took the Left decades to catch up with homosexuality.
Gay people -- and gay fictional characters -- were perceived by the
Left as the quintessence of effete self-indulgence --..."
The anarchist Left (at least in the USA)was ahead of the cruve with
Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman defending gays and lesbians from
intolerence in the 1920s, Paul Goodman asserting the right to be gay
in the 1940s and 1950s, ditto for Julian Beck during the same period.
The 1930s seems to have been the low point for gay people on the Left
just when the US Left was at its peak.
Richard
21884
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:09am
Subject: Re: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
>
> The anarchist Left (at least in the USA)was ahead of
> the cruve with
> Emma Goldman and Alexander Berkman defending gays
> and lesbians from
> intolerence in the 1920s,
Well they had Magnus Hirschfield to draw from.
Paul Goodman asserting the
> right to be gay
> in the 1940s and 1950s,
For which he paid dearly, becoming persona non grata
to much of the U.S. left, as Sontag pointed out.
Staying in the closet spared her the same fate.
ditto for Julian Beck during
> the same period.
Was he out? I can't recall anything he said or did
during his marriage to Judith Malina.
> The 1930s seems to have been the low point for gay
> people on the Left
> just when the US Left was at its peak.
>
True. But it was a high point for Noel Coward. Gay
Politics is REAL complicated.
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21885
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 0:39pm
Subject: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" (was: Machismo etc.)
jpcoursodon wrote:
> All "women's pictures" are about women enduring hardships..... Even
> in Sirk (All That heaven Allows) Jane Wyman's tiny defiance of
> social convention is shown as an earth-shatteringly revolutionary
> stance. After all, what is more traditional than the ideal offered
> by her gardener-lover?
If that were actually true, why was the town -- and her kids --
horrified? Part of the reason is that she was crossing a class barrier.
The townspeople don't mind if the gardener takes a wife, they probably
don't even care if she's older than him -- it just can't be one of *them*.
One key to understanding another level of Sirk's critique of the town's
conservative values is to observe the way the mill looks the three times
we see it. (Spoilers ahead.) At first it's dusty, and scary, and sexual
-- hiding a phallic pigeon, it seems to be the occasion of their first
tryst. Second time, Ron has fixed it up in a clean rustic manner. What's
really important is the third time, when Carrie sees it after Ron's
accident (she comments on its beauty, and Alyssa replies that Ron had
never stopped hoping she would return. But if you actually look at what
he's done, he's altered his original rustic look into something very
much in keeping with the interior decorating traditions of American
suburbia of the time. In other words, he's let himself be "changed," as
he had acknowledged might also have happened if he'd moved in with Carrie.
There's a subtext here: emasculating Rock. The initial close-up of him
is mock-phallic, with his ridiculous hairdo jutting out into the frame;
by the end he's in bed, recovering, and then we get nature reduced to
the picture window view of the deer, a replacement of humans by objects
or animals that occurs across Sirk's oeuvre.
Fred Camper
21886
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:00pm
Subject: Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" (was: Machismo etc.)
--- Fred Camper wrote:
What's
> really important is the third time, when Carrie sees
> it after Ron's
> accident (she comments on its beauty, and Alyssa
> replies that Ron had
> never stopped hoping she would return. But if you
> actually look at what
> he's done, he's altered his original rustic look
> into something very
> much in keeping with the interior decorating
> traditions of American
> suburbia of the time. In other words, he's let
> himself be "changed," as
> he had acknowledged might also have happened if he'd
> moved in with Carrie.
>
That's a very interesting observation, Fred. It shows
that Ron is willing to compromise after a fashion in
order to win Carrie.
> There's a subtext here: emasculating Rock. The
> initial close-up of him
> is mock-phallic, with his ridiculous hairdo jutting
> out into the frame;
> by the end he's in bed, recovering, and then we get
> nature reduced to
> the picture window view of the deer, a replacement
> of humans by objects
> or animals that occurs across Sirk's oeuvre.
>
Well this relates to the much more cryptic sub-text of
the film -- women who desire gay men. As I pointed out
in my book Rock Hudson's gayness was talked about from
the very beginning of his career. As it was all done
under the heading of "rumor" it was quite socially and
politically permissable -- and consequently made the
gay gags of the comedies he did with Doris Day
possible.
Interestingly the animals in the snow at the close of
Sirk's film appear at the BEGINNING of Ozon's "8
Women" -- a rather witty hommage.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21887
From: Peter Henne
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:48pm
Subject: Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" (was: Machismo etc.)
Fred,
This is an intriguing interpretation, but don't you think Ron and Carrie each learn separately to bend in order to make the relationship work? For example,
Carrie's visit to the doctor's office. While the final interior arrangement of the mill exhibits what 1950s Middle America would call a woman's touch, I'm
not sure that amounts to Ron's emasculation. A simpler interpretation would be that Ron has learned to meet Carrie half way, by arranging the house
compatible with her tastes; a laconic man, he chooses to demonstrate his compromise by deed rather than words. He's a female wish fulfillment, a man who can
stand up for what's right in public but sensitive enough to read women's minds. The film is built of so many parallels that matching his final decorating
with Carrie's enlightenment from her physician seems like the soundest reading. I think a more evident gay subtext in the film occurs when Ron asks Carrie to
"be a man," in the car ride from the drug store.
Peter Henne
Fred Camper wrote:
What's
really important is the third time, when Carrie sees it after Ron's
accident (she comments on its beauty, and Alyssa replies that Ron had
never stopped hoping she would return. But if you actually look at what
he's done, he's altered his original rustic look into something very
much in keeping with the interior decorating traditions of American
suburbia of the time. In other words, he's let himself be "changed," as
he had acknowledged might also have happened if he'd moved in with Carrie.
There's a subtext here: emasculating Rock. The initial close-up of him
is mock-phallic, with his ridiculous hairdo jutting out into the frame;
by the end he's in bed, recovering, and then we get nature reduced to
the picture window view of the deer, a replacement of humans by objects
or animals that occurs across Sirk's oeuvre.
Fred Camper
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
21888
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 1:54pm
Subject: Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" (was: Machismo etc.)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> > All "women's pictures" are about women enduring
hardships..... Even
> > in Sirk (All That heaven Allows) Jane Wyman's tiny defiance of
> > social convention is shown as an earth-shatteringly
revolutionary
> > stance. After all, what is more traditional than the ideal
offered
> > by her gardener-lover?
>
> If that were actually true, why was the town -- and her kids --
> horrified? Part of the reason is that she was crossing a class
barrier.
Of course! You're just making my point! Her defiance, which in
itself is small, is shown -- and rightly so -- as a major one
because "the town" (i.e., the upper-middle class portion of it)and
the children (who are products and part of that class) are so
totally conservative and reactionary in their moral and social
views.
My other point was that the defiance is very relative to the
extent that the gardener is endowed with all the highest and most
desirable qualities one can wish for in a human being as opposed to
the crass hypocrisy and materialism of "the town." (he does for
working class guys what Poitier used to do for blacks). Sirk makes
it impossible for us not to root for Rock and the love affair. With
him, she would be rejecting false values and adopting "true" ones,
noble ones (they'll read Thoreau together in their refurbished old
mill, I bet).
What's
> really important is the third time, when Carrie sees it after
Ron's
> accident (she comments on its beauty, and Alyssa replies that Ron
had
> never stopped hoping she would return. But if you actually look at
what
> he's done, he's altered his original rustic look into something
very
> much in keeping with the interior decorating traditions of
American
> suburbia of the time. In other words, he's let himself
be "changed," as
> he had acknowledged might also have happened if he'd moved in with
Carrie.
This is how I've always understood the redecorating of the place.
And i agree with David that it shows that he is willing to somewhat
compromise in order to get her. But you could also read it as the
unavoidable encroachment of materialistic values upon the 'simple'
life.
21889
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:49pm
Subject: Clint's Detractors
Not everyone is crazy about "Million Dollar Baby." In
fact one segment of the population is comparing it to
the Third Reich:
http://www.chireader.com/hottype/2005/050128_2.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21890
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:19pm
Subject: Re: Clint's Detractors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Not everyone is crazy about "Million Dollar Baby." In
> fact one segment of the population is comparing it to
> the Third Reich:
>
> http://www.chireader.com/hottype/2005/050128_2.html
>
The reluctance of all critics (including our own Jonathan, who
calls the film a masterpiece) to even allude to the theme of
euthanasia is sad proof that all that counts in daily and weekly
movie criticism is writing about the plot (but not revealing too
much about it). God forbid that you should reveal the slightest
thing about a plot twist, especially a final one.
Even here aren't we guilty when we (well, I never did, but I'm no
critic)keep posting "SPOILER" whenever we write about a film's plot?
21891
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 7:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Clint's Detractors
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Even here aren't we guilty when we (well, I never
> did, but I'm no
> critic)keep posting "SPOILER" whenever we write
> about a film's plot?
>
>
>
>
I loathe the entire "SPOILER" concept. It castrates
the critic and infantalizes the spectator.
I "revealed" the "secret of The Cry Game" in my
"Advocate" column back when the film was relased. The
reason why was because it was painfully obvious to me
that Jaye Davisdson was a man. Not just because of the
Adam's Apple, but the fact that he was lip-synching
complete with Dusty Springfield gestures. Thus the
film was about men in thrall to transvestites -- a
very spcified sub-set of gay life. The film would have
you believe that its hero didn't know he was falling
in love with a man. Stuff and nonsense!
But that's minor compared to the issues involved with
"Million Dollar Baby."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
21892
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:33pm
Subject: Re: Clint's Detractors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Even here aren't we guilty when we (well, I never
> > did, but I'm no
> > critic)keep posting "SPOILER" whenever we write
> > about a film's plot?
> >
> >
> >
> >
> I loathe the entire "SPOILER" concept. It castrates
> the critic and infantalizes the spectator.
>
> I "revealed" the "secret of The Cry Game" in my
> "Advocate" column back when the film was relased. The
> reason why was because it was painfully obvious to me
> that Jaye Davisdson was a man. Not just because of the
> Adam's Apple, but the fact that he was lip-synching
> complete with Dusty Springfield gestures. Thus the
> film was about men in thrall to transvestites -- a
> very spcified sub-set of gay life. The film would have
> you believe that its hero didn't know he was falling
> in love with a man. Stuff and nonsense!
>
But, David, some of my best friends are transvestites, and a few
are even transexual (sorry, transgenderred) and none of them are
gay.
> But that's minor compared to the issues involved with
> "Million Dollar Baby."
>
Let's talk about it.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
> http://my.yahoo.com
21893
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 8:55pm
Subject: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
"Was he [Julian Beck] out? I can't recall anything he said or did
during his marriage to Judith Malina."
Based on Judith Malina's published diaries it seems that he was.
They had an "open marriage," and free love was always part of the
anarchist program. There was a free love anarchist commune in
Crompond in upstate New York in the late 1940s.
Concerning Goodman, he wrote some interesting film criticism for
small Left magazines, reviews of THE GREAT DICTAITOR and a D.W.
Griffith retrospective at MOMA that was held in the '40s.
Richard
21894
From:
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 3:55pm
Subject: Re: Clint's Detractors
Clint Eastwood spent years going after gay people, in films like "The Eiger
Sanction". Now he is going after the disabled in "Million Dollar Baby",
advocating euthanasia.
This is just like Mel Gibson. He too started out with gay people in
"Braveheart". Hollywood encouraged him with an Oscar. Now he is attacking Jews in "The
Passion of the Christ".
Haters will go on and on and on. They see any praise as encouragement to go
after yet another minority group.
I have always loathed Eastwood as an actor and a director. He is the virtual
symbol of right wing politics and cheap, vicious machismo. What anyone who is
not a member of the Radical Right sees in this loser is beyond me entirely!
Mike Grost
21895
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: Clint's Detractors
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> But, David, some of my best friends are
> transvestites, and a few
> are even transexual (sorry, transgenderred) and none
> of them are
> gay.
>
>
They weren't dealt with in that film.
> > But that's minor compared to the issues involved
> with
> > "Million Dollar Baby."
> >
> Let's talk about it.
> >
Well the article I linkewd (a real eye-opener) dealt
with the issues raised by the film at their most
extreme.To me it was simply a manipulative tearjerker,
attacking the lower classes in a most inaccurate and
ungallant way.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21896
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: Clint's Detractors
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> Clint Eastwood spent years going after gay people,
> in films like "The Eiger
> Sanction".
"Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil," by very
sharp contrast, is quite a considerate and insightful
piece of work.
Clearly he was recalling his youth when he was kept by
Arthur Lubin.
> I have always loathed Eastwood as an actor and a
> director. He is the virtual
> symbol of right wing politics and cheap, vicious
> machismo. What anyone who is
> not a member of the Radical Right sees in this loser
> is beyond me entirely!
>
>
Don't hold back, Mike. Tell us what you really think.
My feelings on Eastwood are very mixed. Some of his
filsm are quite good, others interesting, still others
dishwater dull. And then there's crap like "Firefox."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
21897
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Machismo and the left (Was: Barthes mythologies, Garbo vs. Hepburn)
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
>
> Based on Judith Malina's published diaries it seems
> that he was.
> They had an "open marriage," and free love was
> always part of the
> anarchist program. There was a free love anarchist
> commune in
> Crompond in upstate New York in the late 1940s.
>
True but I'm not sure to what degree this was part of
the "Living Theater" program in its sundry
manifestations. I met Beck on a few occasions back in
the day and he appeared not at all interested in
discussing sexuality.
> Concerning Goodman, he wrote some interesting film
> criticism for
> small Left magazines, reviews of THE GREAT DICTAITOR
> and a D.W.
> Griffith retrospective at MOMA that was held in the
> '40s.
>
True and those pieces were republished by one of our
list members.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Easier than ever with enhanced search. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21898
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 9:41pm
Subject: Armond White (Was: Re: A notable critic)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell" wrote:
>
> Mathieu Ricordi wrote:
> > Though he has been around for a while, somehow 2004 felt like
> > a breakthrough year for Armond White.
>
I've found Armond White to be consistently ... well, if not
consistently excellent, then consistently Armond.
I agree with Zach that White wasn't all that different in 2004.
I learn something from White more often than I agree with him. (When I
first started reading his work, I remember a comment in Jeffrey's
Welles' 'Hollywood Elsewhere' column: "A broken watch is right twice a
day ... but not Armond.") If anything, White is a major throwback, the
last serious humanist critic.
Some of his reviews confirm the worst accusations towards auteurism. I
remember his review of THE COMPANY; he has a major epiphany in
mid-sentence, abandoning all his uneasiness about digital video when
he sees that Altman is 'developing a real esthetic style.' When
Sokurov does it, it's shit; when Altman does it, it's an esthetic. His
review of LIFE AQUATIC was obviously genuine, but also bothersome;
he's going to stick by Anderson till end of days. Which reminds me ...
White really liked THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, didn't he?
In any event, he provides the best criticism of FAR FROM HEAVEN I've
read anywhere.
--Kyle Westphal
21899
From: Peter Henne
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:06pm
Subject: Kinuyo Tanaka retrospective
A friend of mine in Northern California has notified me of the following film program at Stanford U.:
http://www.stanford.edu/dept/asianlang/events/film/
Peter Henne
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
21900
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:08pm
Subject: Re: Armond White (Was: Re: A notable critic)
--- "K. A. Westphal" wrote:
>
> In any event, he provides the best criticism of FAR
> FROM HEAVEN I've
> read anywhere.
>
Really? He dismissed it as "crap."
I find him exasperatingly punacious. Even when he
priases films I like -- like "Son Frere" -- he
irritates.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact