Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
22901
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:18pm
Subject: Re: Mankiewicz vs. Rivette (Was Re: Mankiewicz's Mise en Scene)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> To David: sailor, and the treatment of the Lola
> character, those
> were indeed the clues I expected. Makes sense to me.
> Now! JPC
>
>
Still it took forever for Jacques to come out. And
then when he did both he and David Bomyck contracted
AIDS and died. To this day Varda hasn't come to grips
with it.mathieu has -- which is why he made "Jeane and
the Perfect Guy" -- as a tribute to his father.
Jacques was quite simply Not of This World. The last
time I saw him was in Paris. He was in pre-production
on "Trois Places Pour Le 26th" but was far more
concerned about rushing home to take care of Matthieu
who had the flu. He was EXACTLY like Marc Michel in
"Lola" -- melancholy and proud. A lovely man and an
absolutely unique filmmaker.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
22902
From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:29pm
Subject: Re: Philip Glass makes it clear
Adrian Martin wrote: "What do list members think of Glass' film
scores?"
ebiri@a... wrote: "I'd rank his scores for THE THIN BLUE LINE and
KUNDUN among the very best of modern film scores. Sue me".
With me, a little Philip Glass goes a long way. That said, I'd agree
that some Philip Glass can also be quite effective. The score that
sticks with me particularly is his strikingly turbulent music for
MISHIMA (which he reworked as String Quartet No. 3). Possibly
that's because it was my first encounter with his music, but it
certainly withstands rehearing again and again. To put a check in
the negative column, his recent score for THE FOG OF WAR seemed
especially annoying.
--Robert Keser
22903
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:29pm
Subject: Mankiewicz vs. Rivette (Was Re: Mankiewicz's Mise en Scene)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> Jacques was quite simply Not of This World. The last
> time I saw him was in Paris. He was in pre-production
> on "Trois Places Pour Le 26th" but was far more
> concerned about rushing home to take care of Matthieu
> who had the flu. He was EXACTLY like Marc Michel in
> "Lola" -- melancholy and proud. A lovely man and an
> absolutely unique filmmaker.
Time has revealed that, with Godard, he was the best filmmaker of the New
Wave (IMO). When I met him, briefly, he was just off Louisiana and griping,
griping. That's what was great about his last CdC interview: all gripes. "I
should be allowed to write my own scripts. I'm an auteur." "I should be allowed
a week in the schedule to put in little things that are just for my own pleasure.
I'm an auteur." Every gripe was a new piece of the best definition I've seen of
what an auteur is - everything producers in the 80s wouldn't let him do.
22904
From: Saul
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:41pm
Subject: Re: The Piccadilly palare (was: Mankiewicz vs. Rivette)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> >
> > What's "rough trade"?
> >
> >
> Nominally 'straight" men who'll do it for money. See
> Joe Dallesandro.
In my experience, or at least in the ways I've come across this phrase
being used, "rough trade" didn't refer to a straight-gay crossing for
money, but to the character of a particular homosexual, usually
referring to a more violent, violently kinky, or possibly downright
brutal, strain in his sexual proclivities. (And returning to a film
that's been on my mind this past day from another thread, I think this
is the sense in which Schrader uses it in "American Gigolo")
22905
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 10:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Piccadilly palare (was: Mankiewicz vs. Rivette)
On Monday, February 14, 2005, at 05:15 PM, jpcoursodon wrote:
> Another naive (?) question: What's "the Picadilly palare"?
It's a heap of romany-tinged code-phrases used by the London gay
one-time-underground. (Nadsat in pink.) And the name of a Morrissey
song.
"Off the rails I was / And off the rails I was happy to stay / GET OUT
OF MY WAY. / ... / The Piccadilly palare was just silly slang / Between
me and the boys in my gang / "So bona to vada; oh you -- / Your lovely
'eek' and your lovely 'riah' / We plied an ancient trade / Where we
threw all life's instructions away / Exchanging lies and digs my way /
'Cause in a belted coat, / Oh, I secretly knew / That I hadn't a clue."
Incidentally, before The Smiths split and Morrissey went solo, they
were signed to Rough Trade Records, which still operates as one of the
finest indie labels around -- now home to the fabulous Fiery Furnaces.
craig.
22906
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:00pm
Subject: John Moore's Flight of the Phoenix
Is it just me, or did someone else find John Moore's
remake of "Flight of the Phoenix" to be quite a good movie
as well? I didn't expect anything going into this movie, nor
did I think it would even make my list of 2004 films to see,
but upon seeing Moore's respectful, and relevent updating, I
stood corrected. It's microcosmic view of community and the way
we treat one another/expect things from one another was refreshing,
and for the most part avoided cliche. And its exsistential chracacter
test of man in his environment doesn't only conform to his surrounding
nature, but to his cynisism as well. As well, Moore's eye is quite
visually assured when he's free from the usual studio imposed CG
effects; his blue-night dessert action stand-off with desert nomads ending
in death and mourning and strengthened fraternity
(well tuned to a Massive-Attack song) is a peak. I don't want to
make too much of this film, nor compare it to the various art-film
achievments of recent years, but good/trancendant Hollywood genre
peices are in short supply in current times (and worthy remakes
even less so), and I thought the new "FLight of Phoenix" fit
the bill on both counts. Am I going to be stranded, alone
in the desert, on this one?
Mathieu Ricordi
22907
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:10pm
Subject: Re: Brialy
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>>I learned that Brially was gay here. I see him differently in films now - can't help it. He's in the Rivette remake of Mrs. Bixby and the Colonel's Coat, playing the Colonel. First time I noticed a new layer to my reactions. It'll be interesting seeing Claire's Knee again someday.
>>
>Well he's a very great actor and quite believable as a soigne literary letcher a la Paul Gegauff.
>
He has an extrordinary (and extraordinarily gay) role as Pierre
Arditti's lover in _Les Acteurs_. The breakup with Arditti in
particular is an exquisite scene. Alight with affect, and yet a
profound critique of affect.
-Matt
22908
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:11pm
Subject: Demy: repost w. clear heading
ADVERTISEMENT
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> Jacques was quite simply Not of This World. The last
> time I saw him was in Paris. He was in pre-production
> on "Trois Places Pour Le 26th" but was far more
> concerned about rushing home to take care of Matthieu
> who had the flu. He was EXACTLY like Marc Michel in
> "Lola" -- melancholy and proud. A lovely man and an
> absolutely unique filmmaker.
Time has revealed that, with Godard, he was the best filmmaker of the New
Wave (IMO). When I met him, briefly, he was just off Louisiana and griping,
griping. That's what was great about his last CdC interview: all gripes. "I
should be allowed to write my own scripts. I'm an auteur." "I should be allowed
a week in the schedule to put in little things that are just for my own
pleasure.
I'm an auteur." Every gripe was a new piece of the best definition I've seen of
what an auteur is - everything producers in the 80s wouldn't let him do.
22909
From: BklynMagus
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:17pm
Subject: Re: Mankiewicz vs. Rivette (Was Re: Mankiewicz's Mise en Scene)
JPC writes:
> Have you seen "Lola", Brian?
Yup. Liked "Bay of Angels" much better.
"Lola" started his trend toward getting too
cloying/romantic for my taste.
One of the auteurs whom I love for
technique and precision, but get queasy
over the content. For me he
celebrates the uncritical romanticism that
so many of my trainnie/street queer
friends did -- except there were few
happy endings for them. So I am emotionally
divided about his work.
Brian
22910
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:33pm
Subject: Re: John Moore's Flight of the Phoenix
As I recall, Armond White gushed about this one on the Slate movie
club this year.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:
>
>
> Is it just me, or did someone else find John Moore's
> remake of "Flight of the Phoenix" to be quite a good movie
> as well? I didn't expect anything going into this movie, nor
> did I think it would even make my list of 2004 films to see,
> but upon seeing Moore's respectful, and relevent updating, I
> stood corrected. It's microcosmic view of community and the way
> we treat one another/expect things from one another was refreshing,
> and for the most part avoided cliche. And its exsistential
chracacter
> test of man in his environment doesn't only conform to his
surrounding
> nature, but to his cynisism as well. As well, Moore's eye is
quite
> visually assured when he's free from the usual studio imposed CG
> effects; his blue-night dessert action stand-off with desert
nomads ending
> in death and mourning and strengthened fraternity
> (well tuned to a Massive-Attack song) is a peak. I don't want to
> make too much of this film, nor compare it to the various art-film
> achievments of recent years, but good/trancendant Hollywood genre
> peices are in short supply in current times (and worthy remakes
> even less so), and I thought the new "FLight of Phoenix" fit
> the bill on both counts. Am I going to be stranded, alone
> in the desert, on this one?
>
> Mathieu Ricordi
22911
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:37pm
Subject: Re: John Moore's Flight of the Phoenix
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:
>
>
> Is it just me, or did someone else find John Moore's
> remake of "Flight of the Phoenix" to be quite a good movie
> as well? I didn't expect anything going into this movie, nor
> did I . Am I going to be stranded, alone
> in the desert, on this one?
>
> Mathieu Ricordi
No, you're not stranded in the desert. I went to the film full of
foreboding but was also pleasantly surprised. William Aldrich
pointed out to me that it was aimed at the OCEANS 12 crowd but far
surpassed that dismal product. Naturally, they could not afford the
casting of the original otherwise the budget would have been in the
region of $160 million. But Dennis Quaid was certainly a different
Frank Townes. He does not indulge in masochistic guilt feelings like
Stewart's original but becomes part of the team. Giovanni R. could
not, likewise, surpass Hardy Kruger. But he aimed at a different
type of performance in a film which still echoes Aldrich's theme of
the importance of human solidarity against overwhelming odds.
This time, no rescue attempt is going to be made by a corporation
which measures the cost against human lives regarded as "trash." The
obligatory woman becomes an essential part of the team in a
threatening landscape made evn more dangerous by the groups'
abandonment by corporate captialism.
Unlike the British lad movie remake of THE MEAN MACHINE, this is
the best of recent Aldrich adaptations. Since William Aldrich will
have no role to play in the forthcoming new version of THE LONGEST
YARD, it is doubtful as to whether it will match up to either the
original Aldrich version or the recent remake of FLIGHT OF THE
PHOENIX which Jonathan has said some good things about in his
CHICAGO READER review.
Yes, there are still some good things circulating theatrically in
this dismal time of THE AVIATOR whose director is now becoming a
remake man and not the innovator he once used to be.
Tony Williams
22912
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 11:45pm
Subject: Re: Demy: repost w. clear heading
> Time has revealed that, with Godard, he was the best filmmaker of the New
>
> Wave (IMO).
I quite agree (although I would throw Resnais into the mix).
For me, "Lola" stands with the very best of New Wave masterpieces,
and of masterpieces of the French cinema for that matter.
It remains a perfect and unmatched exploration of the role
of depression in happiness, and vice-verca, as well as the
acknowledment of real life within our dreams and desires. Throughout
his career, Demy would continue to explore these themes with varying
degrees of optimism and despair, but still with his usual brilliance
of mise-en-scene, and musical sense; although I don't think he topped
"Lola", whose awesome opening of a man stopping his car
to contemplate his life, and future by the clashing seaside of
a Nantes beach (thrillingly scored to Bethoven's 7th) announced
a brilliant new talent who would send us deep into our emotions
and re-evaluate a sense of awe at our own failures and
desired accomplishments. The fact that Demy did it with such
a flare for artistic ensamble (music, film, dance ect) should
in no way take away from his undoubted grappling with
issues near and dear to human reality.
Mathieu Ricordi
22913
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 0:18am
Subject: Re: Demy: repost w. clear heading
--- Mathieu Ricordi wrote:
>
>
> I quite agree (although I would throw Resnais into
> the mix).
Me too!
> For me, "Lola" stands with the very best of New Wave
> masterpieces,
> and of masterpieces of the French cinema for that
> matter.
> It remains a perfect and unmatched exploration of
> the role
> of depression in happiness, and vice-verca, as well
> as the
> acknowledment of real life within our dreams and
> desires. Throughout
> his career, Demy would continue to explore these
> themes with varying
> degrees of optimism and despair, but still with his
> usual brilliance
> of mise-en-scene, and musical sense; although I
> don't think he topped
> "Lola", whose awesome opening of a man stopping his
> car
> to contemplate his life, and future by the clashing
> seaside of
> a Nantes beach (thrillingly scored to Bethoven's
> 7th) announced
> a brilliant new talent who would send us deep into
> our emotions
> and re-evaluate a sense of awe at our own failures
> and
> desired accomplishments. The fact that Demy did it
> with such
> a flare for artistic ensamble (music, film, dance
> ect) should
> in no way take away from his undoubted grappling
> with
> issues near and dear to human reality.
>
"Lola" is indeed very special. With group of
cinephiles I ran with back in the 60's (which included
Scorsese and McBride) "Lola" held a special palce as a
kind of cienmatic tonic. We'd see it over and over
again just in order to savor its mood of
happy/sadness.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22914
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 0:38am
Subject: Re: Demy: repost w. clear heading
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> "Lola" is indeed very special. With group of
> cinephiles I ran with back in the 60's (which included
> Scorsese and McBride) "Lola" held a special palce as a
> kind of cienmatic tonic. We'd see it over and over
> again just in order to savor its mood of
> happy/sadness.
I hadn't seen Jim and his wife Tracy for a few years, and I of course ran into
them coming out of a screening of the reissued Bay of Angels at the Nuart.
Another film with that tribal significanmce, as David has noted, is playing in LA
now: Masculine-Feminine.
Anyone bothered by the "fantasy" ending of Lola should check out Umbrellas
of Cherbourg, Model Shop (where we find out what happened to Lola and
Michel after the credits rolled) and The Pied Piper! But whether Demy's
endings are happy or sad, they are always knockouts. Even his worst film -
Parking, I guess - has a knockout ending.
He reinvented the musical the way Leone reinvented the western.
22915
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 0:55am
Subject: Mankiewicz vs. Rivette (Was Re: Mankiewicz's Mise en Scene)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
For me he
> celebrates the uncritical romanticism that
> so many of my trainnie/street queer
> friends did -- except there were few
> happy endings for them. So I am emotionally
> divided about his work.
>
> Brian
One more naive question, I guess: what is a "trainnie/street queer"?
Romanticism is by nature uncritical (although it's implicitly
critical of non-romanticism). Should "Lola" be critical of its own
mood and thus self-distruct? Just to cater to your emotions?
JPC
22916
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:11am
Subject: Re: Demy: repost w. clear heading
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
> Time has revealed that, with Godard, he was the best filmmaker of
the New
> Wave (IMO).
Demy was not really part of the "New Wave" and neither was
Resnais, David. But I'd agree that he was one of the very best of
the filmmakers who appeared around that magic time. I absolutely
loved "Lola" at the time and my best friends also did, and I had no
idea there were people in the USA who were crazy about that movie
too. In the early sixties it was hard for me to imagine that anybody
in the US could feel the way I felt about movies. Of course we
didn't have the internet... JPC
When I met him, briefly, he was just off Louisiana and griping,
> griping. That's what was great about his last CdC interview: all
gripes. "I
> should be allowed to write my own scripts. I'm an auteur." "I
should be allowed
> a week in the schedule to put in little things that are just for
my own
> pleasure.
> I'm an auteur." Every gripe was a new piece of the best definition
I've seen of
> what an auteur is - everything producers in the 80s wouldn't let
him do.
22917
From:
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:16pm
Subject: Re: Query: Christo
Jurgen Goth (CBC radio host) suggests that Christo's next project will be
wrapping a Higgs Boson. He points out that this sub-atomic particle will be too
small to be seen, but that the successful wrapping will "earn Christo the
gratitude of physicists everywhere".
Mike Grost
PS Orson Welles enjoyed making fun of Christo on the Tonight Show.
22918
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:22am
Subject: Re: Brialy
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman
wrote:
> David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> >>I learned that Brially was gay here.
My slightly OT take on Brialy. I remember a screening at MOMA
where Brialy was present (can't remember what the film was) and I
was asked to interpret for him. At one point he launched into a
charming but very long anecdote never stopping to let me translate --
and I couldn't do simultaneous since no one in the audience had
earphones! But he was cute and everyone had a good time anyway. JPC
22919
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:26am
Subject: Re: Mankiewicz vs. Rivette (Was Re: Mankiewicz's Mise en Scene)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> One more naive question, I guess: what is a
> "trainnie/street queer"?
>
Brian's referring to street transvestites and
transexuals. back in the day they were the vanguard --
taking on the cops at Stonewall.
Interestingly enough in a fairly new Francis Giroud
film "Mauvais Genre" aka "TransFixed" Robinson
Stevenin plays a tranny whose nightclub act consists
of him and a pal lips-synching to the "One Summer Day"
number that Deneuve and Dorleac do in Demy's "The
Young Girls of Rochefort."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
22920
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:30am
Subject: Re: Re: Brialy
He's quite a remarkable -- and durable -- performer.
In addition to "Claire's Knee" and "A Woman is a
Woman" (agruably his best films) there was a techine
he did a number of years back called "Les Innocentes."
It didn't quite hand together but he was excellent as
a rather thoughtful older gentleman in thrall to Simon
de la Brosse and Sandrine Bonnaire.
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> My slightly OT take on Brialy. I remember a
> screening at MOMA
> where Brialy was present (can't remember what the
> film was) and I
> was asked to interpret for him. At one point he
> launched into a
> charming but very long anecdote never stopping to
> let me translate --
> and I couldn't do simultaneous since no one in the
> audience had
> earphones! But he was cute and everyone had a good
> time anyway. JPC
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22921
From:
Date: Mon Feb 14, 2005 8:34pm
Subject: Re: Mankiewicz vs. Rivette (Was Re: Mankiewicz's Mise en Scene)
As the person who first stirred up all this debate (which has made very
interesting reading), have some methodological thoughts.
In science, progress is often made first by someone who has a wild, creative
idea, which occurs to them through some sort of intuitive leap. Then someone
(often other people) tries to find hard firm, evidence that will prove or
disprove the assertion. Only then will the idea be considered "true" by the
scientific community.
The same two pronged approach is needed in film criticism, IMHO. We need
people to come up with creative ideas, which they can't really prove at first.
Then we also need people to try to find real evidence pro and con.
I think the idea of a "gay Addison De Witt" is a Stage One idea, so far. It
is very good that it has been dreamed up and broached - film criticism really
needs ideas. I don't think any hard evidence has been presented for it yet. It
needs open minded but skeptical investigation by other people now. The many
cautionary angles offered on this idea (suggesting that Addison is actually
straight) should also be kept in mind.
In science, both kinds of scientists are valued. Both Stage One creators of
ideas and Stage Two searchers for evidence are highly prized - and Nobel Prizes
are routinely awarded to both.
After the dust settles, I plan to rewatch "All About Eve". (The dust is
literal - my landlord put a new bathroom floor in my apartment today - there is
dust everywhere!)
Mike Grost
22922
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 2:19am
Subject: Mankiewicz vs. Rivette (Was Re: Mankiewicz's Mise en Scene)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> straight) should also be kept in mind.
> In science, both kinds of scientists are valued. Both Stage One
creators of
> ideas and Stage Two searchers for evidence are highly prized - and
Nobel Prizes
> are routinely awarded to both.
The only problem, Mike, is that film criticism -- or art
appreciation in general -- is not a scientific discipline. A film,
or any work of art, is not a natural phenomenon that can be probed
for evidence the way nature can be and is. It would be nice if it
could, but it just ain't possible. JPC
22923
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 3:07am
Subject: Re: Re: John Moore's Flight of the Phoenix
Quoting peckinpah20012000 :
> No, you're not stranded in the desert. I went to the film full of
>
> foreboding but was also pleasantly surprised. William Aldrich
>
> pointed out to me that it was aimed at the OCEANS 12 crowd but far
>
> surpassed that dismal product.
Well, if anybody out there even remotely liked Sodenberg's
travesty, I can't anticipate they would catch on to the complexities
of Moore's vision.
> Giovanni R. could
>
> not, likewise, surpass Hardy Kruger. But he aimed at a different
>
> type of performance in a film which still echoes Aldrich's theme of
>
> the importance of human solidarity against overwhelming odds.
I loved Giovanni's additions. He stood in for society's neediness,
desperation for acceptance, and had the demeanour of a high-school
kid pushed one too many times by the bullies and carefully planning
for the day where his brains could put him in the driver's seat.
> This time, no rescue attempt is going to be made by a corporation
>
> which measures the cost against human lives regarded as "trash." The
>
> obligatory woman becomes an essential part of the team in a
>
> threatening landscape made evn more dangerous by the groups'
>
> abandonment by corporate captialism.
Yes, Moore often plays with capitalist human disregard, and
gives his community a fighting chance through their own will
as humans. I loved the opening where the boss type tells one of his
employes to sit at the back with his own kind, and is then
forced to apologize later on. Like some of the character's
in Renoir's "Grand Illusion" some of these men must accept that
class is meaningless in times of war and parrel.
> Unlike the British lad movie remake of THE MEAN MACHINE, this is
>
> the best of recent Aldrich adaptations. Since William Aldrich will
>
> have no role to play in the forthcoming new version of THE LONGEST
>
> YARD, it is doubtful as to whether it will match up to either the
>
> original Aldrich version or the recent remake of FLIGHT OF THE
>
> PHOENIX which Jonathan has said some good things about in his
>
> CHICAGO READER review.
Well, granted he was positive, but he didn't quite give it the
credit it deserved. Although I would have loved to see a long
reveiw of the film by him.
> Yes, there are still some good things circulating theatrically in
>
> this dismal time of THE AVIATOR whose director is now becoming a
>
> remake man and not the innovator he once used to be.
Well, all I can say is I'm glad somebody else got it.
Mathieu Ricordi
22924
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:01am
Subject: Mankiewicz vs. Rivette (Was Re: Mankiewicz's Mise en Scene)
OK, but did X and A really meet, and have an affair the previous
year in Marienbad, answer me that !
-Sam
22925
From: Blake Lucas
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 4:56am
Subject: Masculine Feminine returns
Hi, fellow a_film_by members. I'm Blake Lucas, new member, and this
is the first thing I've written here. I know from looking over the
list of members there are people who may read this who I know but
haven't seen or talked to in awhile, so especially want to say I
hope all is well with you--I hope to get in touch with people
individually at some point, and if anyone wants to contact me at my
own e-mail address it's also shown on that list. I have been up and
running on a computer only a short time, and still learning it.
Technologically nineteenth century you might say.
Hopefully, I'm a little more sophisticated when it comes to cinema.
That brings us to the referenced movie now out in theatrical revival
(but I assume will be different dates in different cities--it is
playing L.A. this week). It is one of my all-time favorites, so I
want to share a few thoughts and so strike a positive note about
cinema this first time out. Plenty of time and opportunity to go
negative later I have no doubt. Also, I have no bio up yet but I
will--reading some of those which are up makes me feel I should work
on it a little and not just copy it out of THE SCIENCE FICTION FILM
READER, which is basically what I did when writing to Peter and
Fred. But writing about Masculine Feminine will perhaps reveal at
least as much about me, my sensibility, view of cinema, and even my
life if you read between the lines, or even the lines themselves, as
I really can't talk about this movie without striking a personal
note.
To begin with, while I have generally been good at getting back to
the movies I love over the years, most many times, I hadn't seen
this one again in over 35 years. It wasn't consciously deliberate
and I still haven't quite figured out why, but it was good to be
afforded a fresh look after such a distance of time. I did see it
over and over on first release, kind of my custom with most Godard
in those days--and have remembered the last time I saw it, though
not the exact date, and it's worth recalling. It was within a few
years of the first run but can't have been too long because was
definitely before May 1968. USC did a week-long retrospective of
everything of JLG that had been released so far and as I recall had
a premier of LA CHINOISE too. Godard was there and appeared with a
number of shows, musing rather pessimistically about the
contemporary cinema. He was near the point of taking his work in a
different direction, though none of us knew it at the time. As for
Masculine Feminine, I came away from seeing them all together most
satisfied by it and feeling closest to it. And seeing it again, it
is still that way.
In a note to me Bill Krohn, also recalling it with love, called
Masculine Feminine "a touchstone for films about youth." That's apt
from any perspective--the relationships formed, the politicizing
realities, the chill of disenchantment as even the romantic mask of
alienation begins to wear less comfortably. But I want to
acknowledge especially in JLG's treatment the experience of being in
love young, for it is here that one learns something about being in
love one probably didn't know--that it may from the very outset be
tense and troubled, without the lyric passage the literary (and
cinematic) models have suggested accompany it even in tragedy. It's
very emotional material, and I feel Godard fully engages it in a
clear-eyed, insightful manner, but as usual, finding distancing
strategies which seem to cool it down. You hear this all the time
about him--he steps out of it (too much for some), reminding us that
it's only a movie and forsaking emotion. But I think this is the
perfect example that this is not what really happens, that he does
not withdraw from emotion or disengage from it so much as place a
distance which enhances the clarity of our relationship to these
emotions. That to me is a lesson of cinema and one I feel he is
still teaching. And although I favor his 60s movies, it's a lesson
that is more important now, when there is such a tendency in cinema
to try to mingle the audience with the film, manipulate its
identification with a character or point of view for the sake of
winning their affection easily if not deeply, as opposed to
exploiting a reflective distance in which the emotions a film
finally engenders are more deeply earned because the viewer knows he
or she is separate from the film. Just consider me a pro-Preminger,
anti-Spielberg kind of guy and you'll get the idea of what I'm
saying. But anything I write will probably reflect the fact that
this is the critical argument of the day for me.
[Masculine Feminine Return, Part 2, will be posted after this is sent
--it is continuation of the same and ready to go but the first time
I tried could not finish typing it in and proofreading before my
server Juno cut me off and lost the whole thing--BL]
22926
From: Blake Lucas
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:32am
Subject: Masculine Feminine Returns Part 2
That brings us back to Godard, who I feel is at one with the
traditional experience of cinema even as he brings a fresh and here
very vibrant way of thinking about it. For this is a film with a
lot of emotion interlaced with its formal appeal. I think Godard
can still summon that same thing now, even if he wouldn't make a
film like this one. What this has, and other of his 60s movies as
well, is a playfulness, and even more, an interest in characters,
that I just don't think he has been as interested in since (someone
will contradict me I'm sure). I don't think that pulls him down--he
is clearly the same artist in all essentials. But for those of us
who like playfulness and these kinds of well-drawn characters, the
evident gift for them can be enticing.
Getting back to that love story, Godard gives us five characters in
a fabric of incidents which everywhere ranges outside of them, and
in fascinating ways--as in the punctuating incidents of violence
which seem to tap the main characters' tensions yet remain
mysterious at the same time. At the center of course is Paul/Jean-
Pierre Leaud, to me at his most likeable and sympathetic here, even
if prone to the usual intellectual posing. In relationships--with
Madeleine/Chantal Goya and with the three others too, he is always
the most honest, least guarded. The fact that this iconic New Wave
actor was cast suggests that an empathic relationship was meant to
be encouraged in those of us whose own youthful consciousness and
experience coincided with the 60s. I was 21 when the film was made,
exactly the age of Paul, and that makes me even more appreciative
of cinematic strategies that let me empathize at a distance, for I
may still do so now, and have no doubt anyone else can do the same
no matter what age they are or were when first seeing the film.
What do Paul's honesty and unguardedness bring him--not much
happiness. There is a pull at Madeleine from the beginning from her
friend Elisabeth/Marlene Jobert, and anyone except those characters
can see the unacknowledged homoerotic dynamics of the two girls,
though the characters too plainly at least sense or feel it. This
doesn't get better but worse, a lot of the tension soaked up in one
late scene in the aside involving the German ("Why bring that up..."
--I always remembered this great encounter, just as I always
remembered the lighter "Qui etes vous, Monsieur Bob Dylan...?").
In the course of the movie, it becomes clear that another girl
Catherine/Catherine-Isabelle Duport is in love with Paul and would
in every way be a better match (though she will not admit it)--
really a soulmate. Guess what? Much as it would be nice if we all
saw what was best for us, we don't--no matter how attractive she may
be (and I definitely give Catherine the edge). On the fringe is
Robert/Michel Debord, attracted to Catherine--he acts bemused and
detached (kind of like Godard himself) but watch him. He isn't.
Good characters as I said, and much as one might wish that say,
Madeleine and Elizabeth would just go off together, freeing Paul to
take another look at Catherine, this is more real (Madeleine would
probably never resolve the conflict in her affections). I want it
to play out the way it does because it makes a compelling story that
way.
The conclusion to me is perfect, profound. Paul's relationship with
Madeleine is obviously becoming more torturous--as a couple they are
finally displaced from the final sequences, which involve a long
exchange between Robert and Catherine, Paul's voiceover about his
realizations (these really affected me now) as Godard's camera
ranges lovingly over the Paris cityscape, and finally the two girls,
Catherine and then Madeleine on camera in the final scene. All of
this may suggest what both girls obviously believe, that Paul's
death was a suicide, but I believe people tough out these things,
and feel enough kinship with Paul to say that with some confidence
in his case. Better to look at the greater meaning of what
happens. Between the youthful romanticism we all know and our
intimations of whatever maturity we will ever have (not much for
some of us), something dies. That's what we feel with the absence
of Paul at the end as life goes on for the girls, missing a love one
will never know, or dealing with a challenging pregnancy that was
never a part of the plan.
I haven't been able here to get too deep beneath the surface of what
I have wanted to say about this rueful valentine. Just let me add
that I remembered all the scenes, but not the order in which they
appeared, which is fascinating and seems like a very intricate
organization. I still love the black-and-white cinematography of
the period (Kurant feeling in the shadow of Coutard is just that
much more inspired and perfect in his own work) and a Godard
sountrack like this one can be worth a book all its own. The
misogyny and touch of puritanism associated with Godard are there,
in a quiet kind of way--they don't make anything about what one sees
less true. But above all, I prize the humor and charm and
tenderness with which Godard gentles down his unsentimental,
seemingly dispassionate view of things, almost above all in the
scene where Paul makes the record--"Paul calling Madeleine!". But
the film's peak is in the closeup of Madeleine just before they make
love for the first time. We may have thought of this pretty and
appealing girl as just a touch vacant, vapid, self-absorbed, but in
a moment, Godard shows us her soul and destroys that attitude to her
for good, no matter what will happen. "L'amour...l'amour..." (does
anyone know the lines she speaks? Did Godard write them, or take
them from literature?)--the wistful voice and plaintive look of
Chantal Goya are burned into me.
"The film...we secretly wanted to live." And maybe, after all, with
that distance, we did.
22927
From: Kian Bergstrom
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:40am
Subject: Re: Re: Potemkin restored
At 02:01 PM 2/14/2005 +0000, Kyle Westphal wrote:
>--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Guthartz" wrote:
> > There's a screening of "Potemkin" coming up here in Chicago, with an
> > orchestra performing Meisel score:
> > http://music.uchicago.edu/index.phtml?cal#mar5
> > but I don't know if this restored version will be used.
>
>I can almost guarantee that this version will not be the restored one.
It won't be. _Potemkin_ exists today in three differently authoritative
versions: the Moscow pre-censorship version, the Berlin version, and this
new one. There are significant differences in footage between the Moscow
and Berlin versions, both of which were approved by Eisenstein. (In the
U.S., you've probably only seen the Moscow one. I think that the Berlin
one is what's available in England. I don't know about France.) The
'restored' version does not represent the film as it ever existed before,
not even in Eisenstein's mind, but rather is a compilation of the two prior
versions, incorporating all footage from both. As can be easily imagined,
this is a disappointment at least in theory (I've not seen it in person),
since Eisenstein spent a lot of time and effort in getting his editing
rhythms exactly right for the two different versions, and this new one
cannot reflect that care.
>For one thing, the Cinema and Media Studies department isn't
>sponsoring this. It's not being touted by any CMS faculty (i.e., Yuri
>Tsivian) in the official publicity. It's wholly a Department of Music
>affair. There's a few lobby card-sized posters of this floating around
>campus. Reproduces some of the original poster art, but makes no
>mention of the restored version. (Now, granted, if anyone would be so
>ignorant as to *not* tout the restored version if they had it, it
>would be a campus music department)
From the flyer circulated by the University of Chicago Symphony Orchestra:
"Viewed nearly eighty years later and in a vastly different political
climate,
the newly restored _Battleship Potemkin_ is stunning in its effect,
conveying
a powerful impression of the emotional fascination that the work elicited in
the 1920s ... and challenging contemporary audiences to confront the past.
The performance has special historical significance, marking the United
States
premiere of the full symphonic version of Meisel's original score, as
constructed
by Mark-Andreas Schlingensiepen. Experience _Battleship Potemkin_ in its
authentic form at the University of Chicago." (ellipsis in the original)
The "newly restored" aspect is, I think, that this version of the film
will, in the U.S., be shown with its correct score.
The screening is co-sponsored by the Silent Film Society of Chicago, and is
"presented in conjunction with the 2-day conference 'Sound, Word, and
Image: the Moscow-Berlin Axis in Culture in the 1920's and early
30's'." At that conference, faculty members Yuri Tsivian and Miriam
Hansen, of the University's committee on Cinema and Media Studies, *will*
be presenting papers. Check out
http://humanities.uchicago.edu/depts/german/events/sound.word.image.pdf for
more information about the conference.
>It's probably just an attempt to draw a bigger crowd for the orchestra
>by combining stodgy old music hall affectations with a Marxist movie
>(adding a film or Marxism to one's program generally gets more
>students to notice it).
Stodgy? Affectations?! Are you suggesting that all they care about is
Meisel's score, and are grudgingly adding a visual track to get people in
the seats? The Berlin version was *supposed* to be shown with Meisel's
music all along, and to show it silent would be something of an
abomination, and to play the score without the film would be... bizarre.
Moreover, if adding a film or Marxism to the program were the goal here,
well, let's just say I don't see the student crowds regularly flocking to
see _Grin Without A Cat_ or _The End of St. Petersberg_, or any crowds, for
that matter. The draw here, deservedly, is Eisenstein, and specifically
_Potemkin_, which is probably the most important film ever made.
-Kian
22928
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:15am
Subject: Demy segueing to Sideways (via Hong Sang-Soo)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
>
>
> Demy was not really part of the "New Wave" and neither was
> Resnais, David.
When the CdC reinterviewed all the NV directors it was the four you
count plus Demy (but not Resnais). Godard ended the NV section of
Histoire(s) with a shot of Demy. Both gestures amounted to a ex post
facto induction.
I absolutely
> loved "Lola" at the time and my best friends also did, and I had no
> idea there were people in the USA who were crazy about that movie
> too. In the early sixties it was hard for me to imagine that
anybody
> in the US could feel the way I felt about movies.
Part of the NV or not, Demy got distribution and serious atention
from the press here. The situation has changed. IMO if Oh, Sooyung
(aka Virgin Stripped Bare by Her Bachelors) got the same kind of
distribution and attention here - as opposed to none whatsoever - it
would be the Jules et Jim or Masculine-Feminine of a new generation.
It's the only new film from abroad that I've seen with that
potential, except for Chungking Express. I don't believe Asian actors
would be an obstacle - those films speak directly to filmlovers in
general and under-forties in particular worldwide, or would if they
could see them.
I just saw Sideways, and I understand its popularity. Memories of
Gassman and Trintignant smiled down at the two leads the whole time.
22929
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:17am
Subject: SPOILER REQUESTED: HIde and Seek
After seeing Sideways, being at a megaplex, I snuck into Hide and
Seek - a worthless mechanical thriller, poorly acted - right at the
start and left hafway thru. Spoiler requested: Who (or what) is
Charlie? Just so I don't have to rent it to find out.
22930
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:20am
Subject: Mankiewicz vs. Rivette (Was Re: Mankiewicz's Mise en Scene)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
>
> The only problem, Mike, is that film criticism -- or art
> appreciation in general -- is not a scientific discipline. A film,
> or any work of art, is not a natural phenomenon that can be probed
> for evidence the way nature can be and is. It would be nice if it
> could, but it just ain't possible. JPC
To quote John Ireland in Red River: I like what the man says! (Not
you, JP - Mike.)
22931
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:26am
Subject: Re: Masculine Feminine returns
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
>
> [Masculine Feminine Return, Part 2, will be posted after this is
sent
> --it is continuation of the same and ready to go but the first time
> I tried could not finish typing it in and proofreading before my
> server Juno cut me off and lost the whole thing--BL]
Welcome to the group at last, Blake. I'll forbear commenting on M-F
till I see it - soon - but I just wanted to say re: the above, now
you have truly had the a_film_by experience!
22932
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:06am
Subject: Re: SPOILER REQUESTED: HIde and Seek
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> After seeing Sideways, being at a megaplex, I snuck into Hide and
> Seek - a worthless mechanical thriller, poorly acted - right at the
> start and left hafway thru. Spoiler requested: Who (or what) is
> Charlie? Just so I don't have to rent it to find out.
Don't bother - I got it off the imdb chat list. I should have guessed
when I saw that helicopter shot of the car heading north.
22933
From: Saul
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:02am
Subject: Re: SPOILER REQUESTED: HIde and Seek
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> After seeing Sideways, being at a megaplex, I snuck into Hide and
> Seek - a worthless mechanical thriller, poorly acted - right at the
> start and left hafway thru. Spoiler requested: Who (or what) is
> Charlie? Just so I don't have to rent it to find out.
A worthless mechanical thriller directed by AUSTRALIA'S JOHN POLSON,
who received quite a critical thrashing in the press here because he's
an Australian making a Hollywood film. I thought Dakota Fanning was
very good at doing the unhinged, scared, creepy little girl, ("Whatcha
drawing there?" "You ... Dying..."). I think Polson's good at
directing actors, and in this film, though he relied on fairly cliched
techniques, such as slo-mo in the disocvery-of-dead-wife scene, he
allowed for a longer than usual pause in the standard
shot/reverse-shot dialogue sequences, both before and after the
actor's spoke, creating a nice slowed down pace that fitted the film's
psychological demeanor.
Now, what you've been waiting for. Charlie was ... here it comes ...
*groan* ... De Niro's split personality!!! He killed the wife, he
terrorized the girl, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.........you get the
idea ... he goes insane, realizes he IS Charlie, kills a few more
people, and then is shot in the cave in the woods......
22934
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 0:30pm
Subject: Re: SPOILER REQUESTED: HIde and Seek
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul" wrote:
>
SPOILER> Now, what you've been waiting for. Charlie was ... here it
comes ...
> *groan* ... De Niro's split personality!!! He killed the wife, he
> terrorized the girl, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc, etc.........you get
the
> idea ... he goes insane, realizes he IS Charlie, kills a few more
> people, and then is shot in the cave in the woods......
Got it - as I said, I should've known when I saw the aerial shot of
the car headed north a la Shining. A local critic noted that
Fanning "has the Evil Zombie Stare down pat, but it would have been
nice if Polson had encouraged her to try a few more expressions." I
guess De Niro was holding back for "Charlie" and playing his
character very repressed (as [burp!] symbolized by his earphones and
his telescope: cutting himself off from everything...) I assume Emily
knew that Charlie was really Dad? Seems kind of odd. So does each and
every local - red herings all, I guess. (On the other hand, Famke
Jannsen = axiom.) If I ever get cable I'll watch the ending to see
RDN cut loose - I bet it's fun. Barry Josephson, the producer, was
the model for the monstrous Spacey character in Swimming with Sharks,
so we'll all wish Polson better luck on his next one. Actually, I
think this one did some business, so there should BE a next one,
local nay-sayers to the contrary notwithstanding.
22935
From: Saul
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 0:46pm
Subject: Re: SPOILER REQUESTED: HIde and Seek
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> I assume Emily
> knew that Charlie was really Dad? Seems kind of odd. So does each and
> every local - red herings all, I guess.
It's in trying to make sense of details such as these that most
thrillers falls to bits.
> If I ever get cable I'll watch the ending to see
> RDN cut loose - I bet it's fun.
Oh, it is. There's a great scene where he 'realizes' that he is
Charlie - Dakota Fanning turns to him and asks rather uncertainly,
"Daddy?" to which De Niro says, with a glint in his eye, something to
the effect of "Daddy's not here!" One of the pleasures of actor driven
cinema, is watching a good actor cut loose and allowed to go on a
rampage, expecially after a restrained performance. It's a pity that
more good actors, (both now and in the past) aren't given a chance to
really let flip. I'm not sure if someone like Nicholson in "The
Shining" counts cause I don't think he's ever acted a calm moment in
his life. Even when he's not physically yelling, such as in the
beautiful "Five Easy Pieces" his body language is so aggressive he
seems like a blocked gas main about to explode in our faces. The joy
comes in a kind of orgasmic burst of intense emotion after two or so
hours of having it restrained and repressed.
Barry Josephson, the producer, was
> the model for the monstrous Spacey character in Swimming with Sharks,
> so we'll all wish Polson better luck on his next one. Actually, I
> think this one did some business, so there should BE a next one,
> local nay-sayers to the contrary notwithstanding.
22936
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:06pm
Subject: Re: SPOILER REQUESTED: HIde and Seek
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul" wrote:
One of the pleasures of actor driven
> cinema, is watching a good actor cut loose and allowed to go on a
> rampage, expecially after a restrained performance. It's a pity that
> more good actors, (both now and in the past) aren't given a chance
to
> really let flip. I'm not sure if someone like Nicholson in "The
> Shining" counts cause I don't think he's ever acted a calm moment in
> his life. Even when he's not physically yelling, such as in the
> beautiful "Five Easy Pieces" his body language is so aggressive he
> seems like a blocked gas main about to explode in our faces.
Indeed he is. But I love that in Shining. No one seems to notice that
he's already barking mad when he's applying for the caretaker job! In
the Polson film (surprise not suspense) the sense of menace has to
come from all these irrelevantly sinister bit players. But I do
remember thinking, even as I watched, that they were giving him a
chance to go up against Nicholson in Shining (there are so many
echoes), than which there is no nuttier. I'll rent it.
22937
From: Saul
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 1:27pm
Subject: Re: SPOILER REQUESTED: HIde and Seek
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Indeed he is. But I love that in Shining. No one seems to notice that
> he's already barking mad when he's applying for the caretaker job!
He's absolutely friggin nuts!! I think this is one of the beauties of
the film. When Nicholson looks up and says, "Hi Lloyd" it seems the
most logical turns of events. This 'casualness', which is
characteristic of everything Kubrick does, gives the film it's truly
unsettling tone. When he sees the naked woman in the bathtub and just
embraces her, that scene is so unsettling because Kurbrick doesn't let
us see it as such, he makes it seem the most natural thing in the
world, as if that happened everyday. (Please don't insert
public-bathroom naked-person horror stories here, of which I know
there must be some out there). Of course, Nicholson seems a little
nuttier in the American version of the film, and his nuttiness is also
given more of a psychologically-motivated past, (his frustrations at
writing, breaking Danny's arm, drunkenss), which isn't present in the
Australian version which runs about 30 mintues shorter.
> In
> the Polson film (surprise not suspense) the sense of menace has to
> come from all these irrelevantly sinister bit players. But I do
> remember thinking, even as I watched, that they were giving him a
> chance to go up against Nicholson in Shining (there are so many
> echoes), than which there is no nuttier. I'll rent it.
I think the sense of menace also came out in the film's blandest
sequences. For a psychological thriller to be truly unsettling it
usually needs a very bland surface, and then an undercurrent of
dis-ease, a sense that all is not right. Hollywood cliches provided
Polson one such ordinary surface, and therefore worked greatly to his
advantage - and though the doll is an overused image, am I the only
one who found those squashed dolls faces really friggin scary!!!!, (a
little like Donnie's jack-o-lantern)
22938
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 5:53pm
Subject: Re: SPOILER REQUESTED: HIde and Seek
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul" wrote:
> > Indeed he is. But I love that in Shining. No one seems to notice
that
> > he's already barking mad when he's applying for the caretaker
job!
>
> He's absolutely friggin nuts!! I think this is one of the beauties
of
> the film. When Nicholson looks up and says, "Hi Lloyd" it seems the
> most logical turns of events. This 'casualness', which is
> characteristic of everything Kubrick does, gives the film it's truly
> unsettling tone.
This makes a good point about this film. Dan and others have been
talking about how Pialat dices and slices his narrative continuum to
make naturalism "unfamiliar," as another member put it; Shining does
that in the interests of creating the unheimlich. I love the title
card that announces the sudden leap of a month - I've always wondered
if Kubrick got it from Ulmer's The Cavern, where it's more like 17
months at one point. Polanski does a bit of this in The Pianist, sans
title cards.
Of course, Nicholson seems a little
> nuttier in the American version of the film, and his nuttiness is
also
> given more of a psychologically-motivated past, (his frustrations at
> writing, breaking Danny's arm, drunkenss), which isn't present in
the
> Australian version which runs about 30 mintues shorter.
You're kidding!
though the doll is an overused image, am I the only
> one who found those squashed dolls faces really friggin scary!!!!
No, I actually loved "You might get hurt" and the cut to the next
shot of the chipper playmate making a rapid exit.
Look, I had just seen Sideways, a film which really lets scenes find
their ideal length while the acting of the two male leads is great
from the inception, and there for its own sake, so I was ultra-
sensible to the remorseless rhythm of H'wd decoupage and the
underlying mecahnical scene structure when I snuck in next door -
even if Polson got away with a few extra beats. But it has never been
hard to sell me on a horror film! I'll even admit shamefacedly to a
certain pleasure in the device I couldn't stick around for (writing
to do...) - which is of course copied from Psycho (cleaning up after
Mother in the bathroom). I'll rent it!
I'm reminded of the "Maniac" section in Bob Cort's roman a clef about
H'wd. The producer of Coney Island Maniac is horrified when the
Australian director he hired to direect a script he assigned to a
woman screenwriter he wanted to sleep with turns in a first cut that
is ABOUT the maniac and his problems. This is fixed, and ILM is
called in to add crushed eyeballs, with resounding success.
22939
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:06pm
Subject: Re: Park Kwang-su & Shin Shang-ok
> I'm sorry no more Park's were shown
> in this Paris festival. What else is to be seen?
I'm not a Park expert at all, but his film TO THE STARRY ISLAND is often
talked about as one of the key films in the South Korean upsurge. - Dan
22940
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 6:26pm
Subject: Re: Park Kwang-su & Shin Shang-ok
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I'm not a Park expert at all, but his film TO THE STARRY ISLAND is
often
> talked about as one of the key films in the South Korean upsurge.
I've only seen Park's "Jeon tae-il" A Single Spark (1996). I found
this to be excelent. It blended the true story of Jeon Tae-il, a
young martyr of the labor movement, with the fictionalized story of a
junior law professor trying to research Jeon's story -- and forced to
go into hiding (and endangering his wife as well). The portions
dealing with Jeon were shot in absolutely splendid-looking black and
white, the more modern portions were shot in color. (The same
cinematographer also shot Hur Jin-ho's wonderful "Christmas in
August"). A brief "review" I did, oince upon a time:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0121755/#comment
MEK
22941
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:07pm
Subject: Ecriture/ideology /new cinemas (was: Park Kwang-su & Shin Shang-ok)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> > I'm not a Park expert at all, but his film TO THE STARRY ISLAND is
> often
> > talked about as one of the key films in the South Korean upsurge.
>
> I've only seen Park's "Jeon tae-il" A Single Spark (1996). I found
> this to be excelent. A brief "review" I did, oince upon a time:
>
> http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0121755/#comment
>
> MEK
Great, Michael. The irony of course is that the boom in S. Korea's
economy, fueled by all sorts of heinous activities, made possible the
amazing film renaissance.
Daney said in my interview w. him - posted at Steve Erickson's site -
"[The] excess of writing [ecriture] over ideology is only possible
in the framework of a prosperous industry and a real [ideological]
consensus. This occurred in H'wd until sometime in the fifties; a
little in France before the war; in Italy; in Egypt and India, no
doubt; in Germany and England before the war. Outside this industrial
framework (industry+craft [artisanat]), it's the reverse that
happens: excess of ideology over writing. [Cahiers] cinephilia is
historically dated; the terrain from which it sprang is this mixture
of industry and craftsmanship. It's not possible to revive it. But in
the precision of writing of Tourneur, Lang or De Mille there is an
exigency that continues with Godard, Straub, Kramer, Wenders,
Akerman, Biette, Jacquot."
That's a lot to chew on - and revise: this was 27 years ago - but
your note on A Single Spark (which I haven't seen) raises the
question of the industrial framework that makes films like The Day
the Pig Fell in the Well possible, but also films like (I assume) A
Single Spark, which takes a more explicitly political, oppositional
position within the ideological consensus - as sometimes even
happened, and happens, in H'wd.
A simple question, never asked as far as I know. We're looking at
Asian films from countries that are now in a position to produce
popular cinema and its more arty (ecriture over ideology) offshoots.
In fact, the countries we're interested in as cinephiles - HK, China,
Taiwan, Korea, Thailand, Japan - are among the main holders of
America's worthless treasury bills. (They will soon be asking for
higher interest rates, which will drive up our interest rates here
and pop the housing bubble, precipitating the first in what may be a
series of economic crises that could lead to outright American
fascism, or more hopefully to a new FDR.)
My question: What are the ideologies of these countries? Daney said
that only imperialist countries can produce the ideological consensus
he referred to - he called it a moral consensus at that point, but I
feel I can substitute "ideological," and cited China as an example.
So assuming that they are all versions of imperialism, we should be
as ready to talk about the ideology of HK cinema, or Bollywood
cinema, or Taiwanese cinema, or Korean cinema as we are about the
ideology of H'wd cinema, which we have been doing w. jaw-dropping
glibness for about - well, about 27 years now. I imagine there's
writing on the ideology of HK martial arts films, for example - I'm
just not familiar with it. Has that work been done for some of these
other cinemas, and their various "loyal oppositions" within?
Returning to Mike's note, but using a less evident example: Is Hong
Sang-Soo, for example, the loyal opposition? I.e. are we - in Korea,
say - seeing the equivalent of H'wd's Golden Age, when Mankiewicz or
Welles or Fuller or Ray were the loyal opposition? And doesn't it
help for us to know a bit about what he's opposing - the ideology of,
say, Public Enemy or Attack the Gas Station, which are consensus
films? Is Wong Kar-Wai "about" globalization? Etcera etcetera.
[Note: If "ecriture vs. ideology" puzzles anyone, I'm told Steve
Erickson has a Serge Daney site where the interview is mostly posted,
and it explains quite well what Serge meant by that. The French
version of the interview is the intro to vol. 1 of Serge's collected
writings from P.O.L.]
22942
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 7:25pm
Subject: Life after the Gray Lady
COL TAPS TWO FOR N.Y. HOME
Schindler, Mitchell in prod'n office
Columbia Pictures has tapped producer and former Red Om partner
Deborah Schindler and former New York Times film critic Elvis
Mitchell to oversee the studio's newly established New York
development and production office as exec production consultants.
22943
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:14pm
Subject: Re: Life after the Gray Lady
Let's see if this last longer than his gig for Michael
Keaton.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
>
>
>
> COL TAPS TWO FOR N.Y. HOME
> Schindler, Mitchell in prod'n office
>
> Columbia Pictures has tapped producer and former Red
> Om partner
> Deborah Schindler and former New York Times film
> critic Elvis
> Mitchell to oversee the studio's newly established
> New York
> development and production office as exec production
> consultants.
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
22944
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 8:45pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
> I was the last cinephile on earth to catch up with this film.
Not quite.
> I wonder: Does the film take place during the 1980s? Or an
> indeterminate time?
I dunno, but in the universe of the film, women's boxing was just getting
popular. I'd say it was set in the present.
> (This doesn't mean Eastwood didn't unwisely stack the deck when
> depicting Maggie's family in MILLION DOLLAR BABY. A misstep and a
> failed caricature, but it goes *against* the grain of Eastwood's
> depictings of poor people, so I'm willing to take it in stride if
> not condone it.)
To my mind, though, this kind of caricature has always been part of
Eastwood's personality. Not necessarily of poor people - just in general.
(The nasty boxer at the gym is cut from the same cloth as the family.)
> This film IS pro-euthanasia, that is, it implicitly acknowledges an
> ethical right for people to decide to die. This much is intentional and
> obvious.
Well, you could argue that the film didn't necessarily have a
pro-euthanasia beef. The priest, a sympathetic character, was against the
euthanasia in no uncertain terms.
In a way, euthanasia is kind of like bank robbery: something most people
would think twice about in real life, but a sweet fantasy in a movie.
It's safe to say that the film wasn't anti-euthanasia, any more than
CHARLEY VARRICK is anti-bank robbery. But I can easily imagine Eastwood
making a film from the other side of the issue.
> From UNFORGIVEN to BLOOD WORK he made his "aging body films,"
> with the excellent and out-of-left-field MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF
> GOOD AND EVIL included among them. This was the period in which I
> came to know and understand Eastwood, and these last two films which
> have brought him so much acclaim represent something new. They're
> no longer about the body, about any bodies (much).
This isn't exactly what you're talking about, but I thought that what the
film had going for it was the great physicality of Hilary Swank's
performance. So the body is in there, in a way.
> I don't think he did well with MYSTIC RIVER, but he did a
> whole lot better with MILLION DOLLAR BABY.
Yeah, I thought this was much better than the last one.
> Yes, definitely, but in a different way, I would say. Eastwood, as a
> director, lets all his cliches in previous films "breathe." He lets
> them exhale, or he takes the air out of them himself, and they take on a
> new life within his worldview. The last two films, which aren't nearly
> so easygoing as usual in their pacing and progression, which thrust the
> viewer into their cliche-heavy worlds, run the risk of forcing a viewer
> to adapt quickly or reject the film altogether.
I thought there was a lot of that Eastwoodian "breathing" in the first
part of the film: a couple of characters go into a room and start talking
about something, and the film seems to slow down as each line gets chewed
over and accentuated. This used to seem to me a bit amateurish (it goes
hand in hand with a taste for cartoonish acting), but I'm prepared to see
it as an element of style, especially as Eastwood has carried it into the
post-MTV world.
- Dan
22945
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:00pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> > (This doesn't mean Eastwood didn't unwisely stack
> the deck when
> > depicting Maggie's family in MILLION DOLLAR BABY.
> A misstep and a
> > failed caricature, but it goes *against* the grain
> of Eastwood's
> > depictings of poor people, so I'm willing to take
> it in stride if
> > not condone it.)
>
> To my mind, though, this kind of caricature has
> always been part of
> Eastwood's personality. Not necessarily of poor
> people - just in general.
> (The nasty boxer at the gym is cut from the same
> cloth as the family.)
>
But the nasty boxer is far less problematic than her
family. Their scenes turned me against the movie,
which i find far too sentimental.
But yes it's a lot better than "Mystic River."
Withall, Eastwood remains a serious director of
interest to anyone who cares about the cinema. That he
can't always reach to the level he aspires comes with
the territory. That he's been turned into a right-wing
punching bag, however, is nothing short of absurd. It
seems the right needs SEOMEONE in Hollywood they can
bully.
Needless to say they picked the wrong man.
> > This film IS pro-euthanasia, that is, it
> implicitly acknowledges an
> > ethical right for people to decide to die. This
> much is intentional and
> > obvious.
>
> Well, you could argue that the film didn't
> necessarily have a
> pro-euthanasia beef. The priest, a sympathetic
> character, was against the
> euthanasia in no uncertain terms.
>
True.
It hangs over the film like a gimmick of some sort.
I'm reminded of Manny Farber's evocation of "The
Gimp."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
22946
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:25pm
Subject: Le Pont du Nord - NYC Screening
As part of the Film Comment Bulle Ogier tribute series:
LE PONT DU NORD
Jacques Rivette, France, 1981; 135m
"The cinema consists first of all of capturing something that happens
at a certain time and place," Jacques Rivette once said, "and that will
never happen again." Said impulse lies at the heart of this seldom seen
and utterly hypnotic film, shot entirely in exteriors (by the great
William Lubtchansky), in the city he knows so well. Marie (Bulle Ogier)
has just been released from prison. Baptiste (Bulle's late, great
daughter, the ethereally beautiful Pascale Ogier) has just arrived in
Paris. Fate brings them together, and for four days this oddly touching
duo out of Lewis Carroll lives out a kind of board game, as if "Chutes
and Ladders" had mysteriously merged with real life. A strangely
unsettling film, and, thanks to the luminosity of mother and daughter,
an oddly touching if not enchanted one as well. With Pierre Clémenti
and Jean-François Stévenin. Music by Astor Piazzola.
Sat Feb 19: 3; Sun Feb 20: 6:15 (Feb 20 introduced by Bulle Ogier)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
22947
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:31pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
A small question:
Was the Clorox bottle a product placement that
Eastwood undercut with hs comment that Freeman
should get the cheap stuff since it's all the same and
works just as well?
Brian
22948
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:39pm
Subject: Re: Le Pont du Nord - NYC Screening
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
>
> As part of the Film Comment Bulle Ogier tribute series:
>
> LE PONT DU NORD
> Jacques Rivette, France, 1981; 135m
Maybe the NY Times will write a new review of this wonderful film, to
replace (or at least supplement) the hatchet job perpetrated by
Vincent Canby way back when this was first shown in NYC in 1981.
{Excerpts}
"Le Pont du Nord" is the newest film by Jacques Rivette, a French film
maker highly regarded in French critical circles but whose recent
films seem to fade away here, like early instant-camera pictures that
haven't been properly treated.
******
It's another example of the ever-widening gap between the real world
and the fantasies of a kind of artistic temperament more concerned
with random self expression than with the expression of coherent
feelings or ideas about love, alienation, outrage, politics or even of
movie-making. It shrivels the imagination instead of enriching it.
{End excerpts}
22949
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 9:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: Le Pont du Nord - NYC Screening
--- "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> Maybe the NY Times will write a new review of this
> wonderful film, to
> replace (or at least supplement) the hatchet job
> perpetrated by
> Vincent Canby way back when this was first shown in
> NYC in 1981.
>
I doubt it. The NYT gets dumber and dumber all the
time eg. Virginia Heffernan's review of the Kinsey
documentary on PBS.
"Le Pont du Nord" is very Paris-specific movie. The
characters live outdoors -- making it a prequel of
sorts to "Les Amnts du Pont-Neuf." There are cryptic
political refeecnes in that all the sites the Ogiers
visit are scenes of then-recent municipal scandals.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
22950
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:02pm
Subject: Re: Le Pont du Nord - NYC Screening
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> "Le Pont du Nord" is very Paris-specific movie. The
> characters live outdoors -- making it a prequel of
> sorts to "Les Amnts du Pont-Neuf." There are cryptic
> political refeecnes in that all the sites the Ogiers
> visit are scenes of then-recent municipal scandals.
Another all-exteriors Paris film, never shown in NY, ironically: Loin
de Manhattan (Far from Manhattan). A gaggle of Parisian critics and
esthetes are chasing after the great painter Rene Dimanche. It's Jean-
Claude Biette's answer to Othon.
22951
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:23pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
> Withall, Eastwood remains a serious director of
> interest to anyone who cares about the cinema. That he
> can't always reach to the level he aspires comes with
> the territory. That he's been turned into a right-wing
> punching bag, however, is nothing short of absurd. It
> seems the right needs SEOMEONE in Hollywood they can
> bully.
>
> Needless to say they picked the wrong man.
No shit. Afterall, Eastwood was the guy who threatened to shoot
Michael Moore! He's anything but a lefty.
Judging from Drudge and the blogs, looks like the right wing has
also picked Chris Rock as their punching bag. Their attempt to tar
Rock as a homophobe seems a transparent ploy to pit Hollywood gays
against a black comic.
Another Oscar irony I'm anticipating: What if Clint beats Marty for
the director Oscar, for a boxing movie that pales next to Scorsese's
own "Raging Bull."
22952
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:28pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> >
> > > (This doesn't mean Eastwood didn't unwisely stack
> > the deck when
> > > depicting Maggie's family in MILLION DOLLAR BABY.
> > A misstep and a
> > > failed caricature, but it goes *against* the grain
> > of Eastwood's
> > > depictings of poor people, so I'm willing to take
> > it in stride if
> > > not condone it.)
> >
> > To my mind, though, this kind of caricature has
> > always been part of
> > Eastwood's personality.
I don't understand why everybody thinks that the depiction of
Maggie's family is a 'caricature" and a "mistep" and "unwise".
Because they're "poor people" they should be represented as noble
and caring and disinterested? Must we pretend that such people just
do not exist? I didn't find them to be such caricatures. I thought
the sister, although she says or does little, was terrifying real.
(Well, the signature scene is a bit heavy-handed, but Life is worse
than fiction sometimes --I have known cases of families talking a
dying parent into changing clauses of their testament; oh, but they
were middle class people, not poor, so that would be OK in a
movie). Plot-wise, the total shittiness of the family retroactively
accounts for Maggie's past avoidance of them and solitary life.JPC
> > > This film IS pro-euthanasia, that is, it
> > implicitly acknowledges an
> > > ethical right for people to decide to die. This
> > much is intentional and
> > > obvious.
> >
> > Well, you could argue that the film didn't
> > necessarily have a
> > pro-euthanasia beef. The priest, a sympathetic
> > character, was against the
> > euthanasia in no uncertain terms.
> >
>
The film is neither pro or against euthanasia. Maggie is pro
euthanasia for herself because she doesn't want to continue living
(which should be everybody's right). Frankie, as a good catholic, is
against euthanasia and resists Maggie's requests. His final decision
to do her will is a kind of moral suicide -- he disappears from the
screen -- from the tale -- after she dies, and only Scrap's voice-
over is left. Frankie's return to Ira's restaurant (his "cabin on
Innisfree") in the last shot is even dubious, as the blurred image
doesn't allow us to decide whether he is there or not -- he has
become a ghost.
Incidentally, the Right, which is hysterically against any form of
euthanasia, must hate this movie by an alleged rightist (on the
subject I recommend reading Garret Keizer's article "The religious
right and the Right to Die" in February's Harper's Magazine). JPC
>
> It hangs over the film like a gimmick of some sort.
> I'm reminded of Manny Farber's evocation of "The
> Gimp."
>
> This is a valid objection. It took a lot of subtlety and
delicacy in writing and direction to avoid the Cayatte syndrome.JPC
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
22953
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:30pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:
>
>> Another Oscar irony I'm anticipating: What if Clint beats Marty
for
> the director Oscar, for a boxing movie that pales next to
Scorsese's
> own "Raging Bull."
Certainly, RAGING BULL is far superior to MILLION DOLLAR BABY on
the level of any artistic comparsion. Scorsese should have gained
recognition much earlier in his career. I think everyone is agreed
on that point. But I find Eastwood much more consistent in his
development. He is certainly not going to remake Kurosawa's SEVEN
SAMURAI decades after THE MAGNIFICENT SEVEN.
But anything can happen on Oscar night. It will be ironical but may
bring Scorsese to his senses so he will reject the Oscar-winningh
film and the "remake" compromises he appears to be heading towards.
Tony Williams
22954
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- Matt Armstrong wrote:
>
> Judging from Drudge and the blogs, looks like the
> right wing has
> also picked Chris Rock as their punching bag. Their
> attempt to tar
> Rock as a homophobe seems a transparent ploy to pit
> Hollywood gays
> against a black comic.
>
That acts getting awfully tired.
> Another Oscar irony I'm anticipating: What if Clint
> beats Marty for
> the director Oscar, for a boxing movie that pales
> next to Scorsese's
> own "Raging Bull."
>
>
>
Well they're two entirely different kinds of boxing
movies. There's nobody to root for in "Raging Bull"
whereas MDB wears its bleeding heart on its sleeve.
"Bull" lost out to "Ordinary People."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
22955
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:35pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" >
> >
> > > To my mind, though, this kind of caricature has
> > > always been part of
> > > Eastwood's personality.
>
>
> I don't understand why everybody thinks that the depiction of
> Maggie's family is a 'caricature" and a "mistep" and "unwise".
> Because they're "poor people" they should be represented as noble
> and caring and disinterested? Must we pretend that such people
just
> do not exist? I didn't find them to be such caricatures. I
thought
> the sister, although she says or does little, was terrifying real.
> (Well, the signature scene is a bit heavy-handed, but Life is
worse
> than fiction sometimes --I have known cases of families talking a
> dying parent into changing clauses of their testament; oh, but
they
> were middle class people, not poor, so that would be OK in a
> movie). Plot-wise, the total shittiness of the family
retroactively
> accounts for Maggie's past avoidance of them and solitary life.JPC
>
> I'm inclined to agree with you here. Also I know people like
that. Although David Walsh may attack Eastwood here, the other
danger is sentimentalizing the working-class and not recognizing
its "lumpenproletariat" elements. Marx was clear on that score.
Although Clint is no Marxist, we recognize that the family depiction
is part of a particular plot structure and, surely, not meant to
characterize every working-class fmaily in America. Eastwood came
from humble roots. Although many entertainers who have made it tend
to turn against their less fortunate counterparts (Michael Caine
being one example), we have to see the depiction of Maggie's family
in a broader context. After all, her grotesque mother tells her "You
lost" and does not act as supportively as her surrogate father
Frankie.
The "family" aspects of the film are, of course, another issue.
Tony Williams
>
>
>
22956
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 10:42pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
> That acts getting awfully tired.
Whose act? Rock's or the right wing's?
22957
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- Matt Armstrong wrote:
>
> > That acts getting awfully tired.
>
> Whose act? Rock's or the right wing's?
>
>
>
The right wing's.
As for MDB I simply do not buy blood relatives
rejecting a free new house.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22958
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:08pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein >
>
As for MDB I simply do not buy blood relatives
> rejecting a free new house.
>
> But is this not the "realist" argument, David - as opposed to a
fictional construction?
Tony Williams
22959
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:28pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
> The right wing's.
Agreed. I happen to think Rock may be a shot in the arm for the
Oscars this year.
> As for MDB I simply do not buy blood relatives
> rejecting a free new house.
I had a big problem with this too. Also, the spectacle of the whole
family showing up at the hospital wearing Universal Studios t-
shirts. If Eastwood had included just one family member who has a
bit sympathetic, it wouldn't feel like such a stacked deck.
As it is, I think the plot mechanics of MDB's redemption tale are
too pat. It even has Morgan Freeman's narration that so grated on me
in the pious "Shawshank Redemption."
The surrogate father/daughter romance at its heart reminded me
of "Lost in Translation." In both cases, there's the sense that the
rather bland young female characters are devices in men's mid to
late-life redemption stories. Both films even have the characters
part with the older man whispering a secret to the younger woman. In
MDB, I teared up in spite of myself, at this overtly manipulative
moment. In "Lost in Translation" it only confirmed the essential
emptyheadedness of the film.
22960
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:30pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>> >
>
>
> As for MDB I simply do not buy blood relatives
> rejecting a free new house.
Well, no matter how unlikeable the mother is, I must say she has
a point. She gets a house but she's probably going to lose her
livelihood (welfare). And as the charming sister points out, the
house is empty, no appliances! Sometimes a gift can create a burden.
Maggie meant well but didn't think of the "consequences." The
situation, then, is not entirely black and white.
22961
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:34pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong" <
>
> The surrogate father/daughter romance at its heart reminded me
> of "Lost in Translation." In both cases, there's the sense that
the
> rather bland young female characters are devices in men's mid to
> late-life redemption stories.
Maybe, but Maggie's character is far from "bland"!
22962
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:36pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
> Well, no matter how unlikeable the mother is, I must say she
has
> a point. She gets a house but she's probably going to lose her
> livelihood (welfare). And as the charming sister points out, the
> house is empty, no appliances! Sometimes a gift can create a
burden.
> Maggie meant well but didn't think of the "consequences." The
> situation, then, is not entirely black and white.
Eastwood doesn't think she has a point. I don't see any ambiguity
intended or created by his portrayal of the mom or the sister. We're
meant to recoil in horror, just as we're meant to boo and hiss the
evil bitch boxing opponent.
22963
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Tue Feb 15, 2005 11:47pm
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
>
> Eastwood doesn't think she has a point. I don't see any ambiguity
> intended or created by his portrayal of the mom or the sister.
We're
> meant to recoil in horror, just as we're meant to boo and hiss the
> evil bitch boxing opponent.
Sure. But are they also not jealous of her success and wish to
drag her down to their own level? This often happens in many
communities, especiallyt working-class ones. It is a fact of life.
The real horror is when the mother says, "Get yourself a man.
People round here are laughing at you" during the first family
scene. Look at the smirk on the face of Maggie's sister who has
obviously screwed up her own life on more than one level. I don't
like the idea of female boxing or women performing macho roles in
the military. But Maggie is ambitious and wishes to achieve
something on her own - something denied to her by this grotesque
family who are typical of a certain attitude here.
Tony Williams
22964
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 0:00am
Subject: Re: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- peckinpah20012000
wrote:
>
> Sure. But are they also not jealous of her success
> and wish to
> drag her down to their own level? This often happens
> in many
> communities, especiallyt working-class ones. It is a
> fact of life.
>
Sez you and every other middle-class "conservative."
The working class deserves more than a knee-jerk
insult like this.
> The real horror is when the mother says, "Get
> yourself a man.
> People round here are laughing at you" during the
> first family
> scene. Look at the smirk on the face of Maggie's
> sister who has
> obviously screwed up her own life on more than one
> level. I don't
> like the idea of female boxing or women performing
> macho roles in
> the military. But Maggie is ambitious and wishes to
> achieve
> something on her own - something denied to her by
> this grotesque
> family who are typical of a certain attitude here.
>
They're "typical" of nothing but the class hatred of
those who fancy themselves "superior" and condescend
to the lower classes as "losers."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
22965
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 0:02am
Subject: Re: Re: Million Dollar Baby
Thank you, Mr. Coursodon!
Although this verosimilitude check is truly bothersome, some things must be
corrected. Sometimes certain moves may transform the critics into
verosimilitude inspectors and the talk about esthetics gets completely lost.
If you swant to be a mere inspector of plausible situations on the screen,
you should at least be generous to the films you inspect.
It is not, by any account, the a_film_by I grew accustomed to.
----- Original Message -----
From: "jpcoursodon"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, February 15, 2005 7:28 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Million Dollar Baby
> I don't understand why everybody thinks that the depiction of
> Maggie's family is a 'caricature" and a "mistep" and "unwise".
> Because they're "poor people" they should be represented as noble
> and caring and disinterested? Must we pretend that such people just
> do not exist? I didn't find them to be such caricatures. I thought
> the sister, although she says or does little, was terrifying real.
> (Well, the signature scene is a bit heavy-handed, but Life is worse
> than fiction sometimes --I have known cases of families talking a
> dying parent into changing clauses of their testament; oh, but they
> were middle class people, not poor, so that would be OK in a
> movie). Plot-wise, the total shittiness of the family retroactively
> accounts for Maggie's past avoidance of them and solitary life.JPC
>
>
> The film is neither pro or against euthanasia. Maggie is pro
> euthanasia for herself because she doesn't want to continue living
> (which should be everybody's right). Frankie, as a good catholic, is
> against euthanasia and resists Maggie's requests. His final decision
> to do her will is a kind of moral suicide -- he disappears from the
> screen -- from the tale -- after she dies, and only Scrap's voice-
> over is left. Frankie's return to Ira's restaurant (his "cabin on
> Innisfree") in the last shot is even dubious, as the blurred image
> doesn't allow us to decide whether he is there or not -- he has
> become a ghost.
>
> Incidentally, the Right, which is hysterically against any form of
> euthanasia, must hate this movie by an alleged rightist (on the
> subject I recommend reading Garret Keizer's article "The religious
> right and the Right to Die" in February's Harper's Magazine). JPC
> >
> > It hangs over the film like a gimmick of some sort.
> > I'm reminded of Manny Farber's evocation of "The
> > Gimp."
> >
> > This is a valid objection. It took a lot of subtlety and
> delicacy in writing and direction to avoid the Cayatte syndrome.JPC
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> > http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
22966
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 0:09am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein >
>
>
> Sez you and every other middle-class "conservative."
>
> The working class deserves more than a knee-jerk
> insult like this.
>
> >> >
>
> They're "typical" of nothing but the class hatred of
> those who fancy themselves "superior" and condescend
> to the lower classes as "losers."
>
For your information, David, I am from a working-class background
and have worked my way up but do not sentimentalize or engage in
phony forms of idealizations are you are obviously doing.
Tony Williams
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
> http://my.yahoo.com
22967
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 0:25am
Subject: Re: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- peckinpah20012000
wrote:
> >
> For your information, David, I am from a
> working-class background
> and have worked my way up but do not sentimentalize
> or engage in
> phony forms of idealizations are you are obviously
> doing.
>
I don't want phony idealization. And I don't want
cheap insults either.
Initially I found "MDB" to be merely annoying, but
it's defenders/supporters have placed it on a new
plateau. Quite frankly I despise it.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22968
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 0:31am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> Sez you and every other middle-class "conservative."
>
> The working class deserves more than a knee-jerk
> insult like this.
>
David, NO ONE is insulting the sacred working class. Maggie's
family does NOT stand for an entire social class! Why would Eastwood
deliberately insult a large portion of his audience? Besides, those
people don't even work (the mother, at least)! Your attitude is like
saying that if a filmmaker shows a black character who is less
saintly than Poitier in his movies, then he is a racist insulting
the entire African-American race.
> http://my.yahoo.com
22969
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 0:34am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
> Thank you, Mr. Coursodon!
> >
You're welcome.
I have no idea what you're talking about so I won't engage you in a
discussion. And I don't know what "verosimilitude" is anyway.
22970
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 0:39am
Subject: Re: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> David, NO ONE is insulting the sacred working
> class. Maggie's
> family does NOT stand for an entire social class!
> Why would Eastwood
> deliberately insult a large portion of his audience?
Does the name Jerry Springer ring a bell?
> Besides, those
> people don't even work (the mother, at least)! Your
> attitude is like
> saying that if a filmmaker shows a black character
> who is less
> saintly than Poitier in his movies, then he is a
> racist insulting
> the entire African-American race.
>
>
In that case I'd attack his treatment of Anthony
Mackie's character -- which I don't.
The film's attitude toward class is that of the Bush
administration -- divide and conquer.
As for racial issues make sure never to discuss them
with Morgan Freeman should he cross your path. He
doesn't like to discuss the fact that he's black in
any way shape or form. Why? Because he's a Republican,
that's why!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
22971
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 0:52am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >
> > David, NO ONE is insulting the sacred working
> > class. Maggie's
> > family does NOT stand for an entire social class!
> > Why would Eastwood
> > deliberately insult a large portion of his audience?
>
> Does the name Jerry Springer ring a bell?
>
> Are you equating Jerry Springer's show with Eastwood's film???
> > Besides, those
> > people don't even work (the mother, at least)! Your
> > attitude is like
> > saying that if a filmmaker shows a black character
> > who is less
> > saintly than Poitier in his movies, then he is a
> > racist insulting
> > the entire African-American race.
> >
> >
>
>
> The film's attitude toward class is that of the Bush
> administration -- divide and conquer.
>
Divide whom? Conquer what? You're making this all up!
I'm not going to buy your "if you hate Bush you must hate
Eastwood" argument. It's the worst kind of browbeating.
> As for racial issues make sure never to discuss them
> with Morgan Freeman should he cross your path. He
> doesn't like to discuss the fact that he's black in
> any way shape or form. Why? Because he's a Republican,
> that's why!
So MDB is a despicable film because one of the actors is a
Republican?
>
David, you have a perfect right to hate this film, but I would
expect more sensible arguments from a mind of your caliber. You got
carried away by your hatred. Not a good thing.
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
22972
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 0:57am
Subject: The $15,000 a Week Baby
http://news.yahoo.com/news?tmpl=story&u=/ap/20050215/ap_en_tv/tv_contender_suicide_1
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
22973
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 0:58am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
> people don't even work (the mother, at least)! Your attitude is
like
> saying that if a filmmaker shows a black character who is less
> saintly than Poitier in his movies, then he is a racist insulting
> the entire African-American race.
Speaking only for myself, I think the real problem for me is that
there is no ambiguity in the portrayal of Maggie's family. They are
caricatures. They are unattractive, greedy and stupid. They could
have walked right out of one of "Every Which Way But Loose's" bar
brawl scenes. (All that's required is a pet orangutan!)These
characters are mere types, not flesh and blood people. In the film's
scheme, they are the "villains."
If we were viewing the film strictly on class terms, we'd have to
concede that all of the characters are working class. That includes
Maggie and Scrap, who are both portrayed in a positive light. If
there's a bias, it's directed against people with no work ethic.
Maggie's mom is on welfare, but appears able bodied. Her sister has
a child she can't support. Conservatives aren't the only ones who
believe in the value of work. Where they usually diverge from
liberals, is in their belief in a meritocracy: the American myth
that hard work and dreams trump class, race and other barriers.
Notice that in Eastwood's world, you can even be mentally-retarded
(the skinny boy at the gym), but if you believe in yourself and work
hard, you'll be given a measure of respect. It's not a radical idea.
My problem again is that these peripheral characters are really just
types. They don't feel like real people at all, and we can't help
but divine a contempt for people who fail to thrive in his
bootstraps vision of America.
22974
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 0:58am
Subject: Re: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> David, you have a perfect right to hate this film,
> but I would
> expect more sensible arguments from a mind of your
> caliber. You got
> carried away by your hatred. Not a good thing.
>
Maybe.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
http://my.yahoo.com
22975
From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:22am
Subject: Brakhage's "Arabics 3" with/out sound
An interesting experience in light of the recent discussion here about
sound or musical accompaniment to silent films:
I recently saw Brakhage's "Arabics 3" (1980) as part of an "Avant-Garde
Animation" program at Block Cinema. The projectionist mistakenly left
the sound on for the first minute or so, and since it's a silent film,
the audience heard the hiss, crackles, & clicks of an "empty"
soundtrack. Then the projectionist turned the sound off (and, as I was
told afterward, reduced the projection speed to 18fps) -- and that's
when my viewing experience of "Arabics 3" changed completely, as the
film really "came alive." I would never have thought that there would
have been such a huge difference, but while it's possible that the first
minute of the film just isn't that good, or that it takes a minute to
"get into" the film, or that the change in projection speed was the
greater factor, I think the sound element was the decisive factor.
While the speakers were on, it seemed as if the constant hissing and
crackling created a semi-translucent layer between the eye and the
screen, muting Brakhage's dramatic contrasts of light and dark. I
really can't explain it better than this, but it was a palpable
difference, not subtle at all.
Based on this experience and prior viewings of the first two "Arabics,"
I'd agree with Fred's statement that:
"These films are silent not merely because, as Brakhage has said of his
earlier work, a soundtrack would interfere with the attention he wants
to give to sight, destroying the rhythms established through imagery
alone. Their silence is a deeper, and in a sense darker one: the silence
of removal, of abjural."
http://www.fredcamper.com/Film/Brakhage.html
Viewed in silence, "Arabics 3" is completely overwhelming:
dynamic/fragile/intense patches & bursts of light struggling with a
vast, deep darkness. There is a type of radiant light blue in this film
similar to that in "Seasons..." (2002, co-made with Phil Solomon),
another Brakhage film which brought tears to my eyes. In "Arabics 3"
much of the light-events are placed along the edges of the frame to
create the sense of a deep void, while "Seasons..." from what I recall
centers those light-events to create the sense of rips or tears in the
screen through which the light escapes.
-Jason G.
--
Jason Guthartz
jason@r...
http://www.restructures.net
http://www.restructures.net/chicago
--
"Mind your wants 'cause someone wants your mind."
--George Clinton, "Funkentelechy"
22976
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:23am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
>
> Maybe, but Maggie's character is far from "bland"!
All she wants to do is box, ya see. And when that's through, she's
got nothing left to live for. She doesn't even seem all that
interested in Frankie's poetry. Maggie's determination and athletic
prowess may be impressive, but she seems to have no life beyond
Frankie and the ring. She not intellectually curious. She lacks
imagination. And tellingly she has no reason to live once her boxing
is taken away from her. She's the surrogate daughter that Frankie
needs to win (and lose again) in order to find his peace.
22977
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:44am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:
>
> >
> > Maybe, but Maggie's character is far from "bland"!
>
> All she wants to do is box, ya see.
Well, it's her thing, ya see.
And all what some of us want is to watch and write about movies.
Does that make us bland? Oh, no, of course, we appreciate poetry,
and Maggie doesn't, so she has to be bland. We're so far above such
characters.
I think your description of the character is immensely scornful
and prejudiced in the way that David has been blaming the film for
being
22978
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:52am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
>> I was the last cinephile on earth to catch up with this film.
>
> Not quite.
>
> I thought there was a lot of that Eastwoodian "breathing" in the first
> part of the film: a couple of characters go into a room and start
> talking
> about something, and the film seems to slow down as each line gets
> chewed
> over and accentuated. This used to seem to me a bit amateurish (it
> goes
> hand in hand with a taste for cartoonish acting), but I'm prepared to
> see
> it as an element of style, especially as Eastwood has carried it into
> the
> post-MTV world.
>
> - Dan
"Not quite" -- seconded. I saw only the first hour (the film went
dark, sound continued... bulb needed to be replaced) and I was glad
for the break; will catch the rest at another time.
My husband was a boxing fan, and I enjoy a skilled bout (last arena of
taking responsibility for oneself).... but so many of the films scenes
seemed merely to be there to have the characters say something. Let's
go to the church and say this, let's go to Morgan Freeman's room and
say this, let's go to the office and say this.
I knew of the press / awards given MILLION DOLLAR BABY, and so I was
surprised by the dialogue I heard, so over-written; the delivery (Dan's
style) did not bother me, but the content, especially between Eastwood
and Freeman... like these fellows were not familiar with each other.
And Eastwood would not invite Freeman to see the champ's fight on TV
with him? Guess Eastwood thought that would dilute the effect of his
shadow boxing during the champ's fight (which would have been more
potent if Eastwood did it in a more restrained fashion because Freeman
was sitting right next to him!) But then Eastwood would not be able to
go to Freeman's room and say something!
Elizabeth
22979
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:18am
Subject: Re: Brialy
I'll have to have a look at _Les Innocents_.
Brialy's body feels as though it is threatening at every moment to
implode into that colossal pucker at the end of his face; his lines come
across as direct utterances from the mouth of a black hole. Super
cool. Though you don't get much of this in the younger Nouvelle Vague
Brialy.
I hope he continues to work for a while.
-Matt
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>He's quite a remarkable -- and durable -- performer.
>In addition to "Claire's Knee" and "A Woman is a
>Woman" (agruably his best films) there was a techine
>he did a number of years back called "Les Innocentes."
>It didn't quite hand together but he was excellent as
>a rather thoughtful older gentleman in thrall to Simon
>de la Brosse and Sandrine Bonnaire.
>
>
22980
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:19am
Subject: Re: Re: Park Kwang-su & Shin Shang-ok
I'll just briefly second Michael's enthusiasm. I've seen four of Park's
five features and the last two, A Single Park and To the Starry Island
are among the most intelligent political films of the past fifteen
years, sort of like a Korean Francesco Rosi (but without Rosi's highly
effective if somewhat Olympian detachment). Very deeply felt, formally
inventive.
George Robinson
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr. wrote:
>-
>
>I've only seen Park's "Jeon tae-il" A Single Spark (1996). I found
>this to be excelent. It blended the true story of Jeon Tae-il, a
>young martyr of the labor movement, with the fictionalized story of a
>junior law professor trying to research Jeon's story -- and forced to
>go into hiding (and endangering his wife as well). The portions
>dealing with Jeon were shot in absolutely splendid-looking black and
>white, the more modern portions were shot in color. (The same
>cinematographer also shot Hur Jin-ho's wonderful "Christmas in
>August"). A brief "review" I did, oince upon a time:
>
>http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0121755/#comment
>
>MEK
>
>
>
>
22981
From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:19am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> >> I was the last cinephile on earth to catch up with this film.
> >
> > Not quite.
>
> "Not quite" -- seconded.
Well, I haven't seen the film, and nothing in this discussion thread
makes me want to see the film, so I must not be a cinephile.
Darn.
-Jason G.
22982
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:33am
Subject: Re: Brakhage's "Arabics 3" with/out sound
Interesting.
I thought I'd remembered seeing the Arabic numeral films at 24 fps, but
it was at Anthology, and I don't imagine they'd get that kind of thing
wrong. Then again...
_Seasons..._ is one of the most amazing films I've ever seen. I'd quite
like to see some of the other Brakhage/Solomon collaborations as well,
or hear you describe them if you've seen any.
One film that really comes alive at 18 fps is _Sleep_ (though there is
the 18 vs. 16 controversy); the flicker, made highly visible by the
frame rate, interresonates in an astonishing way with Giono's breathing,
especially right at the beginning.
-Matt
Jason Guthartz wrote:
>Viewed in silence, "Arabics 3" is completely overwhelming:
>dynamic/fragile/intense patches & bursts of light struggling with a
>vast, deep darkness. There is a type of radiant light blue in this film
>similar to that in "Seasons..." (2002, co-made with Phil Solomon),
>another Brakhage film which brought tears to my eyes. In "Arabics 3"
>much of the light-events are placed along the edges of the frame to
>create the sense of a deep void, while "Seasons..." from what I recall
>centers those light-events to create the sense of rips or tears in the
>screen through which the light escapes.
>
>-Jason G.
>
>
>
22983
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:44am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Guthartz"
wrote:
Well Jason I don't know what you mean by cinephile, but it's quite
possible that the discussion of MDB here has been somewhat
middlebrow or even lower middlebrow (I'm not sure any more about the
definitions of those terms)and as such unworthy of this august
forum. But I really don't understand why our silly exchanges should
keep you from seeing the movie. If you love movies and don't have
hundreds of much more importan things to do, please by all means see
MDB, and then feel free to love or hate it or be indifferent. Or
whatever.
22984
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 2:53am
Subject: Re: Re: Million Dollar Baby
What is it about this movie? I don't think there's been
more threads about a single flick this year (with the exception
of perhaps "The Aviator"). A few day ago I posted something
on John Moore's heartning and pleasantly surprising remake
of "The Flight of the Phoenix" and it got no more than 2
responces. You write something on this drab re-hash of a movie
and the whole group checks in. Why? Is it because Eastwood is more
dodgy and superficial about his obvious genre borrowings? Is it because
his cinematography is more "tragic" -- equating constant pools of black
with the personages inner termoil (wow! what imagination!). Both
"Million Dollar Baby", and "Mystic River" strike me as the lowest
point in Eastood's career (news flash, I don't dislike him as
a filmmaker by any stretch, in fact I still find myself
defending "A Perfect World" 12 years later), both pander to the
upper middle class by dileberately shabbying up the working
class worlds they depict, both fool their defenders by appearing
tough-minded and uncompromising by offering death as the only
redemption for at least one of their central characters, and
both are particularly manipulative by lulling us into confortable
genre reflexes most of the way, only to offer seemingly shock ending
meant to make us awe at their daring. Whether its the
unwaranted vigilanty "Ox-Bow Incident" ending of Mystic River,
or the similarly "easy way out" dramatics of "Million Dollar Baby",
Eastood is simply milking emotions out of showing us how far he can
make our hearts bleed for these sad-sack types before pulling the
rug out from under us. Everything in the movie is manipulated to
seem a little extre drab for our "I'm not that down and out" needs.
From Hilary Swank's Jerry Springer guest type family, to the diner
where she works which is deliberatlely made 100 times more dreary
than that delightful quaint little restaurant on the side of the road
that makes 'real lemon pie', and which Eastwood looks into buying, to
the food Swank swipes off the plates of customers.
The casting of Swank's opponents as well is particularly calculating,
each opponent is a visually repugnant and uncouth, culmunating in the
barbaric ex-prostitute that ends the ride abruptly. And I guess,
the strory's "complexity" comes from getting Eastwood to re-connect
with his daughter through spritual terms, and to get him out of his
bottled up emotional state. "Flight of the Phoenix" doesn't ponder
on such issues to seem arty, its working class types are
simply presented, than thrown into their hard-nosed situation,
the visauls emphesize the environment of the moment, they don't
stupidly lean on a need to make an overly dramatic point. Eastwood
has become intoxicated with the praise he's received for throwing easy
dramatics, and pandering to simple working class notions, and so
douses us with more. Cinephiles should be applauded when they find
the hidden beauties in works of layered purposes, not for
genuflecting in front of easy signifiers and flattery.
Mathieu Ricordi
22985
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:10am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:
>
Mathieu, I can't speak for others, but I haven't seen "Flight of
the Phoenix" so I couldn't possibly respond to your interesting post
(I'm planning to see it).
For the record, it's "the best lemon pie in the world."
Everything about your rant has been pretty much kicked around to
death here, so you didn't have to bother.
Myself, I'd love to be discussing such other things as Brakhage's
Arabic numbers instead but unfortunately I don't have access to
them.
22986
From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:15am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> Well Jason I don't know what you mean by cinephile, but it's quite
> possible that the discussion of MDB here has been somewhat
> middlebrow or even lower middlebrow (I'm not sure any more about the
> definitions of those terms)...
I agree -- useless terms.
> But I really don't understand why our silly exchanges should
> keep you from seeing the movie. If you love movies and don't have
> hundreds of much more importan things to do, please by all means see
> MDB, and then feel free to love or hate it or be indifferent. Or
> whatever.
With the limitless range of cultural activities to choose from, I look
to critics and other cinephiles for guidance, to help me sort the
potentially-interesting from the likely-uninteresting. What I find
disturbing and disappointing from the perspective of someone
interested in the art of cinema, is that most critics are content with
treating this "Million Dollar" film (and 95% of other films) as if it
were a screenplay, or live theater, with all this talk about
characters and Eastwood's attitudes towards them, and the
psychological/sociological analysis of fictional worlds. Too abstract
for me.
Anyway, until anyone can convince me that there is something
interesting in Dirty Harry's moving-visual aesthetic, I will attend to
those hundreds of much more important things to do... maybe listen to
an album or two by Clint Eastwood (the reggae musician).
-Jason G.
22987
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:23am
Subject: Re: Ecriture/ideology /new cinemas (was: Park Kwang-su & Shin Shang-ok)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> America's worthless treasury bills. (They will soon be asking for
> higher interest rates, which will drive up our interest rates here
> and pop the housing bubble, precipitating the first in what may be
a
> series of economic crises that could lead to outright American
> fascism, or more hopefully to a new FDR.)
>
As you yourself put it, Bill, that's a lot to chew on. Those
higher interest rates do terrify me as i have recently refinanced my
mortgage at a low but variable rate. Not to mention the threat of
fascism.
But seriously.
Your post raised such interesting and difficult questions that I
suspect people got too scared (as I was) to respond. So we argued
about MDB. When we should be pondering ecriture and ideology. What
can you do.
22988
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:30am
Subject: Re: Re: Million Dollar Baby
Quoting jpcoursodon :
> Mathieu, I can't speak for others, but I haven't seen "Flight of
>
> the Phoenix" so I couldn't possibly respond to your interesting post
>
> (I'm planning to see it).
I'm glad to hear it.
> Everything about your rant has been pretty much kicked around to
>
> death here, so you didn't have to bother.
I'm very happy you said that. That was actually my first
point, the film has been given attention it doesn't deserve.
I ignored talking about it with the group for a very long time,
and then I saw two fresh pages of messages on it today, I couldn't
believe my eyes (and this was after interesting posts on Jacques Demy
and Godards "masculine-Feminine" among others, adding to the
uselessness of the Eastwood venture).
> Myself, I'd love to be discussing such other things as Brakhage's
>
> Arabic numbers instead but unfortunately I don't have access to
>
> them.
I hope you do, I'd love to hear your take on these and other subjects,
free from the Eastwood conversational monopoly.
Mathieu Ricordi
22989
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:30am
Subject: Re: Park Kwang-su & Shin Shang-ok
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, George Robinson wrote:
> I've seen four of Park's five features and the last two, A Single
> Park and To the Starry Island are among the most intelligent
> political films of the past fifteen years
These two films also were a nursery for a number of up and coming
figures in Korean cinema, including LEE Chang-dong (who wrote the
script for "Single Spark" and HUR Jin-ho (who worked as an assistant
director to Park).
I would add Lee's "Peppermint Candy" to the list of great recent
political films. ;~}
BTW -- "Single Spark" was financed in a highly unusual way --
thousands of union members and students put up the money to make this
(was it 14,000?) -- and all are credited after the film ends.
22990
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:35am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Guthartz"
wrote:
>
>> Anyway, until anyone can convince me that there is something
> interesting in Dirty Harry's moving-visual aesthetic, I will
attend to
> those hundreds of much more important things to do... maybe listen
to
> an album or two by Clint Eastwood (the reggae musician).
>
> -Jason G.
You are welcome to attend to whatever, jason, and I can't say you're
wrong (what is it they say? "Get a life"). But I think it's a little
sad that you have to hear from so many high-minded comments in order
to be convinced to attend a movie. I wouldn't call that a cinephilic
attitude! And of course calling Eastwood "Dirty Harry" is such a
lowblow, meaningless gesture that it makes me question your super-
highbrow attitude. By the way I wrote a review of MDB in which
Eastwood's "moving-visual aesthetic" is discussed. If you read
French and are interested and are finished with those hundred things
to do, I'll be glad to send you a copy. JPC
22991
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 3:48am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:
> Quoting jpcoursodon :
>
>
> > Mathieu, I can't speak for others, but I haven't
seen "Flight of
> >
> > the Phoenix" so I couldn't possibly respond to your interesting
post
> >
> > (I'm planning to see it).
>
>
> I'm glad to hear it.
>
>
> > Everything about your rant has been pretty much kicked around
to
> >
> > death here, so you didn't have to bother.
>
>
> I'm very happy you said that. That was actually my first
> point, the film has been given attention it doesn't deserve.
> I ignored talking about it with the group for a very long time,
> and then I saw two fresh pages of messages on it today, I couldn't
> believe my eyes (and this was after interesting posts on Jacques
Demy
> and Godards "masculine-Feminine" among others, adding to the
> uselessness of the Eastwood venture).
>
> Just as there are more things in heaven and earth than are
dreamt of in your philosophy, there is room in cinephilia for
Eastwood alongside Godard and Demy. I don't understand the meaning
of "uselessness" -- Are movies supposed to be "useful" and if so,
how? Is "Lola" useful? I hope not, although I love it.
The few very vocal MDB-haters on this Group seem to me to have
the kind of attitude that, had they lived in the 40s and 50s, they
would have hated almost every single Hollywood film that we, on this
Group, love and revere today. (I apologize if this sentence is a bit
shaky grammatically).
>
The MDB thread is just a result of the interest of members in the
movie and the lack of other exciting topics or,( as I posted
earlier) the difficulty of handling some topics, such as
Bill's "ecriture and ideology" thing. After all, we all have other
things to do. I think. JPC
22992
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:03am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- peckinpah20012000
> wrote:
>
>
> > >
> > .
> >
>
> I don't want phony idealization. And I don't want
> cheap insults either.
>
> Initially I found "MDB" to be merely annoying, but
> it's defenders/supporters have placed it on a new
> plateau. Quite frankly I despise it.
I think you should also consider your own remarks in terms
of "cheap insults" since you make several of them yourself rather
than engage in relevant critical debate on a Web Site which is
supposedly designed to avoid "flame wars." I'd also consider you
look at the writings of H.E. Bates, Emile Zola, and the work of
British Jewish working-class playwright Arnold Wesker for a more
balanced picture. Finally, for your information, I've been on
welfare, hated every minute of it, and have more experience of
particular traits of human behavior than you ever will have.
Tony Williams
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
22993
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:27am
Subject: a middlebrow observation (was re: Million Dollar Baby)
>
> I hope you do, I'd love to hear your take on these and other
subjects,
> free from the Eastwood conversational monopoly.
I realize I'm relatively new to this group, but the tone of this
remark bothers me. As I understand it, there can be no "monopoly" of
conversation on an unmoderated group. Individuals are free to post,
reply or not on any number of topics. If some of us want to gnash our
teeth about the political and aesthetic relevance of "Million Dollar
Baby" why shouldn't we? Those who wish to discuss Brakhage, Godard or
anyone else are free to do so. If you're tired of a thread, simply
skip to the next message.
Words like "middlebrow" or "lowbrow," (used in another post) to
describe certain views are condescending. Truly democratic cinephilia
(which ignores high/low hoohah) seems in short supply here. So far on
this list, I've seen a writer's tastes compared to an affintity
for "slasher films" and said writer taking great offense. I've also
seen disgust expressed for portrayals of "heterosexual masochism" in
movies. As someone who loves the former genre and the latter subject
matter, I can only guess that it would be treacherous to bring up
interesting films like "Texas Chainsaw
Massacre," "Halloween," "Moonlight Whispers" or "Lies."
Too often I've seen the kind of academic elitism here which keeps the
average moviegoer away from discovering or exploring challenging
work. I'm hardly as learned on many of the films and directors y'all
discuss and frankly my interest isn't stoked by this attitude.
I've been drawn to the MDB discussion because it's a zeitgeist
American movie, causing fierce discussion both inside and outside of
film circles. Personally I'm interested in the intersection of film,
popular culture and politics, so I have no apologies for continuing
this discussion.
22994
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:44am
Subject: Re: a middlebrow observation (was re: Million Dollar Baby)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:
>
Matt, I agree with everything you said above (deleted to save
space).
> Words like "middlebrow" or "lowbrow," (used in another post) to
> describe certain views are condescending. Truly democratic
cinephilia
> (which ignores high/low hoohah) seems in short supply here.
Unfortunately (or perhaps fortunately) there is no such thing
as "truly democratic cinephilia" (or truly democratic anything).
So far on
> this list, I've seen a writer's tastes compared to an affintity
> for "slasher films" and said writer taking great offense.
I was said writer. I did take offense but just for a little
while. You have to realize that auteurists, like girls, just want to
have fun.
I've also
> seen disgust expressed for portrayals of "heterosexual masochism"
in
> movies.
I don't remember that. Myself, I love the subject of heterosexual
masochism. Private e-mail welcome, as they say.
> Too often I've seen the kind of academic elitism here which keeps
the
> average moviegoer away from discovering or exploring challenging
> work.
But average moviegoers are not members of this Group, unless I'm
mistaken.
I'm hardly as learned on many of the films and directors y'all
> discuss and frankly my interest isn't stoked by this attitude.
>
> I've been drawn to the MDB discussion because it's a zeitgeist
> American movie, causing fierce discussion both inside and outside
of
> film circles. Personally I'm interested in the intersection of
film,
> popular culture and politics, so I have no apologies for
continuing
> this discussion.
Again, I agree 100% with you on this. JPC
22995
From: samfilms2003
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:47am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
> The few very vocal MDB-haters on this Group seem to me to have
> the kind of attitude that, had they lived in the 40s and 50s, they
> would have hated almost every single Hollywood film that we, on this
> Group, love and revere today. (I apologize if this sentence is a bit
> shaky grammatically).
Or maybe they would've preferred "Force of Evil" or "Body and Soul" to
"On The Waterfront" and "Requiem For A Heavyweight"
or "Mrs Miniver" or
jeez
-Sam
22996
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:59am
Subject: Re: Million Dollar Baby
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
>
>
> > The few very vocal MDB-haters on this Group seem to me to
have
> > the kind of attitude that, had they lived in the 40s and 50s,
they
> > would have hated almost every single Hollywood film that we, on
this
> > Group, love and revere today. (I apologize if this sentence is a
bit
> > shaky grammatically).
>
> Or maybe they would've preferred "Force of Evil" or "Body and
Soul" to
> "On The Waterfront" and "Requiem For A Heavyweight"
>
> or "Mrs Miniver" or
>
> jeez
>
> -Sam
What point are you making, exactly? Force of Evil and Body and
Soul are great movies, Waterfront and Requiem are bad movies, and
MDB is like the latter? Could you elaborate? I mean, "Jeez" is a
great closing line, but it kind of leaves one wanting for more.JPC
22997
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 4:59am
Subject: Re: Ecriture/ideology /new cinemas (was: Park Kwang-su & Shin Shang-ok)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
"...The irony of course is that the boom in S. Korea's economy,
fueled by all sorts of heinous activities, made possible the amazing
film renaissance."
It also made possible the overthrow of the military dictaitorships
(including the ones carried out in civilian clothes) as well as Kim
Dae-Jung's defiance of the US with his "Sunshine Policy" toward North
Korea. He proceeded despite warnings from the Clinton State Dept.,
and when they saw it was working they backed off (to their credit.)
Unfortunately the Bush regime managed to reverse all the progress
that Kim made but they failed to sabotage his successor Roh who
created a new party farther to the left of Kim's party. Under
prompting from the Bush Stae Dept. the Grand National Party (made of
righists and hacks from the old dictaitorships) tried to impeach Roh
and failed. This shows the contradictions of the capitalist
development state.
"Daney said in my interview w. him - posted at Steve Erickson's site -
'[The] excess of writing [ecriture] over ideology is only possible
in the framework of a prosperous industry and a real [ideological]
consensus. This occurred in H'wd until sometime in the fifties; a
little in France before the war; in Italy; in Egypt and India, no
doubt; in Germany and England before the war..."
"That's a lot to chew on - and revise: this was 27 years ago -..."
Well, the new factor is globalization , but globalization's day may
be ending too because of the Boy Emporer's go-it-alone forign policy.
Alreday by the end of the Clinton Administartion globaliztaion was
under sustained political attack by its victims, and the US's former
partners in the global enterprise seem to be changing course. It'd
too early to tell, but there are signs.
"...A simple question, never asked as far as I know. We're looking at
Asian films from countries that are now in a position to produce
popular cinema and its more arty (ecriture over ideology)
offshoots...
"My question: What are the ideologies of these countries? Daney said
that only imperialist countries can produce the ideological consensus
he referred to - he called it a moral consensus at that point, but I
feel I can substitute 'ideological,' and cited China as an example.
So assuming that they are all versions of imperialism, we should be
as ready to talk about the ideology of HK cinema, or Bollywood
cinema, or Taiwanese cinema, or Korean cinema as we are about the
ideology of H'wd cinema, which we have been doing w. jaw-dropping
glibness for about - well, about 27 years now. I imagine there's
writing on the ideology of HK martial arts films, for example - I'm
just not familiar with it. Has that work been done for some of these
other cinemas, and their various 'loyal oppositions' within?"
While I'm only familiar with writing on the ideology of Japanese
cinema past and present I'm sure there's writng on the other national
cinemas you mention. One volume on Japanese cinema ideology has been
translated into English, "Cinema, Censorship and the State" by
Oshima.
"Returning to Mike's note, but using a less evident example: Is Hong
Sang-Soo, for example, the loyal opposition? I.e. are we - in Korea,
say - seeing the equivalent of H'wd's Golden Age, when Mankiewicz or
Welles or Fuller or Ray were the loyal opposition? And doesn't it
help for us to know a bit about what he's opposing - the ideology of,
say, Public Enemy or Attack the Gas Station, which are consensus
films? Is Wong Kar-Wai 'about' globalization? Etcera etcetera."
To answer that question one would have to be familiar with modern
Korean history and current events in the ROK. "Korea's Place in the
Sun" by Bruce Cummings is a good place to start for the history, and
for the current situation there's Asia Times, The Far Eastern
Economic Review and the Bulletin of Concernede Asian Schoalers.
People in Los Angeles and Hawai'i have access to Korean television
(several shows have English sub-titles; unfortunately the news
programs are un-sub-titled) so one can become familiar with popular
contemporary entertainment and get an idea of indigenous Korean
genres.
The question of how aethetic categories relate with political-
economic ones is already a tough one for Western critics writing
about Western cinema to answer, so to address Asian cinema is even
harder. Some general works worth consulting are "Culture nd
Imperialism" by Edward Said and just about anything by Frederic
Jameson is worth reading on this subject.
For the present, one thing to note is the emergence of cinema in the
West with the apex of Euro-American imperialism, and its emegence in
Japan with the rise of modern capitalism there. National cinemas
under colonialism is another interesting topic to consider.
Richard
22998
From:
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 0:26am
Subject: Re: Re: Million Dollar Baby
David Ehrenstein wrote:
""Bull" lost out to "Ordinary People.""
I hope I'm not the only one on the group who prefers "Ordinary People" to
"Raging Bull"! I haven't seen many of his subsequent films, but I think that
Redford started out as an interesting filmmaker.
Peter Tonguette
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
22999
From:
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 1:40am
Subject: Re: Re: Million Dollar Baby
We think it's never a healthy sign when a group starts discussing itself too
much, as has been happening in the MDB thread. As moderators, we've tried to
avoid the role of "enforcers" as much as possible, and recognizing that it will
be natural for a film discussion to veer off the topic of film and film art,
we've avoided intervening most every time when it has. One of us has made
several OT posts himself. But more than once the largest threads have tended to
involve issues that it seems to us might be discussed in any film discussion
group -- as in, what is this film's attitude toward the working class. Those
issues are a legitimate part of a discussion of a film, but we also agree with Ruy
Gardnier and Jason Guthartz in that the discussion has not offered an
argument for why the film is interesting cinema. We both read this group in part to
be made aware of films we perhaps should see, as it seems Jason does. Not
everyone in our group is the kind of "cinephile" who just goes to lots of movies
in order to see lots of movies, and neither of us is.
Keep in mind that our Statement of Purpose is pretty narrowly drawn, and
while the group is "unmoderated" in the technical sense that we moderators do not
review posts in advance, it is not meant to be a free-for-all in which
whatever anyone thinks about a movie is completely welcome. We're trying to encourage
a discussion of film as art not primarily from the point of view of personal
tastes asserted and undefended, but rather by encouraging a discussion of the
intersection(s) of style and meaning. Our idea for this group was to encourage
those all-too-rare discussions of the ways in which stylistic elements make a
film a work of art. While it's true that anything could be relevant to that
with regard to a particular film, when our largest threads tend not to be about
films from the point of view of style and form, our group loses its
uniqueness, and many who joined based on the promise of the Statement may just quit
reading the group.
As it happens, just this week one of us received an email from a member who
no longer posts because he felt that his prioritizing mise-en-scene above
script and acting was being misunderstood and misinterpreted on the group. This is
very ironic given the history of the group, and the fact that the person who
originally suggested its formation (Peter) did so because he wanted to discuss
the formal elements of films often derided by popular movie critics for their
literary and performance qualities (or lack thereof.)
In response to an earlier post of ours, one member briefly started an
"anti-a_film_by" group. One of us expressed irritation with the name, but we really
would encourage an "OT_a_film_by" group if people wanted to start one. We
could link to it from our main page.
Peter and Fred
Your co-moderators
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
23000
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Feb 16, 2005 6:47am
Subject: Re: Ecriture/ideology /new cinemas (was: Park Kwang-su & Shin Shang-ok)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> As you yourself put it, Bill, that's a lot to chew on. Those
> higher interest rates do terrify me as i have recently refinanced
my
> mortgage at a low but variable rate. Not to mention the threat of
> fascism.
I hope I'm more right about ecriture and ideology than about interest
rates. But you're in Florida. Isn't that where big crooks go to
shelter their assets?
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact