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.
22401
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 4:45am
Subject: Quiet American (WAS Re: Mankiewicz (was: Cahiers 1963))
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> He hasn't made anything worth sitting through since
> "Bullets Over Broadway"
I recently saw and loved Mighty Aphrodite, made after Bullets. But
then came the falling-off, as it always does after the first bloom of
love is of the rose.
22402
From: J. Mabe
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 4:49am
Subject: Kira Muratova
I’ll be in New York for a few days at the end of the
month (hopefully “The Gates” will still be up), and
during that time there is a Kira Muratova
retrospective going on. Is it worth checking out? I
vaguely remember hearing high praise for The Asthenic
Syndrome, but I’ve never heard of the others like The
Tuner, Three Stories, A Long Farewells.
Josh Mabe
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
22403
From:
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:54am
Subject: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
>
> > the film was very well-received in a course I taught last year,
> > especially for its frank depiction of class differences dividing
> > hero and heroine, and for the very moving resolution of their
> > problems.
> >
> No need to look further for reasons why the film disappeared, but
> I'll add one: The only film course I ever took was taught by
Roemer,
> who was a strict believer in naturalism (bolstered by his reading
of
> Kracauer's OTHER book) and dead set against the New Wave. He was
> wrong, but not stupidly so - he screened L'Atalante at one point
as
> an example of a film that did everything he had been teaching
against
> and got away with it. He was in tears at the end. But he was
marching
> to a different drummer than the cinema of his day. (Ironically,
the
> Cahiers loved Nothing But a Man.)
>
Roemer was one of my teachers in college as well -- I took four
courses with him, and the man taught me to how to look at
documentaries, a film form I was hopelessly neglectful of when I
arrived at school. I remember he cried the day Fellini died - as
luck would have it, we were taking a class on comedy and we were
watching THE CLOWNS that day. As a filmmaking prof, he was about as
hands-off as one could imagine: This allowed for a bit of freedom,
but he was teaching in a film program devoid of resources and any
other technical courses, so some people actually spent a year in his
classes without learning a thing about how editing works, or what
continuity is, or what-have-you. An interesting experiment, to say
the least.
Michael's a real darling of a man - but I can't help but think that
one of the reasons he isn't as well known is that he seemed to look
down on ambition or taking risks. Anytime I came to him with an even
moderately ambitious project, he would plead with me not to do
it. "Don't do it! Don't do it! It's not worth it!" (that he has a
Dr. Strangelove accent added an extra bit of irony to these
exchanges) Of course, everytime I went and charged on with the
project, more determined than ever to prove him wrong; I can't help
but think that he knew it would have this kind of effect.
-Bilge
22404
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:25am
Subject: Re: Rivette Riddle
--the pseudonymous writer
> of
> > CAFE FLESH?
>
> Permanent Midnight. Is Stahl's name not on the film? Or is "Jerry
> Stahl" a pseudonym for someone else?
Stahl is credited under the pseudonym 'Herbert W Day'. Incidentally,
CAFE FLESH's cast includes Richard Belzer, later a popular stand-up
comedian and regular on the series HOMICIDE: LIFE ON THE STREET.
22405
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 1:16pm
Subject: Question for Brazilians (Was: Ambersons cans in Brazil)
Am very interested in the work of Alberto Cavalcanti. His work for
Ealing Studios in England is much celebrated here in the UK, but his
work in other countries, includign his native Brazil, is completely
unavailable.
Has anyone seen AC's Brazilian work? I understand that he made a
considerable contribution to the oprganisation of post-war cinema in
his native land, but his oevre is scattered so much that no one, to
my knowledge, has been able to fully assess it.
WENT THE DAY WELL?, DEAD OF NIGHT and THEY MADE ME A FUGITIVE are
maginficent.
22406
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 1:42pm
Subject: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
Very interesting discussion re "The Quiet American," which I haven't
seen in many years so I can't really comment on the film itself one
way or another. For those of you in a similar situation, there is
good news in that it is finally getting its first-ever video release
on DVD in April. Perhaps a discussion can resume then.
Is there an auteurist making decisions at Columbia home
video? "Bitter Victory"..."Bunny Lake is Missing..."..."Bonjour
Tristesse"... and now, on February 22, THREE of Richard Quine's best
films are being released: "It Happened to Jane," "My Sister Eileen,"
and his masterpiece, "Strangers When We Meet." It doesn't seem all
that far-fetched to imagine "Hot Blood" turning up soon.
22407
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 1:42pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
Three additions to this debate, which is not really a subject I'm
expert in.
1) Mclaren's work with the soundtrack, which involved, I believe,
attacking it with a knife to produce sounds the same way he produced
images, by painting on celluloid, is innovative in itself and worthy
of celebration for that reason alone.
2) Not much cuteness in NEIGHBORS.
3) The choice to have no soundtrack is a perfectly legitimate one.
But so is the question "Why didn't you have a soundtrack?". When the
vast bulk of films use sound, an audience is bound to wonder why if
the filmmaker chooses not to. And "I'd have enjoyed the film much
more with sound," is also a perfectly legitimate point. The
response "Well I didn't make it for you," is also fair enough in this
context, but I feel a bit sorry for those audiences Fred seems to be
having a go at. They are entitled to their opinions and questions.
22408
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 1:50pm
Subject: Re: Kira Muratova
> I’ll be in New York for a few days at the end of the
> month (hopefully “The Gates” will still be up), and
> during that time there is a Kira Muratova
> retrospective going on. Is it worth checking out? I
> vaguely remember hearing high praise for The Asthenic
> Syndrome, but I’ve never heard of the others like The
> Tuner, Three Stories, A Long Farewells.
I'm really looking forward to the series - have seen only her first film,
BRIEF ENCOUNTERS, but thought it was very strong and personal. - Dan
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
22409
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 2:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's detractors
> I can see that happening, especially at a time and place where many
> Italian men would see women as a precious commodity rather than a
> full equal. I'd say Filipinos would act the same way.
>
> It's a macho thing, I think.
Lots of old-fashioned men see women as precious commodity/not-an-equal,
and yet would be very concerned if their wife or girlfriend had a seizure
and was writhing on the ground. I think we're talking more than machismo
here.
What makes the scene so unsettling is that Scorsese is clearly quite
interested in the Keitel-De Niro argument, building and resolving it in
classical dramatic fashion. Of the two components of that scene -
troubled/violent male friendship, epileptic girlfriend - he seems to care
only about one. - Dan
22410
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 2:26pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
It
> doesn't seem all
> that far-fetched to imagine "Hot Blood" turning up
> soon.
>
Who can forget the trailer? "Jane Russell shakes her
tambourine and drives Cornel wild!"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
22411
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 3:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
Of course McLaren was a technical innovator, and his films are very
inventive. "Cuteness" doesn't quite capture all that I dislike about
him, but "Neighbors" does seem "cute" stylistically. It's been too long
since I've seen it for me to argue specifically. Whenever I saw his
films, I felt an almost physical revulsion, so perhaps I'm just so over
the top with regard to him that my opinions should be discounted.
I think what's going on is that cairnsdavid1967 (you'll make it easier
if you sign your posts) and JPC seem to be, at least to me, approaching
cinema from a position that "normalizes" the narrative sound feature.
Audiences are then expected or entitled to surprise or questioning about
something different. This is a pretty common position about movies: even
if open to innovation, many seem to at least at first expect things that
fit into what they've seen before. But if we're serious about taking
cinema as an equal to the other arts, perhaps we should consider
advanced art of the last century in this respect. From the perspective
of the last century of art, a more normal question would be "Why did you
make a film so much like other films; there are no original forms or
ideas here, just an entertaining melodrama" (or whatever). An aware
gallery visitor doesn't "wonder" why an artist has made something
different from what has come before, and is used to expecting something
"new." From an art world perspective, accepting the assumptions of past
art is always worth questioning, and hence one might and even should
question even serious and recognized stylists like Socrsese or Kubrick:
"Why did you make a sync sound narrative film like so many others."
What's interesting is that such questions are just about *never* asked.
Cinema audiences should, in my view, be willing to have all their
assumptions questioned and upended.
In reply to Matt's question earlier, Breer's films are replete with
moments that would seem very "cute" if seen in isolation. His films are
great in part because of the way in which they disrupt all expectations.
The "cute" moments undercut the others, and vice versa. The ending of "A
Man and His Dog Out For Air" is certainly "cute" in one way; it's also
an amazing epiphany in terms of what preceded it, and the film becomes a
self-questioning record of the process of its own making, as are most of
Breer's films. Breer is, by the way, one of my ten favorite filmmakers
of any type. (There is an OK video of some of his films available.
though at a high price; I've got a Breer review at
http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/archives/0697/06067b.html )
McLaren's films seem more homogeneous to me, and his stylistic devices
seem to me to lack deeper implications. They don't question themselves;
they don't lead me anywhere beyond their surfaces. (I mean, the "idea"
of "Neighbors" is embarrassingly second gradish.) I can see how his
films might be a lot of fun for people, and I have no objection to such
pleasures; they just don't do it for me.
Fred Camper
22412
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 4:06pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
>
> Is there an auteurist making decisions at Columbia home
> video? "Bitter Victory"..."Bunny Lake is Missing..."..."Bonjour
> Tristesse"... and now, on February 22, THREE of Richard Quine's
best
> films are being released: "It Happened to Jane," "My Sister
Eileen,"
> and his masterpiece, "Strangers When We Meet." It doesn't seem
all
> that far-fetched to imagine "Hot Blood" turning up soon.
Great news! Quine directed (and often co-wrote) 19 or 20
features for Columbia between the late forties and 1965 and most
would be worthy of DVD re-issue. "My Sister Eileen" (which makes my
Ten Best Musicals List -- or even Five Best) was shown several times
on TCM (I taped it twice) but if "Strangers When We Meet" was I must
have missed it, and it is indeed one of his very best films (and
must be seen in Scope). One of his finest comedies, "How to Murder
Your Wife", was an indie production (produced and written by Axelrod)
released by UA and should be released on DVD too.
22413
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 4:24pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967" wrote:
>And "I'd have enjoyed the film much
> more with sound," is also a perfectly legitimate point. The
> response "Well I didn't make it for you," is also fair enough in this
> context, but I feel a bit sorry for those audiences Fred seems to be
> having a go at. They are entitled to their opinions and questions.
OK, but then WHAT sound would that be ?
Ask the audience, you'd get twenty or fifty different replies !
I'm not sure the point is really all that legitimate....
-Sam
22414
From:
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:29am
Subject: Outing JPC (WAS: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD)
In a message dated 2/7/05 10:17:04 AM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
> "My Sister Eileen" (which makes my Ten Best Musicals List -- or even Five
> Best)
>
Come out of the list closet, JPC. Let's have all ten!
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
22415
From: Frederick M. Veith
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 4:32pm
Subject: Re: Rivette's Joan The Maid DVD question
It was me. The source on this is an interview in, I believe, the Gaurdian,
where Rivette nearly ends the interview because the interviewer has only
seen the cut version (which was made by the distributor). He basically
says, "we can't discuss this because you haven't seen my film." Having
first seen it on video, but subsequently having seen the Rivette version
on film, I would go so far as to say that the cut version is almost
totally devoid of interest. It does function, by comparison, as an object
lesson in what Rivette and Nicole Lubtchansky are up to in the editing of
film and how closely this is related to Rivette's mise en scene, which
nearly collapses under the indelicate touch of whoever edited the
distributor's cut.
Fred.
On Sat, 5 Feb 2005, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> --- Mathieu Ricordi wrote:
> >
> > Could anybody please let me know if this seems
> > acurate,
> > or if this DVD is indeed a cut version of the film
> > (which would really suck, considering how long I've
> > waited for it).
> >
> This DVd is indeed a cut version of the film. I
> assumed that Rivette did the cutting but someone (I
> forget who) on the list has informed me otherwise. Yes
> this indeed sucks (though "Joan" is not my favorite
> Rivette )
22416
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 4:35pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Is there an auteurist making decisions at Columbia home
> > video? "
Mike Schlesinger, head of Sony Repertory, must finally be getting
some traction w. home video. (He's one of the organizers of Cinecon.)
He made the new prints of Bonjour Tristesse and Bunny Lake, and
recently succeeded after years of lobbying in getting the director's
cut of Major Dundee restored.
The big problem of people like Mike or former Disney restoration
officer Scott McQueen is persuading their own video divisions to
release the films they have resurrected. Maybe if this continues Mike
can finally nudge Sony Home Video into putting out Comanche Station
and Ride Lonesome, for which he restored the negatives and made new
prints that accompanied Budd all over the world to retrospectives
during his last years. (Budd and Mary fixed Mike up w. one of their
friends as a thank-you - she turned oput to be a pistol-packing FBI
agent...)
While at Paramount he put the cut scene back in White Dog, still not
out on video. He also made a million re-releasing Kane and greenlit
It's All True - for which his reward was being marched off the lot
under armed guard when a b&w Avid copy of the work-in-progress with
temp narration was leaked to Paramount executives. He landed on his
feet at Sony and continues to be one of Hollywood's heroes.
One of [Quine's] finest comedies, "How to Murder
> Your Wife", was an indie production (produced and written by
Axelrod)
> released by UA and should be released on DVD too.
It's already out on DVD, JP. Enjoy!
22417
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 4:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
One of his finest comedies,
> "How to Murder
> Your Wife", was an indie production (produced and
> written by Axelrod)
> released by UA and should be released on DVD too.
>
>
I recall Andrew Sarris complaining back in 1965 of a
cltural atmosphere in which "How to Murder Your Wife"
gets better reviews than "Red Desert."
Yet I don't find this odd at all. The Antonioni, while
daring, fascinating, experimental, incredibly
beautiful etc. doesn't really know what it's about.
"How to Murder Yor Wife" does. Not a scene, not a line
is wasted.
Raymond Durgnat has written appreciatively of Quine.
In some ways he's to Columbia what Minnelli was to
MGM.
He directed Novak (with whom he was at one point
romantically involved, the lucky devil) with great
skill.
He began his career as an actor. He plays one of John
Barrymore's bratty stepchildren in Wyler's amazing
"Counselor at Law"
"How to Murder Your Wife" is one of a pair of
Axelrod-scripted Quine films. The other, "Paris When
it Sizzles" (a remake of Duvivier's "La Fete a
Henriette") is a mess. "How to Murder Yor Wife" gives
us a Jack Lemmon more sohisticated and less hapless
than the Wilder one. Clearyl an effort was being made
to give Virna Lisi the Sophia Loren treatment. Lovely
and talented as she was at this point in her career,
she didn't "take" with audiences the way Loren did.
Happily she came to find her ideal director and ideal
role in Chereau's "Queen Margot" where her Catherine
de Medici comes across with a ruthless intensity far
beyond Loren's ken.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
22418
From: Kian Bergstrom
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 4:59pm
Subject: Re: novelizations (was Re: New York, New York - novel into film, or film into novel?
At 06:07 PM 2/5/2005 +0000, Noel Vera wrote:
>Here's a strange one: I never even read the book, I've only read a
>review of it, on Asimov's SF Magazine book review section: a
>novelization of Beauty and the Beast (I'm not even sure which one,
>but definitely not the Disney version), where Beauty is a bookworm
>reading in Beast's library, the equivalent of that mythological
>library that has a copy of every book ever written, and she is
>dismayed by the name "Rudyard Kipling" ("What kind of name is
>that?"). I don't know who wrote this or what edition, but that was a
>lovely little detail and I'd love to find out...
This isn't from a novelization, but a regular, non-tie-in type of novel,
_Beauty_ by Robin McKinley (Harper Collins, New York, 1978):
"I pulled a volume down a random, and opened it to the title page. "The
Complete Poems of Robert Browning," I read aloud, puzzled. "I've never
even heard of him." Pride before a fall, I thought. So much for my
scholarship. The Beast said nothing; when I looked up at him he was
watching me with a curious, intent expression. I put Browning back, and
picked out another book. This one was called _The Adventures of Sherlock
Holmes_. The next one was _The Screwtape Letters_. Then _Kim_. "Rudyard
Kipling," I said in despair. "This is a name? I've never hears of _any_
of these people. And the paper is funny, and the shape of the
letters. What's wrong?" (p. 147)
Perhaps this is what you were remembering?
-Kian, who has just now acceded from several self-imposed months in the
ranks of lurker to those of occasional poster.
22419
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 4:58pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
From the perspective
> of the last century of art, a more normal question would be "Why
did you
> make a film so much like other films; there are no original forms
or
> ideas here, just an entertaining melodrama" (or whatever).
A legitimate question, which could be asked of the vast majority
of films (or works or art in general), including many of the ones
you admire! But where does it lead us? To the conclusion that most
films (works of art) are worthless because they are not "new"
or "different" in any radical way? There is nothing
intrinsically "better" in the "new" and "different."
>
> "Why did you make a sync sound narrative film like so many
others."
> What's interesting is that such questions are just about *never*
asked.
>
The only logical answer to such a question would be: "Because
that's what I do." I make sound narrative films because narrative
films are an imitation of life and life has sound.
Now you probably also want to ask, "Why do you make narrative
films at all?" There are many answers to that, the main one being
that narrative films are what most people want to see. Cinema became
a narrative medium within months of its invention, and it attracted
huge audiences because it was a narrative medium -- it told stories.
It could have evolved in a different direction, being used only for
scientific purposes, and/or by artists (the "avant-garde") and it
indeed has had many other uses beside the narrative purpose, but
they have remained largely peripheral. And by the way it is amazing
how few artists (painters etc...) actually took an interest in
cinema throughout its history.
Outside of the "synch sound narrative" film, the filmmaker can of
course do whatever he likes. If he doesn't want sound, why should he
use sound? He has his reasons. But I don't see how rejecting sound
is in itself "new" or 'different" and a positive quality. If an
Italian painter of, say, the early sixteenth century had decided to
reject perspective, would that have been new and different and as
such admirable? He would have been depriving himself of a major
acquisition of the art of painting (of course you could argue, as
Bazin seemed to suggest, that perspective corrupted artistic
expression). JPC
>
22420
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 5:01pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
"...if we're serious about taking cinema as an equal to the other
arts, perhaps we should consider advanced art of the last century in
this respect. From the perspective of the last century of art, a
more normal question would be 'Why did you make a film so much like
other films; there are no original forms or ideas here, just an
entertaining melodrama' (or whatever). An aware gallery visitor
doesn't 'wonder' why an artist has made something different from
what has come before, and is used to expecting something 'new.' From
an art world perspective, accepting the assumptions of past art is
always worth questioning...Cinema audiences should, in my view, be
willing to have all their assumptions questioned and upended."
Like you, I regard cinema as equal to the other arts, but in my
experience there are various degrees of resistence by
viewers/audiences to the avant garde or to departures from the
expected forms. Painting,sculpture and photography meet the least
resistence. With performing arts theatre and dance are appreciated
without too much difficulty, but innovative music is much more
difficult to enjoy or understand. Poetry is expected to change but
the avant garde novel takes a long time to be appreciated. When it
comes to cinema audiences are very conservative and often dismiss the
avant garde out of hand. There are no doubt historical reasons for
this, but I can only speculate as to what they might be. Some people
will probably accuse you of asking too much of audiences, but I'm
reminded of Whitman's dictum, "In order to have great poetry you must
have great audiences."
Richard
22421
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 5:18pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
JPC , I actually completely agree with you that "there is nothing
intrinsically 'better' in the 'new' and 'different.'" I think my point
is more that if the reasons for continuing to make sync sound narratives
needn't be questioned, the reasons being "new" or "different" should not
be questioned either. Asking one kind of question -- "why do you make
films without sound when you could have added sound" -- rather than the
inversion of it reveals an inherent bias in favor of more traditional
forms. It's my position that cinema art can come from anywhere, and that
a viewer should be as free as possible of all biases in favor of one
form or against another, and that expectations derived from "convention"
should not affect one's tastes except insofar as a filmmaker is playing
with those conventions to make a point.
JPC: "I don't see how rejecting sound is in itself "new" or 'different"
and a positive quality."
I've tried to explain why I think it is a positive quality more than
once. Making films that are truly intended to be silent, and that lack
the obvious suggestions of sounds that the old silent had, produces a
very different relationship between viewer and image. Brakhage's imagery
is less tied to the physical world, less tied to predictable rhythms,
and thus takes the viewer inward, in part as a result of not syncing to
sound. This is also why in his best sound films the image and sound seem
to occupy separate spaces.
JPC: "If an Italian painter of, say, the early sixteenth century had
decided to reject perspective, would that have been new and different
and as such admirable? He would have been depriving himself of a major
acquisition of the art of painting..."
Oops. Actually, there were Italian painters of the early sixteenth
century who *did* reject perspective in order to create very different
moods, senses of space, and relationships between characters and nature
(in this case, nature's absence) than in the art that came before. Their
work continued the shift toward the human-centric that began with the
Renaissance. See Pontormo, see Rosso Fiorentino.
Fred Camper
22422
From:
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 0:20pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
A couple of points:
1) Economics probably played a big role in making so many 1950-1975
experimental films silent. Making a sound film would have been much more expensive.
Plus, since the filmmaker was doing all the work solo, he or she would have to
have spent a long time putting together a sound track - they could not just call
up Henry Mancini and commision one. Probably many filmmakers did not feel it
was "worth" it - either aesthetically or economically. The time spent
generating even a simple sound track could have been spent on making another silent
film.
2) Audiences were extremely used to making and seeing home movies during this
era - always silent films, but most often in color. Whenever my family took a
trip, we would borrow an 8mm camera from my neighbors, and make home movies
of the vacation. After we got back, we would go over to the neighbors, and
spend an evening making popcorn, and showing our and the neighbor's home movies.
Our family did not make enough films for us to justify the expense of a camera
or projector. Just about every middle class person in the US made home movies
during 1950-1975 - almost all silent.
No one watching a silent experimental film found it odd that it was silent.
It was just like their Aunt Zelda's home movies.
3) I like Jack Lemmon's documentary filmmaker in "It Should Happen To You"
(Cukor, 1954), with his 16mm camera. A nice sidelight on non-Hollywood
filmmaking of the era. Cukor was always very observant about such things.
4) Silent home movies show up at the end of the Australian thriller "Ground
Zero" (Michael Pattinson, Bruce Miles, 1987). This is an well-done thriller. It
is clear that home movies were not just a US phenomenon.
Mike Grost
PS Us kids' favorite part of home movies was when our Dad would run them
backward. My brother loved to see himself jump OUT of the pool, for example.
22423
From:
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 0:33pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
In a message dated 05-02-07 12:12:46 EST, you write:
<< --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
"...if we're serious about taking cinema as an equal to the other
arts, perhaps we should consider advanced art of the last century in
this respect. From the perspective of the last century of art, a
more normal question would be 'Why did you make a film so much like
other films; there are no original forms or ideas here, just an
entertaining melodrama' (or whatever). An aware gallery visitor
doesn't 'wonder' why an artist has made something different from
what has come before, and is used to expecting something 'new.' From
an art world perspective, accepting the assumptions of past art is
always worth questioning...Cinema audiences should, in my view, be
willing to have all their assumptions questioned and upended." >>
This is true of the Modernist movement in the high arts (poetry, painting,
classical music, etc). Every work is judged according to whether it breaks new
ground. Art history is seen as a wave of continous challenge to the past.
But this model runs into problems when used to judge the popular arts. Many
popular artists, in film, prose mysteries and science fiction, and comics,
tried to use their "imaginations". A good art work was one that took existing
approaches, and stretched them to new heights of imagination and creativity.
Mike Grost
22424
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 5:35pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:>
> I recall Andrew Sarris complaining back in 1965 of a
> cltural atmosphere in which "How to Murder Your Wife"
> gets better reviews than "Red Desert."
>
> Yet I don't find this odd at all. The Antonioni, while
> daring, fascinating, experimental, incredibly
> beautiful etc. doesn't really know what it's about.
> "How to Murder Yor Wife" does. Not a scene, not a line
> is wasted.
>
Right! But the film must seem very politically incorrect to
audiences today. Who would dare "press that button" and let an all-
male jury acquit a self-confessed wife murderer, even in a comedy?
> Raymond Durgnat has written appreciatively of Quine.
So have I, David, in "American Directors" and "50 ans."
> "How to Murder Your Wife" is one of a pair of
> Axelrod-scripted Quine films. The other, "Paris When
> it Sizzles" (a remake of Duvivier's "La Fete a
> Henriette") is a mess.
This is the received wisdom, but I disagree. Despite its
structural problems (which are the unavoidable consequence of the
basic conceit) it is a much underrated movie.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
22425
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Right! But the film must seem very politically
> incorrect to
> audiences today. Who would dare "press that button"
> and let an all-
> male jury acquit a self-confessed wife murderer,
> even in a comedy?
>
>
>
Hey, I can se an entire "reality television" show
built around it!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
22426
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby (spoilers, etc., you get it)
Though I'm not as sold on MDB as a whole, I thought Eastwood's
performance was the heart of the thing. And the image that sticks
with me is the moment where Frankie breaks down in tears while
talking with the priest, and we see for a moment some snot dripping
from his nose. That single image blew me away, revealing both the
broken older man and the scared, helpless boy in his character. Some
of the other physical aspects of the performance: the hiked up
pants, the almost comically-grizzled voice were initially off-
putting. But I think it's Eastwood's lack of vanity that comes
through so clear in the scene with the priest.
> the body are present on the screenplay level, whereas in
> Eastwood's "aging body films" manifest themselves in the tone of
the
> acted scenes themselves. The moments and feelings that I think
mark
> the aging body films don't show up much in MDB--but one example I
> would cite would be the moment Frankie kneels down by his bedside
to
> say his prayers (comically mangling the sign of the cross). The
> slowness of Eastwood's movements, the way the camera lingers
22427
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 6:44pm
Subject: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
All this support for Nothing But a Man and personal reminiscences
about Roemer is great to hear.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
> Roemer was one of my teachers in college as well ...he was
>teaching in a film program devoid of resources ...
Well, that's one thing we have in common!
> ...Anytime I came to him with an even moderately ambitious
> project, he would plead with me not to do it.... Of course,
> everytime I went and charged on with the project, more determined
> than ever to prove him wrong; I can't help but think that he knew
> it would have this kind of effect.
It seems strange that he would advise against ambitious projects
since his own seem ambitious enough. So, do you regret not following
his advice?
--Robert Keser
22428
From:
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:28pm
Subject: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
Robert Keser wrote:
>
> > ...Anytime I came to him with an even moderately ambitious
> > project, he would plead with me not to do it.... Of course,
> > everytime I went and charged on with the project, more
determined
> > than ever to prove him wrong; I can't help but think that he
knew
> > it would have this kind of effect.
>
> It seems strange that he would advise against ambitious projects
> since his own seem ambitious enough. So, do you regret not
following
> his advice?
>
Absolutely not. I think some of it probably had to do with the
politics at Yale in the first place. The program itself discouraged
technical courses at the time, and focused heavily on theory, and I
think Michael just didn't want students getting burnt by blowing all
their money trying to make films that they didn't have the resources
to finish and get shown. I think he was being protective, to a
certain extent.
The thing about Michael was that it soon became clear to me that he
and I were from very different cinematic planets. He was an old
school Bergman, Dreyer, Chaplin, Keaton, Flaherty kind of guy -- I
was into serious stylists like Kubrick, Bertolucci, Visconti,
Godard, etc... (This was, of course, a problem he ran into
constantly with his students.) In a way, though, that's why I
appreciated him so much, cause he taught us how to look at those
other films that we were so generationally and temperamentally
removed from.
I do remember he came to class one day talking about how much he
absolutely hated THE CRYING GAME. An opinion I most certainly do not
share.
-Bilge
22429
From:
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:32pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> Yet I don't find this odd at all. The Antonioni, while
> daring, fascinating, experimental, incredibly
> beautiful etc. doesn't really know what it's about.
> "How to Murder Yor Wife" does. Not a scene, not a line
> is wasted.
>
I just saw this a couple of weeks ago, and I sort of agree. For
about the first 3/4, it's absolutely perfect. But it completely
falls apart at the end -- it's virtually a different film. I was
almost tempted to suggest that it had an ending imposed on it, but
I'm sure that's the ending that was always intended.
-Bilge
22430
From: lawrencetroup
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:37pm
Subject: Re: Kira Muratova
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "J. Mabe" wrote:
> I'll be in New York for a few days at the end of the
> month (hopefully "The Gates" will still be up), and
> during that time there is a Kira Muratova
> retrospective going on. Is it worth checking out? I
> vaguely remember hearing high praise for The Asthenic
> Syndrome, but I've never heard of the others like The
> Tuner, Three Stories, A Long Farewells.
Definitely worth checking out. There was a retrospective in Cambridge,
UK last autumn, and the films I managed to catch were the best I saw
in the cinema last year. 'Brief Encounters', her first film, is
intensely beautiful, in a way reminiscent of Dovzhenko, but at the
same time completely her own vision - particularly noticeable is the
striking use of whiteness. It also has a refreshingly non-linear
narrative, and Muratova is superb playing the leading role.
The other film was 'The Tuner', her latest work (it was the english
premiere, though I doubt it will ever be shown again). It is a
completely bizarre comedy, about a young piano tuner befriending and
deceiving two old ladies. Although its beauty is not as immediate,
it's a wonderful reflection on music and friendship, both highly
amusing and deeply moving.
Since seeing these two films, I've been desperately seeking out her
other works, but with little success. There are only two available on
DVD with english subtitles - 'Passions' from US, and 'Chekhov's
Motivs' from Russia. I'll probably have to buy these sooner or later.
It seems ridiculous that 'Asthenic Syndrome' which was so acclaimed on
its release, is now completely unavailable to anyone who doesn't speak
Russian (or isn't in New York in a few weeks).
22431
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> I just saw this a couple of weeks ago, and I sort of
> agree. For
> about the first 3/4, it's absolutely perfect. But it
> completely
> falls apart at the end -- it's virtually a different
> film. I was
> almost tempted to suggest that it had an ending
> imposed on it, but
> I'm sure that's the ending that was always intended.
>
It's as if Antonioni waded into a story about
neurosis, and then backed out. The husband's
disinterest in Vitti's condition is owrth mentioning
vis-a-vis recent comments in here about "Mean Streets."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22432
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
--- ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> I do remember he came to class one day talking about
> how much he
> absolutely hated THE CRYING GAME. An opinion I most
> certainly do not
> share.
>
Well it's an opinion I share, and I'd love to hear
what he had to say about it if you can recall.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22433
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:47pm
Subject: novelizations (was Re: New York, New York - novel into film, or film into novel?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Kian Bergstrom wrote:
>
> This isn't from a novelization, but a regular, non-tie-in type of novel,
> _Beauty_ by Robin McKinley (Harper Collins, New York, 1978):
Personally I hate novels like Grendel or Wicked in which the author, rather
than creating characters of his/her own, recycles characters from the classics.
I hope this never happens in film.
There was an idea floating around - sold for 6 figures - about the story of
Cindereella told from the pov of one of the horses who became a footman -
who thinks it's HIS story. Never made.
22434
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:50pm
Subject: Re: Rivette's Joan The Maid DVD question
So IS Rivette's Joan The Maid available uncut in any way shape or
form in the US on DVD ?
I've never seen it, quite curious about this film.
Thanks,
Sam
22435
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:54pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
\Paris hen
> > it Sizzles" (a remake of Duvivier's "La Fete a
> > Henriette") is a mess.
>
> This is the received wisdom, but I disagree. Despite its
> structural problems (which are the unavoidable consequence of the
> basic conceit) it is a much underrated movie.
My recollection too. Eddie Pomerantz (author of Caught, see my Roemer
post) loves it!
But How to Murder Your Wife in my mind is paired with Sex and the Single
Girl. I prefer the latter, although the former has better Quine architectural
conceits. His mise en scene - much more formalistic than Edwards' - often
simply coexists with weak scripts (Mad Ball, Landlady), with no real creative
dialectic between the two levels. But it is definitely a style. I'm still kicking
myself for missing Strangers in 'Scope at the LA Cinematheque.
22436
From: Peter Henne
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 8:57pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
These answers to Fred's questions cannot be correct. I don't think anyone disputes that narrative dominated world film production from 1916 onward. (Pinning down exactly what narrative is is a different question, and I'm not addressing it here.) Sound was used in commercial national cinemas to expand narrative conventions, but a sufficient set of narrative conventions already existed. In fact, through trial and error sound was "mastered" to serve narrative ends. Thus it's far from true that narrative film was born thanks to the introduction of sound.
Peter Henne
jpcoursodon wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
From the perspective
> of the last century of art, a more normal question would be "Why
did you
> make a film so much like other films; there are no original forms
or
> ideas here, just an entertaining melodrama" (or whatever).
A legitimate question, which could be asked of the vast majority
of films (or works or art in general), including many of the ones
you admire! But where does it lead us? To the conclusion that most
films (works of art) are worthless because they are not "new"
or "different" in any radical way? There is nothing
intrinsically "better" in the "new" and "different."
>
> "Why did you make a sync sound narrative film like so many
others."
> What's interesting is that such questions are just about *never*
asked.
>
The only logical answer to such a question would be: "Because
that's what I do." I make sound narrative films because narrative
films are an imitation of life and life has sound.
Now you probably also want to ask, "Why do you make narrative
films at all?" There are many answers to that, the main one being
that narrative films are what most people want to see. Cinema became
a narrative medium within months of its invention, and it attracted
huge audiences because it was a narrative medium -- it told stories.
It could have evolved in a different direction, being used only for
scientific purposes, and/or by artists (the "avant-garde") and it
indeed has had many other uses beside the narrative purpose, but
they have remained largely peripheral. And by the way it is amazing
how few artists (painters etc...) actually took an interest in
cinema throughout its history.
JPC
>
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
22437
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:05pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
> 1) Economics probably played a big role in making so many 1950-1975
> experimental films silent. Making a sound film would have been much more
expensive.
Well Mike, I could argue that economics played a big role in making so many
1930-2005 theatrical films sync sound ;-)
> PS Us kids' favorite part of home movies was when our Dad would run them
> backward. My brother loved to see himself jump OUT of the pool, for example.
My Sixth grade teacher, Mrs. Freemon, couldn't figure out how to fast rewind
the 16mm fims she showed in class, so we got to see them all, History films,
Science films, both forwards and then backwards.
(explains something about me probably)
(I guess a few of us could've have helped her, but why ? ;-)
-Sam (sorry JP, but we did watch them silently in esrever)
22438
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:15pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
My quick answer (this is not a trivial subject, but rather than write a treatise)
is that I guess I see the silent film within the sound film, the non-narrative
within the narrative; the narrative pattern-of-energy within the non-narrative,
the rose in the steel dust, the sounds of silence, mama please don't take
my Kodachrome away, hello darkness my old friend, and she loves me
like a rock.
Fuggit, I'm going to Graceland,
Sam
22439
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
Peter, I'm confused because I don't think JPC was claming that
"narrative film was born thanks to the introduction of sound," so I
don't know what you're responding to. He wrote "Cinema became
a narrative medium within months of its invention," so obviously he
knows that narrative began way before sound.
But I don't agree with you at all "that narrative dominated world film
production from 1916 onward," unless by "dominated" you are referring to
number of viewers and by "production" you're referring only to films
that had actual producers, directors, et cetra. I think we need to
acknowledge that in terms of volume, home movies and instructional and
advertising films and student films far exceed the numbers and running
time of narrative films produced. To say that narrative "dominated"
production is to succumb to the fallacy that equates popularity with
importance. If you're doing sociology, rather than film aesthetics, then
perhaps concentrating on popular films has a point, but if we've learned
anything from the history of all the arts it should be that there is
little correlation between popularity and aesthetic importance,
especially when the art is new or only a few generations old.
For this reason I am constantly trying to open peoples' minds, by
arguing against the normalization of film thinking and film evaluation
to commercial narrative. There are many possibilities for film grammar
and film meanings other than the standard-issue sync sound narrative
form that seems to so dominate popular attention. Soviet montage was one
possibility; varieties of the avant-garde of recent years represent
others; Chris Marker is another, and on and on. While there is
incredible variety among narrative films, they do all share certain
characteristics, and, arguably, ideological implications about the
relationship of viewer to film (escapist involvement, letting yourself
be manipulated, voyeuristic relationship to the actors -- and sure, a
filmmaker can undercut all of these, but that doesn't mean they aren't
there), while cinema as a whole can and has done many many other things
as well.
I'd like to make two points responding to Mike. First, in many or most
home movie screenings, the films were not screened in silence. The
filmmaker provided impromptu voiceover, or the others present talked, or
both. Second, while no doubt economic factors occasionally resulted in a
silent film, I don't think this was ever or hardly ever the case for the
avant-garde filmmakers I call great. Even Brakhage made sound films
when he wanted to. Christopher Maclaine's four ultra-low-budget films
were all sound (made with a projector that allowed you to compose a
magnetic track on the projector, I believe). The great makers of silent
avant-garde films virtually all made sound films films as well. My first
introduction to cinema was a screening of Gregory J. Markopoulos's
"Twice a Man," advertised as being held to help raise money to complete
the sound track, which he later did.
Fred Camper
22440
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:17pm
Subject: Re: Rivette's Joan The Maid DVD question
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
>
> So IS Rivette's Joan The Maid available uncut in any way shape or
> form in the US on DVD ?
>
> I've never seen it, quite curious about this film.
It's not available on DVD in unslashed form anywhere in the world.
The full version (SECAM video) seems to be out of print in France.
Archambault online (in Quebec) still lists a vol. 1 and 2 of "Jeanne
la pucelle" -- possibly this is the full version (probably this is not
subbed).
MEK
22441
From: Peter Henne
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
JPC,
My apologies, I already see I misunderstood your point about the introduction of sound. But ask yourself: if cinema in its infancy had not adopted narrative modes, would it have necessarily not become popular? So much modern painting pulls away from figuration, which is perhaps the two-dimensional equivalent to narrative in film, yet much of it is widely popular. Plenty more modern painting includes figuration but calls to question its representational power (De Chirico and Magritte are two widely known and accepted examples). It seems to me people have a hunger first and foremost for images, figurative or abstract, narrative or non-narrative.
Peter Henne
jpcoursodon wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
From the perspective
> of the last century of art, a more normal question would be "Why
did you
> make a film so much like other films; there are no original forms
or
> ideas here, just an entertaining melodrama" (or whatever).
A legitimate question, which could be asked of the vast majority
of films (or works or art in general), including many of the ones
you admire! But where does it lead us? To the conclusion that most
films (works of art) are worthless because they are not "new"
or "different" in any radical way? There is nothing
intrinsically "better" in the "new" and "different."
>
> "Why did you make a sync sound narrative film like so many
others."
> What's interesting is that such questions are just about *never*
asked.
>
The only logical answer to such a question would be: "Because
that's what I do." I make sound narrative films because narrative
films are an imitation of life and life has sound.
Now you probably also want to ask, "Why do you make narrative
films at all?" There are many answers to that, the main one being
that narrative films are what most people want to see. Cinema became
a narrative medium within months of its invention, and it attracted
huge audiences because it was a narrative medium -- it told stories.
It could have evolved in a different direction, being used only for
scientific purposes, and/or by artists (the "avant-garde") and it
indeed has had many other uses beside the narrative purpose, but
they have remained largely peripheral. And by the way it is amazing
how few artists (painters etc...) actually took an interest in
cinema throughout its history.
Outside of the "synch sound narrative" film, the filmmaker can of
course do whatever he likes. If he doesn't want sound, why should he
use sound? He has his reasons. But I don't see how rejecting sound
is in itself "new" or 'different" and a positive quality. If an
Italian painter of, say, the early sixteenth century had decided to
reject perspective, would that have been new and different and as
such admirable? He would have been depriving himself of a major
acquisition of the art of painting (of course you could argue, as
Bazin seemed to suggest, that perspective corrupted artistic
expression). JPC
>
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
22442
From:
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:29pm
Subject: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- ebiri@a... wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I do remember he came to class one day talking about
> > how much he
> > absolutely hated THE CRYING GAME. An opinion I most
> > certainly do not
> > share.
> >
>
>
> Well it's an opinion I share, and I'd love to hear
> what he had to say about it if you can recall.
>
That was pretty much it. He said he saw it and hated it. Then, as if
to make sure we got the extent of his outrage, he said, "No, I mean
it's *really* bad. It's actually incompetent." That was about it.
-Bilge
22443
From:
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:31pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- ebiri@a... wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I just saw this a couple of weeks ago, and I sort of
> > agree. For
> > about the first 3/4, it's absolutely perfect. But it
> > completely
> > falls apart at the end -- it's virtually a different
> > film. I was
> > almost tempted to suggest that it had an ending
> > imposed on it, but
> > I'm sure that's the ending that was always intended.
> >
>
>
> It's as if Antonioni waded into a story about
> neurosis, and then backed out. The husband's
> disinterest in Vitti's condition is owrth mentioning
> vis-a-vis recent comments in here about "Mean Streets."
>
Whoops! I hate to say it, but I was actually talking about HOW TO
MURDER YOUR WIFE. I think RED DESERT, on the other hand, is
Antonioni's masterpiece. That said, I'd rate both films very highly,
and playing them off against one another in order to slag one seems
like one of those Sarris-ian tricks that turned me off his writing
in the first place. (Sorry.)
-Bilge
22444
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:32pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne
wrote:
Thus it's far from true that narrative film was born thanks to the
introduction of sound.
>
> Peter Henne
>
> Who ever said such an absurd thing? Certainly not me; I said just
the opposite! JPC
22445
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:40pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
>
>
> Whoops! I hate to say it, but I was actually talking about HOW TO
> MURDER YOUR WIFE. I think RED DESERT, on the other hand, is
> Antonioni's masterpiece. That said, I'd rate both films very highly,
> and playing them off against one another in order to slag one seems
> like one of those Sarris-ian tricks that turned me off his writing
> in the first place. (Sorry.)
>
> -Bilge
Red Desert is perfect; How to Murder Your Wife is flawed. But David, the plots
of most Antonioni films - and certainly that one - are on the level of photo-
novels, as a rule.
22446
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:50pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne
wrote:
>? So much modern painting pulls away from figuration, which is
perhaps the two-dimensional equivalent to narrative in film, yet
much of it is widely popular.
I would challenge the claim that "most" of modern painting
is "widely popular." Actually it is not popular at all,at least not
in the sense that cinema is, or has been throughout its history
until very recently. I still know lots of people who sneer at any
kind of painting that is not strictly representational. Such people,
who are not necessarily unintelligent or uncultured, but do not
belong to the "art-loving" crowd, are the huge majority of
consumers, so how can one say that non-figurative art is widely
popular?
With very few exceptions, "modern art" is just about as "popular"
as the film avant-garde.
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search presents - Jib Jab's 'Second Term'
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
22447
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 9:55pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
> Red Desert is perfect; How to Murder Your Wife is flawed. But
David, the plots
> of most Antonioni films - and certainly that one - are on the
level of photo-
> novels, as a rule.
Why is "How to..." flawed? Because of its ending? The rules of
Comedy demanded that it should end the way it does. Whether you
consider it a cop out or not is beside the point.
22448
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:03pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>Why is it flawed? Because of its ending? The rules of
> Comedy demanded that it should end the way it does. Whether you
> consider it a cop out or not is beside the point.
I don't - I wouldn't want to see Virna Lisi die. But Eddie Mayhoff overacts
abominably, and the film is leadenly slow, just like Operation Madball or
Notorious Landlady before the (ill-advised) final chase - or it was the last time
I saw it, which was not that long ago. (Actually, I've seen NL and OMB even
more recently than that.) Check it out since it is available now. It's as dazzling
visually as it ever was, and the murder is still a great set-piece.
I'm betting Sex and the Single Girl would hold up better. Joseph Heller, after
all....
22449
From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:06pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> And by the way it is amazing
> how few artists (painters etc...) actually took an interest in
> cinema throughout its history.
I have no idea what you're stating or implying here. That few artists
who practice in non-cinematic forms have attempted to make films? Or
that few of such artists have been familiar with and derived
inspiration from cinema?
If the former, I don't find it any more "amazing" than the fact that
relatively few architects have attempted to be dancers, or that
relatively few painters have attempted to be musicians. (And of course
there are plenty of examples of artists who made films in the earlier
half of film history: Dali, Duchamp, Picabia, Leger, Richter,
Moholy-Nagy, Man Ray, Strand, Cornell.)
If the latter, I don't know what artists you're familiar with, but
most 20th-century artists of which I'm aware have expressed an
interest in cinema, especially once it was more widely accepted as an
"art" (after Bazin, meaning most artists currently alive).
I'm genuinely interested to know what you mean, JPC.
-Jason G.
22450
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
--- ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> That was pretty much it. He said he saw it and hated
> it. Then, as if
> to make sure we got the extent of his outrage, he
> said, "No, I mean
> it's *really* bad. It's actually incompetent." That
> was about it.
>
Not so much incompetent as fundamentally dishonest.
This is a film about a closeted gay man in thrall to a
transvestite but won't own up to this fact by means of
a ruse in which the lead's self-deception is utilized
as a way of deceiving the spectator.
When we first see the bar where Jaye Davidson performs
it appears a quite ordianry place. After Stephen Rea
"learns the truth" it's shown to be a gay bar.
Who's zooming who?
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
22451
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Why is "How to..." flawed? Because of its ending?
> The rules of
> Comedy demanded that it should end the way it does.
> Whether you
> consider it a cop out or not is beside the point.
>
>
I agree!
I'm going to propose that the American Cinematheque
have a double feature of "Red Desert" and "How to
Murder Your Wife"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22452
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> I'm betting Sex and the Single Girl would hold up
> better. Joseph Heller, after
> all....
>
Since reading Gavin Lambert's "Natalie Wood" I'm very
much interested in seeing "Sex and the Single Girl"
again.
BTW, it was on the top ten that year of Cahiers critic
Andre Techine.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22453
From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:44pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> With very few exceptions, "modern art" is just about as "popular"
> as the film avant-garde.
Nonsense.
There are many, many "modern" (even "avant-garde") artists and/or
artworks with which your average person (at least here in the U.S.)
would be somewhat familiar: Warhol, Johns, Lichtenstein, Haring,
Pollock, Rothko, Gehry, Christo, not to mention the hoardes of folk
who attended the Picasso/Matisse exhibition at MoMA a little while
back, and your various "outrage-inducing" artists from Mapplethorpe to
Finley to Serrano, aka the "Piss Christ" guy (and there are the many
ways graphic design, fashion, and interior decor have absorbed varous
modern art aesthetics). Your average person may not be able to
associate particular artists with particular works, but the names and
styles have become part of the larger culture to an infinitely greater
degree than those related to "avant-garde" film. Ask a bunch of
people about the names Brakhage, Markopoulos, Snow, Kubelka, or show
them any of their films, and you'd get virtually nothing but "Who?"
and "What the hell is that?" (And people are usually shocked to learn
that Warhol made films.)
I wish what you say were true, JPC, but it most definitely is not.
-Jason G
22454
From:
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 10:44pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
JPC:
> >
>
> > Red Desert is perfect; How to Murder Your Wife is flawed. But
> David, the plots
> > of most Antonioni films - and certainly that one - are on the
> level of photo-
> > novels, as a rule.
>
> Why is "How to..." flawed? Because of its ending? The rules of
> Comedy demanded that it should end the way it does. Whether you
> consider it a cop out or not is beside the point.
That's perfectly fine, but the film does a half-hearted job of
selling that ending. It all happens very suddenly, and the film has
done such a good job of promoting its perspective up until that
point that it feels half-hearted to me. It's a deus ex maquina
ending, albeit one in denial. That there's almost no chemistry
between Lemmon and Lisi probably has something to do with it. (And,
of course, the fact that there's no chemistry between them is part
of what makes the rest of the film so great.)
That said, as I have to keep stating over and over again, I still
think it's a great film. Just that it's missing a reel.
-Bilge
22455
From: Peter Henne
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
JPC,
Thanks for your reply. I did not say or mean most modern art, just much of it. Even some of Jackson Pollock's paintings from his most abstract period seem to get out there in the popular culture, endorsed by the American media as culturally important. For example, a recent CNN segment reporting the re-opening of MOMA in New York ended with a lingering and clearly appreciative dissolve on one of these paintings. That's just one example. Has Mondrian's "Broadway Boogie-Woogie" ever stopped being loved? My broader point is that I believe cinema's attraction starts from a basic craving for exciting images, whether or not they are incorporated in narrative, just as the public loves to be dazzled by certain paintings including non-figurative ones. I agree with you that narrative made cinema more quickly accessible to a wide public.... but, if the images from the start had not been clever and beautiful in their own right enough of the time, I wonder if cinema's popularity would have been as
wide and lasting as it has been.
It's hard for me to take a temperature on this, because I've avoided current movies for the past four years, but it seems as though today the mega-hits are the ones with the most eye-catching visuals, accompanied by thin characters and using plots which are predictable for most of the viewers. In other words, the force of narrative is weak but the power of the images to grab attention is strong. And I can imagine the characters in these genres getting a lot thinner and the plots becoming more cookie-cutter and campier, while maintaining their high box office levels with novel visuals. The tendency here is to deflate narrative force while putting a huge emphasis on visual attraction. Again, I question just how much of the popularity is attributable to narrative, at least as I understand that word. Storytelling seems to be a necessary component of cinema's entrenchment in Western culture, but I'm not sure how much weight to place on it beyond that.
Peter Henne
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
22456
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:07pm
Subject: On WFMU at the moment...
...on the show The Speakeasy, the guest for the hour is one Mr. David
Thomson. It's starting right now, so if you're a masochist like me,
you'll want to tune in to www.wfmu.org, or just go to the "Public"
category under the Radio section in iTunes, and double-click on WFMU.
He's flogging his new Hollywood book, 'The Whole Equation' -- as only
David Thomson can articulate it.
(If you can't listen now, the show will be archived -- also available
for listen currently is a great interview with Kim Hendrickson from The
Criterion Collection, and a less interesting but still
worth-listening-to chat with Peter Cowie -- two separate hour-long
shows.)
craig.
22457
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:11pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
Pick up any issue of Artforum or Art in America and the cinematic references
are populating the pages.
And I'm not just talking abot Gregory Crewdson (most obvious example)
Jeff Wall, David Salle, and on and on...
I met Phillip Taafe, and he says "where do I know you from ?"
"I don't know....")
(...we figured it out - Anthology Film Archives, from Wooster St. era
"I practically lived there" he said...)
-Sam
22458
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:26pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> >Why is it flawed? Because of its ending? The rules of
> > Comedy demanded that it should end the way it does. Whether you
> > consider it a cop out or not is beside the point.
>
> I don't - I wouldn't want to see Virna Lisi die. But Eddie Mayhoff
overacts
> abominably, and the film is leadenly slow,
I think Mayehoff is hilarious and one of the best things, acting-
wise, about the film. And I don't think the film is slow at all. I
watch it periodically and it was not slow the last time I did, or
any other time. To me it's perfectly paced. it's not frantic, call
it leisurely, but not slow. But I would agree "Landlady" is sort of
sluggish (I don't really care for it).
>
> I'm betting Sex and the Single Girl would hold up better. Joseph
Heller, after
> all....
That's another one I watch fairly regularly, and it does hold up.
The final chase is typical Heller...
JPC
22459
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:39pm
Subject: Brakhage's "Scenes From Under Childhood" and sound
After some checking, I've learned that at least some of the rental
prints of Reel 1 here the sound track on them, so the sound version is
still available. Travis, you probably saw all four reels of the film
together, in which case it is correct to show Reel 1 silent.
That it was never Brakhage's intent to withdraw the sound version is
revealed by the fact that when he sold the University of Colorado prints
of all his films, he included a sound print of Reel 1.
Fred Camper
22460
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:49pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Guthartz"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> > With very few exceptions, "modern art" is just about
as "popular"
> > as the film avant-garde.
>
> Nonsense.
Thanks, Jason. You seem to be carving yourself a niche challenging
every single statement I make!
Outside of your sophisticated big-city dwellers, there are countless
millions of people in this country (The USA) who never go to an art
gallery or an art museum,or read an art magazine, and who have
little or no contact with "modern" art. If I were to give my
neighbors a list of all the artists you mention in your post and
asked them who they are, I'm pretty sure most of those good people
couldn't identify one out of ten. The only name that would ring a
bell might be Warhol. Actually I am often tempted to do such tests,
but hesitate for fear of being resented as some high-falutin'
intellectual (and French at that!)
It is true that avant garde filmmakers are even less known of the
general public because they get no media coverage at all and very
little exposure. So my statement was slightly exaggerated. Instead
of "just about" I should have said "almost."JPC
22461
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Feb 7, 2005 11:52pm
Subject: Re: Access to The Quiet American/Quine on DVD
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
>
>
> That said, as I have to keep stating over and over again, I still
> think it's a great film. Just that it's missing a reel.
>
> -Bilge
So how would you end the film to make it perfect?
22462
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 0:01am
Subject: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
--
> Not so much incompetent as fundamentally dishonest.
> This is a film about a closeted gay man in thrall to a
> transvestite but won't own up to this fact by means of
> a ruse in which the lead's self-deception is utilized
> as a way of deceiving the spectator.
Well, from that perspective, David Cronenberg's M BUTTERFLY can be
seen as a critique of THE CRYING GAME.
22463
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 0:12am
Subject: Re: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> Well, from that perspective, David Cronenberg's M
> BUTTERFLY can be
> seen as a critique of THE CRYING GAME.
>
>
Maybe. But you must remember that Hwang's play was
based on a real incident. The transvestite and the
diplomat are no longer a couple, the latter having
(finally) come out as a gay man.
As you may know I relentlessly browbeat Cronenberg
over "Naked Lunch." And my reward was his dealing with
gay sexuality in a forthright manner in "Crash."
Precision is all.
And y'all don't wanna mess with a bitch like me!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22464
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 1:13am
Subject: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>> And y'all don't wanna mess with a bitch like me!
>
Oh, I'll mess with you bitch any time I feel the urge.
"Crash" is a crashing bore, to begin with.
22465
From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 2:14am
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> Thanks, Jason. You seem to be carving yourself a niche challenging
> every single statement I make!
>
> Outside of your sophisticated big-city dwellers, there are countless
> millions of people in this country (The USA) who never go to an art
> gallery or an art museum,or read an art magazine, and who have
> little or no contact with "modern" art.
I agree!
But (not to let your latest statement go completely unchallenged) the
same could be said of *all* art, not just "modern" art. Such folk are
as likely to be as unaware of El Greco as of Mondrian.
My point is that some trace of Mondrian's aesthetics has made its way
into the patterns of the carpeting in office buildings, literally,
which those countless millions of unsophisticated country folk are
likely to see, if not in person then as part of the sophisticated
modern environments in which their favorite TV "Friends" exist. So,
if and when they see a Mondrian in reproduction or in person, they may
not like it or "get it" but they can at least say, "Hey, that looks
like the carpet pattern in my office." Similar points can be made
regarding the depiction of modern urban architecture in movies and TV
shows; such information about modern aesthetics is disseminated via
mass media and leads to some minimal amount of mass awareness and
recognition, if not understanding or knowledge.
It is in this way that I am claiming that 20th-century avant-garde
aesthetics in forms like painting, sculpture and architecture have
become incorporated into the larger culture, to a degree that
avant-garde traditions in film have not. There is some irony here, in
that cinema as a medium of mass reproduction has succeeded in
spreading the images of individual modern art objects to mass
audiences -- but has failed to do so with regard to images, or
sequential-images, of cinematic works.
-Jason G.
22467
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 2:35am
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Guthartz"
wrote:
> My point is that some trace of Mondrian's aesthetics has made its
way
> into the patterns of the carpeting in office buildings, literally,
> which those countless millions of unsophisticated country folk are
> likely to see, if not in person then as part of the sophisticated
> modern environments in which their favorite TV "Friends" exist.
So,
> if and when they see a Mondrian in reproduction or in person, they
may
> not like it or "get it" but they can at least say, "Hey, that looks
> like the carpet pattern in my office."
I completely agree with you. And isn't it wonderful that Mondrian
should end up as carpet pattern in some office? Art for the masses,
at last, and great art at that!
I think the rest of your post makes a very good point. I'm
deleting it just because I don't want to be chided by Fred. JPC
>
> -Jason G.
22468
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 2:36am
Subject: Re: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Oh, I'll mess with you bitch any time I feel the
> urge.
>
Well of course YOU will, J-p. You're fearless.
> "Crash" is a crashing bore, to begin with.
>
Not for those of us enamoured of the sight of James
Spader gettin' it on with Elias Koteas!
But say, I thought the shot of Debra Kara Unger's
piquant derriere in the opening scene (splayed over a
shiny new car) would please a flagrant heterosexual
such as you.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
22469
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:16am
Subject: Bogdanovich on The Speakeasy
An announcement for Peter T. and other Bogdanovich fans on the list --
an upcoming program of The Speakeasy on WFMU will feature an hour-long
discussion with the man himself; no date announced yet. All shows get
archived within a few hours of air, so you don't have to worry if you
miss it.
craig.
22470
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 4:07am
Subject: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
> But say, I thought the shot of Debra Kara Unger's
> piquant derriere in the opening scene (splayed over a
> shiny new car) would please a flagrant heterosexual
> such as you.
Anyone seen the new Buick LaCrosse commercial ?
-Sam
22471
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 4:38am
Subject: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
!
>
> But say, I thought the shot of Debra Kara Unger's
> piquant derriere in the opening scene (splayed over a
> shiny new car) would please a flagrant heterosexual
> such as you.
>
> Getting a bit old for piquant derrieres (or fronts), I'm afraid.
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
> http://my.yahoo.com
22472
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 4:44am
Subject: La Cava on TCM
On March 10 TCM is showing nine La Cava features starting at 7AM
through early evening. Not to be missed!
22473
From:
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 5:37am
Subject: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
> >
> > But say, I thought the shot of Debra Kara Unger's
> > piquant derriere in the opening scene (splayed over a
> > shiny new car) would please a flagrant heterosexual
> > such as you.
> >
> > Getting a bit old for piquant derrieres (or fronts), I'm
afraid.
> >
I know it has several definitions, but I've always thought
of "piquant" as meaning "pungent", so a piquant derriere strikes me
as something to be avoided at all costs.
-Bilge
22474
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 7:02am
Subject: Re: Question for Brazilians (Was: Ambersons cans in Brazil)
David,
"O Canto do Mar" awaits real critical discovery. IMO it's one of the three
best brazilian feature films of the 50s. And it's a remake of sorts of "En
rade", one of his avant-garde experiments in France. From his french period,
I have also seen (and liked very much) "La Petite Lili" and "Rien que les
heures", the french Berlin, Symphony of a City.
The only non-Brazilian feature-length films I saw by Cavalcanti were
Champagne Charlie and Brecht's Herr Puntila, and they left me kind of cold.
"Simão o Caolho" is a very good comedy, and "Mulher de Verdade" is so-so. As
far as I know, his three brazilian feature lengths have decent copies to be
shown and just need subtitling (electronically, or with new copies) to be
shown abroad.
Have never seen any of the three you mentioned. In "Dead of Night" he only
directed half of the episodes, right?
Ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "cairnsdavid1967"
To:
Sent: Monday, February 07, 2005 11:16 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Question for Brazilians (Was: Ambersons cans in Brazil)
Am very interested in the work of Alberto Cavalcanti. His work for
Ealing Studios in England is much celebrated here in the UK, but his
work in other countries, includign his native Brazil, is completely
unavailable.
22475
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 10:06am
Subject: Rob Schneider vs. Patrick Goldstein
I came across this today, and simply had to share it.
The whole thing began with Goldstein claiming that Studio's only were
interested in making crappy films as the sequel to Deuce Bigalow:
"It's a funny thing, but today's movie studios are no longer in the
Oscar business. If there's one common thread among this year's five
best picture nominees, it's that they were largely financed by outside
investors. The most money any studio put into one of the nominees was
the $21 million that Miramax anted up for "Finding Neverland." The
other nominated films were orphans — ignored, unloved and turned down
flat by most of the same studios that eagerly remake dozens of old TV
series (aren't you looking forward to a bigger, dumber version of "The
Dukes of Hazzard"?) or bankroll hundreds of sequels, including a
follow-up to "Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo," a film that was sadly
overlooked at Oscar time because apparently nobody had the foresight
to invent a category for Best Running Penis Joke Delivered by a
Third-Rate Comic." (Public part of the article)
This infuriated Rob Schneider to such a degree, that he wrote an open
letter:
" Dear Patrick Goldstein, Staff Writer for the Los Angeles Times,
My name is Rob Schneider and I am responding to your January 26th
front page cover story in the LA Times, where you used my upcoming
sequel to `Deuce Bigalow' as an example of why Hollywood Studios are
lagging behind the Independents in Academy nominations. According to
your logic, Hollywood Studios are too busy making sequels like "Deuce
Bigalow' instead of making movies that you would like to see.
Well Mr. Goldstein, as far as your snide comments about me and my
film not being nominated for an Academy Award, I decided to do some
research to find what awards you have won.
I went online and found that you have won nothing. Absolutely
nothing. No journalistic awards of any kind, Disappointed, I went to
the Pulitzer Prize database of past winners and nominees. I though,
surely, there must be an omission. I typed in the name Patrick
Goldstein and again, zippo—nada. No Pulitzer Prizes or nominations for
a `Mr. Patrick Goldstein.' There was, however, a nomination for an Amy
Goldstein. I contacted Ms. Goldstein in Rhode Island, she assured me
she was not an alias of yours and in fact like most of the World had
no idea of your existence.
Frankly, I am surprised the LA Times would hire someone like you
with so few or, actually, no accolades to work on their front page.
Surely there must be a larger talent pool for the LA Times to draw
from. Perhaps, someone who has at least won a `Cable Ace Award.'
Maybe, Mr. Goldstein, you didn't win a Pulitzer Prize because they
haven't invented a category for "Best Third-Rate, Unfunny Pompous
Reporter, Who's Never Been Acknowledged By His Peers!"
Patrick, I can honestly say that if I sat you your colleagues at a
luncheon, afterwards, they'd say "You know, that Rob Schneider is a
pretty intelligent guy, I hope we can do that again." Whereas, if you
sat with my colleagues, after lunch, you would just be beaten beyond
recognition.
For the record, Patrick, your research is shabby as well. My next
film is not `Deuce Bigalow: Male Gigolo 2.' It's `Deuce Bigalow:
European Gigolo,' in theaters EVERYWHERE August 12th 2005.
All my best,
Rob Schneider"
Henrik
22476
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:26pm
Subject: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
>
> > >
> > > But say, I thought the shot of Debra Kara Unger's
> > > piquant derriere in the opening scene (splayed over a
> > > shiny new car) would please a flagrant heterosexual
> > > such as you.
> > >
> > > Getting a bit old for piquant derrieres (or fronts), I'm
> afraid.
> > >
>
>
> I know it has several definitions, but I've always thought
> of "piquant" as meaning "pungent", so a piquant derriere strikes
me
> as something to be avoided at all costs.
>
> -Bilge
I don't know how David meant it, but in French the word has maybe 8
or 9 different meanings, all more or less loosely related to the
original meaning of "prickly". I've never heard or seen it used in
the sense of "pungent" but lo and behold, just checked a dictionary
and that's one of the senses they give... There was an old
cliche: "une brune piquante" which doesn't mean a pungent brunette
but a sexy one. JPC
22477
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 3:55pm
Subject: Piquant (Was: Nothing But a Man)
>>> But say, I thought the shot of Debra Kara Unger's
>>> piquant derriere in the opening scene (splayed over a
>>> shiny new car) would please a flagrant heterosexual
>>> such as you.
>>>
>>> Getting a bit old for piquant derrieres (or fronts), I'm
> afraid.
>
> I know it has several definitions, but I've always thought
> of "piquant" as meaning "pungent", so a piquant derriere strikes me
> as something to be avoided at all costs.
By the way, this thread has become a poster child for keeping the subject
field up to date. - Dan
22478
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 4:26pm
Subject: Re: Piquant (Was: Nothing But a Man)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> By the way, this thread has become a poster child for keeping the
subject
> field up to date. - Dan
What about: "Nothing but a derriere"?
22479
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 4:34pm
Subject: Re: La Cava on TCM
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> On March 10 TCM is showing nine La Cava features starting at 7AM
> through early evening. Not to be missed!
Despite my strictures against bad improv in A nos amours, I love La
Cava and am fascinated by tales of his improvisational methods. An
Italian scholar spoke at LA County Museum about La Cava two years
ago - he clearly had done a lot of primary research on his subject.
Can anyone recall his name for me, and point me to where he has
published?
Z Channel once showed some rare La Cavas which I still have on tape.
I was impressed with all of them: The Primrose Path, The Half-Naked
Truth etc. Has anyone seen any of his cartoon work? Any good?
22480
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 4:59pm
Subject: Re: La Cava on TCM
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Has anyone seen any of his cartoon work? Any good?
I saw one as part of the early film series on TCM some time ago.
Forgot the title but I have it on tape. Quite enjoyable. It's the
kind of crude, free-wheeling early animation that I always enjoy,
full of crazy gags. Interestingly, considering La Cava's notorious
problem with booze, it's "about" alcoholism. A temperance preacher
gets served some bathtub concoction that does marvels... JPC
22481
From: Jim Healy
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 8:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: La Cava on TCM
jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> > Has anyone seen any of his cartoon work? Any good?
>
>
> I saw one as part of the early film series on TCM some time ago.
> Forgot the title but I have it on tape. Quite enjoyable. It's the
> kind of crude, free-wheeling early animation that I always enjoy,
> full of crazy gags. Interestingly, considering La Cava's notorious
> problem with booze, it's "about" alcoholism. A temperance preacher
> gets served some bathtub concoction that does marvels... JPC
That's BREATH OF A NATION (1919), restored by George Eastman House and
available on the More Treasures from the American Archives dvd. It's
very funny.
Jim
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
22482
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 5:33pm
Subject: Cremaster and Chrysler (Was: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
No, but I've seen the Chrysler commercials which seem to "borrow"
heavily from "Cremaster 3." Anyone know if Barney shot them? I
wouldn't be surprised since "Cremaster 3" itself is a 3 hour
Chrysler ad, but just curious.
Also, I'm curious if anyone has watched the BMW ads shot by bigtime
directors. Never seen them but I've always been curious.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
>
>
> > But say, I thought the shot of Debra Kara Unger's
> > piquant derriere in the opening scene (splayed over a
> > shiny new car) would please a flagrant heterosexual
> > such as you.
>
>
> Anyone seen the new Buick LaCrosse commercial ?
>
> -Sam
22483
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 6:13pm
Subject: Bazin and cinema art (Was: Sights & Sounds)
> If the latter, I don't know what artists you're familiar with, but
> most 20th-century artists of which I'm aware have expressed an
> interest in cinema, especially once it was more widely accepted as
an
> "art" (after Bazin, meaning most artists currently alive).
I'm a Bazin fanboy, but I don't know if I'd make that claim for him.
People started jumping on the "cinema as art" bandwagon almost as
soon as there was cinema. And there were many influential movements
before Bazin that were all about the art. (My take on the situation
is actually that Bazin helped undo some of the damage caused by
excessive "cinema as art" zeal, which sometimes tended to put an
unnatural emphasis on "pure cinema" and to downgrade the elements
that film had in common with other art forms.) - Dan
22484
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 6:30pm
Subject: Cremaster and Chrysler (Was: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
Don't know, still haven't seen Cremaster anything.
Started to download the WKW BMW promo once, but -- life's
too short..
The LaCrosse ad is quite literaly Auto erotic. I don't mean subtext,
I mean text.
-Sam
22485
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 6:39pm
Subject: silent films PICK UP on SOUTH STREET
I happened to watch PICK UP on SOUTH STREET yesterday (Glad I brought
some DVD's with me as the area my parents live in do not get TURNER
CLASSIC MOVIES!) and the film is essentially silent for quite some time
before and after the pick-pocketing scene.
It is not necessary for a film to be completely silent, but rather to
use sound that augments the story (even if adding deceptive info),
rather than tell it.
My brother (who sees but a few movies yearly) told me be did not "see"
a particular movie, but having seen the preview scenes and then
listening to it while driving his family somewhere for a few hours, he
felt he had 'seen' it.
My brother said he missed 'imagination' in movies and cited a coffee
commercial from many years back (YUBAN, I think; well before computers
and cell phones) where the thirty-ish year old neighbors (one gal, one
guy; long before teenagers and 20-somethings fill the screens) exchange
sugar, or milk, or whatever, and perhaps an older woman (as the
surrogate audience) watches. One is left to wonder what goes on
further in the apartment... the whole outcome is left to imagination.
I shared with my brother than many movies tell their story with no
visual emphasis, but rather just filming what is there, not unlike
someone reading a newspaper that had no headlines to draw your
attention, etc. I likened some films to reading a novel in a flat tone
without personalization for different characters or settings. (I
didn't talk about HHH and OZU and their compositional scenes; that's
for another time.)
My sister said it "better." She "loved" PHANTOM OF THE OPERA because
she will never get a chance to see it on Broadway and she felt like the
movie gave her a chance to see a Broadway production. I didn't want to
tell her that was what was wrong with the film for me ... it was as if
it was a Broadway production being filmed without use of camera
direction, etc.
My brother is unhappy with no imagination in films; my sister is happy
with seeing it all.
Fuller (on the Pickup on South Street dvd) talks about film being like
taking a few lines (notes) from a song and having those few lines
played by a symphony. "Sound" is very important in film, as long as
you don't play the whole song!
22486
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 6:45pm
Subject: Cremaster and Chrysler (Was: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:
>
> Also, I'm curious if anyone has watched the BMW ads shot by bigtime
> directors. Never seen them but I've always been curious.
A Dario Argento car ad is visible in the bonus for Opera, which I
watched last night - totally faceless. Everyone does them. In 1999
Pascal Bonitzer broke up a round table on Hitchcock by saying he had
to go film a chewing gum ad. Burton's Japan-only elf ad isn't bad;
likewise Godard's King Kong ad for La Samaritiane; Ken Loach did a
MacDonald's ad because he was starving; and some Ridley Scott ads
I've seen are quite lovely. Michael Cimino did hundreds of ads before
turning to features, but I have no idea what they were. It's just one
way to come up from the ranks or pick up a little extra money when
you get there.
I left Superbowl on without sound (rabbit ears) mainly to see the
ads. Worthless. I did tape the Coens' accountant ad a few Bowls back,
but it was also worthless, so I erased it.
In general, advertising is one of the scourges of civilization, and
it is becoming omnipresent. Daney pointed out that semiologists love
the damn things because they're easy to "read": "How intelligent one
feels in the presence of an ad!"
22487
From: lawrencetroup
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 6:59pm
Subject: Cremaster and Chrysler (Was: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
> Also, I'm curious if anyone has watched the BMW ads shot by bigtime
> directors. Never seen them but I've always been curious.
They're available online at www.bmwfilms.com. Most of them aren't
worth watching though - they're either really awful (Guy Richie's,
Tony Scott's), or just standard frenetic car chases (although John
Woo's may be the best thing he's directed since going to America). The
only one true exception (although Ang Lee's isn't bad) is Wong
Kar-Wai's beautiful and contemplative The Follow - a real gem.
22488
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 7:16pm
Subject: Cremaster and Chrysler (Was: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
Yeah, I'm not gonna get on a high horse about filmmakers doing ads
or even about product placement in the movies. Both practices have
been around a long long time.
It does seem like the experience of going to a movie theater,
particularly a chain, has become one big cross-marketing pitch, from
the slide shows and music piped in (pushing underperforming studio
product) to the endless pre-trailer ads. It's no wonder people treat
movies like so much wallpaper to stare at while gabbing on their
cellphones. The distinctions between programming and advertising
have become blurred. Japanese TV is already like this. And with the
advent of TiVo, I wonder how long before content and advertising
become indistinguishable in US TV.
Errol Morris' Miller ads are pretty funny...
http://www.errolmorris.com/commercials/miller.html
The last advertising artist I remember genuinely enjoying (enough to
watch all his ads) was Joe Sedelmaier- he of "Where's the Beef?"
fame.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
> In general, advertising is one of the scourges of civilization,
and
> it is becoming omnipresent. Daney pointed out that semiologists
love
> the damn things because they're easy to "read": "How intelligent
one
> feels in the presence of an ad!"
22489
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 7:31pm
Subject: Cremaster and Chrysler (Was: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
> The last advertising artist I remember genuinely enjoying (enough to
> watch all his ads) was Joe Sedelmaier- he of "Where's the Beef?"
> fame.
Joe Sedelmaier truly had a personal style. (don't know what he's doing now)
-Sam (I've shot a few commercials as DP, crewed on many
but it was never my trade)
22490
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 7:34pm
Subject: Re: Cremaster and Chrysler (Was: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 01:45 PM, hotlove666 wrote:
> likewise Godard's King Kong ad for La Samaritiane;
What is this like? I've never heard of this thing's existence.
craig.
22491
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 7:34pm
Subject: Re: silent films PICK UP on SOUTH STREET
--- Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> I happened to watch PICK UP on SOUTH STREET
> yesterday (Glad I brought
> some DVD's with me as the area my parents live in do
> not get TURNER
> CLASSIC MOVIES!) and the film is essentially silent
> for quite some time
> before and after the pick-pocketing scene.
>
> It is not necessary for a film to be completely
> silent, but rather to
> use sound that augments the story (even if adding
> deceptive info),
> rather than tell it.
>
What you've discovered, inadvertently I think, is that
sound in film is confused with SPEECH. I can't tell
you how many arguments I've gotten into with people
over "Playtime" who insist it's a silent film. Tati
spent a whole year creating that soundtrack!
"Pickup" has much in common with "Pickpocket" which
likewise favors sound over speech.
Haven't seen it in awhile but as I recall Fuller
favors terse dialogue. The longest speech is given to
Thelma Ritter -- very much on the order of an aria.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
22492
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 8:56pm
Subject: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)
Nike's new one by Tarsem Singh is a brilliantly done. I also like
Master Card's "Get a Job" ad (directed by who I'm not sure), and
Career Builder's monkey ads by Bryan Buckley. All of these have
been airing regularly on American stations.
Wes Anderson directed a spot last year for Avon called "Meet
Mark" that's sort of like the dissected Belafonte in "Life Aquatic".
John Landis has directed several ads and they're awful. The
best ads, no competition, are Roy Andersson's. You can see he
has a great sense of humor and a style that he is able to retain
even when working in this format.
Ad Critic (http://www.adcritic.com) is subscription-only for most of
its content but is useful to see who directed what. And Bob
Garfield, who writes for Ad Age (www.adage.com), is probably
the only serious advertising critic out there. His opinions might
seem nuts at first but after a while you can see where he's
coming from.
22493
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 9:17pm
Subject: Re: silent films PICK UP on SOUTH STREET (and trailers)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> I happened to watch PICK UP on SOUTH STREET yesterday (Glad I
brought
> some DVD's with me as the area my parents live in do not get
TURNER
> CLASSIC MOVIES!) and the film is essentially silent for quite some
time
> before and after the pick-pocketing scene.
>
Well, not silent like a "silent movie". There's sound.
Speaking of sound and "Pickup on South Street" the French
distributors pulled a neat trick when the film was first released
in France. In order not to offend Communists the Commie spies were
replaced by drug traffickers and the whole plot thereby thoroughly
altered. The French title was "Le Port de la drogue". The recent DVD
release is still under the same title. I don't know if they used the
original dialogue (dubbed or subtitled)or the re-written stuff
(Maxime?). Shades of Woody Allen's "Tiger Lady".
> My brother (who sees but a few movies yearly) told me be did
not "see"
> a particular movie, but having seen the preview scenes and then
> listening to it while driving his family somewhere for a few
hours, he
> felt he had 'seen' it.
It's been years since I've seen a trailer that made me want to
see the film -- and you have to live through at least half a dozen
every time you go to a movie. Everything is off-putting: the
loudness, the emphasis on violence and effects, the editing style
(no shot must be held more than one second). Many trailers are
absolutely repulsive (one recent one that stands out as particularly
obnoxious: "Meet the Fockers"). You do get the feeling that you have
seen the movie, or at least had enough of it. On the other hand even
a good movie can be destroyed by one of those low-brow trailers.
22494
From: Dave Garrett
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 9:50pm
Subject: Cremaster and Chrysler (Was: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> In general, advertising is one of the scourges of civilization, and
> it is becoming omnipresent. Daney pointed out that semiologists love
> the damn things because they're easy to "read": "How intelligent one
> feels in the presence of an ad!"
It's nearly omnipresent already. The latest evidence of its ubiquity is the guy who auctioned off ad space on his forehead on eBay, which has been predictably followed by the ex-wife of a baseball player auctioning off ad space across her cleavage. Not to be outdone, a professional football player recently cut a deal with Goodyear in which he was paid to braid his hair in the shape of the tread pattern of one of their new tires.
Advertising in general has always seemed more interesting to me once enough time has passed since it was contemporary to lend it historical perspective.
Dave
22495
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 9:54pm
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)
> Nike's new one by Tarsem Singh is a brilliantly done.
I haven't seen it. Who's work is he imitating this time ?
-Sam
22496
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 9:57pm
Subject: Cremaster and Chrysler (Was: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, February 8, 2005, at 01:45 PM, hotlove666 wrote:
>
> > likewise Godard's King Kong ad for La Samaritiane;
>
> What is this like? I've never heard of this thing's existence.
>
> craig.
Like King Kong remade by Eisenstein.
22497
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 10:06pm
Subject: Trailers (Was:Re: silent films PICK UP on SOUTH STREET)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
Everything is off-putting: the
> loudness, the emphasis on violence and effects, the editing style
> (no shot must be held more than one second). Many trailers are
> absolutely repulsive
I see a lot on the head of videos and DVDs. The new form for action
trailers is
1. Sound bites to set up the premise
2. Montage of one-second shots showing the non-stop action
3. A topper shot after the title
I know from my years at Fox that trailers are still considered the
best way to hit to core demographic.
22498
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 11:59pm
Subject: Trailers (was Re: silent films PICK UP on SOUTH STREET (and trailers)
It's been years since I've seen a trailer that made me want to
> see the film -- and you have to live through at least half a dozen
> every time you go to a movie. Everything is off-putting: the
> loudness, the emphasis on violence and effects, the editing style
> (no shot must be held more than one second). Many trailers are
> absolutely repulsive (one recent one that stands out as
particularly
> obnoxious: "Meet the Fockers"). You do get the feeling that you
have
> seen the movie, or at least had enough of it. On the other hand
even
> a good movie can be destroyed by one of those low-brow trailers.
But I love the fact that probably 3 out of 5 trailers include footage
that doesn't end up in the released film. I was watching the DVD of
Alan J Pakula's THE DEVIL'S OWN the other day: the trailer on the
disc includes shots from what were obviously major scenes left on the
cutting-room floor.
The trailer for Michael Mann's ALI seems to consist solely of footage
that isn't in the film.
22499
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:13am
Subject: Trailers (was Re: silent films PICK UP on SOUTH STREET (and trailers)
>
> The trailer for Michael Mann's ALI seems to consist solely of
footage
> that isn't in the film.
The trailer for Wes Anderson's BOTTLE ROCKET also contains many
scenes that were ultimately cut from the finished film (Luke Wilson
stealing a car, etc.)
Of course, no one could beat the Universal trailers of Alfred
Hitchcock introducing his creations. I seem to recall that David
Cronenberg did a similar one for EXISTENZ.
-Aaron
22500
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:34am
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
"The best ads, no competition, are Roy Andersson's. You can see he
has a great sense of humor and a style that he is able to retain
even when working in this format."
Then there's the legendary Coca-Cola TV spot by Andy Warhol (never
broadcast): 50 second medium shot of a bottle of Coke on a stool in a
non-descript room. Next, enter Warhol who picks up the bottle and
thrusts it into close-up and says, "Eat Coke."
Richard
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact