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.
24201
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:02pm
Subject: Put Another Ax Murder on the Barbie (Was: Off with their heads! ) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Yoel Meranda"
wrote:
> > I have seen Orson Welles' "Lady from Shanghai" twice this weekend
I watched it recently. I still maintain that it was influenced by out
of the past.
that roughly 5 min - or less -
> scene on board the yacht, with Orson & Rita H. *smouldering* in
> the TRUE WITCHERY of Harry Stradling Jr's shadows and Everett Sloane
> seething on deck said more to me about sexual jealousy than all
> 3 hrs of the Kubrick film.
Note the reference to Fortaleza when they get to shore and climb into
their hammocks. Glenn Anders is Nelson Rockefeller ("fellah"), OW is
OW: It's All True.
I think that Eyes Wide Shut would've ended up shorter - by the time
it got to Australia. Lemme 'splain. Saul sent me the Australian
Shining, which is 30 minutes shorter than the one we know. The
reason: Kubrick kept tinkering with it, and since the Aussie prints
were the last shipped, that was the final draft. It's kind of
interesting to compare the two!
The cuts are all for pace, and they assume that - as Dan O'Bannon
explained to me eloquently (a propos of his script for The Stars My
Destination) - as far as exposition is concerned, "Nobody gives a
shit," and in fact "Audiences enjoy figuring that stuff out for
themselves from what you give them." No doctor scene, for example. At
the same time grace notes like the long scene of Duvall on the CB
with the Ranger, where they keep saying "Over," which any H'wd editor
would've cut down, are left intact.
Ironically, Vivian Kubrick's doc Making the Shining is longer on the
Aussie DVD (and I assume on the American one as well) than the
version I first saw, copied off the BBC. This version puts in
more "making nice" stuff and a Day For Night end montage I don't
recall seeing before.
24202
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:03pm
Subject: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> > Well, that would be a short Hamlet, all right - he's
> > in all but about
> > two scenes! Seriously, David, time marches on, you
> > can't cross the
> > same river twice, we can't go home again, que sera
> > sera, cinema
> > reigns.
> >
> Oh sure we can. Ever see "Paris Texas"? Kit wrote it
> you know.
>
No we can't - I DID see it, you see? But I didn't know he wrote it.
24203
From: "Gabe Klinger"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:08pm
Subject: Re: Arnaud Desplechin in Brooklyn gcklinger
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell" wrote:
> > ESTHER
> > KAHN, the best film of the decade thus far.
>
> I note that BAM's schedule lists ESTHER KAHN as 163 minutes (not 142). So, is there any
>way of learning whether that means they're actually showing the original longer cut (not
>shown in these parts since the Lincoln Center screenings, I think), or did they just pull
>that figure off the imdb?
I would say they are aware of the longer runtime since the distributor of the film has prints
of both versions and in the past has given theaters the option of choosing.
24204
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:22pm
Subject: Re: Sarris/Benayoun jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> So, what American directors did THEY prefer -- if any?
Aldrich, Brooks, Huston, Daves, Tashlin, among others. Again,
we're talking about the early period. For the last 30 years or so
Positif has been praising all those directors they put down in that
1954 highly polemical, anti-Cahiers article (which everybody at
Positif feels somewhat embarrassed about now -- it's dismissed
as "erreur de jeunesse" -- by guys who -- with one exception -- are
no longer around ). JPC
24205
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sarris/Benayoun cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
it's
> dismissed
> as "erreur de jeunesse" -- by guys who -- with one
> exception -- are
> no longer around ).
Speakign of guys who are no oonger around, what do you
know about Roger Tailleur, J-P?
Godard cited his review of "Harper" as being the sort
of thing "Cahiers" should have published, and his
Kazan book in the "Seghers" series isn't bad.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24206
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: 25 Filmmakers (Was: Follow up to THE NEW AMERICAN CINEMA) fredcamper
Rick Curnutte wrote:
>
>
>
>>believe they should go to the "Files" section of a_film_by. And by
>>the way, can we make the "Files" section public too?
>
>
> Would it be ok for me to simply post the results in the files
> section when the poll is completed?
Sure, members can post relevant files in our files section. But Yahoo
doesn't allow us to make the files files public. They way to do that is
for someone to put them on a separate Web site. Having done that with
our archive, I don't have a lot of appetite for doing more html work
myself at the moment.
Fred Camper
24207
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:30pm
Subject: Re: Off with their heads! (was: NEW American Cinema) cinebklyn
In today's NY Times there is an article by Margo Jefferson
about Gertrude Stein that ends with this passage:
Art lets us indulge our need to live at least 40 years behind
the times, Stein declared, adding: "The world can accept me
now because there is, coming out of your generation,
something they don't like, and therefore they can accept me
because I am sufficiently past in having been contemporary.
So they don't have to dislike me."
One member has already noted that many of the directors
Sarris put in his Pantheon were past their creative years
when he annointed them. I know that when I went over my
list, many directors were in categories one step lower than
they may eventually end up in since I had not lived with their
films long enough to know how I will respond to their work at
different points in my life.
This same problem is magnified when I try to do a list of 25
directors -- looking at my first draft, I felt I was a cinematic
fuddy-duddy: lots of dead directors (career and/or bodywise).
There are many contemporary directors I like and enjoy, but
I still want more time: a) to re-see their work from a different
point in my life; and b) to allow them to make more films.
Thinking about the categories, I find that for myself I have come
up with the following:
"Begin the Beguine"
Theose directors whom we first love and who give us our first
experience of the politique. Some directors in this category
remain here, and should be revisited infrequently if at all.
Too much contact soils the memories.
Other directors, however, graduate to the following:
"You're The Top"
Those directors who have cheered us at many different
points in our lives, and to whom we return to be nourished.
"I've Got My Eyes On You"
A place for those directors about whom we have yet to make
up our minds.
"Why Can't You Behave?"
Directors in this category seem to be in a prolonged
cinematic adolescence. We like them enough, but
wish they would move on, or at least stop making
such bad career choices. And yet we praise them.
"Just One of Those Things"
A category reserved for those directors who touch gold
for us with one or two films (at most) that stand up to
repeated viewings despite our disenchantment with the
rest of their work.
"Stormy Weather"
A place for those directors with whom we have contentious
relationships -- aesthetically, politically, and/or in other
ways.
"Well Did You Evah?"
That special receptacle for those directors we loathe, but
who are (unaccountably to our minds) praised by other
AFB members and the world at large.
Brian
24208
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 7:33pm
Subject: Re: Put Another Ax Murder on the Barbie (Was: Off with their heads! ) samfilms2003
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> > > I have seen Orson Welles' "Lady from Shanghai" twice this weekend
>
> > I watched it recently. I still maintain that it was influenced by out
> of the past.
How so ?
> Note the reference to Fortaleza when they get to shore and climb into
> their hammocks. Glenn Anders is Nelson Rockefeller ("fellah"), OW is
> OW: It's All True.
?? (not having any real knowledge of It's All True)
>. At
> the same time grace notes like the long scene of Duvall on the CB
> with the Ranger, where they keep saying "Over," which any H'wd editor
> would've cut down, are left intact.
One more reason why I could Never be a "Hollywood editor" ;-)
-Sam
24209
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:21pm
Subject: Re: John Maybury and "The Jacket" (was: The NEW American Cinema) matt_c_armst...
> "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
Aside from slamming Thelma's editing on "The Aviator," Maybury is
awefully confident of his film's intelligence. One quote:
"That's where it brings me back to that thing about audiences
have
enormous intelligence. I'm a member of the audience. I remember.
I
know what it's like. "
This is ironic, because I sat through most of "The Jacket" wondering
just what kind of idiot Maybury took me for. Had I never seen a time
travel movie before? He borrows liberally from "La Jetee" (and by
extension "Twelve Monkeys"), "Memento" (which he claims to detest),
"Jacob's Ladder" and even "Shock Corridor."
And putting "Manufacturing Consent" on the TV at a psychiatric
hospital is *not* deep political context. It's just daft. Maybury
thinks the images of coercive detention should recall Abu Ghraib and
Guantanamo, but they don't. The mental hospital itself is
all "Cuckoo's Nest" cliche, with colorful crazies jabbering and
drooling, captured at odd angles.
The avant garde visual effects he's using may have been inspired by
Brakhage, but believe me, you've seem them before in bad Hollywood
movies. They're mostly rapid-fire quick cuts accompanied by
aggressive sound design. They just add to the dumb, assaultive
nature of a very subpar thriller.
Even though I've got my reservations, I'd recommend Chan-Wook
Park's "Old Boy" (SPOLIER!)as a better, more interesting riff on the
same ideas. It's all there: the "private prison," the amnesiac,
pedophilic/incestous love story, the importance of time, and the
cruelty of fate. Park's narrative is exciting, and his visual ideas
seem fresh by comparison.
24210
From: "Rick Curnutte"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:22pm
Subject: Re: 25 Filmmakers (Was: Follow up to THE NEW AMERICAN CINEMA) racurnutte1
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Rick Curnutte wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> >>believe they should go to the "Files" section of a_film_by. And
by
> >>the way, can we make the "Files" section public too?
> >
> >
> > Would it be ok for me to simply post the results in the files
> > section when the poll is completed?
>
> Sure, members can post relevant files in our files section. But
Yahoo
> doesn't allow us to make the files files public. They way to do
that is
> for someone to put them on a separate Web site. Having done that
with
> our archive, I don't have a lot of appetite for doing more html
work
> myself at the moment.
It seems silly for someone here to do that anyway, as I'm going to
be publishing the study at THE FILM JOURNAL in a few months' time.
Rick
24211
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 8:45pm
Subject: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan thebradstevens
> > >
> > Oh sure we can. Ever see "Paris Texas"? Kit wrote it
> > you know.
> >
>
> No we can't - I DID see it, you see? But I didn't know he wrote it.
The credits say "Adaptation by L. M. Kit Carson - Written by Sam
Shepard". I have no idea what 'adaptation' means in this context.
Aside from acting in DAVID HOLZMAN'S DIARY, Kit's greatest cinematic
achievement is surely the screenplay for THE TEXAS CHAINSAW MASSACRE
2 - "Small businessman always gets it in the ass".
24212
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:12pm
Subject: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> > > Oh sure we can. Ever see "Paris Texas"? Kit wrote it
> > > you know.
> > >
> >
> > No we can't - I DID see it, you see? But I didn't know he wrote
it.
>
> The credits say "Adaptation by L. M. Kit Carson - Written by Sam
> Shepard". I have no idea what 'adaptation' means in this context.
>
I did an interview with Harry Dean Stanton at the time and he talked
about the difficult of learning "Sam Shepherd's poetry." That
doesn't entirely answer the question I know, except to indicate a
lot of the script is Shepherd's writing. Carson's son was in the
movie and I assume he was there throughout, perhaps helping Wenders
make adjustments to the script's final shape (for Wenders always has
a hand in the writing too, doesn't he?).
The reason this caught me enough to write this is that on the
soundtrack album with Ry Cooder's gorgeous music, one track is the
long monologue Stanton has in scene with Kinski, accompanied by the
music. It's very beautiful to listen to, as much for the sound of
Stanton's voice and tone of his reading as the actual words, but
the overall effect is haunting--I listen to this more than I
normally would something spoken.
If anyone else knows more about actual contributions to the script I
for one would be interested.
24213
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:18pm
Subject: Re: Birdwhistell, Frampton, Asch, Landow/Land bufordrat
Josh Mabe wrote:
>I just discovered today that as a library staff member, I can check
>out 16mm prints from my school's suprisingly kickass collection.
>I'm going to check out a print of this film and maybe Blood of a
>Poet and hell! maybe Iron Horse.
>
>
Sounds like you're in for a heavenly semester.
I'm interested to hear your thoughts on the Birdwhistell once you watch
it.
-Matt
24214
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:34pm
Subject: Carsons (Was: Identifying the Bad Guy) sallitt1
> Carson's son was in the
> movie
Looks as if Hunter Carson has a short film in the upcoming Tribeca Film
Festival. - Dan
24215
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:41pm
Subject: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan cinebklyn
Blake writes:
> If anyone else knows more about actual
contributions to the script I for one would
be interested.
My information is strictly experiential. My
only screening was when it was first released,
but I remember a scene set under a highway
cloverleaf about 2/3's of the way through
when I felt the movie go "Thud!" From that
point on the dialogue was more labored than
it had been, and energy seemed to leak from
the screen as if it were a punctured inner tube.
It certainly seemed to me at the time that
Wenders had switched writers.
Brian
24216
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:51pm
Subject: Re: Antonioni (New and Restored) at MoMA cinebklyn
Michelangelo Antonioni: Michelangelo's Gaze
Wednesday, April 20 -- 8:30 p.m.
Michelangelo’s Gaze is a new film by Michelangelo Antonioni that celebrates the restored sculptural masterwork of Michelangelo Buonarroti, Moses, and the Tomb of Pope Julius II in the Church of San Pietro in Vincoli, in Rome. A powerful, personal interpretation by the Renaissance artist, the tomb, with its centerpiece of a brooding Moses, was created in 1513–16 in commemoration of his equally powerful patron, the pope who commissioned the Sistine Chapel ceiling. It has been highlighted in the Progetto Mosè, or Moses project, produced by Warner Independent Pictures in association with Lottomatica and the Istituto Luce, which has donated a copy of this film and a selection of documentaries to MoMA. Accompanying the short film is a recent MoMA acquisition, Antonioni’s 1952 feature The Lady without Camellias, which was preserved by RAI Cinema, Rome.
Lo Sguardo di Michelangelo (Michelangelo's Gaze). 2004. Italy. Directed by Michelangelo Antonioni. Cinematography by Maurizio dell'Orco. Antonioni considers the Tomb of Pope Julius II, admiring the shimmering marble surfaces of the earlier Michelangelo’s pulsing, rather terrifying forms, the rich fabrics and muscular limbs, and the gestures and expressions of Moses. The film is a walk through light and shadow that creates a sense of the sculpture’s great force. 18 min.
La Signora senza camelie (The Lady without Camellias). 1953. Italy. Directed by Michelangelo Antonioni. Screenplay by Antonioni, Suso Cecchi d’Amico, Francesco Maselli, P. M. Pasinetti. With Lucia Bosé, Gino Cervi, Andrea Checchi. The rags-to-riches story of a shopgirl who becomes a movie star. Antonioni offers a pessimistic glimpse of postwar Rome and its film industry. In Italian, English subtitles. 105 min.
24217
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:55pm
Subject: Re: Off with their heads! (was: NEW American Cinema) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> There are many contemporary directors I like and enjoy, but
> I still want more time: a) to re-see their work from a different
> point in my life; and b) to allow them to make more films.
I think that, keeping Sarris's categories, I'd add two to the Pantheon (Kubrick,
Lewis), a few more to Far Side (Scorsese, Ferrara, Hellman, Lucas, Cimino
and a few more), many more to Expressive Esoterica (all those recent and
current genre directors I love) and a ton to Subjects for Further Research.
Ironically, Coppola, the only director of the Movie Brats generation who made
it into Sarris, would probably go into the same category today: Subjects for
Further Research. And given the long layoff and the many studio projects he
really didn't want to do in the 70s, I'm not sure he wouldn't agree.
What follows in Brian's e-mail is the best alternative plan for a canon that I've
heard yet!
24218
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 9:59pm
Subject: Re: Put Another Ax Murder on the Barbie (Was: Off with their heads! ) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> > > > I have seen Orson Welles' "Lady from Shanghai" twice this weekend
> >
> > > I watched it recently. I still maintain that it was influenced by out
> > of the past.
>
>
> How so ?
Idjit and femme fatale: New York-Acapulco-San Francisco. Pace Richard.
>
> > Note the reference to Fortaleza when they get to shore and climb into
> > their hammocks. Glenn Anders is Nelson Rockefeller ("fellah"), OW is
> > OW: It's All True.
>
> ?? (not having any real knowledge of It's All True)
Rent it - it's cool! Welles was sent to Brazil by Rockefeller, who double-
crossed him, contributing to the destruction of his H'wd career. The Four Men
on a Raft part that we restored was filmed in Fortaleza, which is also where
the 4 raftsmen came from. Jacare, their leader, drowned during filming of the
triumphal entry to Rio Harbor. The NY Times reported that he was caught in a
battle between a shark and an octopus, and Welles later repeated the legend
(to Peter Bogdanovich, notably), which spawned the image of sharks
devouring each other "somewhere outside of Fortaleza" here. Anders is
clearly a tribute to Rocky.
Is that really him posting on the Welles web site?
24219
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:02pm
Subject: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> > > >
> > > Oh sure we can. Ever see "Paris Texas"? Kit wrote it
> > > you know.
> > >
> >
> > No we can't - I DID see it, you see? But I didn't know he wrote it.
>
> The credits say "Adaptation by L. M. Kit Carson - Written by Sam
> Shepard". I have no idea what 'adaptation' means in this context.
That's his kid, too, isn't it?
>
> Aside from acting in DAVID HOLZMAN'S DIARY, Kit's greatest cinematic
> achievement is surely the screenplay for THE TEXAS CHAINSAW
MASSACRE
> 2 - "Small businessman always gets it in the ass".
Love, love, love it - great late Hopper, too.
Kit's great at the beginning of my friend Joelle Bentolila's film The Maze. It's
improv, unlike David Holzman.
24220
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:04pm
Subject: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas" <
blakelucaslukethedealer@y...> wrote:
>
It's very beautiful to listen to, as much for the sound of
> Stanton's voice and tone of his reading as the actual words, but
> the overall effect is haunting--I listen to this more than I
> normally would something spoken.
Harry Dean's a singer, too, you know - I saw him once at Cinegrill in H'wd.
24221
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:11pm
Subject: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> Blake writes:
>
> > If anyone else knows more about actual
> contributions to the script I for one would
> be interested.
>
> My information is strictly experiential. My
> only screening was when it was first released,
> but I remember a scene set under a highway
> cloverleaf about 2/3's of the way through
> when I felt the movie go "Thud!" From that
> point on the dialogue was more labored than
> it had been, and energy seemed to leak from
> the screen as if it were a punctured inner tube.
> It certainly seemed to me at the time that
> Wenders had switched writers.
>
> Brian
Or something. That's my recollection too.
I just bought the film on tape - I already have the album, of course. I'll look at it
again. In my CdC article -at a time when WW was God and Jesus and The
Holy Ghost all wrapped up in one to CdC - I dealt with it as a structural variant
on the three "farm" films out at the same time: Country (w. Shepard acting),
The River and Places in the Heart (which I love). Ideas that were in the air,
with Shepard as possible carrier.
Has anyone seen Land of Plenty? I'm thinking of making a day trip to Ojai to
see it when it's screened up there.
And speaking of Country, I'm spotty on Richard Pearce, but I really liked
Heartland, and didn't mind Leap of Faith when I caught it at all. Anyone like
him?
24222
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:14pm
Subject: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> > > >
> > > Oh sure we can. Ever see "Paris Texas"? Kit wrote it
> > > you know.
> > >
> >
> > No we can't - I DID see it, you see? But I didn't know he wrote it.
>
> The credits say "Adaptation by L. M. Kit Carson - Written by Sam
> Shepard". I have no idea what 'adaptation' means in this context.
That's his kid, too, isn't it?
>
> Aside from acting in DAVID HOLZMAN'S DIARY, Kit's greatest cinematic
> achievement is surely the screenplay for THE TEXAS CHAINSAW
MASSACRE
> 2 - "Small businessman always gets it in the ass".
Love, love, love it - great late Hopper, too.
Kit's great at the beginning of my friend Joelle Bentolila's film The Maze. It's
improv, unlike David Holzman.
24223
From: Jim Healy
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:25am
Subject: Re: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan blaftoni
hotlove666 wrote:
>
> I just bought the film on tape - I already have the album, of course. I'll look at it
> again. In my CdC article -at a time when WW was God and Jesus and The
> Holy Ghost all wrapped up in one to CdC - I dealt with it as a structural variant
> on the three "farm" films out at the same time: Country (w. Shepard acting),
> The River and Places in the Heart (which I love). Ideas that were in the air,
> with Shepard as possible carrier.
>
> Has anyone seen Land of Plenty? I'm thinking of making a day trip to Ojai to
> see it when it's screened up there.
>
> And speaking of Country, I'm spotty on Richard Pearce, but I really liked
> Heartland, and didn't mind Leap of Faith when I caught it at all. Anyone like
> him?
Can't say Leap of Faith did much for me. I like Heartland a lot, but my favorite Pearce
is A Family Thing, which has across-the-board great performances from everybody. I think
it's one of the most underappreciated films of the 90s. I always saw it as a Robert
Duvall-driven project. He produced it and apparently commissioned the script (which is
very good) from Billy Bob Thornton and Tom Epperson.
Jim
24224
From: "Aaron Graham"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:26pm
Subject: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan machinegunmc...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> > Aside from acting in DAVID HOLZMAN'S DIARY, Kit's greatest
cinematic
> > achievement is surely the screenplay for THE TEXAS CHAINSAW
> MASSACRE
> > 2 - "Small businessman always gets it in the ass".
>
> Love, love, love it - great late Hopper, too.
I'm a huge fan of this one. There's a longer cut floating around with
a few great, extra scenes (one with Joe Bob Briggs outside a
moviehouse) that makes it even better. I was told by one of the
film's actors that Carson was on set nearly everyday with a
typewriter, and was keen on improvising when possible.
I haven't seen "The Maze", but will look for it if it's availible. I
recently watched a German co-production that he co-wrote (and had a
bit part in), called "Chinese Boxes" ('86), which was decent.
(Incidentally, this was the second time that Will Patton was featured
in a film with Peggy Lee's "Is that all there is?")
-Aaron
24225
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:55pm
Subject: Cassavetes' Faces (was Re: Off with their heads!) rashomon82
Fred wrote:
> I have seen "Faces," once, when it was released. I still remember
> it though; it made a big impression on me; I hated it. If you can
> indicate the things that you like about it that seem to fall
> outside of my aesthetic, I'd be interested.
FACES is the Cassavetes I've seen most recently (and only once--on
the rather pristine box set DVD); I wouldn't say it represents the
pinnacle of his art, but I do think it's a very good and very
rigorous film. I have actually done relatively little reading on
Cassavetes, so I don't know how close to consensus I really am (or
if any number of critics and scholars would destroy my reading).
What follows will be the first extended bit of writing I've done on
the film, and the first writing I've done on Cassavetes in a long
time. So it won't be particularly organized or coherent, but I hope
it sparks a little interest in part.
The general line on Cassavetes seems to be that he's an "actor's
director" (true) who is interested in truth and naturalism (not
quite true in my opinion). I feel as though Cassavetes is
ultimately pretty rigid in handling his actors, though his rigidity
is part and parcel with a collaborative, mutual growth with the
actors. In FACES one comes across an almost circular repetition of
tones, the key extremes being happiness and anger. The engagement
with the viewer in each scene (and I mean "engagement" in a way more
consonant with your views, Fred, than with a marketing department's)
is a weird little organic series of emotional and intellectual
explosions. It's impossible to get a fix on the "truth" in each
scene--these "real-looking" people act manic and sad and drunk and
therefore we're keyed up to approach them on that level (perhaps to
identify with them; certainly to simply watch them).
But the acting grows grotesque in scene after scene: the laughing
and crying come too much, or too soon, or too easily. The sense of
verisimilitude is constantly challenged soon after it is introduced;
any identification a viewer has with the actor is bound to be
strained far and probably broken. And yet why does Cassavetes keep
repeating these patterns? (Easy answer that gets us
nowhere: 'Because he's not a good filmmaker.') I think it's because
the acting style and its structured repetition are a formal strategy
used to jolt and pull a viewer out of complacency and into active
consideration of performance and the relationship between human
subjects and human objects.
Weariness is an important part of Cassavetes. Seeing a Cassavetes
film is more akin to the way you say, Fred, that avant-garde film
tends to divide and isolate an audience than it is to "unifying"
Hollywood experiences. A viewer will squirm and sit rapt and roll
her eyes and feel humbled at differing times than another viewer--
I'm positive about this. The length of a typical Cassavetes film
(most over two hours) is important too, I think. (I have not seen
all of them, I should add.) There's something tactile about it--the
point about repetition isn't simply conceptual: it's there to be
felt, and felt deeply. One has to spend time with these characters
(these actors), develop a necessarily unfinished response to them,
in a way more like one develops a response to shifting patterns of
imagery in Brakhage.
(And Fred, I'm only bringing in avant-garde film because I want to
stress how important isolation and perceptual restructuring
principles are to Cassavetes' cinema--he's doing largely
with 'acting' and 'characterization' what someone like Brakhage is
doing with vision. They're both offering epistemologically-engaged
polemics, which is hardly to claim that polemics are the sum of
their art.)
Ray Carney--I know, I know, he's abominable--is absolutely right
about the necessity of revisiting these films, particularly when
they are most off-putting. (The fact that FACES made such a strong
impression on you, Fred, and didn't simply slip away from recall is
a good sign I think!) They should be worked with and dealt with, if
they squirm into your memory, and re-seen in the same way that a
difficult nonrepresentational a-g film should be re-seen by the
person who hates it but cannot stop thinking about it.
Cassavetes' camera is not simply a naively neutral recording device
for actorly "greatness." It is inextricably bound up in the art.
The camera is all over the place in each scene. It's "careless" in
the sense that Cassavetes is no Blake Edwards and doesn't have a jaw-
dropping talent for composition. But the editing together of many,
many camera angles suggests that Cassavetes was really interested in
the formal effect of such an approach. I suspect this, anyway, not
having much book knowledge to confirm it. However, Cassavetes was
shooting on the cheap; no doubt film stock was valuable to him, and
I presume he was still only using a single camera. It presented
itself as a real effort, I presume, to shoot the film the way he
did, when he could have had the same actors doing the same things in
a few fixed takes and camera positions. (It would have been much
more commercially feasible and probably made more sense, too.)
But no, the editing is fast, often unpredictable, registering
moments between and around conventional forms of action. A shot of
a character talking might be followed by a shot of an unexpected
character listening intently (or intently not listening). At the
end of a rather bizarre meeting at Jeannie's apartment, the
characters Richard (John Marley) and Jim (Val Avery) stand up and
discuss having lunch together. Once they stand up, their heads are
cut off in the frame, and the image of Jeannie is sandwiched in the
background between both of them. It's a moment of loaded respite
when Jeannie is not required to "perform" for her two johns--they're
busy with idle business chat--but she's neverthless unable to stop
acting even when she's doing nothing, trapped within a performance
for the men, a situation echoed in this case by the composition
itself. In FACES the people can never stop acting, and can never
stop wanting to stop acting.
Cassavetes repeatedly throws us into a scene whose emotional content
is in media res: this is an distancing device that makes it hard for
the viewer to "feel" what the characters are feeling (presuming the
viewer wants to). The real, productive option is for the viewer to
react and think and feel, herself, her own reactions to what the
character is feeling (and doing). The drunken three-person-party at
Jeannie's apartment soon after the film begins is a strange extended
setpiece, the context of which is half-discernible, the implications
of which are innumerable. The scene at the bar that introduces Chet
(Seymour Cassel) is another example--we're not given the typical
narrative progression that "explains" why these characters are here
and why they are feeling and acting the way they are. We are
presented with ruptures and breaks and incompletions that are, yes,
difficult and require us to step up to the plate, to be active
viewers, to be OK with not easing into a vicarious emotional life.
(In this respect, Pialat and Cassavetes are very close.)
In short, everything messy (or aleatory) in FACES (and Cassavetes in
general) is part of a broader strategy, a rigorous approach that
seeks to break down easy conceptualizations about the way people
deal with each other, and they way we negotiate performances in our
own lives and in the lives of those around us.
Like I said, I can't offer the best defense (I really hope that
Adrian, Jonathan, and others will offer some words in Cassavetes'
defense; they'll far surpass my own). I'm quite inarticulate about
Cassavetes and what I find great in his work, as I am with all great
art. But it's a start as to why I think Cassavetes is worthwhile.
--Zach
24226
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 10:59pm
Subject: Kit Carson (was Identifying the Bad Guy) thebradstevens
> I'm a huge fan of this one. There's a longer cut floating around
with
> a few great, extra scenes (one with Joe Bob Briggs outside a
> moviehouse) that makes it even better. I was told by one of the
> film's actors that Carson was on set nearly everyday with a
> typewriter, and was keen on improvising when possible.
Not sure about an actual longer cut, but the laserdisc included a
couple of very poor quality deleted scenes, including one with Joe
Bob. These scenes are not on the DVD.
Some excerpts from Carson's TCM2 screenplay were published in FILM
COMMENT.
Carson also cameoed as 'David Holzman' in a film directed by Griffin
Dunne a few years ago (can't recall the title).
24227
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:02pm
Subject: Kit Carson (Was Re: Identifying the Bad Guy) thebradstevens
> Kit's great at the beginning of my friend Joelle Bentolila's film
The Maze. It's
> improv, unlike David Holzman.
HOLZMAN actually was largely improvised, though the improvisation was
tightly controlled.
Would Joelle know how to get in touch with Kit? I've been trying to
contact him for months.
24228
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:04pm
Subject: Re: Sarris/Benayoun jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Speakign of guys who are no oonger around, what do you
> know about Roger Tailleur, J-P?
>
> Godard cited his review of "Harper" as being the sort
> of thing "Cahiers" should have published, and his
> Kazan book in the "Seghers" series isn't bad.
Tailleur was one of the best, perhaps the best, critic of the
first Positif gang, for which he wrote from 1953 to 1970 (after
which he stopped writing about film). Before Positif he published a
small film mag called "Sequences" while he was in a sanatorium.
There were seven issues in two years and he wrote about Huston,
Welles (Kane, Ambersons, Lady from Sh. Othello),Asphalt Jungle, Ruby
Gentry, The Wild One, The Lusty men... and also "Rope" (an article
for which he won a prize and i am ashamed to say I was not aware of
until recently). His first article for Positif was a review
of "Ride the Pink Horse." He knew more about American cinema than
almost anybody at the time and wrote a lot about the western, the
musical, Tashlin, a book on Bogart (but also one on Antonioni).
Institut Lumiere/Actes Sud published a 450-page collection of his
best articles in 1997, and Frederic Vitoux (another one of the Old
Guard who has stopped writing about film and is now at the Academie
francaise) wrote a nice book about Tailleur after his death: "Il me
semble desormais que Roger est en Italie". Tailleur was much older
than I was (like all the early Positif people -- 8 years in his
case, like Benayoun) and I unfortunately never met him.
JPC
24229
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:11pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes' Faces (was Re: Off with their heads!) cellar47
--- Zach Campbell wrote:
>
> Cassavetes' camera is not simply a naively neutral
> recording device
> for actorly "greatness." It is inextricably bound
> up in the art.
> The camera is all over the place in each scene.
> It's "careless" in
> the sense that Cassavetes is no Blake Edwards and
> doesn't have a jaw-
> dropping talent for composition.
I beg to differ!
Have you seen "Opening Night" or "Love Streams"
lately?
> Cassavetes was
> shooting on the cheap; no doubt film stock was
> valuable to him, and
> I presume he was still only using a single camera.
> It presented
> itself as a real effort, I presume, to shoot the
> film the way he
> did, when he could have had the same actors doing
> the same things in
> a few fixed takes and camera positions. (It would
> have been much
> more commercially feasible and probably made more
> sense, too.)
>
And when he had the money his mise en scene altered.
Consider "Gloria." it's a freewheeling as "Faces" on a
moent to moment basis, yet terribly specific and
relentlessly elegant.
>>
> Cassavetes repeatedly throws us into a scene whose
> emotional content
> is in media res: this is an distancing device that
> makes it hard for
>
Quite true.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
24230
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sarris/Benayoun cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
and also
> "Rope" (an article
> for which he won a prize and i am ashamed to say I
> was not aware of
> until recently).
WOW! If you know a way toget ahold of a copy of that
article let us all know.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24231
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:19pm
Subject: Cassavetes' Faces (was Re: Off with their heads!) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
>
> Like I said, I can't offer the best defense (I really hope that
> Adrian, Jonathan, and others will offer some words in Cassavetes'
> defense; they'll far surpass my own). I'm quite inarticulate about
> Cassavetes and what I find great in his work, as I am with all great
> art. But it's a start as to why I think Cassavetes is worthwhile.
>
> --Zach
You've sold me, Zach: Cassavetes, Pantheon. And while I'm remembering:
Bogdanovich, Far Side.
24232
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:20pm
Subject: Kit Carson (Was Re: Identifying the Bad Guy) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> > Kit's great at the beginning of my friend Joelle Bentolila's film
> The Maze. It's
> > improv, unlike David Holzman.
>
> HOLZMAN actually was largely improvised, though the improvisation was
> tightly controlled.
>
> Would Joelle know how to get in touch with Kit? I've been trying to
> contact him for months.
I was hoping someone would tell me how to get in touch with Joelle!
24233
From: "Sascha Westphal"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:30pm
Subject: Wim Wenders and LAND OF PLENTY (Was Identifying the Bad Guy) sascharw1971
To Bill and eveverybody else who has the chance to go to a screening of
"Land of Plenty". Please don't miss it. It is a magnificent work of art.
Absolutely contemporary and at the same time the stuff classics are made of.
I dare say it's Wenders' "A Canterbury Tale" (Michael Powell & Emeric
Pressburger; UK 1944). Like Powell has done with this underrated masterpiece
Wenders bares his soul with "Land of Plenty".
In a way "Land of Plenty" is connected with "Paris Texas", "End of Violence"
and "Million Dollar Hotel". Once again Wenders tries to come to terms with
his view of and his feelings towards the US of A (which were further
complicated by George W. Bush's political and military reactions to 9/11).
But there is an immediancy here that is missing from the other three. Maybe
it stems from the extremely short production phase. Wenders wanted to make
another film with Shepard but there was a delay and so he conceived,
co-wrote and directed "Land of Plenty" in a matter of weeks. You can sense
the resulting energy in every frame of the film.
I am extremely anxious to hear what American viewers will think of it.
Wenders' perspective on America after 9/11 is one of a concerned and alarmed
outsider. There's no doubt about his deep love for the US and the American
people, but also there is no doubt about his frustation with the political
and social state of the US today. There is a certain naiveté that marks his
depiction of everything that's wrong with the American society that may seem
annoying especially to Americans. But for me it is this naive - or maybe I
should say: innocent - point of view, this passionate simplicity with which
he confronts social and emotional problems that are nearly unsolvable that
make "Land of Plenty" such a great film. In filming this story of a modern
young 'saint' and a man ruined by political events he had no control
whatsoever about Wenders has taken an enormous leap of faith and he hopes
that we as an audience take it with him.
Sascha Westphal
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
24234
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:40pm
Subject: Re: Easter Parade cinebklyn
I watched "Easter Parade" over the weekend,
and I loved it all over again (the dvd is a very
good transfer).
Some impressions:
Walters is a master of musical comedy shorthand.
The non-singing, non-dancing scenes are just
the right length -- he has a great sense of pace.
Nothing seems forced or over-emphasized (even
in super-bright Technicolor!).
The film has an abstract quality for me -- as if
Walters tried to create as close to a sung-though
musical as he could in 1948.
Detractors can say that I am making a virtue out of
a flimsy plot/story clumsily put together which barely
supports the songs and dances hung on it. I am just
not able to be more articulate about Walter's organizing
principle, but feel very strongly its existence, as
strongly as I do in Hitchcock, for example.
I felt that Walters' camera was in league with the
performers rather than in competition. It knew
exactly where to be -- it transmited the sensation of
movement without calling attention to the fact that
it was moving. This observation really hit me watching
"Shakin' the Blues Away."
One question:
Robert Alton is credited as choreographer and director
of dance sequences. Does anyone know if he is more
responsible than Walters for the dance sequences?
Thanks.
Brian
24235
From: "Aaron Graham"
Date: Tue Mar 15, 2005 11:45pm
Subject: Re: Kit Carson (was Identifying the Bad Guy) machinegunmc...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> Not sure about an actual longer cut, but the laserdisc included a
> couple of very poor quality deleted scenes, including one with Joe
> Bob. These scenes are not on the DVD.
This may well be what you're talking about; I picked up a "workprint"
at a horror convention a few years ago, with some loose, seemingly-
improvised scenes, but in actuality, it may just be the laserdisc
with the poor quality scenes edited in.
> Some excerpts from Carson's TCM2 screenplay were published in FILM
> COMMENT.
Didn't know this. I've found this online, which says it's an earlier
draft: http://www.geocities.com/lavivaknievel/chainsaw/TCM2.doc
> Carson also cameoed as 'David Holzman' in a film directed by
Griffin
> Dunne a few years ago (can't recall the title).
"Famous" (aka: "Lisa Picard is Famous") - for some reason this is on
Canadian television nearly every week!
-Aaron
24236
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 0:56am
Subject: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> Harry Dean's a singer, too, you know - I saw him once at Cinegrill
in H'wd.
Yes, he's very proud of his singing I know. In fact, on the record
for Paris, Texas, in addition to the monologue, he also
sings "Cancion Mixteca" to the accompaniment of Cooder's guitar.
Writing this makes me want to run to the stereo and play it.
It seems like maybe the title of this thread should be changed, but
somehow "Identifying the Bad Guy" still seems to fit when you're
talking about Harry Dean Stanton, and I say that with great
affection.
24237
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:09am
Subject: Cassavetes' Faces (was Re: Off with their heads!) mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
> The real, productive option is for the viewer to
> react and think and feel, herself, her own reactions to what the
> character is feeling (and doing). The drunken three-person-party
at
> Jeannie's apartment soon after the film begins is a strange
extended
> setpiece, the context of which is half-discernible, the
implications
> of which are innumerable. The scene at the bar that introduces
Chet
> (Seymour Cassel) is another example--we're not given the typical
> narrative progression that "explains" why these characters are here
> and why they are feeling and acting the way they are. We are
> presented with ruptures and breaks and incompletions that are, yes,
> difficult and require us to step up to the plate, to be active
> viewers, to be OK with not easing into a vicarious emotional life.
> (In this respect, Pialat and Cassavetes are very close.)
This is one of the things that appeals to me most about Cassavetes'
films, and it's why I believe Sarah's obsession with love as a
continuous stream in "Love Streams" is one of the major keys to
understanding Cassavetes' work, in particular his disregard for
narrative causality in the Bordwellian sense. Which isn't to say, as
some people do, that Cassavetes' films lack cause-effect
relationships, but merely that their cause-effect relationships are
of a completely different kind -- narration in Cassavetes is dictated
by "streams" of energy, emotion and movement, not by character
psychology or plot mechanics (or, at least, not solely). As you note
regarding the drunken three-person party in "Faces," the implications
of ANY scene in a Cassavetes film (or, to get even more extreme, the
implications of any element, visible or invisible, that enters one of
these scenes -- emotions, bodies, alcohol, light) are innumerable --
indeed, these are what dictate causality in Cassavetes' work, the
elements streaming through the image, through the narrative (creating
effects that may not seem to fit their causes -- which seem crazy in
a Bordwellian world! -- but which fit and work regardless. Oddly
enough, I am reminded of "Vertigo," the narrative of which is
dictated by the development of theme as opposed to by character or
implausible plot), through its characters, and finally through the
screen to the audience, forcing the viewer, as you note, to react and
think and feel. Talk about a participatory cinema!
I'm about to start writing a piece on this element of Cassavetes'
films myself and am still putting my thoughts into order. I don't
know if this is very clear yet, but, hey, there it is.
Pantheon director? Without a doubt.
24238
From: Charles Leary
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:17am
Subject: Re: Cassavetes' Faces (was Re: Off with their heads!) cw_leary
In reply to Zach on Cassavetes and FACES, I would concur that
Cassavetes is indeed a film stylist and interested in film form,
contrary to both some of what has been written on him and to a certain
extent his own commentary on his work. Particularly as his career
progresses - as David mentioned OPENING NIGHT and LOVE STREAMS - for
example, in OPENING NIGHT, there is an exquisite superimposition of a
still Gena Rowlands floating above another still image of the theater
audience. I think a good take on this point can be found in the
introduction to George Kouvaros' recent book, where he discusses
Cassavetes' interview with Andre Labarthe (for CdC, while an English
version is in the EVERGREEN REVIEW). Discussing SHADOWS and FACES,
Cassavetes remarks that he is "more interested in the people who work
with me than I am in the film itself, than I am in filmmaking."
Kouvaros notes how such a statement could place him at odds with New
Hollywood, film criticism of the time, and the emerging discipline of
film studies. Yet one could say instead that Cassavetes was ahead of
his time in a way (or at least, ahead of academic film studies), in
thinking about the cinema less in terms of vision, epistemology, etc.
but in terms of physicality and the senses - as Deleuze describes
Cassavetes, a "cinema of the body." And Jonathan describes in the MOVIE
MUTATIONS book how Cassavetes is integral in conceiving of a cinephilia
and film criticism shifting from more familiar ideas of intertextuality
to ones tied to the "physicality of actors."
So this then relates to Zach's comments on repetition in Cassavetes,
which I think can be applied to the acting style itself, and one can
detect patterns of certain gestures (and lines of dialogue) throughout
his work. My favorite example is in LOVE STREAMS, when Harmon
(Cassavetes) returns to the Las Vegas motel room where he left his son
after a night of carousing. His son cries that he wants to go home, and
Cassavetes gets down on his knees and repeats over and over again, in
variation, "didn't I tell you I was gonna be a man and you were gonna
be a man," etc. This gesture of him getting on his knees and grasping
for his son reminds me of a similar gesture in A WOMAN UNDER THE
INFLUENCE when Mabel (Rowlands) returns home from the hospital and the
kids rush up to her. In a photo of the production published in the book
AUTOPORTRAITS, you can see Cassavetes enacted this scene himself for
the cast.
Charley
24239
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:22am
Subject: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> > Blake writes:
> >
> > > If anyone else knows more about actual
> > contributions to the script I for one would
> > be interested.
> >
> > My information is strictly experiential. My
> > only screening was when it was first released,
> > but I remember a scene set under a highway
> > cloverleaf about 2/3's of the way through
> > when I felt the movie go "Thud!" From that
> > point on the dialogue was more labored than
> > it had been, and energy seemed to leak from
> > the screen as if it were a punctured inner tube.
> > It certainly seemed to me at the time that
> > Wenders had switched writers.
> >
> > Brian
>
> Or something. That's my recollection too.
>
> I just bought the film on tape - I already have the album, of
course. I'll look at it
> again. In my CdC article -at a time when WW was God and Jesus and
The
> Holy Ghost all wrapped up in one to CdC - I dealt with it as a
structural variant
> on the three "farm" films out at the same time: Country (w.
Shepard acting),
> The River and Places in the Heart (which I love). Ideas that were
in the air,
> with Shepard as possible carrier.
>
> Has anyone seen Land of Plenty? I'm thinking of making a day trip
to Ojai to
> see it when it's screened up there.
>
> And speaking of Country, I'm spotty on Richard Pearce, but I
really liked
> Heartland, and didn't mind Leap of Faith when I caught it at all.
Anyone like
> him?
I think I feel warmer toward Paris, Texas than either of you, though
this was kind of my experience of it too. It seemed to have all of
the elements of an American classic on long-traveled ground of rich
motifs--of place, character, relationships--as refracted through a
European sensibility. But though it seemed thrusting toward
something it never seemed to get there and just kind of drifted away
before the end. But that's really Wenders, isn't it? And I don't
say that unkindly. While I think he was lucky to be taken for God
and Jesus and the Holy Ghost by anyone, there is something appealing
about him. I think he would have liked to be Nicholas Ray but one
only has to see the opening of The Lusty Men in the context of a
movie Wenders really made, in my experience of it (Lightning Over
Water) to see the difference. You have to be tougher. Intriguingly,
Wenders' best movie for me is about failed moviemaking--The State of
Things--just a soft, sensitive guy and a hard, ruthless world. I saw
Paris, Texas twice in quick succession--was doing that Stanton
interview when I had the first screening--and haven't seen it again.
I'd like to. I know I enjoy listening to that monologue more on the
record than I did hearing it in the movie, at least at the time.
I actually wrote this mainly to answer that I like Richard Pearce,
based on, of all things, Country. It was for me the best of those
three farm films, as The River was the least (a good title for some
filmmakers, but it didn't work for Rydell!).
24240
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:23am
Subject: Re: Identifying the Bad Guy (Was:Narrative and eschatology in Shyamalan blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> > Blake writes:
> >
> > > If anyone else knows more about actual
> > contributions to the script I for one would
> > be interested.
> >
> > My information is strictly experiential. My
> > only screening was when it was first released,
> > but I remember a scene set under a highway
> > cloverleaf about 2/3's of the way through
> > when I felt the movie go "Thud!" From that
> > point on the dialogue was more labored than
> > it had been, and energy seemed to leak from
> > the screen as if it were a punctured inner tube.
> > It certainly seemed to me at the time that
> > Wenders had switched writers.
> >
> > Brian
>
> Or something. That's my recollection too.
>
> I just bought the film on tape - I already have the album, of
course. I'll look at it
> again. In my CdC article -at a time when WW was God and Jesus and
The
> Holy Ghost all wrapped up in one to CdC - I dealt with it as a
structural variant
> on the three "farm" films out at the same time: Country (w.
Shepard acting),
> The River and Places in the Heart (which I love). Ideas that were
in the air,
> with Shepard as possible carrier.
>
> Has anyone seen Land of Plenty? I'm thinking of making a day trip
to Ojai to
> see it when it's screened up there.
>
> And speaking of Country, I'm spotty on Richard Pearce, but I
really liked
> Heartland, and didn't mind Leap of Faith when I caught it at all.
Anyone like
> him?
I think I feel warmer toward Paris, Texas than either of you, though
this was kind of my experience of it too. It seemed to have all of
the elements of an American classic on long-traveled ground of rich
motifs--of place, character, relationships--as refracted through a
European sensibility. But though it seemed thrusting toward
something it never seemed to get there and just kind of drifted away
before the end. But that's really Wenders, isn't it? And I don't
say that unkindly. While I think he was lucky to be taken for God
and Jesus and the Holy Ghost by anyone, there is something appealing
about him. I think he would have liked to be Nicholas Ray but one
only has to see the opening of The Lusty Men in the context of a
movie Wenders really made, in my experience of it (Lightning Over
Water) to see the difference. You have to be tougher. Intriguingly,
Wenders' best movie for me is about failed moviemaking--The State of
Things--just a soft, sensitive guy and a hard, ruthless world. I saw
Paris, Texas twice in quick succession--was doing that Stanton
interview when I had the first screening--and haven't seen it again.
I'd like to. I know I enjoy listening to that monologue more on the
record than I did hearing it in the movie, at least at the time.
I actually wrote this mainly to answer that I like Richard Pearce,
based on, of all things, Country. It was for me the best of those
three farm films, as The River was the least (a good title for some
filmmakers, but it didn't work for Rydell!).
24241
From: "J. Mabe"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:25am
Subject: Mixing up names and the avant-garde (was: Identifying the Bad Guy) brack_28
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Harry Dean's a singer, too, you know - I saw him
> once at Cinegrill
> in H'wd.
Even though I know better, I’m constantly wanting to
switch the names ‘Dean Stockwell’ and ‘Harry Dean
Stanton’ (like the much more reasonable mixing-up of
the actors ‘Keith David' and ‘David Keith’).
Anyway... I know one of these actors (either Stanton
or Stockwell) was mentioned in the Brakhage Scrapbooks
as an excellent avant-garde filmmaker. I’ve also
heard that Russ Tamblyn made some pretty good
non-narrative films. Does anyone know about these
works? Brakhage mentions that (Stockwell or Stanton)
refused to show his work to anyone but friends, but
maybe one of our more well connected members knows
something. I’ve always been curious about this... if
the work is any good, and if maybe this was a little
bit widespread among Hollywood actors at some point in
time.
Josh Mabe
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24242
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:59am
Subject: Re: Cassavetes' Faces (was Re: Off with their heads!) fredcamper
Zach,
Actually, that was a really good defense. I'm left with the questions of
what I'll see if I see the film again, and also whether what you
describe, which seems to depend on the intersection of acting and
directing/editing, will move me even if I do "see" it. This questions
harks back to our earlier discussion about the importance of acting,
which you value more than I do in general; I can see, from your
description, why you value this film, and am not sure whether I will.
Unfortunately there was recently a Cassavetes retrospective in Chicago,
but I know many others who think he's great so I will try to see more
eventually.
Fred
24243
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:01am
Subject: Re: Mixing up names and the avant-garde fredcamper
J. Mabe wrote:
> ....I know one of these actors (either Stanton
> or Stockwell) as mentioned in the Brakhage Scrapbooks....
I believe it was Stockwell. I don't remember reading this but he did
name Stockwell in talking in exactly the way you describe. Someone in
our group should try to get to him and try to see the films.
Fred Camper
24244
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:32am
Subject: Re: Whose Life ?(Was: Off with their heads! (was: NEW American Cinema) blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
> Walsh didn't learn how to make movies from filming Pancho Villa.
He
> learned how to make movies by standing behind "the Old Man" while
he
> directed and watching what he did. Otherwise lumberjacks and
> astronauts would be great filmmakers. Hitchcock had no life, but
he
> was the greatest of all.
I know how you mean this of course. Still, I wonder if one can say
of anyone that they had "no life" even if it was just a life working
very creatively while seeming to suppress everything else of their
deepest emotions except in that creative work. To live one's life
this way while seeming to have some deep yearning for some
unattainable blonde female fantasy complement/double/icon of all
possible sexual fulfillment might be, it seems to me, to live a very
intense life in a way. Not the one any of us might want, but
intense, just not in the way that this is usually meant.
I'm really kind of resistant to psychoanalyzing artists normally,
but here we have a supreme example of someone who used their
conscious to tap their unconscious, seeming to know exactly the
place each should have in his life. I see a very deep sense of life,
compelling, sometimes tragic, and often funny in Vertigo, The Birds,
Marnie, Rear Window, North by Northwest, The Wrong Man, Shadow of a
Doubt, Notorious, The Man Who Knew Too Much and Young and Innocent,
and it's obvious that Hitchcock felt the weight of emotion and
experience in these films even if it hadn't been his "life"
in any instance--except that youthful lockup in jail, of course.
And yes Bill, even if I have sometimes been known to be wishy-washy,
that's my preferred order of my ten favorite Hitchcock movies.
Also, when all is said and done, hanging out with Villa does sound
king of more exciting, doesn't it? And if it may not have made
Walsh an artist, it is suggestive of the kind of artist he would be.
24245
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:23am
Subject: Re: Whose Life ?(Was: Off with their heads! (was: NEW American Cinema) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> Hitchcock had no life, but
> he
> > was the greatest of all.
Well, I find this kind of statement annoying. Everybody has a
life. What do you mean, "Hitchcock had no life"? What's your
definition of having a life? Do YOU have a life? Do I? Does anybody?
How is anybody's life more "a life" than Hitchcock's or anyone who's
not supposed to have a life? I really hate that phrase. JPC
>be.
24246
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:05am
Subject: Re: Re: Whose Life ?(Was: Off with their heads! (was: NEW American Cinema) fredcamper
jpcoursodon wrote:
>>Hitchcock had no life, but
>>he
>>
>>>was the greatest of all.
>
> "Well, I find this kind of statement annoying. Everybody has a
> life...."
The popularization of the phrase, "Get a life," from which I think the
idea of "having no life" evolved, dates to a 1987 "Saturday Night Live"
episode that I happened to see, in which William Shantner goes to a
Trekkie convention and gets asked incredibly detailed questions -- and
treated like he, the actor, is his character. He erupts at them in
frustration with "Get a life," and one of them wonders something like,
"Maybe he's telling us to pay more attention to the 'Star Trek" movies?"
I agree that everyone has a life. My "liberal" bias that says anything
can be great must cause me to admit that a Web site maintained by a
Trekkie who spent all his time watching the show and doing Web design
could, I suppose, be a great work of art in Web design, or that the
videos he made with little plastic Star Trek figures could be great too.
At the same time it does seem to me to be generally good advice to
artists, filmmakers, and everyone else, that in addition to looking at
flickering images on the screen (or on the cathode ray tube), one should
spend time interacting with other human beings, looking at art and
buildings and cities and countryside and nature, and generally
experiencing the world directly as well as filtered through media. This
was kind of my point in talking about filmmakers whose sense of human
motivation seems to come mostly from other movies.
Fred Camper
24247
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:09am
Subject: Re: Re: Easter Parade cellar47
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> I felt that Walters' camera was in league with the
> performers rather than in competition.
Well that's because Walters was a dancer himself. And
a "featured" one rather than a star like Kelly. He
knew what it take to put a dance over AND how it would
look on screen.
:
>
> Robert Alton is credited as choreographer and
> director
> of dance sequences. Does anyone know if he is more
> responsible than Walters for the dance sequences?
>
Well as they were a couple off-screen I would suspect
that it would be hard to say where one started and the
other left off.
Alton was a great one for the Large Concept, whereas
Walters concentrated on dancing details. Take a look
at "Pass That Peace Pipe" in "Good News" to see what I
mean.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24248
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:43am
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema: (Was: American cinema) sallitt1
> 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)."
I don't think Sarris was being condescending. I think he just doesn't
like avant-garde films, and was trying to play semi-fair by removing them
from the scope of his survey. - Dan
24249
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:48am
Subject: Re: Re: Alternating verses sallitt1
Thanks, Jim and David, for the help with the alternating verse history.
Your comments helped shape my friend's handling of the subject. - Dan
24250
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:49am
Subject: Re: Whose Life ?(Was: Off with their heads! (was: NEW American Cinema) tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
"...it does seem to me to be generally good advice to artists,
filmmakers, and everyone else, that in addition to looking at
flickering images on the screen (or on the cathode ray tube), one
should spend time interacting with other human beings, looking at
art and buildings and cities and countryside and nature, and
generally experiencing the world directly as well as filtered
through media. This was kind of my point in talking about filmmakers
whose sense of human motivation seems to come mostly from other
movies."
In the case of Hitchcock the various biographies offer evidence that
his intellectual life went beyond movies; he was interested in
applied science, modern art (he collected Paul Klee,) and geography
for example. He read Shaw and Galsworthy and had the intellectual
interests of a man of his generation.
By way of cntrast, Steven Spielberg claims not to read anything but
the trades and movie scripts and seems not to have any intellectual
interests at all. But even Spielberg has a life if only by way of
being a father and businessman. Though I take your point, I agree
with J-P about the doubtfulness of "not having a life."
Richard
24251
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:50am
Subject: Re: Whose Life ?(Was: Off with their heads! (was: NEW American Cinema) blakelucaslu...
>
>
> >>Hitchcock had no life, but
> >>he
> >>
> >>>was the greatest of all.
>
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote
> At the same time it does seem to me to be generally good advice to
> artists, filmmakers, and everyone else, that in addition to
looking at
> flickering images on the screen (or on the cathode ray tube), one
should
> spend time interacting with other human beings, looking at art and
> buildings and cities and countryside and nature, and generally
> experiencing the world directly as well as filtered through media.
This
> was kind of my point in talking about filmmakers whose sense of
human
> motivation seems to come mostly from other movies.
When I got around to answering the above statement about Hitchcock,
I had forgotten this started with your talking about the film school
generation, or whatever one wants to call them, as opposed to
earlier filmmakers. In that context, I think Hitchcock is actually
closer to Walsh than to that Spielberg brigade that keeps coming
along proclaiming cinema is God but contributing so little to it in
any meaningful artistic way. That's not because Hitchcock lived his
life anything like Walsh, but they both knew there is something more
important than cinema, and maybe, not so paradoxically, that's why
they were able to give so much to it.
24252
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:56am
Subject: re: Kit Carson apmartin90
I think one of Carson's best and most fascinating films (apart from the
McBrides) is PERFUME (2000?) - no relation to the best-seller novel of that
name. Produced and co-written by Carson, and directed by an Australian,
Michael Rymer, whose feature debut was the excellent ANGEL BABY (1995), a
Nouvelle Vague-style portrait of a mentally disturbed woman. Rymer has made
around three American films (and most recently, the badly received INTERVIEW
WITH THE VAMPIRE sequel, QUEEN OF THE DAMNED). PERFUME is in the
Altman/Rudolph vein (more Rudolph than Altman), and is entirely improvised,
with people including Jeff Goldblum at top form. Set in the fashion
industry, it is an admirably 'light', highly attenuated piece - with just
the merest hint of plot, and an incredibly quiet stream of non-stop talk
(all seduction and manipulation). I thought it was a modest but excellent
achievement, with a special tone. I notice it doesn't even rate a entry in
Maltin: is it known to American list members?
Adrian
24253
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:03am
Subject: Re: Whose Life ?(Was: Off with their heads! (was: NEW American Cinema) blakelucaslu...
I see a very deep sense of life,
> compelling, sometimes tragic, and often funny in Vertigo, The
Birds,
> Marnie, Rear Window, North by Northwest, The Wrong Man, Shadow of
a
> Doubt, Notorious, The Man Who Knew Too Much and Young and Innocent,
> and it's obvious that Hitchcock felt the weight of emotion and
> experience in these films even if it hadn't been his "life"
> in any instance--except that youthful lockup in jail, of course.
>
> And yes Bill, even if I have sometimes been known to be wishy-
washy,
> that's my preferred order of my ten favorite Hitchcock movies.
>
Just to clarify the ninth choice on that list, since it may not be
completely obvious--I'm referring to The Man Who Knew Too Much, 1956
version. I like many of Hitchcock's British films pretty well, as
indicated by my tenth choice. But in this case, the so called
remake tends to make me forget all about the first one.
24254
From: "Hadrian"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:30am
Subject: Kit Carson (Was Re: Identifying the Bad Guy) habelove
I'm in contact with Kit right now, and will probably be meeting him for drinks this
weekend...who should I say is looking for him?
Also, though there may have been heavy improvisation, there was a script for David
Holzman's Diary. In fact, the collaborators were all so familiar with it, and the
character, that at times when Carson would freeze up on his lines, Mike Wadleigh (the
cameraman) would read them --and you can't even tell.
Hadrian
> > Would Joelle know how to get in touch with Kit? I've been trying to
> > contact him for months.
>
> I was hoping someone would tell me how to get in touch with Joelle!
24255
From: "Jason Guthartz"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:41am
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema: (Was: American cinema) Guthartz
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > 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)."
>
> I don't think Sarris was being condescending. I think he just doesn't
> like avant-garde films, and was trying to play semi-fair by removing
them
> from the scope of his survey. - Dan
You may be right, but why couldn't he just say it upfront instead of
playing the populist card?
My problem isn't so much with the exclusion of "avant-garde" films,
but with a justification based on marketing convenience (movies are
"what most people think of" as movies) instead of aesthetic or
philosophical affinities. (The condescending part comes from my
imagining that Sarris saw or had opportunities to see a great deal of
films other than feature-length mass-marketed narrative fiction films,
and that he must have found more than a handful of them praise-worthy,
damnable, or at least notable in some way in relation to the
film(maker)s discussed in his book.)
I'm really not interested in criticizing Sarris, whose work I find
invaluable in many ways, and to whom I'm undoubtedly being unfair by
focusing on a book title and a couple of sentences in a preface. I'm
more interested in the responsibilities of serious film critics (as
opposed to merely opinionated cinephiles), which -- when engaged in a
discourse focused on aesthetic rather than industrial concerns --
includes certain responsibilities in the use of language and in the
definition of terms. "Mainstream" and "avant-garde" are marketing
categories, not aesthetic typologies. The question is: "Who's your
daddy?"
-Jason
24256
From: "Fernando Verissimo"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 8:39am
Subject: THE SHINING (Was: Put Another Ax Murder on the Barbie) f_verissimo
Bill K.:
"I think that Eyes Wide Shut would've ended up shorter - by the time
it got to Australia. Lemme 'splain. Saul sent me the Australian
Shining, which is 30 minutes shorter than the one we know. The
reason: Kubrick kept tinkering with it, and since the Aussie prints
were the last shipped, that was the final draft. It's kind of
interesting to compare the two!"
It is indeed very interesting to compare the two versions. I have a list of
every single cut that was made somewhere -- have to look for it. IMDB has
one too, but I don't know if you can trust that.
I guess what you saw is actually the international release version of THE
SHINING. As far as I know there are two existing SHININGs: the american (146
min.) and the one that was shown in all other countries (aprox. 119 min.).
Is there such thing as a third (Australian) version?
Of course, there was also that "premiere cut" that had an epilogue, which SK
cut three days after release. Is there any afb'ers who had the chance to see
the "premiere cut", with the original ending?
IMDB says: "Runtime: Japan: 154 min (uncut version)" -- but once again, this
is probably wrong. Or isn't it?
"The cuts are all for pace, and they assume that"
Yes, most of them. There are a few title cards missing.
You see, I've watched the international version first, over and over. By the
time I had the chance to watch the american cut for the first time I already
knew the other version by heart. This is funny because my first impression
was that a lot of meaning was being added, or at least underlined.
The american version has much more TV watching by Danny and Wendy, for
example.
There are also those hilarious skeletons (remember that one by the phone
booth?), but I don't think they stand for anything. I hated those.
fv
24257
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:26am
Subject: Kit Carson (Was Re: Identifying the Bad Guy) thebradstevens
>
> I'm in contact with Kit right now, and will probably be meeting him
for drinks this
> weekend...who should I say is looking for him?
Brad Stevens. I'm researching a book about Jim McBride. If you'd like
more specifics, e-mail me at bradstevens22@...
24258
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 10:30am
Subject: Re: THE SHINING (Was: Put Another Ax Murder on the Barbie) thebradstevens
I've watched the international version first, over and over. By the
> time I had the chance to watch the american cut for the first time
Me too. It annoyed me that Kubrick had cut out Ann Jackson's entire
role, but had left her name on both the front and end credits!
24259
From: MG4273@...
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:52am
Subject: Re: Sarris, Roud & Experimental Film (was: The NEW American Cinema) nzkpzq
Please don't shoot the messenger (me), but:
Andrew Sarris published a longer dismissal of experimental films (I think in
"The Primal Screen" or "Movies and Politics").
Sarris' position is essentially this: Avant-garde people are nice, sincere
people who show amazing dedication to their art, and who are admirable as human
beings. But they simply do not have the financial, technological & other
resources to make a decent movie (synch sound, set design, decent actors, etc).
Because of this, most avant-garde films are pathetic pieces of crap, that just do
not cut it. Furthermore, few of the modes used by experimental filmmakers
have much real substance...
Richard Roud (an auteurist leader of the day) published a similar blanket
dismissal of experimental film in his book on Godard. Roud's position is a bit
different: he claims that non-narrative films just aren't interesting, worth
watching, or have much artistic value. He claims that the medium of cinema
somehows demands a narrative framework for artistic success.
Lots of auteurists of the Sarris-Roud 1960's generation thought that
experimental films were just junk.
Many of today's cinephiles implicitly agree with Sarris & Roud. But they are
too "polite" to say so. They completely ignore experimental films in their
film studies. But refuse to give any sort of explicit rationale. Sarris & Roud at
least went public with their ideas, and put them in a discussable format.
Hidden agendas are rampant in today's cinephilia: people don't like silent films,
TV, music videos, genre films, experimental films or whatever, but refuse to
give any discussable or debatable rationale. They hide behind the Wall of
Silence. The Wall is everywhere. Do people like masterpieces of the abstract film
such as James Whitney's "Lapis" or Jordan Belson's "Samadhi"? They won't say.
Who are the top music video directors? They don't discuss music videos. How
good a film is "Valley Girl" (Martha Coolidge) or "Grease 2" (Patricia Birch)?
Hollywood teen comedies are off-limits for cinephiles, and Not Mentioned Here
- get with the program! Did Bryan Farnham do a good job with his episodes of
"Poirot"? Excuse me - that's British TV - it is Off Limits for cinephiles! How
good are Chester Franklin, Wallace Worsley or Fred Niblo as silent film
directors? Well, silent films are just too un-hip to discuss! The Wall is
everywhere.
I respect Sarris & Roud for giving their opinions. Even if they disagree with
my own. Only explicit discussion will get us anywhere.
There is a tribute volume to Jonas Mekas. Tom Gunning interviews Sarris for
this. Sarris has more comments on this subject. So does Gunning, who identifies
himself as both a traditional auteurist, and as an enthusiast for avant-garde
film. This is my position, too.
Mike Grost
24262
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 1:23pm
Subject: The Wall (was: Sarris, Roud & Experimental Film) mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Many of today's cinephiles implicitly agree with Sarris & Roud. But
they are
> too "polite" to say so. They completely ignore experimental films in
their
> film studies. But refuse to give any sort of explicit rationale.
Sarris & Roud at
> least went public with their ideas, and put them in a discussable
format.
> Hidden agendas are rampant in today's cinephilia: people don't like
silent films,
> TV, music videos, genre films, experimental films or whatever, but
refuse to
> give any discussable or debatable rationale.
An attempt to knock a few stones out of my section of wall:
It's a bit cliché, but I'm a big fan of Spike Jonze and Michel
Gondry's music videos. My favourites are Jonze's for "Praise You"
(Fatboy Slim) and "It's Oh So Quiet" (Björk), mainly because I think
they have an extremely effective simplicity to them (well, maybe not
the Björk video, but still), which can also be seen at work in
"Sabotage" (The Beastie Boys) and "California" (Wax) and which I
personally find very funny (if Will Ferrell's comedy was a music video
it'd be "Praise You"). Gondry's videos are more conceptually complex
and seem to me like an ongoing celebration of cinematic illusion. I
find the mass-pixilation of "The Hardest Button to Button" (The White
Stripes) extremely pleasing aesthetically and marvel at "Lucas with
the Lid Off" (Lucas), "Come Into My World" (Kylie Minogue) and the
palindromic nature of "Sugar Water" (Cibo Mato), all three of which
employ the long take to pretty remarkable effect. As I've mentioned
here before, I also like the "Psycho" homage of an unknown director's
video for "Billie Jean" (The Bates). The guy who plays Anthony Perkins
playing Norman Bates is uncanny.
I'm also a huge fan of the web-based (or "cyber-cinema") filmmaker
Evan Mather (www.evanmather.com) and a long piece I've written on him
and his films will be appearing in the next issue of "Senses of Cinema".
I don't see many genre films at the cinema, but I'd be a liar if I
didn't say that I really like the sophomoric
Ferrell-Stiller-Wilson-Vaughn boys club that continually finds its
members appearing in one another's movies. Stiller is starting to show
up a bit *too* much, but I adore Ferrell and, in spite of myself,
can't wait to see how he handles himself in "Bewitched". One of my
favourite movies of last year was "Anchorman: The Legend of Ron
Burgundy," a film that finds itself going off on so many tangents and
indulging itself in so many digressions (the jazz flute rendition? the
gladiator battle? the animated Pleasureland sequence? the group
sing-along?) that, even though it misses it a lot of marks (a lot more
than some of their other films do, in fact), I can't help but feel
that there's something inspired going on there on a level of absolute
unadulterated idiocy.
I liked "Anchorman" for the same reason I "liked" the two series of
"The Office," which I've only just caught up with. I don't watch much
television (just because I don't have the time), but I decided to make
the effort recently to see what all my British comedy-loving friends
were on about and was struck by how uncomfortable I felt watching it.
It's such a strange comedy -- satirical comedy at its blackest (save,
you know, something like "Salo"). David Brent and Gareth are *really*
disgusting individuals, like contemporary incarnations of the sexist,
racist, discriminatory Channel 4 News team in "Anchorman". I was a
little disappointed that the show resorted to the mockumentary format
(it's been done to death), and I rarely laughed (it's just so
embarrassing to watch), but I still "liked" it for the most part. It
seemed to me to have a far greater agenda than mere comedy which it
handled really, really well; it didn't back down, which I liked.
24263
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:19pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING (Was: Put Another Ax Murder on the Barbie) cellar47
--- Fernando Verissimo
>
> Of course, there was also that "premiere cut" that
> had an epilogue, which SK
> cut three days after release. Is there any afb'ers
> who had the chance to see
> the "premiere cut", with the original ending?
>
I saw it. From the shot of Nicholson frozen to death
we cut to a scene indicating that Danny and Wendy are
alright, and barry Nelson appears again to tell them
that there was nothing at the hotel and it isn't
haunted. Then it's back to that slow track in to the
photo as before.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24264
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:25pm
Subject: NYC: Rendezvous tickets sallitt1
If anyone happens to have an extra ticket for the Saturday films in the
Walter Reade's French film series, please let me know. I'm looking for an
extra ticket for THE BRIDESMAID (6:45 pm), RULES OF SILENCE (1:30 pm), or
WHEN THE TIDE COMES IN (4:15 pm). Thanks. - Dan
24265
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 2:56pm
Subject: Identifying the Bad Guy in The Naked Spur sallitt1
> One other favorite example of mine: Ralph Meeker is introduced in The
> Naked Spur with a bill of particulars identifying him as everything from
> an owlhoot to an arsonist, a series of charges supported by the fact
> that he looks like Ralph Meeker. But if you examine the subsequent
> actions of Stewart and Meeker, who's the bad guy? Who's the good guy?
I dunno. Meeker was on the run from a rape. And then he light-heartedly
engineers the massacre of the tribe who comes out to find him. The movie
registers those deaths seriously: there's that shot of an agonized Stewart
looking at the field of dead before moving on. - Dan
24266
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:08pm
Subject: Re: Sarris, Roud & Experimental Film (was: The NEW American Cinema) samfilms2003
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Please don't shoot the messenger (me), but:
> Andrew Sarris published a longer dismissal of experimental films (I think in
> "The Primal Screen" or "Movies and Politics").
Hmm. I had written "sometimes I think Andrew Sarris is 'strained seriousness'
and was going to ammend that. But you make a 'why bother case' !
That said, I can't dismiss the fact Sarris was valuable when I was discovering
cinema & it's history. I had "Interviews With Film Directors" and you know,
probably at the very least discovered Max Ophuls and some others therein.
At least he wrote film criticism in the Voice, not movie reviews or blurbology.
And as editor - he was, right ? - he had Jonas Mekas' Movie Journal so....
All in all would you say he advanced Movie culture, blind spots notwithstanding.
(jeez I'm writing in the past tense, but don't get The NY Observer or wheree\ver
he writes now) ?
-Sam
24267
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:17pm
Subject: Re: Sarris, Roud & Experimental Film (was: The NEW American Cinema) michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> (jeez I'm writing in the past tense, but don't get The NY Observer
or wheree\ver he writes now) ?
Sarris's most recent column can be seen for free at:
http://www.observer.com/pages/movies.asp
One used to be able to read his past columns for free too -- but not
any more. (Not his fault -- the Observer has begun charging for access
to archived material).
24268
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:22pm
Subject: Canon inflation (Was: Off with their heads!) sallitt1
> I have seen Orson Welles' "Lady from Shanghai" twice this weekend
> (both on 35mm) and thought about how impossible it was to explain how
> far below Welles, Hitchcock, Cukor, Minelli and Sirk the Hollywood
> cinema has fallen.
I think there's an issue here which is difficult to discuss. You could
call it "canon inflation."
When Sarris wrote THE AMERICAN CINEMA, he was rather tentative about the
virtues of many directors that we consider gods today. My opinion - and I
speak as someone who's been fighting canon inflation, one day at a time,
all my life - is that the very act of Sarris putting directors in that
category structure turned the directors into institutions, and made it
almost inevitable that the next generation would have a higher opinion of
those directors than Sarris did.
If you look at my list of favorite films, you see the danger signs of
canon inflation all over them. Are there more top-rank films in the old
days because of some decline, or because I ratify those old films more
easily, and am more grudging about vetting the virtues of newcomers? It's
impossible to say - all one can do is try to stay open to the vices of
official classics and the virtues of upstart challengers.
Canon inflation is only one of the reasons that we can't hope to evaluate
the current cinema vis a vis the past cinema. Another great reason is
that we don't know where the good stuff might be happening today. Maybe
in 50 years everyone will know that we should have been watching some
obscure public access channel. Or music videos!
- Dan
24269
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:26pm
Subject: Re: Re: Arnaud Desplechin in Brooklyn sallitt1
> My favorite--almost everyone's favorite?--is ESTHER
> KAHN, the best film of the decade thus far.
I agree heartily, but I wonder if ESTHER is such a consensus favorite the
world over. It had a rather mixed reception, as I recall, even among
Desplechin's fans. I wouldn't be surprised if MY SEX LIFE won the poll.
Note that Desplechin's excellent first film, LA VIE DES MORTS, is listed
in fine print as playing with LA SENTINELLE. - Dan
24270
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sarris, Roud & Experimental Film (was: The NEW American Cinema) fredcamper
Sarris was incredibly valuable for me and a huge influence, for FILM
CULTURE 28, the early version of his book, which I think is also better
than the book.
We invited him to speak at the MIT FIlm Society in 1967, on "Bringing Up
Baby." I asked him about avant-garde film. He objected to Brakhage's
"The Dead," shot in Paris. "That is not my Paris," he said. Well, sure.
That's the point. Brakhage radically transforms and interiorizes what he
shows. Cinema shouldn't be required to restrict itself to "shared" seeing.
Historically, Mekas preceded Sarris at the "Voice," starting to write
for it when it was still an "underground" newspaper. Mekas brought
Sarris in to cover more "mainstream" films.
In 1976, when the Voice had already fired Mekas, Sarris wrote a
notorious article attacking avant-garde film in conjunction with a
historical series on avant-garde film at the Whitney. Most notoriously,
he quoted at length from a mid-1950s Jonas Mekas article in which Mekas
himself attacked avant-garde film, published in FILM CULTURE 3 -- an
article which Mekas himself had long since repudiated.
For me, whether a person likes at least some avant-garde film is a good
test of whether that person understands all cinema a formal, expressive,
aesthetic medium, rather than an entertainment delivery vehicle which
can have nice artistic touches. Yet there's nothing wrong with many of
Sarris's essays on individual filmmakers, which are terrific.
Fred Camper
24271
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 3:38pm
Subject: Schrader, Bresson, and the Comprehensible (Was: Off with their heads!) sallitt1
> For that matter, why does the hustler in Schrader's
> "American Gigolo" have that moment of revelation at the end? It's
> certainly not comprehensible in terms of anything we've learned about
> him. It only becomes comprehensible if you remember that Schrader loves
> "Pickpocket," whose ending he blatantly rips off in his film.
Well, one could ask how comprehensible the revelation in PICKPOCKET is.
Bresson certainly doesn't elucidate the dude's psychology in the usual
ways. You could say that Schrader's character has a more conventional
arc, in that he has been through a big action/death climax, which is a
very common way for storytellers to justify changes of heart. Bresson's
transformation is more obscure - possibly more authentic as a result, but
less comprehensible, I'd say.
"Blatant rip-off" doesn't seem quite the right way to describe Schrader's
act. He uses exactly the same last line, as I recall - he wasn't trying
to get away with anything. "Homage" sounds about right. It's definitely
some variety of meta-filmmaking, but "rip-off" implies that Schrader is
trying to take credit for Bresson's idea. - Dan
24272
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:05pm
Subject: Re: Schrader, Bresson, and the Comprehensible (Was: Off with their heads!) fredcamper
Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Well, one could ask how comprehensible the revelation in PICKPOCKET is...
Ah, but that's my point. In Bresson character actions are not
explainable according to human psychology because his scripts, acting,
and camera, don't configure his characters as if they were people in the
common world we all share. They are something else. Hollywood films,
especially mediocre Hollywood films, tend to set things up in terms of
expectations that we will understand their characters a little bit like
the way we understand "people like us." The "American Gigolo" hustler
behaves that way -- until the end.
In Bresson, his imagery, rhythms, editing, and acting style, make the
transformation at the end of "Pickpocket" completely amazing. It's not
supposed to be comprehensible according to ordinary "intelligence," but
it's part of an aesthetic whole. Schrader gives us nothing of the sort;
there is no consistent visual-aesthetic system there, that I can see.
Instead we're supposed to get "involved" with the characters and story,
which makes the borrowing from "Pickpocket" seem especially obnoxious to me.
> "Blatant rip-off" doesn't seem quite the right way to describe ....
He certainly acknowledged it -- the acknowledgment I saw was hilarious,
because he assumed that no one had gotten it. I have trouble seeing it
as an "homage," but whether it can be seen that way or not is pretty
subjective.
Fred Camper
24273
From: BklynMagus
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:12pm
Subject: Re: Canon inflation (Was: Off With Their Heads!) cinebklyn
Dan writes:
> I think there's an issue here which is difficult to
discuss. You could call it "canon inflation."
I agree. I think one of the problems is that a
filmmaker never gots "shot" from the canon. Once
s/he is in, it is a beyond-lifetime gig. That is why
in my cinematic sorting sytem I created a category
for filmmakers whom I once adored and I learned
from, but whom I have mined for all the insight/
pleasure/etc that they have to offer (admittedly a
judgement call, but a necessary safeguard against
canon inflation).
That is why the most crowded categories in my
world are "Miss Otis Regrets/FSoP" and "I've Got
My Eyes on You." These are the active, in-play
filmmakers whom I probably revisit more often than
those I have placed in in my Pantheon.
> . . . that the very act of Sarris putting directors
in that category structure turned the directors into
institutions, and made it almost inevitable that the
next generation would have a higher opinion of
those directors than Sarris did.
It also set a certain standard for how "canonical"
was defined.
> Are there more top-rank films in the old days
because of some decline, or because I ratify those
old films more easily
I find that films that have impressed me at various
points in my life, and which I have been able to share
with successive friends and husbands, seem to get
a leg up.
> . . . and am more grudging about vetting the virtues
of newcomers?
Just like any guy can look hot and conform to whatever
has been culturally defined as stylish at the moment, the
real question is can you live with the work of a particular
filmmaker over the course of time? As new criticial
approaches evolve, can her works be rewardingly
explored using them?
Finally, do the works still make feel you what I call "movie
happy?" A personal example: Leisen's "Midnight" came
on the other night. It has long been a favorite and I
introduced my husband to it a few months ago. We started
watching it and promised to shut it off right after "this
scene" since we needed to get to bed. Needless to say,
we watched the whole thing, laughing again at lines which
we can quote (with gestures).
> all one can do is try to stay open to the vices of official
classics and the virtues of upstart challengers.
Agreed. I am not opposed to categories since I believe they
help organize thinking. I will say, however, I fear that the
bigger the Pantheon, the deader the art.
> Another great reason is that we don't know where the good
stuff might be happening today.
Nor do we know what changes will take place in society and
culture. New ways of looking at films will be developed, while
some other ways may be discarded, and still others revived.
List and category making can be useful tools, but I think
it is important to be equally cognizant of and comfortable with
both promotion and demotion in any system.
Brian
24274
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:35pm
Subject: Lee J. Cobb in PARTY GIRL (Was Re: Identifying the Bad Guy in The Naked Spur thebradstevens
This reminds me that I once thought about writing an article on
Nicholas Ray's PARTY GIRL which claimed that Rico (Lee J. Cobb) was
the true hero of the film. I never quite got around to it, but I do
recall that I intended to call the piece "Rico Without a Cause".
24275
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:37pm
Subject: Re: Schrader, Bresson, and the Comprehensible (Was: Off with their heads!) sallitt1
> Ah, but that's my point. In Bresson character actions are not
> explainable according to human psychology because his scripts, acting,
> and camera, don't configure his characters as if they were people in the
> common world we all share. They are something else.
I think Bresson thinks his people are in the world we all share. I think
he has an extreme aversion to the theatrical, demonstrative component of
human behavior, and has built his art around it. But I don't think he's
trying to make his people something else. He wants us to relate to them.
> Hollywood films,
> especially mediocre Hollywood films, tend to set things up in terms of
> expectations that we will understand their characters a little bit like
> the way we understand "people like us."
And, as you imply, some very good Hollywood films do this too. Just need
to get it on the record....
> The "American Gigolo" hustler
> behaves that way -- until the end.
I think this is overstating the case. That guy is pretty damned
inscrutable for almost the whole film, and what we see is not entirely
sympathetic, though his coolness is supposed to draw us in a little.
Schrader is almost ostentatious about showing surfaces and only surfaces:
he tries to manufacture audience appeal from the pleasure of the surfaces,
not from our understanding of Gere's character. When we come to
understand him a little (in a fairly straightforward, Hollywood way), he's
not so nice and not so strong - mostly scared. There are very few moments
where it's easy to see him as "people like us." Maybe only at the ending!
> In Bresson, his imagery, rhythms, editing, and acting style, make the
> transformation at the end of "Pickpocket" completely amazing.
I know you're quite busy, and you don't have to follow this up with
details. But invocations of "imagery, rhythms, editing, and acting style"
can obscure more than they reveal. - Dan
24276
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:48pm
Subject: Cassavetes' Faces (was Re: Off with their heads!) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Unfortunately there was recently a Cassavetes retrospective in
Chicago,
> but I know many others who think he's great so I will try to see
more
> eventually.
Fred - Try Opening Night for your next "taste." It's about theatre
and life, it has a ghost, it has Rowlands and Cassavetes...you might
like it.
24277
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 4:49pm
Subject: Re: Mixing up names and the avant-garde hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> J. Mabe wrote:
>
>
> > ....I know one of these actors (either Stanton
> > or Stockwell) as mentioned in the Brakhage Scrapbooks....
>
> I believe it was Stockwell. I don't remember reading this but he
did
> name Stockwell in talking in exactly the way you describe. Someone
in
> our group should try to get to him and try to see the films.
>
> Fred Camper
Millie Perkins would know - she was "with" Stockwell when she was
younger.
24278
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:07pm
Subject: Re: Sarris, Roud & Experimental Film (was: The NEW American Cinema) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
I have always regretted that the period when I was seeing avant-garde
film and making up my mind about it came my sophomore year (I was in
the same residential college as P. Adams Sitney), whereas the Drug
Revolution didn't hit till my senior year. By then I was a militant
Sarris auteurist, so when someone like my trip-master Juan Negrin
would go on about the structural superiority of non-narrative (and
atonal music) I'd just trump him with Man's Favorite Sport. Now that
I have sworn off drugs - haven't used in any form for going on 30
years - a_f_b has arisen to challenge my prejudices, and I've made a
few stabs at watching Brakhage again. Same reaction as my sophomore
year. But I know dope would help open my eyes. Oh well...
Is that honest enough for you, Mike? As for many of the other
categories you allude to as being repressed by the Wall of Silence -
good term - I don't have tv. Haven't watched it for about 7 years
now. No MTV, no BBC imports, no Showtime, nuttin'.
24279
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:09pm
Subject: Re: Sarris, Roud & Experimental Film (was: The NEW American Cinema) samfilms2003
Thanks Fred, for putting it in historical perspective.
-Sam
24280
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:14pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING (Was: Put Another Ax Murder on the Barbie) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Fernando Verissimo
> >
> > Of course, there was also that "premiere cut" that
> > had an epilogue, which SK
> > cut three days after release. Is there any afb'ers
> > who had the chance to see
> > the "premiere cut", with the original ending?
> >
> I saw it. From the shot of Nicholson frozen to death
> we cut to a scene indicating that Danny and Wendy are
> alright, and barry Nelson appears again to tell them
> that there was nothing at the hotel and it isn't
> haunted. Then it's back to that slow track in to the
> photo as before.
As I recall, it's shot like the hospital room shots at the end of
Clockwork Orange where the bigwigs are telling Alex that he's their
boy and everything's going to be fine.
24281
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:18pm
Subject: Re: Schrader, Bresson, and the Comprehensible (Was: Off with their heads!) cellar47
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> "Blatant rip-off" doesn't seem quite the right way
> to describe Schrader's
> act. He uses exactly the same last line, as I
> recall - he wasn't trying
> to get away with anything. "Homage" sounds about
> right. It's definitely
> some variety of meta-filmmaking, but "rip-off"
> implies that Schrader is
> trying to take credit for Bresson's idea.
Quite true, especially in light of the fact that
Schrader utilizes the same trope for the ending of
"Light Sleeper" (his best film, IMO) There's something
about what Bresson did that appeals to Schrader in a
way that's emotionally quite diferent than Bresson.
I'd compare it to way Melville reworks aspects of
Huston in his films, particularly "Bob le Flambeur."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24282
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: Mixing up names and the avant-garde cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Millie Perkins would know - she was "with" Stockwell
> when she was
> younger.
>
>
>
>
Well yeah. He was her first husband.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24283
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:23pm
Subject: Re: The NEW American Cinema: (Was: American cinema) samfilms2003
> I'm more interested in the responsibilities of serious film critics (as
> opposed to merely opinionated cinephiles), which -- when engaged in a
> discourse focused on aesthetic rather than industrial concerns --
> includes certain responsibilities in the use of language and in the
> definition of terms. "Mainstream" and "avant-garde" are marketing
> categories, not aesthetic typologies. The question is: "Who's your
> daddy?"
>
> -Jason
I 'm totally sympathetic .We've run this through and through on
the Frameworks list. My "colloquial" translation of the arguments I've
made there is more-or-less that if I'm talking films with friends who
are serious appreciators (or fellow filmmakers) we don't relegate
categories to separate conversations at separate venues.
"Hey we're taliking about Edward Yang and HHH today, we'll have to
meet for someplace else for lunch tomorrow if you wanna mention
Nick Dorsky" ;-)
That said, I DO think "Experimental" film should be, among other things,
FREE to, well, experiment. Do its part in the R&D of cinema. That may not
always be a race-for-the-gold in the Masterpiece business.
-Sam
24284
From: BklynMagus
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 5:33pm
Subject: Re: Sarris, Roud & Experimental Film (was: The NEW American Cinema) cinebklyn
Fred writes:
> For me, whether a person likes at least some
avant-garde film is a good test of whether that
person understands all cinema a formal,
expressive, aesthetic medium . . .
But isn't it possible to understand the formal, aethetic
nature of cinema and still not like avant-garde films?
For me the important thing is to acknowledge that cinema
is a manufactured product, and that different artists use
different tools to produce.
I would suggest that different people wil be more/less
interested in different cinematic tools. Personally, I love
dialogue. I am always disappointed when a filmmaker
employs dialogue, but does give as much care to the
crafting of dialogue as the crafting of shots -- like a person
who wears a tuxedo with scuffed shoes, mismatched
socks and only one cufflink.
> rather than an entertainment delivery vehicle which
can have nice artistic touches.
But cinema can deliver entertainment. The question is
whether the delivery of entertainment is seen as a goal
of cinema, or one of the possible by-products (along with
boredom, irritation, euphoria, etc) of artists deploying
the tools of cinema they have chosen to use.
Brian
24285
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:00pm
Subject: Life and movies hotlove666
Responding to a series of objections to my observation that if films
were made out of life, not film, lumberjacks and astronauts would be
great filmmakers, and that Hitchcock, who had no life, was the
greatest of all...
It's a widespread idea that art is made out of life, not out of other
art. I'm a Bloomean, and I see art differently. Art is made out of
other art. Making it out of life is like trying to build a house out
of musical notes. Wrong materials.
Hitchcock would be the first to say he had no life. He lived for his
art, and in his art. Having spent 8 months living inside his head, I
can tell you that was a wonderful place to be and a wonderful way to
live. He had a better life than I've had!
Reading books. Well, if that's living, I guess I've lived. But so has
Spielberg. When he accepted the Herscholt (sp?) Award, he talked
about the importance of reading, and how he had had to make up for
his ignorance by doing a lot of reading after he made his first
films. Even back then, he read Jaws in manuscript - and he probably
reads a lot of manuscripts today. They are sent to him before the
books appear. Are they the books I'd read? No, but he reads them. I
don't think he had a hat-check girl tell him the story of Amistad.
Brett Ratner is one of the worst directors in H'wd, but he has a
life. He's shacked up with Rebecca Gayeheart, who is not only
beautiful and fiercely sexual, but apparently a little mad.
(Shoplifting, like Winona.) Who of us can make that claim? But his
movies are abominable.
Again, Spielberg, to take the big example, probably doesn't spend
much time going to art galleries and birdwatching, but who's to say
those are more enriching activities than, say, building a whole movie
studio, raising a family of adopted children from other cultures,
taping Holocaust survivors (or watching the tapes), being stalked by
a nut who wants to wrap you in duct tape and have sex with you, or
shooting a mammoth undertaking like the D-Day invasion in Ryan? Oh
yeah, sex. I have some info about that, but it will have to be
dispensed offline.
These are the kinds of things H'wd filmmakers do, and if they weren't
living life to the hilt every minute that they do them, I'm sure
they'd find something better to do. Howard Hughes flew planes. Some
of these folks race motorbikes. Just because it isn't what you do in
your spare time, don't look down your nose at it.
But their films still suck. And the reasons for that are to be found
not in some Romantic notion about art as a gloppita-gloppita machine
where you put "walking tour of the Lake Region" in there and it comes
out "I wandered lonely as a cloud" here.
Sean Penn told me that all the top-earning members of SAG and WGA
should be put on a bus and forced to ride cross country and take a
look. That I agree with, but that has to do with politics, not art.
Hitchcock, like Minnelli, like Sirk, like Emily Dickinson, spent the
best part of his life sitting in a room thinking. And of course they
all lived intensely! Sitting in a room and thinking if you're Emily
Dickinson is a more intense experience than any of us will ever know.
So I'm dubious about the idea - which is not new to me! - that the
fact that Hawks and Ford didn't go to film school is why they made
better movies than Spielberg. Counter-example: Stanley Kramer didn't
go to film school either!
It's just a received notion I feel obliged to fight in part because
it is SUCH a received notion - and because it keeps us from thinking
about why H'wd films have gotten so bad - and why certain ones are
still good - and why those of us who like a certain kind of cinema
may have to look for it in Korea or China now.
I am absolutely intrigued by one thing: When I see contemporary H'wd
films - with the occasional exception - they are all well-made, and
all made by the same person, and all totally without value. If that's
because of film school, film school is doing a better job than I
thought it was in imposing its sinister agenda on everyone who passes
thru it. But I suspect that it's because of other forces as well, and
more powerful ones than Bob Rosen has at his command.
24286
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:14pm
Subject: Re: Life and movies cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Sean Penn told me that all the top-earning members
> of SAG and WGA
> should be put on a bus and forced to ride cross
> country and take a
> look.
Sean Penn should be wrapped up in duct tape and forced
to have sex with Steven Spielberg.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24287
From: "Patrick Ciccone"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:21pm
Subject: Re: Sarris, Roud & Experimental Film (was: The NEW American Cinema) pwciccone
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> For me, whether a person likes at least some avant-garde film is a good
> test of whether that person understands all cinema a formal,
expressive,
> aesthetic medium, rather than an entertainment delivery vehicle which
> can have nice artistic touches.
Doesn't this definition leave out many of the makers of the greatest
films?
PWC
24288
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:31pm
Subject: Lee J. Cobb in PARTY GIRL (Was Re: Identifying the Bad Guy in The Naked Spur blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> This reminds me that I once thought about writing an article on
> Nicholas Ray's Party Girl which claimed that Rico (Lee J. Cobb)
was
> the true hero of the film. I never quite got around to it, but I
do
> recall that I intended to call the piece "Rico Without a Cause".
"Rico Angelo...King of the Kids...and in a way, you're still a
king." True. It always surprises me a little in this climactic
sequence that some people see it without observing the obvious, the
watch Farrell takes out and shows is not like the phony ones he uses
in court. Obviously, his father did give him a watch and Rico saved
him from having it taken away.
I don't know if Rico is "the true hero." But is any principal Ray
character really a villain? Just to name the most obvious example,
how about Emma (Mercedes McCambridge) in Johnny Guitar? How can we
not love her at the least for driving the whole action of the film
as she does? And how can we not have some positive response to
someone who is so wonderfully passionate?
24289
From: "Jason Guthartz"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:38pm
Subject: Re: Sarris, Roud & Experimental Film (was: The NEW American Cinema) Guthartz
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> Fred writes:
>
> > For me, whether a person likes at least some
> avant-garde film is a good test of whether that
> person understands all cinema a formal,
> expressive, aesthetic medium . . .
>
> But isn't it possible to understand the formal, aethetic
> nature of cinema and still not like avant-garde films?
I don't think so, Brian, because an understanding of cinema's formal,
aesthetic qualities negates the categories of "avant-garde" and
"non-avant-garde" (mainstream, narrative, whatever). In other words,
the label "avant-garde" is a by-product of the marketing-friendly
approach to cinema which subjugates the formal, aesthetic qualities of
the medium. This becomes crystal clear once one gains an appreciation
of some of that "avant-garde" stuff -- one can still prefer certain
formal/aesthetic approaches more than others, but it would no longer
be along the lines of "avant-garde"/"non-avant-garde".
All categorizations are problematic, since most (good) artists are
unique in some ways, but for those concerned with cinematic
aesthetics, it makes no sense whatsoever to categorize Warhol and
Kubelka in one way, and oppose that category to another containing
Hitchcock and Ozu. From the aesthetics perspective they couldn't be
more different from each other: Warhol has about as much in common
with Kubelka as he does with Hitchcock or Ozu. Categories are useful,
but those interested in the cinematic arts must get beyond binary
taxonomies and figure out some alternatives, as Sitney did in
"Visionary Film" (trance film, mythopoeic film, structural film,
lyrical film, etc.).
Jason Guthartz
24290
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Life and movies hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Sean Penn should be wrapped up in duct tape and forced
> to have sex with Steven Spielberg.
>
Did you intend that as a negative comment, David?
24291
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:43pm
Subject: Lee J. Cobb in PARTY GIRL (Was Re: Identifying the Bad Guy in The Naked Spur thebradstevens
>
> "Rico Angelo...King of the Kids...and in a way, you're still a
> king." True. It always surprises me a little in this climactic
> sequence that some people see it without observing the obvious, the
> watch Farrell takes out and shows is not like the phony ones he
uses
> in court. Obviously, his father did give him a watch and Rico
saved
> him from having it taken away.
I always assumed it was a real story, but a fake watch.
>
> I don't know if Rico is "the true hero." But is any principal Ray
> character really a villain?
The interesting thing about PARTY GIRL is that the ostensible hero,
Farrell (Robert Taylor), is such a complete shitbag - a nasty piece
of work who never thinks of anything except his own needs, who is
willing to use anyone and anything (even Rico's long-ago act of
kindness) to achieve his goals. He can only get away with what he
does because he knows that, for all his threats, Rico will never
actually do anything to harm him.
Abel Ferrara's underrated CAT CHASER works in much the same way.
24292
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:46pm
Subject: Re: Lee J. Cobb in PARTY GIRL (Was Re: Identifying the Bad Guy in The Naked Spur cellar47
--- Blake Lucas
wrote:
But is any
> principal Ray
> character really a villain?
James Dean's mother in "Rebel Without a Cause"
Just to name the most
> obvious example,
> how about Emma (Mercedes McCambridge) in Johnny
> Guitar? How can we
> not love her at the least for driving the whole
> action of the film
> as she does? And how can we not have some positive
> response to
> someone who is so wonderfully passionate?
>
HUNH? She's a hysterical creep,and about as loveable
as Miriam Hopkins in "The Chase"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24293
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: Life and movies cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> wrote:
>
> > Sean Penn should be wrapped up in duct tape and
> forced
> > to have sex with Steven Spielberg.
> >
>
> Did you intend that as a negative comment, David?
>
>
>
>
Yes, actually.
His Oscar night dis of Chris Rock was unconscionable.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24294
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:50pm
Subject: Lee J. Cobb in PARTY GIRL (Was Re: Identifying the Bad Guy in The Naked Spur hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> The interesting thing about PARTY GIRL is that the ostensible hero,
> Farrell (Robert Taylor), is such a complete shitbag - a nasty piece
> of work who never thinks of anything except his own needs, who is
> willing to use anyone and anything (even Rico's long-ago act of
> kindness) to achieve his goals. He can only get away with what he
> does because he knows that, for all his threats, Rico will never
> actually do anything to harm him.
THE COOLER, which I like for some things, is a PARTY GIRL
remake/tribute/ripoff/whatever in which Rico has hurt Farrell and
will again, but is still somewhat sympathetic because he has a heart,
however twisted and evil.
24295
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:54pm
Subject: Coppola in Sarris hotlove666
I misspoke when I said he goes back in the same category. Sarris, who
called him "the first reasonably talented and sensibly adaptable
talent to emerge from a university curriculm in filmmaking," put him
in Oddities, One-Shots and Newcomers. I would move him up to Subjects
for Further Research - or is that a misuse of the category?
Extra points question: Which category did Sarris put Stanley Kramer
in? No peeking!
24296
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 6:55pm
Subject: Re: Life and movies hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> >
> > wrote:
> >
> > > Sean Penn should be wrapped up in duct tape and
> > forced
> > > to have sex with Steven Spielberg.
> > >
> >
> > Did you intend that as a negative comment, David?
> >
I didn't watch. What'd he say?
24297
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: Life and movies cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> I didn't watch. What'd he say?
>
>
>
>
Chris Rock did a riff about Jude Law being in so many
movies that failed. Penn went into full pompous
bloviation about it -- huffing and puffing about what
a great actor Jude Law is and how he deserves respect.
Jeez Louise! I don't know how his (inifitely more
talented) wife puts up with him.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24298
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sarris, Roud & Experimental Film (was: The NEW American Cinema) fredcamper
Patrick Ciccone wrote:
> Doesn't this definition leave out many of the makers of the greatest
> films?
I'll try reply to some of the other discussion in a day or two, but in
the meantime there's an obvious reply to this one: artists in all field
have long been known to have highly eccentric tastes. Often they only
appreciate things along their own line of work. Often they have lots of
other eccentricities. They understand their medium from their own unique
point of view, which often involves excluding other things. Peter
Kubelka's history of cinema is brilliantly insightful, both into his own
films and into the other films he chooses to speak on, but it's from his
own unique point of view and excludes whole areas of cinema that I think
have much great work. I'm assuming Howard Hawks would not have
appreciated Kubelka's films had he had a chance to see them. What I
placed at issue in the message Patrick is resonding to is whether a
person understands "all cinema."
In general, about some of the other points, I totally acknowledge the
possibility that a man with "no life" who lives in his mom's basement
and spends all his time watching Star Trek reruns, writing Star Trek
fanzines, et cetera, might somehow have deep insight into the films of
Howard Hawks -- or might somehow make films as great as Hawks's. The
possibility of many exceptions should exclude the possibility of making
some generalizations, if such generalizations seem to make sense.
Bicycling across country is even better than taking the bus!
Fred Camper
24299
From: Peter Henne
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:15pm
Subject: Re: Cassavetes' Faces (was Re: Off with their heads!) peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
Zach,
This is a really good piece on Cassavetes. In particular, your point about the style of performance, which might be called "realism but not really," was very insightful. Like Rivette, Cassavetes uses extended running times as sheer weight to break the audience's expectation for tidiness, neat resolutions, and a strictly "reasonable degree" of aesthetic attention--the idea that 90 minutes or two hours is all the time a movie deserves.
There is plenty to say about the formal properties of Cassavetes. Like Charles Leary and David Ehrenstein, I would call your attention to "Opening Night," which seems to me inspired by Bergman's patterning of red in "Cries and Whispers" and rivals it for rigor. In both films, red is an emotional plane of reality coexisting with the social reality of characters' interactions. And I find an inky, balanced beauty to the range of black and white in the compositions of "Faces." In most of Cassavetes' films, he makes a discontinuous construction of space which has moral repurcussions for the characters, not unlike Antonioni does. Whether Cassavetes "fashioned" this discontinuity conceptually or it just came to him "naturally" is beside the point.
Peter Henne
Zach Campbell wrote:
The general line on Cassavetes seems to be that he's an "actor's
director" (true) who is interested in truth and naturalism (not
quite true in my opinion). I feel as though Cassavetes is
ultimately pretty rigid in handling his actors, though his rigidity
is part and parcel with a collaborative, mutual growth with the
actors. In FACES one comes across an almost circular repetition of
tones, the key extremes being happiness and anger. The engagement
with the viewer in each scene (and I mean "engagement" in a way more
consonant with your views, Fred, than with a marketing department's)
is a weird little organic series of emotional and intellectual
explosions. It's impossible to get a fix on the "truth" in each
scene--these "real-looking" people act manic and sad and drunk and
therefore we're keyed up to approach them on that level (perhaps to
identify with them; certainly to simply watch them).
But the acting grows grotesque in scene after scene: the laughing
and crying come too much, or too soon, or too easily. The sense of
verisimilitude is constantly challenged soon after it is introduced;
any identification a viewer has with the actor is bound to be
strained far and probably broken. And yet why does Cassavetes keep
repeating these patterns? (Easy answer that gets us
nowhere: 'Because he's not a good filmmaker.') I think it's because
the acting style and its structured repetition are a formal strategy
used to jolt and pull a viewer out of complacency and into active
consideration of performance and the relationship between human
subjects and human objects.
Weariness is an important part of Cassavetes. Seeing a Cassavetes
film is more akin to the way you say, Fred, that avant-garde film
tends to divide and isolate an audience than it is to "unifying"
Hollywood experiences. A viewer will squirm and sit rapt and roll
her eyes and feel humbled at differing times than another viewer--
I'm positive about this. The length of a typical Cassavetes film
(most over two hours) is important too, I think.
Cassavetes' camera is not simply a naively neutral recording device
for actorly "greatness." It is inextricably bound up in the art.
The camera is all over the place in each scene. It's "careless" in
the sense that Cassavetes is no Blake Edwards and doesn't have a jaw-
dropping talent for composition. But the editing together of many,
many camera angles suggests that Cassavetes was really interested in
the formal effect of such an approach. I suspect this, anyway, not
having much book knowledge to confirm it. However, Cassavetes was
shooting on the cheap; no doubt film stock was valuable to him, and
I presume he was still only using a single camera. It presented
itself as a real effort, I presume, to shoot the film the way he
did, when he could have had the same actors doing the same things in
a few fixed takes and camera positions. (It would have been much
more commercially feasible and probably made more sense, too.)
In short, everything messy (or aleatory) in FACES (and Cassavetes in
general) is part of a broader strategy, a rigorous approach that
seeks to break down easy conceptualizations about the way people
deal with each other, and they way we negotiate performances in our
own lives and in the lives of those around us.
Like I said, I can't offer the best defense (I really hope that
Adrian, Jonathan, and others will offer some words in Cassavetes'
defense; they'll far surpass my own). I'm quite inarticulate about
Cassavetes and what I find great in his work, as I am with all great
art. But it's a start as to why I think Cassavetes is worthwhile.
--Zach
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
24300
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Mar 16, 2005 7:15pm
Subject: Sean Penn vs. Chris Rock (Was: Life and movies) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> > I didn't watch. What'd he say?
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Chris Rock did a riff about Jude Law being in so many
> movies that failed. Penn went into full pompous
> bloviation about it -- huffing and puffing about what
> a great actor Jude Law is and how he deserves respect.
> Jeez Louise! I don't know how his (inifitely more
> talented) wife puts up with him.
He's terrified of her.
He can go off in weird, unaccountable ways. When I interviewed him he
dissed Richard Donner for several minutes for having a girl jump off
the Capitol Records Bldg. in one of the Lethals, because it was
treating something serious - teen suicide - as an element in a
gagfest, and not giving it its proper weight. Then he launched into a
vicious diatribe against Jason Patric for filming an anti-smoking
commercial.
He has great respect for actors and gets great performances out of
them in his films. (Viggo Moretnsen has been good one time in his
whole career - in The Indian Runner.) I like all three of them and I
wish he could make more. Although I yield to no one in my admiration
for Chris Rock, if Penn came off like the village idiot by defending
Jude Law against a stale Industry-think joke like that on live tv,
more power to him.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact