Home Film
Art
Other: (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.
24001
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:49am
Subject: Re: The Crimson Kimono (was: Film criticism and literature) nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-03-12 00:10:17 EST, Fred Camper writes:
<< But trying to argue from cause (stylistic element described as precisely
as possible) to effect (theme, mood, "meaning") I think helped me become a
bit more precise, especially in an era when film criticism consisted largely of
impressionistic mood pieces >>
I have great trouble linking up visual style and meaning, in any sort of
explicit, rigorous, fully aticulated way. The links are certainly there - but
trying to understand them is hard!
Richard Mondiano was full of praise (and lots of detailed information) about
the documentary-like segments in "The Crimson Kimono" (Samuel Fuller)
depicting the Nisei neighborhood in Los Angeles. I love this sequence too.
I can see aspects of Fuller's visual style here. The shots here fall into one
of three categories present in this film: the dialogueless, "visual
spectacle" kind of shot. These shots, like the other visual spectacle shots in the
film, have the plane of the photographic frame parallel to the imagery. The camera
is parallel to the monument at the cemetery; and later is parallel to the
altar of the Buddhist temple. The effect is "frontal": the film image is directly
in front of the scene depicted, which forms a frieze spread out across the
frame. There is also a strong aspect of symmetry to these shots: the left hand
and the right hand tend to be more or less mirror images of each other. Fuller
uses a similar approach to the Kendo match later in the film: a frontal shot
whose frame is parallel to the back wall of the auditorium, and a bilateral
symmetry of the image, with two columns of Kendo contestants aligned on either
side of the image.
What is hard is to analyze what sort of mood this conveys. There is a sense
of harmonious beauty to these shots, that also has to do with their
composition. One is seeing something that Fuller wants us to admire and feel aesthetic
pleasure about.
The frontal approach also helps create a "documentary" effect. "Here is a
something interesting to see," Fuller seems to be saying. "You wiill enjoy
watching from this, and learning about it." It seems to mark these sections off from
the rest of the film, suggesting that the movie has switched to documentary
mode.
The symmetry and frontal approach also convey a sense of dignity. "Dignity"
was one of the key concepts of the Civil Rights era, and this is one of the key
pro-Civil Rights films. Minorities had often had their dignity stripped away
from them, both in film and in life. So the dignity of these scenmes is an
attempt to convey a respectful attitude.
Mike Grost
24002
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 0:04pm
Subject: Farber (was Re: Film criticism and literature kinoslang
>> Godard used to do the same thing, but he always managed
> to say something interesting about the film he was ostensibly
> analyzing. I rarely feel that Farber does this. The TOUCH OF EVILs
> and BIG SLEEPs playing in his head may be fascinating, but I don't
> feel that he has anything interesting to say about the ones
playing
> on a screen.
Following Godard, maybe Farber was making films all along, so much
the better.
There is no better description of the materials on the screen that
make up THE THIRD MAN than Manny Farber's. Reading THE GIMP by
Farber (1952) still puts many critics to shame today as surveyors
contemprorary culture, and he's known for working small areas,
nailing certain actors or sets! Farber may be a connoisseur but he's
not a specialist.
24003
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 0:35pm
Subject: S. Alvarez anti-war kinoslang
Partly because long ago in a similar discussion of Full Metal Jacket
Gabe brought up Godard's objections to Kubrick's "gooks" and replied
with Santiago Alvarez's Ho Chi Minh-- and partly because I'm excited
about it, here is something I knew nothing about until now, which is
not featured on DVD Beaver or Masters of Cinema as far as I could
tell. A compilation of Alvarez's films with Wilkerson's companion
film, already released:
http://www.scdistribution.com/resources/elf001.pdf
-a
24004
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 1:35pm
Subject: Re: confusing faves w. influences mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> But ER, what writers (not critics) have taught you to write. Are
> their literary authors who do that for you - when you write a
> screenplay, for example?
This is what I assumed the question meant and wrote my answer accordingly.
I've not even finished reading a full Joyce work yet (I had to put off
finishing "A Portrait of the Artist as a Young Man" when I came back
to university this semester -- I'll finish it when I get off again in
three weeks), but was greatly influenced, both in my writing and in my
own filmmaking, by what I sensed, rightly or wrongly, to be the idea
of "form as memory" (does that make sense? -- oh, I worry). Basically,
the form of a work being used to replicate the nature of the memory
processes.
This is something that I subsequently found in the films of Resnais,
in Tarkovsky's "The Mirror," Harmony Korine's "julien donkey-boy,"
Gondry's "Eternal Sunshine," and, to a lesser extent perhaps, in
Lévi-Strauss's "Triste Tropiques". I also found it in the "art" of
blogging -- sites like kottke.org and fimoculous.com, the structural
and formal organisation of content of which are, to some extent,
attempts to reproduce ways of thinking (though not necessarily
remembering) using HTML or CSS code or whatever; Fimoculous'
"biological" breakdown of content into categories named "chromosome"
(daily fleeting thoughts), "mitochondria" (weekly, longer, more
developed thoughts) and "nucleus" (a monthly analysis of the sum of
all parts), for example. Not to mention hyperlinks that contain
metadata that allows the reader to "jump cut" across categories,
disparate moments in time, and even the blogger's emotions at the time
of posting, as though they were synaptic connections in the brain (as
I believe the match-cuts across time and space in "Marienbad" are) or
a grand user-constructed montage.
Wow. That got *really* out of hand.
The point is that I consequently found myself wanting my own work to
have a "synaptic" quality to it -- the freedom to cut through time,
space, mediums, artists, whatever -- and have been striving towards
this ever since. It's difficult, however, as I'm in an academic film
course and cohesion of argument is the name of the game, even if
cohesion of one's streams of energy and thought are not. I've found
that short form writing -- capsule reviews, which I've been publishing
on my blog under the title "Cinema Notes" (and indeed they *are* just
notes) -- is the most accommodating, at the moment, for what I'm
aiming towards. I think this is the reason why (a) I find collections
of essays, such as Sontag's "Against Interpretation," which I finished
recently, so appealing, and (b) why, in my own filmmaking work, I've
become more and more obsessed with fragments of time and space -- with
what I described in my university's (flailing) cinema journal as the
microscopic minutiae of the pro-filmic event, and which, when
connected together, across scenes (and even films) as the viewer sees
fit, say more about what's going on in individual pictures, in
directors' oeuvres (or actors' or whatever) and in historical,
national and generic movements, not only on the level of narrative,
but also, more importantly, on a level above it, which for a long
while I was pretentiously calling meta-narrative, but have since been
calling, more simply, implicit content, thematic or formal.
I really don't know how this post got to be like this, I'm sorry! I
was just trying to say that, while I certainly don't compare myself to
Joyce in any way, what I took away from the half-a-book of his I've
read, I've really tried to utilise! That's all! He's taught me how to
write in that I now try to create, as much as I can, both in regards
to my criticism and my filmmaking, like I remember and like I think.
24005
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 2:53pm
Subject: Farber (was Re: Film criticism and literature mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector" wrote:
>
> Farber may be a connoisseur but he's
> not a specialist.
These posts and what they've had to say about Farber have inspired me
to have another look at him.
24006
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:02pm
Subject: We are indexed (how to search our group's posts) fredcamper
Google seems to have indexed all the archive files I have posted, except
for the three most recent (just posted).
If there are some anomalies, or posts not indexed, let me know.
There is one oddity: if you search for an exact phrase, google won't
find it if it includes a line break in the original post.
There is, however, a way to search our group and only our group's posts
for keywords or an exact phrase. Simply include along with your search
terms a sufficiently long exact phrase from the repeating text at the
top of the html files. For example, a search for
"Imitation of Life" "Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group,
a_film_by"
will yield the 28 100-post html files in which "Imitation of Life" is
mentioned. Then you can open and search each file for "Imitation of
Life." But the "glitch" also means that it will miss those cases where
the title appears as
Imitation
of Life
in a post.
Of course it will also miss those shorthand posts -- there may not have
been any for this film -- in which someone writes the title is "IOL" or
"ImOLi" or whatever. All this is meant as a reminder to write exact film
titles and full filmmaker names -- and that there's no harm in repeating
them once or twice.
So including "Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by"
along with your search terms should yield those posts, or almost all of
those posts, in which your terms are mentioned.
Fred Camper
24007
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 3:17pm
Subject: Farber (was Re: Film criticism and literature thebradstevens
> Following Godard, maybe Farber was making films all along, so much
> the better.
Yes, but my point was that Godard (as well as Rivette) managed to
simultaneously describe the films he was going to make and provide
some insights into the films he was ostensibly reviewing. How,
exactly, do Farber's misreadings of TOUCH OF EVIL or THE BIG SLEEP
tell us anything interesting about those films?
24008
From: "K. A. Westphal"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:11pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema chelovek_s_k...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Yeah, I agree, something like TORQUE bring us back to the utility of
> auteurism.
>
> But, like, who goes in "Less Than Meets the Eye" these days? Not Ron
> Howard and Rob Reiner: they aren't taken as seriously by the critical
> establishment as Huston and Wyler were, and so it defeats the
purpose of
> the politique to tear them down.
It's an odd thing. The auteur system can't exist in a post-auteur
world. When Sarris was writing, he was considering some directors with
80+ films to their credit; the name might only be associated with one
or two well-known pictures.
Now output is much less. Directors become auteurs by their second,
third, fourth time out of the gate. It's always peculiar defining the
limits of the critical establishment, but I would venture that critics
for the daily papers are regularly taking a lot of middlebrow crap too
seriously. The difference, though, is that a movie like THE HOURS is
only the director's second film ... there's no rich body of work to
evaluate. In the studio days, one would have to follow through on a
goodly number of pedestian assignments to even attain the right to
make an Oscar-slot movie.
And while Dan thinks that we have figures like Huston and Wyler
anymore, it really depends on perspective. Altman and Scorsese have
been canonized by the critical establishment; each routinely finds
himself labelled the "greatest living American filmmaker" from Ebert,
the Times, internet critics, etc. But I think more than a few people
on this board would readily dispute their status and decry these
testimonials much in the way Sarris dismissed Agee's piece on Huston
in Time.
The problem, too, is that auteur become a part of the critical
lexicon, outside the realm of auteurist criticism. Matt Zoller Seitz
had an interesting article about modern auteurs in a Nov/Dec 2001 (I
think) issue of IFC Rant that posited that now anyone with any
distinctive style whatsoever is called an auteur (His example was "New
Jersey auteur Kevin Smith"). For the most part, he's right. Director
and auteur have become interchangable in most film journalism today,
with no concept of the metteur-en-scene as a foil.
So, it's no longer a matter of a director struggling with a studio's
hackneyed material and somehow projecting his own thematic and
aesthetic concerns on the project. Wes Anderson isn't waiting for a
Sarris-type to discover his stylistic consistency; he's proclaiming it
himself from on high. Every director with any name recognition now
thinks he's an auteur; the canonization is instanteneous. The closet
director we have today to the old studio auteur saddled with
assignments is Curtis Hanson; his last three films each occupy a very
different genre, and none of them announce themselves as director's
pictures. And as much as I like each of them, I'm not sure whether
there is the thematic continuity between those films that I would
expect from an old-school auteur. For me, the director who's really
smuggling personal art is Albert Brooks.
Of course, not all of Sarris's pantheon was locked in the Fordian
"three-for-them, one-for-me" dilemma. Until they fell out of favor
with the press and the critical establishment, Griffith and Chaplin
exercised a high degree of autonomy over their material and their
style. I'm reminded of a statement Lucas gave recently, that after he
finishes the last STAR WARS film, he'll finally be "free" to make
whatever personal, non-commercial things he likes.
Then, Lord, there's always Spielberg. The Hitchcock of our time -- the
director whose name will gets people to see his movies, even if they
would be pressed to name any director. And hell, Hitchcock needed a
Robin Wood to be taken seriously; Armond White, perhaps, occupies that
mantle today.
If auteurism is, in part, based on overturning antiquated concepts of
film art, I sometimes worry about what film critics of my generation
might do to the canon in the next couple decades. I fear, for example,
that FIGHT CLUB will become a canonical masterpiece that critics just
didn't "get" the first time around. If one of the real triumphs of
auteurism is to elevate a film like VERTIGO from the category of silly
ghost story into profound masterpiece (and keep in mind, folks, I
believe it's the latter), might not a similar re-evaluation be
accorded to an incoherent thing like VANILLA SKY, with newly found
"personal" meaning? (Some are still disputing VERTIGO's status;
Schickel dismissed it in a FILM COMMENT piece about that AFI 100 list
as a film incomprehensively and irresponsibly elevated to art by "the
50's crowd.")
All that said, I would venture
THE PANTHEON
Errol Morris
Albert Brooks
FAR SIDE OF PARADISE
P. T. Anderson
Martin Scorsese
Wes Anderson
Robert Altman
Roman Polanski
Spike Lee
EXPRESSIVE ESOTERICA
Brian DePalma
Stanley Kubrick
LESS THAN MEETS THE EYE
Francis Ford Coppola
Steven Spielberg
--Kyle Westphal
24009
From: "K. A. Westphal"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:14pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema chelovek_s_k...
P. S.
I omitted Charles Burnett because it's so difficult to see his body of
work, especially his first two. But I assume on the basis of the three
shorts (SEVERAL FRIENDS, THE HORSE, and WHEN IT RAINS) and one
crippled feature (THE GLASS SHIELD) that I've seen that I would grant
him "Pantheon" status when I finally get my hands on KILLER OF SHEEP
and MY BROTHER'S WEDDING.
--Kyle
24010
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film criticism and literature fredcamper
Dan Sallitt wrote:
> ....Math teaches you to turn the knife on yourself, not to get warm and fuzzy
> about an idea just because you thought it up. The goal is to develop an
> intuition that keeps you awake at night until you admit to yourself that
> you didn't really prove that theorem, that your idea didn't really get
> you from A to B....
This is very very true, and at the highest levels of mathematics too.
Presumably Fermat didn't really come up with the valid proof of his
famous "last theorem" the he claimed to have ("the margin is too small
to contain it, he wrote in a book), or someone would have found it by
now; the Princeton professor who finally did prove it a few years ago
with several hundred pages of very advanced mathematics (I recall
reading that it was thought that only 30 people in the world could
understand his proof) left a big hole in his logic, assuming something
that actually needed to be proved, which someone else eventually did.
For film criticism to be of any use other than as impressionist fiction,
the critic needs to challenge her or his own perceptions and claims,
always asking if a response is unique to her or his subjectivity (it's
fine if you hate -- or love -- Barbara Stanwyck, but not everyone will
share your tastes) or is in fact something that others might be able to
see, and feel.
Fred Camper
24011
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:23pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema noelbotevera
Based on "Killer of Sheep," "To Sleep With Anger," "The Glass
Shield," "Selma, Lord Selma," "Nat Turner: A Troublesome
Property," "Nightjohn," and "The Annihilation of Fish," I'd say he's
pantheon, if anyone is.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal"
wrote:
>
> P. S.
>
> I omitted Charles Burnett because it's so difficult to see his
body of
> work, especially his first two. But I assume on the basis of the
three
> shorts (SEVERAL FRIENDS, THE HORSE, and WHEN IT RAINS) and one
> crippled feature (THE GLASS SHIELD) that I've seen that I would
grant
> him "Pantheon" status when I finally get my hands on KILLER OF
SHEEP
> and MY BROTHER'S WEDDING.
>
> --Kyle
24012
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema cellar47
--- "K. A. Westphal" wrote:
>
> It's an odd thing. The auteur system can't exist in
> a post-auteur
> world.
Quite true.
> Now output is much less. Directors become auteurs by
> their second,
> third, fourth time out of the gate.
Well Laughton's "The Night of the Hunter" will always
be much more than a "one-shot,oddity" to me -- and I
trust many others.
It's always
> peculiar defining the
> limits of the critical establishment, but I would
> venture that critics
> for the daily papers are regularly taking a lot of
> middlebrow crap too
> seriously.
Joel Schumacher?
The difference, though, is that a movie
> like THE HOURS is
> only the director's second film ... there's no rich
> body of work to
> evaluate.
We have his theater work to measure it against. And
nothing he's done on film as yet is quite up to "An
Inspector Calls."
However the brilliance of that production may be
almost entirely due to the work of his stage designer
ex-boyfriend, McNeill.
Altman
> and Scorsese have
> been canonized by the critical establishment; each
> routinely finds
> himself labelled the "greatest living American
> filmmaker" from Ebert,
> the Times, internet critics, etc. But I think more
> than a few people
> on this board would readily dispute their status and
> decry these
> testimonials much in the way Sarris dismissed Agee's
> piece on Huston
> in Time.
Again true. But the canonical status of Altman and
Scorsese is challenged across the board in a way that
wasn't true for Stevens and Wyler in their prime.
Director
> and auteur have become interchangable in most film
> journalism today,
> with no concept of the metteur-en-scene as a foil.
>
> So, it's no longer a matter of a director struggling
> with a studio's
> hackneyed material and somehow projecting his own
> thematic and
> aesthetic concerns on the project. Wes Anderson
> isn't waiting for a
> Sarris-type to discover his stylistic consistency;
> he's proclaiming it
> himself from on high. Every director with any name
> recognition now
> thinks he's an auteur; the canonization is
> instanteneous. The closet
> director we have today to the old studio auteur
> saddled with
> assignments is Curtis Hanson; his last three films
> each occupy a very
> different genre, and none of them announce
> themselves as director's
> pictures.
That may be due to the fact that Curtis started as a
scriptwriter, cosritpting "White Dog" with Sam.
He has also worked as an actor -- most notably in
"Adaptation."
And as much as I like each of them, I'm
> not sure whether
> there is the thematic continuity between those films
> that I would
> expect from an old-school auteur. For me, the
> director who's really
> smuggling personal art is Albert Brooks.
>
Especially in "Modern Romance" -- though I adore his
"nest egg" rant in "Lost in America."
Indeed, Albert is so powerful a presence that he
almost overtakes James L's "Broadcast News" --
particularly in the scene where he tells Holly Hunter
that William Hurt is "the Devil!"
> Then, Lord, there's always Spielberg. The Hitchcock
> of our time -- the
> director whose name will gets people to see his
> movies, even if they
> would be pressed to name any director.
Except for "The Terminla," oddly enough.
> If auteurism is, in part, based on overturning
> antiquated concepts of
> film art, I sometimes worry about what film critics
> of my generation
> might do to the canon in the next couple decades. I
> fear, for example,
> that FIGHT CLUB will become a canonical masterpiece
> that critics just
> didn't "get" the first time around.
Oh, YUCK!
And speaking of YUCK you ahven't mentioned Quentin
Tarantino.
>
> All that said, I would venture
>
> THE PANTHEON
> Errol Morris
> Albert Brooks
>
Patrice Chereau
Todd Haynes
Martin Scorsese
Robert Altman
> FAR SIDE OF PARADISE
> P. T. Anderson
> Martin Scorsese
> Wes Anderson
> Robert Altman
> Roman Polanski
> Spike Lee
>
Gus Van Sant
Roman Polanski
Terence Davies
> EXPRESSIVE ESOTERICA
> Brian DePalma
> Stanley Kubrick
>
Wong Kar Wai
Steven Spielberg
Francis Ford Coppola
Albert Brooks
> LESS THAN MEETS THE EYE
> Francis Ford Coppola
> Steven Spielberg
>
>
Spike Lee
James L. Brooks
Errol Morris
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24013
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:48pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema thebradstevens
> > But, like, who goes in "Less Than Meets the Eye" these days? Not
Ron
> > Howard and Rob Reiner: they aren't taken as seriously by the
critical
> > establishment as Huston and Wyler were, and so it defeats the
> purpose of
> > the politique to tear them down.
How about Steven Soderbergh? That category is tailor-made for him.
Also Paul Thomas Anderson and the Coen brothers.
Suggestions for new categories:
"Dude, where's my career?"
Monte Hellman, Jim McBride, Milton Moses Ginsberg, Michael Cimino,
Charles Eastman, Ralph Bakshi.
"Artist in residence"
David Lynch, Woody Allen, perhaps Malick.
"They love me in Europe"
Jim Jarmusch, Abel Ferrara.
"I learned how to tell a story economically by directing adverts and
music videos"
Baz Luhrmann, Adrian Lyne, Tony Scott.
"It improves your eye-hand coordination"
The Wachowski brothers.
"There's my argument! Restrict immigration!"
Paul Verhoeven, Renny Harlin, Alan Parker, Adrian Lyne, Tony Scott.
"Hey, little girl, want some candy?"
Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Victor Salva.
24014
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 5:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema sallitt1
>> FAR SIDE OF PARADISE
> Terence Davies
Oh, yeah, Rick - this raises a question. Sarris did the English-language
cinema, not just the American cinema. Should we? - Dan
24015
From: "K. A. Westphal"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:02pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema chelovek_s_k...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> > EXPRESSIVE ESOTERICA
> Wong Kar Wai
David:
I'm assuming you're including WKW in a survey of American cinema on
the basis of his BMV commercial.
Which seems like cheating to me ... but then Sarris listed Pabst and
Eisenstein as "Fringe Benefits," the former for his Brooks films and
the latter, I guess, on the basis of Que Viva Mexico...
--Kyle
24016
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema cellar47
--- "K. A. Westphal" wrote:
>
> David:
>
> I'm assuming you're including WKW in a survey of
> American cinema on
> the basis of his BMV commercial.
>
No, I was actually just thinking of great cinema.
That's why I mentioned Chereau too. But if this is
American Cinema exclusively then they get tossed.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
24017
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 6:51pm
Subject: Re: Masters of Indian Cinema series in NYC, April noelbotevera
I miss Adoor Gopalakrishnan's name there. His Vidheyan is especially
good.
24018
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:30pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> > > But, like, who goes in "Less Than Meets the Eye" these days?
Not
> Ron
> > > Howard and Rob Reiner: they aren't taken as seriously by the
> critical
> > > establishment as Huston and Wyler were, and so it defeats the
> > purpose of
> > > the politique to tear them down.
>
> How about Steven Soderbergh? That category is tailor-made for him.
> Also Paul Thomas Anderson and the Coen brothers.
All three are good filmmakers, and so is Reiner, IMO. Only the latter
is a particularly polemical thumbs-up. YOU are being very polemical,
The Brad, in denigrating Soderbergh (King of the Hill, The Limey,
Schizopolos), the Coens (Blood Simple, Miller's Crossing, Fargo) and
Anderson (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights). 'Splain, please.
24019
From: "acquarello2000"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:34pm
Subject: Re: Masters of Indian Cinema series in NYC, April acquarello2000
> Haven't seen this particular Benegal, but I really liked "Kalyug,"
> his corporate-family take on the Mahabharata. What did you think of
> that one?
I've been using John Hood's Essential Cinema book as a guide book for
what to see with respect to parallel cinema. Unfortunately, I haven't
been able to see Benegal's "Kalyug" or "Manthan" which are also
supposed to be among his best.
Anyway, just looking through the list again, I didn't realize that the
Buddhadb listed is actually Buddhadeb Dasgupta (odd, since Buddhadeb
is his first name), and the two films screening are "The Wrestlers"
(Uttara) and "A Tale of a Naughty Girl" (Mondo Meyer Uppakhyan). I
highly recommend the latter (the former is good too, but I wouldn't
consider "essential"). Dasgupta is a poet and it's in full display in
the film: the story not only operaates on a metaphoric level (with the
moon landing), but the way that he uses lighting is especially
evocative. His visual style reminds me of Kieslowski quite a bit.
acquarello
24020
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:38pm
Subject: Re: The Crimson Kimono (was: Film criticism and literature) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 05-03-12 00:10:17 EST, Fred Camper writes:
> the documentary-like segments in "The Crimson Kimono" (Samuel
Fuller)
> depicting the Nisei neighborhood in Los Angeles. The camera
> is parallel to the monument at the cemetery; and later is parallel
to the
> altar of the Buddhist temple. The effect is "frontal": the film
image is directly
> in front of the scene depicted, which forms a frieze spread out
across the
> frame.
This contrasts with the Japan in cherry blossom time local color
shots in House of Bamboo, which look like they were made by the first
AD. I think that in between Sam had learned how to film real
locations without sacrificing his strong forms by making Run of the
Arrow. ROTA doesn't contain any documentary shots of the kind you
describe, but I feel Sam struggling with his first location
assignment in House of Bamboo. Before that he was a creature of the
soundstage. By the time he finished Run, he was ready to film LA in
Kimono without falling into the visually insipid postcards of House.
24021
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:54pm
Subject: Did I say 'taste?' (was: Film criticism and literature) noelbotevera
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
> wrote:
> >
> > > > Is your writing inspired by/modelled on film critics or
> literary
> > > authors?
>
> > Bazin, Agee, Greene--as I said, no real direct influences; just
> that
> > they happen to be my standards for graceful, understated prose,
> > evenhandedness (something I rarely achieve, myself), and
> impeccable
> > taste (tho what Agee sees in "Monsieur Verdoux" I'll probably
> never
> > understand).
>
> For 'impeccable taste,' let me substitute 'impeccable intuition'--
I
> like Joe Bob for his complete lack of taste.
Throw in Fernand Point's Ma Gastronomie, which is one favorite
source of food metaphors. And you haven't had an orgasm until you've
tried an egg fried his style.
24022
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: Masters of Indian Cinema series in NYC, April sallitt1
> Anyway, just looking through the list again, I didn't realize that the
> Buddhadb listed is actually Buddhadeb Dasgupta (odd, since Buddhadeb
> is his first name), and the two films screening are "The Wrestlers"
> (Uttara) and "A Tale of a Naughty Girl" (Mondo Meyer Uppakhyan). I
> highly recommend the latter (the former is good too, but I wouldn't
> consider "essential"). Dasgupta is a poet and it's in full display in
> the film: the story not only operaates on a metaphoric level (with the
> moon landing), but the way that he uses lighting is especially
> evocative. His visual style reminds me of Kieslowski quite a bit.
I didn't realize it either. I must admit that I disliked A TALE OF A
NAUGHTY GIRL - didn't make it to the end. - Dan
24023
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> All three are good filmmakers, and so is Reiner,
> IMO. Only the latter
> is a particularly polemical thumbs-up. YOU are being
> very polemical,
> The Brad, in denigrating Soderbergh (King of the
> Hill, The Limey,
> Schizopolos), the Coens (Blood Simple, Miller's
> Crossing, Fargo) and
> Anderson (Hard Eight, Boogie Nights). 'Splain,
> please.
>
>
>
>
Well let ME dive in.
Soderbergh began his career as an interesting
director, but quickly turned into a master of The
Gimp.
The Coens are slick hacks with a few enjoyable moments
("Fargo," "The Big Lebowski")
Anderson suffes from delusions of adequacy.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24024
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:25pm
Subject: re: American cinema apmartin90
I'm glad David's offhand dip into the broader waters of 'great cinema'
(citing Wong and Chereau) started to complicate and bust open the discussion
of this 'American pantheon'.
I know Rick's original and completely valid proposal/experiment was to
'update Sarris', but ever since then I have been feeling increasingly
exasperated by the discussions/lists that have resulted. It opens on old
sore for me: namely, why do AMERICANS so often only want to discuss/value
goddamn motherfucking AMERICAN CINEMA ????
It's insane, idiotic (especially in the modern world!) - when it's casual
and unthinking. I know there are completely respectable enterprises, like
Jean-Pierre and Tavernier's great book, where the subject of American cinema
is defined and the corpus rigorously circumscribed and adhered to. And I
know there are many fine and important critics, on this list as elsewhere,
who routinely work across the whole globe in their critical writing.
But: from Sarris to the Abominable Professor Carney (a dude quite
obsessively compelled to qualify almost everything he discusses as 'the best
American' this or that) - and with many stops in-between - this apparently
'natural' tendency to restrict critical discussion to North American cinema
is absolutely sickening and myopic.
Tear down the American Pantheon, I say! Join with me, brothers and sisters
of the New World !!
zealous Adrian
24025
From: "Jason Guthartz"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:03pm
Subject: Re: American cinema Guthartz
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> But: from Sarris to the Abominable Professor Carney (a dude quite
> obsessively compelled to qualify almost everything he discusses as
'the best
> American' this or that) - and with many stops in-between - this
apparently
> 'natural' tendency to restrict critical discussion to North American
cinema
> is absolutely sickening and myopic.
What is even more sickening and myopic is the fact that what is
implicit in "American Cinema" is only that slice of the apple pie
having to do with narrative. While it may be extremely provincial to
be preoccupied with "American"-ness, at least these critics explicitly
delimit their surveys by using the adjective "American."
Non-narrative cinema -- American or otherwise -- isn't even given the
courtesy of such a qualification, and therefore does not exist.
Jason Guthartz
24026
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 9:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: American cinema sallitt1
>> this apparently 'natural' tendency to restrict critical discussion to
>> North American cinema is absolutely sickening and myopic.
>
> What is even more sickening and myopic is the fact that what is
> implicit in "American Cinema" is only that slice of the apple pie
> having to do with narrative.
Words like "sickening" are just going to poison the air - they're not
going to achieve what you want.
I really don't get the feeling that discussions of non-American,
non-narrative kinds of cinema are doomed here.
Anyway, from post #874, here's a list of my ten favorite Australian films!
1. Mad Max (Miller)
2. Chopper (Dominik)
3. Praise (Curran)
4. Mouth to Mouth (Duigan)
5. Age of Consent (Powell)
6. Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior (Miller)
7. Sirens (Duigan)
8. Careful, He Might Hear You (Schultz)
9. Flirting (Duigan)
10. Dogs in Space (Lowenstein)
More details in post #839! - Dan
24027
From: "K. A. Westphal"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:02pm
Subject: Re: American cinema chelovek_s_k...
To reply to the comments of Adrian and Jason:
I understand your objections to such a topic, but I also think they're
quite brash.
This was not a discussion on the "Greatest Modern Filmmakers, 1969 -
Present" that only later became restricted to narrative American
filmmaking due to the myopia and zeal of the posters. The original
query was whether a politique comparable to Sarris's could be drawn up
for modern American filmmaking. Sarris certainly had interests outside
of American cinema (in his "Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962," he
offered Ophuls, Renoir, and Mizoguchi as his first three favorite
auteurs, with Rossellini, Dreyer, and Murnau also occupying spots in
his Top Ten; Sarris later tried to slot Renoir, Ophuls, and Murnau
into the Pantheon in American Cinema, which I personally find dubious,
as their contributions to the American cinema played a relatively
small part of their overall career).
But he "imported" the auteur theory for a different purpose than to
extol the virtues of Mizoguchi and Rossellini. In the essay I
mentioned, he also claims he would stake his own critical reputation
on the notion that, film for film, Hitchcock is better than Bresson.
Sarris is certainly aware of the limitations of the valuation and in
no way presents it as a nationalistic or commercial judgment. His
point is that his framework of choice helps him appreciate directors
like Hitchcock, Hawks, Ford, Walsh, and the like--directors previously
ignored or misunderstood. When posters cited the absence of genre
films from the film landscape (with rare exceptions like TORQUE), they
were making a legitimate point about the state of filmmaking in this
country. As for the problematic relation of the question to
non-narrative work, I doubt the politique could be adjusted to fit
that filmmaking; the concerns and circumstances are so different. It's
not a matter of personal concerns and convictions being visible in the
most unlikely of places, as it was for most of the studio work
discussed in Sarris's survey.
I believe the point of Rick's original post was trying to ascertain
whether such a system could work in today's film culture. The
discussion was about whether the current economic, promotional, and
aesthetic norms in Hollywood filmmaking make the auteur system
irrelevant. So, for that matter, I think the brief discussion was much
more politically informed than either of you would believe.
An apt conclusion one might draw, actually, is that American
filmmaking since the late 1960s has been comparably bankrupt; one
might cite Scorsese or Morris or any of one's personal favorites, but
I don't see any of them as the equal to a Ford or a Lubitsch. The
discussion naturally takes this direction actually, as one realizes
that talking about American cinema is a waste of time when the works
of Wong, Hou, Kiarostami, Kieslowski, Jia, etc. are more interesting
anyway.
--Kyle
24028
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:25pm
Subject: Re: The Crimson Kimono (was: Film criticism and literature) tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"This contrasts with the Japan in cherry blossom time local color
shots in House of Bamboo, which look like they were made by the first
AD...I feel Sam struggling with his first location assignment in
House of Bamboo. Before that he was a creature of the soundstage. By
the time he finished Run, he was ready to film LA in Kimono without
falling into the visually insipid postcards of House."
Relative to other Hollywood location movies shot in Japan around that
time (SAYONARA, THE BRIDGES AT TOKO-RI, JOE BUTTERFLY, CRY FOR HAPPY
and others) HOUSE OF BAMBBOO is the least cliched presentation of
Japanese locales. The climax at the yuenchi (rooftop amusement park)
was not a matter of mere local color, it was a wholly original
conceit and combined with Fuller's expressive use of traditional
Japanese interiors (even if filmed on a Fox soundstage) raises HOUSE
OF BAMBOO far above any other Hollywood film of that era. The scene
of Shirley Yamaguchi visitng the Kamakura Buddha statue is as close
as any location shot in the movie comes to being a postcard, and
compared with CRY FOR HAPPY it looks original.
If you're coming from some absolute Platonic view, than your
characterization of HOUSE OF BAMBOO (excepting the department store
amusement park shots) is accurate. I like HOUSE OF BAMBOO because
Fuller looked beyond the cliches of Japanese and American
interactions and, more importantly, tried harder than any other
Hollywood director to understand the visual space of Japanese
architecture, so I'm inclined to forgive him his inadequacies with
some of the exteriors here.
Richard
24029
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 10:42pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal"
>
> Altman and Scorsese have
> been canonized by the critical establishment; each routinely finds
> himself labelled the "greatest living American filmmaker" from
Ebert,
> the Times, internet critics, etc. But I think more than a few
people
> on this board would readily dispute their status and decry these
> testimonials much in the way Sarris dismissed Agee's piece on
Huston
> in Time.
>
And so on to categorizing a number of directors....
Initial discussion of this project was in general terms--how
applicable are Sarris' categories to the last thirty-five years and
so on--but not that people are are starting to name and even
categorize individual directors, as in thoughtful post referred to
here, I've decided to add a few thoughts.
The main reason I'm inclined to do this is I'm not likely to send in
a whole list to the Film Journal. Although I think it's a
worthwhile project and I'll be interested to see the results, there
just aren't enough names I want to linger on and list. Keep in mind
that The American Cinema came out in the first few years after the
classical American cinema had waned, as the radical reimagining of
that cinema in the 70s was just beginning. Arguably when Sarris'
book came out the American cinema could still be considered the
greatest cinema for those first seventy years in a world of great
cinemas. And it abounded with directors who had stamped their work
with a personal vision and not been noticed for it in America (now
every director routinely promotes himself or herself as an
auteur), names I won't even begin to list here because we all know
who they are and at least most are probably in The American Cinema,
even if not always in right category, but that could be endlessly
argued.
Like some other posters, I'd like to see The American Cinema
revisited for the classic years (Thirty Years in the American
Cinema, in French, was more comprehensive), not just for people like
Fregonese and Ludwig who have already been mentioned, but for others
as well. Has anyone ever noticed that Jack Arnold is not in the
book, for example? And even if his sensibility may seem elusive in
more of his films than not, how can there not somehow be a place for
Charles Vidor, who arguably made one of the most memorable movies of
the 40s, Gilda, and one of the most memorable of the 50s, Love Me or
Leave Me, both involving torturous, complex romantic entanglements
and very stylistically effective?
But again, the American cinema had a central place when that book
was written. Arguably, this is not true any more, and if it does
have a place it is surely more with independent films and the
experimental, non-narrative cinema rather than with Hollywood. I'd
much rather see people like Chantal Akerman, Andre Techine and Tsai
Ming-Liang placed in a new auteurist hierarchy by this group than
any American director. I'm sure Scorsese and Altman will get a lot
of votes (to which I would add the name Eastwood) but I agree that
it won't be unanimous, obviously. Exchanges on The Aviator and
Million Dollar Baby alone indicate that a_film_by members would be
well advised to take their mellow pills if they ever gather in one
room to discuss these films and their directors.
The main purpose of this post is just to name my hands down favorite
American director of these later years in hopes those submitting
lists won't forget him. Monte Hellman.
A filmography of only ten films may seem modest but not to me,
because I believe that the three greatest movies by an American
director in that much overrated decade of the 1970s were all made by
him--Two Lane Blacktop, Cockfighter and China 9, Liberty 37. The
second was barely released (and initially in altered version called
Born to Kill) and the last, European made, has never had a
theatrical run in America to my knowledge. But these films reveal
Hellman as the true inheritor of the cinema of people like Howard
Hawks (who is in Sarris' pantheon) and a next generation director
like Nicholas Ray (who should have been). It's the same ethos,
compellingly evolved and at times seemingly resituated in new genres-
-actually born out of the old--with characters who at times seem
close to unreadable, except that Hellman is just very stylistically
subtle and refined, finding the right modern and existential tone to
refashion the finer threads of the American cinema in a personal way.
And it isn't just the three films named. Even the earlier, even
humbler Back Door to Hell and Flight to Fury show that Hellman was
ready to be an artist just doing that genre work as people like
Tourneur, Boetticher, Dwan and Ulmer had done before. Though
Peckinpah and Leone finally get more points with me in the Western,
Hellman's early The Shooting and Ride in the Whirlwind in many ways
are the road not taken in the genre in the 70s (China 9, Liberty 37
even more so in a different way). And the later Iguana reveals that
Hellman was the guy who could effectively return to the adventurous
worlds of someone like Raoul Walsh in a meaningful, provocative way
(actually, the end of Blackbeard the Pirate remains more disturbing
to me than any moment of Iguana, but maybe that's because I first
saw it as a kid).
Hellman's career seems to have become permanently derailed over a
decade, following what was sadly, his worst movie--Silent Night,
Deadly Night: Better Watch Out (I may not have that title exactly
right). The fact that there is no place in the American cinema for
an artist of so rich a talent (and who is so contemporary while
fitting in so well with the older traditions) is one indication to
me of what's wrong with it. True, people like Stroheim, Sternberg
and Welles saw the same thing happen to them in the past, but they
managed to do a lot more and were a lot more high profile before it
happened, and all had ego problems that the self-effacing Hellman,
glad to be a humble genre director, does not. Where can we
reasonably put him in Sarris' categories? Not in the Pantheon
obviously, although he fits Sarris' description for it in some ways
(in terms of collaborators, for example, Hellman forged a great
creative relationship with arguably the finest American actor of his
generation, Warren Oates). But the "disruptive career problems"
Sarris cites as one limitation on Far Side of Paradise directors has
never been more apt--so let's put him there, maybe in a privileged
corner of that far side.
Blake Lucas
[This was drafted before 24024 and 24025, and maybe others by now,
which have already raised some of the same points, and especially
before I read 24013, where Brad Stevens cited Hellman's name
under "Dude, Where's My Career?"--wish I'd said that, Brad.]
24030
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:41pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
>
> "Hey, little girl, want some candy?"
>
> Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Victor Salva.
Isn't that a bit below the belt, though? Or even (I shudder at
the thought) slightly O.T.? JPC
24031
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:54pm
Subject: The NEW American Cinema: (Was: American cinema) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal"
wrote:
>
> To reply to the comments of Adrian and Jason:
>
> I understand your objections to such a topic, but I also think
they're...
...based on a misreading of the subject heading: The NEW American
Cinema refers to a book title - The American Cinema - and proposes a
game of updating that book. Sarris stated in his preface:
"Since the criteria of selection for this historical survey are
aesthetic rather than social or industrial, 'American' will embrace
many undubbed English-language films produced abroad. As much as this
encroachment on British and international cinema may smack of
imperialistic presumption, the doctrine of cultural continuity within
the cultural marketplace of the English langauge takes precedence
here over ethnographic considerations...It is an exaggerated concern
with what is 'distinctively' American that has led to the unfortunate
denigration of Ophuls, Sternbergand Lubitsch for their alleged
exoticism...
"As for what constitutes a movie by our temporary definition, the
necessary evil of specialization must be invoked....The vast realms
of documentary, animated and experimental film-making are pointedly
excluded....The feature film that emerged full-grown from the head of
Cinema's Zeus, D. W. Griffith, happens to be the subject under
scrutiny. Let us say for the moment that this is just one kind of
cinema, but the one most people would identify, rightly or wrongly,
as THE Cinema."
He goes on to recall that the first version of the book appeared in
Film Culture No. 28 - a seedbed of critical reflection on American
non-narrative cinema as well - but only to answer objections raised
to it at that time, which - as the brief quote I just gave also
shows -- are not the ones Adrian and Jason raised today. He felt he
had to defend including John Schlesinger, for example, not excluding
him. Times do indeed change.
But there was nothing wrong with the original subject heading, which
I hereby restore to avoid further confusion.
24032
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 11:58pm
Subject: Re: The Crimson Kimono (was: Film criticism and literature) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> If you're coming from some absolute Platonic view, than your
> characterization of HOUSE OF BAMBOO (excepting the department store
> amusement park shots) is accurate. I like HOUSE OF BAMBOO because
> Fuller looked beyond the cliches of Japanese and American
> interactions and, more importantly, tried harder than any other
> Hollywood director to understand the visual space of Japanese
> architecture, so I'm inclined to forgive him his inadequacies with
> some of the exteriors here.
>
> Richard
Points taken. My own downgrading of House vis a vis other Fullers has
to do with trying to understand his evolution from soundstage to
location filming. It also reflects a polemic against the idea (not
yours, Richard) that the Fox films were better because slicker - I
think Zanuck did interfere, contrary to legend, and always with a
slightly deleterious effect on the the result.
24033
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 0:02am
Subject: Re: American cinema jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
>
> Tear down the American Pantheon, I say! Join with me, brothers and
sisters
> of the New World !!
>
> zealous Adrian
I'll drink to that! Let's by all means. This country (i.e. the
USofA) is notoriously the most ethnocentric of the "advanced"
countries in the world. See how Americans breakdown all movies into
two categories: American (which itself breaks down into any number
of genres) and "foreign". A foreign film is just that -- not a
comedy, not a drama, not a thriller, just "foreign." Not french,
Italian, Australian, Polish, whatever -- just "foreign". (with the
underlying caveat that this is alien stuff not intended for good
average Americans but just suspicious highbrow types).
Of course the Coursodon/Tavernier books were about American film (as
Adrian pointed out) but being French we can't be accused of
ethnocentrism!
That said,if we enlarge the Sarris model to world cinema, we go back
to the old-fashioned all-encompassing "Histoires du Cinema" that
flourished in the thirties/forties and on. And the book will be in
25 volumes of 1000 pages each. The mind boggles...
PS: Speaking of my Pal Tavernier, he is showing is latest film at
the Walter Reade in New York tonight and tomorrow.
JPC
24034
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Sat Mar 12, 2005 7:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema scil1973
In a message dated 3/12/05 5:42:06 PM, jpcoursodon@... writes:
> > "Hey, little girl, want some candy?"
> >
> > Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Victor Salva.
>
>
> Isn't that a bit below the belt, though? Or even (I shudder at
> the thought) slightly O.T.? JPC
>
Not to mention heteronormative.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
24035
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 0:22am
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema cellar47
And for Salva it would be little boys.
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> > "Hey, little girl, want some candy?"
> >
> > Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Victor Salva.
>
>
> Isn't that a bit below the belt, though? Or even
> (I shudder at
> the thought) slightly O.T.? JPC
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24036
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 0:22am
Subject: Victor Salva, Woody Allen (Was: The NEW American Cinema) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
> wrote:
> > "Hey, little girl, want some candy?"
> >
> > Woody Allen, Roman Polanski, Victor Salva.
>
>
> Isn't that a bit below the belt, though? Or even (I shudder at
> the thought) slightly O.T.? JPC
Glad someone mentioned Victor, whose current project, Way of the
Peaceful Warrior for Lions Gate, takes him back to the kind of film
he made in Powder (his best) before the press outed him as a
convicted pederast during production. Having made Clownhouse,
produced by Roman Coppola, the film that kept Zoetrope on its pins
for six more months near the end (there's a Rumblefish poster on the
wall of one of the boys in Clownhouse), and Jeepers Creepers (also
produced by RC), the first non-Bond since Legally Yours to make money
for fut MGM, and its profitable sequel, he now has the commercial
cred to transcend the press coverage that will dog him the rest of
his life for reasons that are quite OT a far as artistic achievement
are concerned, and get on with making one-of-a-kind films about
coming of age, something he does with a certain amount of style and
feeling.
I don't consider Soon Yee (sp?) a total OT, by the way - the Woodman
followed that embarrassing debacle with Husbands and Wives, his best
film of the 90s, which seems to have inaugurated a period of elevated
achievement that lasted, as usual, for 4 or 5 films. If he wants to
go out and molest a Schnauser to get his juices up to that level
again, I say Go, Woodman, Go!
24037
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 0:25am
Subject: Re: American cinema hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> PS: Speaking of my Pal Tavernier, he is showing is latest film at
> the Walter Reade in New York tonight and tomorrow.
>
> JPC
One written by BT's daughter and much admired by my pal Sylvie Pierre.
24038
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 2:12am
Subject: Re: American cinema jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>
> > PS: Speaking of my Pal Tavernier, he is showing is latest film
at
> > the Walter Reade in New York tonight and tomorrow.
> >
> > JPC
>
> One written by BT's daughter and much admired by my pal Sylvie
Pierre.
And why did it take Sylvie Pierre's belated endorsement of a
Tavernier film for you, Bill K., to deign even mention his Cahier-
despised name? I mean, I'm not a great fan of all of his films even
though we have been friends and worked together for 40 years, but
the way your friends have treated him at Cahiers has been
shameful. 'nough said. JPC
24039
From: "Rick Curnutte"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:43am
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema racurnutte1
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >> FAR SIDE OF PARADISE
> > Terence Davies
>
> Oh, yeah, Rick - this raises a question. Sarris did the English-
language
> cinema, not just the American cinema. Should we? - Dan
Yes.
Rick
24040
From: "Rick Curnutte"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:49am
Subject: Re: American cinema racurnutte1
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
> Tear down the American Pantheon, I say! Join with me, brothers and
sisters
> of the New World !!
>
> zealous Adrian
Actually, several lists that I've received have featured
international filmmakers, and I fully intend to leave them as-is. In
fact, I had anticipated that a contemporary survey would need to
include non-Americans, and had already planned to make a statement
as to why that particular "rule" of Sarris' had been altered
(incidentally, I won't be using the "New American Cinema" term
specifically...the poll will have its own name, referencing
auteurism and citing Sarris as the inspiration and starting-off
point.
Rick
24041
From: "Rick Curnutte"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:51am
Subject: Re: American cinema racurnutte1
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jason Guthartz"
wrote:
> What is even more sickening and myopic is the fact that what is
> implicit in "American Cinema" is only that slice of the apple pie
> having to do with narrative. While it may be extremely provincial
to
> be preoccupied with "American"-ness, at least these critics
explicitly
> delimit their surveys by using the adjective "American."
> Non-narrative cinema -- American or otherwise -- isn't even given
the
> courtesy of such a qualification, and therefore does not exist.
>
> Jason Guthartz
There's absolutely no reason why Brakhage or Mekas or Benning or
Snow or Deren or any other non-narrative filmmaker shouldn't be
included. In fact, I fully expect for Brakhage to be featured
prominently by some.
Rick
24042
From: "Rick Curnutte"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:03am
Subject: Re: American cinema racurnutte1
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Curnutte"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
> wrote:
>
> > Tear down the American Pantheon, I say! Join with me, brothers
and
> sisters
> > of the New World !!
> >
> > zealous Adrian
>
> Actually, several lists that I've received have featured
> international filmmakers, and I fully intend to leave them as-is.
In
> fact, I had anticipated that a contemporary survey would need to
> include non-Americans, and had already planned to make a statement
> as to why that particular "rule" of Sarris' had been altered
> (incidentally, I won't be using the "New American Cinema" term
> specifically...the poll will have its own name, referencing
> auteurism and citing Sarris as the inspiration and starting-off
> point.
>
> Rick
Actually, strike that. To keep with Sarris' tradition, I'll stay
with his American/English-language guideline. Sorry for the back-and-
forth, but I DO want to remain as close as possible to Sarris' model.
Rick
24043
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:39am
Subject: Tavernier, acting curves, intellectualism (Was: American cinema) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> > wrote:
> >
> > > PS: Speaking of my Pal Tavernier, he is showing is latest film
> at
> > > the Walter Reade in New York tonight and tomorrow.
> > >
> > > JPC
> >
> > One written by BT's daughter and much admired by my pal Sylvie
> Pierre.
>
>
> And why did it take Sylvie Pierre's belated endorsement of a
> Tavernier film for you, Bill K., to deign even mention his Cahier-
> despised name? I mean, I'm not a great fan of all of his films even
> though we have been friends and worked together for 40 years, but
> the way your friends have treated him at Cahiers has been
> shameful. 'nough said. JPC
Actually, his initial big success came at a time when they were
otherwise occupied (by theory, by politics, so that a lot of the
films didn't get reviewed at all. I haven't seen Laisse Passer, by
the way -I know that was recently the subject of a polemical attack
by Charles Tesson. But building a career out of giving the finger to
the New Wave is not a great way to be a darling of the Cahiers,
especially if you are vulnerable in certain esthetic areas.
Another case of someone who published in CdC and didn't get good
reviews there afterward is Patrice Leconte (whose wife, ironically,
was my press agent when the Hitchcock book, with great trepidation
and no time for preparation, was unleashed on France). But they both
have enjoyed enough critical and commercial success that I don't
avert my eyes as from someone my magazine had callously destroyed
when I run into them.
Reseeing Coup de torchon recently, it occurred to me that maybe
Truffaut was simply right about Aurenche - the script was no good.
Apparently the script of Holy Lola is, and that can make all the
difference. But there was more wrong with the film than that. On the
DVD bonus BT charmingly and intelligently discourses on many things,
revealing that he instructed Noiret to act each scene as if nothing
had preceded it or followed it.
Digression: Actors often prepare for a film - esp. one shot out of
sequence - by planning out a curve mapped against a couple of axes
and following it. Dan O'Bannon tells me that George C. Scott used to
put notations next to scenes in his scripts indicating how intense
each scene should be played to achieve a curve of that kind, for
example. This is a technique, I should hasten to add, that will work
even if you have a director you know won't be able to give you proper
direction, and it often gives to films that would have no unity at
all the unity of at least one strong central performance. It is also
a valid way to prepare for any film by any director, but only if
you're ready to abandon the plan when a capable director assumes the
reins.
I hadn't heard BT's comment about playing every scene as a self-
contained entity, or his assertion that Noiret, at first fearful,
later admitted that it had worked, but I was appalled by Noiret's
performance when I saw the film again a few weeks ago. There simply
was no performance - a rarity with Noiret. In retrospect, after
discussing actors who prepare w. Dan O'B, I realized that this was a
classic example of the kind of bad idea that only a smart - and very
intellectual - director could come up with. Perhaps that is something
that works against BT at times.
One obvious plus about the film is the gorgeous, original production
design, which is very much a result of his close collaboration with
Trauner. In that case, BT's knowledge of film history, his support of
a (sometime) Tradition of Quality artisan and his tendency (perhaps)
to work from ideas - pastels and sunlight to break cliches of
depicting Africa and cliches of film noir - served him beautifully.
The film is a constant pleasure to look at, and a fresh image of
the "Dark Continent." And his master idea, that Thompson's novel
could work in a colonial village, might have worked, too, if he
hadn't made the mistake of basically telling one of France's best
actors not to do his job!
24044
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:38am
Subject: Sacha Guitry query bufordrat
I'd like to begin by thanking David E. for pointing out the connection
between Resnais and Guitry some months ago, and JPC and Robert for
sharing their thoughts on _Melo_. Since then I've been enjoying
Guitry's films, whose stylistic experimentation and stunningly beautiful
circumlocutions continue to delight. I was wondering whether anyone
might be able to direct me to interesting writing on his films, either
in English or in French. Apparently the Cahiers gave him some coverage
in the 50s and 60s?
thanks as always,
-Matt
24045
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 7:11am
Subject: Re: Commonwealth (was: American cinema) nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-03-12 23:05:06 EST, Rick Curnutte writes:
<< To keep with Sarris' tradition, I'll stay with his
American/English-language guideline. >>
Post-1968 cinema in the British Commonwealth (Great Britain, Canada,
Australia, New Zealand) is very rich. This will at least double the size of the area
covered. I'm no expert on this cinema, but am a big fan of a lot of what I've
seen.
One can argue that Commonwealth Cinema is THE English language narrative
cinema of the post-1968 years - and maybe the most artistically rich narrative
cinema of any region or country in the world in those years.
This is a hard concept for cinephiles to grasp. They were used to the
strictures against pre-1968 British Cinema (Truffaut to Hitchcock: "Isn't there a
contradiction between the words "England" and "Cinema"?" etc.)
Mike Grost
24046
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 1:52pm
Subject: Re: Sacha Guitry query sallitt1
> I was wondering whether anyone
> might be able to direct me to interesting writing on his films, either
> in English or in French. Apparently the Cahiers gave him some coverage
> in the 50s and 60s?
My film books are still packed away, but one or more Truffaut articles on
Guitry were translated for LES FILMS DE MA VIE, I believe. - Dan
24047
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 3:45pm
Subject: Re: Tavernier, acting curves, intellectualism (Was: American cinema) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Actually, his initial big success came at a time when they were
> otherwise occupied (by theory, by politics, so that a lot of the
> films didn't get reviewed at all. I haven't seen Laisse Passer, by
> the way -I know that was recently the subject of a polemical
attack
> by Charles Tesson. But building a career out of giving the finger
to
> the New Wave is not a great way to be a darling of the Cahiers,
> especially if you are vulnerable in certain esthetic areas.
After they stopped being "otherwise occupied" they started
reviewing his films and panned every single one of them, often in
terms that were insultingly ad hominem. A good example is the review
of "Un dimanche a la campagne" by Lardeau #359 May 1984 (I happen to
have a copy at hand; I won't quote from it in order not to annoy
members who don't read French, but just look it up.). Tesson's
editorial on "Laissez-passer" was based on the totally ridiculous
and outrageous conceit that the film "gives the finger" -- as you
elegantly put it -- to the New Wave, which you seem to be swallowing
whole without having gone to the trouble of seeing the film (which
is available on DVD). Tesson's theory: because Laissez-passer takes
place during the German occupation and shows French filmmakers
making good movies amid considerable difficulties, the film is
therefore a defense of the "old" French cinema and thereby a
condemnation of the "Nouvelle Vague" (he bizarrely complains that
the New Wave is "absent" from the film). Gimme a break!
I am pretty sure that I would react in the same way if I had
never met Bertrand, because I feel it takes a very twisted,
prejudiced mind to come up with such a cockeyed theory. JPC
>
> Another case of someone who published in CdC and didn't get good
> reviews there afterward is Patrice Leconte (whose wife,
ironically,
> was my press agent when the Hitchcock book, with great trepidation
> and no time for preparation, was unleashed on France). But they
both
> have enjoyed enough critical and commercial success that I don't
> avert my eyes as from someone my magazine had callously destroyed
> when I run into them.
>
CdC didn't destroy Leconte or Tavernier, but they sure tried
their best. Same thing for the "Liberation"/"Le Monde" crowd.
As for COUP DE TORCHON and Noiret's performance you make an
interesting point but I don't agree at all. The supposed "non-
acting" very much fits the character he's playing. But I'm not here
to defend every film and every shot BT ever made. JPC
24048
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 4:33pm
Subject: Re: Sacha Guitry query jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman
wrote:
I was wondering whether anyone
> might be able to direct me to interesting writing on his films,
either
> in English or in French. Apparently the Cahiers gave him some
coverage
> in the 50s and 60s?
>
> thanks as always,
> -Matt
POSITIF published a "Dossier" on Guitry (seven articles) in #411,
May 1995. Very good articles by Tobin, Viviani, Herpe, Amiel and
others... There is a book by Noel Simsolo called "Sacha Guitry"
published in the early nineties I think but I haven't rad or seen
it. Simsolo is a prolific but interesting critic. Hope this helps!
About ten-15 years ago there started a revival of interest in Guitry
in France. JPC
24049
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:35pm
Subject: Re: Tavernier, acting curves, intellectualism (Was: American cinema) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>
> > Actually, his initial big success came at a time when they were
> > otherwise occupied (by theory, by politics, so that a lot of the
> > films didn't get reviewed at all. I haven't seen Laisse Passer,
by
> > the way -I know that was recently the subject of a polemical
> attack
> > by Charles Tesson. But building a career out of giving the finger
> to
> > the New Wave is not a great way to be a darling of the Cahiers,
> > especially if you are vulnerable in certain esthetic areas.
>
>
> After they stopped being "otherwise occupied" they started
> reviewing his films and panned every single one of them, often in
> terms that were insultingly ad hominem. A good example is the
review
> of "Un dimanche a la campagne" by Lardeau #359 May 1984 (I happen
to
> have a copy at hand; I won't quote from it in order not to annoy
> members who don't read French, but just look it up.). Tesson's
> editorial on "Laissez-passer" was based on the totally ridiculous
> and outrageous conceit that the film "gives the finger" -- as you
> elegantly put it -- to the New Wave, which you seem to be
swallowing
> whole without having gone to the trouble of seeing the film (which
> is available on DVD). Tesson's theory: because Laissez-passer takes
> place during the German occupation and shows French filmmakers
> making good movies amid considerable difficulties, the film is
> therefore a defense of the "old" French cinema and thereby a
> condemnation of the "Nouvelle Vague" (he bizarrely complains that
> the New Wave is "absent" from the film). Gimme a break!
Sounds like I misspoke - sorry. I want to see Laissez Passer on DVD
because the subject interests me - I just haven't had time to see
many films I want to see lately. I watched Coup de torchon because of
serial killin', and will be watching The Judge and His Assassin soon
for the same reason.
24050
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:42pm
Subject: Re: Sacha Guitry query hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman
> wrote:
> I was wondering whether anyone
> > might be able to direct me to interesting writing on his films,
> either
> > in English or in French. Apparently the Cahiers gave him some
> coverage
> > in the 50s and 60s?
> >
> > thanks as always,
> > -Matt
>
> POSITIF published a "Dossier" on Guitry (seven articles) in #411,
> May 1995. Very good articles by Tobin, Viviani, Herpe, Amiel and
> others... There is a book by Noel Simsolo called "Sacha Guitry"
> published in the early nineties I think but I haven't rad or seen
> it. Simsolo is a prolific but interesting critic. Hope this helps!
> About ten-15 years ago there started a revival of interest in
Guitry
> in France. JPC
If you can find it, there's a Guitry book published by Yellow Now
Press for the Locarno Film Festival. There was also a special issue
of Cahiers on Pagnol and Guitry in the 60s - maybe 65, 66. Welles had
some interesting comments about Guitry's influence on his essay films
when I interviewed him, reprinted in the collection Orson Welles by
CdC and available in English in The Unknown Welles, ed. Stefan
Droessler. All of that except the CdC issue is hard to get hold of,
but that issue is a good resource. Also, aren't there some recent DVD
editions of Guitry films in France w. critical bonuses?
24051
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 5:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema fredcamper
First, a small point. Kyle writes, in
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/24027?viscount=100&expand=
"In the essay I mentioned, [Sarris] also claims he would stake his own
critical reputation on the notion that, film for film, Hitchcock is
better than Bresson."
Kyle, are you sure this is Bresson? I remember a Sarris "film by film"
statement that targeted Berman I think (or Antonioni or Fellini -- sorry
if I get them confused, this is my old bias showing), not one targeting
Bresson. Maybe he did Bresson too, but I'd like to see this cleared up.
Kyle also wrote
"The discussion was about whether the current economic, promotional, and
aesthetic norms in Hollywood filmmaking make the auteur system irrelevant."
The "auteur system" was always somewhat "irrelevant," in my view, if
what one is interested in is great cinema. Crucial to the auteur theory,
in its American application at least, was that it was primarily applied
to commercial narrative filmmaking. The director wasn't totally free;
there was tension between the director and his material. But this is
only one system of making films, and that was true then as now. Where do
"Ballet Mécanique" or "Rose Hobart" fit in the "auteur theory"? Not at
all. The very use of the word "director" rather than my preferred
"filmmaker" betrays biases toward a certain kind of cinema. Sarris's
system was as outdated then as it was now, and not just due to
avant-garde exclusions: what to do with a film like "Sunrise," for
example? "Tabu" is an even better case. Are these "American" films? How
much does it matter? To film history, a lot. To film aesthetics, not as
much. To a film lover seeking great cinema, very little.
Dan's response notwithstanding, I have to agree with Jason (
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/24025 ) about the
identification of the phrase "American Cinema" with Hollywood cinema. I
nearly lost a friendship a decade ago when I told John Belton what I
thought of his book "American Cinema/American Culture," part of the
taxpayer-funded machine that also produced a PBS series that served as a
for credit-course on the same subject. This is not the case of a lone
critic like Sarris heroically bringing a new perspective (however flawed
I might ultimately judge it to be, I learned an enormous amount from it)
to the U.S. in the early 1960s; this is the mechanism of official
culture spreading, well, lies, using taxpayer dollars. Belton's book has
about three sentences on avant-garde film, if I remember correctly, and
doesn't even give it its own category of a few pages ("Also worth noting
is the movement sometimes called..." etc.), as most standard film
textbooks do by now. Were the whole thing called "Hollywood Cinema" or
"American Commercial Narrative Film" or "American Movies With
High-Priced Actors Walking Around and Talking in Lip-Sync," I might have
questioned how useful a category this was, but I could have hardly
objected strongly. Similarly, the taxpayer-funded late un-lamented
glossy monthly "American Film" often read like a press release for
George Lucas and rarely mentioned anything other than Hollywood film.
I'd question whether even the category "American cinema" is meaningful.
Rick's project seems interesting, and it will be fun to see the results,
but how much sense does it make to create a category that includes
Brakhage and Hellman and Spielberg but excludes, say, Rivette? I think
he's right to stick to English-language film since a Sarris update is
intended, but part of what I liked about Sarris is that his FILM CULTURE
issue represented one person's views, and as such has all the expected
quirks and eccentricities that any single taste would show.
Blake Lucas writes, in
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/24029?viscount=100&expand=1
"Arguably when Sarris' book came out the American cinema could still be
considered the greatest cinema for those first seventy years in a world
of great cinemas."
Well, I haven't seen nearly enough Egyptian or Chinese or Indian films
to know. Certainly there are many more Americans than people of other
nationalities on my personal favorite filmmaker list, but so what? That
could just reflect my lack of knowledge, or particular perspective.
I continue to be suspicious of the view that enshrines the sync-sound
narrative feature at cinema's center. If we're evaluating things
aesthetically, rather than sociologically or economically, this has to
be just plain wrong. As Peter Kubelka said recently in Chicago (arguing
a bit with the way I introduced him -- quote only approximate), "I
completely reject the idea that my films are something special or
outside of normal cinema. To me, my films are absolutely normal cinema."
His idea, I think, is that he was making cinema as it should be made.
Its Hollywood films, he went on to suggest, that should be considered
odd, "industrial cinema." And from the point of view of
twentieth-century modernist aesthetics (rather than, well,
post-modernism), he is absolutely right. Kubelka and Brakhage and Breer
are using film as a unique medium, following modernism's "truth to
materials" dictate, minimizing borrowings from theater and literature
and music and the like. Personally, I would not say that this makes
their films greater than Hawks's, but it certainly should argue that
they work should in no way be considered "marginal" when compared to
Hawks's.
I continue to suspect that the bias in favor of American commercial
narrative films is actually a bias in favor of entertaining stories well
told in a language we can understand, a bias that in my view has nothing
to do with aesthetics, or with trying to be as open as possible to all
forms of art making (just as a bias against well-told stories would
reflect a different lack of openness as well). Breer and Borzage are
both great formalists who make great films. The differences between
their works are important -- but not so important that one should be
preferred over the other.
I agree with Blake about Monte Hellman. "China 9, Liberty 37" is a
flat-out masterpiece, as are the two westerns. His two
made-in-the-Philippines films reflect, as Blake suggests, the low-budget
Ulmer aesthetic; they use film playfully at times. But his films are
anti-humanist. You don't fall in love with his actors or stories. They
are austere and formal works. Perhaps that's why so many prefer Scorsese
and Spielberg?
Sociological questions and questions of how "entertaining" something is
matter less as time passes. Shakespeare's plays were commercial smashes,
and I'm not suggesting we should forget that, but how important are
their "entertaining" aspects today? Shakespeare is now great literature,
as is Gerard Manley Hopkins, whose poems were almost entirely
unappreciated, even by his closest friends, in his lifetime. Telemann
was much more popular than Bach in their day, but so what? It's not hard
to see why; Telemann's music is much easier to get. It's also much less
rewarding in the long run. I look toward a future when the distinctions
between Baillie and Borzage, or Ford and Frampton, or Keaton and
Kubelka, or Sirk and Sonbert, are seen as not nearly as important as
they seem, to many, today.
Fred Camper
24052
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:01pm
Subject: Tavernier the conservative (Was: American cinema) thebradstevens
I admire many of Tavernier's films, but his work from the mid-90s
onwards shows just how difficult it is for liberal-humanist
filmmakers to avoid conservative/reactionary positions. L'APPAT,
though clearly a work of some distinction, suggests that 'youth
crime' results not from social injustice (the kids have privileged
backgrounds, the police are unfailingly polite), but rather from
exposure to media violence - just watch De Palma's SCARFACE and MTV
for a while, and you too will become a murderer!
CA COMMENCE AUJOURD HUI continues in this direction, with a scene in
which the most sympathetic of the teachers angrily points out that
parents who barely have enough money to feed their children somehow
manage to afford television sets.
Now I'm not sure what the specific situation is in France, but here
in the UK this kind of attitude would be associated with the extreme
right, who are forever sparking 'moral panics' in connection with the
effects of media violence, and attacking those poverty-stricken
families who spend their welfare cheques on unnecessary luxuries.
24053
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:09pm
Subject: Hellman (was Re: The NEW American Cinema thebradstevens
> I agree with Blake about Monte Hellman. "China 9, Liberty 37" is a
> flat-out masterpiece, as are the two westerns. His two
> made-in-the-Philippines films reflect, as Blake suggests, the low-
budget
> Ulmer aesthetic; they use film playfully at times. But his films
are
> anti-humanist. You don't fall in love with his actors or stories.
They
> are austere and formal works.
I disagree completely. The emotions in Hellman's films can admittedly
be hard to locate, especially during a first viewing, but once one
becomes attuned to what these films are doing, they prove to be
overwhelmingly emotional. Whenever I watch TWO-LANE BLACKTOP, I find
it difficult to prevent myself from crying as Laurie Bird says "no
good" - but only because, as one gets to know the film over the
course of several viewings, it gradually becomes clear precisely
what "no good" refers to.
I find that the same is true of Bresson (one of Hellman's favorite
directors), whose films I also find incredibly emotional. Bresson and
Hellman are a long way from being anti-humanists.
24054
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:27pm
Subject: Re: American cinema samfilms2003
>Sarris later tried to slot Renoir, Ophuls, and Murnau
> into the Pantheon in American Cinema, which I personally find dubious,
> as their contributions to the American cinema played a relatively
> small part of their overall career).
Well yes and no; re Murnau, I don't know how much weight to give
"Sunrise" in terms of his tragically short (somewhat) career, but
it had *major* impact on HWood filmmaking. (and aboslutely on
cinematography as you could find dozens of references to Charles
Rosher as an influence made by American DP's.... production design
too, I'd wager).
Ophuls American films - would you really say "relatively small" ?
Renoir, yes.
>as one realizes
> that talking about American cinema is a waste of time when the works
> of Wong, Hou, Kiarostami, Kieslowski, Jia, etc. are more interesting
> anyway.
Well I'm very interested in Wong and Hou especially, Kiarostami too, haven't
caught up with Jia, but.... I'm not gonna throw out Mallick or Gus VanZant
they're not a waste of MY time, I don't think....
(not to mention Nathaniel Dorsky and a dozen others)
-Sam
24055
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 6:38pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema samfilms2003
> Certainly there are many more Americans than people of other
> nationalities on my personal favorite filmmaker list, but so what?
Well there are likely fewer Americans on my list, and I've have 3 from
Taiwan alone (you could probably guess who) but again, so what.
> That could just reflect my lack of knowledge, or particular perspective.
Ditto.
Plus, sometimes I'm optimistic; who is out there that we don't know
about yet but might who be making treasures.
>I look toward a future when the distinctions
> between Baillie and Borzage, or Ford and Frampton, or Keaton and
> Kubelka, or Sirk and Sonbert, are seen as not nearly as important as
> they seem, to many, today.
>
> Fred Camper
You're starting to sound like me ;-)
-Sam
24056
From: "K. A. Westphal"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 7:22pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema chelovek_s_k...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> Kyle, are you sure this is Bresson? I remember a Sarris "film by film"
> statement that targeted Berman I think (or Antonioni or Fellini --
sorry
> if I get them confused, this is my old bias showing), not one targeting
> Bresson. Maybe he did Bresson too, but I'd like to see this cleared up.
In section 1 of "Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962," Sarris writes:
"Just a few years ago, I would have thought it unthinkable to speak in
the same breath of a "commercial" director, like Hitchcock and a
"pure" director like Bresson. Even today, Sight and Sound uses
different type sizes for Bresson and Hitchcock films. After years of
tortured revaluation, I am now prepared to stake my critical
reputation, such as it is, on the proposition that Alfred Hitchcock is
artistically superior to Robert Bresson by every criterion of
excellence and, further, that, film for film, director for director,
the American cinema has been consistently superior to that of the rest
of the world from 1915 to 1962."
If lists matter (and I suppose they do to Sarris), he ranks Hitchcock,
in the same article, as #4 and Bresson as #16 on his list of auteurs.
Sarris wasn't entirely against Bergman or Antonioni either. Based on
his top ten lists on Eric C. Johnson's site, he liked SEVENTH SEAL and
PERSONA quite a bit. And he wrote rhapsodically of BLOW-UP when it
came out, putting in the same breath, without much qualification, as
other "artistic self-relevation movies" (e.g., LOLA MONTES, UGETSU,
CONTEMPT). He was somewhat ambivalent about it, celebrating that the
film (presumably unlike Fellini) could be "entertaining even when it's
not englightening."
24057
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 7:37pm
Subject: Shyamalan (spoilers) thebradstevens
Just watched THE VILLAGE. A clear pattern is visible in Shyamalan's
last three films, all of which involve a powerful individual
manipulating the lives of others for little more than his own
amusement: Elijah (Samuel L. Jackson) in UNBREAKABLE, God in SIGNS,
and William Hurt's character in THE VILLAGE. I guess one might
include THE SIXTH SENSE in this group, if one sees Shyamalan himself
as the powerful individual, and viewers of the film as his victims.
THE VILLAGE is essentially a film about George Bush: Hurt's character
lies to people who regard him as their leader, using fear of non-
existent hostile forces in the surrounding woods as a way of
controlling his subjects. The disturbing thing is that Hurt's actions
seem to have Shyamalan's almost complete approval. Following on from
the demonstration of how one must never question God's wisdom in
SIGNS, this is shaping up to be one of the most reactionary bodies of
work in the history of cinema!
24058
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 7:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema (and Hitchcock v. Bresson) fredcamper
K. A. Westphal wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> In section 1 of "Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962," Sarris writes:
>
> ...Alfred Hitchcock is artistically superior to Robert Bresson....
Well, thanks, and sorry, Sarris is just plain wrong. Taking their
greatest films, "Au Hasard, Balthazar" is greater than "Vertigo," and
"L'Argent" is greater than "Pyscho," or however you want to rank your
Hitchcocks. I mean, "Les Anges du péché" is probably better than the
really minor ones. I'd say that the first really great Bresson, "Diary
of a Country Priest," is greater than all Hitchcocks possibly excepting
"Vertigo." While taste is notoriously hard to debate or defend, it seems
very hard for me to imagine anyone who truly "got" both filmmakers
thinking otherwise. Hitchcock's films are "just" psychological, though
magnificently so; Bresson's films encompass much much more. Even though
I arbitrarily ranked "Au Hasard, Balthazar" as number 5 on my favorite
films list, I wouldn't really argue that the "higher" four are better.
This is one of those films that defines the limits of greatness in cinema.
Using this comparison to praise American cinema is a way of making the
opposite point. Bresson's films resonate in a philosophical and "cosmic"
way that Hitchcock never quite reaches, or reaches to the same degree.
His films are characteristically American in their focus on individual
character emotions.
To Brad, I think Hellman and Bresson's films are profoundly emotionally
moving. I do not think either is a "humanist," and I don't think their
films work in the same way that Spielberg's or Scorsese's do, emotion
flowing from the actors directly to the viewer.
Fred Camper
24059
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:04pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema (and Hitchcock v. Bresson) jess_l_amortell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> K. A. Westphal wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> >
> > In section 1 of "Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962," Sarris writes:
> >
> > ...Alfred Hitchcock is artistically superior to Robert Bresson....
>
> Well, thanks, and sorry, Sarris is just plain wrong. Taking their
> greatest films, "Au Hasard, Balthazar" is greater than "Vertigo," and
> "L'Argent" is greater than "Pyscho,"
Ah, but "Balthazar" had not yet been made in 1962 (much less "L'Argent")!
24060
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema (and Hitchcock v. Bresson) fredcamper
jess_l_amortell wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> Ah, but "Balthazar" had not yet been made in 1962 (much less "L'Argent")!
Oops. So my argument is against that proposition today, not against what
Sarris wrote. Is "Vertigo" greater than, or even as great as, the best
pre-1962 Bressons? I don't think so, but that's a closer call.
Fred Camper
24061
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:31pm
Subject: Hellman (was Re: The NEW American Cinema (and Hitchcock v. Bresson) thebradstevens
> To Brad, I think Hellman and Bresson's films are profoundly
emotionally
> moving. I do not think either is a "humanist," and I don't think
their
> films work in the same way that Spielberg's or Scorsese's do,
emotion
> flowing from the actors directly to the viewer.
>
Bresson and Hellman frequently show characters (Michel in PICKPOCKET,
Frank in COCKFIGHTER) who have withdrawn behind masks of cold,
emotionless detachment. But these masks are always presented as
unhealthy and neurotic - crutches that the characters must learn to
cast aside before they can truly connect with other human beings.
This, surely, is evidence of Bresson and Hellman's humanism.
24062
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema (and Hitchcock v. Bresson) cellar47
--- Fred Camper wrote:
> jess_l_amortell wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ah, but "Balthazar" had not yet been made in 1962
> (much less "L'Argent")!
>
> Oops. So my argument is against that proposition
> today, not against what
> Sarris wrote. Is "Vertigo" greater than, or even as
> great as, the best
> pre-1962 Bressons? I don't think so, but that's a
> closer call.
>
But by 1962 Bresson HAD made "Les Dames du Bois de
Boulougne," "Un condamne a mort s'echappe" and
"Pickpocket" -- all three are arguably superior to
"Vertigo."
As for post '62 Bresson, "Le Diable probablement" is
the best, IMO -- followed by "Balthazar" and
"L'Argent" (with it's great 3-D finale)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
24063
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema (and Hitchcock v. Bresson) fredcamper
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> But by 1962 Bresson HAD made "Les Dames du Bois de
> Boulougne," "Un condamne a mort s'echappe" and
> "Pickpocket" -- all three are arguably superior to
> "Vertigo."
I don't know about "Les Dames," but I'd add "Diary of a Country Priest."
Also, Sarris wrote "film-by-film," which means yoiu can't just compare
"Vertigo," but you have to include many far more minor Hitchcock films.
I think after 1950 that there are no "minor" Bresson films.
Fred Camper
24064
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 8:49pm
Subject: Re: Sacha Guitry query kinoslang
> when I interviewed him, reprinted in the collection Orson Welles by
> CdC and available in English in The Unknown Welles, ed. Stefan
> Droessler. All of that except the CdC issue is hard to get hold of,
> but that issue is a good resource. Also, aren't there some recent
DVD
> editions of Guitry films in France w. critical bonuses?
Yes, where does one find tapes or dvds with eng subtitles??
-andy
24065
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 9:38pm
Subject: Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan (Was: Shyamalan SPOILERS) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
The disturbing thing is that Hurt's actions
> seem to have Shyamalan's almost complete approval. Following on
from
> the demonstration of how one must never question God's wisdom in
> SIGNS, this is shaping up to be one of the most reactionary bodies
of
> work in the history of cinema!
How'd you like it as a film, Brad?
I think Hurt's character is psychotic, unlike Bush, but Bush's
inflating and milking of the terrorist threat is clearly one target
of a film whose meanings aren't limited to the local and political.
MNS puts himself in the movie as the guard-station chief reading the
paper - which contains a non-explicit headline about the Iraq war -
and telling his subordinate not to make waves. The film was mainly
savaged by the American press, but did well at the wickets - MNS is
playing his cards very close to his chest and making beautiful,
thought-provoking films.
Eschatologically inclined artists have always distinguished between
humans characters playing God and God. Jackson's character in
Unbreakable and Hurt's character in The Village are wrong; God in
Signs, because MNS is some kind of religionist, isn't. That doesn't
make him a reactionary - I'm some kind of religionist too!
At the same time he, like me all my life, is fascinated by
eschatological questions: A fictional character who did what God does
in the Abraham/Isaac story would be a monster. Our narrative
tradition in the West is prety much one long aftermath of Paradise
Lost, concerning which William Empson wrote a great book, Milton's
God, affirming that the title character was one of the most evil in
all of literature.
I don't think MNS is unaware of these issues - his films are about
them! I also think his interest in eschatology underpins his focus on
endings, which has been decried as gimmicky, and is the reason he
always has great endings and Spielberg can only come up with one if
Kubrick writes it for him. The smart move in Village, given that
everyone was "waiting for it" by now, was to put the surprise 1/3 of
the way from the end, a la Vertigo, and then to surprise (and
frighten) the audience again when the story reaches its climax in the
woods.
This raises a question for Fred. Fred, do you really want to say that
the only purpose of narrative in art - and specifically in this art -
is to entertain????
24066
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 9:47pm
Subject: Re: Hitchcock v. Bresson hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> jess_l_amortell wrote:
>
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> >
> >
> > Ah, but "Balthazar" had not yet been made in 1962 (much
less "L'Argent")!
>
> Oops. So my argument is against that proposition today, not against
what
> Sarris wrote. Is "Vertigo" greater than, or even as great as, the
best
> pre-1962 Bressons? I don't think so, but that's a closer call.
>
> Fred Camper
I'm a long way from considering Balthsar the best Bresson, despite
the bitchun score. In fact, I'd put Diary of a Country Priest, A
Condemned Man Escapes, Pickpocket and The Trial of Joan of Arc ahead
of any of the late work except Une femme douce. And I personally
prefer Psycho to L'Argent, even though I may eventually add L'Argent
to my list of the best Bressons when I've seen it a few more times.
As for comparing Balthasar and Vertigo, which is really apples and
oranges, I'd suggest The Wrong Man as a better comparison for that
particular Bresson in terms of thematics, and The Birds in terms of
contemporaneity. I consider The Birds to be a better film than
anything by Bresson.
24067
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:00pm
Subject: Hitchcock v. Bresson hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> >
> > But by 1962 Bresson HAD made "Les Dames du Bois de
> > Boulougne," "Un condamne a mort s'echappe" and
> > "Pickpocket" -- all three are arguably superior to
> > "Vertigo."
>
> I don't know about "Les Dames," but I'd add "Diary of a Country
Priest."
>
> Also, Sarris wrote "film-by-film," which means yoiu can't just
compare
> "Vertigo," but you have to include many far more minor Hitchcock
films.
> I think after 1950 that there are no "minor" Bresson films.
>
> Fred Camper
Between 1954 and 1964 there is only one minor Hitchcock, To Catch a
Thief. Sarris puts Thief and The Trouble with Harry as a double entry
(released the same year and made practically simultaneously) in the
second slot for 1955, after Voyage in Italy. I'd put them third after
Voyage and Othello, which he underrates because he underrates the
European Welles.
Interestingly, Bresson (after 4 years of inactivity) bounced back
with A Condemned Man Escapes in 1955, when Hitchcock released The Man
Who Knew Too Much and The Wrong Man. Top that, Bob!
24068
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:01pm
Subject: Re: Sacha Guitry query hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
wrote:
>
>
> > when I interviewed him, reprinted in the collection Orson Welles
by
> > CdC and available in English in The Unknown Welles, ed. Stefan
> > Droessler. All of that except the CdC issue is hard to get hold
of,
> > but that issue is a good resource. Also, aren't there some recent
> DVD
> > editions of Guitry films in France w. critical bonuses?
>
> Yes, where does one find tapes or dvds with eng subtitles??
>
> -andy
I have Pearls in the Crown and Diary of a Cheat somewhere. Let me get
them out. Also Napoleon, dubbed, off tv.
24069
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:12pm
Subject: Re: Hitchcock v. Bresson cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Between 1954 and 1964 there is only one minor
> Hitchcock, To Catch a
> Thief.
I think "To Catch a Thief" is higky underrated -- and
Durgnat agrees with me in his Hitchcock book.
I find it one of the small handful of films that makes
heterosxuality look interesting.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
24070
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:13pm
Subject: Re: Tavernier the conservative (Was: American cinema) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> CA COMMENCE AUJOURD HUI continues in this direction, with a scene
in
> which the most sympathetic of the teachers angrily points out that
> parents who barely have enough money to feed their children
somehow
> manage to afford television sets.
>
> Now I'm not sure what the specific situation is in France, but
here
> in the UK this kind of attitude would be associated with the
extreme
> right, who are forever sparking 'moral panics' in connection with
the
> effects of media violence, and attacking those poverty-stricken
> families who spend their welfare cheques on unnecessary luxuries.
You are making the mistake of attributing a character's
statement to the filmmaker. Although the character is indeed
sympathetic he is not a saint and not above making such observations
(which are not necessarily inaccurate and do not prove that the
person is a right-wing hater of the poor)... Far from being
conservative the film was a strong indictment of the French
government's education policy and benign neglect of impoverished
areas that have lost most of their industries in the past 30 years
or so. It triggered strong protest from cabinet members and other
people in high office who insisted the picture was excessively black
and biased. The same thing had happened with BT's film on the
police, "L627". JPC
24071
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:31pm
Subject: Narrative vs. not, Mark Street (Was: The NEW American Cinema) sallitt1
> I continue to suspect that the bias in favor of American commercial
> narrative films is actually a bias in favor of entertaining stories well
> told in a language we can understand, a bias that in my view has nothing
> to do with aesthetics, or with trying to be as open as possible to all
> forms of art making (just as a bias against well-told stories would
> reflect a different lack of openness as well).
I put forth an alternate idea in post #19413: basically, that a work of
art functions in a fundamentally different way when it is built upon an
"easy conceptualizing" framework (storytelling in movies and literature,
representation in painting, etc.).
Sometimes I wonder whether non-narrative film really escapes the need for
something that functions like an "easy conceptualizing" layer, or whether
it labors under the burden of creating one from scratch instead of
deploying a culturally shared one. If the latter case is true, then maybe
non-narrative film can have an emotional impact only on viewers who break
the code. Otherwise, the films just look like all form all the time,
which is the same as no form: form requires non-formal elements in order
to function as form.
Anyway, I'm never surprised when people like one method and not the other.
But here's a non-narrative recommendation from an unlikely source. I'm
rarely wowed by this sort of thing, but I had an intense response to a
2000 film called SLIDING OFF THE EDGE OF THE WORLD, by a NYC filmmaker
named Mark Street.
http://www.hi-beam.net/mkr/ms/ms-bio.html
Since then, I've seen Street's video documentary/fiction about Baltimore,
AT HOME AND ASEA, which I liked less than the more abstract SLIDING.
I see that Street has a feature called ROCKAWAY in the upcoming Tribeca
Film Festival.
Anyone else know Street's work? - Dan
24072
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:31pm
Subject: Re: Hitchcock v. Bresson jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
I consider The Birds to be a better film than
> anything by Bresson.
Could someone please define terms like "better" applied to
compare widely different films by two widely different directors,
both on the highest level of cinematic achievement? Isn't it apples
and oranges as Bill suggests? Is such a debate at all meaningful?
Does it make any sense? I doubt it. Because Sarris made a stupid
statement many moons ago (stupid because of the apples and oranges
thing)is it really necessary to pick it up ? Again, and Fred said it
very well, isn't it just a matter of taste? Maybe it's a subject for
the OT Line...
Just bitching, as usual. Sorry!
JPC
24073
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 10:59pm
Subject: Re: Tavernier the conservative (Was: American cinema) thebradstevens
>
> You are making the mistake of attributing a character's
> statement to the filmmaker. Although the character is indeed
> sympathetic he is not a saint and not above making such
observations
> (which are not necessarily inaccurate
It's just that I don't see anything in that scene to suggest that we
are not supposed to wholeheartedly agree with what the character is
saying. In any case, this statement seems to me entirely consistent
with the viewpoint expressed throughout L'APPAT.
24074
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:10pm
Subject: Alternating verses sallitt1
A request for help from you musical experts out there. A friend is
writing on the musical practice of having different characters take
different verses of the same song, a la "Meet Me in St. Louis" in the
movie of the same name. He's looking for early instances of this sort of
thing. I came up with "Trimmin' the Women" from Lubitsch's MONTE CARLO,
and I'm trying to think of a number from THE LOVE PARADE that's done in
that fashion. Does anyone remember? Maybe "Paris, Stay the Same" with
valet Lupino Lane taking over from Chevalier?
If anyone can think of other examples from the same period (1927-1931 -
anything earlier than LOVE ME TONIGHT), or knows of earlier stage
instances of the phenomenon, that would be helpful too.
Thanks. - Dan
24075
From: "jaketwilson"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:32pm
Subject: Re: Narrative vs. not, Mark Street (Was: The NEW American Cinema) jaketwilson
> Sometimes I wonder whether non-narrative film really escapes the
need for
> something that functions like an "easy conceptualizing" layer, or
whether
> it labors under the burden of creating one from scratch instead of
> deploying a culturally shared one. If the latter case is true,
then maybe
> non-narrative film can have an emotional impact only on viewers who
break
> the code. Otherwise, the films just look like all form all the
time,
> which is the same as no form: form requires non-formal elements in
order
> to function as form.
Or: every film is 100% form and 100% content. The same way that when
we look at an apple there's no distinction between what the object
means and what it "is". Or maybe there is but the act of looking is
an attempt to reconcile the idea of the object with its
sensory "filling", as Hegel seems to say.
In a banal sense of course there is an easily-conceptualised layer to
abstract film -- most abstract movies tend to look similar when you
haven't seen many, just dancing fragments and colours. So do most
silent movies or most Westerns for that matter. Which is not to say
that when they catch on, less experienced viewers don't often "see"
particular artworks better than supposed connoisseurs -- it helps to
know what to look for, but on the other hand every work is different,
so you need to be openminded enough to start from scratch.
JTW
24076
From: "Jason Guthartz"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:36pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema: (Was: American cinema) Guthartz
--- "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal"
> wrote:
> > To reply to the comments of Adrian and Jason:
> > I understand your objections to such a topic, but I also think
> they're...
>
> ...based on a misreading of the subject heading: The NEW American
> Cinema refers to a book title - The American Cinema - and proposes a
> game of updating that book.
The proposal wasn't just to play a game, but for many of the highly
knowledgable and respected members of this group to take part in a
survey to be published online as "an exhaustive update to Sarris'
seminal work." While there is much to value in "The American Cinema,"
and granting that it can be fun and enlightening to make lists,
debate/defend tastes and so forth, I'm suggesting that there were
fundamental flaws in Sarris' project which should not and need not be
repeated by responsible critics (i.e., specialists in some position of
authority and influence within film culture). To wit...
> Sarris stated in his preface:
> "As for what constitutes a movie by our temporary definition, the
> necessary evil of specialization must be invoked....The vast realms
> of documentary, animated and experimental film-making are pointedly
> excluded."
But what is elided in those ellipses is crucial; Sarris says:
"Quite simply, a movie is a movie is a movie. It is what most people
are thinking of when they propose 'going to the movies.'"
Would anyone here (at least today) accept such a broad preemptive
concession to commercial interests & mass accessibility by a film
critic of such stature?
It comes off not merely as irresponsible but condescending: "Well,
there are all these cinematic masterpieces outside of the narrative
tradition throughout film history, but since you, Mr. Regular Joe
Moviegoer, are unlikely to be able to appreciate them or easily view
them in Ordinariville, I won't bother to inform you of their existence
nor indicate my own awareness of their existence (beyond saying I
won't discuss any of those films regardless of their relevance to the
issues at hand)."
The "consumers' guide" approach to criticism only serves the interests
of commercial production and distribution -- interests which are
immune to critical discourse in any case.
Jason Guthartz
24077
From: "Jason Guthartz"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:37pm
Subject: Re: American cinema Guthartz
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Rick Curnutte"
wrote:
> There's absolutely no reason why Brakhage or Mekas or Benning or
> Snow or Deren or any other non-narrative filmmaker shouldn't be
> included. In fact, I fully expect for Brakhage to be featured
> prominently by some.
Well, if you intend to abide by Sarris's original conditions, you must
exclude Brakhage et al.
Sarris: "The vast realms of documentary, animated and experimental
film-making are pointedly excluded."
Jason Guthartz
24078
From: "Jason Guthartz"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:46pm
Subject: Fluxus films online Guthartz
works by George Landow, Yoko Ono, Paul Sharits, among others:
http://www.ubu.com/film/fluxfilm.html
24079
From: "Yoel Meranda"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:50pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema ymeranda
If I was given the chance to continue where Sarris left, and asked to
write about narrative filmmakers who made films in English, after
1962, my addition would be about nine pages long (if I was also
obliged to write no longer than Sarris did about each director).
There would only be three names: Monte Hellman, Michael Mann, David
Fincher, all of them in the category "Expressive Esoterica"
- From Hellman I have only seen "Two-Lane Blacktop" which I love.
I've got to see more.
- Michael Mann made and still makes beautiful films using and abusing
the cliches of the action genre. The ending image of "Manhunter", the
use of architecture in "The Insider", the psychological intensity
in "Ali" and the choreography of out-of-focus streetlights
in "Collateral" go beyond anything that is achieved by other
narrative directors who live in the US.
- David Fincher's camera seem to have a will of its own, sometimes
unrelated to what's happening in the narrative. The beginning of the
very underrated "Panic Room" has many camera movements that move
around the house for no specific reason (the pretext being the fact
that the mother and daughter are there to see the place in order to
decide whether to move in). He's also the only filmmaker who uses
special-effects for expressive purposes, as proved by the long take
in the same film (described by many as virtuosity for its own sake)
that offered an unsettling ride proving that cinema does not have to
care about physical laws, in this case that of gravity. I also like
his metallic lighting. Fincher should also be celebrated for being
the only person in Hollywood who admits to stealing visual ideas from
Brakhage.
Cronenberg also deserves being mentioned in the category "Oddities,
One-Shots, and New Comers" for only one of his films, "Crash". The
rest of what I have seen from him is not cinematic at all.
Yoel
24080
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:54pm
Subject: Re: Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan (Was: Shyamalan SPOILERS) thebradstevens
>
> How'd you like it as a film, Brad?
There's a stylistic conservatism about it that is obviously connected
to Shyamalan's political conservatism, but which I actually find
quite attractive (I like De Mille's films for much the same reason).
In the age of Michael Bay, it takes real courage to shoot a scene
such as the one in which Hurt's daughter tells him that she intends
to get married in a single shot with the characters walking away from
the camera into the distance.
>
> I think Hurt's character is psychotic, unlike Bush, but Bush's
> inflating and milking of the terrorist threat is clearly one target
> of a film whose meanings aren't limited to the local and political.
> MNS puts himself in the movie as the guard-station chief reading
the
> paper - which contains a non-explicit headline about the Iraq war
Yes, but we also hear a radio news report about the discovery of a 7-
year old's dead body - which implies that Hurt was justified in
creating a community totally isolated from modern America.
> Eschatologically inclined artists have always distinguished between
> humans characters playing God and God. Jackson's character in
> Unbreakable and Hurt's character in The Village are wrong
Jackson's character is clearly shown to be wrong, but Hurt's isn't. I
would argue that this is why Shyamalan revealed the truth two-thirds
of the way in rather than at the end - because he wanted time to
convince us that Hurt's actions could be justified.
>I'm some kind of religionist too!
Like Bunuel, I'm still an atheist, thank God.
24081
From: "jaketwilson"
Date: Sun Mar 13, 2005 11:59pm
Subject: Re: Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan (still spoilers) jaketwilson
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I think Hurt's character is psychotic, unlike Bush, but Bush's
> inflating and milking of the terrorist threat is clearly one target
> of a film whose meanings aren't limited to the local and political.
> MNS puts himself in the movie as the guard-station chief reading
the
> paper - which contains a non-explicit headline about the Iraq war -
> and telling his subordinate not to make waves.
I'm still unsure about him. The films are all interesting (I haven't
seen SIGNS) but I always wonder if he really knows what he's doing,
apart from pushing the emotional buttons of his audience. The village
in THE VILLAGE is creepy but there's at least an implicit sympathy
for the desire to escape from a terrifying world. And a society that
can produce the purity and valour of the daughter can't be all bad --
we don't particularly want to see her break free, publish a book
about her life as a cult victim and wind up as a guest on Oprah. I
like it better than THE TRUMAN SHOW but the respective endings make
an interesting comparison.
JTW
24082
From: "jaketwilson"
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 0:20am
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema jaketwilson
Yoel wrote:
The beginning of the
> very underrated "Panic Room" has many camera movements that move
> around the house for no specific reason (the pretext being the fact
> that the mother and daughter are there to see the place in order to
> decide whether to move in). He's also the only filmmaker who uses
> special-effects for expressive purposes, as proved by the long take
> in the same film (described by many as virtuosity for its own sake)
> that offered an unsettling ride proving that cinema does not have
to
> care about physical laws, in this case that of gravity.
Given that it's a film about the logistics of breaking and entering,
what I thought PANIC ROOM lacked was precisely the spatial realism
which would bring the suspense to life. We're meant to share the
feeling of being trapped, but if physical laws don't apply why can't
Jodie Foster just escape through the keyhole? I think someone like
Zemeckis would have handled the script better.
JTW
24083
From: "jaketwilson"
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 0:42am
Subject: Hellman (was Re: The NEW American Cinema) jaketwilson
> Bresson and Hellman frequently show characters (Michel in
PICKPOCKET,
> Frank in COCKFIGHTER) who have withdrawn behind masks of cold,
> emotionless detachment. But these masks are always presented as
> unhealthy and neurotic - crutches that the characters must learn to
> cast aside before they can truly connect with other human beings.
> This, surely, is evidence of Bresson and Hellman's humanism.
I'm not sure how far Bresson believes in the possibility of human
communication, but I agree on Hellman. How are Oates and Laurie Bird
in BLACKTOP not lovable? It's also not mentioned often enough about
Hellman that he's an extremely funny filmmaker -- Jarmusch plunders
him ruthlessly there. I should read Brad's book!
JTW
24084
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 0:54am
Subject: John Maybury and "The Jacket" (was: The NEW American Cinema) fredcamper
Yoel Meranda wrote:
> ...Fincher should also be celebrated for being
> the only person in Hollywood who admits to stealing visual ideas from
> Brakhage. ...
I agree about Hellman and Mann, don't know about Fincher (have seen only
"Fight Club"). But as for the Brakhage influence, what about John
Maybury and "The Jacket":
http://romanticmovies.about.com/od/thejacket/a/jacketjm030105_4.htm
I see that Jonathan Rosenbaum doesn't much care for it (
http://spacefinder.chicagoreader.com/movies/briefs/27438_JACKET_MAYBURY.html
)
I don't necessarily count a Brakhage influence (or any influence) as a
good or bad thing, though, but Maybury's claim makes me curious. Not
curious enough to see it so far, though.
Fred Camper
24085
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:03am
Subject: Re: Hellman (was Re: The NEW American Cinema (and Hitchcock v. Bresson) fredcamper
thebradstevens wrote:
> Bresson and Hellman frequently show characters....who have withdrawn behind masks of cold,
> emotionless detachment. But these masks are always presented as
> unhealthy and neurotic ....
Well, it depends n what you mean by "humanism."
First of all I don't take that a film is "humanist" or "anti-humanist"
to be good or bad things, just neutral descriptions.
I'd question how much one should read about a film's statement through
the film's attitude toward its characters. A film might treat withdrawn
neuroses as "bad" in one set of characters and situations but "good" in
another. I think what's much more telling is the relationship the film
establishes with the viewer. When a film seems to set its characters and
actors free to express themselves through acting, and places an emphasis
on that, then it seems human-centered. When a film does the opposite,
treating its characters as entrapped in its own scheme, then it does the
opposite. "Mouchette" is free only to do one thing, which is what she
does at the end. Bresson's and Hellman's films seem permeated by a
fatalism one can also find in Murnau and Lang. Are you watching
characters freely expressing their humanity, or insects caught in a
mechanism? The latter is a "human" vision and can be deeply moving, not
the least because of the characters' attempts to express their humanity
(this is what many of the most devastating moments in Sirk's melodramas
are about) and through acting too, but I don't want to call it humanist
"humanist." On one side: Lang, Murnau, Bresson, Helmman. On the other:
Hawks, Cukor, Borzage perhaps. Hawks's characters flow outwards from
their bodies, through gestures, to "spread" into the style of the whole
film. The point of Bresson's acting style is the opposite: to encourage
you feel the connections between the characters and the trees.
Fred Camper
24086
From: "jaketwilson"
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:21am
Subject: Hellman (was Re: The NEW American Cinema (and Hitchcock v. Bresson) jaketwilson
On one side: Lang, Murnau, Bresson, Helmman. On the other:
> Hawks, Cukor, Borzage perhaps. Hawks's characters flow outwards
from
> their bodies, through gestures, to "spread" into the style of the
whole
> film. The point of Bresson's acting style is the opposite: to
encourage
> you feel the connections between the characters and the trees.
That's a useful distinction, and to the first list I'd add Antonioni,
an obvious Hellman influence. But compared to the other directors
cited there Hellman strikes me as less fatalistic, closer to a
tangible idea of freedom. I think of the documentary-like scenes at
the racetrack in BLACKTOP or the fight mileau in COCKFIGHTER, with a
lot of seemingly undirected action moving back and forth regardless
of the lead characters and their binds. Maybe it's all meant to seem
energising yet meaningless, like the stockmarket in L'ECLISSE; but
the effect feels more open, less evidently symbolic. Perhaps
more "American" though one wouldn't want to insist on that (Renoir
and Vigo surely belong on the second list too).
JTW
24087
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:31am
Subject: Re: Alternating verses jess_l_amortell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> A friend is
> writing on the musical practice of having different characters take
> different verses of the same song, a la "Meet Me in St. Louis" in the
> movie of the same name.
>
> If anyone can think of other examples from the same period (1927-1931 -
> anything earlier than LOVE ME TONIGHT), or knows of earlier stage
> instances of the phenomenon, that would be helpful too.
This brought to mind the so-called "vaudeville" finale of Mozart's "Abduction from the Seraglio," in which each of the five characters sings a verse of the same little tune, with individualized lyrics (actually the fifth character, Osmin, sort of breaks in out of turn and shakes up the pattern). Since the form was named, there would be earlier examples. I looked it up and found: "By _Le Mariage de Figaro_ (completed 1778), Beaumarchais was concluding with a _vaudeville final_ in which each character sang a verse."
24088
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:52am
Subject: Re: John Maybury and "The Jacket" (was: The NEW American Cinema) cellar47
Haven't seen "The Jacket" yet -- amajor hole in my
moviegoing. But john
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g001/maybury.html
is, as they say "a piece of work."
I find the Brakhage reference interesting in that much
of the work he did for Derek Jarman (several chunks of
"The Garden" and a newsreel montage for "War Requiem"
) skirt Brahage territory -- though he's not a name
that came up in my interviews with him. As "The
Jacket" has died the death at the box office it's
highly unlikely he'll get asked back. And that's not
to mention his ever so entertaining prickly
personality (rapier wit at close quarters.) He took
"The jacket" on as an assignment after years of trying
and failing to get his Christopher Marlowe project off
the ground. No idea what his next move may be.
--- Fred Camper wrote:
>
> I don't necessarily count a Brakhage influence (or
> any influence) as a
> good or bad thing, though, but Maybury's claim makes
> me curious. Not
> curious enough to see it so far, though.
>
> Fred Camper
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Sports - Sign up for Fantasy Baseball.
http://baseball.fantasysports.yahoo.com/
24089
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 1:55am
Subject: Re: Re: Alternating verses cellar47
--- jess_l_amortell wrote:
>
> This brought to mind the so-called "vaudeville"
> finale of Mozart's "Abduction from the Seraglio," in
> which each of the five characters sings a verse of
> the same little tune, with individualized lyrics
> (actually the fifth character, Osmin, sort of breaks
> in out of turn and shakes up the pattern). Since
> the form was named, there would be earlier examples.
> I looked it up and found: "By _Le Mariage de
> Figaro_ (completed 1778), Beaumarchais was
> concluding with a _vaudeville final_ in which each
> character sang a verse."
>
And it also brings to mind much of "Pas sur la
bouche," which while shot two years ago was written
prior to "Love Me Tonight."
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
24090
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:14am
Subject: Re: Narrative vs. not, Mark Street (Was: The NEW American Cinema) samfilms2003
> Sometimes I wonder whether non-narrative film really escapes the need for
> something that functions like an "easy conceptualizing" layer, or whether
> it labors under the burden of creating one from scratch instead of
> deploying a culturally shared one. If the latter case is true, then maybe
> non-narrative film can have an emotional impact only on viewers who break
> the code.
I saw "Variations" again last week, I see no secret code one needs to
decypher. (If you want to invent hidden threads, I think the film allows you,
and this is one of it's beauties, perhaps.
I think it's a somewhat impoverished culture that demands "easy
conceptualizing" actually. But I'm also suspicious: people who would
shy away from a Dorsky or Brakhage film might have no inhibitons
as to engaging "like" abstraction in music, or poetry.
Somehow, in film they want what Barthes called "contract-narrative",
or the payoff on the investment of believing.
> Anyway, I'm never surprised when people like one method and not the other.
I suppose I'm not either, but when they accept Pollack but not Brakhage,
on a certain level, I am surprised.
> But here's a non-narrative recommendation from an unlikely source. I'm
> rarely wowed by this sort of thing, but I had an intense response to a
> 2000 film called SLIDING OFF THE EDGE OF THE WORLD, by a NYC filmmaker
> named Mark Street.
I saw and thought it was great. But haven't seen any other films of his.
"Variations and "Yi Yi" in one week, I'm rich (in spirit only :)
"Yi Yi" I want to talk about more, maybe after I've seen it again. I think it's
even better than its defenders think it is.....
-Sam
24091
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 2:55am
Subject: Re: Narrative vs. not, Mark Street (Was: The NEW American Cinema) tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
"I think it's a somewhat impoverished culture that demands 'easy
conceptualizing' actually. But I'm also suspicious: people who
would shy away from a Dorsky or Brakhage film might have no
inhibitons as to engaging 'like' abstraction in music, or poetry."
For some reason people seem to find it easier to go from appreciating
Rembrandt's "The Night Watch" to Pollack's "One" than, say,going from
Brakhage to Hawks. The two different painters and the two different
filmmakers have common underlieing connections on the level of form;
order and balance, line, light and dark, color, space, shape and
proportion, texture, motion, etc. however differently these elements
are handled. It always seemed to that the formal level is the point
of entry to the appreciation and understanding of disparate types of
filmmaking.
"Somehow, in film they want what Barthes called 'contract-narrative',
or the payoff on the investment of believing."
I guess that's as good a reason as any, but I wonder, why is it
so?
Dan: "Anyway, I'm never surprised when people like one method and not
the other.
Sam: "I suppose I'm not either, but when they accept Pollack but not
Brakhage,on a certain level, I am surprised."
Me too. It seems like something more than "taste" is involved here.
Richard
24092
From: "Josh Mabe"
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 3:38am
Subject: Re: Narrative vs. not, Mark Street (Was: The NEW American Cinema) brack_28
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
But I'm also suspicious: people who would
> shy away from a Dorsky or Brakhage film might have no inhibitons
> as to engaging "like" abstraction in music, or poetry.
> > Anyway, I'm never surprised when people like one method and not
the other.
>
> I suppose I'm not either, but when they accept Pollack but not
Brakhage,
> on a certain level, I am surprised.
I don't even think taste (or whatever Barthes said) is so much
involved... isn't the cause something as simple as familiarity? I
can hear classical music in the soundtracks of the movies at the
megaplexes and hear atonal noise on the radio everyday. In high
school I was taught all sorts of poetry and literature, the
straightforward and the difficult alike. I would be surprised to
see a Rembrandt on a dorm room wall, whereas I see Rothko
everywhere. But aside from some minor stylistic influences on the
occasional mainstream filmmakers and music video makers, non-
narrative film just isn't seen many places. People would probably
have no difficulties in accepting Brakhage if LMNO or Hall of
Mirrors was shown in my local Regal Theater right after the cell
phone commercial, or if J. Leighton Pierce videos were used to fill
time after the feature on Cinemax. These are probably the worst
possible screening conditions for this work, but you get my point.
As it stands, I lose my film-choosing powers when I make my artist
friend sit through Phil Solomon's The Snowman and Jack Chamber's
Hart of London (though the friend did somewhat appreicate the
latter).
Josh
24093
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:27am
Subject: Re: Re: Narrative vs. not, Mark Street (Was: The NEW American Cinema) sallitt1
> Or: every film is 100% form and 100% content. The same way that when
> we look at an apple there's no distinction between what the object
> means and what it "is". Or maybe there is but the act of looking is
> an attempt to reconcile the idea of the object with its
> sensory "filling", as Hegel seems to say.
But isn't this the same as saying that the form-content division is
spurious? Which, I admit, is a very sensible position. In message
#20385, I put forth a shaky argument for continuing to apply those terms
to art, even though they may not be strictly appropriate. The gist of the
argument was a proposal that our response to art, at least in the early
("classical") period of an art form, might naturally be two-leveled. - Dan
24094
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 4:38am
Subject: Re: Re: Narrative vs. not, Mark Street (Was: The NEW American Cinema) sallitt1
> "I think it's a somewhat impoverished culture that demands 'easy
> conceptualizing' actually. But I'm also suspicious: people who
> would shy away from a Dorsky or Brakhage film might have no
> inhibitons as to engaging 'like' abstraction in music, or poetry."
>
> "Somehow, in film they want what Barthes called 'contract-narrative',
> or the payoff on the investment of believing."
>
> I guess that's as good a reason as any, but I wonder, why is it
> so?
My argument wasn't that some viewers want to have it easy. I was
proposing that the two kinds of experience might be different in
fundamental ways. Message #19413 contains the proposal, which I make in a
tentative way. Fred argued against my post at the time, and I may
eventually reject the idea myself. But it's not a given to me that
narrative film fans reject non-narrative film out of laziness or a desire
to be entertained. - Dan
24095
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:30am
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> >
> > Kyle, are you sure this is Bresson? I remember a Sarris "film by
film"
> > statement that targeted Berman I think (or Antonioni or Fellini -
-
> sorry
> > if I get them confused, this is my old bias showing), not one
targeting
> > Bresson. Maybe he did Bresson too, but I'd like to see this
cleared up.
>
> In section 1 of "Notes on the Auteur Theory in 1962," Sarris
writes:
>
> "Just a few years ago, I would have thought it unthinkable to
speak in
> the same breath of a "commercial" director, like Hitchcock and a
> "pure" director like Bresson. Even today, Sight and Sound uses
> different type sizes for Bresson and Hitchcock films. After years
of
> tortured revaluation, I am now prepared to stake my critical
> reputation, such as it is, on the proposition that Alfred
Hitchcock is
> artistically superior to Robert Bresson by every criterion of
> excellence and, further, that, film for film, director for
director,
> the American cinema has been consistently superior to that of the
rest
> of the world from 1915 to 1962."
>
> If lists matter (and I suppose they do to Sarris), he ranks
Hitchcock,
> in the same article, as #4 and Bresson as #16 on his list of
auteurs.
>
This note is for informational purposes in relation to all above
(and subsequent related posts). Sarris has never come to value
Bresson as highly as Hitchcock, to my knowledge, but when Au Hasard,
Balthazar came along he singled it out as one of the most sublime of
all films. I don't remember when he said this, because it seems to
me that more Bressons had come along since and this was only one he
really loved, and not simply admired. I remember this because this
was how I also felt for a long time, but although Balthazar is still
the one that jumps out most for me, as time has gone on, I've come
to appreciate him more and more. To see his films in the 21st
century is to see movies which seem hand-made--you'll never come
close to saying anything like that about Hollywood movies after
Spielberg, nor even about other movies made by other commercial
cinemas around the world. And I can see where the hand-made quality
I refer to might especially endear Bresson to those with a strong
allegiance to the kind of filmmaking represented by Brakhage and
others in the experimental realm. Bresson was a great filmmaker.
But so was Hitchcock, and I agree with Jean-Pierre Coursodon in
later post when the conversation had degenerated to "Is this Bresson
better than that Hitchcock?" or the other way around. If most
movies were as good as To Catch a Thief or Les Anges des Peche it
would be a different world, wouldn't it?
24096
From: Peter Henne
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:31am
Subject: Re: Hellman (was Re: The NEW American Cinema (and Hitchcock v. Bresson) peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
Fred,
Randomly opening Bresson's "Notes on Cinematography" (also translated as "Notes on the Cinematographer"), I found these passages:
"Model. It is his non-rational, non-logical 'I' that your camera records."
"Model. You illumine him and he illumines you. The light you receive from him is added to the light he receives from you."
"Choose your models well, so that they lead you where you want to go."
"Models. Their way of being the people of your film is by being themselves, by remaining what they are. (Even in contradiction with what you had imagined.)"
"Models. Mechanized outwardly. Intact, virgin within."
A few pages later, I found this:
"Model. The spark caught in his eye's pupil gives significance to his whole person."
I find these entries separately and together difficult to reconcile with your characterization of the characters and actors in Bresson's films as "insects." An insect (at least, as you appear to use this term) doesn't have an interior life, and Bresson quite explicitly wanted to cut to the interior life of both characters and performers. But that doesn't necessarily mean psychology. You talked about characters caught in a mechanism regarding Bresson's films, yet in one of the entries I've quoted he makes clear as can be that the mechanization is outward, an appearance. Several of these entries practically suggest a collaborative approach between performer and director. What do you make of the "non-rational, non-logical 'I'" which Bresson writes about? That doesn't seem to fit your fatalist perspective on him at all. If anything, Bresson by his own account seems to come closer to your personal take on humanism. I've always found that word "humanism" both loaded and fuzzy and have
tried to avoid it, so I'm not taking any stand on this term except that I don't like it.
Bresson is more complicated than a simple fatalist or "existentialist" reading would allow, because he allows both polarities and somehow, sometimes reconciles them.
Peter Henne
Fred Camper wrote:
When a film seems to set its characters and
actors free to express themselves through acting, and places an emphasis
on that, then it seems human-centered. When a film does the opposite,
treating its characters as entrapped in its own scheme, then it does the
opposite. "Mouchette" is free only to do one thing, which is what she
does at the end. Bresson's and Hellman's films seem permeated by a
fatalism one can also find in Murnau and Lang. Are you watching
characters freely expressing their humanity, or insects caught in a
mechanism? The latter is a "human" vision and can be deeply moving, not
the least because of the characters' attempts to express their humanity
(this is what many of the most devastating moments in Sirk's melodramas
are about) and through acting too, but I don't want to call it humanist
"humanist." On one side: Lang, Murnau, Bresson, Helmman. On the other:
Hawks, Cukor, Borzage perhaps. Hawks's characters flow outwards from
their bodies, through gestures, to "spread" into the style of the whole
film. The point of Bresson's acting style is the opposite: to encourage
you feel the connections between the characters and the trees.
Fred Camper
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
24097
From: "jaketwilson"
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:38am
Subject: Re: Narrative vs. not, Mark Street (Was: The NEW American Cinema) jaketwilson
> But isn't this the same as saying that the form-content division is
> spurious? Which, I admit, is a very sensible position. In message
> #20385, I put forth a shaky argument for continuing to apply those
terms
> to art, even though they may not be strictly appropriate. The gist
of the
> argument was a proposal that our response to art, at least in the
early
> ("classical") period of an art form, might naturally be two-
leveled. - Dan
I think the distinction is ultimately spurious, but for the
analytically-minded, probably unavoidable -- the act of analysis
means pulling the work apart, but the aim in the end is to see it
whole. Personally when looking at films I find it just as useful to
begin by trying to analyse the content -- "what is the point of this
story?" or "how does the filmmaker feel about the world?" If the film
is at all interesting, finding viable answers means looking quite
closely at what is being shown and that brings you back to the "form"
anyway.
The problem I have with the form/content distinction arises when I'm
told that some of the pleasures I get from cinema don't arise
from "form" but from the discreditable techniques of "manipulation".
I feel that's a moral argument disguised as something else, though
I've only arrived at that position as a result of discussions here.
JTW
24098
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 5:47am
Subject: Re: Hitchcock v. Bresson (Was the NEW American Cinema blakelucaslu...
Sorry, my previous one should have had subject heading as above, I
guess. I am just getting used to this, so please forgive my
mistakes. Anyway, below referenced is the JPC post I also referred
near the end. This kind of got me because The Birds for me ranks
with Au Hasard Balthazar among the all-time greats, and I'm not sure
a discussion about "what is art?" or "what is great filmmaking?"
really needs to prefer one of these films to the other.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> I consider The Birds to be a better film than
> > anything by Bresson.
>
>
> Could someone please define terms like "better" applied to
> compare widely different films by two widely different directors,
> both on the highest level of cinematic achievement? Isn't it
apples
> and oranges as Bill suggests? Is such a debate at all meaningful?
> Does it make any sense? I doubt it. Because Sarris made a stupid
> statement many moons ago (stupid because of the apples and oranges
> thing)is it really necessary to pick it up ? Again, and Fred said
it
> very well, isn't it just a matter of taste? Maybe it's a subject
for
> the OT Line...
>
> Just bitching, as usual. Sorry!
>
> JPC
24099
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:54am
Subject: Preminger Day apmartin90
Hey, if any non-Australian members are flying over Sydney, Australia in May
they can drop in on this proudly cinephilic event:
"PREMINGER DAY
Many Otto Preminger films have screened on Australian TV over recent weeks.
This is fortuitous in that it may cause a huge groundswell, a flood even, of
enthusiasm for the director’s work. Coincidentally, David Stratton is giving
one of his day long examinations of the director’s work at Sydney University
on Saturday 1 May starting at 9.30 am. During the course of the day three
features will be screened and numerous other clips including no doubt Otto’s
famous appearance as the camp commandant in Billy Wilder’s Stalag 17. For
further details or to enrol ring the Centre for Continuing Education at 9036
4789."
24100
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Mar 14, 2005 6:16am
Subject: Re: Hellman (was Re: The NEW American Cinema (and Hitchcock v. Bresson) fredcamper
Peter Henne wrote:
>
> ...Bresson is more complicated than a simple fatalist or "existentialist"
> reading would allow, because he allows both polarities and somehow,
> sometimes reconciles them.
Of course. Bresson is more complicated than my binary scheme -- and more
complicated than anything we can say about him. But I think my idea is
being misunderstood. The characters in films with fatalistic or
predetermined schemes can have a complex inner life. An "insect" in
Bresson can be deeply moving, as can a donkey, as can a person.
"Mouchette" is an "insect," and it's no accident that Bresson chose to
make a film whose lead character has that name, which means something
like "little fly" in French.
This started with me trying to explain why Hellman's films weren't all
that popular compared to more actor-centered works. I wrote that the
"insects caught in a mechanism" type of film "can be deeply moving, not
the least because of the characters' attempts to express their
humanity." Mouchette in "Mouchette" certainly expresses her humanity.
But she also, in the end, does not stand up to the world, in the style
of Billie Dawn (Judy Holliday) in "Born Yesterday" (declaring her
husband's business plans a "cartel," she refuses to sign), or Tess
Millay (Joanne Dru) in "Red River," whose willfulness brings the action
to a halt.
Much more important than such plot twists is the kind of relationship
the film has with its viewer. Cukor and Hawks integrate their
characters' performances into their styles in a way that makes character
psychology and character wills central to their films' expression. In
this sense the films celebrate individual humans. Bresson and Lang do
the opposite. That doesn't mean their films don't have "heroes," or that
one can't be moved by the characters in them at times. What it does mean
is that they don't see the world as revolving around individuals, or as
subject to transformation by individuals. And I'm talking in relative
terms here -- I'm not saying there are no Lang films in which individual
actions are important. Sometimes, in the plots, the individual fighting
evil actually wins. But I don't think that's what those films are
"really" about, if considered on the level of their style. In Lang's
"evil mastermind" films, the style identifies with the mechanism, not
with the good guy.
Hellman may be more nuanced than I indicated. I think I agree that "Two
Lane Blacktop" feels "more open" that the stock market in Antonioni. But
I think the distinction I'm trying to make is still valid -- between
Hellman and Hitchcock on one side and Hawks and Cukor on the other. Such
oversimplifications won't get you all that far, but can provide starting
points.
Fred Camper
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact