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.
21901
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:18pm
Subject: Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" (was: Machismo etc.)
Peter, If you remember in the doctor's office Carrie rejects the
doctor's "Marry him!" -- in part because she's afraid he's found someone
else. Only later does she go to him. But this isn't exactly a compromise
on her part -- the kids have abandoned her, Ned to his career and Kay to
her husband to be, "Freddy." This isn't compromise; she's left alone.
By the way, there's a great script moment in one of her scenes with
Freddy. We see him as a hulk who can't say more than two or three words.
They're standing outside after Ned has accused his mom of wanting Rod
(Rock) only for a "good looking set of muscles," and Kay is analyzing
Freddy, explaining to him why he really wanted to be a football player
in high school Freudian terms. Then she looks him up and down and says,
"Of course, you do have the build for it." The children are guilty of
the crime they accuse mother of. As Sirk told Cahiers in the original
great interview, children are not the promise of a new generation but
"tragedies beginning again and again."
I guess what I'm taking exception to is JPC's original claim that "All
That Heaven Allows" was, like (he says) all women's pictures, "firmly
rooted in conservative values and tradition." I suppose you can make
some case for the plot being so rooted -- all the characters are looking
for is personal happiness in couple-dom, or so it seems, unless it's Ned
looking for business success. But the film's use of objects and decor
constitutes, I think, an acidic critique of American materialism, even
if it's not as explicit here as in "Written on the Wind" and "Imitation
of Life."
Fred Camper
21902
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:49pm
Subject: Re: Clint's Detractors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> What anyone who is
> not a member of the Radical Right sees in this loser is beyond me
entirely!
>
> Mike Grost
Jonathan Rosenbaum, a notorious member of the radical right,
thinks Million Dollar Baby is a masterpiece.
21903
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 10:56pm
Subject: Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" (was: Machismo etc.)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> I guess what I'm taking exception to is JPC's original claim
that "All
> That Heaven Allows" was, like (he says) all women's
pictures, "firmly
> rooted in conservative values and tradition." I suppose you can
make
> some case for the plot being so rooted -- all the characters are
looking
> for is personal happiness in couple-dom, or so it seems, unless
it's Ned
> looking for business success. But the film's use of objects and
decor
> constitutes, I think, an acidic critique of American materialism,
even
> if it's not as explicit here as in "Written on the Wind"
and "Imitation
> of Life."
You can't really separate plot from the use of objects and decor,
Fred, no matter how much ambivalence Sirk injects in his mise en
scene. My point, restated in an earlier post you didn't acknowledge,
was that the "positive" (Ron)is equally conservative and
traditional, if not more, than the "negative" (the town's values) --
just nobler and more palatable so that we are forced to root for it.
JPC
>
> Fred Camper
21904
From: Peter Henne
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:01pm
Subject: Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" (was: Machismo etc.)
My sense of this scene is that the doctor has disabled her intransigence, which is all he wanted to accomplish. She shows doubt on her face. She does not
have the same conviction which she did at the beginning of the scene. I should not have said "enlightenment," but he has successfully planted a new idea in
her which will soon bloom. I've always felt that the lead characters are attracted to each other in part because they both are so strong-willed, once they
take a stance, yet each must learn to retract a little to stay together. Once Carrie overcomes her indecision about what the community will think of her
attachment to a gardener, she is as stalwart as Ron. Not that the ending is some straight happily-ever-after fantasy. You're absolutely correct that it calls
into question the "naturalness" of their love, and in general of the happy ending formula. Sirk's film through reflections, exagerated colors, a noticeable
kind of editing, and other means implies illusions on several
levels, including the social milieu and the film itself. I think it's his highest accomplishment (but I probably haven't seen as many as you--about
three-quarters of the Universal pictures but very little else).
Peter Henne
Fred Camper wrote:
Peter, If you remember in the doctor's office Carrie rejects the
doctor's "Marry him!" -- in part because she's afraid he's found someone
else. Only later does she go to him. But this isn't exactly a compromise
on her part -- the kids have abandoned her, Ned to his career and Kay to
her husband to be, "Freddy." This isn't compromise; she's left alone.
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! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
21905
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:56pm
Subject: Re: Clint's Detractors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> >
>
> 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?
Not at all. You didn't see a jerkoff prof from USC presenting the
restored Rebecca to a crowd of people who paid to see it and almost
getting hooted off the stage at the El Capitan when he started
telling the ending. Any daily reviewer who did that would be buried
under adverse mail, and deservedly so. Jonathan will also go into the
plot with a warning not to read the next 3 paragraphs if he feels the
need. Rivette said: "Once for surprise, and once for ravishment," and
I agree: I'm still a regular guy when I hunch down in front of a
flick, and I don't want my pleasure spoiled.
I'm struggling now with how to handle this if and when I write the
Serial Killers book - I'm taking a sabbatical for 2 months to do
something that pays better - because SK books and films are often
modern equivalents of mystery novels. I need to talk about twists for
purposes of analysis without killing the reader's pleasure in them. I
think I've figured out a way to do it without cluttering the text,
but It will make the whole enterprise more difficult.
21906
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jan 27, 2005 11:59pm
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.
Of course you did! It was just the thing to do on that one! I found
the hype so revolting that I eventually talked Gary Graver into
telling me in the lobby of a hotel in Fortaleza: "It turns out she
has a dick," he half whispered, looking around as if Harvey Weinstein
were going to jump out from behind a pitted palm. In the case of MDB,
which a close friend spoiled for me, it's a way to hook people with a
Rocky and take it elsewhere in the 3d act.
21907
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 0:03am
Subject: Armond White (Was: Re: A notable critic)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- "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."
>
Kyle, check out Dan's web-site - he wrote a good analysis of Far from
Heaven. And of course David is a major champion of the film, but not
online as far as I know.
21908
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 0:07am
Subject: Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" (was: Machismo etc.)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> My point, restated in an earlier post you didn't acknowledge,
> was that the "positive" (Ron)is equally conservative and
> traditional, if not more, than the "negative" (the town's values) --
just nobler and more palatable so that we are forced to root for it.
> JPC
Actually, that's more the case in Far from Heaven. There it is quite
clear. I think Hudson is playing a perfect human being, and the final
set is supposed to be a dream house. It's not THAT Better Homes!
21909
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 0:40am
Subject: Re: Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" (was: Machismo etc.)
jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> You can't really separate plot from the use of objects and decor,
> Fred, no matter how much ambivalence Sirk injects in his mise en
> scene.
It's because I can't really separate the plot from the use of objects
and decor that I can't read the film as "conservative": the mise en
scene is telling me something that the script is not, commenting on it,
taking it in another direction. Even if you don't agree with my reading
of the mise en scene, I thought that kind of thinking was basic to
auteurism, no?
My point, restated in an earlier post you didn't acknowledge,
> was that the "positive" (Ron)....
From the first picture-post-card close up of Ron with his phallic
hairdo jutting into the frame, I cannot take him as if he were a human
being in everyday life, to be judged outside of the compositions in
which he is presented. This would be a general point I'd make about
characters in great films: they must be seen in terms of the
compositions and lighting and editing and camera movement. Everywhere in
the film Sirk undercuts the "values" of his script. The homey dance
scene that is meant to show the honest rustic values of Ron and his
friends, which it does on a script level, is not merely punctuated by
but "determined" by those shots in which the warm interior is pierced by
the blue through the skylight, silhouettes of blowing leaves having an
intrusive presence that offers a hint of the death-mask in "The
Tarnished Angels," which similarly intrudes on a romantic scene between
a man and a woman.
I do think my point about Ron's progressive emasculation is defensible
on a script level: at the beginning he is proud and independent; he
progressively redecorates his home for Carrie; at the end he is going to
"need" Carrie's care (as per the doctor). But also, in that final scene,
complicated compositions with the presence of the nurse in the
background strike me as, in some ways, terrifying. Sirk makes perceptual
labyrinths when the script is straight "woman's picture."
Fred Camper
21910
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 0:59am
Subject: Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" (was: Machismo etc.)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> I do think my point about Ron's progressive emasculation is
defensible
> on a script level: at the beginning he is proud and independent; he
> progressively redecorates his home for Carrie; at the end he is
going to
> "need" Carrie's care (as per the doctor). But also, in that final
scene,
> complicated compositions with the presence of the nurse in the
> background strike me as, in some ways, terrifying. Sirk makes
perceptual
> labyrinths when the script is straight "woman's picture."
>
> Fred Camper
Crippled Rock was a trope even before ATHA. He plays the last act of
Back to God's Country, by the mysterious Pevney, as a virtual
paraplegic, his bluish half-frozen body strapped to a sled, while his
dog battles the bad guy (Cochran). I was surpised that Mark Rappaport
didn't include that in his masterpiece, Rock Hudson's Journal.
21911
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:08am
Subject: Re: Clint's Detractors
Call me naive, or maybe its because I live in a liberal country, but I
fail to see why "Braveheart" is an attack on gay people and why
"Passion of Christ" is an attack on Jews.
Here in Denmark, because of the polarisation of the film in the US, a
group of religious capacities, as in bishops, priests, professors and
rabbies, were invited to see "The Passion of Christ" and to discuss
it, and none found it to be as alarming as the Americans.
Leaving Gibson aside, because I don't find him to be that great a
director, going back to Eastwood, a director I value a great deal, I
am simply baffled by how he is approached here.
I am willing to accept that some consider a film like "Bloodworks"
great, because of some auteurist notion, even though the film as a
film is incredible bad, a cliche and has a story so easy to foresee,
that the credits should have rolled after 15 minutes. But to dismiss a
director, even call him "a loser", because a his political views, is
where I stop the bus and get of.
First of all, is a directors politic beliefs and his (possible)
implimencations of them into a film as motif or theme only acceptable,
if the directors political beliefs are "liberal"?
To me, such sentiments appear like a group of people feel so
victimized that any text not adressing their situation, as they see
it, is attacking it.
Second of all, are American critics so polarized politically and
religious and sexual, that any film becomes a battle for either left
and right, for "us" or "them"?
Are films, who are politically correct in terms of your points of
view, the only films worth a positive critic? Are films only good if
they are nice to gays, jews and made by left-wing directors?
Then again, perhaps its me who is naive.
Henrik
21912
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:20am
Subject: Re: Re: Clint's Detractors
--- Henrik Sylow wrote:
>
> Call me naive, or maybe its because I live in a
> liberal country, but I
> fail to see why "Braveheart" is an attack on gay
> people and why
> "Passion of Christ" is an attack on Jews.
>
OK -- you're naive.
> Here in Denmark, because of the polarisation of the
> film in the US, a
> group of religious capacities, as in bishops,
> priests, professors and
> rabbies, were invited to see "The Passion of Christ"
> and to discuss
> it, and none found it to be as alarming as the
> Americans.
>
Becuase its anti-semitism is quite explicit. The film
isn't based on the gospels at all but rather on the
ravings of a bi-polar 17th century nun who claimed to
have "visions" of Christ's death.
"Braveheart" is quite offhanded with its
throw-the-boyfriend-out-the-window scene. That came in
the wake of an interview Gibson gave to the Spanish
newspaper "El Pais" in which he mimicked anl
intercourse (an obsession with heterosexuals) for the
reporter -- making sport of it while insisting that
this wasn't something he was interested in.
> Leaving Gibson aside, because I don't find him to be
> that great a
> director, going back to Eastwood, a director I value
> a great deal, I
> am simply baffled by how he is approached here.
>
There have been several approaches,actually.
>
> First of all, is a directors politic beliefs and his
> (possible)
> implimencations of them into a film as motif or
> theme only acceptable,
> if the directors political beliefs are "liberal"?
>
Yes.
> To me, such sentiments appear like a group of people
> feel so
> victimized that any text not adressing their
> situation, as they see
> it, is attacking it.
>
Well that's how right-wing "Fundamentalists" feel.
> Second of all, are American critics so polarized
> politically and
> religious and sexual, that any film becomes a battle
> for either left
> and right, for "us" or "them"?
>
Hey -- I voted for Kerry!
http://www.bonusround.com/book3-10/images/outfest04-45.jpg
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
21913
From:
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:25am
Subject: Re: Re: Clint's Detractors
In a message dated 01/28/2005 7:09:12 AM, henrik_sylow@h... writes:
<< Here in Denmark, because of the polarisation of the film in the US, a
group of religious capacities, as in bishops, priests, professors and
rabbies, were invited to see "The Passion of Christ" and to discuss
it, and none found it to be as alarming as the Americans. >>
Ok, but what (or how) DID you find it?
<>
And what did y'all conclude on this matter? Is Mel's PASSION, in fact, nice
to gays and jews?
Kevin John
21914
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:32am
Subject: Re: Clint's Detractors
>... I eventually talked Gary Graver into
> telling me in the lobby of a hotel in Fortaleza: "It turns out she
> has a dick," he half whispered, looking around as if Harvey Weinstein
> were going to jump out from behind a pitted palm.
I'd love to see that scene in a film, shades of "Annie Hall" ;-)
-Sam (promising to be more serious next post)
21915
From:
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:08am
Subject: Re: Clint's Detractors
Henrik raises some worthwhile points.
"The Passion of the Christ" did not just polarize people in the United
States. It was condemned as anti-Semitic by an interfaith group of all the religious
leaders in Germany, Jewish, Catholic and Protestant, and was also condemned
as anti-Semitic by the French Catholic Bishops. In fact, Christian clergy in
Europe spoke out much more strongly against the film in Europe than in the
United States, where many religious offoicials endorsed the movie.
People in the United States do feel under siege politically. It is true - if
John Kerry were President today, I would probably be a lot less uptight about
what I see at the movies. Endless "war is fun" propaganda movies, and films
attacking minority groups such as "The Passion of the Christ" and "Million
Dollar Baby", really do make me worried. I wonder where all this is going to end...
I certainly do have problems with attacks on minority groups in films. I read
arguments to the contrary - that only aesthetic issues matter, and that one
should not judge a film by its political content. Still, the relations of
minority groups & majorities is an open wound around the world today, and I find it
hard to keep politics out of such a discussion.
If people want to make an aesthetic case for a film - that's fine. But they
should also acknowledge a film's political content. This is the honest thing to
do. Instead, we often get denial.
Mike Grost
21916
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:10am
Subject: Re: On Spoilers (Was Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"...Any daily reviewer who did that [reveal the ending] would be
buried under adverse mail, and deservedly so. Jonathan will also go
into the plot with a warning not to read the next 3 paragraphs if he
feels the need. Rivette said: "Once for surprise, and once for
ravishment," and I agree: I'm still a regular guy when I hunch down
in front of a flick, and I don't want my pleasure spoiled."
The idea of spoilers seems to me to be a culturally determined
phenomenon. If you go to a first run theatre in Japan you'll be
given a program for the movie with cast and crew and a complete
synopsis of the movie down to and including the ending. The patrons
don't mind. Japanese reviewers don't outline the plot in their
reviews of a given picture probably because they know the filmgoer
will be familiar with it. My theory is that it derives from Japanese
theatre where just about everyone knows the plots in the classical
repetory and the excitement comes from seeing certain scenes and how
they're interpeted in a given production.
The first time I saw one of those programs was for the 1984 re-
release of VERTIGO and I was shocked. I told everyone I was seeing
the movie with not to read it, and my friends thanked me after the
movie, but that was an exceptional case.
Richard
21917
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:28am
Subject: Re: Re: Clint's Detractors
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> If people want to make an aesthetic case for a film
> - that's fine. But they
> should also acknowledge a film's political content.
> This is the honest thing to
> do. Instead, we often get denial.
>
You're quite right, Mike. Recently some "Socialist
World News" film reviews were posted in here. They all
dealt with valid points -- even though I took
exception to several of them and wrote about why.
Political content can't be dismissed as a minor
detail. Indeed the efficacy of a film's political
positions is inextricably linked to its coherence.
This doesn't mean that a film's politics should be
embraced right along with its mise en scene. I'm sure
we all recall how Sontag went from talking about Leni
Riefenstahl's esthetics in a "pure" context to
rejecting them some years later on further reflection.
This turnabout marked her seriousness as a critic.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21918
From: peterhenne
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:33am
Subject: Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" (was: Machismo etc.)
These last shots with the nurse attending to Ron just don't strike
me the same way. What I see is a man at the center of the frame's
space, attended to by women--an arrangement implying familiar
patterns of power. The final shot outside the window with the deer
throws the domestic "naturalness," and the happy ending formula,
into question, because it is nakedly artificial and excessively
endearing (as you say, like a pretty post card).
Peter Henne
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> From the first picture-post-card close up of Ron with his phallic
> hairdo jutting into the frame, I cannot take him as if he were a
human
> being in everyday life, to be judged outside of the compositions
in
> which he is presented. This would be a general point I'd make
about
> characters in great films: they must be seen in terms of the
> compositions and lighting and editing and camera movement.
Everywhere in
> the film Sirk undercuts the "values" of his script. The homey
dance
> scene that is meant to show the honest rustic values of Ron and
his
> friends, which it does on a script level, is not merely punctuated
by
> but "determined" by those shots in which the warm interior is
pierced by
> the blue through the skylight, silhouettes of blowing leaves
having an
> intrusive presence that offers a hint of the death-mask in "The
> Tarnished Angels," which similarly intrudes on a romantic scene
between
> a man and a woman.
>
> I do think my point about Ron's progressive emasculation is
defensible
> on a script level: at the beginning he is proud and independent;
he
> progressively redecorates his home for Carrie; at the end he is
going to
> "need" Carrie's care (as per the doctor). But also, in that final
scene,
> complicated compositions with the presence of the nurse in the
> background strike me as, in some ways, terrifying. Sirk makes
perceptual
> labyrinths when the script is straight "woman's picture."
>
> Fred Camper
21919
From: Peter Henne
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:39am
Subject: Re: Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows" (was: Machismo etc.)
I don't see these final shots with the nurse the same way. A man is at the center of the frame's space, attended to by women--an arrangement implying
familiar patterns of power. The final shot of the deer throws the domestic "naturalness," and the happy ending formula, into question, because it is so
nakedly artificial.
Peter Henne
Fred Camper wrote:
From the first picture-post-card close up of Ron with his phallic
hairdo jutting into the frame, I cannot take him as if he were a human
being in everyday life, to be judged outside of the compositions in
which he is presented. This would be a general point I'd make about
characters in great films: they must be seen in terms of the
compositions and lighting and editing and camera movement. Everywhere in
the film Sirk undercuts the "values" of his script. The homey dance
scene that is meant to show the honest rustic values of Ron and his
friends, which it does on a script level, is not merely punctuated by
but "determined" by those shots in which the warm interior is pierced by
the blue through the skylight, silhouettes of blowing leaves having an
intrusive presence that offers a hint of the death-mask in "The
Tarnished Angels," which similarly intrudes on a romantic scene between
a man and a woman.
I do think my point about Ron's progressive emasculation is defensible
on a script level: at the beginning he is proud and independent; he
progressively redecorates his home for Carrie; at the end he is going to
"need" Carrie's care (as per the doctor). But also, in that final scene,
complicated compositions with the presence of the nurse in the
background strike me as, in some ways, terrifying. Sirk makes perceptual
labyrinths when the script is straight "woman's picture."
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! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
21920
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:14am
Subject: Re: Colour my review (Clint's Detractors)
David wrote,
"This doesn't mean that a film's politics should be embraced right
along with its mise en scene."
But it is, even colouring ones criticism. To me, the anti-semitism of
"Passion of Christ" should not even be adressed before one has
adressed the films mise-en-scene and the films interpretation of the
passion vs. transferal of guilt in a western christian society. Yet,
from my point of view, many critics simply jumped on the bandwagon of
righteous, condeming the film of being bad, because of the
anti-semantic approch, and never adressing the films mise-en-scene,
which in my opinion is far more tasteless than anti-semitism.
Personally, I admire "Passion of Christ" and Gibson for making it. It
is personal and dares to go against the public. And even though I find
the final mise-en-scene presumptuous and tasteless in its moral, it is
a film that make me upset and angry, and that is why I will defend it,
even if it goes against my own beliefs.
Mike wrote
"...only aesthetic issues matter, and that one should not judge a film
by its political content. Still, the relations of minority groups &
majorities is an open wound around the world today, and I find it
hard to keep politics out of such a discussion."
I agree with you on the "open wound" sentiment. In general,
victimization of groups already victimised should not be condoled.
However, one has to weight the polical subtext vs. the main text
itself before adressing politics.
What I find admirable is, when Mike says, that if John Kerry were
President today, he would probably be a lot less uptight about
what he sees at the movies.
This makes me wonder, to what degree the political climate of the US
colours critics. Are attacks, as the attacks on the films by Eastwood
not coloured by a "We hate Bush and everything that smells of him"
point of view? Does critics take out their own political frustrations
on the films they review?
Henrik
21921
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:32am
Subject: Re: Re: Colour my review (Clint's Detractors)
--- Henrik Sylow wrote:
To me, the
> anti-semitism of
> "Passion of Christ" should not even be adressed
> before one has
> adressed the films mise-en-scene and the films
> interpretation of the
> passion vs. transferal of guilt in a western
> christian society. Yet,
> from my point of view, many critics simply jumped on
> the bandwagon of
> righteous, condeming the film of being bad, because
> of the
> anti-semantic approch, and never adressing the films
> mise-en-scene,
> which in my opinion is far more tasteless than
> anti-semitism.
>
But Henrik, one is inextricably linked to the other.
There have been a great number of films (of varying
degrees of interest) about the life of Christ.
Gibson's is the only one todate to eschew the gospels
in favor of the ravings of an antisemitic nun. As
Emmerich isn't well-known to the general public this
constitutes "slippin' one past the goalie." It is the
ot merely the easthetic responsibility but the MORAL
DUTY of film critics to point this out.
> Personally, I admire "Passion of Christ" and Gibson
> for making it. It
> is personal and dares to go against the public.
Some "daring!" The public you claim it "goes aginst"
made it one of the most profitable films of all time.
And
> even though I find
> the final mise-en-scene presumptuous and tasteless
> in its moral, it is
> a film that make me upset and angry, and that is why
> I will defend it,
> even if it goes against my own beliefs.
>
I find such a position extremely odd.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21922
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:41am
Subject: Re: Re: Colour my review (Clint's Detractors)
Henrik Sylow wrote:
> ....This makes me wonder, to what degree the political climate of the US
> colours critics. Are attacks, as the attacks on the films by Eastwood
> not coloured by a "We hate Bush and everything that smells of him"
> point of view? Does critics take out their own political frustrations
> on the films they review?
There's a difference between simply hating a politician and what many of
us believe about Bush.
Speaking for myself, I think a war entered into without justification is
the moral equivalent of mass murder. Hence Bush is a mass murderer who
has killed over 100,000 civilians in a war that he started based on his
lies about WMDs. Congress probably would not have voted for the war if
it weren't for the claim that Iraq had WMDs. The war is a violation of
the UN Charter and of the international law against "Crimes Against
Peace" which was one of the crimes the US executed Nazi leaders for
after the Nuremberg trials. It greatly raises the risk of more wars; why
should other nations not engage in their own "preventive wars." If Iran
were strong enough, by Bush's logic it would be justified in bombing
America's cities, invading, overthrowing its government and installing
its own, because we're probably more a threat to them than Iraq was to
us. Bush's invasion of Iraq greatly raises the risk of a future
terrorist attack against the US, which might well be followed by even
worse US-caused carnage. It also increases the risk of other countries,
seeing that we invaded Iraq rather than North Korea, acquiring nuclear
weapons.
If you believe that Bush is *that* dangerous and *that* evil, politics
becomes not simply differing over personalities or policy questions, but
over lies and mass murders and possible future wholesale bloodshed. In
such a time, it's hard to separate politics from aesthetics.
There's a short film about Theresienstadt, a concentration camp the
Nazis established as a kind of "Potemkin village" to allow them to try
to show the world they were treating the Jews very well during WW II,
contrary to what everyone believed. One of the inmates, director Kurt
Gerron, directed a short film about it, "The Fuhrer Gives a City to the
Jews: ("Führer schenkt den Juden eine Stadt"). I've seen it. In the
film, the Jews are shown as having a fine time, free to hold and attend
concerts and lectures. Stylistically it is a total bore, real evidence
for "the banality of evil."
This is an extreme case, to be sure, but I present it as evidence that
one should never feel free to go by the "aesthetic" evidence on the
screen alone. I'll admit I do this most of the time, but ideally one
should know more. Many films, and this is one a prime example, should
*not* be judged primarily on an aesthetic basis. Indeed, *the* key fact
about Gerron's film, which for reasons that are obvious could not be
included within it, is what happened to the entire cast and to Gerron
himself after it was finished. They were sent off to Auschwitz, where
they were all murdered.
Fred Camper
21923
From:
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:42am
Subject: Re: Colour my review (Clint's Detractors)
It is certainly true that the 48% of us who voted for John Kerry are deeply
concerned about the harm Bush is doing. We are now candidates for Mel Brooks'
"Institute for the Very, Very Nervous".
In my case, it is not just Bush-bashing that has affected me. It has an even
stronger impact on films I like. Movies such as "Rosenstrasse" and "Hotel
Rwanda" dealing with non-violent resistance to totalitarianism, have made a deeper
impact today than they might have in 1996. And "Fuse" (Pjer Zalica), the
wonderful "peace movie" comedy from Bosnia, seems especially welcome. We have had
decades of war movies. But here is a film in a new genre - a peace comedy. I
for one feel really grateful.
What Blake Edwards could do with a peace comedy. Or Jerry Lewis!
Mike Grost
21924
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 0:00pm
Subject: Re: On Spoilers (Was Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> The first time I saw one of those programs was for the 1984 re-
> release of VERTIGO and I was shocked. I told everyone I was seeing
> the movie with not to read it, and my friends thanked me after the
> movie, but that was an exceptional case.
>
> Richard
That's fascinating, Richard! After waiting 4 yrs for the new
Hitchcock, my friends and I (incl. Ronnie Scheib) went to see Frenzy
at the first show in some upper B'way theatre. The projectionist put
the reels on in the wrong order, so that the rape scene, and the
revelation of SPOILER
Bob's guilt, came on 20 minutes in. I guess the projectionist was
trying to out-Vertigo Vertigo.
21925
From: matt_c_armstrong
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 0:14pm
Subject: Politics vs. Mise en scene (was: Re: Colour my review (Clint's Detractors))
Hello all. This is my first post. Thanks for including me in the
group. I've been chewing on this politics vs. mise en scene thing.
My remarks are below the quotes.
> But it is, even colouring ones criticism. To me, the anti-semitism
of
> "Passion of Christ" should not even be adressed before one has
> adressed the films mise-en-scene
When Gibson's "mise en scene" includes hook-nosed Jewish baddies
calling for Christ's blood, how do you meaningfully separate
aesthetics and ideology? Alternately, as many critics have pointed
out, Cavieziel's Christ is uncharacterstically gentile in appearance.
I think it may be naive to judge Gibson's ideas and images as if
they were separate things. His moral universe is horrifyingly
simplistic. The film is shot in fetishistic, lingering slo-mo. Most
of the action is sadistic violence. The devil is portrayed as a
woman. The dominant feelings Gibson's images provoke are anger,
nausea or outrage (or all three.) Now, how can I separate the film's
aesthetics from Gibson's point of view? They *are* his point of
view.
> Personally, I admire "Passion of Christ" and Gibson for making it.
It
> is personal and dares to go against the public.
This seems an odd reason to like a movie. Yes, it's personal, but so
are scores of movies you would never want to spend two hours with.
And what "public" does "The Passion" go against? Not the millions
who flocked to it and shelled out cash again and again. And finally,
if a filmmaker proves the Doubting Thomases of the industry wrong by
making a mint, he hasn't necessarily made a *good* movie. He's only
made a fortune. Gibson may appreciate the irony that (Jewish) money
lenders in Hollywood *denied* him the financing he needed. This is
an unspoken part of the maverick (read: anti-Jewish establisment)
narrative he sold to the public.
> This makes me wonder, to what degree the political climate of the
US
> colours critics. Are attacks, as the attacks on the films by
Eastwood
> not coloured by a "We hate Bush and everything that smells of him"
> point of view? Does critics take out their own political
frustrations
> on the films they review?
I think the framing of this question is a little off, because I
believe *all movies* are political. If you have any doubt that
Gibson's film has an ideological mission, just go back and read the
interviews he gave. Like Michael Moore, he used polemics as a
marketing tool. His film *is* a polemic. How could any critic
(right, left or center) forget that the moment the lights went down?
This is isn't just true of "conservative" films. It's true also
of "liberal" ones. Notice how the Asian high school film "Better
Luck Tomorrow" was marketed as an anti-model minority flick. And
yet, it was successfully marketed at the grassroots using identity
politics (ie. you simply must see this movie on its opening weekend
to help advance the cause of Asian-American cinema.)
I'm not criticizing the use of politics to sell movies (though I
think the ironies in "Better Luck Tomorrow's" case are interesting).
I'm simply saying that your question ignores what's already plain.
All movies advance the political, philosophical, religious AND
aesthetic ideas of the filmmaker. Any critic could potentially have
his judgement of a film "clouded" by partisan politics, but this is
part of what makes criticism fascinating.
21926
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 0:29pm
Subject: Politics vs. Mise en scene (was: Re: Colour my review (Clint's Detractors))
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "matt_c_armstrong"
wrote:
>
> Hello all. This is my first post.
Welcome to the group, Matt.
> When Gibson's "mise en scene" includes hook-nosed Jewish baddies
> calling for Christ's blood, how do you meaningfully separate
> aesthetics and ideology? The devil is portrayed as a
> woman.
And intercut with the Jewish high priest when both are lamenting the
destruction of their kingdoms after the death of Jesus on the cross:
Hell and the Temple, repectively. Jew=Satan. Satan=Jew. That's pretty
bold-lettering anti-semitic semantics. (Disclosure: I only saw the
last 40 minutes. I snuck in after a screening of Dawn of the Dead at
the same 'plex, thus not contributing to the b.o.)
That said, somebody bucking H'wd and pocketing 750 million is always
an inspiring sight, as is Moore's smaller but equally noteworthy
haul. Both were skipped by the Academy, but hopefully the bean-
counters will be quicker than the Dems to note that controversy
doesn't necessarily hurt the boxoffice.
OTPS: Barabara Boxer for President in 2008!
21927
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 0:34pm
Subject: OT: Take the Red Pill (Was: Colour my review )
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> It is certainly true that the 48% of us who voted for John Kerry
are deeply concerned about the harm Bush is doing.
Bush lost, Mike. Read Greg Palast on the subject - and he doen't even
get into the question of rigged touch-screen machines:
http://www.lacitybeat.com/article.php?id=1563&IssueNum=85
Print that out and put it up on the wall, and whenever you find
yourself slipping into the delusion that a majority of your fellow
citizens voted for the latest horror, take the red pill.
That's why the reviewing stands on Pennsylvania Avenue, which were
supposed to be full of cheering supporters on the 20th, were almost
empty.
21928
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 0:38pm
Subject: Re: Colour my review (Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> What Blake Edwards could do with a peace comedy. Or Jerry Lewis!
The latest report of the all-girl Rapid Reaction Force in Gitmo
torturing devout muslims by sitting on their laps and making them
look at their breasts in tight t-shirts suggests that the guy for the
job may be Roger Corman.
21929
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 0:41pm
Subject: Re: Colour my review (Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
"...one should never feel free to go by the "aesthetic" evidence on
the screen alone. I'll admit I do this most of the time, but ideally
one should know more. Many films, and this is one a prime example,
should *not* be judged primarily on an aesthetic basis."
I agree, but in the case of THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST the aesthetic
evidence on the screen is enough to establish its anti-Jewish agenda,
for example, the cut from Caiaphas raising his arms in rage at the
sight of the fissure in the Temple brought about by Christ's
sacrifice to Satan in hell repaeting a similar gesture unequivically
links Caiaphas and Satan, not to mention numerous instances on the
script level having the same effect.
Since you mentioned Auschwitz and Bush, I've been watching AUSCHWITZ:
INSIDE THE NAZI STATE on TV and noted a passage where a Nazi
functionary, in a memo discussing the decision to murder Soviet POWs,
dismissed the Geneva Conventions as "obosolete." Sound familiar?
Alberto Gonzales, Bush's nominee for Attorney General called those
same Geneva Conventions "quaint."
Richard
21930
From: Charles Hoehnen
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 0:49pm
Subject: Weathering Rock (was Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows")
>Crippled Rock was a trope even before ATHA. He plays the last act of
>Back to God's Country, by the mysterious Pevney, as a virtual
>paraplegic, his bluish half-frozen body strapped to a sled, while his
>dog battles the bad guy (Cochran). I was surpised that Mark Rappaport
>didn't include that in his masterpiece, Rock Hudson's Journal.
umm, spoilers?
"Magnificent Obsession", which might be a lesser Sirk film or it might be
the print I saw, has a glorious doubled emasculation. Rock's Merrick is
killed after a boating accident, and is resuscitated in lieu of the "pillar
of society", Jane Wyman's husband.
I was fascinated by the film's first few scenes, the totally sleek and
phallic boat, the second crash - the impossible relationship between the
blind Wyman and the "transformed" Rock. It's one of the strangest and
convoluted Hudson/Sirk films that deserves a second look to consider the
degree's of distance the formal elements create, and how it undermines this
"secret samaritan" thing. Also that miraculous ending is incredible -
Wyman's death mask (as was mentioned by another in referend to "Tarnished
Angels", which I haven't seen) is awesome. I cried because of the wretched
absurdity of the whole thing.
Is this the most sincere of Sirk's 50's melodrama's? Or does that honor
belong to "Battle Hymn" (again, I saw it pan/scanned)?
Charlie Hoehnen / year90ninezero@h...
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
21931
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 1:01pm
Subject: Re: Weathering Rock (was Re: Sirk's "All That Heaven Allows")
--- Charles Hoehnen
wrote:
>
> Is this the most sincere of Sirk's 50's melodrama's?
> Or does that honor
> belong to "Battle Hymn" (again, I saw it
> pan/scanned)?
>
One can argue sincerity until the Disney cows come
home.But one fact is incontrovertible: "Magnificent
Obsession" was the biggest hit Universal had seen
since Deanna Durbin. It made Hudson -- who the studio
was on the verge of dropping -- a gigantic star, and
gave Sirk a major studio stature he'd never enjoyed
before.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
21932
From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:06pm
Subject: OT correction re: Colour my review (Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> It is certainly true that the 48% of us who voted for John Kerry are
deeply
> concerned about the harm Bush is doing.
Correction: of eligible voters, 29.3% voted for Kerry, 30.8% voted for
Bush, 39.3% voted for nobody (i.e., stayed home).
-Jason
21933
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:10pm
Subject: Spoilers & Eastwood (again)
I realize that reviewers for daily and weekly papers write for
readers most of whom haven't seen the movie and don't want to be
told about plot twists and surprise endings. However, it seems to me
that it's impossible to deal with MILLION DOLLAR BABY in any
meaningful manner without discussing the "third act" and the
euthanasia theme. Yet most of the reviewers have carefully avoided
mentioning it, let alone discussing it. The most they do is make
some very discreet, undecipherable allusion (Denby: "the movie
turns ...towards disaster...")Reading Jonathan's review in Chicago
Reader you would think the movie ends before the fatal "accident."
Yet I suspect that for many viewers, the film's last thirty minutes
or so are the most compelling.
I'm supposed to review MDB for POSITIF. I don't see how I could
possibly deal with it without dealing with the last part.
Fortunately it's likely (at least I've always taken it for granted)
that the readers of a specialized monthly probably have already seen
the film you discuss (especially if it's a major production)or will
wait until they have seen it to read your piece. So I never worry
about spoilers. But even for the daily press there must be ways of
acknowledging the essential aspects of a film without revealing the
entire plot.
21934
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:16pm
Subject: Re: Clint's Detractors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- MG4273@a... wrote:
>
>
> This doesn't mean that a film's politics should be
> embraced right along with its mise en scene. I'm sure
> we all recall how Sontag went from talking about Leni
> Riefenstahl's esthetics in a "pure" context to
> rejecting them some years later on further reflection.
> This turnabout marked her seriousness as a critic.
Indeed. Now it is perhaps time to begin a new thread - "Scorsese's
detractors" - and further consider THE AVIATOR in the light of Andre
Bazin's "Auteur, yes. But of what?"
Cinematically THE AVIATOR is one of Scorsese's most accomplished
films far better than CAPE FEAR and THE COLOR OF MONEY but far below
RAGING BULL, CASINO, KING OF COMEDY and his other 70s/early 80s
achievements. His film artistry is undeniable.
Yet, since this is a depressing time for Hollywood films (and films
in general), I feel there is a tendency for some people to embrace
THE AVIATOR at the cost of denying some very disturbing features
within its narrative. I've been stimulated to write this post when I
read a reference to Katherine Hepburn's screen parents as "dingbats"
in real life.
One of the most irritating aspects of AVIATOR is Blanchett's
performance as Heburn representing "Amatueur Dramatics 101" or a
third-rate night club imitation relying on exaggerated mannerisms.
Although a bio-pic can not necessarily cover all aspects, THE
AVIATOR's Hepburn is a gross caricature of very intelligent and
feminist actress whose 1930s screen roles presented a challenge to
the typical female star representation as Andrew Britton earlier
pointed out in his 1984 monograph KATHERINE HEPBURN: THIRTIES AND
AFTER (recently reprinted in the USA). According to conservative
Hollywood ideology, she ends up in the arms of Spencer Tracy. As
Britton shows, her films with Spence are all punitive examples of
controlling the 1930s star persona.
Furthermore, Hepburn's parents were affluent But they were also
sincere socially minded people who are rendered as grotesque
cartoonish types who do not work in contrast to Hughes who does
(despite inheriting a fortune at an early age!). Naturally, Scorsese
must ignore the fact that many people protested against the world of
Howard Hughes. The Great Depression united affluent and intelligent
people as well as leftists who felt that world of Herbert Hoover
(now returning to us in the form of Bush Republicans) should never
happen again and cause as great a degree of human misery as it did
during the Great Depression.
Does this scene not recall Tom Wolfe's attack on the "liberal
elite" who voted for Kerry in the last election, to say nothing
about the lack of reference to FDR and the New Deal in the film? We
can not expect these references in a film glamorising an anti-
semitic, rich thug, who also had business dealings with the Third
Reich like Bush's grandfather and several business people in the
1930s.
The scene also recalls Debra Winger's reaction to those selfish
divorcees in TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, a Reagan-era ideological
construction.
Furthermore, isn't this depiction Marty's street boy revenge on
those people who protested Kazan's Oscar Award? Among the protestors
were many former blacklistees, a fact that Marty and "goodfellow"
Bobby DeNiro seemed oblivious towards.
However, as a French colleague has noted, one of the most
despicable scenes in this intellectually dishonest film is its
applause of Hughes behavior before a Senate Committee. It presents
him as a hero before a group which makes no attempt to condemn him
for his behavior as it did the Hollywood Ten several weeks later for
making claims for freedom and autonomy as they did. Instead Scorsese
and Logan defend their hero going to the bitter end of capitalist
logic in the name of free enterprise.
Scorsese champions Hughes involvement in HELL'S ANGELS, one of the
most economically wasteful and tedious films in Hollywood histrory,
as well as the equally infantile THE OUTLAW. It is curious that
Scorsese ignores SCARFACE and the role of Howard Hawks which would
clearly have demolished his "pioneer" case in revealing who the real
screen auteur actually was.
As others have noted, the film is no CITIZEN KANE and its "Rosebud"
symbol is far more pathetic and shallow than anything in Welles's
film.
By now, Scorsese has become a mediocre Howard Hughes rather than a
talented director along the lines of Howard Hawks. Thus, he will
receive his Oscar for the wrong film and the wrong reasons at a time
when the Academy will probably award Leni Riefenstahl a posthumous
Oscar and Jodi Foster begin her Leni bio-pic dealing with a creative
female who becomes a "fallen woman" due to her lack of knowledge
of "The Evil That Men Do" - to quote the title of a Charles Bronson
film.
Yes, David Walsh's reviews are problematic. But he is raising some
very relevant issues showing that "mise-en-scene" and spectacle are
not the sole things that auteur critics should concentrate on - as
Susan Sontag realized many years ago.
Tony Williams
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21935
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:27pm
Subject: Re: Armond White (Was: Re: A notable critic)
Quoting "K. A. Westphal" :
> I agree with Zach that White wasn't all that different in 2004.
Yeah, I'm beginning to think it is just a personal epiphany for me.
Let's say that it was really in 2004 that I noticed how good
a critic this guy is, despite the blind Spielberg love which had
been a hurdle in the past to accessing White's excellent critcism.
>I learn something from White more often than I agree with him.
That's the whole point of a critic! They're not there to
confirm our tastes, they're there to help enrich our
viewing experiences and point us in unexpected directions.
> 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.
Well, I mentioned this as well: Armond's constant acrobatics
to defend his precious Altman (to which I also included the likes
of Walter Hill). "The Company" review was really Armond at his
weakest, but let the critic without weaknesses cast the first stone.
Point is, no matter how good the critic (and White is surely one
of the best) he or she is always going to be somewhat limited
by personal prejudice (and i'd much rather that prejudice be
towards certain filmmakers then towards the studios and their
mass produced hype like many critics succomb to).
>
>His review of LIFE AQUATIC was obviously genuine, but also bothersome;
>
> he's going to stick by Anderson till end of days.
Actually, if memory serves, White was not a champion of "Rushmore",
and even less of "Bottle Rocket". It seems Wes Anderson is slowly
growing on him, and that's both welcome and a great sign.
White's "Life Aquatic" praise was one of his great intuitions this
year, because the majority of critics just plainly didn't get
it, and therefore resorted to panning it. Though he had it last
on his top ten list, White's "life Aquatic" inclusion is a
relief (same for Mr. Ehrenstien and Mr. Fujiwara).
Which reminds me ...
>
> White really liked THE PASSION OF THE CHRIST, didn't he?
Yes he did (although not in a 'top ten' way). But regardless
of what one thinks of the film (I though it was so-so) White
was one of the only critics I read who seriously reviewed
it. Most stopped at the fact that a former "Leathel Weapon"
star was trying to exercise his taste for blood and guts
on a grand scale (for any indication, read J Hoberman's
horribly jokey review). White gave his impressions,
regardless of who the director was (and by the way
White also hated "Braveheart"). On a side note:
in David Edelstein's annual "movie club" , Armond mentioned
that the majority of the movie reviewers out there are
not Christian or Catholic, and are
discouraged from the editors
to take religious stances, so were therefore biased to begin
with. I have no way of knowing if this is true or not
(so please, no threads indicating that I'm intentionaly spewing
crap to defend White), but if it were, it would be telling.
> In any event, he provides the best criticism of FAR FROM HEAVEN I've
>
> read anywhere.
>
Interestingly enough, this is a film that seems to have weakened
with time: many who formerly expressed admiration for the film
now recant. And some critics who loved it and put it on their
top ten lists now say it isn't something to write home about.
Mathieu Ricordi
21936
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:44pm
Subject: Re: OT correction re: Colour my review (Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Guthartz" wrote:
>
> Correction: of eligible voters, 29.3% voted for Kerry, 30.8% voted for
> Bush, 39.3% voted for nobody (i.e., stayed home).
>
> -Jason
Only after lots of Democratic votes were dumped for spoilage or not registered
because there were no machines for people to vote on, Jason. See my link
posted under OT: The Red Pill.
Then figure in the unknowable amount of added Bush votes from the
Republican-controlled touch-screen machines. remember, before culturally
induced amnessia has a chance to set in: The exit polls (which were good
enough for contesting ballot-tampering in Venezuela and Ukraine) indicated
a Kerry sweep until someone pulled the switch late in the evening.
I don't want to start an endless OT thread - just give a heads-up to people who
haven't had one from any other source.
It does matter, too, even if we can't reverse the election because of our
feckless Democratic Congressmen. I remember after Nixon won in 1968, I
was standing in a New Haven post office where suddenly a white man started
yelling at a Chinese man who had done something that displeased him,
telling him to go back to his own country. (We were then at war with - basically
- Vietnam.) Normally I would have gone over and told the guy to stick it, but a
doubt seized me: What if a majority of these people voted for Nixon? A
majority of the country did, after all... And I didn't intervene.
In other words, the geopolitical effects of the stolen election are going to be
horrendous, but they'll be even more horrendous if we're all walking around
believing the official figures. One small consequence: We'd have to believe all
the hooey that empty-headed pundits are spouting about two Americas and
what the Democrats have to do to recapture the center (or the left - they
already captured the center and had it yanked away in the count). I'd prefer
not to.
21937
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:46pm
Subject: Re: Spoilers & Eastwood (again)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
But even for the daily press there must be ways of
> acknowledging the essential aspects of a film without revealing the
> entire plot.
i.e. what Jonathan usually dfoes - the equivalent of "SPOILER COMING." As a
fellow foereign correspondent, JP, I can assure you that by the time your
piece appears, your readers will have heard the twist on the news.
21938
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:48pm
Subject: Re: Armond White (Was: Re: A notable critic)
Quoting David Ehrenstein :
> I find him exasperatingly punacious. Even when he
>
> priases films I like -- like "Son Frere" -- he
>
> irritates.
I take it you mean "pugnacious": combative in nature; belligerent
(please don't think I'm being cocky by including the definition,
I had to look it up myself). At any rate, any combative impulses
he has are fueled by passion, and commitment to cinema. He cares
about movies, and is saddened when he sees so many affluent critics
who don't. I want a critic to engage others with fervour concerning
the art, and though Armond often calls out critics and holds them
acountable for their reviews, I've never yet seem him revert to
name-calling.
Mathieu Ricordi
21939
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 4:54pm
Subject: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- peckinpah20012000
wrote:
Now it is perhaps time to begin a new
> thread - "Scorsese's
> detractors" - and further consider THE AVIATOR in
> the light of Andre
> Bazin's "Auteur, yes. But of what?"
>
You're on!
> Cinematically THE AVIATOR is one of Scorsese's
> most accomplished
> films far better than CAPE FEAR and THE COLOR OF
> MONEY
Obviously.
but far below
> RAGING BULL, CASINO, KING OF COMEDY and his other
> 70s/early 80s
> achievements.
Uh. . .no.
>His film artistry is undeniable.
Meaning?
> Yet, since this is a depressing time for Hollywood
> films (and films
> in general), I feel there is a tendency for some
> people to embrace
> THE AVIATOR at the cost of denying some very
> disturbing features
> within its narrative. I've been stimulated to write
> this post when I
> read a reference to Katherine Hepburn's screen
> parents as "dingbats"
> in real life.
>
Given the actual history of Hepburn (yet to be
written, known by those who know) he's quite gentle
with them.
> One of the most irritating aspects of AVIATOR is
> Blanchett's
> performance as Heburn representing "Amatueur
> Dramatics 101" or a
> third-rate night club imitation relying on
> exaggerated mannerisms.
Does the name "Ken Russell" ring a bell?
> Although a bio-pic can not necessarily cover all
> aspects, THE
> AVIATOR's Hepburn is a gross caricature of very
> intelligent and
> feminist actress whose 1930s screen roles presented
> a challenge to
> the typical female star representation as Andrew
> Britton earlier
> pointed out in his 1984 monograph KATHERINE HEPBURN:
> THIRTIES AND
> AFTER (recently reprinted in the USA).
Oh Pooh! She was a pretentious dingbat -- sometimes
entertianing (when properly cast, and hemmed in bby
Cukor) mostly irritating. And the hagiography that she
constructed around herself is . . .don't get me
started!
According to
> conservative
> Hollywood ideology, she ends up in the arms of
> Spencer Tracy. As
> Britton shows, her films with Spence are all
> punitive examples of
> controlling the 1930s star persona.
>
No, acrrording to HER script she ended up with Tracy.
That's written in stone now. But for those who knew
what was really going on there's considerable question
of whetehr they had a sexual relationship at all.
Co-dependency can frequently be mistaken for love --
especially when the party of the second part adores
dominating others, as she did.
> Furthermore, Hepburn's parents were affluent But
> they were also
> sincere socially minded people who are rendered as
> grotesque
> cartoonish types who do not work in contrast to
> Hughes who does
> (despite inheriting a fortune at an early age!).
> Naturally, Scorsese
> must ignore the fact that many people protested
> against the world of
> Howard Hughes.
Which would have been a different film entirely. "The
Aviator" is about how Hughes saw himself.
Consequently it's not a documentary.
The Great Depression united affluent
> and intelligent
> people as well as leftists who felt that world of
> Herbert Hoover
> (now returning to us in the form of Bush
> Republicans) should never
> happen again and cause as great a degree of human
> misery as it did
> during the Great Depression.
>
True.
> Does this scene not recall Tom Wolfe's attack on
> the "liberal
> elite" who voted for Kerry in the last election, to
> say nothing
> about the lack of reference to FDR and the New Deal
> in the film?
No. It's more like "You Can't Take It With You."
We
> can not expect these references in a film
> glamorising an anti-
> semitic, rich thug, who also had business dealings
> with the Third
> Reich like Bush's grandfather and several business
> people in the
> 1930s.
>
I await the film about Bush's career in prono
production. Any takers?
> The scene also recalls Debra Winger's reaction to
> those selfish
> divorcees in TERMS OF ENDEARMENT, a Reagan-era
> ideological
> construction.
>
Not at all. Brooks is a realist. Marty's a mannerist.
> Furthermore, isn't this depiction Marty's street
> boy revenge on
> those people who protested Kazan's Oscar Award?
Among those protestors was one Abraham Lincoln
Polansky who Marty reveres MORE than Kazan.
> Among the protestors
> were many former blacklistees, a fact that Marty and
> "goodfellow"
> Bobby DeNiro seemed oblivious towards.
>
Not atall. You think he wasn't torn? (see above) You
think he hadn't played scenes like this before in the
neighborhood? Think of the Ozu hommage in the locl
clubhouse scene of "raging Bull." And what were they
talking about in thatscene?
> However, as a French colleague has noted, one of
> the most
> despicable scenes in this intellectually dishonest
> film is its
> applause of Hughes behavior before a Senate
> Committee. It presents
> him as a hero before a group which makes no attempt
> to condemn him
> for his behavior as it did the Hollywood Ten several
> weeks later for
> making claims for freedom and autonomy as they did.
> Instead Scorsese
> and Logan defend their hero going to the bitter end
> of capitalist
> logic in the name of free enterprise.
>
Again becausew this is Hughes view of himself. Have
you seen the actual footage of Hughes before that
committee? Marty didn't stray very far.
> Scorsese champions Hughes involvement in HELL'S
> ANGELS, one of the
> most economically wasteful and tedious films in
> Hollywood histrory,
Hey I thought this place was the "Heaven's Gate" fan
club!
> as well as the equally infantile THE OUTLAW. It is
> curious that
> Scorsese ignores SCARFACE and the role of Howard
> Hawks which would
> clearly have demolished his "pioneer" case in
> revealing who the real
> screen auteur actually was.
>
Time considerations. Plus additonal character
considerations. And have you seen "Scarface" lately?
it's not the Hawks that the Hitchcocko-Hawksians
rhapsodize about. It's a lot closer to Murnau.
> As others have noted, the film is no CITIZEN KANE
> and its "Rosebud"
> symbol is far more pathetic and shallow than
> anything in Welles's
> film.
>
Tis KANE analogy business is apain in the ass!. No
it's NOT KANE.
It's a lot closer to "Savage Messiah" actually.
> By now, Scorsese has become a mediocre Howard
> Hughes rather than a
> talented director along the lines of Howard Hawks.
Sez U!
> Thus, he will
> receive his Oscar for the wrong film and the wrong
> reasons at a time
> when the Academy will probably award Leni
> Riefenstahl a posthumous
> Oscar and Jodi Foster begin her Leni bio-pic dealing
> with a creative
> female who becomes a "fallen woman" due to her lack
> of knowledge
> of "The Evil That Men Do" - to quote the title of a
> Charles Bronson
> film.
>
The Jodester's career is over.
> Yes, David Walsh's reviews are problematic. But he
> is raising some
> very relevant issues showing that "mise-en-scene"
> and spectacle are
> not the sole things that auteur critics should
> concentrate on - as
> Susan Sontag realized many years ago.
>
And as Michel Mourlet realized many years prior to
that.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
21940
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:14pm
Subject: Re: Spoilers & Eastwood (again)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> >
> But even for the daily press there must be ways of
> > acknowledging the essential aspects of a film without revealing
the
> > entire plot.
>
> i.e. what Jonathan usually dfoes - the equivalent of "SPOILER
COMING." As a
> fellow foereign correspondent, JP, I can assure you that by the
time your
> piece appears, your readers will have heard the twist on the news.
Of course, and that was my point. Everybody will have seen the
film or heard about it. But fortunately I don't write for a daily or
a weekly...
As for Jonathan, I don't know why he opted for just totally
ignoring the third act. Did it make no impression on him at all? He
praised the film highly ("masterpiece") but gave an inaccurate and
warped idea of it.
21941
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:16pm
Subject: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
Sheesh! Two friends of mine fighting. Oh well, here goes...
For the record, the description of the lunch with her parents, while more
uncomplimentary, is at least based on Hepburn's account in "Me" -- the only
first-person account we have of her relationship with Hughes. Most of what's
in the film is made up by the authors of a recent Hughes bio whose names I
forget, but that scene happened. I like Blanchett's performance, but then I am
Cate Blanchett's chattel, so don't go by me.
At the same time (he said cravenly), I agree with Tony's observation that the
lunch scene and other parts of the film will be read by some audiences as
confirming the twisted class prejudices that made them vote for "ordinary guy"
Bush. I believe the film is "about" Bush, as I have stated.
On the other hand, as I have also stated, the major scene of insanity - which
happened in the 50s, not the 40s - is there (not when it happened) to remind
us that the guy went nuts. Which is a critique of sorts, isn't it? And one not
inapplicable to our current Thief of State.
Two small poiints, because I love to butt in:
1) I think Scarface is one of Hawks' weaker masterpieces, probably because
he was a little slower thgan Sternbverg (whom he stole from) making the
transition to sound. It has geraty scenes, and a lot of slow, clunky stuff. Maybe
that was Hughes' fault. He was a Texas version of Selznick, very hands-on,
not always for the best. But one other thing they had in common was that they
loved to fight the censors. It's just that Hughes' battles were over more low-
class sex-and-violence genre films than Selznick's, which were class acts all
the way. One point in his favor: He did distribute Stromboli, with a poster
portraying a spouting volcano.
2) Bush Jr. was not a porn producer. He was a silent partner in Silver Screen
Partners, an investment group set up by a college pal. They had money in 75
films - mostly UA and Disney - including The Hitcher, the psychokiller film
that's always cited as Bush's "R." they also had money in Roger Rabbit. The
point, re: The Aviator, is that, as in his aviation career, Bush is a very small
guy next to Hughes, even if their politics (and economics: raking in money
from gov't contracts) are the same. But I do think The Aviator is about Hughes
as a foreshadowing of this tiny puppet.
21942
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Sheesh! Two friends of mine fighting. Oh well, here goes...
Thank you, Bill. Although, I've never met you and David, I do
regard you as friends on this very important internet connection,
far more sincere and valuable than many I encounter in "hackademia."
But, as Joanne Dru would say in RED RIVER, we really love each other
despite the fighting!
>
>> 2) Bush Jr. was not a porn producer. He was a silent partner in
Silver Screen
The recent PSYCHOTRONIC has an article on Bush Jr. movie dealings
which I've not read yet.
Let the debate continue.
Tony Williams
21943
From: dmgurney
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
Hello everyone, I am a new member, and this is my first post. I am
quite excited to have found such a lively and intelligent group.
> On the other hand, as I have also stated, the major scene of
insanity - which
> happened in the 50s, not the 40s - is there (not when it happened)
to remind
> us that the guy went nuts. Which is a critique of sorts, isn't it?
And one not
> inapplicable to our current Thief of State.
It seems to me that a lot of the problems people are having with The
Aviator stem from ignoring the obsessive-compulsive insanity of the
Hughes character. To me, that was the whole picture. This man who
was, at least for the sake of the film, capitalism's ne plus ultra
was afflicted by horribly debilitating mental illness. I didn't feel
that Scorsese was milking it for sympathy either. While it did serve
to heighten the tension of the Senate hearing, ultimately, I felt no
sadness for his fate. It seemed like a perfect counterpoint to
remind us what the price for such monetary excess may be.
Also, I think that The Aviator, as it is a celebration of filmmaking
itself, may be more about Scorsese (or at least the figure of the
director) than it is about Bush. I think that it offers some
interesting insight as to how he views himself.
Either way, I found it to be a very worthwhile film with some real
complexity in its depiction of Hughes. Of course not everything was
captured, but that criticism can be leveled at any biopic.
And for the record, I loved Cate Blanchett as Hepburn.
Dave
21944
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "dmgurney" wrote:
>e are having with The
This man who
> was, at least for the sake of the film, capitalism's ne plus ultra
> was afflicted by horribly debilitating mental illness. I didn't feel
> that Scorsese was milking it for sympathy either. While it did serve
> to heighten the tension of the Senate hearing, ultimately, I felt no
> sadness for his fate. It seemed like a perfect counterpoint to
> remind us what the price for such monetary excess may be.
Welcome, Dave.
Lacanians in the group may be interested to know that Lacan considered
western culture since the 17th century to be a psychotic culture. Oudart used
to say that the subject of Lang's films was "the paranoid subject of advanced
capitalism." Ironically, Oudart himself had a breakdown and became
paranoid. That was definitely where Hughes ended up, too.
21945
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- dmgurney wrote:
>
> It seems to me that a lot of the problems people are
> having with The
> Aviator stem from ignoring the obsessive-compulsive
> insanity of the
> Hughes character. To me, that was the whole
> picture. This man who
> was, at least for the sake of the film, capitalism's
> ne plus ultra
> was afflicted by horribly debilitating mental
> illness.
In fact, one might well say the filmdefines capitalism
as an obsessive-compulsive disorder. Juan Trippe
mapping routes with a pice of string on the giant
globe in his office is nearly as weird as our
anti-hero.
In fact next to one-man-Warner Bros. - stock-company,
John C. Reilly, the sanest person in the movie is. .
.Ava Gardner.
I didn't feel
> that Scorsese was milking it for sympathy either.
None. It's as dry as dust.
> While it did serve
> to heighten the tension of the Senate hearing,
> ultimately, I felt no
> sadness for his fate. It seemed like a perfect
> counterpoint to
> remind us what the price for such monetary excess
> may be.
>
Irrespective of that it serves to remind us of how
superbly total neurotics can function in the world.
Hollywood is full of them.
> Also, I think that The Aviator, as it is a
> celebration of filmmaking
> itself, may be more about Scorsese (or at least the
> figure of the
> director) than it is about Bush.
As I believe I mentioned in here it's a history of
color cinematography.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
21946
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
Oudart used
> to say that the subject of Lang's films was "the
> paranoid subject of advanced
> capitalism." Ironically, Oudart himself had a
> breakdown and became
> paranoid. That was definitely where Hughes ended up,
> too.
>
"The Aviator" is in many ways comparable to
"Moonfleet," and "Der Tiger von Eschnapur? Das
Indische Grabmal" -- Lang at his most sublime, and a
central Oudartian fetish.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21947
From: Robert Keser
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:50pm
Subject: Armond White (Was: Re: A notable critic)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:
At any rate, any combative impulses
> he has are fueled by passion, and commitment to cinema. He cares
> about movies, and is saddened when he sees so many affluent critics
> who don't.
One of the (few!) high points of Slate's Movie Club last year was
Dennis Lim's pinpointing of Armond White's style as "predicated on a
bullying unpredictable subjectivity". Those words seem very
carefully chosen and I think every one of them will stick.
The other high point was the reader parody that David Edelstein good-
naturedly included, which characterized Armond White as "bat-shit
nuts".
--Robert Keser
21948
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 6:54pm
Subject: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>.
>
> Lacanians in the group may be interested to know that Lacan
considered
> western culture since the 17th century to be a psychotic culture.
It could, and should, be argued that all "cultures" are psychotic
by nature. The nature being human nature.
Oudart used
> to say that the subject of Lang's films was "the paranoid subject
of advanced
> capitalism." Ironically, Oudart himself had a breakdown and became
> paranoid. That was definitely where Hughes ended up, too.
Capitalism is always the scapegoat. Whereas it's more like a red
herring.
21949
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:15pm
Subject: Re: "Huckabees" as "Peace Movie" (was: Colour my review)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Movies such as "Rosenstrasse" and "Hotel
> Rwanda" dealing with non-violent resistance to totalitarianism,
have made a deeper
> impact today than they might have in 1996. And "Fuse" (Pjer
Zalica), the
> wonderful "peace movie" comedy from Bosnia, seems especially
welcome.
Personally, I would describe "I Heart Huckabees" (my pick for best
film of last year) as a kind of "peace movie" comedy as well. What I
love most about it -- apart from its wonderfully sensuous aesthetic
features -- is that it too offers a working, non-violent alternative
to isolationism, totalitarianism and misplaced hatred -- and it's not
a particularly naval-gazing alternative either, but one that relies
on questioning the status quo and walking a very humanist line.
The film really isn't an "existential comedy" at all (whatever that
is!); the ideas themselves (which are, in the film, overly
simplified) are not nearly as important as the act of actively trying
to engage with them. Indeed, I think the most telling scene of the
film is when Whalberg orders his daughter to never stop asking
questions.
Needless to say that the film was, for me, one of the most optimistic
films of last year, American or otherwise, in that it maintained from
the outset that we *do* have a choice and that we *can* choose to
walk this other, more progressive path if we wish. As far as "peace
movies" go (as far as movies in general go, in fact), I think it
succeeds admirably.
21950
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:25pm
Subject: Armond White (Was: Re: A notable critic)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
>
> One of the (few!) high points of Slate's Movie Club last year was
> Dennis Lim's pinpointing of Armond White's style as "predicated on
a
> bullying unpredictable subjectivity". Those words seem very
> carefully chosen and I think every one of them will stick.
Slate's "Movie Club" did absolutely nothing for me this year, and
this was due, in large part, to White's bullying of, you know, almost
everyone. (As a blogger, his definition of online pundits as "snake-
hipped word-slingers [who] don't know what they're talking about"
really grated at me.) I don't for a second question his capacity for
being informative, which is indeed an important part of being a
critic, just his ugly conviction that the best way to approach
someone else and their opinions is with a mind to badger them into
submission.
21951
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
Welcome, Dave
I think you are perfectly correct. I saw it today at a press screening (It
won't open in Brazil until february 11th) and I'm still, twelve hours later,
very much impressed by it, still feeling that I haven't caught up with all
of its virtualities. I agree 100% with you about the obsessive-compulsive
disorder being the focus, or, as you say, "the whole picture", and its
association with capitalism. Deleuze & Guattari wrote two volumes called
"Capitalism and schizophrenia", saying capitalism decodes to recode in
another place, and that this decoding is the essence of capitalism.
People tend to watch "The Aviator" like it was the average Milos Forman
film: the guy who struggles against all, show the moral flaws of the society
in the way, and in the end gets away with it (or not). That's a whole
different ballgame with this one.
And even if I find Bill's comments and piece for Cahiers illuminating (still
don't know what to make of Burdeau's review, have to read it again), I think
indeed it's a film also about Scorsese and the figure of the director, in a
way. Also, doing the auteuristic turn, Hughes is turned into a Scorsese
character pretty much like a handful of other protagonists of his films.
One thing that comes to my mind about the film is the disease: Hughes is
taught to keep away from germs, but it turns out that it's not after all a
contagious malady that gets him, but rather a hereditary (mother-->son)
curse: paranoia. Still don't know what to make of it, though.
Anyway, not a masterpiece, but a very strong film.
FWIW, count me on the "didn't like Blanchett" front.
Ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "dmgurney"
> It seems to me that a lot of the problems people are having with The
> Aviator stem from ignoring the obsessive-compulsive insanity of the
> Hughes character. To me, that was the whole picture. This man who
> was, at least for the sake of the film, capitalism's ne plus ultra
> was afflicted by horribly debilitating mental illness. I didn't feel
> that Scorsese was milking it for sympathy either. While it did serve
> to heighten the tension of the Senate hearing, ultimately, I felt no
> sadness for his fate. It seemed like a perfect counterpoint to
> remind us what the price for such monetary excess may be.
> Also, I think that The Aviator, as it is a celebration of filmmaking
> itself, may be more about Scorsese (or at least the figure of the
> director) than it is about Bush. I think that it offers some
> interesting insight as to how he views himself.
> Either way, I found it to be a very worthwhile film with some real
> complexity in its depiction of Hughes. Of course not everything was
> captured, but that criticism can be leveled at any biopic.
> And for the record, I loved Cate Blanchett as Hepburn.
> Dave
21952
From:
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 2:30pm
Subject: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
In a message dated 05-01-28 19:47:37 EST, David E writes:
<< "The Aviator" is in many ways comparable to "Moonfleet," and "Der Tiger
von Eschnapur? Das Indische Grabmal" -- Lang at his most sublime, and a
central Oudartian fetish. >>
Much of "Der Tiger von Eschnapur" (Fritz Lang, 1959) is in a red-green color
scheme. One wonders if Lang recalled two-color Technicolor, and was evoking
somewhat similar effects in the film. (Das Indische Grabmal gets away from this
scheme, including a lot of blue.)
Scorsese certainly evoked two-color in first part of the film - although in
"The Aviator" everything is red or shades of blue - not green.
I would also echo David E's point, that the Senate hearings in the film
resemble those in real life newsreels. Orson Welles' "F For Fake" has a sequence of
old newsreels of Hughes, and they bear a close resemblance to Scorsese's film
- the Spruce Goose flight, as well as the hearings.
Another homage: "The Starirway to Paradise" numebr at the beginning recalls
Minnelli's version in "An American in Paris" - Minnelli is a Scorsese favorite.
Mike Grost
21953
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's Detractors
Why does the shot that makes way from 2-strip to Techinicolor-as-we-kwow is
the first one on Juan Trippe's bureau? Any thoughts on that?
----- Original Message -----
From: "David Ehrenstein"
To:
>
> As I believe I mentioned in here it's a history of
> color cinematography.
>
21954
From: Charles Hoehnen
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:34pm
Subject: Lacan, Psycho Culture (Re: Scrosese's Detractors)
jpcoursodon wrote:
"It could, and should, be argued that all 'cultures' are psychotic
by nature. The nature being human nature."
"Capitalism is always the scapegoat. Whereas it's more like a red
herring."
Doesn't capitalism produce a "rigid" psychosis (or moves towards rigidity)
though, whereas minority-cultures are in a "playful" flux that resists the
beligerence of capitalism?
I haven't seen "The Aviator" yet (and to be honest I can't summon up
enthusiasm for it), but as far as films that either demonstrate capitalism,
culture, or the individuals psychotic "nature" (I use that term loosely!) I
prefer "Spider". I don't think it's just an oedipal crisis like many
critics claimed on its release. Though don't hold me to that, I'm stil
confused by that film.
Charlie Hoehnen / year90ninezero@h...
_________________________________________________________________
Express yourself instantly with MSN Messenger! Download today - it's FREE!
http://messenger.msn.click-url.com/go/onm00200471ave/direct/01/
21955
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
From: "jpcoursodon"
To:
> (1)It could, and should, be argued that all "cultures" are psychotic
> by nature. The nature being human nature.
> (2)Capitalism is always the scapegoat. Whereas it's more like a red
> herring.
1. Sick, maybe. Psychotic, not at all. It's exclusively ours.
Anthropologically ours.
2. It mediates everything we do in life. No escape. And no goat.
21956
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 7:38pm
Subject: re: Spoilers
Jean-Pierre, in an ideal world - or ideal publications - the whole
'spoilers' thing would not exist. But I would go further than Bill on
this point: giving away endings in a newspaper film-review context not
only gets a reviewer hate-mail, it can also get him or her promptly
FIRED. Which is absurd, but true. My feeling is that the 'spoilers'
phenomenon - at least in its current intensity - is a fairly recent
invention - no one went on about it in the 1980s, as I recall. If this
was the '60s and Godard was making BANDE A PART, I am sure he would
cheekily interrupt the plot for a 'spoilers' announcement - what a
Brechtian device !!!!
Actually, in my experience I have found that it is not only endings,
but indeed any strong plot points or narrative turning points which are
mentioned with peril by a newspaper film reviewer. When THE APOSTLE
came out, I said in my review that the plot kicks in when Duvall
committs a murder and flees - something that happens maybe 15 minutes
into the movie. I received hate mail about 'giving this away', implying
I should only have discussed the first 14 minutes of the movie!!!! And
literally 5 years later, I had people (including some Professors of
Literature who liked to slum off to the movies in their spare time)
literally YELLING at me for giving away the 15-minute mark plot-point
of APOSTLE, it was a sore point!!! Indeed, as you say, Jean-Pierre,
such strictures create, in reviews, crazy zones of vagueness and
ambiguity. But sometimes even such careful (or clumsy) circumlocutions
will be briskly cut by a newspaper's sub-editors if they so much as
HINT at an ending - this has happened to my pieces often. For instance,
in my review of KILL BILL 2, I ended by saying that, although Uma
Thurman has many names throughout the story, she ends up with the
loveliest name - and I didn't say what it was. A veritable POSSE of
sub-editors complained to my editor that this spoilt the ending!!!!!!
Now to tackle the challenge of reviewing for next week's newspaper
MILLION DOLLAR BABY, which I love ... (whereas I loathe THE AVIATOR,
Scorsese's worst film by a long stretch).
Adrian
21957
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:19pm
Subject: re: Scorsese's detractors
How can Scorsese want - with any intelligence - to 'identify' himself
with Howard Hughes the filmmaker? As Tony pointed out, HH was a
mediocre-to-bad filmmaker. Conjuring him as the 'grand visionary
gripped with divine folly' is a crock. The scene where HH realises -
eureka! - that he needs clouds in the background to show the movement
of planes is given to us by Scorsese as if it were a great conceptual
breakthrough in cinema history, rather than the feeble realisation of a
rank (albeit rich) amateur. Then again, maybe Scorsese is banking on
the side on a little HH-as-Ed-Wood sympathic humour here!! Either way,
the film is completely bankrupt on every level - intellectually,
artistically, politically ...
And that ending! A very bad mix of the ends of RAGING BULL (man alone
in a bathroom with a mirror), KING OF COMEDY (listen to the repetition
and that final flourish of reverb on the raving Leo! - I hoped to hear
a Johhny Carson sidekick pipe in with "wonderful Howard Hughes!
Wonderful, wonderful!") and Todd Haynes' SAFE (woman alone in a
capsule-room with a mirror, cracking up) - all three of which are
infinitely better films than THE AVIATOR!
Tony suggests, brilliantly, that there is a displacement of Kazan in
the movie. I am working on the theory that it's Scorsese's masochistic
tribute to that tyrannical rich guy Harvey Weinstein.
mad as hell Adrian
21958
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:28pm
Subject: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>> >
> "The Aviator" is in many ways comparable to
> "Moonfleet," and "Der Tiger von Eschnapur? Das
> Indische Grabmal" -- Lang at his most sublime, and a
> central Oudartian fetish.
>
>
> David, please elaborate. This is fascinating.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21959
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:31pm
Subject: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> > "The Aviator" is in many ways comparable to
> > "Moonfleet," and "Der Tiger von Eschnapur? Das
> > Indische Grabmal" -- Lang at his most sublime, and a
> > central Oudartian fetish.
> >
> >
> > David, please elaborate. This is fascinating.
> >
Wow, David! Are you kidding us or do you have a touch of Howard?
Seriously, thoough, when I met Ben Johnson some years ago, he
mentioned that the drugs given to Hughes after his crash were the
really cause of his later instability.
Tony Williams
21960
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:42pm
Subject: Re: Spoilers
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
Now to tackle the challenge of reviewing for next week's newspaper
> MILLION DOLLAR BABY, which I love ... (whereas I loathe THE
AVIATOR,
> Scorsese's worst film by a long stretch).
>
> Adrian
Well, Adrian, I feel your pain. Everything you say is right. I don't
know what I'd do if I was making a living writing film reviews for
daily papers. I probably wouldn't survive a week. On the other hand
daily reviewers make money out of their writings so I guess they can
compromise a bit. I can remember a time when I actually got paid for
my stuff in monthly French film mags, but unfortunately POSITIF
survives economically by not paying contributors. That's the price
of freedom.
Anywy, good luck with your quasi-review of MDB.
21961
From: Chris Fujiwara
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:48pm
Subject: million dollar baby
Since I haven't noticed too many cudgels raised on Million Dollar
Baby's behalf in this group, here are my two cents. I've read the
attacks on the film, cited here, by David Walsh (who's always
interesting) and Michael Miner. Here are the links again:
Walsh, "The absence of democratic sensibility in American filmmaking":
http://wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/mill-j22.shtml
Miner, "Dubious Conclusions":
http://www.chireader.com/hottype/2005/050128_1.html
I've never used the word "spoilers" before, but... talk about
spoilers, the following is all about nothing else but the last ten
minutes of the film.
The argument (made by Miner and, apparently, by Michael Wilmington)
that because the perpetrator of euthanasia is played by a famous
movie star, the film is in favor of euthanasia, strikes me as clearly
specious. It would be more of an argument to say that by making
Frankie (Eastwood) a sympathetic figure and by showing him hold out,
for a while, against Maggie's request to kill her, the film portrays
his action in as attractive a light as possible.
On the other hand, the arguments of both Walsh and Miner depend on
discounting the importance of Frankie's Catholicism, ignoring the
warning of the priest that Frankie will be "lost" if he does what
Maggie asks, and ignoring what to me is the most memorable moment of
the film, the shot of Frankie in semi-darkness imploring
Maggie, "Please don't ask me." Here is Walsh:
"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.
"Eastwood's characters, on the other hand, take matters into their
own hands and then go about their business, convinced of their
essential rightness, with no indication that they would not carry out
the same act in the future. In other words, as he mows you down,
Eastwood tells you, with a grimace, 'This will hurt me more than it
will hurt you.'"
Walsh's tacit identification of Frankie killing Maggie with Dirty
Harry Callahan killing the Scorpio killer is interesting and should
be pursued further. But - but - surely the point of the ending of
Million Dollar Baby, in spite of what Walsh says here, is that
Frankie, far from being "convinced of the essential rightness" of
what he is doing, has decided that for Maggie's sake, to meet her
stated demand, he is going to sacrifice his own life. That this is so
is reinforced by the last scene with the priest and seems clear from
the last moments of the film, which indicate that Frankie has
disappeared and suggest that he has brought to an end not only his
career but another important aspect of his identity in giving up his
attempts to communicate with his daughter. So Frankie's killing of
Maggie is also a suicide. (Which also recalls the ending of Dirty
Harry.)
(In passing, though this isn't essential to my argument, note that
Walsh's prescription for "a serious artistic representation of an
inner conflict" is a little restrictive and would probably shut out
Bresson, just to name the first director who comes to mind.)
The film emphasizes Frankie's tragedy, to which Maggie's is
secondary, as I observed in a favorable review I wrote for a weekly
newspaper. Here of course the film is open to attack, not only from
the point of view of an advocate of more positive cinematic
representations of the quality of life of disabled people, but from a
feminist perspective. (Not that I've encountered any feminist
critiques of the film.) And here is where an auteurist perspective
would intervene to show that Eastwood has been interested throughout
his career in the self-contradictions and psychological torment of
the representatives of patriarchal law and to argue that Million
Dollar Baby is a highpoint (or perhaps not) of Eastwood's examination
of this theme.
I find Walsh persuasive when he states that "Aside from its three
central figures, who are given some sort of special dispensation,
Eastwood's work expresses nothing but contempt for humanity,
especially for working class humanity." Walsh makes a similar
observation about Mystic River in his review of that film. However.
The "special dispensation" still counts. Either you think it's a mere
concession to the requirements of an entertaining mainstream film, or
you think, as I do, that it's the expression of a certain morality -
in other words, that Eastwood holds up Frankie, Maggie, and Scrap
(the Morgan Freeman character) as figures whose actions are admirable.
In this he's being consciously old-fashioned. But I don't believe
that the negative portrayal of Maggie's family makes Million Dollar
Baby a reactionary film, as Walsh thinks ("this slander against a
healthy portion of the American population...."), though I might be
persuaded to go along with a criticism of this aspect of the film as
not outstanding for its subtlety.
Walsh writes, "Million Dollar Baby, by implication, acknowledges that
the 'American Dream' has become far less attainable under
contemporary conditions, but that does not prevent the filmmaker from
urging its pursuit." First of all, the film is about as much a
recruiting poster for the American Dream as, say, High Sierra is.
Second, it's when Walsh writes things like this that you realize that
if you agree with him, you have to reject not just Clint Eastwood,
but almost every film that has ever been made in the United States
about a working-class person of extraordinary gifts, energy, or
ruthlessness who achieves success. That includes a large number of
gangster films and films about independent criminals, a lot of films
about actors and musicians, probably most films about sports (not
that there are many great ones), and plenty of Westerns. Many of the
greatest American films say this very thing: that even though the
American Dream is not attainable, people still strive to attain it.
One reason why some critics have long defended Eastwood (and have,
obviously, by no means deserted him after his two latest films) is
that he is one of the few American filmmakers still sustaining the
tradition of exploring such contradictions within an ostensibly
popular framework.
21962
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:52pm
Subject: Lacan, Psycho Culture (Re: Scrosese's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Hoehnen"
wrote:
>
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> "It could, and should, be argued that all 'cultures' are psychotic
> by nature. The nature being human nature."
>
> "Capitalism is always the scapegoat. Whereas it's more like a red
> herring."
>
> Doesn't capitalism produce a "rigid" psychosis (or moves towards
rigidity)
> though, whereas minority-cultures are in a "playful" flux that
resists the
> beligerence of capitalism?
If you say so, I guess. I just don't know. Seems to me
our "culture" is self-centered to the point that it insists on being
the most psychotic to the exclusion of all others (which are seen in
a naive sort of Rousseauist way as impervious to the evils of ours).
Please! just look around and report to me on the "playfullness"
of "minority cultures."
>
>
21963
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:55pm
Subject: Re: Re: "Huckabees" as "Peace Movie" (was: Colour my review)
I quite agree. And as much as I like "Sideways" its
rather distressing that its success has served to
overwhelm other similarly-scaled films of value like
"Huckabees," "A Home at the End of the World" and "The
Life Aquatic."
--- Matthew Clayfield
wrote:
>
> Needless to say that the film was, for me, one of
> the most optimistic
> films of last year, American or otherwise, in that
> it maintained from
> the outset that we *do* have a choice and that we
> *can* choose to
> walk this other, more progressive path if we wish.
> As far as "peace
> movies" go (as far as movies in general go, in
> fact), I think it
> succeeds admirably.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
21964
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 8:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
>
> Another homage: "The Starirway to Paradise" numebr
> at the beginning recalls
> Minnelli's version in "An American in Paris" -
> Minnelli is a Scorsese favorite.
>
One can only wonder what Minnelli would have made of
--
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g011/rufuswainright.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
21965
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:05pm
Subject: Re: re: Scorsese's detractors
--- Adrian Martin wrote:
> How can Scorsese want - with any intelligence - to
> 'identify' himself
> with Howard Hughes the filmmaker?
What makes you think he identifies with ANY of his
protagoists?
Travis Bickle?
Jack LaMotta?
Ace in "Casino"?
Henry Hill?
You've got to be kidding, Adrian.
There are only TWO cinematic Marty-alter-egos: Griffin
Dunne in "After Hours" and Daniel Day Lewis in "The
Age of Innocence"
Everyone else is the brother nobody wants to talk
about.
-- David "More in sorrow than in Look Back in Anger"
Ehrenstein
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
21966
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
Well this is about the color scheme, primarily. But a
good place to start dealing with more substantial
matter is the cut (the greatest since
bone-to-spaceship in "2001") from Leonardo running his
hands across Cate Blanchett's back to running his
hands across the surface of the model of his new
plane.
Another Oudartian fetish parallel: "Ivan the Terrible"
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> wrote:
> >
> >> >
> > "The Aviator" is in many ways comparable to
> > "Moonfleet," and "Der Tiger von Eschnapur? Das
> > Indische Grabmal" -- Lang at his most sublime, and
> a
> > central Oudartian fetish.
> >
> >
> > David, please elaborate. This is fascinating.
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage
> less.
> > http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
21967
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:09pm
Subject: Re: million dollar baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Chris Fujiwara"
wrote:
>
> Since I haven't noticed too many cudgels raised on Million Dollar
> Baby's behalf in this group, here are my two cents. I've read the
> attacks on the film, cited here, by David Walsh (who's always
> interesting) and Michael Miner. Here are the links again:
>
> Walsh, "The absence of democratic sensibility in American
filmmaking":
> http://wsws.org/articles/2005/jan2005/mill-j22.shtml
>
> Miner, "Dubious Conclusions":
> http://www.chireader.com/hottype/2005/050128_1.html
>
>
To the extent that Walsh's ranting deserves to be answered I
think Chris's post, which I have to delete per moderators's
instructions, is the best possible response. I read Walsh before
seeing the film and was somewhat suspicious, seeing where he was
coming from. After seeing the film, I feel his objections almost
totally worthless, biassed in the worst possible way.
21968
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 9:59pm
Subject: if we all got along
... after reading the posts about directors / personal beliefs, I
wondered what cinema would be like 'if we all got along," or if every
boy got his girl / boy, or what have you, or if social classes did not
exist (just watched Crimson Gold), etc.
21969
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:08pm
Subject: Re: "Huckabees" as "Peace Movie" (was: Colour my review)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield"
wrote:
>
>
> Personally, I would describe "I Heart Huckabees" (my pick for best
> film of last year) as a kind of "peace movie" comedy as well. What
I
> love most about it -- apart from its wonderfully sensuous aesthetic
> features -- is that it too offers a working, non-violent
alternative
> to isolationism, totalitarianism and misplaced hatred -- and it's
not
> a particularly naval-gazing alternative either, but one that relies
> on questioning the status quo and walking a very humanist line.
I'm on record as loving that movie inordinately. The overtly
political pendant to it is Soldiers Pay, the interviews with
Americans and Iraqis about the current war which Russell and two
colleagues shot as a bonus to go on the 3 Kings DVD. Warners didn't
want it, so it ended up on the new DVD edition of Uncovered, Robert
Greenwald's documentary about the war. It's well worth renting
Uncovered just to see it.
It is a quintessentially Russellian film: funny and unexpected. And
it lets you hear the voices of American GIs, who are mostly silenced
on our news broadcasts - working-class kids. (I saw it at Torino in a
double bill with Scorsese's Lady by the Sea, a film about the idea of
democracy that gives all its interview space to well-of members of
the white intellectual elite, with one black librarian "pour
meubler" - but as Christa Fuller, who loves Marty, said, "What do
you expect from a movie produced by American Express?"!)
Russell comes from a background of political organizing, and
Huckabees as well as Soldiers Pay are joyous examples of making
political films politically. I won't say more to avoid SPOILING the
surprises, but I urge everyone to rent Uncovered, make lots of dupes
of Soldiers Pay and give them to your friends.
21970
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:12pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese's Detractors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> Why does the shot that makes way from 2-strip to Techinicolor-as-we-
kwow is
> the first one on Juan Trippe's bureau? Any thoughts on that?
Actually, it happens earlier, when Hepburn is fixing his foot after
the first crash.
21971
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:14pm
Subject: Lacan, Psycho Culture (Re: Scrosese's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Hoehnen"
wrote:
>
> jpcoursodon wrote:
as far as films that either demonstrate capitalism,
> culture, or the individuals psychotic "nature" (I use that term
loosely!) I
> prefer "Spider". I don't think it's just an oedipal crisis like
many
> critics claimed on its release. Though don't hold me to that, I'm
stil
> confused by that film.
Spider is about a psychotic guy who represents nothing but himself,
whereas Hughes represents a psychotic society. Spider is the best
film Cronenberg has made in ages, and a better film than The Aviator,
IMO. But that doesn't mean The Aviator isn't a very good film!
21972
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:17pm
Subject: Aviator's Cate as KATE
Cate B never conveyed the one trait I associate most with KATE HEPBURN,
on and off the screen ... confidence, neither Hepburn's inner
confidence, nor Cate B's own confidence that she could portray Hepburn
more than superficially.
> From: "dmgurney"
> And for the record, I loved Cate Blanchett as Hepburn.
21973
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:24pm
Subject: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> > Another homage: "The Starirway to Paradise" numebr
> > at the beginning recalls
> > Minnelli's version in "An American in Paris" -
> > Minnelli is a Scorsese favorite.
> >
>
> One can only wonder what Minnelli would have made of
> --
> http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g011/rufuswainright.html
You know how many seconds he's on screen? MAYBE twelve. I love the
whole Grove sequence, and I was stunned to see how short it is when I
resaw the film - it really hits you in the eye!
21974
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:30pm
Subject: Re: million dollar baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> To the extent that Walsh's ranting deserves to be answered I
> think Chris's post, which I have to delete per moderators's
> instructions, is the best possible response. I read Walsh before
> seeing the film and was somewhat suspicious, seeing where he was
> coming from. After seeing the film, I feel his objections almost
> totally worthless, biassed in the worst possible way.\
Chris shopws great promise, but if you want to read a classic, quote-
every-line polemic against a wrong-headed critic, check out Jonathan
Rosenbaum's Film Comment review of Raising Kane, reprinted in James
Naremore's Casebook on Kane. I see that Chris has learned from
Jonathan's gambit of starting out moderate, before launching into the
most scathing demolition job on Kael ever done. It's great to have it
back in print.
21975
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:31pm
Subject: Re: if we all got along
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> ... after reading the posts about directors / personal beliefs, I
> wondered what cinema would be like 'if we all got along," or if
every
> boy got his girl / boy, or what have you, or if social classes did
not
> exist (just watched Crimson Gold), etc.
The disappearance of classes will take at least another 1000 years.
We won't be around to know what it's like.
21976
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:36pm
Subject: re: Scorsese's detractors
David, good point - it is is wrong to assume that Scorsese usually
identifies with his heroes/anti-heroes. BUT in the case of THE AVIATOR
- and to change the terms of the debate away a bit from the auteur's
identification with the main character - here is a film that totally
goes out of its way to beat up reasons to sympathise with Hughes - all
that garbage about him being a self-made man, the 'little guy' up
against the nasty system, the 'visionary' who was crushed just because
he couldn't get his plans built in time ...
There is NONE of this kind of special pleading in RAGING BULL or
CASINO. I do not agree with you that the tone of AVIATOR is 'dry as
dust' - only at moments is this so - there is too much attempt to whip
up affection for the guy. (Even stuff like his 'perfectionism' in plane
design recalls Ace's critique of muffin cooking in CASINO - and
presumably also Scorsese's own perfectionism in the filmmaking
process.)
I just don't think Scorsese came to grips - idea-wise - with this
project. I get the sense he made it in an extreme state of alienation!
The attempts by the film to somehow link individual psychopathology
with the 'psychosis of capitalism' are completely mangled and
ill-formed, potential at best - especially when we see SO LITTLE of
capitalism's workings - Scorsese here taking safe refuge behind the
dreamy solipsism of his main character - in contrast with the mountain
of detail (precisely often OUTSIDE Ace's POV) in CASINO.
THE AVIATOR is a profoundly disillusioning film for me. It made me
think that Scorsese hasn't made a completely coherent and satisfying
film since KUNDUN. The 'pedagogical' docos on filmmaking and blues, the
fiasco of GANGS OF NEW YORK - and whatever the production problems on
that one, it shows Scorsese's inability to grapple with complex
political themes (the ending, 'the hands that built America', is a
disgrace). It's little wonder to me that the only bits of AVIATOR that
come at all to life are the strictly 'personal' bits about jealous or
angry women taking a piece out of the caddish/controlling HH! But also
- on that subject - could there possibly be a film about a 'rogue
seducer' more SEXLESS than AVIATOR? Sex has always been hard for
Scorsese to depict or even approach: it's that puritanical/squeamish
Bresson side of him ...
Adrian
21977
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:44pm
Subject: Re: if we all got along
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> > ... after reading the posts about directors / personal beliefs, I
> > wondered what cinema would be like 'if we all got along," or if
> every
> > boy got his girl / boy, or what have you, or if social classes did
> not
> > exist (just watched Crimson Gold), etc.
>
> The disappearance of classes will take at least another 1000 years.
> We won't be around to know what it's like.
Some time ago, Fred wrote me a joke about getting along, as a reply to
my joke about getting along:
Two economists are sitting and discussing economy. Neither says anything.
Fred's reply was:
Five jews are sitting around a table and discussing. Six opinions are
being said.
21978
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 10:58pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
It's little wonder to me that the only bits of AVIATOR that
> come at all to life are the strictly 'personal' bits about jealous
or
> angry women taking a piece out of the caddish/controlling HH!
Jeez Louise, Adrian - that's only about five minutes of film!
21979
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:08pm
Subject: Re: if we all got along
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> > ... after reading the posts about directors / personal beliefs,
I
> > wondered what cinema would be like 'if we all got along," or if
> every
> > boy got his girl / boy, or what have you, or if social classes
did
> not
> > exist (just watched Crimson Gold), etc.
>
> The disappearance of classes will take at least another 1000
years.
> We won't be around to know what it's like.
It will most certainly be immensely boring, and I doubt there
will be any cinema left, since there will be no more conflicts to
make films about.
21980
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:11pm
Subject: Re: if we all got along
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> It will most certainly be immensely boring, and I doubt there
> will be any cinema left, since there will be no more conflicts to
> make films about.
That's what I was going to say, J-P. At the risk of employing the old
cliché, I thought drama was conflict!
21981
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: if we all got along
jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> It will most certainly be immensely boring, and I doubt there
> will be any cinema left, since there will be no more conflicts to
> make films about.
Aaah, this is where a more thorough appreciation of avant-garde film
would help. In Elizabeth's version of paradise, where there were no big
conflicts, people would make films about the "small" ones -- basic human
limitations such as our inability to see a world in a grain of sand.
There would be films of grains of sand or sidewalks or clouds or little
scraps of paper or ashtrays that would be about deepening our perception
of, and pleasure in, the everyday. Sort of like, you know, Brakhage.
Fred Camper
21982
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Jan 28, 2005 11:45pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors
To me, a central part of Scorsese's protagonists is their inability to
come to terms with the world around them. As a result, they rebel
against it, by building their own world. Thus, for me, the archtypical
Scorsese protagonist are characters like Travis, Jake, Ruperts, Dobie
(Life Lessons) and Ace; And to some extend Jesus.
Part of their rebellion is micromanagement of their own world. I tend
to agree with Adrian, that this can be interpreted as a reflection of
Scorsese's own search for perfection, and as such, the Travis who goes
thru his personal boothill and the Ace who gets upset about the
muffins, note upon this.
But where I feel that the character of Hughes differs strongly here
is, that Hughes' rebellion is marked by his disease. While his
rebellion is based upon a desire to create his own world, it is not so
much the world around him, but his disorder which dictates his zeal.
As such, I feel that the portrait of Hughes is bend and twisted into a
Scorsese protagonist.
Another characteristic with the, for me central, Scorsese characters
is their failure with women, and also here I feel like Scorsese bends
and twists the relationships of Hughes. Where the characters doesn't
love, but seek control, Hughes did love, seen by his supression of the
photo's of Hepburn and Tracy. And rather than be an integrated part of
the character, it appears to me, that the relationships a mere
chronological inserts.
Also, I can't help feeling that the Capraesque quality of the little
"very rich" man vs. the big ugly system, is very unlike for Scorsese.
It lacks vision, or as Adrian says, its disillusioning.
Storywise, "The Aviator" is also a confused film. I still don't know
what the point of the film is. As it cuts short half thru his life,
its not really a biopic, but has a tv series "pilot" note to it. It
focusses very heavily of Hughes as an aviator, yet it already early
establishes him as both a great pilot and engeneer, and then leaps
from project to project. Here it lacks focus, and one can argue if the
film is too long and gaps too wide. And finally, it introduces itself
by establishing the cause for his disease, and thruout the film makes
a great deal out of it, for instance the pea's and steak, even
finishes noting upon the disorder, yet this part of the film never
become elements of the narrative, but rather float around as
informators on the non-narrative path. What does the film try to say,
that is my biggest question.
In the two recent films by Scorsese, "Gangs of New York" and "The
Aviator", I sense a Scorsese who has run out of steam, who has no more
demons to battle, who now has substituted vision with an attempt to
please, to make mere films, especially considering his upcoming remake
of "Internal Affairs".
Henrik
21983
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 0:07am
Subject: Re: if we all got along
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> jpcoursodon wrote:
> > It will most certainly be immensely boring, and I doubt there
> > will be any cinema left, since there will be no more conflicts to
> > make films about.
> Aaah, this is where a more thorough appreciation of avant-garde film
> would help. In Elizabeth's version of paradise, where there were no big
> conflicts, people would make films about the "small" ones -- basic human
> limitations such as our inability to see a world in a grain of sand.
> There would be films of grains of sand or sidewalks or clouds or little
> scraps of paper or ashtrays that would be about deepening our perception
> of, and pleasure in, the everyday. Sort of like, you know, Brakhage.
> Fred Camper
My original 'all get along' post had another sentence about
'conflict = drama' but I deleted it as almost answering the question.
Interesting how many responded with conflict/drama reference.
And while I did not mention such a world as paradise (in the least,
natural disaster threats would remain), Fred, I like best your reply. I
promise to get back to my Brakhage DVD as I don't expect a Brakhage
screening opportunity here in SD. Tonight I was looking for something
entertaining after watching Viscounti's La Terra Trema and found
THE STORM RIDERS.
Elizabeth
21984
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 0:11am
Subject: Cameron's Next?
At the end of an AP description of James Cameron's new Cousteau
exercise opening in 3-D IMAX today (Aliens of the Deep), there's this
intriguing note: "Cameron said his next 3-D feature will be "Battle
Angel," a science fiction film based on a series of Japanese graphic
novels." An IMAX short or a feature with an IMAX version? I suspect
the latter: Polar Express is still playing in IMAX 3-D, with little
attendant publicity.
21985
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 0:15am
Subject: Re: if we all got along
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
In my youth I wrote a "paranoid-utopian" novel attacking, among other
cliches, the idea that utopia would be boring, but couldn't lick the
utopian part: too boring.
21986
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:02am
Subject: Re: if we all got along
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"It [the disappearance of classes] will most certainly be immensely
boring, and I doubt there will be any cinema left, since there will
be no more conflicts to make films about."
But even in a classless society there will still be love and lack-
love, birth, sickness, old age and death. Didn't Marx aver that only
then will tragedy be possible?
Richard
21987
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:52am
Subject: Anti-Semitism in Passion of the Christ (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
> Call me naive, or maybe its because I live in a liberal country,
but I
> fail to see why "Braveheart" is an attack on gay people and why
> "Passion of Christ" is an attack on Jews.
I know I posted this before, but it might be worth it posting it
again:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/425
Of note is Cunningham's article: he makes as good and thorough
argument as any I know on the movie's anti-Semitism.
As for an asthetic argument, I try at one here (again, repeat
posting but I feel worth repeating):
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/425
21988
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 1:57am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors
I need to work out how I feel about the movie myself. I enjoyed it
tremendously, but I do have problems with the sunnier than you'd
think (considering it's Scorsese) portrayal of Hughes. I do think
Logan's script is rather weak, but much of the filmmaking pretty
good.
If Scorsese is hitting a rough patch of his career, it might be
noted he's done that before, and pulled through somehow. I'd guess
he's struggling as always--this time with the epic Hollywood
superproduction format, complete with CGI effects.
Bill, you mentioned a comparison between Bush and Hughes in the
film. Care to elaborate on that? Might help me think things through.
21989
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 4:22am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
> Bill, you mentioned a comparison between Bush and Hughes in the
> film. Care to elaborate on that? Might help me think things through.
Howard Hughes biopics have been floating around Hollywood for
decades. The fact that this one got made in 2004 has something to do
with the similarities between Hughes and our present Thief of State,
who is also a Texan born to oil money, messianically convinced of the
rightness of his judgements, surrounded by yes-men, a spendthrift, a
fanatical proponent of the free enterprise system (fueled, of course,
by government contracts), an enemy of government regulation, and even
an aviator, sort of.
The thing that differentiates Hughes from Bush is what Bush's father
called "the vision thing," which Hughes possessed in abundance, as
the first hour of Scorsese's film dramatizes by focusing on the three
years during which he risked all to make Hell's Angels. By contrast,
Bush's fling with film production was only marginally more
distinguished than his incursions into the oil business - for ten
years he was as an uncredited member of the board of Silver Screen
Partners, a film investment group started by a fellow Skull and Bones
member that put money into 74 Tri-Star and Disney films in the 80s.
So far the only critic I've tried this on who has bought it is Joe
McBride, who observed that period films are ALWAYS about the year
they were made. Given the numerous points of similarity (including
the possibility that Bush may be going nuts like the Ur-Bush did),
I'm surprised that everyone else wants to see the character as
Scorsese or Harvey Weinstein, just because he's in the movie
business.
I think Scorsese, while not being right-wing himself, does best in
his filmmaking when he steers close to the soul of the country, which
has been right-wing as long as he or I have been alive. That's
certainly what he did in Taxi Driver, about a character not too
different from Peter Boyle in Joe (which he also plays in Taxi
Driver). When I pointed out the similarities between After Hours and
the German silent film The Street to Scorsese he asked, "Are you
saying we made a fascist film?" But he said it with good humor.
A director who gets endlessly bad-rapped for doing the same thing (in
Deer Hunter and Year of the Dragon) is Cimino. In his case, too, I
think of it as the artist immersing himself in the destructive
element (Conrad). Which doesn't mean that he didn't call De Niro's
character "Michael," or portray himself making Heaven's Gate in
Dragon. That's part of why they're good films.
But I agree with David that the brutes and wackos Scorsese usually
portrays are more like "the brother no one talks about," or maybe the
guys who used to beat up on little asthamtic Marty after school, even
though I hear a touch of self-mockery in the last line of
Goodfellows, when Liotta picks up the newspaper like a 30s contract
director picking up the week's script pages off the front lawn and
says, "Now I'm a schmuck just like everybody else."
21990
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 4:27am
Subject: Re: Cameron's Next?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> At the end of an AP description of James Cameron's new Cousteau
> exercise opening in 3-D IMAX today (Aliens of the Deep), there's
this
> intriguing note: "Cameron said his next 3-D feature will be "Battle
> Angel," a science fiction film based on a series of Japanese
graphic
> novels." An IMAX short or a feature with an IMAX version? I suspect
> the latter: Polar Express is still playing in IMAX 3-D, with little
> attendant publicity.
Here's a crazy idea - let's all review the film now, so we don't have
to talk about it when it comes out!
21991
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 7:36am
Subject: Re: The Big Clock (Was: neutral style)
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.
My take is that the script tries to soften a story inherited from a
fairly dark, hardboiled book, complete with gay and lesbian
characters. The movie script adds a female "beard" foe the killer and
lots of humour. But in the filming someof this is undone, by casting
Laughton and MacReady, whoseem determine to push the surviving
homosexual subtext back to the surface, and the director certainly
seems complicit in this.
What's impressive is that this clash of approaches WORKS.
21992
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:15am
Subject: Re: Lacan, Psycho Culture (Re: Scrosese's Detractors)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> Spider is the best
> film Cronenberg has made in ages,
Really? I find it too staid. I much prefer "Crash,"
where he finally comes to grips to what we call on the
net "HOT MAN-TO-MAN ACTION!" after the needlessly
squirrely "Naked Lunch."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
21993
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:18am
Subject: Re: Re: Scrosese's Detractors (was: Clint's Detractors)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> You know how many seconds he's on screen? MAYBE
> twelve. I love the
> whole Grove sequence, and I was stunned to see how
> short it is when I
> resaw the film - it really hits you in the eye!
>
Just shows you how elastic screen time can be.
Practically the entire Wainwright clan turns up in the
Grove. Rufus' Dad, Loudon sings "Happy Feet" in the
next scene there and in a later one his Aunt Martha is
the featured chantootsie.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
21994
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:27am
Subject: Wainwrights (Was: Scrosese's Detractors)
> Practically the entire Wainwright clan turns up in the
> Grove. Rufus' Dad, Loudon sings "Happy Feet" in the
> next scene there and in a later one his Aunt Martha is
> the featured chantootsie.
That would be sister Martha. He has an aunt Sloan Wainwright who performs
- not to mention his gifted Aunt Anna on the McGarrigle side. - Dan
21995
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:33am
Subject: Re: re: Scorsese's detractors
--- Adrian Martin wrote:
all
> that garbage about him being a self-made man, the
> 'little guy' up
> against the nasty system, the 'visionary' who was
> crushed just because
> he couldn't get his plans built in time ...
> There is NONE of this kind of special pleading in
> RAGING BULL or
> CASINO. I do not agree with you that the tone of
> AVIATOR is 'dry as
> dust' - only at moments is this so - there is too
> much attempt to whip
> up affection for the guy.
I can't agree. As I said, "The Aviator" is by and
large Hughes version of himself which the film relates
but does not "sell" in the manner you suggest. Hughes
has no acolytes -- just fearful followers and "loyal"
(utterly intimidated) eployees. John C. Reilley, Ian
Holm and the actor who played the aviation mechanic
(whose name I can't recall at the moment) all have the
same terrified rabbit looks on their faces.
(Even stuff like his
> 'perfectionism' in plane
> design recalls Ace's critique of muffin cooking in
> CASINO - and
> presumably also Scorsese's own perfectionism in the
> filmmaking
> process.)
>
Again this is fetish stuff. "Perfection" in plane
design is entirely sexualized vis-a-vis the cut I
mentioned previously.
> I just don't think Scorsese came to grips -
> idea-wise - with this
> project. I get the sense he made it in an extreme
> state of alienation!
Oh you don't want to be within a block of him when
he's in an extreme state of alienation! That kind of
thing produced "New York New York" -- a great, deeply
sick film. His "Party Girl."
> The attempts by the film to somehow link individual
> psychopathology
> with the 'psychosis of capitalism' are completely
> mangled and
> ill-formed, potential at best - especially when we
> see SO LITTLE of
> capitalism's workings - Scorsese here taking safe
> refuge behind the
> dreamy solipsism of his main character - in contrast
> with the mountain
> of detail (precisely often OUTSIDE Ace's POV) in
> CASINO.
>
Again, those details are fetishes. And not Marty's
either. When my Scorsese book came out I was
vacationing in Palm Springs. The hotel I was staying
at was run by a pair of former Vegas chorus boys.
"Casino" was just going into production. They told me
a series of stories (the blueberry muffins included)
ALL of which ended up in "Casino." I never told Marty
aout them so he and Pleggi found out of their own
accord.
> THE AVIATOR is a profoundly disillusioning film for
> me. It made me
> think that Scorsese hasn't made a completely
> coherent and satisfying
> film since KUNDUN. The 'pedagogical' docos on
> filmmaking and blues, the
> fiasco of GANGS OF NEW YORK - and whatever the
> production problems on
> that one, it shows Scorsese's inability to grapple
> with complex
> political themes (the ending, 'the hands that built
> America', is a
> disgrace).
Well I quite agree that "Gangs of New York" is a mess,
but I'm not at all that impressed with "Kundun".
It's little wonder to me that the only
> bits of AVIATOR that
> come at all to life are the strictly 'personal' bits
> about jealous or
> angry women taking a piece out of the
> caddish/controlling HH! But also
> - on that subject - could there possibly be a film
> about a 'rogue
> seducer' more SEXLESS than AVIATOR? Sex has always
> been hard for
> Scorsese to depict or even approach: it's that
> puritanical/squeamish
> Bresson side of him ...
>
Bresson without the homoeroticism.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
21996
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:48am
Subject: Re: Wainwrights (Was: Scrosese's Detractors)
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> That would be sister Martha. He has an aunt Sloan
> Wainwright who performs
> - not to mention his gifted Aunt Anna on the
> McGarrigle side. - Dan
>
Oh I know -- "The McGarrigle Sisters" whose "Kitty
Come Home" was one of Lance Loud's favorite songs. As
Anna wasn't able to make it to the funeral to play it,
Rufus sang Over the Rainbow" instead with Mom
accompanying on a small Nico-sized piano. She started
right in on the tune, causing Rufus to admonish her
with "The verse, mother -- the verse!"
This moment has since become legendary in cabaret
circles.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
21997
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 8:52am
Subject: Re: Re: Cameron's Next?
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Here's a crazy idea - let's all review the film now,
> so we don't have
> to talk about it when it comes out!
>
>
>
>
Here's mine:
Cameron tries, and fails, to reach the sublime heights
(via underwater depths) of "The Life Aquatic with
Steve Zissou."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
21998
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 9:05am
Subject: Re: if we all got along
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> Aaah, this is where a more thorough appreciation of avant-garde
film
> would help. In Elizabeth's version of paradise, where there were
no big
> conflicts, people would make films about the "small" ones -- basic
human
> limitations such as our inability to see a world in a grain of
sand.
> There would be films of grains of sand or sidewalks or clouds or
little
> scraps of paper or ashtrays that would be about deepening our
perception
> of, and pleasure in, the everyday. Sort of like, you know,
Brakhage.
>
> Fred Camper
You know, Fred, it's funny, because I almost added to my post: "Of
course there'll still be a place for abstract films such as
Brackage's hand-painted stuff." (which I like enormously, by the
way). I didn't out of sheer laziness. JPC
21999
From:
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 5:48am
Subject: SPIDER/CRASH (WAS: Lacan, Psycho Culture)
I'm with Ehrenstein on this one. I'd loved everything he did in the 1990s
(even M. BUTTERFLY) but SPIDER came off as too Chinese boxy, more MEMENTO and THE
USUAL SUSPECTS than NAKED LUNCH or CRASH, one of the very finest (Bill's
favorite word) films of the 1990s. The pay off in SPIDER seemed to impinge upon
figuring out a secret. But as with MEMENTO and THE USUAL SUSPECTS, what do you
do with your life after you've solved it? By contrast, CRASH had no pay off
which was the greatest pay off of all given the subject matter. Touched with the
divine!
Kevin John
22000
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 29, 2005 11:06am
Subject: The Day the Pig Fell in the Well
Now I see why Charles compared him to Mizoguchi. After the pink cloud
raptures of Virgin Stripped Bare, I wasn't expecting a tragedy -- but
I guess we never do. I'll save further comment until I've seen it six
times and Dan has internet access again. Where did Hong and his
cameraman find those colors?
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact