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.
23401
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:30pm
Subject: Re: Haneke vs. Tarantino (Was: Back to identification)
> Haneke is kind of a genius - his visual style is amazingly
precise. But I
> confess that my problems with him have kept me from liking any of
his
> films. The sadism issue aside, he makes some weird structural
decisions
> that I find kind of messy. Still, CODE INCONNU and THE PIANO
TEACHER
> impress me in spite of myself.
Both are great films. My favorite is still "The Seventh Continent"
which doesn't have an ounce of fat on it.
> I would have said the right reasons.... Who else would have had
the Ving
> Rhames character raped in PULP FICTION, and then drawn it into a
plot
> point? This is a rather direct acknowledgment of the anxiety
underlying
> the male sexual posture.
Who else? Perhaps Boorman whose "Deliverance" Tarantino
is "referencing."
To be honest (PC helmet alert), I found it telling that Rhames was
the target of the rape, rather than our white, movie-star hero Bruce
Willis. After the tables are turned, Rhames announces that he plans
to work over his rapists with "some pliers and a blowtorch" (again
played for cool laughs). Tarantino has his cake (threatening black
man sexually-humiliated) and eats it too (scary black man taking his
revenge on redneck rapists.) How could you applaud Tarantino
confronting the anxiety "underlying the male sexual posture" while
ignoring the unspoken racial dynamics, especially in a film which
gets comic mileage out of white people uttering the word "nigger" so
freely?
> I am horrified by this. But, you know, he's a complicated guy.
And, as
> Felipe said, his sadism is offered to the audience as a pleasure,
whereas
> Haneke's is directed at us.
This is a fuzzy distinction to make. I can remember positively
squirming during some moments in "Reservoir Dogs" and "Pulp
Fiction." The latter film caused feinting spells in audience
members. The adrenaline shot scene in particular is perfectly
situated for maximum shock to the sensibilities. QT clearly enjoys
having this effect on the audience. The difference may be in
sensibility. Both directors are sadists. Haneke wants us to think
about that sadism, where Tarantino seeks applause for his audacity.
> GAMES.... What do you make of that rewind scene? The violence
against
> the invaders didn't have consequences! Everyone in that film
seemed like
> a semiotic construct rather than a person - which is fine, but
then the
> constructs are arranged to punish us for believing in fiction. -
It's a movie that works best on video. Haneke seems to be daring us
to turn it off, to fast forward, to rewind. I think Haneke's point
is to leave the choice with his audience. It may be sadism, but it's
hardly unexamined.
23402
From: thebradstevens
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:34pm
Subject: Day of the middlebrow (was Re: Night of the living middlebrow
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne wrote:
> I don't have the numbers in front of me, but it's impossible to
ignore the huge demographic differences between today's movie
audiences and those of the 1950s. Basically, most movies were made
for adults back then--highbrow, lowbrow, or anywhere inbetween, but
grownups who expected their concerns and fantasies to be reflected
back on the screen. The industry from top to bottom is fueled by a
youth market now; I would hazard to guess that the age bracket which
determines what will be popular is 10 to 15 years younger than it was
50 years ago. That's going to affect everything that can be said
about middlebrow tastes. You can't simply go looking for contemporary
equivalents to Sirk and Hawks, because those filmmakers so often
addressed an audience that was at a different, more mature stage of
life, and the characters of their films struggle with moral issues
(marriage, career, war service, etc.) that most of the popular
audience today hasn't even encountered in life yet. More
> importantly, the films had leeway to strain for higher artistic
ground because the audience receiving them was (at least a little)
better equipped to process complex emotions and intellectual
dilemmas. The average moviegoer of 1955 was substantially older and
wiser due to life experience than the 16-year-old kid of today.
>
> Peter Henne
>
Yes, but those contemporary American films which are clearly intended
for an older audience, such as AMERICAN BEAUTY, are among the very
worst that modern cinema has to offer.
23403
From:
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 2:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: pieceashit FUNNY GAMES
In a message dated 2/24/05 12:00:17 PM, mattcornell@s... writes:
> And we see both the cruelty of the captors and the suffering of the film's
> protagonists.
>
> What is it exactly that makes you hate this film so much?
>
Well, part of the answer lies in your sentence above. How are cruelty and
suffering not violence? That's one of the lines you hear over and over about
FUNNY GAMES and it feeds into an appreciation of the film as something remotely
insightful.
Gawd, was it REALLY inspired by the violence in Tarantino's films? If that's
the case, then Tarantino is on a much higher moral plane than Haneke. But even
if it's not the case, the entire thing stinks of this experiment that has to
be performed. But for whom, though? Middlebrow audiences perhaps? What exactly
is it teaching us dodos? What's the point?That violence is inevitable? That
the director is the most potent serial killer/cutter of all? Didn't we already
cover this with PSYCHO? Haven't been replaying this idea ad fucking nauseum
ever since? Where is the film about the REHABILITATION of violence? We probably
won't see it in America given the state of our prison system.
And Matt, you agree that Haneke dangles the possibility of release in front
of us and then withdraws it. But that's bad enough right there. I think he's
laughing as well but who cares really at this point? You spend all that time and
money and involve so many people in your production just so you can dangle
and withdraw release??? In the end, FUNNY GAMES, like MYSTIC RIVER but much,
much worse, suffers from an extreme poverty of imagination. Not as repulsive as
MAN BITES DOG. But in the same smarty pants, uninsightful realm.
Side note: For what it's worth, I do like CODE INNCONU and, to a lesser
extent, LA PIANISTE.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
23404
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:40pm
Subject: Re: Day of the middlebrow (was Re: Night of the living middlebrow
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> Yes, but those contemporary American films which are
> clearly intended
> for an older audience, such as AMERICAN BEAUTY, are
> among the very
> worst that modern cinema has to offer.
>
>
>
>
Glad you broguht that up. It's the pluperfect example
of contemporary middle-brow. Thankfully Alan Ball went
on to explode it in "Six Feet Under," and Marc Cherry
is having considerable fun parodying it in "Desperate
Hosuewives."
But these in turn reflect a demographic shift
unthinkable in years past.
There is a whole segment of the population that now
turns to TV for "adult, sophsticated" material. Why?
Because the current recipe for "blockbuster" is a
cartoon that lures adult viewers through the canny use
of "name" voice-actors. These films are in turn prime
"product" for the DVD video market.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
23405
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:50pm
Subject: Re: Back to identification (Was: favorite videoclips)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>> I think Hoberman was trying to play up Bellucci's beauty as a way
of
> holding the film responsible for the attractive aspects of the
rape. - Dan
>
I haven't read Hoberman's review, but I wonder how anybody
(aside from sadists, of which there are admittedly plenty) can find
any "attractive" aspects in a rape scene, especially the one
in "Irreversible", which is one of the ugliest, most sickening
scenes I have ever seen on screen. The victim's attractiveness has
nothing to do with it. JPC
23406
From: Peter Henne
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:58pm
Subject: Re: Day of the middlebrow (was Re: Night of the living middlebrow
"American Beauty" is just one film. Actually, I thought it was ambitious given the context of recent studio production. AB does not break out of the realist prison--what you see/hear is exactly what you get, all questions of reality are sufficiently explained--but at least it suggested groundwork for a much more thorough critique of class, narrative and realism than it actually delivers. I can't speak for you, Brad, but maybe what most annoys the film's detractors is that it didn't go far enough in these respects; it didn't finish what it started. But at least Spacey resents not only his job but the corporate structure which produces it. At least the film put that floating bag on the screen for a few seconds, and asked us to imagine a nonnarrative film lasting 20 minutes. So it gets points from me for insinuating something more poetic and incisive. That's a good deal more than most contemporary films ever try.
Peter Henne
thebradstevens wrote:
The industry from top to bottom is fueled by a
youth market now; I would hazard to guess that the age bracket which
determines what will be popular is 10 to 15 years younger than it was
50 years ago. That's going to affect everything that can be said
about middlebrow tastes.>
Yes, but those contemporary American films which are clearly intended
for an older audience, such as AMERICAN BEAUTY, are among the very
worst that modern cinema has to offer.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
23407
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:09pm
Subject: Re: Is This for Real? David Thomson's New Book
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> > nodding, New Yorker-reading audience.
>
> I'm part of the New Yorker-reading audience. Just because their
movie
> critics are bozos doesn't mean the entire magazine is written by,
nor
> presumably written for, schmucks.
>
> craig.
I'm part of that audience too, and although I do occasionally
nod (I should be having my nap now instead or reading a_film_by's
millions of messages)I resent being talked down to thusly. And I'm
not even sure their movie critics are such bozos. Lane is not bad,
and even Denby sometimes has something interesting to say. And while
I'm at it, why is there so much hatred in this group for poor David
Thompson? Can't we be a bit more tolerant? JPC
23408
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:14pm
Subject: Re: pieceashit FUNNY GAMES
> > And we see both the cruelty of the captors and the suffering of
the film's
> > protagonists.
> >
> > What is it exactly that makes you hate this film so much?
> >
> Well, part of the answer lies in your sentence above. How are
cruelty and
> suffering not violence? That's one of the lines you hear over and
over about
> FUNNY GAMES and it feeds into an appreciation of the film as
something remotely
> insightful.
It's the suffering Haneke wants us to focus on, not the visceral
thrill of specific acts of physical violence. Where Tarantino tends
to desensitize, Haneke's film resensitizes. Here's an interesting
article from Kinoeye on the film:
http://www.kinoeye.org/04/01/laine01.php
I saw "Funny Games" shortly after the flood of news stories about
torture at Guantanamo Bay. The film hit home for me precisely
because the parallels to the news were so unnervingly similar.
Apologists for US detention and interrogation policy have argued
that while they abhor physical abuse, they don't have a problem with
humiliation and other forms of coercion. Haneke's film shows us no
physical violence, but does show us the consequences and the horror
of this situation.
>
> Gawd, was it REALLY inspired by the violence in Tarantino's films?
If that's
> the case, then Tarantino is on a much higher moral plane than
Haneke.
Huh? Higher moral plane? I'm sorry, I just don't see your point.
But even
> if it's not the case, the entire thing stinks of this experiment
that has to
> be performed. But for whom, though? Middlebrow audiences perhaps?
Apparently it has a quite a bit to teach us. America just re-elected
it's own torturer-in-chief. Tony Blair fares little better.
I think it would be impossible for someone to watch "Funny Games"
and not feel empathy for the victims. The same cannot be said of
most violent action films or of Tarantino's clever genre riffs. As
an exercise in empathy, I think it has value.
> And Matt, you agree that Haneke dangles the possibility of release
in front
> of us and then withdraws it. But that's bad enough right there.
I don't understand your point. The film mimics the conventions of
the slasher franchise, which always sets us up for a sequel by
letting the killer go free. The situation is hopeless. The suffering
is inconsolable. There is no escape.
I think he's
> laughing as well but who cares really at this point? You spend all
that time and
> money and involve so many people in your production just so you
can dangle
> and withdraw release??? In the end, FUNNY GAMES, like MYSTIC RIVER
but much,
> much worse, suffers from an extreme poverty of imagination. Not as
repulsive as
> MAN BITES DOG. But in the same smarty pants, uninsightful realm.
Well, the killers in the film are laughing, but there's no evidence
that Haneke is. As for the "poverty of imagination," I can only say
that Haneke's film made me feel the fear and hopelessness that
people in similar situations must go through. And I consider this an
act of imagination with sensitizing consequences in the current
political climate.
23409
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Is This for Real? David Thomson's New Book
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
And while
> I'm at it, why is there so much hatred in this group
> for poor David
> Thompson? Can't we be a bit more tolerant? JPC
>
>
>
>
Oh don't all go "Rodney" on us, J-P.
David Thomson has said so many stupid, arrogant things
about the cinema over the eyars I don't know where to
begin. His latest appears to be a distillation of
earlier verbal sludge.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
23410
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:41pm
Subject: Re: Day of the middlebrow (was Re: Night of the living middlebrow
Alongside Shyamalan and Ang Lee: Steven Soderbergh, Peter & Bobby Farrelly,
Brian De Palma
From: "hotlove666"
> But shit like Harry Potter still gets the audience Hawks and Hitchcock
once
> had - bigger. It's rare that an auteur imprints a bit of himself on one
of these
> lemons - Ang Lee in Hulk, say. And the case of M. Night Shyamalan is
> heartening, but I'm not sure he will be able to hold onto more than "the
> Shyamalan audience" if critics keep missing the point.
23411
From: BklynMagus
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:38pm
Subject: Re: Dawn of the middlebrow (was Re: Night of the living middlebrow)
ht666 wrote:
> He distinguishes directors (hacks),
metteurs-en-scene, auteurs and cineastes.
Thank you. More utile than my strong/weak
auteur division.
Brian
23412
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: Back to identification (Was: favorite videoclips)
> I haven't read Hoberman's review, but I wonder how anybody
> (aside from sadists, of which there are admittedly plenty) can find
> any "attractive" aspects in a rape scene, especially the one
> in "Irreversible", which is one of the ugliest, most sickening
> scenes I have ever seen on screen. The victim's attractiveness has
> nothing to do with it. JPC
Well, there are the sadists, and the masochists, and then everyone with a
component of one or both of those two active in their personality. That
covers most of humanity, I'd say. Not all those people will be attracted
to the rape - some, like you, will be configured in such a way that they
feel pure repulsion - but they're all candidates. - Dan
23413
From: Jason Guthartz
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 8:50pm
Subject: Re: aut(eur)ism, or speaking of identification...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman wrote:
> But of course this presumption isn't unique to the experimenters;
it's a
> presumption held by mainstream commercial narrative filmmaking. So you
> might say that the experiment was true to the film, unless you
wanted to
> push a "subversive" reading of _Who's Afraid_.
I haven't seen "Who's Afraid," but I think it's a mistake to say that
any mode of viewing is "true" to a film. The fact that some
filmmakers are less concerned than others about every detail of the
image does not mean that we as viewers are required to narrow our way
of viewing, to focus on just those portions of the image which we
infer as most relevant to the filmmaker. If a filmmaker wants to
isolate certain details, s/he may create an image that makes it
impossible to see anything else, e.g., via close-ups or masking (of
course, the viewer can always look away from the screen, but we're
talking about what is contained within the borders of the image).
Those of us interested in the visual aesthetics of cinema --
mainstream commercial narrative included -- should try to absorb the
entire image, not just play follow-the-faces (which remains a
valid-but-not-exclusive option). For auteurist afb'ers, this
shouldn't be a controversial proposition or imply any type of
"subversive" mode of viewing. However, in the broader cultural
context, merely treating cinema as a visual artform is certainly
subversive! (In all cases, I don't think the term "reading" should
ever be used when discussing cinema.)
All this does seem to relate to Fred's mantra regarding the ways in
which appreciation of varieties of "avant-garde" cinema (and home
movies, industrial films, etc.) can expand/enhance ways of viewing
commercial mainstream narrative films, in order to better apprehend
their aesthetic merits (or lack thereof).
-Jason Guthartz
23414
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:32pm
Subject: Re: Back to identification (rape)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >> I think Hoberman was trying to play up Bellucci's beauty as a way
> of
> > holding the film responsible for the attractive aspects of the
> rape. - Dan
> >
>
>
> I haven't read Hoberman's review, but I wonder how anybody
> (aside from sadists, of which there are admittedly plenty) can find
> any "attractive" aspects in a rape scene, especially the one
> in "Irreversible", which is one of the ugliest, most sickening
> scenes I have ever seen on screen. The victim's attractiveness has
> nothing to do with it. JPC
Rape is such a strong image, that if one uses it in a film, it will
automatically become significant, dictate motif and significe. Hence,
to depict rape in film not only becomes a moral question, but also a
manipulative tool.
Consider its use (off-screen) in Lupino's "Outrage". The audience is
fully aware of the situation, we know that she is being raped and the
rape is only suggested, then having the camera move off-screen and
fade to black. Here, I would say, morality is intact, as the rape
itself isn't depicted.
Then consider the 30-minute rape sequence is Meir's "I Spit on your
Grave". As exploitive as can be, Meir defended the lenght of the rape
with, that by prolonging the horror we as audience suffered with the
protagonist and as such understood / accepted her later revenge. While
this sequence perhaps is one of the most exploitive sequences in
history, I will still claim that it has moral. A similar strategy was
used by Ferrera in "Ms 45", where the protagonist is raped twice, but
contra to Meir, Ferrera's strategy failed, as the briefness of the
rape didn't balance her later actions.
A prior rape sequence which also used duration as strategy is in
Peckinpah's "Straw Dogs". While the first rape technically is rape, it
really isn't as Amy wanted it and enjoyed it. What makes it rape is
rape 2. I consider this the best rape sequence to date, because it's
moral is very intact, because Peckinpah uses it to initiate the
complete breakdown of their relationship, to set up the second half of
the film and as such a faux motif for Summer's actions.
A brief discours to Breillat's "A ma soeur", where she actually uses
rape as a libration. In the film there are two rape sequences. The
first is when Fernando talks Elena into sleeping with him, sort of
friendly rape. The second is the final rape of Anais, which is her
dream come true, her vision of losing her virginity. Here Breillat
uses rape as a complex metaphore.
Now take the rape in "The Accused", actually a rather long rape scene,
which lacks any moral, and finally, when fully depicted, comes off as
overlong and disconnected. We already know she has been raped, we
already know the humiliation she has gone thru, so the final depiction
of the rape, in my opinion, more is shock value used to promote the
film, rather than supporting its narrative.
And the same can be said about the rape in "Irreversible". Because of
Noe's choice to tell the film backward, we are unaware of her
pregnancy when she is raped. The only reason for the rape seems to be,
to create a counterweight to the actions of the protagonists, which
only seems to works, because of the narrative structure, as we ask us
why he could do such a horrible thing. If told traditionally liniar,
his actions would not be accepted, because they are irrational. For
me, the rape is pure exploitation, without any moral concerns. Noe
creates such offensive imagery, that everyone wants to see it, because
he knows that every critic will write about it and focus on it, and
any publicity, even bad, is good in terms of promoting a film.
The only function of Bellucci is her star appeal. Where posters once
said, "Garbo Smiles", the posters of "Irreversible" might aswell say
"Bellucci raped for 10 minutes". And just as Foster was raped for
several minutes at the end of "The Accused", Bellucci is raped for ten
minutes, because that way one can write about the selfsacrifice of the
actress for the film.
But the rape in "Irreversible" also differs from the above mentioned
rape sequences by being sadism. It is not the rape which is
significant, it is the violence by which it is carried out. The
violence is completely unprovoked, the rapist even "gives up" another
woman for the sole purpose of raping Bellucci, and Noe uses the walls
of the pathway to focus his mise-en-scene on the rape.
Henrik
23415
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:58pm
Subject: Moscow Film Museum eviction
It seems to happen at least once a year that someone threatens to destroy an important
part of film culture for reasons that seem easily preventable.
http://www.fipresci.org/news/archive/archive_2005/moscow_filmmuseum.htm
23416
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 9:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Haneke vs. Tarantino (Was: Back to identification)
>> Who else would have had
> the Ving
>> Rhames character raped in PULP FICTION, and then drawn it into a
> plot
>> point? This is a rather direct acknowledgment of the anxiety
> underlying
>> the male sexual posture.
>
> Who else? Perhaps Boorman whose "Deliverance" Tarantino
> is "referencing."
It doesn't feel the same, though. First of all, Ving Rhames is playing
the coolest guy in the world, and Ned Beatty isn't that at all. Second of
all, the gravity of DELIVERANCE had the effect, for me, of focusing the
film elsewhere: the rape is so obviously a rending of the universe that it
feels more like a generic calamity. Whereas Tarantino absorbs it into
everyday life (which, in a Tarantino film, is our life, the life of the
presumed audience>, uses it to inflect our surrogate's relationship to
movie-coolness.
I like DELIVERANCE a lot, maybe more than PULP FICTION. But I think
Tarantino is slyer about how to slip one into the audience's lap.
> To be honest (PC helmet alert), I found it telling that Rhames was the
> target of the rape, rather than our white, movie-star hero Bruce Willis.
> After the tables are turned, Rhames announces that he plans to work over
> his rapists with "some pliers and a blowtorch" (again played for cool
> laughs). Tarantino has his cake (threatening black man
> sexually-humiliated) and eats it too (scary black man taking his revenge
> on redneck rapists.) How could you applaud Tarantino confronting the
> anxiety "underlying the male sexual posture" while ignoring the unspoken
> racial dynamics, especially in a film which gets comic mileage out of
> white people uttering the word "nigger" so freely?
Well, this is interesting. Frankly, I never thought about it, just
because Ving Rhames is playing the coolest guy in the world. That racial
gap exists, but Tarantino seems to yearn to cross it.
> And, as
>> Felipe said, his sadism is offered to the audience as a pleasure,
> whereas
>> Haneke's is directed at us.
>
> This is a fuzzy distinction to make.
Yeah, I take your point.
> Haneke wants us to think
> about that sadism
This is the question that stalks this discussion. Some of us think that
Haneke indulges his sadism, others think that he contextualizes it for
some other, useful purpose. - Dan
23417
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:18pm
Subject: Re: Re: Haneke vs. Tarantino (Was: Back to identification)
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Well, this is interesting. Frankly, I never thought
> about it, just
> because Ving Rhames is playing the coolest guy in
> the world. That racial
> gap exists, but Tarantino seems to yearn to cross
> it.
>
White people in this culture ALWAYS yearn to cross it
-- and fancy they do by "slumming."
QT is yet another rendition of Mailer's "White Negro"
-- a tiresome appendage to centuries of racism.
Make no mistake -- there's a place for white people in
this culture.
And here's someone who found it:
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g012/luciantruscott.shtml
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
23418
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:40pm
Subject: Hou + Godard
Dear friends -
Does anyone have, or know how to get, a DVD or VHS of Hou's CAFE LUMIERE? It
is a film I am dying to see!!
Also, has anyone heard when NOTRE MUSIQUE might get a DVD release in France
or anywhere else?
Adrian
23419
From:
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: pieceashit FUNNY GAMES
SPOILERS below but who gives a shit in a film this appalling
In a message dated 2/24/05 2:23:23 PM, mattcornell@s... writes:
> It's the suffering Haneke wants us to focus on, not the visceral thrill of
> specific acts of physical violence. Where Tarantino tends to desensitize,
> Haneke's film resensitizes.
>
and then
<
consequences and the horror
of this situation.>>
I think I know what's going on here. I think you and Tarja Laine are making
some unfounded assumptions about audiences.
But first, let's tackle this "no physical violence" issue. Again, physical
violence IS shown in the film. Just look at the pictures Laine includes in her
essay. A sheet is placed over a young boy's head. The young boy is folding his
arms in, hello!, the international symbol of distress. How is this not
violence? Matt, if I placed a bag over your head, would that be merely an effect of
physical violence rather than the thing itself? Look at the other picture. One
of the killers is restraining the visibly frightened young boy. Matt, if I
restrained you in a similar manner, would that be merely an effect of physical
violence rather than the thing itself? Look at the poster as well - an image of
physical violence. So it's a towering inferno of horseshit when Laine writes
that "(FUNNY GAMES) is meant to question the use of violence, rather than to
actually use violence, as a major narrative event." FUNNY GAMES DOES actually
use violence and it's plenty physical. Laine herself winds up calling it "an
extremely violent film" towards the end of her essay. So please please please, no
more of this "no physical violence in FUNNY GAMES" line. It's simply
flat-out, incontestably incorrect.
Therefore, one has to wonder how effectively Haneke can question the use of
violence in such a horrifyingly violent film. Because, contrary to what you may
think, Matt, it is ENTIRELY possible for someone to watch FUNNY GAMES and NOT
empathize with the victims. Instead, the film can create empathy for the
killers by mobilizing desires for a violence sicker than anything Tarantino has
ever conjured up. Or fine, don't call it violence. Let's just be specific about
so we don't get hung up on definitions. It is ENTIRELY possible for FUNNY
GAMES to mobilize the desire for detaining a group of people, for watching them
weep, for placing bags over their heads, for instilling terror in them, for
making their faces lose "all traces of human dignity."
No, fuck that! Please explain to me how the end of the film does NOT show an
act of physical violence and how it would thus NOT offer SOMEONE a visceral
thrill? A woman is tied up with a bag over her head and then pushed into a lake
to drown. We have JUST witnessed an act of physical violence, a murder! We are
forced to imagine the violent action? We're not seeing it?!?!?
Now on to audiences. Keep in mind, Matt, that only PART of America just
re-elected a torturer-in-chief. I didn't. In fact, more than half of the Americans
who voted didn't vote for Bush. Krohn knows what I'm talking about. Similarly,
you cannot assume that NO ONE empathizes with victims in Tarantino's films
just like Laine cannot assert with any reasonable authority that ALL viewers
feel little or not empathy for the victims in A CLOCKWORK ORANGE or NATURAL BORN
KILLERS.
And ultimately, this is my problem with Haneke's film, its assumption that we
(all?) need to be resensitized. All of his smarmy distanciation techniques
beg the question: how certain are we that Haneke is properly sensitized? Who
gets to deconstruct the deconstructor? But ok, let's say we ALL do, in fact, need
Haneke's program of resensitization. Can a film full of so much repulsive
physical violence do the trick? I don't know. Maybe. This one just isn't it. I'll
take HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR and SHOAH please.
And at the end of the day, Matt, did you REALLY need The Haneke Program to
make you "feel the fear and hopelessness that people in similar situations must
go through?"
Kevin John
P. S. Please take my vehemence with a grain of salt. I'd still have you or
anyone else over for dinner knowing they liked FUNNY GAMES.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
23420
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:50pm
Subject: Re: Hou + Godard
The Hou film comes out on DVD in Japan (with English subtitles)
on March 28th. No idea about the Godard, however.
Jonathan Takagi
23421
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:52pm
Subject: Re: Hou + Godard
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
> Dear friends -
>
> Does anyone have, or know how to get, a DVD or VHS of Hou's CAFE
LUMIERE? It
> is a film I am dying to see!!
>
> I'm also dying to see a subtitled version of Hou's A CITY OF
SADNESS which Tartan Video told me they will not release in the USA -
unlike the UK where the old VHS copy now retails for over $100 on e-
Bay.
I missed the film when it ran in Chicago since my Film Center
program arrived after the screening. If any member has a copy, I'd
gladly reimburse for copy and posting. Although A SNAKE IN JUNE,
MILLENIUM MABO and YAKUZA DEMON are now available on DVD in "Black
Rock", this is not true of Hou's film, the subject of a very
interesting article on historical trauma in a 1990's article in
TAMKING REVIEW.
Tony Williams
23422
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:09pm
Subject: Re: Back to identification (rape)
.
>
> The only function of Bellucci is her star appeal. Where posters once
> said, "Garbo Smiles", the posters of "Irreversible" might aswell say
> "Bellucci raped for 10 minutes".
I agree.
>
> But the rape in "Irreversible" also differs from the above mentioned
> rape sequences by being sadism.
Well, I'd say pleasure.The most bizarre touch is when the rapist has finished.
He slumps against the wall, takes another hit of amyl and sighs, "C'est le
pied!"
23423
From: Peter Henne
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 10:32pm
Subject: Mizo retrospective
a_film_by members,
Here is a press release for a Kenji Mizoguchi retrospective in Los Angeles:
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
Date: February 24, 2005
Contact: Margot Gerber
Tel.: 323.461.2020 x 115
THE AMERICAN CINEMATHEQUE PRESENTS
THE CINEMA OF JAPANESE FILMMAKER KENJI MIZOGUCHI
AT THE AERO AND EGYPTIAN THEATRES
March 4 - 12, 2005
HOLLYWOOD - The American Cinematheque presents ELEGIES OF MOONLIGHT AND RAIN - THE CINEMA OF KENJI MIZOGUCHI, (March 4 - 12, 2005) at the Aero and Egyptian Theatres. "He is the Japanese director I admire and respect the most...He never compromised. He never said, "This'll be enough."...he continually pushed every element until it reached his own vision." - Akira Kurosawa.
Born impoverished in 1898 Tokyo and exposed first-hand from an early age to the systematic oppression of women in Japanese society - his sister was sold as a geisha and his father abused his mother and sister - pantheon film director Kenji Mizoguchi had numerous influences molding his worldview. From his early silent films such as A PAPER DOLL'S WHISPER OF SPRING (KAMI NINGYORU NO SASAYAKI, 1926) through his first sound masterworks OSAKA ELEGY (NANIWA EREJI, 1936) and STORY OF THE LAST CHRYSANTHEMUM (ZANGIKU MONOGATARI, 1939) through such final treasures as UGETSU (1953) and SANSHO THE BAILIFF (SANSHO DAYU, 1954), Mizoguchi emerged with a body of work that is as sublimely timeless as it is transcendental, rising above the aggression and exploitation found in the world-at-large. A painstaking attention to period detail as well as lighting, frame composition and long, unbroken takes coupled with his intuitive outlook and empathy for his characters, reveals a simple poetry of
supernatural power. Along with Akira Kurosawa and Yasujiro Ozu, Mizoguchi remains at the pinnacle of not just Japan's motion picture legacy, but of international cinema.
Screenings are at the Lloyd E. Rigler Theatre at the historic 1922 Egyptian (6712 Hollywood Boulevard between Highland and Las Palmas) in Hollywood and at the Max Palevsky Theatre at the Aero Theatre located at 1328 Montana Avenue in Santa Monica. All screening information for the Egyptian will be listed first followed by screenings at the Aero.
Friday, March 4, 2005: Egyptian Theatre
The Friday, March 4th program begins at 7:30 PM with a Double Feature. First up is a screening of UGETSU (UGETSU MONOGATARI) (1953, Janus Films, 94 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. An ambitious potter (Masayuki Mori) and his devoted spouse (Kinuyo Tanaka) as well as a kindred couple (Eitaro Ozawa and Mitsuko Mito) are torn apart by the civil war chaos of 16th century Japan. Both men realize their material dreams, but at a tragic cost to their respective mates. In particular, Mori's shallow success is reflected in his delirious romance with a ghostly noblewoman (Machiko Kyo), an affair that will drive him to the brink of madness. A poignant evocation of missed opportunities and the illusory nature of worldly desires as well as one of the most haunting depictions of the supernatural ever committed to celluloid. Winner of the 1953 Venice Film Festival Silver Lion Award. "If poetry is manifest in each second, each shot filmed by Mizoguchi, it is because...it is the instinctive
reflection of the filmmaker's creative nobility...the director of UGETSU MONOGATARI can describe an adventure which is at the same time a cosmogony." - Jean-Luc Godard.
Next on the same bill is STORY OF THE LAST CHRYSANTHEMUM (ZANGIKU MONOGATARI) (1939, Janus Films, 148 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. Chagrined to learn that his acting success in 1885 Tokyo's theatre world is entirely due to his father's reputation, novice thespian Kikunosuke (Shotaro Hanayanagi) leaves his troupe to blaze his trail in the hinterlands, rising and falling solely by his own merits. Soon he is joined by Otoku (Kakuko Mori), a former family servant fired for her honesty and the budding romance between the two. This is regarded as one of Mizoguchi's finest films.
Saturday, March 5, 2005: Egyptian Theatre
The Saturday, March 5th program begins at 5:00 PM with LIFE OF OHARU (SAIKAKU ICHIDAI ONNA) (1952, Janus Films, 137 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. Based on one of Japan's most revered novels, the 17th century The Woman Who Loved Love by Saikaku Ihara, Kinuyo Tanaka is Oharu, a samurai's daughter expelled from her station as a lady-in-waiting at the Imperial Palace for falling in love with a man below her rank. Driven into exile along with her parents, she soon resorts to being a kept woman, then finally a common prostitute. Mizoguchi expertly walks a tightrope, delivering an unflinching study of a sensitive woman's emotional brutalization without manipulative sentimentality. Another masterwork. Co-starring Ichiro Sugai, Toshiro Mifune.
Following at 8:00 PM is a Double Feature. First up is STREET OF SHAME (AKASEN CHITAI) (1956, Janus Films, 87 min.). Maestro director Kenji Mizoguchi's swansong is a moving portrait of post-WWII working class prostitutes in Dreamland, a Tokyo brothel. Machiko Kyo, Ayako Wakao, Aiko Mimasu and Michiyo Kogure supply only a few of the outstanding performances as Mizoguchi crosscuts through a patchwork quilt of sagas, sympathetically but unsentimentally examing each woman's plight and dreams for a better life.
Next on the same bill is SISTERS OF GION (GION NO SHIMAI) (1936, Janus Films, 95 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. Yoko Umemura and Isuzu Yamada portray two sisters who are both geishas in the Gion district and have vastly different attitudes towards men. Umekichi (Umemura) is idealistic and genuinely in love with her bankrupt suitor, but Omocha (Yamada) is a mercenary creature always unscrupulously manipulating to elevate both their incomes. However, Fate has less-than-kind futures in store for both siblings. Mizoguchi brilliantly manages to chart a universal course not just particular to Japanese women but all people exploited by economic forces outside their control.
Sunday, March 6, 2005: Egyptian Theatre
The Sunday, March 6th program begins at 5:00 PM with a Double Feature. First up is SANSHO THE BAILIFF (SANSHO DAYU) (1954, Janus Films, 120 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. In medieval Japan, a decent noble family is splintered when the father, the compassionate provincial governor is exiled. The mother is sold into prostitution and the son and daughter shipped to the slave labor camp of oppressive Sansho The Bailiff (Eitaro Shindo). Kinuyo Tanaka, Kyoko Kagawa, Akitake Kono, Noriko Tachibana, Yoshiaki Hanayanagi all turn in splendid performances, perfectly embodying the slow grind of degradation and ultimately the transcendence of suffering as time passes. One of Mizoguchi's most enduring classics.
Next on the same bill is OSAKA ELEGY (NANIWA EREJI) (1936, Janus Films, 90 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. Ayako (Isuzu Yamada) becomes her boss' mistress, in an effort to financially assist her wayward father and student brother. But her efforts go largely unappreciated by her family, and set in motion a new spiral of catastrophes. Mizoguchi's first acknowledged masterwork is a simple tale transformed by his intuitive mise-en-scene and the inspired performances in an emotionally devastating powerhouse.
Wednesday, March 9, 2005: Aero Theatre
The Wednesday, March 9th program begins at 7:30 PM with SANSHO THE BAILIFF (SANSHO DAYU) (1954, Janus Films, 120 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. For film description see: March 6th screening at the Egyptian Theatre.
Thursday, March 10, 2005: Aero Theatre
The Thursday, March 10th program begins at 7:30 PM with STORY OF THE LAST CHRYSANTHEMUM (ZANGIKU MONOGATARI) (1939, Janus Films, 148 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. For film description see: March 4th screening at the Egyptian Theatre.
Friday, March 11, 2005: Aero Theatre
The Friday, March 11th program begins at 7:30 PM with a Double Feature. First up is UGETSU (UGETSU MONOGATARI) (1953, Janus Films, 94 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. For film description see: March 4th screening at the Egyptian Theatre.
Next on the same bill is SISTERS OF GION (GION NO SHIMAI) (1936, Janus Films, 95 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. For film description see: March 5th screening at the Egyptian Theatre.
Saturday, March 12, 2005: Aero Theatre
The Saturday, March 12th program begins at 5:00 PM with LIFE OF OHARU (SAIKAKU ICHIDAI ONNA) (1952, Janus Films, 137 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. For film description see: March 5th screening at the Egyptian Theatre.
Following at 8:30 PM is a Double Feature. First up is OSAKA ELEGY (NANIWA EREJI) (1936, Janus Films, 90 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. For film description see: March 6th screening at the Egyptian Theatre.
Next on the same bill is STREET OF SHAME (AKASEN CHITAI) (1956, Janus Films, 87 min.) directed by Kenji Mizoguchi. For film description see: March 5th screening at the Egyptian Theatre.
THE FILMS IN THIS SERIES ARE AVAILABLE ON VIDEOTAPE (NTSC) COMMERCIALLY AT LOCAL VIDEOSTORES. SEE LIST BELOW. THANK YOU.
THE FILMS IN THIS SERIES ARE AVAILABLE ON VIDEOTAPE (NTSC) COMMERCIALLY AT LOCAL This information is not for publication:VIDEOSTORES. SEE LIST BELOW. THAN
Eddie Brandt's Saturday Matinee (5006 Vineland Ave., N. Hollywood- 818.506.4242)
VideoActive (2522 Hyperion, SilverLake - 323.669.8544)
Jerry's Video (1904 Hillhurst, Los Feliz - 323.666.7471)
Rocket Video (726 N. La Brea - 323.965.1100)
Cinefile (11280 Santa Monica Blvd. - Corner of Sawtelle Ave. - 310.312.8836)
Vidiots (302 Pico Blvd, Santa Monica - 310.392.8508)
Cinematheque offices have:
LIFE OF OHARU
SANSHO THE BAILIFF
UGETSU (UGETSU MONOGATARI)
BLACK & WHITE FILM STILLS ARE AVAILABLE UPON REQUEST BY E-MAIL. PLEASE SEND YOUR REQUEST TO publicity@a...
WE DO NOT HAVE GUARANTEED PRESS PASSES TO PUBLIC SCREENINGS. IT IS RECOMMENDED THAT YOU TAKE ADVANTAGE OF THE ADVANCE PRESS SCREENINGS.
A complete calendar/flyer listing of these films is available on our website.
General Admission is $9. Double Features are two films for one admission price.
There is generally a 7 - 10 minute intermission between films.
24-Hour information: 323.466.FILM
REQUESTS FOR PRESS TICKETS TO PUBLIC SCREENINGS AND INTERVIEW REQUESTS:
* TICKET REQUESTS MUST BE IN WRITING AND SHOULD BE FAXED TO 323-461-9737 ATTN: MARGOT GERBER, 24 HOURS PRIOR TO SHOW TIME. THURSDAY AT 6 PM IS THE ABSOLUTE DEADLINE FOR REQUESTS FOR WEEKEND SCREENINGS. PLEASE INCLUDE INFORMATION ABOUT WHEN YOUR COVERAGE WILL APPEAR AND A DESCRIPTION OF YOUR MEDIA OUTLET.
*
JOURNALISTS WISHING TO AUDIO OR VIDEOTAPE DISCUSSIONS MUST ALSO SEND A FAXED REQUEST. IF YOUR REQUEST IS ACCEPTED, YOU WILL PICK UP YOUR TICKETS THE NIGHT OF THE SHOW AT THE BOX OFFICE. Details at: http://www.americancinematheque.com/pressreleases/pressticketpolicies.htm
* INTERVIEW REQUESTS MUST ALSO BE IN WRITING. WE WILL FORWARD YOUR REQUEST TO THE FILMMAKER/ACTOR AND HIS/HER REPRESENTATIVE. WE CAN NOT INFLUENCE THEIR DECISION TO GRANT AN INTERVIEW.
* TICKET PRICES $9 General; $6 Cinematheque Members. $8 Seniors (65+ years) and students with valid ID card. Must be shown at box office at time of purchase.
THE PROGRAM IS SUBJECT TO CHANGE WITHOUT NOTICE.
Our permanent daily attraction film FOREVER HOLLYWOOD screens Saturdays & Sundays at 2 PM & 3:30 PM exclusively at the Egyptian Theatre. For press passes to see it for review purposes, please call Margot Gerber at 323.461.2020, ext. 115.
UPCOMING PROGRAMS:
* Egyptian Theatre Historic Tours on March 12 & 13 and April 9 & 10. Tours at 10:30 AM. Meet in front of Box Office. FOREVER HOLLYWOOD follows at 11:35 AM or see it at 2 PM or 3:30 PM.
* The Forgotten Comedy Genius of Silent Cinema, Harry Langdon - March 6 & 13
* New from Agnes Varda - CINÉVARDAPHOTO - March 8 & 15
* Comedy Shorts - March 9
* Alternative Screen - SAY YES QUICKLY & "Backseat Bingo" - March 10
* In Person Tribute to Peter Medak - March 11 - 20
* Ain't It Cool News Sneak Preview of Korean director Park Chan-Wook's OLD BOY, March 15
American Cinematheque
1800 North Highland Avenue, Suite 717, Hollywood, CA 90028
(tel) 323.466-FILM (fax) 323.461.9737
http://www.americancinematheque.com
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
23424
From:
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 5:35pm
Subject: Popular American Cinema since 1970 (was: Night of the living middlebrow)
Brad Stevens writes: "To me, the great achievements of American cinema since
the late 60s belong more to (I hate this word, but can't think of a better
one) 'highbrow' culture. I'm talking about the work of Hellman, Scorsese,
Ferrara, Cimino, Peckinpah. It would be absurd not to be grateful for this, but at
the same time, it is possible to mourn the loss of a genuine popular cinema.
Perhaps only Clint Eastwood and Zalman King have kept this particular torch
burning for the last 30 years"
Here is a list (taken from my web site) of "Oustanding American Feature
Films" (limit, one per director). I chopped the list off at the point mentioned
(late 1960's). Lots of these films seem like popular fare. Would welcome comments
from others. Am I crazy? - maybe these films are just bad-d-d-d. But I
enjoyed all of them very much over the years.
Mike Grost
The Andersonville Trial (George C. Scott, 1970)
Incident in San Francisco (Don Medford, 1970)
Zabriskie Point (Michelangelo Antonioni, 1970)
WR: Mysteries of the Organism (Dusan Makavejev, 1971)
Two Lane Blacktop (Monte Hellman, 1971)
Support Your Local Gunfighter (Burt Kennedy, 1971)
Avanti! (Billy Wilder, 1972)
Junior Bonner (Sam Peckinpah, 1972)
A Woman Under the Influence (John Cassavetes, 1974)
The Questor Tapes (Richard A. Colla, 1974)
The Nickel Ride (Robert Mulligan, 1975)
Three Women (Robert Altman, 1977)
Providence (Alain Resnais, 1977)
Ishi: The Last of His Tribe (Robert Ellis Miller, 1978)
Melvin and Howard (Jonathan Demme, 1980)
Grease 2 (Patricia Birch, 1982)
The Year of Living Dangerously (Peter Weir, 1982)
Tron (Steve Lisberger, 1982)
Don't Cry, Its Only Thunder (Peter Werner, 1982)
My Favorite Year (Richard Benjamin, 1982)
Tex (Tim Hunter, 1982)
Valley Girl (Martha Coolidge, 1983)
Eddie and the Cruisers (Martin Davidson, 1983)
Zelig (Woody Allen, 1983)
Places in the Heart (Robert Benton, 1984)
Streets of Fire (Walter Hill, 1984)
Romancing the Stone (Robert Zemeckis, 1984)
Mask (Peter Bogdanovich, 1985)
Tuff Turf (Fritz Kiersch, 1985)
Misfits of Science (James D. Parriott, 1985)
Maurice (James Ivory, 1986)
Parting Glances (Bill Sherwood, 1986)
Off Beat (Michael Dinner, 1986)
Good Morning, Babylon (Taviani Brothers, 1987)
Student Exchange (Mollie Miller, 1987)
Back to the Beach (Lyndall Hobbs, 1987)
La Bamba (Luis Valdez, 1987)
Mannequin (Michael Gotlieb, 1987)
Hairspray (John Waters, 1988)
Die Hard (John McTiernan, 1988)
Field of Dreams (Phil Alden Robinson, 1989)
Dances With Wolves (Kevin Costner, 1990)
Ghost (Jerry Zucker, 1990)
Peacemaker (Kevin S. Tenney, 1990)
Don't Tell Her It's Me (Malcolm Mowbray, 1990)
Daughters of the Dust (Julie Dash, 1991)
The Rocketeer (Joe Johnston, 1991)
True Identity (Charles Lane, 1991)
Beauty and the Beast (Gary Trousdale, Kirk Wise, 1991)
Salmonberries (Percy Adlon, 1991)
Zebrahead (Anthony Drazan, 1992)
Thunderheart (Michael Apted, 1992)
Sister Act (Emile Ardolino, 1992)
Baraka (Ron Fricke, 1992)
Swing Kids (Thomas Carter, 1993)
Guarding Tess (Hugh Wilson, 1994)
Hackers (Iain Softley, 1995)
Amistad (Steven Spielberg, 1997)
Kundun (Martin Scorsese, 1997)
Red Corner (Jon Avnet, 1997)
In & Out (Frank Oz, 1997)
Isamu Noguchi: Stones and Paper (Hiro Narita, 1997)
Big Monday (Michael T. Rehfield, 1998)
Big Daddy (Dennis Dugan, 1999)
Ghost Dog: The Way of the Samurai (Jim Jarmusch, 1999)
Hit and Runway (Christopher Livingston, 1999)
Before Night Falls (Julian Schnabel, 2000)
The Color of Friendship (Kevin Hooks, 2000)
The Life and Times of Hank Greenberg (Aviva Kempner, 2000)
Songcatcher (Maggie Greenwald, 2000)
Unbowed (Nanci Rossov, 2000)
Shrek (Andew Adamson, Vicky Jenson, 2001)
Far From Heaven (Todd Haynes, 2002)
Unconditional Love (P. J. Hogan, 2002)
Stuck On You (Bobby and Peter Farrelly, 2003)
Fahrenheit 9/11 (Michael Moore, 2004)
Primer (Shane Carruth, 2004)
23425
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:52pm
Subject: Re: pieceashit FUNNY GAMES
> Laine herself winds up calling it "an
> extremely violent film" towards the end of her essay. So please
please please, no
> more of this "no physical violence in FUNNY GAMES" line. It's
simply
> flat-out, incontestably incorrect.
Rather than argue the semantics of what constitutes physical
violence, why don't we talk about what images Haneke chooses to
leave offscreen? He is deliberate in what he chooses to show and
*not* show. I never said the film wasn't extremely violent. I said
that specific acts of physical violence (the shootings and beatings
in the film) are specifically done offscreen. If you want to argue
that everything in the film, including the hood scene is "violent"
by definition, I have no problem with that, but there is a reason
specific things are left unshown.
> It is ENTIRELY possible for FUNNY
> GAMES to mobilize the desire for detaining a group of people, for
watching them
> weep, for placing bags over their heads, for instilling terror in
them, for
> making their faces lose "all traces of human dignity."
Yes, I suppose this is possible with any film, but less so this than
others. ("Clockwork Orange" and "Natural Born Killers" have numerous
copycat crimes to their credit.)Speaking as one viewer, "Funny
Games" made me feel a profound sense of empathy. Maybe it wouldn't
be true for other viewers. I make no claims to universality.
> Now on to audiences. Keep in mind, Matt, that only PART of America
just
> re-elected a torturer-in-chief. I didn't. In fact, more than half
of the Americans
> who voted didn't vote for Bush. Krohn knows what I'm talking
about.
I'm not convinced that Greg Palast and others are right about the
election being "stolen," but that is a huge OT fish to fry, and I'd
rather not debate it here.
Still the point stands. The movie worked for me because of its very
visceral direct connection to recent political violence.
>
> And at the end of the day, Matt, did you REALLY need The Haneke
Program to
> make you "feel the fear and hopelessness that people in similar
situations must
> go through?"
No, but I don't need "Duck Soup" to make me laugh, nor "Chunking
Express" to make me swoon. Don't need movies at all actually. I
think there's a value to taking certain emotional or
intellectual journeys that movies offer us. I'd watch both "Shoah"
and "Hiroshima Mon Amour" too, but these movies have very different
things to show us. Not a matter of picking one over the other.
>
> Kevin John
>
> P. S. Please take my vehemence with a grain of salt. I'd still
have you or
> anyone else over for dinner knowing they liked FUNNY GAMES.
No problem with your vehemence, but your constant interjections
of "Matt" are superfluous. Promise not to patronize me thus over
dinner?
23426
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 11:48pm
Subject: re: Haneke
Matt, Haneke does have some fans on this list - I have championed CODE
UNKNOWN and THE PIANO TEACHER in an earlier thread of months back. He's an
interesting and important filmmaker, no doubt.
FUNNY GAMES I had ambivalent feelings about. These are some snippets from my
newspaper review of the time (let me say in advance that I am grateful
Haneke has since dropped his tiresome 'TV is to blame' line):
"Funny Games is Haneke's professorial pastiche of a typically ultra-violent,
modern thriller. In outline and sometimes in essence it is little
different from dozens of bare, chilling psycho-slasher films made over the
last twenty years.
Most of the action is devoted to the funny games of torture both
psychological and physical through which the psychopathic pair put their
captive victims. Other interludes and side details such as glimpses of
other families in the outside world, and a passage of time where the thugs
disappear merely serve to prolong and heighten the excruciating levels of
dread and tension.
Would it be wrong to praise Funny Games as a virtuosic exercise in
spine-chilling, sadistic filmmaking? Although it may be the last thing he
wants to hear, Haneke's inspired work with off-centre framing, long-take
duration and concentrated gestures rivals the best efforts of John
McNaughton (Henry, Portrait of a Serial Killer) Wes Craven (Scream, 1996) or
Quentin Tarantino (Reservoir Dogs, 1992). On this level, at least, Haneke
has fashioned the ultimate avant-garde thriller.
Haneke, however, clearly has bigger fish to fry. His movie is intended as a
sober, Olympian essay on the baleful effects of screen violence. His
contempt for his subject not to mention a sizeable portion of his audience
is unambiguously indicated by the fact that he makes his sick-puppy
killers the surrogate Masters of the film itself: they have the magical
power not only to address us in the crowd, but also to manipulate the movie
to their own wicked, shameful ends.
Funny Games strikes me as a richly fascinating but also deeply confused
film. Haneke pretends to care deeply about the real, human suffering of the
poor, victimised characters superbly acted by Lothar and Muhe. And yet, as
always in Haneke's work, the distant, dry approach reduces all emotion to
abstraction, and turns people into ciphers. As usual, the director attempts
to cover the reprehensible coldness of his own style by unsubtly pointing an
accusing finger at the supposed evils of the Television Age.
Again and again, Haneke blocks our understandable tendency to read the
events on screen as a reflection of or commentary upon social ills. Do Peter
and Paul stand for the contemporary malaise of alienated youth? No - they
are simply the given stereotypes obligatory in the type of violent genre
that Haneke clearly despises. His film is only a deconstruction of other
movies, not a window on the world - and so Haneke wilfully amputates some of
the potential richness of his drama.
For all its underlying piety and rectitude, the supposed analysis of screen
violence offered by Funny Games displays the same blinkered suppositions
shared by censors and moralists all over the globe. Haneke is uninterested
in exploring the use of violence in cinema as catharsis, metaphor or formal
strategy an exploration which by now has a long and noble tradition. It
seems that, to him, a murder committed on screen is as evil and
desensitising an act as a murder committed in life which is a completely
specious proposition.
For all its problems and blindspots, however, Funny Games is a gripping
exercise, and one not easily forgotten. If, through the blundering force of
its own conceptual errors, it manages to push the public debate on screen
violence to a more questioning and self-conscious level, then it will have
truly done its job."
Adrian
23427
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 0:19am
Subject: Re: aut(eur)ism
Jason Guthartz wrote:
>I haven't seen "Who's Afraid," but I think it's a mistake to say that
>any mode of viewing is "true" to a film.
>
Why? You don't think that films are made to be viewed in certain ways?
An example: once I went to see _2001_ with a friend (those of you who
know him can probably guess who it was) who, as he was watching, seemed
to be doing nothing but counting the number of shots in each section of
the film. At the end of each "act" he'd lean over and say things like,
"Damn, I thought I counted 93 last time I watched it."
I don't think it would be inaccurate to say that this was a case of
viewing "against the grain" of the work. Not that I don't recommend
doing what he did, or that misreading isn't one of the most valuable
activities in which a critic or film viewer can engage. (misreading of
a certain kind, in any case)
>Those of us interested in the visual aesthetics of cinema --
>mainstream commercial narrative included -- should try to absorb the
>entire image, not just play follow-the-faces (which remains a
>valid-but-not-exclusive option). For auteurist afb'ers, this
>shouldn't be a controversial proposition or imply any type of
>"subversive" mode of viewing. However, in the broader cultural
>context, merely treating cinema as a visual artform is certainly
>subversive!
>
That is precisely what I meant by "subversive."
My only point was the following--mainstream commercial narrative cinema
is made and exhibited according to one fundamental conceit: that
everyone view it in the same way. To watch a film made according to
this conceit is to subject yourself to a tremendous social pressure: it
is expected of you that your response to the film unfold according to a
very specific program. That the subjects of this experiment watched the
film in their own way seems to corroborate the belief that autistics are
resistant to social pressures (though it's possible that this is a
dangerous stereotype to fall into--but that's another issue altogether).
>(In all cases, I don't think the term "reading" should
>ever be used when discussing cinema.)
>
>
An interesting objection. In a way I agree with you, but I'm not sure
we have anything better. I welcome suggestions.
-Matt
23428
From:
Date: Thu Feb 24, 2005 7:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: pieceashit FUNNY GAMES
In a message dated 2/24/05 6:05:46 PM, mattcornell@s... writes:
> but your constant interjections of "Matt" are superfluous. Promise not to
> patronize me thus over
> dinner?
>
This is the first time I've ever heard that calling someone by their name
repeatedly during a conversation (of sorts) was patronizing. It was my simply my
polemical voice. But if you take it as patronizing, I won't utter it again,
over dinner or otherwise.
Kevin John (say it frequently)
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
23429
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 0:16am
Subject: Re: pieceashit FUNNY GAMES
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:
>
> > Laine herself winds up calling it "an
> > extremely violent film" towards the end of her essay. So please
> please please, no
> > more of this "no physical violence in FUNNY GAMES" line. It's
> simply
> > flat-out, incontestably incorrect.
>> >
First act of physical violence, very much on-screen, very
visible and very shocking: one of the hoods shatters the husband's
knee by hitting it hard with a golf club. Nice! The man will suffer
horribly from the wound throughout the film. No physical violence?
JPC
23430
From: Matt Armstrong
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:20am
Subject: Re: pieceashit FUNNY GAMES
> >
> This is the first time I've ever heard that calling someone by
their name
> repeatedly during a conversation (of sorts) was patronizing. It
was my simply my
> polemical voice. But if you take it as patronizing, I won't utter
it again,
> over dinner or otherwise.
I believe I may have taken that particular quirk of your writing the
wrong way, as a kind of a lecturing interjection. My apologies if it
wasn't your intent.
23431
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 0:00am
Subject: Re: Back to identification (rape)
> >
> > The only function of Bellucci is her star appeal. Where posters
once
> > said, "Garbo Smiles", the posters of "Irreversible" might aswell
say
> > "Bellucci raped for 10 minutes".
I was not aware that Bellucci was such a big star. There are
probably at least three dozens actresses in France who are much
better known (and she's not even French). But that's not the point.
Rather, i don't see what the star (or non-star) status of the
actress has to do with anything. To me the rape scene would work
exactly the same way if the actress was a complete unknown (actually
I had never heard of her before I saw the film).
>
> >
> > But the rape in "Irreversible" also differs from the above
mentioned
> > rape sequences by being sadism.
Actually rape, by nature and definition, is always sadistic. The
rape in "Irreversible" is more blatantly sadistic than others, but
the fact that some directors tastefully leave things off frame and
eschew gruesome details changes nothing to the nature of the act.
By the way, the rape scene performs exactly the same function as
the entirety of "Funny Games." We are kept hoping that someone will
come around and scare the rapist off, just as we are kept hoping
that the victims will escape their tormentors in the Haneke. Noe
actually toys sadistically with the spectator when he has someone
coming into the frame at the end of the tunnel. The person stays
motionless for a little while, then just walks away (and apparently
he doesn't call for help).
Of course, and OT, any woman who ventures alone at night into such
a sinister place would seem to be looking for trouble...
JPC
23432
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 0:07am
Subject: Re: Mizo retrospective
--- Peter Henne wrote:
>
> Following at 8:00 PM is a Double Feature. First up
> is STREET OF SHAME (AKASEN CHITAI) (1956, Janus
> Films, 87 min.). Maestro director Kenji Mizoguchi's
> swansong is a moving portrait of post-WWII working
> class prostitutes in Dreamland, a Tokyo brothel.
> Machiko Kyo, Ayako Wakao, Aiko Mimasu and Michiyo
> Kogure supply only a few of the outstanding
> performances as Mizoguchi crosscuts through a
> patchwork quilt of sagas, sympathetically but
> unsentimentally examing each woman's plight and
> dreams for a better life.
>
While the whole series is a Must See for those who
only know Mizoguchi as a famous name, "Street of
Shame" is especially interesting. Not only was it his
last film but because of its subject matter it played
U.S."grind houses" for years ("Art" cinemas that
specialized in "exploitation" films like Russ Meyer's
"Eve and the Handyman," Doris Wishman "nudies," "Too
Young Too Immoral," and the immortal "Olga's House of
Shame." )
Consequently it's safe to say that more American
moviegoers saw "Street of Shame" than "Ugetsu
Monogatari."
Machiko Kyo is especially amusing in it as an
America-crazy hooker called "Mickey" -- after Mickey
Mouse.
The last shot is one of the greatest in the history of
the cinema.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
23433
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 1:06am
Subject: Re: aut(eur)ism
> My only point was the following--mainstream commercial narrative
cinema
> is made and exhibited according to one fundamental conceit: that
> everyone view it in the same way.
I guess it depends what level of generality you're talking at.
Popular films routinely operate on the principle of "something for
everyone" -- say THE MATRIX, where you have metaphysical conceits
plus martial arts sequences plus Carrie-Anne Moss in PVC, among other
drawcards, not all of which will be of interest to every viewer. In
this sense even the most commercial filmmaking takes into account the
reality that responses to stimuli inevitably differ -- no joke is
universally considered funny, for example.
But at a more basic, shot-by-shot level I doubt that any kind of
filmmaking could proceed without the assumption that audiences have
internalised certain protocols that help them decide what to focus
on -- David Bordwell-style cognitivism tells us a bit about this,
despite its failure to deal properly with emotion. Autistics aside,
the sense that the human face is an object of special interest seems
about as universal a viewing "convention" as we're likely to get.
JTW
23434
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 2:29am
Subject: Re: Mizo retrospective
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
"While the whole series is a Must See for those who only know
Mizoguchi as a famous name, "Street of Shame" is especially
interesting. Not only was it his last film but because of its subject
matter it played U.S.'grind houses' for years ('Art' cinemas that
specialized in 'exploitation' films like Russ Meyer's 'Eve and the
Handyman,' Doris Wishman 'nudies,' 'Too Young Too Immoral,' and the
immortal 'Olga's House of Shame.')"
Thank you for reminding me of that David. The distributor was Edward
Harrison who also released some of the girl divers of Awaji movies
(about young women who dived for pearls usually topless but the
movies also showed them nude.) He also released a grind house version
of UTAMARO; I saw a still with a scene from one of the girl divers
capationed as UTAMARO AND HIS WOMEN (of course there's nothing like
it in the film.)
"Consequently it's safe to say that more American moviegoers
saw 'Street of Shame' than 'Ugetsu Monogatari.'"
This reminds of a conversation I listened to between Susan Sontag and
Annie Liebowitz at the Japn Society in the 1980s. Sontag and
Liebowitz were with some friends seated directly in front of me and
talking about the first Japanese movie they'd seen. Everyone but
Liebowitz said it was RASHOMON. Liebowitz said for her it was
GODZILLA.
"Machiko Kyo is especially amusing in it as an America-crazy hooker
called "Mickey" -- after Mickey Mouse."
Mizo had her go to the Yoshiwara and apply for a job at a brothel to
see if her charcter would pass muster. It did.
The last shot is one of the greatest in the history of the cinema."
I couldn't agree more. Two months after the movie was released the
Diet passed the Anti-Prostitution Bill. It had been introduced by
the lower house every year for the previous three years, and
historians credit the movie with turning the tide in favor of the
bill.
Richard
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
23435
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 2:56am
Subject: Re: Mizo retrospective
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
>
> Thank you for reminding me of that David. The distributor was Edward
> Harrison who also released some of the girl divers of Awaji movies
> (about young women who dived for pearls usually topless but the
> movies also showed them nude.) He also released a grind house version
> of UTAMARO; I saw a still with a scene from one of the girl divers
> capationed as UTAMARO AND HIS WOMEN (of course there's nothing like
> it in the film.)
But Harrison also distributed UGETSU (and the print circulated by
Janus still has his titles at the beginning) and most of Satyajit
Ray's early work.
23436
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:16am
Subject: Re: Mizo retrospective
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>> {quoting David Ehrenstein} The last shot is one of the greatest
>> in the history of the cinema."
>
> I couldn't agree more. Two months after the movie was released the
> Diet passed the Anti-Prostitution Bill. It had been introduced by
> the lower house every year for the previous three years, and
> historians credit the movie with turning the tide in favor of the
> bill.
This is the film that nudged me from a Mizoguchi admirer to a higher
level. I respected Ugetsu and Sansho -- but this is the first
Mizoguchi film I fell in love with.
The last shot was devastating -- one of the most upsetting in all of
cinema.
23437
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:20am
Subject: "save humanity" ensemble worn by Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix -- do a freeze-frame "Matrix" jump kick in stiletto boots!
Interesting article about 'costume design' in real life, with film
references:
This is the url for the complete article
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A51640-2005Feb24.html?
nav=rss_politics
with photo on drudgereport
I wonder if we will see a change in the 'female action heroes."
Elizabeth
Condoleezza Rice's Commanding Clothes
By Robin Givhan Washington Post Staff Writer
Secretary of State Condoleezza Rice arrived at the Wiesbaden Army
Airfield on Wednesday dressed all in black. She was wearing a black
skirt that hit just above the knee, and it was topped with a black coat
that fell to mid-calf. The coat, with its seven gold buttons running
down the front and its band collar, called to mind a Marine's dress
uniform or the "save humanity" ensemble worn by Keanu Reeves in "The
Matrix."
As Rice walked out to greet the troops, the coat blew open in a rather
swashbuckling way to reveal the top of a pair of knee-high boots. The
boots had a high, slender heel that is not particularly practical. But
it is a popular silhouette because it tends to elongate and flatter the
leg. In short, the boots are sexy.
Rice boldly eschewed the typical fare chosen by powerful American
women on the world stage. She was not wearing a bland suit with a
loose-fitting skirt and short boxy jacket with a pair of sensible
pumps. She did not cloak her power in photogenic hues, a feminine
brooch and a non-threatening aesthetic. Rice looked as though she was
prepared to talk tough, knock heads and do a freeze-frame "Matrix" jump
kick if necessary. Who wouldn't give her ensemble a double take -- all
the while hoping not to rub her the wrong way?
Rice's coat and boots speak of sex and power -- such a volatile
combination, and one that in political circles rarely leads to anything
but scandal. When looking at the image of Rice in Wiesbaden, the mind
searches for ways to put it all into context. It turns to fiction, to
caricature. To shadowy daydreams. Dominatrix! It is as though sex and
power can only co-exist in a fantasy. When a woman combines them in the
real world, stubborn stereotypes have her power devolving into a form
that is purely sexual.
Rice challenges expectations and assumptions. There is undeniable
authority in her long black jacket with its severe details and menacing
silhouette. The darkness lends an air of mystery and foreboding. Black
is the color of intellectualism, of abstinence, of penitence. If there
is any symbolism to be gleaned from Rice's stark garments, it is that
she is tough and focused enough for whatever task is at hand.
Countless essays and books have been written about the erotic nature
of high heels. There is no need to reiterate in detail the reasons why
so many women swear by uncomfortable three-inch heels and why so many
men are happy that they do. Heels change the way a woman walks, forcing
her hips to sway. They alter her posture in myriad enticing ways, all
of which are politically incorrect to discuss.
But the sexual frisson in Rice's look also comes from the tension of a
woman dressed in vaguely masculine attire -- that is, the long,
military-inspired jacket. When the designer Yves Saint Laurent first
encouraged women to wear trousers more than 30 years ago, his reasons
were not simply because pants are comfortable or practical. He knew
that the sight of a woman draped in the accouterments of a man is
sexually provocative. A woman was embracing something forbidden.
Rice's appearance at Wiesbaden -- a military base with all of its
attendant images of machismo, strength and power -- was striking
because she walked out draped in a banner of authority, power and
toughness. She was not hiding behind matronliness, androgyny or the
stereotype of the steel magnolia. Rice brought her full self to the
world stage -- and that included her sexuality. It was not overt or
inappropriate. If it was distracting, it is only because it is so rare.
23438
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:21am
Subject: Re: Mizo retrospective
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal"
wrote:
"But Harrison also distributed UGETSU (and the print circulated by
Janus still has his titles at the beginning) and most of Satyajit
Ray's early work."
True, but like many distributors of foreign films in that era
Harrison also handled a certain amount of foreign exploitation too.
I've seen the original US release one sheet for STREET OF SHAME (and
Mizoguchi's title was AKASEN CHITAI which could be given the less
lurid translation of RED LIGHT DISTRICT)and it's exactly as David
described it's relaese, grind-house exploitation.
I don't hold it against Harrison, since the exploitation releases
probably cushioned whatever losses he may have taken on the Rays and
UGETSU and other worthy foreign pictures he distributed in the US.
Richard
23439
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:05am
Subject: Re: Is This for Real? David Thomson's New Book
Dan wrote:
> I'm always a little surprised at how hated Thomson is around these parts [...]
I'm fond of some of his essays but in others you just feel like he's missing the boat (he
rarely admits gracefully to not connecting to a certain work; he would rather disparage it, I
think).
> he's bizarre and contentious, but his work has meant a lot for me. My
> impression from the last edition of the dictionary is that he's still
> seeing movies by the boatload and recommending little-known filmmakers.
But his regular columns suggest otherwise. I think Brad, who probably sees Thomson's
byline regularly in the paper, was referring more to this. Or not...Brad can tell us.
Gabe
23440
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:19am
Subject: Thomson and Thomson
> But his regular columns suggest otherwise. I think Brad, who probably sees Thomson's
> byline regularly in the paper, was referring more to this. Or not...Brad can tell us.
It occurred to me after posting this that the David Thomson from the Independent in
London that I was referring to above might not be the same David Thomson from A
Biographical Dictionary of Film. Though I had always thought for some reason that it was,
especially since the latter Thomson was born in London, a quick online search shows that
they're actually two. D'oh!
23441
From: Noel Vera
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:23am
Subject: Re: Scorsese: Goombah or Genius? (from way, way, WAY upthread)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I was completely fascinated by Keitel's performance as Judas
Iscariot.
> Admittedly, it was outrageous to play the character so 20th
century, but
> it seems to me that the payoff was enormous: a whole new way of
relating
> to that character, with the help of a network of modern social
> associations that don't need to be explained to us.
YOu should try reading the character as conceived in Kazantzakis'
book--an unwieldy amalgam of symbolism, magic realism, and Freudian
imagery (Judas, as a figure in Christ's subconscious!). Paul
Schrader had a real job clearing away a lot of the deadwood, and
flaws notwithstanding, I think he did a good job.
Some things I wrote about Last Temptation's archeological accuracy:
http://journals.aol.com/noelbotevera/MyJournal/entries/218
and
http://journals.aol.com/noelbotevera/MyJournal/entries/219
23442
From: Noel Vera
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:32am
Subject: Re: Back to identification (rape)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
> Now take the rape in "The Accused"
> We already know she has been raped, we
> already know the humiliation she has gone thru, so the final
depiction
> of the rape, in my opinion, more is shock value used to promote the
> film, rather than supporting its narrative.
Agreed with these observations.
> And the same can be said about the rape in "Irreversible".
It occured to me that Noe structured the film the way he did because
he had such a thin storyline.
> the rape is pure exploitation, without any moral concerns.
> Noe uses the walls
> of the pathway to focus his mise-en-scene on the rape.
Have not seen Funny Games, tho I mean to (I did like Code Inconnu).
Noe's Irreversible I wouldn't accues so much of being amoral as of
being absurd--would a woman dressed as she is be so cavalier about
entering that tunnel? Would a man be able to spend all that time
doing what he did in a public space (what kept going through my mind
at the time was that you'd need privacy for that).
I'd agree about "Straw Dogs"--it's the strongest rape sequence I've
seen to date because it's so erotic; you're implicated even as you
watch it.
23443
From: Noel Vera
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:41am
Subject: Le fantôme de l'opry and things Bill Krohn might enjoy
Just like to say I just caught up with something like over two
hundred posts in the past few days, which is both a good and bad
thing, I think. I hope Fred's database project where we can search
posts with ease pushes through.
On Ordinary People vs. Raging Bull, I suppose it's conventional
wisdome to say the latter is better than the former, but dammit,
Ordinary People is in such good taste. When I try to sit through it
again, I get the fantods.
And thought about not posting this, but then thought again--why not?
Bill Krohn might enjoy it. And hopefully, jp will pardon my "French":
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/484
23444
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:43am
Subject: re: Thomson (and Durgnat)
I went off David Thomson big-time in recent years, but a slightly
compassionate thought about the guy's strange path from UK to USA: isn't he,
- like many filmmakers in fact - someone who has got a little trapped by
'commissions', books he may not wanted to do or thought to do, but where
publishers and hefty advances presented themselves and he couldn't say no?
Actually, probably many film books start this way, from a publisher's rather
than an author's idea - then it's up to the writer o try (struggle, at
times) to make that project meaningful to him/her. In Thomson's case, I read
some of the windy biographies, and the 'history of/tribute to Hollywood'
stuff, this way - even the BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY which certainly began as
a personal project in its first and best incarnation, seems to have become a
millstone crushing him, something he has to keep reluctantly dragging into
the present day when he is patently unequipped (viewing wise, reading wise,
thinking wise) to do so ... Hey, he should do a Maltin and get a team of
writers under him to pep up the darn thing! But that's part of the DT
problem: his reputation is now as a belles lettres 'voice', not a film
historian and hardly even a film critic, and he has to keep honking away
with that increasingly strained voice, no matter what ...
Speaking of voices, I am interested to hear what the Ray Durgnat fans in the
group thought of Richard Combs' 'posthumous' collaboration with Ray on the
Godard piece in FILM COMMENT recently. Could anyone read/hear much of Ray in
that, either his writing style or even his ideas? Of course Richard and Ray
were friends and had written other things together, and they certainly had
discussed this JLG piece before Ray became ill and died; this one is a
slightly strange item to me, though. Opinions?
Adrian
23445
From: thebradstevens
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:24am
Subject: Re: Thomson (and Durgnat)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> I went off David Thomson big-time in recent years, but a slightly
> compassionate thought about the guy's strange path from UK to USA:
isn't he,
> - like many filmmakers in fact - someone who has got a little
trapped by
> 'commissions', books he may not wanted to do or thought to do, but
where
> publishers and hefty advances presented themselves and he couldn't
say no?
> Actually, probably many film books start this way, from a
publisher's rather
> than an author's idea - then it's up to the writer o try (struggle,
at
> times) to make that project meaningful to him/her. In Thomson's
case, I read
> some of the windy biographies, and the 'history of/tribute to
Hollywood'
> stuff, this way - even the BIOGRAPHICAL DICTIONARY which certainly
began as
> a personal project in its first and best incarnation, seems to have
become a
> millstone crushing him, something he has to keep reluctantly
dragging into
> the present day when he is patently unequipped (viewing wise,
reading wise,
> thinking wise) to do so ... Hey, he should do a Maltin and get a
team of
> writers under him to pep up the darn thing! But that's part of the
DT
> problem: his reputation is now as a belles lettres 'voice', not a
film
> historian and hardly even a film critic, and he has to keep honking
away
> with that increasingly strained voice, no matter what ...
It's an intersting point, but it seems to me that Thomson's response
to these commissions was not to do what (I hope) most of us would do
in similar circumstances - either refuse the commission, or simply
try to do the best job possible in a responsible fashion. Rather he
started writing books whose actual subject was his sheer lack of
interest. The reason he has become so wildly successful is that,
ironically, there turned out to be a wide and previously untapped
audience for this crap. Individuals who would rather see the new
Harry Potter film than the new Kiarostami obviously find it
reassuring to learn that their choice of viewing doesn't really
matter that much anyway. Of course, according to Thomson we are all
wasting our time sitting in the dark watching films anyway - we
should all be out playing baseball and feeding nuts to the squirrels
(or squirrels to the nuts).
23446
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:32am
Subject: Re: Re: Thomson (and Durgnat)
>> I went off David Thomson big-time in recent years
I actually went off him in 1981, with the second edition of the
dictionary. His writing had already gone into that "strained" mode by
then, and the fascination with star image had started to seem a little
unhealthy and distracting. There are still interesting things to find
in his work, if you have the forbearance to do so. But I kind of stopped
looking at that point.
>> something he has to keep reluctantly
> dragging into
>> the present day when he is patently unequipped (viewing wise,
> reading wise,
>> thinking wise) to do so ...
If you read that new edition, though, you notice that he still seems to be
seeing an amazing number of movies.
> Of course, according to Thomson we are all
> wasting our time sitting in the dark watching films anyway - we
> should all be out playing baseball and feeding nuts to the squirrels
> (or squirrels to the nuts).
Any reference to CLUNY BROWN makes me happy.... I've somehow missed all
these broadsides from Thomson about how we should stop seeing movies, but
I suspect he protests too much, and that little Nicholas will probably be
complaining to a therapist in a few years that his dad was always up
watching DVDs every night and never had time for him.
Oh, add Frank Pierson to the list of Thomson's recent discoveries. Has
anyone else in the world been watching Pierson closely enough to notice
that he got better in the last few years? - Dan
23447
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 2:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Back to identification (rape)
--- Noel Vera wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
>
> wrote:
> > Now take the rape in "The Accused"
>
Yes, let's.
And here's the head rapist!
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g012/stevenantin.shtml
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
23448
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 2:50pm
Subject: Re: "save humanity" ensemble worn by Keanu Reeves in "The Matrix -- do a freeze-frame "Matrix" jump kick in stiletto boots!
--- Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
The coat, with its seven gold
> buttons running
> down the front and its band collar, called to mind a
> Marine's dress
> uniform or the "save humanity" ensemble worn by
> Keanu Reeves in "The
> Matrix."
>
I'm going to be sick.
A two-bit Pol Pot propping herself up with Keanu
Reeves!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
23449
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:29pm
Subject: Re: aut(eur)ism
jaketwilson wrote:
>Popular films routinely operate on the principle of "something for
>everyone" -- say THE MATRIX, where you have metaphysical conceits
>plus martial arts sequences plus Carrie-Anne Moss in PVC, among other
>drawcards, not all of which will be of interest to every viewer.
>
Your points about _The Matrix_ are well taken, but it's a rather unusual
film in this respect; can you really call it an example of the way
things operate routinely?
>In
>this sense even the most commercial filmmaking takes into account the
>reality that responses to stimuli inevitably differ -- no joke is
>universally considered funny, for example.
>
>
I don't agree here; under the ideology of test screenings, a room full
of people laughing together during key moments is an indication of
success, whereas individual isolated laughs occurring evenly throughout
the film are an indication of failure. I think. Those of you with more
experience in the industry can confirm or deny this.
-Matt
23450
From: BklynMagus
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:51pm
Subject: Re: Movies for 12-year Olds
I was reading an article about JLM last night in
an issue of Life Magazine (March 11, 1951).
One of the comments was that Hollywood made
movies aimed at 12-year olds because if they
didn't, the movies would fail at the box office.
Isn't there some French saying about things
changing but . . . ?
But one producer (many of the speakers were
identified by profession rather than name) said that
Hollywood had to change if it wanted to get people
to leave their homes/tvs and go out to the movies.
He said that that Hollywood had to move from the
belief that too many cooks improve the broth to
entrusting the fate of a film to the hands of one
person.
Along with JLM, he named six other directors: 3
I expected: Billy Wilder, Robert Rossen and John
Huston. He also named Leo McCarey and Frank
Capra and I thought: hadn't they been in control
of their films for quite awhile now?
The sixth director was a surpise though: George
Seaton (and he was named first of the six). I do
like "The Counterfeit Traitor" and regard "Airport"
as not only a grand last hurrah for Ross Hunter
(happily married to his husband for over 40 years),
Seaton, Alfred Newman, and Ernst Laszlo, but
a gorgeous, glitzy, trashy soap opera in which
the two leading men stay with their mistresses
and the elderly are shown to be larcenous.
Have I underestimated Seaton?
Finally, I thought it interesting that taking notice of
and endorsing the trend of giving directors control
was coming at the exact moment when Hollywood
was going through a siesmic change: Huston, JLM,
and Preminger were about to strike out on their own.
Wilder would leave Paramount and spend most of the
'50's in a cinematic wilderness until he teamed up
with the Mirsch Brothers and I.A.L. Diamond.
Brian
23451
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:51pm
Subject: The Five Phantoms (Was: Le fantôme de l'opry)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
> Bill Krohn might enjoy it. And hopefully, jp will pardon
my "French":
Hahhahhah! I did.
Not having seen the Shoemaker film, let me add a few comments on
Scott McQueen's 2-disc Ultimate Edition of the Chaney Phantom. The
excellent commentary by Scott and the multiple versions included as
bonuses establish Phantom of the Opera I as one of the most
multitudinous of films - they made it 5 times between 1925 and 1929! -
as well as a moderately incoherent text, where bits and pieces of
each cinematic "draft" turn up, often without attachments or
explanation. The score, transfer and 2-color masked ball sequence are
first-rate - the rooftop scene, all blue with Erik fluttering scarlet
atop the statue behind the lovers, is magnificent. An added bonus for
Stroheim fans: It was Rupert Julian's turn to be fired after the 1925
release of this one, when he was replaced by a Hoot Gibson
specialist. But Scott thinks Chaney directed his own scenes,
including camera placement for the unamsking shot, and I'm inclined
to buy it. I'm currently studying the subsequent history of the tale,
which saw Erik gradually turning into a serial killer (the Argento
version).
23452
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:53pm
Subject: Re: aut(eur)ism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman
wrote:
under the ideology of test screenings, a room full
> of people laughing together during key moments is an indication of
> success, whereas individual isolated laughs occurring evenly
throughout
> the film are an indication of failure. I think. Those of you with
more
> experience in the industry can confirm or deny this.
>
> -Matt
Can't confirm, but that's how I Love Huckabees played when I saw it
at the first promoted screening. To me, of course, that was an
indication of success!
23453
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:57pm
Subject: Re: Movies for 12-year Olds
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
I thought it interesting that taking notice of
> and endorsing the trend of giving directors control
> was coming at the exact moment when Hollywood
> was going through a siesmic change: Huston, JLM,
> and Preminger were about to strike out on their own.
> Wilder would leave Paramount and spend most of the
> '50's in a cinematic wilderness until he teamed up
> with the Mirsch Brothers and I.A.L. Diamond.
Hitchcock, Selznick and the Fall of H'wd (hope I got that title
right) treats the AH-DOS relationship as the start of a paradigm
shift. Much more accurate than the useful but way-tendentious Leff
book, as Leff himself has come to realize.
23454
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 4:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Movies for 12-year Olds
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> Have I underestimated Seaton?
>
You;re forgetting his most important film: "Miracle on
34th Street.
His Doris Day/Clark gable comedy "But Not For Me" is
also diverting.
> Finally, I thought it interesting that taking notice
> of
> and endorsing the trend of giving directors control
> was coming at the exact moment when Hollywood
> was going through a siesmic change: Huston, JLM,
> and Preminger were about to strike out on their own.
> Wilder would leave Paramount and spend most of the
> '50's in a cinematic wilderness until he teamed up
> with the Mirsch Brothers and I.A.L. Diamond.
>
> Brian
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
23455
From:
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: Mizo retrospective
At 04:16 AM 2/25/2005 +0000, Michael E. Kerpan, Jr. wrote:
> This is the film that nudged me from a Mizoguchi admirer to a higher
> level. I respected Ugetsu and Sansho -- but this is the first
> Mizoguchi film I fell in love with.
>
> The last shot was devastating -- one of the most upsetting in all of
> cinema.
I think the film is hands-down Mizoguchi's best - especially aurally. It's the
only sync-sound film of his I know that I'd argue knows what it's doing in the
soundtrack. Definitely quite a treat to see and hear. After the lackluster
impression most of his films made on me, this was the one that made me sit up
and take notice.
-Kian
23456
From: BklynMagus
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 5:48pm
Subject: Re: Mizo retrospective
Kian writes:
> I think the film is hands-down Mizoguchi's best - especially
aurally.
I would have to go with "Ugestu Monogatari" with the ending
where the potter sits at his wheel, the shot a duplication of
an earlier one that also contained his wife. She is dead now,
but present aurally as she says: "You have become the good
man I always knew you would. I am dead now, but that is the
way of the world." Then Mizoguchi gives a wide shot of the
landscape where humans are seen as part of, but not
dominating, the land.
I am always in tears at this point since find this film so moving
and so true. I think the film represents one of the best
embodiments of the Buddhist worldview and its concept of
compassion in all of cinema.
Brian
23458
From: Yoel Meranda
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:41pm
Subject: involuntary dissuspension of belief
I'd like to share something I found on the web. It is an essay by
Richard Latto, a professor of psychology in the University of
Liverpool.
www.liv.ac.uk/Psychology/DeptInfo/StaffProfile/RLatto/Latto1995.pdf
Latto bases his argument on the belief (which I share very strongly)
that aesthetic feeling is created by the way abstract shapes
resonate with the workings of the nervous system processing them.
In chapter 3.4, Latto goes much further by explaining why most
visual works incorporate human body. He introduces a concept he
calls "aesthetic primitives" and says that as a result of evolution
the nervous system "learned" to respond to human body and its shapes
more strongly.
He uses a similar reasoning to explain why there are so many
landscape paintings.
Obviously, the same arguments could be used to explain why human
voice affects us that deeply.
His ideas are much more powerful than concepts such as "voluntary
suspension of disbelief" in analyzing the aesthetic experiences one
can have from narrative films.
If you'd like to read more from Latto, his web site is:
www.liv.ac.uk/Psychology/DeptInfo/StaffProfile/RMLatto.html
Yoel
23459
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 6:57pm
Subject: Re: Thomson (and Durgnat)
>
> Speaking of voices, I am interested to hear what the Ray Durgnat
fans in the
> group thought of Richard Combs' 'posthumous' collaboration with Ray
on the
> Godard piece in FILM COMMENT recently. Could anyone read/hear much
of Ray in
> that, either his writing style or even his ideas? Of course Richard
and Ray
> were friends and had written other things together, and they
certainly had
> discussed this JLG piece before Ray became ill and died; this one
is a
> slightly strange item to me, though. Opinions?
>
> Adrian
I was bothered by the difficulties presented in sorting out which
portions were Ray's and which were Richard's (beyond the cases where
this was obvious, such as the stuff on Notre Musique). But on the
other hand, remembering my own collaboration with Ray (and, later,
David Ehrenstein) on "Obscure Objects of Desire," I recall that Ray
was pretty relaxed on occasion about sharing ideas or, in a few
cases, switching their attribution--something that you and I also
did, Adrian, for tactical reasons, in our dialogue-preface to MOVIE
MUTATIONS.
Jonathan
23460
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:00pm
Subject: Re: Thomson (and Durgnat)
>
> It's an intersting point, but it seems to me that Thomson's
response
> to these commissions was not to do what (I hope) most of us would
do
> in similar circumstances - either refuse the commission, or simply
> try to do the best job possible in a responsible fashion. Rather he
> started writing books whose actual subject was his sheer lack of
> interest. The reason he has become so wildly successful is that,
> ironically, there turned out to be a wide and previously untapped
> audience for this crap. Individuals who would rather see the new
> Harry Potter film than the new Kiarostami obviously find it
> reassuring to learn that their choice of viewing doesn't really
> matter that much anyway. Of course, according to Thomson we are all
> wasting our time sitting in the dark watching films anyway - we
> should all be out playing baseball and feeding nuts to the
squirrels
> (or squirrels to the nuts).
I second Brad's observation. For me, the nadir of Thomson in this
mode was his Arts and Leisure piece about Welles and Citizen Kane in
the NY Times a couple of years ago, perpetuating (yet again!) the lie
that Welles didn't write a word of the script because he knew that
this was precisely what his readers (and Times editors) wanted to
hear.
23461
From: Raymond P.
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:07pm
Subject: 29th Hong Kong Film Fest lineup
Is anyone else going to the Hong Kong Int'l Film Festival this year?
The lineup is now on-line at http://www.hkiff.org.hk
Cheers,
Raymond
23462
From: Peter Henne
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Mizo retrospective
Mizoguchi does seem to "save up" a devastating shot for the end of numerous films, including "Story of the Last Chrysanthemum," "Women of the Night," "The Life of Oharu," and "Ugetsu." I'd say "Night" is heightened--aesthetically and literally--by its concluding aerial shot of women floundering in a grubby war ruin, the camera reeling back from them and upward into the night, suggesting a world beyond bearing witness, but also as though Mizoguchi himself were fainting from seeing their agony. It has the effect of elevating their plight from a political dimension, which has been the film's level up to this point, to a cosmic and tragic one. (I don't think this move diminishes the urgency of the political, however.) In one shot Mizoguchi goes into a different reality. He can do that--the pan and dolly into the meadow in "Ugetsu" is a famous example. While it is not the end of the film, and in fact is not one shot but numerous lap dissolves, it nonetheless has the effect of an unbroken
period of time. The shot in which the camera comes to rest upon the meadow is my favorite in all of cinema. Absolutely perfect.
Peter Henne
BklynMagus wrote:
I would have to go with "Ugestu Monogatari" with the ending
where the potter sits at his wheel, the shot a duplication of
an earlier one that also contained his wife. She is dead now,
but present aurally as she says: "You have become the good
man I always knew you would. I am dead now, but that is the
way of the world." Then Mizoguchi gives a wide shot of the
landscape where humans are seen as part of, but not
dominating, the land.
I am always in tears at this point since find this film so moving
and so true. I think the film represents one of the best
embodiments of the Buddhist worldview and its concept of
compassion in all of cinema.
Brian
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
23463
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 7:56pm
Subject: Re: Mizo retrospective
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, kian@u... wrote:
"I think the film[AKASEN CHITAI/STREET OF SHAME]is hands-down
Mizoguchi's best - especially aurally. It's the only sync-sound
film of his I know that I'd argue knows what it's doing in the
soundtrack. Definitely quite a treat to see and hear."
Noel Burch says this about CHIKAMATSU MONOGATARI/THE CRUCIFIED
LOVERS: "...a film that even today remains at the forefront of
experimentation of the relation between sound and image." He then
spends several paragraphs in "Theory of Film Practice" proving up
this claim. UGETSU MONOGATARI and SANSHU DAYU also have subtle aural
experiments going on as well.
"After the lackluster impression most of his films made on me, this
was the one that made me sit up and take notice."
If by lustre you mean gloss, few of his films are glossy in any
sense. But if you mean radiant brilliance, then almost all of his
extant films have passages of radiant brilliance or are radiantly
brillant from beginning to end. To really appreciate the best of
Mizoguchi's films you have to see them projected. For some recent
insightful Mizoguchi criticism see Fred Camper's review of GENROKU
CHUSHINGURA:
http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/archives/0297/02077.html
Richard
23464
From: peterhenne
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:01pm
Subject: Re: Movies for 12-year Olds
That observation may have been thrown out there in "Life" in 1951,
but I wonder how true it was, especially compared to now. It's so
easy to complain by using the childish label. Besides, it is
teenagers and young adults that Hollywood targets today, and a
little less so 12-year-olds. Again, we need statistics to settle
this matter about the extent of demographic shifts.
Peter Henne
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> I was reading an article about JLM last night in
> an issue of Life Magazine (March 11, 1951).
>
> One of the comments was that Hollywood made
> movies aimed at 12-year olds because if they
> didn't, the movies would fail at the box office.
> Isn't there some French saying about things
> changing but . . . ?
>
> Brian
23465
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:06pm
Subject: Re: Mizo retrospective
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> Noel Burch says this about CHIKAMATSU MONOGATARI/THE CRUCIFIED
> LOVERS: "...a film that even today remains at the forefront of
> experimentation of the relation between sound and image." He then
> spends several paragraphs in "Theory of Film Practice" proving up
> this claim. UGETSU MONOGATARI and SANSHU DAYU also have subtle aural
> experiments going on as well.
I recently watched Gosho's 1931 "Madamu to nyobo" (The Neighbor's Wife
and Mine), which was the first Japanese talkie. Even in this first
effort, the use of environmental sound and music was remarkable. Far
advanced over Hollywood, despite Hollywood's head start. All the
early Japanese masters seemed to excel in using sound imaginatively.
("Chikamatsu monogatari" is remarkable in just about any respect one
wishes to consider).
23466
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 8:25pm
Subject: Re: re: Thomson (and Durgnat)
On Friday, February 25, 2005, at 05:43 AM, Adrian Martin wrote:
> Speaking of voices, I am interested to hear what the Ray Durgnat fans
> in the
> group thought of Richard Combs' 'posthumous' collaboration with Ray on
> the
> Godard piece in FILM COMMENT recently. Could anyone read/hear much of
> Ray in
> that, either his writing style or even his ideas? Of course Richard
> and Ray
> were friends and had written other things together, and they certainly
> had
> discussed this JLG piece before Ray became ill and died; this one is a
> slightly strange item to me, though. Opinions?
Adrian, I'm glad you've put this article out there for discussion. I
haven't read very much Durgnat, so I certainly can't weigh in on
deciphering what parts of the article came from whom, but I found it a
little problematic, at least in a couple of places. I'm a bit swamped
in a project now, but if I could just point out briefly some of the
dead bees that stung me:
p. 36 - " 'I've been invited to give a talk to the students,' says
Godard, on 'the image and the text.' That invitation would certainly
be a good way of sabotaging a literary event, given Godard's feelings
about the 'text,' which he has often declared his enemy, which put an
end to his beloved silent cinema, and not just because it brought in
words but all the textual underpinning of narrative and conventional
drama." -- I'm not sure that the silent cinema was exclusively
-Godard's- beloved souci; if anyone of that generation has been the
most forthright on lamenting its passing, it would be Eric Rohmer. But
even that is a pigeonholing; Rohmer has never lauded Murnau at the
expense of post-Murnau cinéastes. Additionally, "the text" has proven
itself far from being Godard's declared enemy. The textually derived
"commentary" is his most recently declared "enemy."
p. 36 - "At one point, [Olga] visits the Mostar Bridge." -- I could be
recalling this incorrectly, but I thought it was exclusively Judith
Lerner / Sarah Adler who visited it, snapped digicam shots, and then
"saw" the Native Americans. P.S. - on page 35, Combs writes, "A
parallel character ... is Sarah Lerner, an Israeli journalist who has
come to Sarajevo..." -- as noted above, the actor is Sarah Adler, the
character she plays is Judith Lerner.
p. 36 - "Things are done better in Heaven, where, guarded though it is
by U.S. Marines" -- The only thing that bothers me about this is the
diction: I keep reading that the Marines are "guarding" Heaven, and in
less words, that Godard thus has been demonstrating post-Sarajevo,
post-Kosovo, a semi-acquiescence with regard to the role of the U.S.
military getting involved in presumably all foreign affairs. I don't
buy this, and have never seen any evidence for the fact. The Marines'
presence in Heaven didn't ever even strike me as a "grudging, ironic
acceptance of their guard maintaining Paradise" -- it seemed clear
enough to me that this is an ironic depiction of the Marines as
occupiers, plain and simple, operating under their leaders' assumptions
that without their presence, there can be no Paradise. After I'd read
about the Marines in the Heaven episode, I was expecting to see
khaki-camouflaged PFCs -- and was surprised that the Marines we were
shown were dressed in (what appears to me to be) Navy regalia from a
few decades' past -- the nostalgic, heroic conception of the Marines,
post-WWII, an association "The Halls of Montezuma" on the soundtrack
seems further to suggest.
p. 39/42 - "because the camps are literally unspeakable, hence Godard's
quarrel with Claude Lanzmann's spoken witness to them in 'Shoah' " /
"Godard posits the camps as an abstract cataclysm ... a breach in human
experience that functions like a black hole defying any attempt at
representation. Which conveniently rules out any attempt to examine
the specific functioning of the camps, and the specificity of the
victims, which was the focus of 'Shoah.' " -- When has Godard ever
demonstrated an ambivalence or antipathy toward 'Shoah'? In the
'Future(s) of Film' interview-book, I distinctly recall him saying that
'Shoah,' as opposed to other attempts to "come to grips with" or
"portray" the Holocaust, has going for it the fact that it consists
entirely of unrelenting, seemingly ceaseless, spoken testimonial.
Furthermore, I don't see how the unrepresentable -- which is only ever
to say, "unrepresentable by the unimplicated, the uninvolved,
third-parties" -- rules out the specificity of its victims.
p. 43 - "Chabrol reflects back with his last film, 'The Flowers of
Evil.' This was so commercially unsuccessful that it now rivals any
Godard for obscurity." -- Rivals to whom? Chabrol's film, to my
knowledge, did fairly well in France, and there was even a big to-do at
the MK2 stores upon its DVD release, with Chabrol showing up and doing
at least one in-store signing. Additionally, the film had American
distribution, from Palm Pictures I believe, and can be purchased at any
Barnes & Noble or Borders (chain book-stores) in the States.
One last thing, unrelated to the Film Comment article -- in the latest
Cinema Scope (with 'L'Intrus' on the cover), James Quandt has a very
interesting piece on 'Notre musique.' I suppose I should cross-post
this to the Godard list, since he's a member on there (might as well,
so apologies to Adrian, JPC, and Ruy among others who will receive this
twice) -- I just wanted to point out that on p. 25, Quandt writes,
"After the Toronto screening of 'Notre musique,' several people I spoke
to admitted -- with trepidation or embarrassment -- that they were not
always sure who was Judith and who was Olga in the middle (Purgatory)
chapter, and some even claimed there were not two women, but one.
(Sarah Adler pointed out in her post-screening talk at the New York
Film Festival that it is she who is seen in the final chapter, but it
is Olga / Nade Dieu's voice that is heard.)" I'd like to point out, in
turn, that Sarah Adler might be losing her mind, because the entire
final chapter shows us Olga / Nade Dieu!!!! Not sure if Quandt also
had forgotten this fact, or whether -- maybe? -- he was pointing out
that the interchange-theme runs so far and deep that Sarah Adler was
herself ex-post-facto exchanging personae and identity with Nade Dieu.
Or, (I didn't attend that Q&A, so can't say), it was Nade Dieu who was
at the Q&A, and not Sarah Adler, and Quandt's info is mixed up!
I've read about audience members having this Judith/Olga confusion at
the end so many times -- I just don't see how this is possible. Olga's
in close-up in about seven shots at the end. The resemblance works
closely enough to work with the "two faces" theme, but the two human
beings are clearly distinguishable from one another. It's like
confusing Brialy and Belmondo in 'Une femme est une femme.' Come on
people -- track!!!
Lastly, and unrelated to any of the Godardiana above, but back to the
latest Film Comment -- this has come up on here before, but no-one
weighed in: re: Kent Jones's notable article on documentary-fiction --
yes, the piece refers to Apichatpong Weerasethakul as "Apichatpong"
throughout, but it is totally wrong!! The last name is Weerasethakul,
as I believe someone has stated on a_film_by once before, and as Chuck
Stephens has written in the past. The Asian pattern of surname
followed by first-name does not apply in Thailand. No-one refers to
him as "Joe Apichatpong" -- he's "Joe Weerasethakul." It's like
reading about Mr. Kar-wai, Mr. Yi-mou, and Ms. Zi-yi. Indeed, Cinema
Scope magazine, by comparison, employs a strict
native-ordering-of-surname-first-name policy and, quite correctly, has
never once written "Weerasethakul Apichatpong" (Chuck Stephens is a
frequent contributor to that magazine also).
craig.
23467
From:
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 3:32pm
Subject: Re: George Seaton (was: Movies for 12-year Olds)
In a message dated 05-02-25 10:53:53 EST, Brian writes:
<< Have I underestimated George Seaton? >>
No.
In his introduction to Frank Capra's autobiography, "The Name Above the
Title", John Ford includes Seaton on his short list of the worl'ds great auteurs,
along with Fellini, Kurosawa, etc. So Seaton had some sort of rep, although
apparently not with film historians.
A viewing decades ago of Seaton's "The Country Girl" (Oscar winner for Grace
Kelly) seemed like one of my all-time unendurable viewing experiences for an
old Hollywood film. Thought Airport was hard to take, too.
Mike Grost
23468
From: Charles Leary
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 9:06pm
Subject: Re: 29th Hong Kong Film Fest lineup
I'm going. Unfortunately I can't stay for the entire Andy Lau retro
though.
Charley
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Raymond P." wrote:
>
> Is anyone else going to the Hong Kong Int'l Film Festival this
year?
23469
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:11pm
Subject: Re: George Seaton (was: Movies for 12-year Olds)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 05-02-25 10:53:53 EST, Brian writes:
>
> << Have I underestimated George Seaton? >>
> No.
Mike Grost
I second the motion. Seaton is the pits. He is an auteur to the
extent that he wrote or co-wrote many (most?) of his films. "The
Country Girl" is a piece of shit with an abominable performance by
Grace Kelly (who inevitably got an Oscar -- against Garland in "A
Star Is Born" no less!)Two exceptions in his overwhelmingly drab
filmography: "Miracle on 34th Street" (Bill K. loves it if memory
serves)and the quite charming "Apartment for Peggy" (in which Jeanne
Crain, as Peggy, keeps quoting entirely imaginary statistics about
every topic under the sun in order to impress people). His comedies
are dripping with Capraesque optimism without Capra's neurotic
undertones. His war films are uneven, better written than directed
("The Big Lift" is spoiled by too much heavy-handed comic
relief. "36 Hours", as Maltin puts it, "begins well but peters out
fast." I haven't seen "The Hook" which some have praised though). He
was a versatile screenwriter for others, from "A Day at the Races"
to "The Song of Bernadette." Att: David: "The Shocking Miss Pilgrim"
has at least too good underrated Gershwin songs: "For You, For Me,
For Evermore" and "Ain't You Kind of Glad we did?" ("Obviously, it
was all blameless/Naturally, they'll call it shameless...") JPC
23470
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 10:51pm
Subject: "Singin' in the Rain" Remixed
via FilmMaker Magazine Blog:
"A new European spot for Volkswagen's Golf GTI begins with one of the
most cherished sequences in film history: Gene Kelly's song-and-dance
performance of the title song in his and Stanley Donen's 1952
masterpiece 'Singin' in the Rain'. Then, thanks to some astonishing
CGI work, Kelly updates his routine. It's not the first time
digitally-aided dancing has been shown off in spots -- Spike Jonze did
it a few years ago with a Levi's commercial and there are several
others currently in rotation on the networks -- but this is the first
time I've seen anyone 'remix' a classic."
http://image.guardian.co.uk/sys-video/Media/video/2005/01/27/golfgti.mov
23471
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Feb 25, 2005 11:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: George Seaton (was: Movies for 12-year Olds)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
Att: David: "The
> Shocking Miss Pilgrim"
> has at least too good underrated Gershwin songs:
> "For You, For Me,
> For Evermore" and "Ain't You Kind of Glad we did?"
> ("Obviously, it
> was all blameless/Naturally, they'll call it
> shameless...") JPC
>
Oh yes, I'm crazy about that score.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
23472
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 0:34am
Subject: Re: Movies for 12-year Olds
>
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> > I was reading an article about JLM last night in
> > an issue of Life Magazine (March 11, 1951).
> >
> > One of the comments was that Hollywood made
> > movies aimed at 12-year olds because if they
> > didn't, the movies would fail at the box office.
> > Isn't there some French saying about things
> > changing but . . . ?
> >
> > Brian
"Plus ca change, plus c'est la meme chose."
But throughout the forties and fifties and probably before, it
was a cliche you read everywhere that Hollywood movies were made for
viewers with a mental age of eight, or ten, or twelve (depending on
the article you read). It made people feel good to feel superior to
the movies they watched (or, in some cases, didn't watch).
Middlebrow smugness. JPC
23473
From: Kian Bergstrom
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:44am
Subject: Re: Re: Mizo retrospective
At 07:56 PM 2/25/2005 +0000, Richard Modiano wrote:
>--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, kian@u... wrote:
>"I think the film[AKASEN CHITAI/STREET OF SHAME]is hands-down
>Mizoguchi's best - especially aurally. It's the only sync-sound
>film of his I know that I'd argue knows what it's doing in the
>soundtrack. Definitely quite a treat to see and hear."
>
>Noel Burch says this about CHIKAMATSU MONOGATARI/THE CRUCIFIED
>LOVERS: "...a film that even today remains at the forefront of
>experimentation of the relation between sound and image." He then
>spends several paragraphs in "Theory of Film Practice" proving up
>this claim. UGETSU MONOGATARI and SANSHU DAYU also have subtle aural
>experiments going on as well.
I don't know Burch's work as well as I'd like. I'll try to look this up
and comment further when I've read, but that's a film I'm not familiar
with. I probably should have qualified my earlier statement about _SoS_ by
saying that I've seen, I think, 11 of his films, which is I'm sure far less
than the Mizoguchi fans around, though I have seen almost all of the 'big
name' ones.
I did not mean to suggest that Mizoguchi's work other than _SoS_ isn't at
all interesting aurally. There are very effective moments for the ear in
all the films of his I've seen, but only _SoS_ is, I think, interesting all
the way through.
>"After the lackluster impression most of his films made on me, this
>was the one that made me sit up and take notice."
>
>If by lustre you mean gloss, few of his films are glossy in any
>sense. But if you mean radiant brilliance, then almost all of his
>extant films have passages of radiant brilliance or are radiantly
>brillant from beginning to end. To really appreciate the best of
>Mizoguchi's films you have to see them projected. For some recent
>insightful Mizoguchi criticism see Fred Camper's review of GENROKU
>CHUSHINGURA:
>http://www.chicagoreader.com/movies/archives/0297/02077.html
That's the other Mizoguchi film for which I have affection, and Fred's
review has helped me think through why I like it, even while I dislike
others (barring _SoS_). That said, I've not seen a Mizoguchi film on
video, and I didn't mean glossy but rather brilliance. For the most part,
they leave me cold, perhaps because most of what I've seen were historical
in setting, and I've not much knowledge of medieval Japanese history, but
those often feel just as stiff and unrepresentative of lived human behavior
as the bad historical dramas set in periods with which I am familiar, and
with the same incongruous contemporary sensibility thrown into a central
character or two.
Anyway, I set out to praise _Street of Shame_, not to denigrate the rest of
Mizoguchi - it's not my intent to try to uninterestingly defend why one
director's work in general strikes me as dull even while it strikes many
people whose opinions I tend to share as wonderful. Besides, there are
great moments in those movies of his I don't care for: the suicide in
_Sancho the Bailiff_ and Gunjura caught with the heirlooms in _Tales of
Ugetsu_ spring to mind. I merely wanted to express that for even a
non-Mizoguchi lover, _SoS_ is a terrific film, one that should be seen and
heard without fail.
-Kian
23474
From: Hadrian
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:29am
Subject: Re: aut(eur)ism
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman
> wrote:
> under the ideology of test screenings, a room full
> > of people laughing together during key moments is an indication of
> > success, whereas individual isolated laughs occurring evenly
> throughout
> > the film are an indication of failure.
Also, I think your example is a bit loaded because your talking about comedy.
Laughter, particularly among men, is pretty-well documented to be a fairly communal
act, heavily influenced by the group consensus. Laughter is contagious. So yes, if a
film is filled with individual isolated laughs, a rare occurence in my opinion, than that
would suggest a fire that can't quite seem to start. And sure enough, most people I
know didn't think I Heart Huckabee's was very funny. It's rarely a good idea to watch
a comedy alone if you want a good sense of how funny it really is. Though if laughter
is contagious, than there must be "laugh leaders" who cue other people. Mayber
you're one of them. Another good topic.
As for movies appealing to multiple audiences, I think they'll take what they can get
--and often do. Family films are a great example of consciously attempting to reach a
broad audience, often even having different characters for different demographics to
latch onto. The members of the family in the Incredibles, for example. Of the mix of
jokes, with pop culture references for the parents and big, goofy animal pratfalls for
the kids.
This does definitely imply a sacrifice of quality for any one group.
Or to drop kid's movies, I always thought that Titanic's mammoth numbers were
generated by the unholy alliance of teenage girls and middle-aged men (a weird date
movie I guess). Of course, the rest of us were just watching the ship sink (not bad).
23475
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:38am
Subject: Goodbye, Dragon Inn
In view of the debates on Godard and style in this group, I wonder
what membership response is to Tsai's latest film, his own take
on "Fin du Cinema." As well as questions of style and authorship, I
weas very touched by that final reunnion between the two stars of
King Hu's classic work, one of whom says, "They've all forgotten us
now." (Not true for all of us).
However, the second actor (who I believe is King Hu's Lee Khan)
died of cancer this year. A very moving and evocative film.
23476
From: Noel Vera
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:18am
Subject: Re: The Five Phantoms (Was: Le fantôme de l'opry)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
> wrote:
> > Bill Krohn might enjoy it. And hopefully, jp will pardon
> my "French":
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/484
> Hahhahhah! I did.
Glad to hear it!
> Not having seen the Shoemaker film, let me add a few comments on
> Scott McQueen's 2-disc Ultimate Edition of the Chaney Phantom.
Droolworthy.
> The score, transfer and 2-color masked ball sequence are
> first-rate
Glad to see you not refer to the process as "2-strip Technicolor."
I've read magazine articles that make that mistake.
> But Scott thinks Chaney directed his own scenes,
> including camera placement for the unamsking shot, and I'm
inclined
> to buy it.
It's a magnificent shot, the best in the film, I think.
>I'm currently studying the subsequent history of the tale,
> which saw Erik gradually turning into a serial killer (the Argento
> version).
That film is a hoot and a half, with a near-incoherent plot, some
wonderful shots of Asia Argento's behind, and some, well,
indescribable shots of Julian Sands making love to a swarm of rats.
That said, it's by far the better and more interesting version than
Schumacher's.
23477
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 7:11am
Subject: Re: The Five Phantoms (Was: Le fantôme de l'opry)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
"...Scott thinks Chaney directed his own scenes, including camera
placement for the unamsking shot, and I'm inclined to buy it."
Micahel F. Blake, Chaney's recent biographer presents evidence for
that contention and also evidence that Chaney directed several one
and two reelers in 1913-14 none of which seem to have survived alas.
Richard
23478
From: Saul
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 0:42pm
Subject: Re:" Fin du Cinema" and Goodbye, Dragon Inn
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>
> In view of the debates on Godard and style in this group, I wonder
> what membership response is to Tsai's latest film, his own take
> on "Fin du Cinema."
Can you expand on the particular ways you saw this film as a take on
"Fin du Cinema". I saw it here at the Sydney Film Festival to a very
mixed audience response - lots of walkouts, grand applause from those
who stayed till the end, a couple boos and catcalls, and a somewhat
nasty hangover on my end. It's a film I would try and analyze from an
emotional vantage point before I appraoched it from an intellectual
one: I mean, his use of presence and abscence, the physical relations
of bodies, the deep cinematic references, the intersection between
screen- and real-life, the deeply homoerotic undertones; where all
more or less obvious. But what lay behind the hypnotic lull of the
falling rain, the sounds of a limping leg hitting stairs, the whirr of
a projector, the sight of an empty cinema - what do all these sense
impressions add up to? I'm not sure yet - and perhaps that's part of
the attractiveness and beauty of this film. I love Tsai's
mise-en-scene in the same way I love Angelopoulos': he presents a rich
detailed and layered tableaux, often with little or no comment, and
lets us meditate on this image for a few minutes or longer, and then
on another, and then another, until he reaches his conclusion and the
film just ends. "The Weeping Meadow", the best film at last year's
Berlinale, was achingly lullingly hypnotic for reasons very similar.
-- Saul Symonds
23479
From: Raymond P.
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 0:46pm
Subject: Re: 29th Hong Kong Film Fest lineup
Most of those are on DVDs anyways. I highly recommend the Asian DV
Competition section - lots of good films in there this year. And I'm
looking forward to seeing the restored Centre Stage on the big screen.
I doubt I'll have time, but I'd like to try and catch the truly epic
10.5 hour film by Lav Diaz!
Raymond
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Charles Leary" wrote:
>
> I'm going. Unfortunately I can't stay for the entire Andy Lau retro
> though.
>
> Charley
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Raymond P."
wrote:
> >
> > Is anyone else going to the Hong Kong Int'l Film Festival this
> year?
23480
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 1:23pm
Subject: Re: Goodbye, Dragon Inn
> I wonder
> what membership response is to Tsai's latest film, his own take
> on "Fin du Cinema."
It's irresistible of course (and as I've just found, it even holds up on DVD - somewhat; the last rain-drenched shot outside the theater, for example - which I could have watched all night onscreen - lost almost all of its beauty, at least on my low-end TV).
But it's no longer his latest! -- as we learned in http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/23071
> the second actor (who I believe is King Hu's Lee Khan)
> died of cancer this year. A very moving and evocative film.
Miao Tien died; see http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/23267
23481
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 2:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: Back to identification (rape)
> By the way, the rape scene performs exactly the same function as
> the entirety of "Funny Games." We are kept hoping that someone will
> come around and scare the rapist off, just as we are kept hoping
> that the victims will escape their tormentors in the Haneke. Noe
> actually toys sadistically with the spectator when he has someone
> coming into the frame at the end of the tunnel. The person stays
> motionless for a little while, then just walks away (and apparently
> he doesn't call for help).
I don't know exactly how I feel about that rape scene, but it doesn't feel
like FUNNY GAMES to me at all. For one thing, it's a single deep-focus
take: good old camera position has to count for something. And then the
behavior in the Noe is amorphous, embedded in the shot, with some sense of
randomness. Haneke exerts much more control over the viewer's range of
response. - Dan
23482
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 3:21pm
Subject: It's Betty Hutton's Birthday
http://people-vs-drchilledair.blogspot.com/
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
23483
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:04pm
Subject: Re:" Fin du Cinema" and Goodbye, Dragon Inn
> he presents a rich
> detailed and layered tableaux, often with little or no comment, and
> lets us meditate on this image for a few minutes or longer, and then
> on another, and then another, until he reaches his conclusion and the
> film just ends.
What does he think he's trying to do here ?
Gee can't have THAT in cinema ! ;-)
Looking fwd to it, even if only on DVD for now. I'll try and rent it on
a rainy night.
I guess it'll have some quality of elegy now....
-Sam
23484
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:22pm
Subject: Re: Mizo retrospective
> > I think the film is hands-down Mizoguchi's best - especially
> aurally.
>
> I would have to go with "Ugestu Monogatari" with the ending
> where the potter sits at his wheel, the shot a duplication of
> an earlier one that also contained his wife. She is dead now,
> but present aurally as she says: "You have become the good
> man I always knew you would. I am dead now, but that is the
> way of the world."
That's quite poetic, but I think you'd get the same impression even
if you were deaf & had no subtitles; this 'presence is the abscense
of absence' seems to be a hallmark of Mizoguchi and other great
Asian cinema (at the front of my mind Hou in "City of Sadness";
Tsai in "What Time...." and I suspect and hope to confirm "Goodbye
Dragon Inn")
I've actually seen relatively little Mizoguchi, I hope to fix that.
I'd love to test my "breaking the 180 rule presages a revelation to
the characters" theory I gleaned from "Ugetsu" recently...
-Sam Wells
Then Mizoguchi gives a wide shot of the
> landscape where humans are seen as part of, but not
> dominating, the land.
>
> I am always in tears at this point since find this film so moving
> and so true. I think the film represents one of the best
> embodiments of the Buddhist worldview and its concept of
> compassion in all of cinema.
>
> Brian
23485
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:29pm
Subject: Re:" Fin du Cinema" and Goodbye, Dragon Inn
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
> wrote:
> >
> > In view of the debates on Godard and style in this group, I
wonder
> > what membership response is to Tsai's latest film, his own take
> > on "Fin du Cinema."
>
> Can you expand on the particular ways you saw this film as a take
on
> "Fin du Cinema".
I guess it is from the perspective of a fond farewell to a heroic
age of Taiwan Cinema exemplified by King Hu whose innovations have
become appropriated by later directors without any sense of their
original resonance. For example, the interminable bamboo forest
shots in CROUCHING TIGER and FLYING DAGGERS without any sense of
Hu's significant stylistic achievements. We must remember that
DRAGON INN was a huge success in Taiwan but the industry callously
neglected King Hu, particularly in the last decadce of his life when
he was trying to raise money for his Chinese railroad workers in the
Old West project. So, I saw it as Tsai's own version of a "Fin du
Cinema" farewell to a past era of cinema while he was moving on to
continue a similar, but different, type of cinema that Godard began
in the late 60s onwards.
It's a film I would try and analyze from an
> emotional vantage point before I appraoched it from an intellectual
> one: I mean, his use of presence and abscence, the physical
relations
> of bodies, the deep cinematic references, the intersection between
> screen- and real-life, the deeply homoerotic undertones; where all
> more or less obvious. But what lay behind the hypnotic lull of the
> falling rain, the sounds of a limping leg hitting stairs, the
whirr of
> a projector, the sight of an empty cinema - what do all these sense
> impressions add up to? I'm not sure yet - and perhaps that's part
of
> the attractiveness and beauty of this film. I love Tsai's
> mise-en-scene in the same way I love Angelopoulos': he presents a
rich
> detailed and layered tableaux, often with little or no comment, and
> lets us meditate on this image for a few minutes or longer, and
then
> on another, and then another, until he reaches his conclusion ...>
> -- Saul Symonds
Exactly! It is moving in so many undefinable ways.
Tony Williams
23486
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Feb 26, 2005 6:29pm
Subject: Re: involuntary dissuspension of belief
> His ideas are much more powerful than concepts such as "voluntary
> suspension of disbelief" in analyzing the aesthetic experiences one
> can have from narrative films.
Thanks for this; I'm going to have to load up the printer or something,
there's a bit too much to read on the screen.....
I still side with William Kentridge's comment that as far as movies go,
'suspension of disbelief' is *not* voluntary; he pointed out that if made
the classic shadow figure of a bird & wings flapping with his hands on
the screen behind him, we (the audience) could not NOT see a bird..
-Sam Wells
23487
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:36am
Subject: Our new group archives (all members please read)
Finally I have completed my project of archiving our group's posts on my
own site, in forms that should make the posts easier to search, if you
download the files to your computer. These files are linked to from
http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/
They are in two forms. There are three large text files, the first two
of 10,000 posts each and the third bringing us nearly up to the present.
If your computer is powerful enough you should be able to use a word
processor such as MS-Word or Notepad to assemble these into one monster
file, which should then be easy to search through for the title of a
film or the name of a filmmaker or whatever else you want to search for.
You may have to close most or all other programs to work with this file,
though. There are also individual files of 100 posts each for those who
don't want to handle mega downloads and/or can't open large files (you
could put them all in a single directory and do a directory search for
words using any one of a number of search tools; if you plan to do this
it would be best to save them all as text files). It is also my hope
that in posting them this way I can get search engines to fully index
our posts, which hasn't happened yet; I guess a Yahoo! group, even one
as illustrious as ours, gets no respect from search engines.
I hope those who look at these files will better understand why I've
been so adamant about discouraging members from quoting long messages.
The long quotes here make the files harder to read, and they cause the
files to take up more space on my server. I also hope this project makes
Peter's and my own intentions for the group clearer. We envisioned our
group as a resource of film knowledge, and in addition to facts,
informed critical opinions supported by careful description of the
viewing experience and/or specific examples are part of that knowledge,
and I hope that search engines will eventually make all our past posts
more accessible. We're both proud of the vast knowledge of and insights
into all facets of cinema offered in our group's posts, and that's one
reason why I've put so much time into this. My plan is to keep it
updated regularly, but how regularly I'm not sure.
It's possible that I have made errors here. If you find any -- missing
posts, repeated posts, bad links, funny formatting such as posts turning
all italics or something like that -- please email me offlist.
As a result of archiving these posts I've noticed that the use of the
"<" character can cause problems in the conversion to html, and I spent
time fixing those problems. This seems to be mostly a feature of older
versions of aol, which indicated quotes with "<" or "<<" rather than the
more standard ">." Please upgrade your aol if you can, or don't quote
messages at all, or quote them using actual quote marks.
The program I used to convert the files to html deletes email addresses.
I can't promise it removed every one, but it seems to have done so. This
is a good thing; many do not want their email address on the Web. If
you're paranoid about this you may want to check the large files by
downloading them and searching for your address; if you do this soon and
email me I can remove any stray email addresses before search engines
find these files. With one exception (see below), I have not yet linked
to these files from my own site, which is how search engines will find
it. I plan to link them from my site and from our main page in about a week.
One result of the hiding of email addresses is that posts from people
whose email address does not include their names and who do not sign
their posts are completely unidentified in these files, unless the
reader uses the post number to go to the message on Yahoo's site. (The
truncated email addresses visible on our group's Web interface are
retained in the large text files.) I hope that now our requests that you
sign your posts, and fully identify film titles and filmmaker names and
other proper names at least once in your posts, make more sense.
If you want to place a Web link to a specific post, I can allow you to
do this, if there aren't too many of them, by putting a tag in the
appropriate 100-post file that will take a visitor right to that
specific post. I have done this with the name "Joseph L. Mankiewicz" in
my list of favorite filmmakers
(http://www.fredcamper.com/Film/Filmmakers.html ), if you would like to
see an example. If you're interested, email me with the post number(s)
you want to link to and I'll send you the urls to use. Having some other
Web sites link to our posts should help search engines favor them.
Fred Camper
23488
From: Saul
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:51am
Subject: Query?: Directorial duties in Interactive Fiction
Last night, a friend was showing me some interactive-movie CD-ROM's
from the early 80's – the cinematic equivalent of those old
chose-your-own-ending novels – he had one "Star Trek"-themed
interactive movie directed by Jonathan Frakes. I was wondering if
anyone here knew about this seemingly under-known area, and more
importantly, if they knew what the tasks of a director, such as
Frakes, would be on such a movie? I wanted to look into these films
more, but was hoping to know what the directors of these films
actually direct?
-- Saul Symonds
23489
From: Peter Henne
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:55am
Subject: Re: Re: Mizo retrospective
Please don't overlook the diegetically ambiguous use of sound in "The Story of the Last Chrysanthemum." A good treatment of the subject is "Floating Sound: Sound and Image in 'The Story of the Last Chrysanthemum'" by Chika Kinoshita in "Mizoguchi, the Master" edited by James Quandt, pp. 45-47. This collection is not exactly a book, but an 80-page pamphlet in newspaper form. Kinoshita treats the use of sound in this film and others by Mizoguchi. I will be happy to xerox the essay and mail it to you; if you're interested, just send me your address at my a_film_by email.
Peter Henne
Kian Bergstrom wrote:
I did not mean to suggest that Mizoguchi's work other than _SoS_ isn't at
all interesting aurally. There are very effective moments for the ear in
all the films of his I've seen, but only _SoS_ is, I think, interesting all
the way through.
-Kian
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
23490
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:12am
Subject: Re: Our new group archives (all members please read)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
Bravo, Fred. That does put some of the points in your "vision
statement" in perspective for me. Nothing like opening an archived
post at random and finding oneself saying that 10 Rillington
Place "kinda swings" to make one hesitate the next time he
hits "Send" for some four-word comment! Many thanks for doing this.
It will be very helpful finding things I thought had vanished into
the Internet memory hole - things more valuable than my opinion about
10 Rillington Place!
Query - If I do want to engage in OT or simply of-the-cuff discussion
in Saul's OT site, how do I access it?
23491
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:29am
Subject: Hotlove's Oscar Predix
Now, fully cognizant that my gibbering will be archived in stone on
Fred's Herculean server for all to see and mock at come Monday,
here's how I'm calling it:
I haven't seen Million Dollar Baby, but I predict that Clint will
clean the floor with Marty's scrawny ass in the top categories. The
only thing likely to keep Baby from pulling an It Happened One Night
hat trick and taking all five: Everyone seems to think that Jamie
Foxx locked up the Best Actor nod when he channelled Sally Field at
the Golden Globes. Clint's just going to have to work on showing his
emotions better. That leaves Virginia Madsen as Sideways' best shot
at an Oscar, and I'm betting she walks off the Oscar-traditional
Energizer Bunny Award for longevity and perseverance. Tech awards
only for The Aviator: It's been nice competing with your schlock art
movies, Harvey. Be sure not to let the door bump you in the ass on
the way out...
23492
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:41am
Subject: Re: Re: Our new group archives (all members please read)
Bill,
I'm glad you appreciate the archived posts.
And who knows, maybe 10 years from now will read your one-liner on "10
Rillington Place," see it, and have a major epiphany!
Saul's board is linked to from our main page, and it's at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by_OT/ -- easy to remember,
just add a "_OT" to the url.
Yours,
Fred
23493
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:51am
Subject: Re: Hotlove's Oscar Predix
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"Tech awards only for The Aviator: It's been nice competing with your
schlock art movies, Harvey. Be sure not to let the door bump you in
the ass on the way out..."
Scorsese was given a lifetime achivement award at the sci-tech
ceremony last weekend. They'll probably show a clip from it on the
Awards show tomorrow. Small consolation if your predcition is right.
Richard
23494
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 7:36am
Subject: Re: Henrik's Oscar Predix
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> Now, fully cognizant that my gibbering will be archived in stone on
> Fred's Herculean server for all to see and mock at come Monday,
> here's how I'm calling it:
>
> I haven't seen Million Dollar Baby, but I predict that Clint will
> clean the floor with Marty's scrawny ass in the top categories. The
> only thing likely to keep Baby from pulling an It Happened One Night
> hat trick and taking all five: Everyone seems to think that Jamie
> Foxx locked up the Best Actor nod when he channelled Sally Field at
> the Golden Globes. Clint's just going to have to work on showing his
> emotions better. That leaves Virginia Madsen as Sideways' best shot
> at an Oscar, and I'm betting she walks off the Oscar-traditional
> Energizer Bunny Award for longevity and perseverance. Tech awards
> only for The Aviator: It's been nice competing with your schlock art
> movies, Harvey. Be sure not to let the door bump you in the ass on
> the way out...
Bill shouldn't be alone for a possible mocking :)
I agree that Clint will clean the top:
Million Dollar Baby: Best Film, Best Direction, Best Actress (Swank),
Best Supporiting Actor (Freeman)
Aviator: Best Art Direction, Best Costumes, Best editing and Best
cinematography.
Best supporting actress is a very unpredictable category. Madsen does
seem to be the favorite, but Blanchett is impressive, has more star
appeal and could get a mercy Oscar, simply because the film only will
get technicals. To be honest, I find the supporting actress category
this year more a best actress category.
On best actor, I believe Foxx is unbeatable. On best adapted, my bet
goes to Sideways. So I really don't see MDB pull an "It Happend one
Night".
Henrik
23495
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 2:28pm
Subject: David E's Oscar Predictions
Ostentatious sentimentality -- especially when
disguised as neo-Bressionian restraint -- beats
serious insight every time. Therefore "Million Dollar
Flatline" will be the big winner. A "split" might hand
Marty the "Best Director" award he so richly deserves,
much in the way that Morgan Freeman is a sure thing
for "Best Supporting Actor" -- which he's never won
either. But I doubt it.
Why give the best director the "Best Director" Oscar?
You must be an "sleeper" operative for Al Queda.
Cate Blanchette might squeak through over Virginia
Madsen. And Sandy Powell's a shoe-in. But that's about
it.
Just realized last night that "The Motorcycle Diaries"
didn't make the cut for Best Foreign Film. So they'll
give it to the other four-hankie paraplegic movie.
As much as I enjoyed "Sideways" I really resent the
way it muscled out other just as worthy (if not MORE
SO) films from the same company : "Kinsey" and the
woefully mistreated "I Heart Huckabees."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
23496
From:
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 9:35am
Subject: Win a Date With Tad Hamilton! (Robert Luketic)
This little romantic comedy turns out to be a pleasing entertainment.
It reverses the gender roles of Luketic's previous film, "Legally Blonde". In
that, Renee Witherspoon was a glamorous Californian let loose among stuffy
and serious legal types at Harvard. Here, we have a "himbo" (a male bimbo) from
Hollywood, California, among all sorts of traditional Americans in West
Virgina. The West Viginians turn out to be as career obsessed as the Harvard crew in
"Legally Blonde". In both cases, we are looking at a society interested in
capitalism and jobs, in which anything resembling romance takes a secondary
place. The title characters in both films turn out to have some hidden virtues,
along with all of their evident superficiality. At the very least, they offer
some welcome balance, and look at the more joyous aspects of life.
A gentle message of hope and life, offered to a death-oriented society and
our death worshipping (the loathsome Clint Eastwood) film "culture".
Mike Grost
23497
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 4:48pm
Subject: Re: pieceashit FUNNY GAMES
> It's the suffering Haneke wants us to focus on, not the visceral
> thrill of specific acts of physical violence. Where Tarantino tends
> to desensitize, Haneke's film resensitizes. Here's an interesting
> article from Kinoeye on the film:
I think Cronenberg has remarked that while watching images of people
being hit will desensitize you to other images of people being hit,
NO AMOUNT of viewing such images will desensitize you to the reality
of someone being hit in front of you. That kind of insensitivity
comes from genetics and environment, not movies. So I reject much of
the need for FUNNY GAMES.
"Happy" Haneke has said that those who walk out of the film "don't
need it" and it's only those who stay to the end who do. As someone
who definitely didn't need that film after half an hour, maybe I
shouldn't be commenting on it, but having picked up the rest of the
plot in conversation I didn't feel I had missed anything regrettable.
On the subject of sadism, I think the BIG moral difference between
Tarantino and Haneke is that Tarantino's violence is inflicted on
fictional character for some kind of (sometimes complicated) pleasure
to be gained by the audience. So nobody is really suffering, on the
contrary, Tarantino wants to give pleasure. sometimes the squirmy
pleasure of a gross-out act or a piece of hissable villainy, but it's
not intended to cause suffering.
Haneke on the other hand is torturing real human beings - his
audience. He wants us to have a bad time at FUNNY GAMES. He has a
High Moral Purpose in punishing us, of course, which he feels fully
justifies taking our money and presenting a thriller narrative with
the pleasure carefully removed, but for me this is ramming a lecture
down our throats.
> I don't understand your point. The film mimics the conventions of
> the slasher franchise, which always sets us up for a sequel by
> letting the killer go free. The situation is hopeless. The
suffering
> is inconsolable. There is no escape.
But of course the ending is not believable - if those guys carry on
going from house to house like that, they will eventually be caught.
I know the film is not exactly naturalistic, but if that was the
point intended, I reject it as soon as I think about it.
> Well, the killers in the film are laughing, but there's no evidence
> that Haneke is.
Maybe the title? But I don't think he actually has a sense of humour
as such - humour is used in the film, but again, the actual pleasure
content has been surgically drained.
> As for the "poverty of imagination," I can only say
> that Haneke's film made me feel the fear and hopelessness that
> people in similar situations must go through.
I got a sense of hopelessness but not out of empathy with
any "characters". The fear felt by opera-listeners for death-metal
listeners came across, but I was never remotely frightened myself. I
was DEPRESSED, but I rarely feel any gratitude for that. I can't
claim you were wrong to feel what you felt, your reaction has its own
validity, but my interpretation of the artist's intentions based on
my (partial) viewing and his comments are that he wants to give the
audience a bad time, and I don't sympathise.
D Cairns
23498
From: Chris Fujiwara
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 5:34pm
Subject: my Oscar predix
Best Picture: Too close to call with any confidence. Voters will be
narrowly split between "The Barefoot Contessa" and "Silver
Lode." "Riot in Cell Block 11" is the dark horse here.
Best Actor: John Payne looks like a shoo-in for his tremendous
performance in "Silver Lode," but either Jerry Lewis ("Living It Up")
or, less likely, Jack Palance ("Sign of the Pagan") could pull a
surprise victory.
Best Actress: Though Barbara Stanwyck, who hasn't won since 1948, is
heavily favored for her turn in "Cattle Queen of Montana," a
plausible scenario has the Academy giving the statuette to Gloria
Grahame ("Human Desire") to atone for its widely criticized decision
last year to pass up Grahame's performance in "The Big Heat" in favor
of Debbie Reynolds in "I Love Melvin." Reynolds, up for "Susan Slept
Here," might as well stay home tonight.
Best Supporting Actor: Since "Magnificent Obsession" looks unlikely
to pick up any other major award, I predict Otto Kruger will bring
home a consolation prize in this category. That would mean he beats
out the odds-on favorite, Wendell Corey in "Rear Window."
Best Supporting Actress: Sure, we'd all like to see Elaine Stewart
("Brigadoon") break out of the pack in this category, but let's face
it, her role's too small and it's a wonder she even got nominated.
Seems likely the voters will do the sensible thing and give the prize
to Jeff Donnell ("Flight Nurse").
Best Director: If Otto Preminger wins for "River of No Return," it'll
be the first time a director won for a film not also nominated for
Best Picture since 1945 (Edgar G. Ulmer, "Strange Illusion"). The
smart money is on Nicholas Ray ("Johnny Guitar").
Best Foreign-Language Film: Everyone else seems to be predicting a
shoo-in for "Sansho the Bailiff." But keep in mind that a Japanese
film won in this category for each of the past three years. Voters
will be under tremendous pressure this year to prove they're aware of
the rest of the world, too. I predict that people will still be
picking up their jaws from the floor of the Pantages Theatre five
minutes after the winner in this one is announced: "Desert Devil"
(dir. Youssef Chahine, Egypt).
23499
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 6:46pm
Subject: Re: my Oscar predix
On Sunday, February 27, 2005, at 12:34 PM, Chris Fujiwara wrote:
> Best Picture: Too close to call with any confidence. Voters will be
> narrowly split between "The Barefoot Contessa" and "Silver
> Lode." "Riot in Cell Block 11" is the dark horse here.
etc.
This was really excellent, Chris! I'm gonna pass this on to a few
friends before the carpet's crimson seeps our way tonight.
"Oh, life..."
craig.
23500
From:
Date: Sun Feb 27, 2005 1:59pm
Subject: Re: my Oscar predix
That was riotous, Chris! But does this best of all possible worlds mean that
auteurism would never have happened? Then where would our little group be?
Worshipping the gods of Zinnemann and Lean in the Pantheon?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact