Posts from the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film

Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact

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.

22501

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:39am
Subject: Hammett (Was: Trailers)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
wrote:
>
>
> >
> > 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.)

Cut scenes now routinely appear on the DVD, of course. It's a brave
new world.

Then we have the Case of the Missing Movie. Hammett starred Frederick
Forrest and the great Brian Keith when Wenders made it the first
time; Keith belligerently refused to come back at Coppola's request
and make it again, so the one-dimensionally thuggish Peter Boyle was
substituted. I just noticed going through old CdCs that they
unknowingly ran a still showing Forrest and a white-haired Keith with
their review: issue # 438. Now THAT would be a hell of a bonus - I'm
sure it's better than the stylish but uninvolving movie that got
released.
22502

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 0:53am
Subject: Re: Trailers (was Re: silent films PICK UP on SOUTH STREET (and trailers)

--- Aaron Graham wrote:

>
> 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.)
>

And then there's the trailer for "The Shining" --
which I for one prefer to the film itself.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
22503

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 1:17am
Subject: Trailers (was Re: silent films PICK UP on SOUTH STREET (and trailers)

And for Ambersons fanatics who don't feel like going to Brazil, Joe
McBride assures me that there's a sliver of the lost ending in the
trailer.
22504

From:
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 9:38pm
Subject: Philip Brophy review (my first for Senses) and more

Y'all -

Big day for me professionally. My first piece for Senses of Cinema (a review
of Philip Brophy's 100 Modern Soundtracks) is here:

http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/books/05/34/100_modern_soundtracks.html

Also, anyone interested in my take on popular music in 2004 should look here:

http://www.villagevoice.com/specials/pazznjop/04/essay-john.php

I know J-P has been impatient for it but I still haven't constructed a film
top ten for 2004. Coming soon!

xo,

Kevin

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
22505

From:
Date: Tue Feb 8, 2005 10:23pm
Subject: Re: Trailers (was Re: silent films PICK UP on SOUTH STREET (and ...

The funniest trailer seen recently was for "Seed of Chucky". It is so camp,
it even has John Waters in it. Have not seen the film... The trailer definitely
picks up on the absurd and ridiculous side of the whole project.

Mike Grost
22506

From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 5:06am
Subject: Re: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

I'm not convinced the TV commercials are worthless. In the last decade,
I've hardly ever watched TV, and when I have the commercials have seemed
particularly unpalatable. But before that, occasionally there was
something of interest.

There's a case to be made, too, that it's in the commercials that the
essence of TV is revealed. I'd argue that shows set them up: the vacuous
spaces of talk shows or sitcoms are suddenly punctured by strong imagery
and, often, rapid montage. The real money is invested in the making of
commercials, every second carefully calculated. And unlike "dramas"
ripped off from feature filmmaking, the commercial is a form unique to
television.

More than two decades ago there was a series of Pepsi commercials that
I'm convinced were made by someone who knew avant-garde film. The best
was a series of close-ups of parts of a room, the rectangle of sun
through the window on the floor. Fragments of people (a man and a woman,
natch) appeared, all of which as a set-up for the Pepsi can. I thought
it was kind of great, actually.

More than 25 years ago the Museum of Contemporary Art in Chicago hosted
a traveling exhibit of TV commercials organized by director. There was
an "auteurism 101" catalogue, with an essay arguing that each director
had a personal style. One guy who liked to do food shoots supposedly
specialized in sensual images and preferred to see his commercials in
35mm, something he couldn't do today. Unfortunately when I actually saw
these collections they weren't so good. But Sedlmaier, who someone else
cited, was actually kind of good. I'm guessing there are some genuine
commercials-auteurs waiting to be discovered.

Many of us dislike commercials because of their context. I had trouble
separating the Pepsi can in the commercial I really liked from what such
things mean to me (nothing good). But then, uf we were freethinkers of
the 14th Century we might have hated Giotto back then too, whereas the
subject matter of his images doesn't seem nearly as threatening today.
There has to be a reason why Americans didn't appreciate their own
commercial cinema at its heights in the 1950s, and I think it had to do
with context: no one was looking at it seriously, and it was
self-effacing enough as to not assert its artistry. The same is true of
TV commercials.

Fred Camper
22507

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 5:10am
Subject: John Lafia (Was:Trailers)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> The funniest trailer seen recently was for "Seed of Chucky". It is
so camp,
> it even has John Waters in it. Have not seen the film... The
trailer definitely
> picks up on the absurd and ridiculous side of the whole project.
>
> Mike Grost

I liked Childs Play 2. John Lafia showed a bit of promise in Blue
Iguana, then found hismelf "relegated," as the saying goes - no doubt
because of his irritating personality. It seems he even made a video
game: Corpse Killer. It's a tough business.
22508

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 5:55am
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> I'm not convinced the TV commercials are worthless. In the last
decade,
> I've hardly ever watched TV, and when I have the commercials have
seemed
> particularly unpalatable. But before that, occasionally there was
> something of interest.

They seem to have succumbed to the same syndrome as movies - FX, CGI.
John Carpenter told me that he had to stop watching tv because they
were so seductive -- he used his favorite denigrating term, "eye
candy" - but I don't find them so.

After the initial horror of hard sell, soft sell came in with Bob and
Ray's Bert and Harry Piel commercials, and interesting things
happened for a couple of decades - not unrelated to non-narrative
cinema, particularly in the high Seventies.

But we've hit a point where the economic and social impact of
commercials and PR - which isn't even remotely an artform - has
become so catastrophic that I can no longer be in the presence of an
ad - and yet now when I go to Ralphs they are playing in my ears or
on a tv monitor over the checkout stand, and they've started turning
up in gas stations as well, with public toilets the next target.

What was good about Minority Report was its projection of the future
as a total ad environment, with holographic ads floating in the air
on all sides of you whenever you go into a public space, keying in on
your retinal ID pattern and addressing you by name about products
that are known to fit your computer-tracked consumer profile.
Beautifully visualized - no doubt by some independent FX contractor
who would have been a non-narrative filmmaker if there were money in
it - that brief sequence, which rose to the level of Philip K. Dick's
science fiction imagination, was worth the price of admission.

As a former sci-fi fan I remember a book published in 1960 called The
Golden Kazoo about a near future when presidential campaigns were run
by ad men. Nearer than we knew.

What I'd like to see - but the Democrats don't have the guts - is a
slew of viciously negative tv ads like the Swift Boat ads attacking
Bush's Social Security initiative and all his other policies, which
God knows are vulnerable: Iraqi Voters for Truth, etc. Financed by
some of those 562 (sp?) groups that are single-issue but not tied to
a candidate, and unleashed in a non-campaign year, I wonder what
their impact would be, particularly if the other side didn't see them
coming and suddenly found themselves obliged to respond on news
shows.

Would NBC, say, owned by GE, which is making lots of money out of
Iraq, with Iran next on the block, even allow them to be aired? It
would be interesting to try it and see.
22509

From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 6:47am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> 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.

And lots of men would not, having had someone quickly check the girl
out for them, which was my point.

> 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

Or he could be giving us Keitel's point of view, who seems to care
about the girl but actually only pities her and is turned on by her,
but does truly care about his relationship with De Niro. The scene
could be interpreted either way, which I think makes it all the more
interesting.
22510

From: Samuel Bréan
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 6:51am
Subject: RE: Re: silent films PICK UP on SOUTH STREET (and trailers)

From: "jpcoursodon"
> 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".

It's funny, Jean-Pierre, you already talked about this a few months ago and
I already answered! Here are your post and my reply back then:

[JPC:]
>Samuel Fuller's "Pickup on South Street" (one of his masterpieces)
>has just been released in DVD in France under the original French
>release title "LE PORT DE LA DROGUE" -- even though there are no
>drugs at all in the movie. When the film came out in France,
>everything in it relating to communist spies was changed to drug
>traffickers (not to offend the then powerful communist party). I have
>never seen this French version, which must have required quite a bit
>of tampering with the original. I'm curious to know whether the DVD
>uses the original or the French version (neither is it clear from the
>ad I've seen whether it's a dubbed or subtitled version). Maybe
>another Samuel (Brean)can clarify this!

The French PICK UP ON SOUTH STREET DVD was released last month by Carlotta
Films. I haven't got it, but I know that the French audio track is included.
I heard some sound clips on a radio show ("Mauvais genres," France Culture)
the other day, with comparisons between both versions. The French one
replaced the allusions to Communism by dialogues about drug addiction.

Here's a test of the DVD on a French site.
http://www.dvdnet-fr.com/lire-test-dvd-549.html

Here's where this appeared.
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/11995
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/12000

Samuel (who still hasn't got that DVD, but who is--belatedly--reading
Fuller's "A Third Face.")
22511

From:
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 6:53am
Subject: Re: novelizations (was Re: New York, New York - novel into film, or film into novel?

At 08:47 PM 2/7/2005 +0000, hotlove666 wrote:
>--- 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.

Doesn't it happen all the time in film, being then called adaptation? I don't
see a difference in kind between what I think you're talking about (I've read
_Wicked_, liked _Was_ more, and have not read _Grendel_) and what, say, happened
in the creation of _Bride of Frankenstein_ or Almereyda's _Hamlet_. It seems
like you're valuing excitingly new characterizations as the height of artistry,
or at least a major component of it. I can't agree with that, though.

Or is your problem with works that cannibalize *classics*, as opposed to those
eating drek?

-Kian
22512

From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 7:05am
Subject: novelizations (was Re: New York, New York - novel into film, or film into novel?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- 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):

Thanks Kian, for answering a twenty-year old question. Now I know
better than to try look for a 'novelization.'

> 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.

But that would rule out something like Stoppard's "Rosencrantz and
Guildenstern are Dead," maybe a significant portion of Nicholas
Meyer's career ("Time after Time," "The Seven per Cent Solution"),
and "Shakespeare in Love."

Well, maybe the latter isn't such a good example.

I know of two Filipino films that make brilliant riffs on characters
from classic Filipino literature ("Sisa" 1951, and "Sisa" 1998).

Basically, if they can run with it and do something interesting with
it, why not?
22513

From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 7:23am
Subject: novelizations (was Re: New York, New York - novel into film, or film into novel?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, kian@u... wrote:
> in the creation of _Bride of Frankenstein

There--see--I knew there was a great film in there somewhere.

Throw in Wide Sargasso Sea as a film that wouldn't work without
recycled characters.
22514

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 7:51am
Subject: novelizations (was Re: New York, New York - novel into film, or film into novel?

> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, kian@u... wrote:
> > in the creation of _Bride of Frankenstein

Films have always been adapted from novels, but novels have only
begun to smell of the lamp like this lately. Film adaptations of
books can be very faithful or not at all, but the recycling (based on
the assumption that we know the original, and are relishing a
different take on it) isn't the point as a rule. It is the point in
Wicked, or in a film like Van Helsing.

Bride of Frankenstein is an imaginative continuation of a film which
was an original creation based on the novel, but quite different from
it. People went to see see the movie independent of having read or
even heard of the novel. Van Helsing recycles (among other
characters) the Monster from the Universal Frankenstein films. It
depends heavily on our memories of them, and the irony of the Monster
here being good, even heroic, while looking just like the Ole
Flathead. I kind of enjoyed Van Helsing as a romp, but it's not where
I want to see movies go. And I do consider characters important to
both arts, narrative film and the novel.

At the end of Hawks' career, for example, he had decided that the
characters were the key to what he was doing - something he had
always been aware of, but never theorized until after the Land of the
Pharaohs debacle. In literature characters like Hamlet or Don Quixote
and Sancho Panza have achieved their own immortality independent of
the works they appear in. (Apparently Shakespeare was adapting an old
play when he wrote Hamlet, but that self-reflexiveness wasn't the
point there either - Hamlet's self-reflexiveness was the point!) IMO,
their immortality doesn't excuse turning one's back on life and
writing about ready-made characters from literature.

That said, Wicked and Grendel are perfectly good books by good
writers, and I apologize for knocking the former if you like it, or
like the writer. To me it's a sign of decadence, but then I can't
think of much "authentic" literature these days that I could set
against it. Since some of us still need literature, why not?
22515

From: Saul
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 9:58am
Subject: "In A Glass Cage" RC

"In A Glass Cage" was meant to have a March 25 DVD release in
Australia through Siren Visual Entertainment, but has been refused
classification by the Office of Film and Literature Classification
(OFLC), which for those unfamiliar with the Australian system, is in
effect a ban, (a movie being unable to be released without a
classification).

I have not seen this film, but was awaiting its release here. I don't
know what the situation is like in other countries, but Australia
seems extremely uncertain of itself when releasing any controversial
material, (the "Salo" fiasco being a good example), and within
Australia, Queensland bans ever more films.

Though classification and banning are essential to the history, and in
many cases creativity, of different artistic fields, I'm always
surprised by the OFLC's decisions.

(Siren have 30 days to appeal the decision, so perhaps things will
turn out for the best - and hopefully if the film is released, nothing
will be cut). But I was wondering if there is anyone here who has seen
"In a Glass Cage" and can tell me what it's like and what in it might
be objectionable.
22516

From: Samuel Bréan
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 10:10am
Subject: RE: "In A Glass Cage" RC

>From: "Saul"
>"In A Glass Cage" was meant to have a March 25 DVD release in
>Australia through Siren Visual Entertainment, but has been refused
>classification by the Office of Film and Literature Classification
>(OFLC), which for those unfamiliar with the Australian system, is in
>effect a ban, (a movie being unable to be released without a
>classification).

I have not seen this film either, but I found this site recently:
http://www.refused-classification.com/

I knew a little about Australian censorship (having heard about the "Ken
Park" case), but I didn't think it was so strong. The British tradition,
maybe?

Samuel.
22517

From: Saul
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 10:40am
Subject: Re: "In A Glass Cage" RC

> Park" case), but I didn't think it was so strong. The British
tradition,
> maybe?

The fascist tradition maybe? Very soon filmmakers who criticize the
Howard government or wallow in perversity that offends community or
church standards of decency will receive a knock on their doors in the
middle of the night and never be seen or heard from again.
22518

From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 1:08pm
Subject: Re: Question for Brazilians (Was: Ambersons cans in Brazil)

> "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.

Wow! Would be VERY keen to see any of these. You don't happen to have
copies of any of them, do you? I'd even be happy to accept
unsubtitled versions on dvd of vhs, and go find a Portuguese-speaker
to translate.

> 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.

I've heard mixed things about CHARLIE, and have acquired a copy which
I should really check out for myself. The only disappointing
Cavalcanti I've seen is NICHOLAS NICKELBY, which he really shouldn't
have taken on, since he wasn't a Dickens-lover.

> Have never seen any of the three you mentioned. In "Dead of Night"
he only
> directed half of the episodes, right?

only two episodes but maybe also the climax. Robert Hamer did a good
episode, Charles Crichton the weakest, Basil Dearden did some good
stuff, and he's credited with the linking structure but I'm convinced
Cavalcanti had a hand in the ending. Unlesss Dearden was taking
genius pills at that point.

I really can't recommend WENT THE DAY WELL? highly enough, a
brilliant subversion of a propaganda film narrative, and I'd be happy
to offer you a copy in trade for something...
22519

From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 1:11pm
Subject: novelizations (was Re: New York, New York - novel into film, or film into novel?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Films have always been adapted from novels, but novels have only
> begun to smell of the lamp like this lately. Film adaptations of
> books can be very faithful or not at all, but the recycling (based
on
> the assumption that we know the original, and are relishing a
> different take on it) isn't the point as a rule. It is the point
in
> Wicked, or in a film like Van Helsing.
>
> Bride of Frankenstein is an imaginative continuation of a film
which
> was an original creation based on the novel, but quite different
from
> it.

Seems to me what you're saying is that the difference is the degree
of imagination and skill put into the 'recycling,' so to speak, on
which I won't disagree, Bill. Definitely 99.99% of novelizations or
sequels (Can we include that as a 'recycling of characters?' Where
would Van Sant's Psycho come in?) out there are crap, and almost
none of them improvements on the original film (maybe a bad film...)
22520

From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 1:17pm
Subject: Re: Sights & Sounds (silent films, Brakhage, McLaren)

> 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 really interesting point and it came up in a lecture I was
giving the other day. There's a sort of default film which gets made
when the creators aren't questioning convention. The scottish film
STELLA DOES TRICKS was singled out by me, probably unfairly - Loacian
realism until a car explodes, then slow motion - "because that's how
you film exploding cars, isn't it?"

A fair question for a filmmaker might indeed be "Why did you use a
soundtrack?" and there may be films made with sound that would better
without. I agree it's a more INTERESTING question than asking
Brakhage why he didn't use a soundtrack, and one that might stump
some filmmakers.

Personally I do find sitting in silence with strangers kind of
uncomfortable - my stomach grumbles.

> 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.

That's all fair enough as a personal reaction. I think NEIGHBORS is
deliberately posed from a naive stance, almost a child's simples
reaction to war, the fact that it is animation is part of the whole
worldview - it's not meant to be sophisticated, more a boiling-down
to the basics of "war is stupid and vile" which is maybe a second-
gradish observation but a better dictum to follow than the present US
administration's.

David
22521

From: Noel Vera
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 1:21pm
Subject: Re: Philip Brophy review (my first for Senses) and more

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Y'all -
>
> Big day for me professionally. My first piece for Senses of Cinema
(a review
> of Philip Brophy's 100 Modern Soundtracks) is here:
>
>
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/books/05/34/100_modern_soundtr
acks.html
>
>
> Also, anyone interested in my take on popular music in 2004 should
look here:
>
> http://www.villagevoice.com/specials/pazznjop/04/essay-john.php

It isn't a chopped liver of a day for me either. Here's my Senses of
Cinema article on "Babae sa Breakwater," along with several other
articles in a Philippine Cinema section:

Issue 34, Jan-Mar 2005 of Senses of Cinema presents a special
section on Philippine cinema, and includes my article on "Babae sa
Breakwater:"

http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/482
22522

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 2:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's detractors

> And lots of men would not, having had someone quickly check the girl
> out for them, which was my point.

Maybe I'm being naive about this, but, to tell you the truth, I don't know
any men who would leave their girlfriend at that point. And I come from a
small town, and know a lot of troglodytes.

I dare say that, in real life, even Mr. Scorsese would not leave. I
imagine that what we have here is a plotting problem, where the scene
was always about the men, and at some point the seizure presented itself
as an element of the scene. And the filmmaker said, "Wait - we've got a
problem - the guys have to leave, but she's having a seizure. Let's have
the neighbor come in so that Harvey can leave Amy with her."

The result comes off much worse than if Scorsese was showing intentional
cruelty.

> Or he could be giving us Keitel's point of view, who seems to care
> about the girl but actually only pities her and is turned on by her,
> but does truly care about his relationship with De Niro. The scene
> could be interpreted either way, which I think makes it all the more
> interesting.

It's not hard for a film to disassociate itself from the viewpoint of one
of its characters. The easiest way would be for the film to simply point
out the horror of Keitel's action, directly or indirectly. What makes
this moment so disturbing to me is that the film seems unaware that
there's an issue here. - Dan
22523

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 3:27pm
Subject: Back to Pialat (Was: La Cava on TCM)

> Despite my strictures against bad improv in A nos amours

I hate to let this sit, just because A NOS AMOURS is one of my ten or so
favorite films. The thing is, I think I know what Bill means - but I
never had that reaction at all until I knew something about the way the
film was made. As a relatively naive spectator, I thought the family
violence was vivid and full of surprises, and the enmity of the climactic
dinner scene felt consistent with the trajectories of the characters.
But the background stories are a bit too juicy: about Pialat surprising
the actors with his appearance in the dinner scene, about Evelyne Ker's
on-set hatred for Bonnaire. After knowing about these things, I found it
hard to focus on the film in the same way. Are Pialat's provocations in
the dinner scene the character's (which always made good sense before) or
the director's (from which perspective the scene can look like a rather
painful acting class)? Similarly, if you start to look at the family
fighting as a real-life flame that Pialat fanned for creative purposes,
then the conflict starts to look a bit different, less deep-rooted - you
register the still moments as actors waiting around for the next
provocation. Whereas those still moments felt like the heart of the film
before.

I'm kind of old-fashioned in wanting to maintain a sense of the film apart
from what I hear about the film. (And I do think this is possible: the
mind has all sorts of ways to process and not process information
selectively.) I submit A NOS AMOURS as a case where knowing how the film
was made is potentially harmful to the film experience. I propose to
"forget" this knowledge in the future. - Dan
22524

From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 3:33pm
Subject: Re: Cremaster and Chrysler (Was: Re: Nothing But a Man (was novelizations)

Apparently Victor Erice makes a living by directing TV ads, none of
which I've seen.

Jonathan Takagi
22525

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 4:57pm
Subject: Re: silent films PICK UP on SOUTH STREET (and trailers)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Bréan
wrote:
> From: "jpcoursodon"
>
> It's funny, Jean-Pierre, you already talked about this a few
months ago and
> I already answered!

It's funny indeed, or perhaps sad! I had a vague recollection of
maybe having already mentioned the French version of "Pickup" here
but no recollection at all of your answer! This is terrible! "O
rage, O desespoir, O vieillesse ennemie!" My apologies.

So French viewers will still believe that the movie is about drug
trafficking! Of course one McGuffin is as good as any other...

JPC
22526

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 6:31pm
Subject: novelizations (was Re: New York, New York - novel into film, or film into novel?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> > Films have always been adapted from novels, but novels have only
> > begun to smell of the lamp like this lately. Film adaptations of
> > books can be very faithful or not at all, but the recycling
(based
> on
> > the assumption that we know the original, and are relishing a
> > different take on it) isn't the point as a rule. It is the point
> in
> > Wicked, or in a film like Van Helsing.
> >
> > Bride of Frankenstein is an imaginative continuation of a film
> which
> > was an original creation based on the novel, but quite different
> from
> > it.
>
> Seems to me what you're saying is that the difference is the degree
> of imagination and skill put into the 'recycling,' so to speak, on
> which I won't disagree, Bill. Definitely 99.99% of novelizations or
> sequels (Can we include that as a 'recycling of characters?' Where
> would Van Sant's Psycho come in?) out there are crap, and almost
> none of them improvements on the original film (maybe a bad film...)

ALll art is recycling. What I'm attacking is a form of postmodern
literature, dependent on our knowledge of the real thing, that I
wrote before "I personally hate."
22527

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 6:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

> More than two decades ago there was a series of Pepsi commercials that
> I'm convinced were made by someone who knew avant-garde film. The best
> was a series of close-ups of parts of a room, the rectangle of sun
> through the window on the floor. Fragments of people (a man and a woman,
> natch) appeared, all of which as a set-up for the Pepsi can. I thought
> it was kind of great, actually.

This is a very interesting subject that connects strongly to another
running theme of this board: whether a film's attitudes and beliefs are to
be taken into account when judging it. (That theme lurks beneath my
recent posts about Scorsese, for instance.)

Some of us are on board with the idea that advertising is a valid art
form, and some are wary of its, I dunno, ad-ness.

Given that an ad is trying to change our behavior to suit the purposes of
the ad-maker, you can make an argument that its style is intrinsically in
the service of some blunt attitude.

I wouldn't go that far - I like some ads - but I'm generally put off by
the fact that the formal beauty of an ad is in the service of clouding my
mind enough to make me buy something. When I'm okay with an ad, the ad's
goal is usually modest and not taken too seriously, and the form of the ad
moves at cross-purposes to the goal.

As a critic, I used to have to watch programs of the year's international
award-winning ads. That sounds okay in principle, and a lot of people I
know loved these shows. As I recall, I once described such a program as a
reasonable facsimile of eternal damnation. There's something horrifying
about the continuous clamoring for one's obedience: "I want you to do this
- I want you to do that...." And, often but not always, it edges the
artist toward typage and other wearying strategies. - Dan
22528

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 8:12pm
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

Responding to Fred: Ads are what tv is all about, but your
description - low-
key programming, loud ads - is out of date. I have looked at Fox News
and the
Fox Network (tv's avant-garde) enough to see that now the content has
become as loud as the ads - in fact, Fox News is like one long ad
from the
heyday of hard-sell advertising: shouted, painted in bright colors,
addressed
to short attention spans and couched in the imperative mood. The
little I saw
of the Fox Superbowl Sunday was the same.

Ad esthetics have also impacted the style of narrative cinema.
Olivier Assayas
said some very interesting things about this at the time Diva was
ruling the
roost at arthouses.

Leo Spitzer wrote a terrific explication du texte of an orange juice
ad (a
poster) back in the fifties, treating it as an expression of American
culture.
Very detailed analysis, still fun to read. My old friend Alex Smith
did some
beautiful murals using "orange crate art" - the title song of a
fairly recent Van
Dyke Parks/Brian Wilson album.
22529

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 8:16pm
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

Responding to Fred: Ads are what tv is all about, but your
description - low-
key programming, loud ads - is out of date. I have looked at Fox News
and the
Fox Network (tv's avant-garde) enough to see that now the content has
become as loud as the ads - in fact, Fox News is like one long ad
from the
heyday of hard-sell advertising: shouted, painted in bright colors,
addressed
to short attention spans and couched in the imperative mood. The
little I saw
of the Fox Superbowl Sunday was the same.

Ad esthetics have also impacted the style of narrative cinema.
Olivier Assayas
said some very interesting things about this at the time Diva was
ruling the
roost at arthouses.

Leo Spitzer wrote a terrific explication du texte of an orange juice
ad (a
poster) back in the fifties, treating it as an expression of American
culture.
Very detailed analysis, still fun to read. My old friend Alex Smith
did some
beautiful murals using "orange crate art" - the title song of a
fairly recent Van
Dyke Parks/Brian Wilson album.
22530

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 8:16pm
Subject: FX sequences (was: ads)

Another form of short film that has surreptitiously cropped up is the effects
sequence farmed out to a smaller studio by a big studio film with lots of same.
I don't know when the sub-contractors started getting their own sub-end-
credits, but that is now common - I alluded to one example in Minority Report:
the mall sequence. One would have to look at the process closely - Cinefex
supplies some good documentation - to know just how free-standing these
contributions are.
22531

From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 8:24pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

> It's not hard for a film to disassociate itself from the viewpoint
of one
> of its characters. The easiest way would be for the film to
simply point
> out the horror of Keitel's action, directly or indirectly. What
makes
> this moment so disturbing to me is that the film seems unaware
that
> there's an issue here.

I just saw "The Aviator" last night, and Scorsese does something
similar in a couple of cases, but I would argue that they are
intentional. First, he introduces the rather creepy relationship
between Hughes and Faith Domergue. When Domergue discovers his
affair with Ava Gardner, she crashes her car into his repeatedly.
After this scene, she is never mentioned again, and Hughes is never
held to account for the girl's treatment, either by Gardner or
within the context of the movie.

Other critics have already pointed out the way the movie neglects to
consider the consequences of the XF11 crash. I couldn't find any
reference on the net to any casualties, though Hughes supposedly
leveled two houses.

I think Scorcese knows what he's doing here. Hughes was reckless
with women, just as he was in his flying. In both cases, he walks
away from the "crash," and neither he nor the movie ever turns back.

I think Scorcese knows exactly what he's doing with respect to these
incidents in "The Aviator" and "Mean Streets." He wants us to feel
incomplete about these omissions. So much of his work is about
conscience, and he asks us to fill that in where his characters are
lacking.
22532

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 8:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- Matt Armstrong wrote:

>
> I think Scorcese knows exactly what he's doing with
> respect to these
> incidents in "The Aviator" and "Mean Streets." He
> wants us to feel
> incomplete about these omissions. So much of his
> work is about
> conscience, and he asks us to fill that in where his
> characters are
> lacking.
>
>

You're absolutely right, and I'd add "Raging Bull"
and"The King of Comedy" to the mix. I can't tell you
how many lengthy discussions I've had with people who
beleieve that there MUST have been something between
Vicky and Joey in "Raging Bull." Why? Because the film
was doing its job of putting you in Jake's shoes --
without making a pitch to find him likeable in any
way.

There are any number of "structuring absences" in "The
King of Comedy" as well -- especially as regards
Rupert and Rita. Does she realy believe him when he
takes her out to Jerry's house? Why does she steal
Jerry's ashtray (in a shot right out of"Pickup on
South Street")?

Scorsese is a director who thrives on ambiguity and
unresolved problems.
>
>
>

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
22533

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 9:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's detractors

> I just saw "The Aviator" last night, and Scorsese does something
> similar in a couple of cases, but I would argue that they are
> intentional. First, he introduces the rather creepy relationship
> between Hughes and Faith Domergue. When Domergue discovers his
> affair with Ava Gardner, she crashes her car into his repeatedly.
> After this scene, she is never mentioned again, and Hughes is never
> held to account for the girl's treatment, either by Gardner or
> within the context of the movie.

I dunno. I think you can criticize this plot thread for not amounting to
much; and maybe criticize Scorsese for his besetting flaw of opting for
sensation (sudden car violence) over anything else. But I don't see that
the film has really stepped in anything here, the way Scorsese did in that
MEAN STREETS scene. It may not condemn, but it gives you an ambiguous
enough picture of the relationship to support various perspectives.

> Other critics have already pointed out the way the movie neglects to
> consider the consequences of the XF11 crash. I couldn't find any
> reference on the net to any casualties, though Hughes supposedly leveled
> two houses.

I certainly noted this. I want to be careful here, because one can
probably think of a lot of good, even admirable films that didn't dwell on
the death of extras. What makes the scene feel funny to me is that
Scorsese is single-mindedly concerned with giving us the (excessively
edited) sensation of a plane slicing through a residential neighborhood.
The scene has some power, but it's so fixated on the level of sensory
impact that it kind of feels vulnerable to charges of losing the big
picture, even if the big picture didn't involve deaths.

(I did rather like that earlier plane crash in the field, with the neat
cause-and-effect cut of Hughes pulling up on the throttle and the plane
straightening out at the last possible moment.)

> I think Scorcese knows exactly what he's doing with respect to these
> incidents in "The Aviator" and "Mean Streets."

I must say that the one thing I never feel about Scorsese is that he knows
exactly what he is doing. To my mind, he just lacks the necessary
sensibility to find context. Which is not to deny his talent. But I
never cease to be mystified at the almost unanimous acclaim for his
genius. - Dan
22534

From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 9:44pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

> I dunno. I think you can criticize this plot thread for not
amounting to
> much; and maybe criticize Scorsese for his besetting flaw of
opting for
> sensation (sudden car violence) over anything else.

Yeah, but it's significant that it's a car crash, since crashes are
a motif in the film. Hughes is miserable when he's earthbound. (He
spent much of the rest of his life in penthouses.) I don't think
it's simply an easy thrill.

> the death of extras. What makes the scene feel funny to me is
that
> Scorsese is single-mindedly concerned with giving us the
(excessively
> edited) sensation of a plane slicing through a residential
neighborhood.
> The scene has some power, but it's so fixated on the level of
sensory
> impact that it kind of feels vulnerable to charges of losing the
big
> picture, even if the big picture didn't involve deaths.

What was clear to me from watching "The Aviator" is that Hughes'
life was itself like a Hollywood movie. I think Scorsese has built
his film around this idea, punctuating the most cinematic parts of
the biography. These sensational moments are essential to Scorsese's
vision. Hughes seems to be almost trapped inside a movie of his own
life.

His innovative use of color also shows that the movie is about
Hollywood storytelling. If its detractors think "The Aviator"
shallow, or obsessed with surfaces, these sound like many of the
same criticisms leveled at Hollywood movies.

I know from watching his "Personal Journey" series that Scorsese
reads Hollywood cinema more deeply. I don't think "The Aviator" is a
compromise. I think it's an expression of Scorsese's profound
connection to classic Hollywood movies. The movie feels alive and
soulful.
22535

From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 9:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's detractors

Quoting David Ehrenstein :

> There are any number of "structuring absences" in "The
>
> King of Comedy" as well -- especially as regards
>
> Rupert and Rita. Does she realy believe him when he
>
> takes her out to Jerry's house? Why does she steal
>
> Jerry's ashtray (in a shot right out of"Pickup on
>
> South Street")?
>
>
>
> Scorsese is a director who thrives on ambiguity and
>
> unresolved problems.

Yeah, "The King of Comedy" does attain a lot of its power
through its brilliant ambiguities. For me, the question of
whether or not that scene in the Jerry Langford mansion even
occurs or is in Rupert's mind is layered throughout the film,
and integral to the character's warped mind/product of
media frenzied society, and to his Oedipial quest. The film
never gets half the credit it deserves for being so daring
as precisely a dream vs reality narrative that never takes
the easy route , such as vasaline filtered long lap dissolves
and all the usual tricks (a quality it shares with the
equally uderrated "Eyes Wide Shut").

I also find the De Niro/Pesci relationship in "Casino"
fascinating in its ambiguities. Many I have talked to
have found it strange that after their huge quarrel in the
dessert, Pesci is surprised that De Niro does not say hi to
him in the club, and that they can talk so openly when De Niro's
wife takes off with their child; but this is what remains
so fascinating. It is never fully clear if Pesci's frienship goes
beyond his duties to the mob (and of course himself), and
if Sam 'Ace' Rosethein resents him later on for screwing up his
affairs, or for stealing his thunder. The film's great theme
of loneliness and need for acceptance has "Ace" regard his mobster
friend with a weird mixture of awe and dread, and the complex
narration shows the constant fluxes in emotional changes.
For Pesci's part, his respect for his Jewish Friend's
money making skills is often layered with cynisism,
detachment, but sometimes warmth and care " I don't ever
think he enjoyed himself, but that was Ace".
Is frienship possible in Capatilism? Rather then show us
a great frienship ruined by the society as the narative
furthers, Scorsese makes us contemplate whether or not
it was ever good to begin with. I think it is
a much more complex piece of cinema than "Goodfellas", and time
will mark it as the better of the two.

Mathieu Ricordi
22536

From:
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 4:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's detractors

In a message dated 2/9/05 3:17:22 PM, sallitt@p... writes:

> Which is not to deny his talent. But I never cease to be mystified at the
> almost unanimous acclaim for his genius.
>
I'm with you on this one, Dan. Fine new list member Dave Gurney and I are
taking a grad course on Scorsese this semester and it's definitely not
dissipating my own mystification very much. We just did MEAN STREETS this week and while
I enjoyed dissecting scenes here and there, the film overall seems the
product of a man who has little awareness of (or perhaps interest in) his own
strengths and weakenesses. And while that in itself can be revelatory, Scorsese
wound up saying so much more (and saying it so much more movingly) just by
pointing the camera at ma and pa and letting them ramble on for 55 minutes in
ITALIANAMERICAN. They could have hooked me for 155 minutes!

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
22537

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 9:57pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- Mathieu Ricordi wrote:

> Is frienship possible in Capatilism?

A perfect subtitle for "Casino"!

Rather then
> show us
> a great frienship ruined by the society as the
> narative
> furthers, Scorsese makes us contemplate whether or
> not
> it was ever good to begin with. I think it is
> a much more complex piece of cinema than
> "Goodfellas", and time
> will mark it as the better of the two.
>
I've always felt it was a richer, deeper film that
"Goodfellas." The latter took off in the popular
imagination because it offered audiences a view of a
world it didn't know. With "Casino" they THINK they
know this world because they've been to Vegas. But the
moment the camera goes into the money room (with
"moonglow" playing on the soundtrack) it's clear we're
somewhere else.

Love isn't possible in this world either. Sharon Stone
is the perfect showcase spouse. her moves as she
enters the casino to play the suckers are the sameas
when she's married to Ace and working the room as his
wife.

The opening credits mark the film as a descent into
hell -- but without the redemption the use of the "St.
Matthew Passion" would suggest. However in this
context the use of Bach is a reference to Pasolini,
and the film's climax in which Pesci is beaten to
death and buried in the desert is quite remindful of
"Salo."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
22538

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 10:37pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:

I'm sure all this noodling about Scorsese seems excessive to some. Let me
state my own position on that: Scorsese has had an astonishingly high
reputation for many years, particularly in Europe, but when Mean Streets was
first out, I was a detractor. There was a time when every young director who
didn't want to be Spielberg wanted to be either Wenders or Scorsese, and I
was laughing up my sleeve at the whole phenomenon. I have long preferred
Ferrara to Scorsese, and probably still do, but now I look at this growing body
of work and find myself weighing it film by film all over again. I don't do that
with everyone - Truffaut would be the other example, for different reasons.

Re: dan's example, here's a question for Dan: Things like the epiliptic ellipsis
in Mean Streets also happen in Pialat's films, in ways you ahve helped me
undertand with your lucid commentary. How is it different? In Naked
Childhood we get the whole curve of responsibility for the cat incident, but he
never fesses up about the shoe in the drain (which we never really
understand), and we only learn that he's been stealing again when he's
arrested for the car - we never see it, and it comes as a surprise. Those are 3
different approaches to a character and his acts, each more disorienting than
the last. Do you see the same experimental range of connections in Mean
Streets, or just a glaring omission in one spot?

Pialat aside, do you think that this kind of ellipsis in Scorsese could be the
result, not of machismo and sensationalism, but of his study of the modern
European cinema?
22539

From:
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 6:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

In a message dated 05-02-09 13:53:18 EST, Dan Sallitt writes:

<< I'm generally put off by the fact that the formal beauty of an ad is in
the service of clouding my mind enough to make me buy something. >>

This is one reason some of my favorite "ads" are public service
announcements.
Three particularly good ones:
Batgirl threatening to sue Batman and Robin for sex discrimination in her job
(circa 1967).
The "Catalogue" ads of free things from the US Government : ("Write to
Pueblo, Colorado"!) One, gently spoofing old mystery movies set on trains, is a gem.
(circa 1980?)
"Erase the Hate" Ads denouncing prejudice against minority groups, run on the
USA Network (circa 1999). Remember Rick Rossovich as narrator, telling people
"Hate it is ugly! It will get you nowhere!"

< award-winning ads. That sounds okay in principle, and a lot of people I
know loved these shows. As I recall, I once described such a program as a
reasonable facsimile of eternal damnation. >>
These are shown on TV around once a year. They are as miserable and
depressing as Dan says.

For some reason, I liked a lot of ads from around 1984. This was the heydey
of MTV, and some of these were just glamorous as all get out:
A young man dancing around a fancy high rise office, singing "True Love!" for
Dr. Pepper.
A time traveller from the future arrives in the 1950's for a cherry coke.
A man takes his girl friend bird watching (coffee commercial)
A Grape Nuts commercial about a forest ranger.
And last, but not least: an incredibly glamorous couple is in some luxurious
hotel suite. The suave, sophisticated man in the tuxedo approaches a table
filled with food, and strikes a romantic pose against it. The whole table flips
over. It turns out to be a commercial for stain resistant carpets. He gives a
brief apologetic shrug...

Mike Grost
22540

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 11:47pm
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 05-02-09 13:53:18 EST, Dan Sallitt writes:

an incredibly glamorous couple is in some luxurious
> hotel suite. The suave, sophisticated man in the tuxedo approaches a table
> filled with food, and strikes a romantic pose against it. The whole table flips
> over. It turns out to be a commercial for stain resistant carpets. He gives a
> brief apologetic shrug...

That "guess the product" twist was used in a lot of sophisticated ads. The LA
Times did a good takeoff on LA tv news to run in movie theatres: The whole
news apparatus mobilized around a trapped chipmuck or something equally
silly. Anne Heche plays an "on the ground" reporter.

A Net ad that has garnered deserved kudos shows a young man with his tiny
son in a supermarket. The kid throws a tantrum when he can't have a certain
sugary food and throws himself on the floor, pounding his fists and wailing,
attracting frowns as the helpless dad looks on. Up comes the copyline: "Use
condoms."

In the sixties-eighties we deconstructed soft-sell ads to show that they were
really as pernicious as the other kind. Now we want them back!

To repeat my earlier point: The Fox Network Superbowl broadcast on Sunday
was so loud and glitzy in its constant hyping of itself that the ads - which I had
tuned in for (with the sound off) - looked staid and old-fashioned in
comparison.
22541

From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 11:48pm
Subject: What Time Is It There?

I just watched - in fact I BOUGHT - the above-referenced film: Chinese
Jarmusch - is that what all the fuss has been about?
22542

From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 11:56pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:

> Other critics have already pointed out the way the movie neglects
to
> consider the consequences of the XF11 crash. I couldn't find any
> reference on the net to any casualties, though Hughes supposedly
> leveled two houses.
>
Hughes was the only person injured. Charles Myers, whose home was
destroyed, wasn't at home, since he was at Nuremberg.
http://www.check-six.com/Crash_Sites/XF-11_crash_site.htm

Dennis O'Keefe witnessed the crash:
http://godard.cjb.net//hughes.pdf
22543

From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 0:05am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> I just watched - in fact I BOUGHT - the above-referenced film:
Chinese
> Jarmusch - is that what all the fuss has been about?

I'm a huge fan of all of Tsai's films, especially "The Hole." The
Jarmusch comparison never ocurred to me. Makes sense. They've always
reminded me more of Buster Keaton or of silent films. Lee Kang-Sheng
is a great physical actor and Tsai always knows how to place him in
the frame for maximum effect.

Sounds like you weren't that impressed with "What Time is it There?"
which is relatively light. Check out "The Hole" (a sci-fi musical)
or for even deeper waters "The River" and "Vive La Amor."
22544

From:
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 7:06pm
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

In a message dated 05-02-09 18:55:30 EST, Bill Krohn writes:

<< I just watched - in fact I BOUGHT - the above-referenced film: Chinese
Jarmusch - is that what all the fuss has been about? >>

Warnung! Beware, Danger Will Robinson:
I had a million flaming arrows shot at me a year ago, when my posts suggested
that this minimalist film, in which very little happens, was not that
interesting.
I finally concluded that 1) Minimalism is just not my bag (I can't stand Sol
LeWitt or other minimalist artists either) 2) Other people love minimalist
works 3) Only a kill-joy would stand in the way of their good time 4) So we
should all just "agree to differ".
I DID enjoy Tsai's "The Hole" - it is a lot more interesting, with
fascinating musical numbers and a strange plot.

Mike Grost
22545

From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 0:21am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:

> Sounds like you weren't that impressed with "What Time is it There?"
> which is relatively light. Check out "The Hole" (a sci-fi musical)
> or for even deeper waters "The River" and "Vive La Amor."

Will do.
22546

From:
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 7:22pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

I feel better knowing that no one was hurt in the crash. Mr. Scorsese could
have saved himself a lot of critical controversy had he made this clear in the
film.
This scene has parallels in "Kundun". That film comes to a magnificent end
when the Dalai Lama is asked to define who he is.
Here, when Hughes is pulled from the crash, he says "I'm Howard Hughes. The
Aviator". It is the same summing up of a whole person.

Mike Grost
22547

From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 0:46am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

Minimalism is just not my bag (I can't stand Sol

Let's be more precise. The Virgin Stripped Bare by her Bachelors (aka Oh,
Sooyung! which is the real title: Pierre Rissient invented the other one) is
composed mostly of long-shots with no cutting in or cutting away. It's the best
film I've seen in ages. Naked Childhood uses the same system, and IT's one
of the best films I've seen in ages. Platform is without exception composed
that way. It's one of the best films I've seen in ages. What Time Is It Here? uses
that system to do blackout sketches, a la Jarmusch, and I would have to see
something more inventive than that to be a fan. Setting aside the fact that I've
never "gotten" Jarmusch, if that's what it is, it's a bit derivative, isn't it?

Dan calls this the Biograph style, and I'm sure that others here have felt, as I
did, upon discovering Griffith's early work that it was some of his best work.
Obviously people all over the world have come around to that idea in their
own filmmaking, but it depends on how you make use of it!
22548

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:13am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:

> I DID enjoy Tsai's "The Hole" - it is a lot more interesting, with
> fascinating musical numbers and a strange plot.
>
> Mike Grost

But Mike, "The Hole" is very much like his other films. So maybe
it's not minimalism that you hate, but something else. But what??

JPC (who likes but is not a huge fan of "What Time...")
22549

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:19am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
>
> Minimalism is just not my bag (I can't stand Sol
>
> Let's be more precise. The Virgin Stripped Bare by her Bachelors
(aka Oh,
> Sooyung! which is the real title: Pierre Rissient invented the
other one)

"invented" should be placed between quotes, Bill!
22550

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:27am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
>
> I finally concluded that 1) Minimalism is just not my bag (I can't
stand Sol
> LeWitt or other minimalist artists either)

Mike: minimalism in art (painting etc...) has nothing to do with
minimalism in film. The most minimal movie is a hundred times less
minimal than any Sol Lewitt canvas. (oh, well, early Warhol may be
the exception). But just don't call "minimalist" any movie that
doesn't have a plot and suspense and a three-act construction.
22551

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:34am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
>
> a la Jarmusch, and I would have to see
> something more inventive than that to be a fan. Setting aside the
fact that I've
> never "gotten" Jarmusch,

Bill, I cannot believe you never "got" Jarmusch -- because he is
easy enough to "get" and anyway you "get" most everything. So don't
be coy about it. But "What Time" has very little relationship to
Jarmusch, except if one clings to some simplistic concept
of "minimalism".
22552

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:43am
Subject: Re: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

"What Time" has very little
> relationship to
> Jarmusch, except if one clings to some simplistic
> concept
> of "minimalism".
>
>
Actually he's a lot closer to Chantal Ackerman. The
long takes of "Goodbye Dragon Inn" remind me of
nothing so much as "Les Rendez-vous D'Anna."

For some reason he just doesn't "work" for me as a
filmmaker -- even though I like his ideas, and think
his boyfriend is extremely cute. Worth every lingering
Anna-Karina-like medium close shot he lavishes upon
him, in fact.

Maybe I'm just a Darma Queen at heart.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
22553

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 1:47am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I feel better knowing that no one was hurt in the crash. Mr.
Scorsese could
> have saved himself a lot of critical controversy had he made this
clear in the
> film.

It is in the grand tradition of Hollywood filmmaking that
enormous destruction of property and often life is wrecked upon
innocent people with little or no recognition of the damage by the
movie in question. DiD Scorsese have to apologize for the reckless
behavior of his character? Of course not. He just had fun doing his
great set piece. We see terrified people in their house being
destroyed. It's supposed to be "exciting". We feel for them but we
enjoy the destructive fun even more. Who cares about the people
being killed when King Kong wrecks the El and everything? This is
exactly where we are with The Aviator -- a pretty good movie.
22554

From:
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 9:05pm
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

Both JPC and Bill Krohn raise good points.
Agreed: I cannot define "minimalism" precisely. Have seen this word used to
describe Tsai films in both "Sight and Sound" and "Senses of Cinema", so am not
the only person with this impression.
Was NOT talking about camera style here (such as long shots or "the Biograph
style"). Instead, was using it in the most naive sense, to talk about a film
in which "nothing much seems to be happening" on any level.
A lot more seems to be happening in "The Hole". It is full of complex musical
numbers, has a science fiction plot, etc. Clearly both are made by the same
auteur - but "The Hole" just has a lot more going on in it.
"Dog Star Man" (Brakhage) hardly has a plot, let alone a three act
construction. But it seems the exact opposite of minimalist - it is overflowing with
activity and imagery.
Getting away from the "minimalist" issue, I also found "What Time Is It
There?" to be really depressing. Its relentless grim focus on lonely miserable
people was hard to take.
Other contemporary narrative films verging on Minimalism:
Waiting for Happiness
Gerry
Elephant
Lost In Translation
Where Is the Friend's House?
The White Balloon
Uzak / Distant
Noi Albinoi
Code inconnu
Flowers of Shanghai

Mike Grost
22555

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:13am
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

Who cares about
> the people
> being killed when King Kong wrecks the El and
> everything? This is
> exactly where we are with The Aviator -- a pretty
> good movie.
>
Glad you brought thatup, J-P. "The Aviator" is a lot
closer to "King Kong" than "Citizen Kane."

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
22556

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:14am
Subject: Re: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- David Ehrenstein wrote:

>
> Maybe I'm just a Darma Queen at heart.
>
>
>
>
What a telling typo!

I meant Drama Queen, but hey. . . .

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22557

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:39am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Instead, was using it in the most naive sense, to talk about a
film
> in which "nothing much seems to be happening" on any level.

Since we are being "naive", Mike, why does it bother you
that "nothing much seems to be happening" in a movie? When in most
cases a LOT is actually happening.

> "Dog Star Man" (Brakhage) hardly has a plot, let alone a three act
> construction. But it seems the exact opposite of minimalist - it
is overflowing with
> activity and imagery.

Well, yes, it is not minimalist in any sense, but I must say --
and I apologize to Fred -- that I absolutely dislike
its "overflowing of activity and imagery". Because no matter how
hard I try, it's just to me a collection of all the old tricks and
tropes and cliches of the avant garde which amount to a kind of
contempt for cinema -- a mistrust and even hatred of the image --
you know, no shot can be held for more than a few seconds, the
camera has to be jerking constantly, up and down, in and out of
focus, ad nauseaum. The more I watch this film the more I dislike it
(and I like Brakhage's painted-on-film films so obviously I'm not a
true auteurist.)

> Getting away from the "minimalist" issue, I also found "What Time
Is It
> There?" to be really depressing. Its relentless grim focus on
lonely miserable
> people was hard to take.

And DogStarMan isn't depressing?
And since when is "depressing" a judgment value?
22558

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:43am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Maybe I'm just a Darma Queen at heart.
> >
> >
> >
> >
> What a telling typo!
>
> I meant Drama Queen, but hey. . . .
>
Darma Bum, Darma Queen, Drama Queen, what's the difference?
We are our typos, David (and you make so many of them, you
must be a LOT of things).
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
22559

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:45am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Who cares about
> > the people
> > being killed when King Kong wrecks the El and
> > everything? This is
> > exactly where we are with The Aviator -- a pretty
> > good movie.
> >
> Glad you brought thatup, J-P. "The Aviator" is a lot
> closer to "King Kong" than "Citizen Kane."
>
> But "Kane" was very close to "Kong" -- so...
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
22560

From: Hadrian
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:55am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

> But Mike, "The Hole" is very much like his other films. So maybe
> it's not minimalism that you hate, but something else. But what??
>
> JPC (who likes but is not a huge fan of "What Time...")

I would have to disagree that "The Hole" is very much like his other
films. I, too, found myself loving The Hole, but less enamoured of
his other work. Obviously, on an auteurist board, I expect lots of
response about the deep similarities to his other work thematically,
etc., but let me just mention a couple points that could make The
Hole seem qualitatively different from his other films:

1) Wildly alternating tones.
2) Extreme stylization.
3) An absurdist plot.
4) A strikingly happy ending.

You could argue that there's bits of these elements in his other
films, but they are delivered, well, minimalistically. No musical
numbers. For a sensualist like me, i like the style piled on a
little more, and dug The Hole.

STill, Bill and I's mutual friend, Mike Sakamoto, a short filmmaker
i deeply respect, thinks What Time is It There? (which i fell asleep
at) is his favorite film in the last couple years, so i'm willing to
give it a second look, after a better night's sleep.

hadrian
22561

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 2:56am
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

> >
> > But "Kane" was very close to "Kong" -- so...
> >
> >
Well they were both RKO movies that featured blondes.
But then so was "Swingtime."
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22562

From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:58am
Subject: The Woman in Red Boots ?

Anyone here seen Juan (son of Luis) Bunuel's THE WOMAN IN RED BOOTS (1974),
starring Catherine Deneuve, which I have a chance to see soon? The great
lady herself commented: "It didn't work, but I like it".

Adrian
22563

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:01am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > > But "Kane" was very close to "Kong" -- so...
> > >
> > >
> Well they were both RKO movies that featured blondes.
> But then so was "Swingtime."
> >
> >
> Surely you jest, David. "Kane" looks more like "Kong" than ANY
other film ever made before (and possibly since).
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
22564

From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:02am
Subject: Re: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

Thanks to Dan, Mike, and Bill for the responses to this thread.

Bill, my occasional viewings of Fox News while traveling suggest that
you're right. It's full of loud and glitzy ads for itself, for one
thing. (And, OT, I learned a lot about how "fair and balanced" it is
from an interview with Rumsfeld in October 2003, in which the "toughest"
of those "fair and balanced" questions was, "Why do the media keep
giving such a negative impression of Iraq, when the country mostly at
peace," which Rummy was delighted to reply to. The "balanced-ness" of
*that* question has been revealed by the events of the year and a half
since.)

Dan, your comments bring us back to the "love the film, hate the
ideology" thread we've returned to more than once. (There's an old gay
joke supposedly spoken by the kind of leather queen who dresses in
military garb with high boots with various metal appendages and other
Nazi-like regalia: "Love the uniform, hate the party.") Anyone is
entitled to be irritated at whatever irritates them about a film, but I
always think such irritations should be remembered but also, if there's
aesthetic interest in the film, overcome.

A well-known avant-garde filmmaker told me , when I recommended a great
sacred Renaissance painting, he thought of all Christian religious art
as "advertising" and thus had trouble viewing it. He was right too:
these pictures were trying to get you to "buy into" the church. That
doesn't mean one has to accept the ideology being pushed. What beauties
you miss if you stop at your annoyance with what's being "pushed."

To bring this back to cinema, what about one of my favorite films, "Red
River." What's the ideology that we're being asked to buy into there?
Steal someone else's land? And how does that relate to US foreign policy
(and US support of Israeli settlements and annexations) today? Another
point about it, the film sees the whole purpose of land as something to
be put to human productive use, an ideology that is deeply odious to me
and contributes to the continuing destruction of wilderness around the
world today. And that's all without even mentioning that notorious
little speech, doubtless written by the Beef Industry Council, that
Dunson (Wayne) delivers about how people out East need him beef to help
them grow and make them strong.

Even more generally, while I might join you in decrying the ideology of
commercials ("you're nothing without our product, but with our product
you'll be great"), what about the "ideology" of sync-sound narrative
films in general? Get involved in these substitute worlds, have your
emotions manipulated, lust after these characters and their fabulous
lives (and often, fabulous possessions)? Of course, not all narrative
films are like this, but surely a lot of them are, including some great
ones. Even something like "Fight Club," to choose a film I've actually
seen and found at least of some interest: Is the idea being marketed
there that violence is the solution to our boring humdrum lives, even to
the point of destroying whole cities? And exactly how odious is that?

In my view, viewers should struggle to disconnect the aesthetic power of
a film, not from its "message" which should always be noted, but from
the truth value of its message, which must be evaluated separately from
the work's aesthetic power. None of us can do that perfectly, and I sort
of hope that none of us will ever to be able to completely do it, but I
think that's the only way to look at art. Otherwise you wind up reducing
the love that the artist who believes differently from you put into the
actual work.

If TV ads could be seen in a different context from TV, and perhaps at a
time removed somewhat from their making (the way many of us discovered
the great works of classical cinema), it might be easier for more of us
to disconnect the Pepsi can depicted therein from the actual product.

In any event, I can't think of any theoretical reason why a TV
commercial could not also be great art.

Fred Camper
22565

From: Brian Dauth
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:13am
Subject: Introduction and A Few Thought on Mankiewicz

I am a new member, Brian Dauth, from Brooklyn. I will post a full
bio, but briefly, I am a New Yorker and I went to many film schools:
the Bleeker Street Cinema, the Thalia, the Regency, Theatre 80 St.
Marks.

When I looked at some posts, I saw that there had been recent
discussion around Joseph L. Mankiewicz, and I have to say that my
favorite filmmaker is Joseph L. Mankiewicz. He exemplifies for me
the perfect combination of the visual and the verbal. To me he is
unjustly maligned for having no visual sense. He does, but it is a
subtle one that he keeps in strict balance with the verbal aspects
of his films.

I am currently writing a profile of Mankiewicz for the Great
Directors Database at Senses of Cinema. I am examining Mankiewicz's
films not only from an aesthetic viewpoint, but also writing about
his investigations into questions of race, gender, class and sex. I
am also expanding upon Deleuze's notion of Mankiewicz's films as
depicting women and men who are facing forks/decisions in their
lives. I call it a "cinema of pivots" where Mankiewicz builds his
screenplays out of scenes in which characters make decisions which
are followed by subsequent scenes showing not only the results, but
the new set of choices engendered by prior decisions.

Some specific comments about the films discussed:

The Quiet American:

To me the most important change Mankiewicz effects is to have Phuong
reject Fowler instead of become his willing trophy as in Greene's
novel: Mankiewicz women are never reduced to male possessions.

As noted, Mankiewicz equalizes the American and Fowler through
dialogue. This has been his technique from the beginning. In his
Fox films he gave all his characters, male and female, equality in
dialogue. In this way, he draws the audience in, creating ambiguity
which it becomes our job to work through.

The Honey Pot:

This film fails because the mystery genre is one of the few that is
unamenable to Mankiewicz's style. As I said above, he constructs
his screenplays out of scenes in which people make choices and take
action. A mystery, if it is to remain a mystery, must never show
such scenes, instead providing only oblique clues as to characters'
choices and actions.

Finally, I agree that the cinema of Godard would be unimaginable in
its present form/history without Mankiewicz's influence (the same
holds true for Rohmer in my opinion). The way Godard balances the
verbal with the visual, e.g., the monologue over the shot of the cup
of coffee being stirred, demonstrates Godard's debt to Mankiewicz.

Also, Godard's run in the 1960's when he made several films a year
is comparable to the 24 months (1949/50) when Mankiewicz wrote and
directed A Letter to Three Wives, House of Strangers, No Way Out and
All About Eve. Each man made films set in the time of their
production that not only reflected the questions/changes in the air,
but which seemed to be in actual dialogue with the times.

Thanks again for having me.

Brian Dauth
Brooklyn
22566

From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:17am
Subject: Brakhage & avant-garde's "contempt for cinema" (was Re: What Time Is It There?)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> > "Dog Star Man" (Brakhage)
> Because no matter how
> hard I try, it's just to me a collection of all the old tricks and
> tropes and cliches of the avant garde which amount to a kind of
> contempt for cinema -- a mistrust and even hatred of the image --
> you know, no shot can be held for more than a few seconds, the
> camera has to be jerking constantly, up and down, in and out of
> focus, ad nauseaum.

You baffle me once again, JPC: Please elaborate on how those
qualities ("no shot can be held for more than a few seconds, the
camera has to be jerking constantly, up and down, in and out of
focus") amount to a "kind of contempt for cinema -- a mistrust and
even hatred of the image."
You obviously adhere to some very specific, narrow definition of what
is a proper "cinematic image" but how in the world do you come to
presume a mistrust or even hatred on the part of filmmakers who don't
share that definition?
The restructuralists in every artform have depended to a certain
degree on the development of "extended techniques" to open doors to
new aesthetic possibilities within their form. It can also be said
that, taking them at their word, most artists are totally in love or
obsessed with the materials of their form -- far from contemptuous or
hateful. You, JPC, appear to be the one with contempt and hatred of
images and sequenced-images which don't meet your aesthetic standards.
Isn't there a little "projection" going on here?

-Jason G.
22567

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:19am
Subject: Re: Re: What Time Is It There?

>> Sounds like you weren't that impressed with "What Time is it There?"
>> which is relatively light. Check out "The Hole" (a sci-fi musical)
>> or for even deeper waters "The River" and "Vive La Amor."
>
> Will do.

I had a little trouble getting into WHAT TIME IS IT THERE?, but I really
liked THE HOLE, and I think THE RIVER is a masterpiece. - Dan
22568

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:24am
Subject: Re: Re: What Time Is It There?

> Getting away from the "minimalist" issue, I also found "What Time Is It
> There?" to be really depressing. Its relentless grim focus on lonely
> miserable people was hard to take.

Mike - a warning about THE RIVER, which I recommended highly in another
post. It's about pain, and is painful to watch. I have a high tolerance
for miserabilism, but this film pushed me right to the brink. - Dan
22569

From: Gary Tooze
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:24am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

At 03:17 AM 2/10/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>I'm a huge fan of all of Tsai's films, especially "The Hole." The
>Jarmusch comparison never ocurred to me. Makes sense. They've always
>reminded me more of Buster Keaton or of silent films. Lee Kang-Sheng
>is a great physical actor and Tsai always knows how to place him in
>the frame for maximum effect.
>
>Sounds like you weren't that impressed with "What Time is it There?"
>which is relatively light. Check out "The Hole" (a sci-fi musical)
>or for even deeper waters "The River" and "Vive La Amor."

Ditto, although my favorite would be 'Vive Lamour", quite possibly because
it was the first of his that I was exposed to. I've just penned a review
the Tsai's Goodbye, Dragon Inn DVD released next week by Wellspring:

http://www.dvdbeaver.com/film/DVDReviews8/goodbyedragoninn.htm

It contains a 20 minute feature by Tsai "'The Skywalk is Gone' aka
'Tianqiao bu jianle' (2002)... a wonderful short.

Cheers,
Gary
22570

From: Noel Vera
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:41am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Maybe I'm being naive about this, but, to tell you the truth, I
don't know
> any men who would leave their girlfriend at that point. And I
come from a
> small town, and know a lot of troglodytes.

I guess we know different kinds of troglodytes. It never threw me
when I saw it, tho I did note it. Actually, I kind of admired
Scorsese's letting Keitel leave her there like that, intentional or
not--thought he was being true to Keitel's character.

> The result comes off much worse than if Scorsese was showing
intentional
> cruelty.

Yep.
22571

From:
Date: Wed Feb 9, 2005 10:41pm
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

Fred Camper's original post suggested that he liked (roughly) pre-1994
commercials more than post-1994 ones. Have read that around this time commercial
makers discovered that constant jagged camera movment attracted the eye - so they
filled their commercials with jiggling camera and rapid cutting to compel
viewer attention. This led to drastic changes in commercials. Quite a few
pre-1990 or so commercials are shot more-or-less like little traditional movies.
Post-1990 ones often cannot be watched without a feeling of seasickness and
eyestrain!
In general, I thought the 1980's was the high point of commercials in the US.
Commercials were filled with glitz and glamour - but still were shot in a
traditional movie like style. They probably became closest to what we think of as
"real movies" during that period.
Glamour is a two-edged sword. In a lot of ways, it is just another name for
consumerism - people in fancy clothes. Still, a little of this can add some fun
to life.
I love music videos. Think they are a major art form. Tend to think of
commercials as relatively minor in comparison - but still worth investigating as
potential art.

Mike Grost
22572

From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:44am
Subject: re: Scorsese's detractors (the queue starts here)

David wrote:

""The Aviator" is a lot
closer to "King Kong" than "Citizen Kane." "

And also a heck of a lot closer to the gutter than the stars.

If Scorsese has such a fierce critical intelligence, how can he even bear
the advertising campaigns for this woeful movie that go on about a "true
American hero" who "stood up to the bullies" - such bullshit!! And don't
tell me: 'Marty has nothing to do his ad campaigns' ... was RAGING BULL
billed as a film about a true American hero, a little man who battled the
System? No, because Jake La Motta was clearly a monster, but Howard Hughes
somehow comes out of the fiasco called THE AVIATOR as a heroic underdog! No
argument has convinced me so far that Scorsese doesn't want us to sympathise
big-time with this jerk - why, otherwise, would he say in interviews, that
he considers HH an artist, a visionary, blah-blah-blah ad nauseam?

The worst thing is seeing the media 'roll over' in the face of this film and
just spew out the same bullshit bad-history line as the film does - like
David Thomson in THE GUARDIAN: "Hughes was a great and brave flyer, a man
who could talk to interesting women and someone whose pictures were never
dull". Give me a break! (Could even Thomson at his worst have written such
similar nonsense about KING OF COMEDY or RAGING BULL? - 'Jake was a great
and brave fighter, a man who could marry and beat up interesting women,
someone whose life was never less than noble' ???)

Adrian
22573

From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:44am
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's detractors

> Do you see the same
> experimental range of connections in Mean Streets, or just a glaring
> omission in one spot?

The ill effect of that moment, for me, is not a matter of ellipsis or
omission. If Scorsese hadn't successfully completed his traditional
narrative mission (to follow and resolve the quarrel between the pals),
and if the film were characterized by fragmentation and absences, then the
abandoning of the convulsing girlfriend, and Scorsese's attitude toward
this action, might have been hard to grasp. But I feel as if everything
is conveyed quite clearly - unfortunately.

Certainly the consequences of the horrible actions of the boy in L'ENFANCE
NUE are made clear. Pialat has no trouble with establishing context: we
know that the boy is sometimes malevolent, and we also know that he is
sometimes vulnerable and caring. The contradiction is heightened, and
then left out in the open. - Dan
22574

From: Brian Dauth
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:48am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

> The easiest way would be for the film to simply point out the
horror of Keitel's action, directly or indirectly. What makes this
moment so disturbing to me is that the film seems unaware that
there's an issue here.

Scorsese is well aware that there is an issue, one that he wishes to
avoid. If he pointed out the horror of Keitel's actions, he runs
the risk of turning the audience against his hero.

> First, he introduces the rather creepy relationship between Hughes
and Faith Domergue. When Domergue discovers his affair with Ava
Gardner, she crashes her car into his repeatedly. After this scene,
she is never mentioned again, and Hughes is never held to account
for the girl's treatment, either by Gardner or within the context of
the movie.

Because HH is the hero we are to identify with.

> I think Scorcese knows exactly what he's doing with respect to
these incidents in "The Aviator" and "Mean Streets." He wants us to
feel incomplete about these omissions.

Actually, he hopes we won't notice them, caught up as we are in the
story he is telling and all the cinematic razzmatazz he coats his
movies with.

> So much of his work is about conscience, and he asks us to fill
that in where his characters are lacking.

I think it is truer that he wants us to forgive his heroes, sharing
our conscience with them so that they can be seen as heroic rather
than depraved.

Brian Dauth
Brooklyn
22575

From: Noel Vera
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 3:50am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> I just watched - in fact I BOUGHT - the above-referenced film:
Chinese
> Jarmusch - is that what all the fuss has been about?

You didn't think the fish had perfect comic timing?

Count me in as liking this movie but liking The Hole much more. That
one was a combination of Ballard's High-Rise and Kafka's The
Metamorphosis, with Dennis Potter (a la Cantonese pop tunes) mixed
in. In fact when I saw this in Hong Kong, I asked Tsai if Ballard,
Kafka, and Potter were influences. He misunderstood my question
(accidentally, I'm sure, but I like to think not) and gave a
different answer.
22576

From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:52am
Subject: re: The Hole

Hadrian wrote that THE HOLE is distinguished by: "a strikingly happy
ending".

But Hadrian, isn't the ending in fact absolutely devastating? I agree with
Robin Wood's analysis of this film: that final bit is a strange fantasy
swimming to the film's surface, while the 'real' characters are (for all
intents and purposes at that point) dead, mad, or human cockroaches!!!!
(Sorry, should have I written 'spoilers' before that??) The last we see of
the woman before that final scene, she is not on her way to a musical
romantic clinch !!! Wood says it is (I am recollecting rather than quoting):
"the first and probably last musical about the end of the world", and the
film's striking originality of tone comes precisely from the extreme
dialectics of that reality/fantasy clash.

Also on Tsai: Bill, WHAT TIME IS IT THERE is a film I love, but it is NOT
the place to start with Tsai. (Even at the Cannes premiere, as I recall the
coverage, it was not immediately embraced by the critic-mob - it took a
little time for its appreciative cult to build). VIVE L'AMOUR is good to
start with, and THE RIVER is where you have to get to: his absolute
masterpiece, in my opinion. But all the films are worth 'living with',
reading and thinking about, and seeing repeatedly over time.

Adrian
22577

From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:01am
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

> I wouldn't go that far - I like some ads - but I'm generally put off by
> the fact that the formal beauty of an ad is in the service of clouding my
> mind enough to make me buy something.

Really ? When I'm taken with the formal qualities of a commercial
I often forget what they were trying to sell !

Sometimes I'll say to someone - "well it was a Japanese car, maybe Lexus
or Infiniti." Sometimes I can guess the film stock used but forget the
brand name.

I have to admit I usually watch commercials silently, sorry McLaren fans,
hitting the mute button is an autonomic reaction ;-)

-Sam
22578

From: Noel Vera
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:02am
Subject: Re: The Hole

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
> Hadrian wrote that THE HOLE is distinguished by: "a strikingly
happy
> ending".

Striking in more sense than one. The tone reminded me of some of
Monty Python's more deadpan surrealism, but the exact image...I'd
like to ask Tsai if he's seen Peque Gallaga's Scorpio Nights (1984).
A man extends his hand through a hole in the ceiling to make contact
with a woman in the apartment down below, making love to her
husband. Coincidence, maybe, probably...but I'd love to be sure...
22579

From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:06am
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Even more generally, while I might join you in decrying the ideology of
> commercials ("you're nothing without our product, but with our product
> you'll be great"), what about the "ideology" of sync-sound narrative
> films in general? Get involved in these substitute worlds, have your
> emotions manipulated, lust after these characters and their fabulous
> lives (and often, fabulous possessions)? Of course, not all narrative
> films are like this, but surely a lot of them are....

In his review of a couple of David Thomson books in last week's The
Nation, Lee Siegel states:
"Hollywood's true meaning lies not in the fabrication of illusion but
in some ultimate contempt for the imagination. For all of film's
super-mega-hyper fantasies and fantastic effects, for all its probably
subtle influences on behavior, it leaves audiences unable to conceive
of any other kind of life than the one they're being officially urged
to live."
http://www.thenation.com/doc.mhtml?i=20050214&s=siegel

He's talking about the "story content" of Hollywood movies, but one
could just as easily argue that the Hollywood narrative film's
aesthetic norms promote a similarly standardized way of
looking/feeling/relating, reifying-as-natural the constellation of
desires and dissatisfactions thus produced, later to be exploited by
the capitalist-magicians. As Dr. Funkenstein warns, "Mind your wants
'cause someone wants your mind."

-Jason G.
--
Jason Guthartz
jason@r...
http://www.restructures.net/chicago
--
22580

From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:08am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

> It is never fully clear if Pesci's frienship goes
> beyond his duties to the mob (and of course himself),

On one viewing (but I think this can be applied to other
Scorcesse films), I'd propose this might just be the point:
it's not clear *to Pesci* if the friendship goes beyond.....

-Sam Wells
22581

From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:14am
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

> To repeat my earlier point: The Fox Network Superbowl broadcast on Sunday
> was so loud and glitzy in its constant hyping of itself that the ads - which I had
> tuned in for (with the sound off) - looked staid and old-fashioned in
> comparison.

Plus nearly all large budget commercials are shot in 35mm * - which qualifies
as a kind of classicism in itself now-a-days ?

-Sam Wells

* albeit digitally graded / color corrected etc etc
22582

From: Noel Vera
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:14am
Subject: Million Dollar Baby Questions

Million Dollar Baby has good things in it: Hilary Swank is
wonderful, spirited, huge-hearted; if you have to break my heart by
breaking someone, she's just perfect. And if you have to paper a
film full of voiceover narration, you can do worse than Morgan
Freeman's slow-measured voice. It's so authoritative that you often
forget what you're hearing can be pretentious drivel, plus he has a
scene where he dons a pair of gloves that for me is the highlight of
the movie.

I do have problems with many of the details. David Walsh points out
that in that scene with the mother, it's 1) hard to believe that
anyone could be that much of a bitch that she would put down a house
and lot free and clear and the professon that bought that house, and
2) hard to believe even if she is that much of a bitch, she can be
so dumb that she would prefer a rinky-dink welfare check to a house
and lot, free and clear. Walsh attributes it to contempt of the
lower classes; I'd say it was a failure of observation in a rather
strained attempt to make Swank more sympathetic.

In the penultimate fight scene, we know going in that the ex-
prostitute fights dirty, we presume Swank's watched the video of the
ex-prosti's former fights, yet Swank goes right into the fight
seemingly with no knowledge of the girl's dirty tactics, nor does
Eastwood have any concrete strategy to deal with her. I remember
seeing the girl attack an opponent when she was down or from behind
on TV, and I for one, having seen that, would never leave my back
exposed, or let my guard down when I am.

Beyond that, it seems unbelievable that this would be the first time
Swank dealt with anyone who used dirty tactics; surely she'd have
dealt with someone like that before in her rise up, and learned to
deal with it accordingly, or at the very least Eastwood would know
about it and train her accordingly.

Might as well point out here that the boxing circles depicted in
this film are surprisingly clean--no bookies, no crooked deals, and
while the managers and agents look sleazy, they don't actually do
anything sleazy, like maybe try cop a feel off Swank's ass. Walsh
also said something to this effect.

Finally (SPOILERS) the death. Eastwood walks into what looks like
the darkest corridor in hospital building history (I've seen
hospitals in the poorest corners of Manila that are better lit),
lugging a bag full of adrenaline (where did he get that?), detaches
a respirator and leaves it off, injects her with a lethal dosage of
adrenalin (why take her off the respirator then?) that he's not
worried would show up at an autopsy, and takes his time while the
monitors scream out flatline readings. Also, first time I've ever
heard of an American hospital where the nurse's desk didn't respond
to a code blue, coffee break or no coffee break (the nurse who took
the break was talking to someone, so the desk was manned). Worse of
all, there's no sign that Eastwood gets investigated after all the
shenanigans. Was Eastwood right to have had her checked in in that
place? Someone should have been sued, big time. Plus, injecting a
bubble of air would have been simpler, harder to trace, and just as
painless--remember she can't feel anything from the neck down.
Someone's not up to his euthanasia research.

Other than that--yeah, it's entertaining, solid, meat-and-potatoes
filmmaking. Not my favorite of the year, though, not by a long shot,
I still don't think Eastwood's a filmmaker, and I sure as hell don't
think he's an actor. Freeman and Hackman might have been a better
choice--hell, their moment together was one of the best things in
Unforgiven.
22583

From: Matt Teichman
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:22am
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

Fred Camper wrote:

>A well-known avant-garde filmmaker told me , when I recommended a great
>sacred Renaissance painting, he thought of all Christian religious art
>as "advertising" and thus had trouble viewing it. He was right too:
>these pictures were trying to get you to "buy into" the church. That
>doesn't mean one has to accept the ideology being pushed. What beauties
>you miss if you stop at your annoyance with what's being "pushed."
>
>
Hollis Frampton makes a similar point in one of the dialogues with Carl
Andre (I think it's the one on James Rosenquist), something like "an
attack on Christianity is not an attack on Giotto." I've misplaced the
text for the moment...

One of the greatest films I've seen in recent weeks is a Crackerjack
commercial (from the 60s? I'm not sure) which Andy Lampert had the good
sense to exhume from the basement of Anthology Film Archives. The
premise is rather straightforward: a bunch of friends pass around a box
of Crackerjacks at a poker game, and it eventually degenerates into a
brawl. But what a masterful feat in camera choreography and editing!
Has anyone seen this? It would make an amazing double bill with Joyce
Wieland's _Water Sark_.

I think the moving image ad is an underrated form, and that to glom onto
its supposed propagandistic component is to ignore what commercials are
really up to (which, it seems to me, has a lot more to do with
associating a certain aesthetic with a certain company than with
actually soliciting the viewer's patronage, at least today), and how
utterly bizarre and complicated they truly are. It is also (as Fred
pointed out) to ignore the more insidious ways in which commercial
narrative film is often propagandistic, and infinitely more effectively
at that.

-Matt
22584

From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:44am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Hadrian" wrote:
>
>
Mike Sakamoto, a short filmmaker
> i deeply respect, thinks What Time is It There? (which i fell
asleep
> at) is his favorite film in the last couple years, so i'm willing
to
> give it a second look, after a better night's sleep.

Me too, but I think Mike's Rollingman (available free at Cinefile)
has a lot more to offer than WTIIT? Starting with actual laughs, as
opposed to forced half-smiles.
22585

From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:46am
Subject: Re: The Woman in Red Boots ?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> Anyone here seen Juan (son of Luis) Bunuel's THE WOMAN IN RED BOOTS
(1974),
> starring Catherine Deneuve, which I have a chance to see soon? The
great
> lady herself commented: "It didn't work, but I like it".
>
> Adrian

How would I miss a film with Deneuve with a title like that? It
didn't make a deep impression, but I'd gladly see it again to check
my judgement. It's a fairy tale.
22586

From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:50am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

>The more I watch this film the more I dislike it
> (and I like Brakhage's painted-on-film films so obviously I'm not a
> true auteurist.)

I've pretty much stayed out of this Brakhage/silence/McLaren thing
on the "to each his own" level. I don't think Stan Brakhage is a case
for proselytizing somehow (I'll save that for Tsai Ming-liang ;-)

For a long time I was less enamored of DSM than one might think;
aside from Part One I probably would have called it "minor Brakhage"
if pressed..... and even Part One, I think, I looked at on what you
might call a 'structual value' level.

A, if not THE major revelation of the Brakhage DVD - for me - was in fact
establishment of the *connection* of Dog Star Man *to* the hand painted
films. I don't want to press the case, but -- I might suggest to look at
DSM *as if* it were a hand-painting of lightstruck photographic emulsion,
then. (acknowledging that there is use of hand painting - but Part One
in particular)

-Sam Wells
22587

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby Questions

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:

>
> I do have problems with many of the details.

The questions you raise are "good" questions, I guess. But very
few movies would survive if submitted to that kind of scrutiny. It
all goes back to the question, "Why didn't the Indians shoot the
horses?"
22588

From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:54am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors (the queue starts here)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> David wrote:
> >
> If Scorsese has such a fierce critical intelligence, how can he
even bear
> the advertising campaigns for this woeful movie that go on about
a "true
> American hero" who "stood up to the bullies" - such bullshit!!

I haven't seen those copylines in the States.
22589

From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 4:57am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
> Count me in as liking this movie but liking The Hole much more.
That
> one was a combination of Ballard's High-Rise and Kafka's The
> Metamorphosis, with Dennis Potter (a la Cantonese pop tunes) mixed
> in.
I clearly started with the wrong movie. It had had good reviews,
too...
22590

From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:00am
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
>

> I have to admit I usually watch commercials silently, sorry McLaren
fans,
> hitting the mute button is an autonomic reaction ;-)
>
It's a survival reaction. I still can't believe that people buy
things because of commercials. But apparently a lot of people who
watch Fox News actually believe that Sadaam Hussein was behind 9/11,
so I guess cornflakes are easy.
22591

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:01am
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

> > Surely you jest, David. "Kane" looks more like
> "Kong" than ANY
> other film ever made before (and possibly since).
> >

Oh maybe a little.

I'm thinking about the end of "Swingtime." The night
club on the top of a skyscraper with snow outside --
as if the whole world were a paperweight.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
22592

From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:04am
Subject: Re: Introduction and A Few Thought on Mankiewicz

> The Quiet American:
>
> To me the most important change Mankiewicz effects is to have Phuong
> reject Fowler instead of become his willing trophy as in Greene's
> novel: Mankiewicz women are never reduced to male possessions.

Jeez I'm overcaffieinated tonight. Well maybe I'll take a week of Brakhagian
silence and Tsaian minimalism and you won't hear from me.

Anyway, the above sabotages the *entire* metaphorical structure,
indeed the point of The Quiet American. It's not a question of "taking
another political side / a shifting sympathies"; it denies the entire
dynamic of colonialism as Greene saw it.

I suppose one could read this as refuting Greene, but... I dunno

-Sam
22593

From: Saul
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:07am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors (the queue starts here)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:

>No argument has convinced me so far that Scorsese doesn't want us to
>sympathise big-time with this jerk - why, otherwise, would he say in
>interviews, that he considers HH an artist, a visionary,
>blah-blah-blah ad nauseam?

Wasn't he!? If Sade can be an artist and a visionary, why not Hughes?
The public will always need figures like Hughes whom they can,
alternately and in varying degrees, laud and reproach. Poor Michael
Jackson's going through the same thing - isn't he also an artist and a
visionary?

>Jake was a great and brave fighter, a man who could marry and beat up
>interesting women, someone whose life was never less than noble

Hey, that's kinda like the "Clockwork Orange" tagline, and I'm sure it
would attract as many people!
22594

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:11am
Subject: Brakhage & avant-garde's "contempt for cinema" (was Re: What Time Is It There?)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Guthartz"
wrote:
>.
> Isn't there a little "projection" going on here?
>
> -Jason G.

Absolutely. Don't we all "project"?

I'm glad I "baffle" you, Jason G. Guess it's better than being
ignored.

It seems that almost any filmmaker is fair game for harsh
criticism here, but somehow Brakhage is God. My iconoclastic side
got the better of me. I didn't mean to, it was just one of those
things. I promise I'll be good and eat my spinach (watch more SB in
hope of enlightenment).
22595

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:13am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > > Surely you jest, David. "Kane" looks more like
> > "Kong" than ANY
> > other film ever made before (and possibly since).
> > >
>
> Oh maybe a little.
>
> I'm thinking about the end of "Swingtime." The night
> club on the top of a skyscraper with snow outside --
> as if the whole world were a paperweight.
>
> The whole world IS a paperweight, David.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
22596

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:17am
Subject: Re: re: Scorsese's detractors (the queue starts here)

--- Adrian Martin wrote:

No
> argument has convinced me so far that Scorsese
> doesn't want us to sympathise
> big-time with this jerk - why, otherwise, would he
> say in interviews, that
> he considers HH an artist, a visionary,
> blah-blah-blah ad nauseam?
>
And therefore by definition a psychotic.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
22597

From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:18am
Subject: Re: Scorsese's detractors (the queue starts here)

---
>
>
> >Jake was a great and brave fighter, a man who could marry and
beat up
> >interesting women, someone whose life was never less than noble
>

Really? What's noble about beating up interesting women? Or
uninteresting ones for that matter?

>
22598

From: Saul
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:17am
Subject: Re: What Time Is It There?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:

>a warning about THE RIVER, which I recommended highly in another
post. >It's about pain, and is painful to watch. I have a high
tolerance for >miserabilism, but this film pushed me right to the brink.

A question. Do we want movies that show people like us? or movies that
show whom we want to be? I was recently viewing "The Celluloid
Closest" (it's DVD release here was 2 days ago), and found it quite
interesting that many of the people interviewed stated that they
wanted to see onscreen homosexual characters whom they could identify
with, whom were like themselves. Why not homosexual characters whom
are like they want to be? Does a viewer have a high tolerance for
"miserabilism" because they are miserable, or because they like to see
emotions they themselves do not feel deeply in their everyday life?
Are we more interested in a projection, or a mirror, of our innermost
thoughts-feelings-desires? Do we despise Hughes and "The Aviator"
because we can see no relevance to it in our own lives, or because the
man was reaching for something, and struggling with internal problems,
that we only loathe?
22599

From: samfilms2003
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:18am
Subject: Re: ads (was: Cremaster and Chrysler)

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
>Have read that around this time commercial
> makers discovered that constant jagged camera movment attracted the eye - so
they
> filled their commercials with jiggling camera and rapid cutting to compel
> viewer attention.

Which they in fact GOT from MTV which got it from the AG/Exp world,
and direct cinema/cinema verite,
only it's the visual equivalent of "whisper down the lane": the coherence
is lost.

> In general, I thought the 1980's was the high point of commercials in the US.
> Commercials were filled with glitz and glamour - but still were shot in a
> traditional movie like style. They probably became closest to what we think of as
> "real movies" during that period.

The truth is, Mad Av consumes the memes of culture like a catfish,
they catch *everything* that "catches the eye"

For instance, in that same early/mid eighties, the hot style suddenly became
what was known as "New Wave" - don't mean the NV, think "Diva" instead;
French directors were suddenlt THE THING; in fact previously some unknown
French Director/Cinematographers were almost overnight lifted from
obscurity to shooting the highest budget blue-chip spots on US TV.
(US Directors I knew used to joke they were going to change their
namers to "Jean-Pierre______" or" Jean-Michell______")

Of course the one thing you can say about "the next big thing"
is, it becomes "the last big thing"

Honestly, I don't see major stylistic shifts in this history so much as
cycles of hunting / gathering on the part of the Agencies as it were..

-Sam
22600

From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Feb 10, 2005 5:25am
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's detractors

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

> >
> > The whole world IS a paperweight, David.
> >
> >
>

Too much Raul Ruiz!

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com

a_film_by Main Page

Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact