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.
24501
From: "Fernando Verissimo"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:31am
Subject: EWS & THE SHINING (was: Adaptation) f_verissimo
Here's something I found on Michel Ciment's Kubrick regarding adaptations:
"We know that prior to Lolita Kubrick wanted to adapt Stefan Zweig's The
Burning Secret, a novel which is almost the inverted double of Nabokov's; a
man befriends a young boy the better to seduce his mother. Similarly, his
unfulfilled ambition (dating from the early seventies) of filming Arthur
Schnitzler's Rhapsody: A Dream Novel found an outlet in The Shining.
Schnitzler's tale deals with the relation between the real and the unreal
through the story of a husband, the father of a little seven year-old girl,
who spends a night in Vienna during which reality is coloured by his
imagination. The mutual infidelities of the parent couple -- whether dreamt
or fantasized -- reveal the psychic urges of their inner life. In The
Shining Jack, haunted by his obsession with the rivalry of his son (as
always, more attached to the mother, despite recurrent bouts of affection
for the father), will be driven to madness and death; and the child, however
threatening seems the father, will once more end victorious"
Since the first time I saw EYES WIDE SHUT, I've had the impression that it
was some sort of a SHINING remake or sequel. Maybe I should borrow from J-P
Oudart and say that EWS seems like a resonance chamber, but one carefully
constructed for echoing mainly THE SHINING.
Someone mentioned before that Bugs Bunny cartoon that plays on TV in both
films. Do any of you know if there is some article written on EWS that tries
to explore some of the possible cross-readings?
Every now and then I see someone mentioning the similarities but it never
came to my knowledge any in-depth study regarding this issue.
fv
24502
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 0:08pm
Subject: Re: EWS & THE SHINING (was: Adaptation) mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Fernando Verissimo"
wrote:
> In The
> Shining Jack, haunted by his obsession with the rivalry of his son (as
> always, more attached to the mother, despite recurrent bouts of
affection
> for the father), will be driven to madness and death; and the child,
however
> threatening seems the father, will once more end victorious"
>
> Since the first time I saw EYES WIDE SHUT, I've had the impression
that it
> was some sort of a SHINING remake or sequel. Maybe I should borrow
from J-P
> Oudart and say that EWS seems like a resonance chamber, but one
carefully
> constructed for echoing mainly THE SHINING.
In his monograph on "Eyes Wide Shut" for the BFI Modern Classics
series, Michel Chion argues that Bill is haunted throughout the
picture by the threat posed by an as yet unborn and completely
hypothetical son. (I'm still not sure whether I really buy into this
reading myself.) Despite the fact Bill isn't driven to death like Jack
is in "The Shining," he *is* driven back to his wife, to fidelity, and
to a kind of spiritual castration. If Kidman's final line suggests
procreation, as Chion believes it does, then Bill's a goner.
However, Chion doesn't, if memory serves, make a connection between
the two films or characters.
24503
From: "Fernando Verissimo"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 0:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: Who opens the freezer door (was: THE SHINING) f_verissimo
> I've got it. Halloran never left the hotel, he just pretended to. He
> was actually lurking around throwing balls and opening pantry doors.
> Remember, in the now missing epilogue, he's the one who throws the
> ball. Perhaps, like Jack, he has always been there.
I say the gay manager was the mischievous little scoundrel we're trying to
nail: he could be hiding in room 237 all the time, sucking Jack's thumb,
masterminding his plan. He couldn't do everything just by himself though, so
he counted on that Holocaust professor (actually, Nabokov reincarnated) for
occasional help, of course.
24504
From: "cairnsdavid1967"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 0:19pm
Subject: Re: Who opens the freezer door (was: THE SHINING) cairnsdavid1967
> I say the gay manager was the mischievous little scoundrel we're
trying to
> nail: he could be hiding in room 237 all the time, sucking Jack's
thumb,
> masterminding his plan. He couldn't do everything just by himself
though, so
> he counted on that Holocaust professor (actually, Nabokov
reincarnated) for
> occasional help, of course.
...and it would have worked too, if it hadn't been for those meddling
kids.
24505
From: "cairnsdavid1967"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 0:24pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING (Was: Put Another Ax Murder on the Barbie) cairnsdavid1967
Here's my takee on Halloran's death, as a screenwriter. Kubrick has
said that H turning up and resuing Wendy and Danny seemed too pat and
predictable (I think). By setting up H as rescuer, then killing him
as soon as he arrives, K makees the audience disorientated - "So that
hold sequence of H getting the message and coming was, like, for
nothing?" A seeming narrative dead end that leaves the woman and
child in just as much peril. We forget the snowcat H came in, since
it served the plot function of "means of arrival". When it gets used
as "means of departure" we go "Ah-hah! That was clever of somebody."
> Now when the "magic negro" dies as in THE GREEN MILE (book and
film)
> his death is explicitly set up as a sacrifice.
God how I hate that. The executioners willingly execute AN INNOCENT
MAN WITH MAGIC POWERS because if they help him escape they will lose
their stupid jobs. Anyone who doesn't see that makes them the
equivalent of concentration camp guards has a moral screw loose.
My ending: they break him out, go to Mexico and set up in the faith-
healing bsuiness.
24506
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 0:32pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING (Was: Put Another Ax Murder on the Barbie) mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
>
> By setting up H as rescuer, then killing him
> as soon as he arrives, K makees the audience disorientated - "So that
> hold sequence of H getting the message and coming was, like, for
> nothing?"
"Och, I'm bad at this..." - Groundskeeper Willie getting an axe in the
back for the third time in the episode in "The Shinning" segment of
"The Simpsons - Treehouse Of Horror V" (Ep. 2F03).
24507
From: "cairnsdavid1967"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 0:33pm
Subject: Re: Who opens the freezer door (was: THE SHINING) cairnsdavid1967
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
> >
> The web site Fernando sent me to re: the labyrinth quotes one of
SK's
> collaborators as saying that it was deliberate obfuscation when we
just HEAR
> the bolt being pulled back - it could be Jack's hallucination, and
variouys
> hypotheses could explain how he got out, including Noel's. This
contradicts
> SK's more straightforward statement that when that happens,
ambiguity about
> whether it's all in Jack's mind comes to a screeching halt.
It SEEMS like ambiguity has ended, or rather, that purely imaginary
phantoms have turned out to be real - but the fact that we don't see
Jeevesy opening the door preserves some ambiguity wwhen we think back
on it. But I think that even if this were an uncomplicated scene of
bloke A releasing bloke B from a locker, Kubrick would cut the scene
where he does because once you've delivered the IDEA of the door
being unlocked holding any longer serves no purpose.
It's why I find EWS hard to enjoy - Kubrick seeems to have lost the
ability to end a scene once it's achieved its point.
24508
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: Easter Parade sallitt1
> 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 feel as if Walters' musicals have a winking quality of openly
acknowledging the fiction: "Hey, let's get this musical started!" instead
of preparation or character development. It's easy to be reflexive with
the musical, but I get more of a sense than usual that Walters and the
characters are communicating with the audience directly, exposing the
story as a fun pretext. - Dan
24509
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: The NEW American Cinema: (Was: American cinema) sallitt1
>> 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?
I think his vibe is pretty clear in that section: "Look, this isn't the
time to argue about it. I'm not writing about avant-garde films, and
that's that. Write your own book if you want."
It's worth understanding that the dynamic we see on a_film_by is pretty
much the same as it was then. The avant-garde fans tended to take the
moral/aesthetic high ground, the narrative fans kept quiet and hoped the
subject would be dropped. Both sides felt oppressed, for different
reasons. Hence Sarris's defensive tone. I don't think populism is a
general principle for him, or even a specific principle in this case. -
Dan
24510
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 1:59pm
Subject: Re: Plasticity (Was: Off with their heads!) rashomon82
Yoel:
> Art would make no sense if we experienced it only intellectually?
Well, there's the question of conceptual art (which we don't have to
like), but as a general rule I would say this is true. I would also
say, as a general rule, that we CAN'T experience art "only
intellectually."
> So how does the reading make sense if it is "but an intellectual
> experience"? And how does the image make sense if it
> functions "solely *as image*"?
I didn't mean to imply that reading is only an intellectual
experience--I was trying to foreground how it necessarily,
unavoidably intellectual. You were the one who made a distinction
and an evaluation when you wrote, in post 24394, that "For me, art
is not an intellectual experience, it is a sensual one." I made no
such dichotomizing statement.
I have to admit I don't know what you're asking about an image
making sense solely as an image. You are taking my point out of
context--go back and read what I wrote and you'll see why I was
saying it functions "solely *as image*." It has absolutely nothing
to do with the supposed intellectual/sensual dichotomy.
> As you say, "sense and intellect are intertwined" and for the
> experience to "make sense" it has to be complete.
It is always already complete. Art isn't that which combines sense
and intellect, but that which does something interesting from that
starting point.
> Is it enough for you if the experience only has
> intellectual content + sexual sensuality and no plasticity? Does
> it "make sense"?
Look, Yoel, every image already HAS plasticity of some sort. (The
questions I think you're confusing are the plasticity of film--and
video--and the aesthetics which can foreground that plasticity.)
And I wasn't saying that the "sexual sensuality" was sufficient, I
was using it to describe some of the feel of that particular
moment. (Here's a question: have you seen NEW ROSE HOTEL? Have you
ever seen any Ferrara films? His editing is getting quite complex
in these last few films, and yet I get the feeling you don't know
this film you're arguing against.)
> A film that cannot embody and incite that part of our experience
> does not "make sense".
But EVERY film does this. Period. Every film puts that abstract
image on your eye a nanosecond before you "comprehend" it. What you
should be saying is that some films foreground this fact and some
films don't. And some films that don't foreground it still
do "embody and incite that part of our experience" brilliantly or
beautifully.
--Zach
24511
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:03pm
Subject: Mondino, Anchorman (Was: The Wall) sallitt1
> It's a bit cliché, but I'm a big fan of Spike Jonze and Michel
> Gondry's music videos.
There used to be a guy named Mondino who made these old-timer-friendly
music videos, with a strong sense of space and lots of grave, emotive
tracking shots. Is he still around? He did Bryan Ferry's "Slave to
Love," Henley's "The Boys of Summer," etc.
> I liked "Anchorman" for the same reason I "liked" the two series of
> "The Office," which I've only just caught up with.
> David Brent and Gareth are *really*
> disgusting individuals, like contemporary incarnations of the sexist,
> racist, discriminatory Channel 4 News team in "Anchorman".
I went to see ANCHORMAN because the trailer made it look interesting, as
if the TV satire was really going to be rooted in a sense of time and
place (70s Southern California). But I was pretty much disappointed: I
felt this pressure on the filmmakers to just do the same dumb, outlandish
routines instead of following their concept. - Dan
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
24512
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:10pm
Subject: High ground + some wisdom (was Re: The NEW American Cinema) rashomon82
Dan:
> The avant-garde fans tended to take the
> moral/aesthetic high ground, the narrative fans kept quiet and
> hoped the subject would be dropped.
I don't really think of myself as a "narrative fan" per se, but for
the purposes of my debate with Fred and Yoel I suppose I've filled
those shoes. But as far as the debate on this group goes, I think
it should be stressed that some of us who argue "for" narrative
or "for" acting are doing so because we're stressing formal reasons,
formal possibilities (and not "identification" or "thrills"). As
far as I see it, I'm trying to occupy the high ground myself by
arguing for multiplicity and broadness, and the evidence is in my
favor because there are a hell of a lot of great artists whose work
Fred and Yoel don't give the time of day (if they see at all).
I mentioned Nicole Brenez in one of my last posts, and I want to
leave with two inspiring excerpts from her Movie Mutations letter:
"Once, a cinephile loved a particular genre, or "field" (as defined
by the politique des auteurs); today it has become possible to love
both Tsui Hark and Paul Sharits (two great filmmakers of cruelty),
John Woo and Malcolm LeGrice (each of whose work on speed clarifies
the other's). It has become possible to see that Cassavetes is one
of the greatest plastic artists of the century. To see that Body
Snatchers, which comes from the lowest rung of the Hollywood
industry, is a more experimental work than those who are mimicking
the magisterial films of Jurgen Reble. To see that the same forms of
plastically beautiful destruction were achieved at the same time by
Paul Sharits and Monte Hellman but to completely different ends. To
see how Al Razutis and Jean-Luc Godard both thought of creating a
history of cinema in its own medium at the same time, each one
ignorant of the other."
...
"These are films that resist, that one must surmount just as Bergman
scaled her volcano, and that change you forever: Stromboli, Mission:
Impossible, Nice a propos de Jean Vigo by Oliveira. There are also
appetizing films which allow you to unexpectedly uncover an entire
world: Saturday Night Fever for the American commercial cinema,
Schwechater for experimental cinema, Hard-Boiled for Hong Kong
cinema. There are the films that accompany you through your life
(L'Atalante, Flowers of Saint Francis, By the Blue Sea), the film to
which you instinctively compare all others (Adebar), the film that
runs through your head like the refrain of a popular song (King of
New York), those you can't watch again because you've loved them too
much (Le Mepris), those that you understand in fragments, slowly,
throughout a lifetime (Faces), those that you hope to understand one
day (Cockfighter), those for which you must wait to become much
stronger (Epileptic Seizure Comparison), those that suddenly offer
you everything you needed (Animated Picture Studio, Chinese Bookie)."
To me, that's lovely. In a perfect world we would all be able to
rattle off catalogues like that without hesitation ...
--Zach
24513
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 2:17pm
Subject: THE SHINING explained (!) jpcoursodon
THE SHINING was cleverly constructed so that no logical (or even
irrational) explanation of any event in it could be proposed without
contradicting other explanations and raising new questions. The film
is a labyrinth in which we are supposed to get lost, and these past
few days our best a_film_by minds have been wandering aimlessly
through it, trying to come up with explanations where none are to be
found. Who unlocked the pantry door? Kubrick and his writer did. The
film makes no distinction between the rational and the irrational,
the normal and the supernatural. They all have to be taken at face
value. I wrote somewhere: "the film asks from the spectator.... an
unlimited suspension of disbelief, the willingness to accept
everything that appears on screen as real, simply because it is on
screen." The irrational is denied the internal logic it almost
always maintains in fantasy fiction, and incoherence is turned into
a narrative principle. Kubrick keeps this game going on to the very
end, with the tracking shot on the photograph -- a final "clue" that
explains nothing but on the contrary adds to the general confusion.
It's hard to enjoy the film if one doesn't enter the game. If you
do, the rewards are plentiful, but do abandon all hopes (of logic)
upon entering.
JPC
24514
From: "Yoel Meranda"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:26pm
Subject: Re: Plasticity (Was: Off with their heads!) ymeranda
Zach,
You wrote:
"You were the one who made a distinction and an evaluation when
you
wrote, in post 24394, that "For me, art is not an intellectual
experience, it is a sensual one." I made no such dichotomizing
statement."
I did say that. When we define words, part of the purpose is to
describe what makes that word different than others. Intellectual
experiences, sexual sensual experiences and identification can be
achieved by things other than art. What makes art special is the
fact that it can also be abstractly "sensual".
You also wrote:
"(Here's a question: have you seen NEW ROSE HOTEL? Have you
ever seen any Ferrara films? His editing is getting quite complex
in these last few films, and yet I get the feeling you don't know
this film you're arguing against.)"
I haven't seen "New Rose Hotel" but I wasn't arguing
against it at
all, it is the exact opposite! Although I wish you had commented
more on the "unpredictable rhythms", your post convinced me
that it
is a film I should see soon. What I was arguing against was your
broader definition of aesthetics, which would include films that do
not work in a abstractly sensual way.
And:
"It is always already complete. Art isn't that which combines
sense
and intellect, but that which does something interesting from that
starting point."
Let me ask you this, then: What do you mean when you talk about
doing "something interesting"? Is anything
"interesting" good, or is
there some specific way that it can be "interesting"?
Isn't "Seinfeld" or the television news
"interesting"? And how is
Art different than these?
And lastly:
"Look, Yoel, every image already HAS plasticity of some sort. (The
questions I think you're confusing are the plasticity of film--and
video--and the aesthetics which can foreground that plasticity.)"
"But EVERY film does this. Period. Every film puts that abstract
image on your eye a nanosecond before you "comprehend" it. What you
should be saying is that some films foreground this fact and some
films don't. And some films that don't foreground it still
do "embody and incite that part of our experience" brilliantly or
beautifully."
We simply do not agree! Every image does not have plasticity and
every film doesn't do this. The fact that they do leave an
abstract
impression does not mean that they "embody and incite" that
part of
our experience. When I talk about embodying and inciting that part
of the experience, I mean it the way that makes Ford's "She
Wore a
Yellow Ribbon" different than "Seinfeld", most
commercials on TV and
Rohmer's films. Some films do not offer anything to look at
abstractly, so they cannot "embody" and certainly not incite
our
minds the same way others can. I thought you had agreed that some
films work abstractly and some don't.
Yoel
24515
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:43pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> THE SHINING was cleverly constructed so that no logical (or even
> irrational) explanation of any event in it could be proposed
without
> contradicting other explanations and raising new questions. The
film
> is a labyrinth in which we are supposed to get lost, and these past
> few days our best a_film_by minds have been wandering aimlessly
> through it, trying to come up with explanations where none are to
be
> found.
This is why the cuts in the Australian Shining work even though they
eliminate key exposition points. Kubrick didn't wait till Full Metal
Jacket to start wringing the neck of traditional narrative
structures. He had been doing that in one way or another since
Strangelove.
24516
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:49pm
Subject: Re: EWS & THE SHINING (was: Adaptation) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield"
wrote:
> In his monograph on "Eyes Wide Shut" for the BFI Modern Classics
> series, Michel Chion argues that Bill is haunted throughout the
> picture by the threat posed by an as yet unborn and completely
> hypothetical son.
This reading is a pure delirium with no basis whatsoever in the film.
None.
24517
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:51pm
Subject: Re: Who opens the freezer door (was: THE SHINING) hotlove666
Hey, the hotel manager in EWS is gay! (What a nutty performance! Pee
Wee Herman couldn't top it...) Maybe Barry Nelson is, too, if the two
films mirror each other.
24518
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:54pm
Subject: Re: Who opens the freezer door (was: THE SHINING) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
> It's why I find EWS hard to enjoy - Kubrick seeems to have lost the
> ability to end a scene once it's achieved its point.
The Australian Eyes Wide Shot would have been 76 minutes long.
24519
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 4:56pm
Subject: High ground + some wisdom (was Re: The NEW American Cinema) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
>
> > To me, that's lovely. In a perfect world we would all be able to
> rattle off catalogues like that without hesitation ...
>
> --Zach
I guess I'm just a grouch. To me it sounds like more motor-mouthing
by NB. But she's a friend of Adrian's, so she must be ok...
24520
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 5:21pm
Subject: Re: Who opens the freezer door (was: THE SHINING) thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> Hey, the hotel manager in EWS is gay!
Wasn't he simply the receptionist rather than the manager?
24521
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: Who opens the freezer door (was: THE SHINING) cellar47
http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0625167/bio
Married and divorced. Born 1920.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Hey, the hotel manager in EWS is gay! (What a nutty
> performance! Pee
> Wee Herman couldn't top it...) Maybe Barry Nelson
> is, too, if the two
> films mirror each other.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24522
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 5:24pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) thebradstevens
> This is why the cuts in the Australian Shining work even though
they
> eliminate key exposition points.
One interesting thing about the longer version is the hint that Jack
had been sexually molesting his son. Although this is never directly
stated, it's clearly what Ann Jackson's doctor suspects - several of
her questions about when 'Tony' ("a little boy who lives in my
mouth") first appeared point in this direction. Also, note how
Danny's bear pillow visible during this scene becomes the individual
in a bear costume who is seen performing a sexual act in the hotel.
24523
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 5:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) cellar47
That's a very interesting idea that the film never
makes clear. The figure in the bear costume is being
orally serviced by an old man in evening clothes, who
bears not the slightest resemblance to Jack.
Strictly speaking Jack wants to kill Danny out of
jealousy for the attention he's getting from everyone.
The physical attack he makes on Danny, prior to the
action of the film, MAY have a sexual component to it,
but as I said that's not made at all clear.
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> One interesting thing about the longer version is
> the hint that Jack
> had been sexually molesting his son. Although this
> is never directly
> stated, it's clearly what Ann Jackson's doctor
> suspects - several of
> her questions about when 'Tony' ("a little boy who
> lives in my
> mouth") first appeared point in this direction.
> Also, note how
> Danny's bear pillow visible during this scene
> becomes the individual
> in a bear costume who is seen performing a sexual
> act in the hotel.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24524
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 6:43pm
Subject: Re: EWS & THE SHINING (was: Adaptation) peckinpah200...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield"
> wrote:
>
> > In his monograph on "Eyes Wide Shut" for the BFI Modern Classics
> > series, Michel Chion argues that Bill is haunted throughout the
> > picture by the threat posed by an as yet unborn and completely
> > hypothetical son.
>
> This reading is a pure delirium with no basis whatsoever in the
film.
> None.
I support this too. It is another of those two frequent willful
readings like Geoffrey Cocks's THE WOLF AT THE DOOR having no
substantial support in the text. There has to come a time when one
must distinguish between individual wish fulfillment concerning what
one would like to be there and what actually appears in the text.
The latter provides much more fertile territory for interpretation.
Tony Williams
24525
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 6:47pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) peckinpah200...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> That's a very interesting idea that the film never
> makes clear. The figure in the bear costume is being
> orally serviced by an old man in evening clothes, who
> bears not the slightest resemblance to Jack.
>
> .
> > Also, note how
> > Danny's bear pillow visible during this scene
> > becomes the individual
> > in a bear costume who is seen performing a sexual
> > act in the hotel.
> >
> > Sure but the bear also derives from a character mentioned in
the prologue to THE SHINING, "Before the Play" which Stephen King
dropped from the book. He was the submissive partner to a capitalist
figure who masochistically submits to his partner's whims by
crawling on all fours.
However, the bear pillow is important also.
Tony Williams
> >
> >
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24526
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 6:57pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> That's a very interesting idea that the film never
> makes clear. The figure in the bear costume is being
> orally serviced by an old man in evening clothes, who
> bears not the slightest resemblance to Jack.
It's actually the other way round - the figure in the bear costume is
orally servicing the man.
Danny describes Tony as "a little boy who lives in my mouth" (which
is already odd, given that, whenever Danny speaks to Tony, he
addresses his finger). Given the link between the pillow on Danny's
bed and the bear costume incident, with its hint of oral sex, the
implication is that Jack has been forcing Danny to suck his penis.
The doctor clearly suspects that Tony is actually Jack - after Danny
tells the doctor that she cannot see Tony because 'he hides', the
doctor asks "Does Tony ever tell you to do things?" - a question
Danny refuses to answer.
24527
From: BklynMagus
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 7:33pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) cinebklyn
thebrad writes:
> Danny describes Tony as "a little boy who lives in
my mouth" (which is already odd, given that, whenever
Danny speaks to Tony, he addresses his finger).
Maybe the finger is a phallic substitute for the penis,
and "it lives in my mouth" indicates oral sex.
> after Danny tells the doctor that she cannot see Tony
because 'he hides'
a) behind a zipper; b) flaccid
Brian
24528
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:02pm
Subject: Re: Who opens the freezer door (was: THE SHINING) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> Hey, the hotel manager in EWS is gay! (What a nutty performance!
Pee
> Wee Herman couldn't top it...) Maybe Barry Nelson is, too, if the
two
> films mirror each other.
He's just the guy at the desk, not the manager, but no matter.
He's just about the best thing in the entire movie. JPC
24529
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 8:24pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) mathieu_ricordi
Quoting jpcoursodon :
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> THE SHINING was cleverly constructed so that no logical (or even
>
> irrational) explanation of any event in it could be proposed without
>
> contradicting other explanations and raising new questions. The film
>
> is a labyrinth in which we are supposed to get lost, and these past
>
> few days our best a_film_by minds have been wandering aimlessly
>
> through it, trying to come up with explanations where none are to be
>
> found. Who unlocked the pantry door? Kubrick and his writer did. The
>
> film makes no distinction between the rational and the irrational,
>
> the normal and the supernatural. They all have to be taken at face
>
> value. I wrote somewhere: "the film asks from the spectator.... an
>
> unlimited suspension of disbelief, the willingness to accept
>
> everything that appears on screen as real, simply because it is on
>
> screen." The irrational is denied the internal logic it almost
>
> always maintains in fantasy fiction, and incoherence is turned into
>
> a narrative principle. Kubrick keeps this game going on to the very
>
> end, with the tracking shot on the photograph -- a final "clue" that
>
> explains nothing but on the contrary adds to the general confusion.
>
> It's hard to enjoy the film if one doesn't enter the game. If you
>
> do, the rewards are plentiful, but do abandon all hopes (of logic)
>
> upon entering.
>
> JPC
I quite disagree. All Kubrick films have a fundemental logical
unravelling that initialy throw us off because he so revels in
hyperbole and poetry in his explanations. "The Shining" , I must
admit, was the Kubrick film that took me the longest to
appreciate (and as a result) to understand. Perhaps this is
because I thought that for once the great master had gone off the
deep end, and made supernatural nonsence without the genre requirements
needed to engage us in his hocus-pocus. I, of course, had gone off the
deep-end in this foolish assumption and each successive viewing confirmed
this (stopping at one sitting for any Kubrick film is throwing in the
towel much too early). Quite simply, "The Shining" is another war film,
with the battlefield being mainly in Jack Nicholson's mind, and
in his domestic situation. Throughout the movie their are signs of the
white male violent burden he has inherited: the Native-Indian burial grave
the hotel is situated on, his wife (one of his future intended victims)
wearing the Native jacket when talking to nearby patrol men (and
the precise framing of the American flag within the shots during the
cross-cutting exchange), the scenes of Jack being coaxed into more
boozing and being told his credit is good as long as he plays his role,
and of course, the famous last dolly in to the photo on the wall.
It is not entirely precise whether or not this is another version of
Jack, or a relative look-alike that has been there-done that before
Jack reacked havoc on the same place; what is for sure is the unmistakable
image of a Nicholson's arm in the air in a striking motion and a butler
behind him holding it back. Within this context of what appears to be
a roaring-twenties party bash free from responsibility, the violence
has been channeled into pleasure, but within the burden of responsibility
and a nuclear family, the inherint white-man's violence is unleashed,
with trajic consequences. Part of what makes what ensues complicated,
is that like in "taxi Driver" where the city becomes a warped version
of Bickel's mind, the Overlook hotel becomes this for Nicholson, and
as the narrative progresses, so does it for Danny who little by little
begins to inherit his father's state as he is suffering from it.
Who opens the fridge hatchet? Danny does, the cut of him later, fearing
what he has just unleashed tells us so. It is hard to imagine why exactly
the abused child would free his abuser, but the 'gift' he has inherited
from his old man also manifests itself in the mind control the father
still has over his son, and the blood lust the two have for each other.
The mind control Jack still has over his son manifests itself in the way
Jack's subjectivity becomes the objective view-point of the film as
it is his burden that commands the hotel, Danny's subjective veiwpoints,
for the most part, are treated as a construct from his brain, as when
he imagines the elevator spilling blood, or the two little girls
that appear in the hallway, it is only in dealing with his dad that his
'shining' becomes objective. There is, of course, the scene when
Danny plays a trick on Jack by giving him the fantasy of the
woman in the bathtub who turns out horribly wrong- a fillial act showing
his dad what he is doing to his mom (there is of course the great cut
after that of Danny fearing once again that he may not be up to
this Oedipal battle). But even if Danny is not up to the battle, his
dad's burden manifests itself in other ways while he is playing
the victim. His telapathic call to the African
American Scatman Couthers to come do his
dirty work for him may be echoes of Vietnam before "Full Metal Jacket"
(as well as the structure of the film which disjoints when Jack
cannot handle his writing tasks and therefore seeks to dismember his family,
much as the structure disjoints in the Vietnam film when the Seargent
gets shot in the brain at boot camp). Both cases show the cause of
a unit breaking up, much like a brain going crazy. Danny, like some
of the sadistic soldiers in "Full Metal Jacket" is left to fend for himself
in a situation that is completely out of hand, and therefore has no
barring or example to follow; his actions are often not thought out
like opening the hatchet for his dad, or risking his new friend's life.
This is the context on which "the shining" is predicated, the belief
by Kubrick that history is built on blood and war, and that once again
a societal lie (or front) like the nuclear family cannot work without
serious moral scrutiny or sacrifice. As in all his films, Kubrick
shows that history's mishaps have occured with excess of base inherited
desires, and that the will to surpress must be exhibited to find
peace. As in "eyes wide shit" with Cruise's mind's labido run amok (or
his ego with his new found success debassig the solution to co-existence
with his wife), and the bone in "2001" being first used to kill the
opposing ape-tribe (anticipating the HAL debacle- an advanced human
invention carrying out human will without concent) the warning's and
the historical signatures are what "The Shining's" more far'fetched
display rests on, the matter in which this tale is told should not
take away from the similair logic and thematic coherence on view.
Mathieu Ricordi
24530
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:27pm
Subject: Re: Plasticity (Was: Off with their heads!) rashomon82
> What I was arguing against was your broader definition of
aesthetics, which would include
> films that do not work in a abstractly sensual way.
Let me be clear here, even though I have a feeling that my argument
will continue to be confused.
According to the American Heritage Dictionary (accessible on
dictionary.com), aesthetics (n.) refers to a) "A guiding principle
in matters of artistic beauty and taste; artistic sensibility," or
b) "An underlying principle, a set of principles, or a view often
manifested by outward appearances or style of behavior." I don't
believe that `aesthetics' has a particular limitation to plasticity
or what you call "abstract form."
What I am interested in is the "underlying principle" or "set of
principles" which govern a work of art as it is outwardly
manifested. To me this is `aesthetics,' and as far as I'm aware
this conception is far more commonplace (not to mention functional)
than yours is. Therefore `aesthetics' can be visual and plastic,
visual and non-plastic, aural, narrative, even conceptual.
What makes something `art' rather than, say, a `craft'—or the
evening news? Well, that's not an easy question, partly because art
is not universal or eternal. Art has a history, its production is
embedded within a cultural context, and treatment and definitions of
art are always culturally conditioned in some sense. Our modern
style of appreciation of the great painters of the past, or the arts
outside the West, is of course a weird historical aberration. (Have
you read or are you at least familiar with André Malraux's THE
VOICES OF SILENCE, which makes this argument at length and in the
most eloquent terms possible?) So I'm afraid I don't necessarily
have a cut-and-dried, fast, certain answer to the question of what
art really is—and I suspect this is partly because art "is" not
anything in particular. If you do have an answer to this question,
well, you're far beyond me, and maybe you shouldn't waste your time
with a novice such as myself.
To me an awareness of and/or focus on the plasticity of the
celluloid image is a strain of some film art, and not a prerequisite
for all film art. What matters to me is how a film's form is
expressive of something (and if we ignore WHAT a film is expressive
of, this is in some way ignoring that form is or can be expressive
at all). And this is why I don't think the plasticity of the image
is the alpha and omega of cinematic art.
Films whose "object" is cinema itself, whose aesthetic strategies
are based upon the celluloid proper, do not translate to video, for
instance, because the `point' is lost—at best, a video translation
would have only a severely limited academic purpose. (I'm not
using "academic" demeaningly here, though.) Narrative commercial
films shot on celluloid and meant to be shown on celluloid are of
course best seen on celluloid—I don't think anybody disputes this.
(Unless of course you have to choose between a battered, pink, 16mm
print and a superb DVD transfer on a good television set, in which
case while no choice is perfect, the DVD is almost definitely the
preferable one: more will translate.) However, I think that in most
(I won't say all) cases of narrative cinema, the form is not
ultimately about—it is not at its deepest level the most expressive
of—the very plasticity of the film image. The expressiveness is
directed towards something else. (This isn't to say that we should
not write about a narrative film as a treatise on plastic qualities—
that's, to me, a vital thing to do. But we shouldn't confuse our
attention with the film's intentions.) Seeing McCarey or Boetticher
or Renoir or Rossellini in a cinema, in good prints, is of course
the best way to understand their work. But I think certain films
and filmmakers will have a better `translation index.' And in the
age of television and video, particularly, there are going to be at
least a generous handful of auteurs who will be very `translatable,'
that is, their level of plastic interest (which may or may not still
be great) will allow them to be highly durable even with transfers
from one medium to another. Some filmmakers are so rich that no
matter how aesthetically great they are in celluloid-specific ways,
they can still be jaw-droppingly amazing even on mediocre video
transfers (e.g., Ford, Rossellini). Why is this all so? I think
it's because film art and its possibilities are complex,
multivalent, even (to use an overhyped word) "rhizomatic." I just
do not believe there is a bottom line to great art beyond a loose
basis of "aesthetic" greatness, that is, a valuation of
intelligence, inspiration, creativity, pungency, depth, or other
things rooted in the system on which a film operates.
Let us keep in mind how open-mindedly Chris Marker (one of our
greatest—although one might hear Dan grumbling right now) has moved
into other media. Plasticity is clearly not his most immediate
concern when making a film, but he's amazing—aesthetically amazing.
Why? For reasons other than plasticity. But not reasons other than
aesthetics.
And if there is NO room for compromise in your aesthetic, Yoel—and
keep in mind that Fred has always been willing to make pragmatic
concessions and to acknowledge possibilities that he's "missing"
this or that—then it would mean that every time you saw a 35mm film
in a battered print, a pink print, or a 16mm print, you would not
have seen the film at all. Likewise, if somebody's head blocked
part of your view for parts of a film, you would not have seen it,
either. No subtitles allowed. You can't say you've ever seen any
paintings which are covered with glass and reflect a glare from the
lights overhead. If the delicate, plastic, authorial image is so
overwhelmingly important, than very few of us have really "seen"
much of anything in our lives. And maybe this is simply and sadly
true. But my approach is not to lament that perfect vision is so
rare, but to say, "Well, one always sees—one always experiences—
SOMETHING. Now what can we say about it?"
--Zach
24531
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:33pm
Subject: High ground + some wisdom (was Re: The NEW American Cinema) rashomon82
> I guess I'm just a grouch. To me it sounds like more motor-
> mouthing by NB. But she's a friend of Adrian's, so she must be
> ok...
I think Brenez is ahead of a lot of us in her taste. It seems to me
like she's really scouring the cinema and trying to find its limits:
in avant-garde films, in ethnographic films, in pop cinema, in video
art, in auteur works ...
When she wrote of HARD-BOILED, "It's our BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN," I
thought it was mere hyperbole. But I took a look at THE KILLER last
night and finally thought, "Maybe Brenez is right." I'd written off
John Woo for years, but the palpable expressiveness of his work in
montage and also in motion/speed forgive a lot of the lesser
elements. I've only just discovered what a lot of cinephiles and
buffs knew over a decade ago.
(By the way, Fred and Yoel, where do you two stand on Woo? I would
suspect you might like him--at least his Hong Kong films--in the
same way that you like Michael Mann.)
--Zach
24532
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:34pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> One interesting thing about the longer version is the hint that
Jack
> had been sexually molesting his son. Although this is never
directly
> stated, it's clearly what Ann Jackson's doctor suspects - several
of
> her questions about when 'Tony' ("a little boy who lives in my
> mouth") first appeared point in this direction. Also, note how
> Danny's bear pillow visible during this scene becomes the
individual
> in a bear costume who is seen performing a sexual act in the hotel.
Hmmmmmmm...COULD be!
24533
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:35pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Strictly speaking Jack wants to kill Danny out of
> jealousy for the attention he's getting from everyone.
> The physical attack he makes on Danny, prior to the
> action of the film, MAY have a sexual component to it,
> but as I said that's not made at all clear.
You get the feeling when he's holding him in his lap that Jack might
just be thinking about eating Danny's flesh.
24534
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:40pm
Subject: Re: Who opens the freezer door (was: THE SHINING) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey, the hotel manager in EWS is gay! (What a nutty performance!
> Pee
> > Wee Herman couldn't top it...) Maybe Barry Nelson is, too, if the
> two
> > films mirror each other.
>
> He's just the guy at the desk, not the manager, but no matter.
> He's just about the best thing in the entire movie. JPC
He's brilliant! All the character roles in EWS recall what Kubrick
told Nicholson while they were filming SHINING: "Yes, Jack, what
you're doing is real - but is it interesting?" One could not say the
same of Cruise and Kidman, but the hooker, her roommate, the desk
clerk, the pianist, the costume store owner, the bereaved daughter -
they're all interesting!
24535
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:50pm
Subject: Re: High ground + some wisdom (was Re: The NEW American Cinema) cellar47
--- Zach Campbell wrote:
>
> When she wrote of HARD-BOILED, "It's our BATTLESHIP
> POTEMKIN," I
> thought it was mere hyperbole.
In IS mere hyperbole. Woo's a hack.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24536
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:50pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:
> Quoting jpcoursodon :
Mathieu - Your reading is fresh and defintely intersting! Let me add
some comments and a question.> >
> >
within the burden of responsibility
> and a nuclear family, the inherint white-man's violence is unleashed
"White man's Burden, Lloyd my man. White man's burden!"
> Who opens the fridge hatchet? Danny does, the cut of him later,
fearing
> what he has just unleashed tells us so.
This seems the best alternative to a corporeal ghost hand.
It is hard to imagine why exactly
> the abused child would free his abuser, but the 'gift' he has
inherited
> from his old man also manifests itself in the mind control the
father
> still has over his son, and the blood lust the two have for each
other.
Mathieu - You're not the only one here who has stated the assumption
that Danny has inherited his gift from Jack. Is that simply because
Jack sees Lloyd and the other spooks too?
If we do indeed assume that Jack "shines," a battle between him and
Danny becomes at least a possible hypothesis. Tht's also how he'd
know Danny was bringing Halloran into the situation.=, etc. But why
would it be a preferable one to ghosts?
24537
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:53pm
Subject: Re: Mathieu on The Shining hotlove666
BTW, I have an equally recondite explanation for the monoliths - I
think they're from the future, from our future. (Cf. Stapledon's
First and Last Men, Clarke's main inspiration as a writer, and
Clarke's non-fiction writing on the possibility of future-to-past
causality, also used in Imperial Earth.) This contradicts what
Heywood Floyd says (but Heywood Floyd is an idiot), and also what
Kubrick and Clarke have said about an extraeterestrial origin for the
monument, but the film accepts the explanation, as Shining does
Matthieu's.
24538
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:53pm
Subject: High ground + some wisdom (was Re: The NEW American Cinema) rashomon82
David:
> In IS mere hyperbole. Woo's a hack.
Maybe. But there are hacks with incredible talent, and there are
the other kinds of hacks. Like I said, I had written Woo off for a
long time, and THE KILLER came as a big surprise to me. If I were
to write a book one day on, say, "the crisis of the image," Woo
would deserve serious space in it, whether I like his work overall
or not.
--Zach
24539
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 9:58pm
Subject: High ground + some wisdom (was Re: The NEW American Cinema) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
>
> > I guess I'm just a grouch. To me it sounds like more motor-
> > mouthing by NB. But she's a friend of Adrian's, so she must be
> > ok...
>
> I think Brenez is ahead of a lot of us in her taste. It seems to
me
> like she's really scouring the cinema and trying to find its
limits:
> in avant-garde films, in ethnographic films, in pop cinema, in
video
> art, in auteur works ...
>
> When she wrote of HARD-BOILED, "It's our BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN," I
> thought it was mere hyperbole. But I took a look at THE KILLER
last
> night and finally thought, "Maybe Brenez is right." I'd written
off
> John Woo for years, but the palpable expressiveness of his work in
> montage and also in motion/speed forgive a lot of the lesser
> elements. I've only just discovered what a lot of cinephiles and
> buffs knew over a decade ago.
Good of you to keep an open mind, but I don't care much for Woo's
films, and I don't think Hard-Boiled is "our Battleship Potemkin."
> suspect you might like him--at least his Hong Kong films--in the
> same way that you like Michael Mann.)
That's actually another director I part company with several
defenders on, including Fred.
24540
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:00pm
Subject: Re: High ground + some wisdom (was Re: The NEW American Cinema) cellar47
--- Zach Campbell wrote:
If I were
> to write a book one day on, say, "the crisis of the
> image," Woo
> would deserve serious space in it, whether I like
> his work overall
> or not.
>
I would reserve that space for Barkhage on the one
hand and Straub-Huillet on the other. I find no
"crisis" in Woo's attempts at paraphrasing Jean-Pierre
Melville.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24541
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:25pm
Subject: Re: EWS & THE SHINING (was: Adaptation) mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> This reading is a pure delirium with no basis whatsoever in the film.
> None.
I know. I'm just putting it out there as a possible point of
departure, however delirious and unstable, for anyone interested in
connecting the two films. Though there are no doubt countless better
points of departure.
24542
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:31pm
Subject: Re: EWS & THE SHINING (was: Adaptation) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> >
> > This reading is a pure delirium with no basis whatsoever in the
film.
> > None.
>
> I know. I'm just putting it out there as a possible point of
> departure, however delirious and unstable, for anyone interested in
> connecting the two films. Though there are no doubt countless better
> points of departure.
I think Michel - who wrote a book on 2001 and has one on all of
Kubrick coming out - read the inafamous Diacritics article that sees
2001 as a film w. a buried anti-abortion agenda.
24543
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:37pm
Subject: Re: EWS & THE SHINING (was: Adaptation) mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> I think Michel - who wrote a book on 2001 and has one on all of
> Kubrick coming out - read the inafamous Diacritics article that sees
> 2001 as a film w. a buried anti-abortion agenda.
I haven't read it, but it sounds suitably ridiculous.
24544
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 10:40pm
Subject: Censoring Science mclayf00
"The fight over evolution has reached the big, big screen.
Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are refusing
to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the
geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to
films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth and
its creatures.
. . .
Hyman Field, who as a science foundation official had a role in the
financing of 'Volcanoes,' said he understood that theaters must be
responsive to their audiences. But Dr. Field he said he was 'furious'
that a science museum would decide not to show a scientifically
accurate documentary like "Volcanoes" because it mentioned evolution.
'It's very alarming," he said, "all of this pressure being put on a
lot of the public institutions by the fundamentalists.'"
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/03/19/national/19imax.html?th
24545
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:16pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) thebradstevens
How about this. Danny has the power to create ghosts which are 'like
pictures in a book'. The hotel isn't 'haunted' until he gets there.
He 'creates' the ghosts of the Overlook as a way of dealing with his
repressed memories of being sexually abused by his father.
The 'ghosts' are images that he has pulled from his own subconscious
mind (the individual in the bear costume), but also from the mind of
his father (Grady, the woman in the bathtub), and even the hotel's
own unconcious (the injured guest, the skeletons). Danny opens the
pantry door so that the final (Oedipal) confrontation with the father
can take place.
Or maybe it's the unborn child about to be conceived at the end of
EYES WIDE SHUT who opens the pantry door.
24546
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:25pm
Subject: Against interpretation (?) jpcoursodon
A simple question: does the huge amount of interpretation Re: "The
Shining" in the current thread (and in critical writings at large;
same remark could apply to "2001") have anything to do with the
film's intrinsic quality, or, to put it differently, does
interpreting it (in one way or the other, or several ways, or no way
at all, which is still another way)affect our response to the film,
how we enjoy it, how we rate it as a work of art? My answer would
be "not a bit" but I'd like to know what the interpreting frenzy
that some works trigger actually brings to the
interpreter's "pleasure" (taking "pleasure" in a noble, Barthian
sense). JPC
24547
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Mar 19, 2005 11:30pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> Or maybe it's the unborn child about to be conceived at the end of
> EYES WIDE SHUT who opens the pantry door.
Or maybe the astral foetus from "2001".
24548
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:11am
Subject: Re: Censoring Science samfilms2003
> 'It's very alarming," he said, "all of this pressure being put on a
> lot of the public institutions by the fundamentalists.'
It's definitely alarming.
I'm almost surprised planetariums don't get in trouble for describing the earth
revolving around the sun.
I guess Fundies have to accept that because CBN broadcasts via satellite.
-Sam
24549
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:15am
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
> wrote:
> >
> > Or maybe it's the unborn child about to be conceived at the end of
> > EYES WIDE SHUT who opens the pantry door.
>
> Or maybe the astral foetus from "2001".
Maybe the unborn child about to be conceived at the end of "Eyes Wide
Shut" *is* the astral foetus from "2001".
And they both grow up to be Alex from "A Clockwork Orange".
24550
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:27am
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) samfilms2003
-> > Or maybe it's the unborn child about to be conceived at the end of
> > EYES WIDE SHUT who opens the pantry door.
>
> Or maybe the astral foetus from "2001".
I vote for Addison DeWitt
-Sam
24551
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:54am
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
>
> -> > Or maybe it's the unborn child about to be conceived at the
end of
> > > EYES WIDE SHUT who opens the pantry door.
> >
> > Or maybe the astral foetus from "2001".
>
> I vote for Addison DeWitt
>
> -Sam
Obviously, there comes a point where someone has to say: "But
seriously, folks..." JPC
24552
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:04am
Subject: Re: Censoring Science jpcoursodon
> I'm almost surprised planetariums don't get in trouble for
describing the earth
> revolving around the sun.
> I guess Fundies have to accept that because CBN broadcasts via
satellite.
>
> -Sam
It's very obvious that the sun revolves around the earth. You
just have to watch a God-created sunset or sunrise. It's all a left-
wing-communist plot to tell you any different. Give me the old time
religion, it's good enough for me!
24553
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:06am
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) matt_c_armst...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
> wrote:
> >
> > Or maybe it's the unborn child about to be conceived at the end
of
> > EYES WIDE SHUT who opens the pantry door.
>
> Or maybe the astral foetus from "2001".
No, it's definitely Hal. As in "Open the pantry door, Hal."
24554
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:21am
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) samfilms2003
> No, it's definitely Hal. As in "Open the pantry door, Hal."
Of course ! You win ! Can't argue with that. Hey, I tried, I gave
it hours, well minutes of thought, ruling out serious candidates
Poto and Cabengo.....
-Sam
OK OT Time I guess
24555
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:23am
Subject: Re: Censoring Science hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield"
wrote:
>
> "The fight over evolution has reached the big, big screen.
>
> Several Imax theaters, including some in science museums, are
refusing
> to show movies that mention the subject - or the Big Bang or the
> geology of the earth - fearing protests from people who object to
> films that contradict biblical descriptions of the origin of Earth
and
> its creatures.
Comment from Joe McBride: In the
forties and fifties the American Legion
used the same tactics to enforce the blacklist by intimidating
theater
owners and studios. It worked.
24556
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:34am
Subject: Re: EWS & THE SHINING (was: Adaptation) noelbotevera
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield"
wrote:
>
> In his monograph on "Eyes Wide Shut" for the BFI Modern Classics
> series, Michel Chion argues
> Bill isn't driven to death like Jack
> is in "The Shining," he *is* driven back to his wife, to fidelity,
and
> to a kind of spiritual castration. If Kidman's final line suggests
> procreation, as Chion believes it does, then Bill's a goner.
I wrote something to this effect back in October, 1999:
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/112
Cruise is in the same situation as Stewart was in It's a Wonderful
Life; they've beatent the will to stray out of him, and the rest of
his life is a Hallmark Holiday Card nightmare.
24557
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:40am
Subject: Woo and Mann (Was: High ground + some wisdom) sallitt1
> Good of you to keep an open mind, but I don't care much for Woo's
> films, and I don't think Hard-Boiled is "our Battleship Potemkin."
I actually became intrigued with Woo for the first time when I recently
saw PAYCHECK on an airplane. (Not a recommended venue.) It's one of the
few times that I sensed a wit and a plan behind one of those rollercoaster
Hollywood action films. (The story actually provides a clever excuse for
the random rhythms of today's action film: the chunks taken out of the
protagonist's memory result directly in the chunks taken out of the plot
and character development.)
>> suspect you might like him--at least his Hong Kong films--in the
>> same way that you like Michael Mann.)
>
> That's actually another director I part company with several
> defenders on, including Fred.
Me too. He has talent, but I don't find his sensibility very interesting.
- Dan
24558
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:24am
Subject: Re: Woo and Mann (Was: High ground + some wisdom) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Good of you to keep an open mind, but I don't care much for Woo's
> > films, and I don't think Hard-Boiled is "our Battleship Potemkin."
>
> I actually became intrigued with Woo for the first time when I
recently
> saw PAYCHECK on an airplane. (Not a recommended venue.) It's one
of the
> few times that I sensed a wit and a plan behind one of those
rollercoaster
> Hollywood action films.
John's a nice guy - he's just not the brightest bulb on the Christmas
tree. That's why I liked Broken Arrow best of his films, probably for
the same reasons you did Payday. But "our Battleship Potemkin" it
ain't.
24559
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:29am
Subject: Top 25 directors sallitt1
A top-25 directors list is easier to make than a new version of The
American Cinema....
Hawks
Keaton
Rohmer
Hitchcock
Leigh
Lubitsch
Ford
McCarey
von Sternberg
Naruse
Chabrol
Pialat
Bresson
Breillat
Renoir
Fassbinder
Hartley
Sturges
Becker
Ophuls
Siegel
Deville
Clarke
Powell
Eustache
- Dan
24560
From: "Saul"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:37am
Subject: Re: Woo and Mann (Was: High ground + some wisdom) asitdid
Online Now Send IM
> John's a nice guy - he's just not the brightest bulb on the Christmas
> tree. That's why I liked Broken Arrow best of his films, probably for
> the same reasons you did Payday. But "our Battleship Potemkin" it
> ain't.
I still think 'Battleship Potemkin' is "our Battleship Potemkin", even
for my generation. I saw it when I was about 12 or 15 and it was a
vivid and important moment in my floresent film-watching life. What
movie has, or could, replace or update it?
24561
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 6:20am
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) noelbotevera
Just to explain and maybe correct a few things:
The reason why the Overlook wanted Danny in the novel was because of
his powers, and they used Jack's insecurities as a father to try get
him. There wasn't any jealousy between Jack and Danny, not even a
subtext, and definitely no sexual abuse, merely physical, at least
when Jack dislocated Danny's shoulder. Any suggestion of sexual
molestation probably comes from Kubriks's version.
I don't know if the monolith (as Bill suggests) comes from the
future, but something from a Kubrick film does: Tony, the "little
boy who hides in my mouth" (Danny never used a finger in the novel,
that probably came out of one of Kubrick's CRPs) is actually Danny
himself all grown up. Danny's full name is Anthony Daniel Torrance.
Make of that what you will.
Personally speaking, I say it's Barry Nelson's Mr. Ullman, who
through the interview has developed an unnaturally intense obsession
with Jack. He hides on closing day, and, during the course of the
family's stay, manages to drive Jack over the brink, in the
misguided attempt to make Jack more malleable for seduction, and to
take him away from Wendy (he's the one who opens the pantry door).
He outsmarted himself when Jack freezes to death, and is forced for
the rest of the winter to sit inside the pantry atop a 5 liter can
of Libby's peaches, sucking his thumb.
24562
From: "Henrik Sylow"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:20am
Subject: Re: Woo (Was: High ground + some wisdom) henrik_sylow
I'll like to step in an defend Woo, at least his Hong Kong ouevre, as
his Hollywood films if anything displays his, as Bill so nicely put
it, "John's a nice guy - he's just not the brightest bulb on the
Christmas tree."
Woo's Hong Kong films are actually quiet good, especially "Once a
Thief", "Bullet in the head" and his two central films "A better
tomorrow" and "The Killer". They posses the same fatalistic quality as
the films by Melville, but being Hong Kong productions, they will
dismiss coherency and logic in the narrative in favor of highly
choreographed action sequences. The same goes for directors like Tsui
Hark and Ringo Lam.
One must also take into account, that these films were made in Hong
Kong, and as such had a low budget, "The Killer" was made for around
$US 2 million, his films prior to that for less, and only "Hard
Boiled" had a huge budget of about $4 million, and had a relatively
short shooting schedule.
As such, its main drive is its action sequences, the charm of Chow
Yung-Fat and its Hong Kong humour. The story is only a secondary
element, which serves as filler between, and leads up to, the action.
Nothing much has changed about these films today. Films like "Purple
Storm", "Internal Affairs" and "Full Time Killer", all have the same
structure, the same lack of logic in their stories, and the same higly
stylish action. In that respect, the influence of Woo is clearly
noticable.
The problems that befell Woo when he came to Hollywood was story,
actors who couldnt act physical and a deadly slow and expensive
production. Where Woo got noticed because of a growing number of fans,
those were not the general audience his american films targeted. He no
longer could improvise, make up stunts on the spot, nor could he
"translate" his choeopgrahy to Hollywood, because they would spend 4
hours to set up a 2 second close-up.
Look at the raid on the garage or the hospital raid in "Hard Boiled",
and compare it to the shoot-out in "Hard Target". A continuous series
of wild stunts and setups running several minuts in his Hong Kong
films had been reduced to a few simple very controlled stunts in
Hollywood. In "Hard Boiled", Chow slides down a wire, shooting left
and right with his Uzi's, making acrobatics, shooting left and right,
again and again, while van Damme makes a one or two simple acrobatics
in slow motion.
Whatever flair and talent Woo displayed in his Hong Kong productions,
his American films lack it all, and to me it seems as if his only
attribution to the style of the films has been to add slow-motion to
the stunts.
Woo was a genial and visionary director in Hong Kong, but in Hollywood
he is nothing but a hack, simply because Hong Kong and Hollywood are
two completely different worlds in terms of film making.
A final note should be, that it appears that Hideo Nakata is having
the same fate as Woo, considering the genius of his Japanese films
versus "The Ring Two".
Henrik
24563
From: "Fernando Verissimo"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:45am
Subject: Re: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) f_verissimo
Bill:
"Mathieu - You're not the only one here who has stated the assumption
that Danny has inherited his gift from Jack. Is that simply because
Jack sees Lloyd and the other spooks too?"
That would make Wendy a gifted person too, cause she sees ghosts too.
I'd say the ghosts that appear to Wendy are related to those past family
events that she chose to hide from herself until then.
The injured guest Brad mentioned being a distorted image of her violent,
drunk husband (the ghost makes this gesture as if he was proposing a toast).
The grotesque bear-creature performing fellatio on the old man standing for
the incest and abuse, about which she was totally passive, if not
complacent.
Suggestively, those appearances happen while Jack is chasing Danny in the
labyrinth (the mirror image for Jack's mind). The cross-cutting construction
suggests that Wendy is watching that mind battle, in a version staged for
her by the ghosts of the hotel (except for those skeletons, that will always
remain a mistery to me. Those stupid, dumb, ugly skeletons). The battle's
aftermath (where little Oedypus manages to escape the maze, leaving Jack
trapped forever in his own twisted and abusive mind) means Danny overcomes
his father's malign influence. And since THE SHINING echoes the most simple
fairy tale structure (and since we're calling Freud up to help us here), we
could take for granted that Danny was finally free to develop into sexual
and psychic maturity, if it wasn't for the fact that the prince that came to
rescue him is now dead.
Of course, after that we hear that song playing over the credits, a song
that puts an entire new, perverse perspective to the whole affair ("Midnight
brought us sweet romance / I know all my whole life through / I'll be
remembering you / what ever else I do / Midnight, with the stars and
you...").
Anyway, that leaves us with that picture on the wall, that somehow
desauthorizes the sexual molestation reading. It's a piece of evidence we
can't just leave aside: to that we will never find a reasonable explanation.
fv
24564
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:40am
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> A top-25 directors list is easier to make than a new version of The
> American Cinema....
> - Dan
As distinctive for its omissions as for its inclusions!
24565
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:43am
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
Tony, the "little
> boy who hides in my mouth" (Danny never used a finger in the novel,
> that probably came out of one of Kubrick's CRPs) is actually Danny
> himself all grown up. Danny's full name is Anthony Daniel Torrance.
> Make of that what you will.
Inneresting...
>
> Personally speaking, I say it's Barry Nelson's Mr. Ullman... He
outsmarted himself when Jack freezes to death, and is forced for
> the rest of the winter to sit inside the pantry atop a 5 liter can
> of Libby's peaches, sucking his thumb.
I guess that's why Kubrick cut the ending where he appears in Wendy's
hopsital room! It would have been a major continuity error!
24566
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:47am
Subject: Re: Woo (Was: High ground + some wisdom) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
> Woo was a genial and visionary director in Hong Kong, but in
Hollywood
> he is nothing but a hack, simply because Hong Kong and Hollywood are
> two completely different worlds in terms of film making.
>
The nadir was Mission Impossible 2, where Cruise apparently decided
to be Stanley Kubrick. Why the hell hasn't Mr. Woo worked with Mr.
Chow here? He'd be great for the remake of Bring Me the Head of
Alfredo Garcia that he's dying to make!
24567
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:48am
Subject: Re: Woo (Was: High ground + some wisdom) noelbotevera
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
> I'll like to step in an defend Woo, at least his Hong Kong ouevre
I'd like to step in and defend Ring Two, at least if you put it in
perspective: it's not as creepy as his original Ringu, but it's a
vast improvement over Gore Verbinski's MTV version and is at least
more coherent than Nakata's own Ringu 2 (which at least had a few
interesting setpieces).
Think of it the way you'd think of Woo's Hollywood career; they're
not all duds. Hard Target made good use of the atmosphere of New
Orleans, and I could swear Van Damme had a few actorly moments;
Face/Off had a nice sense of humor and some of that
homoerotic/doubling imagery to spice up the Hollywood action; and
someone did point out that the premise of Paycheck (another dumbed-
down Philip Dick adaptation) brilliantly squares away the one-thing-
after-another quality of, yes again, Hollywood action movies.
24568
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:53am
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Fernando Verissimo"
verissimo@u...> wrote:
those skeletons that will always remain a mystery to me
Maybe they're the key! Certainly Kubrick's insistence on including
them (in the American version) amounted to commercial suicide, so
they must be important.
24569
From: "Fernando Verissimo"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:28am
Subject: Re: Re: Woo (Was: High ground + some wisdom) f_verissimo
Henrik:
> The problems that befell Woo when he came to Hollywood was story,
> actors who couldnt act physical and a deadly slow and expensive
> production. Where Woo got noticed because of a growing number of fans,
> those were not the general audience his american films targeted. He no
> longer could improvise, make up stunts on the spot, nor could he
> "translate" his choeopgrahy to Hollywood, because they would spend 4
> hours to set up a 2 second close-up.
I tend to like some of Woo's american films, specially his early efforts.
Both HARD TARGET and FACE/OFF are deeply flawed movies, but they had a lot
of visual freshness and one or two very good ideas. Even if Van Damme has
the charm of a mule's ass (and therefore can't stand any comparison to
Chow's cool performances in the HK films), his physical abilities never
served a better cause than performing Woo's beautiful ballet in the end of
HARD TARGET. FACE/OFF ocasionally delivers some good stuff -- I remember
Travolta (performing Cage's character) hitting on his daughter and Joan
Allen confessing she had sex with Cage (as Travolta) to Travolta (as Cage)
as the film's best scenes. I didn't care for the action sequences, though.
> A final note should be, that it appears that Hideo Nakata is having
> the same fate as Woo, considering the genius of his Japanese films
> versus "The Ring Two".
Isn't "genius" a little too much?
Anyway, THE RING TWO can't possibly be worst than Gore Verbinski's film.
fv
24570
From: "Fernando Verissimo"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 8:42am
Subject: Re: Re: Woo (Was: High ground + some wisdom) f_verissimo
> I'd like to step in and defend Ring Two, at least if you put it in
> perspective: it's not as creepy as his original Ringu, but it's a
> vast improvement over Gore Verbinski's MTV version and is at least
> more coherent than Nakata's own Ringu 2 (which at least had a few
> interesting setpieces).
I believe Verbinski to be one of the worst directors working in Hollywood.
THE MEXICAN was one of the few times in my life I felt the urge to run to
the theater manager and ask my money back. What a piece of crap.
I waited to rent THE RING on DVD, and regretted it big time. What a piece of
crap.
> and
> someone did point out that the premise of Paycheck (another dumbed-
> down Philip Dick adaptation) brilliantly squares away the one-thing-
> after-another quality of, yes again, Hollywood action movies.
The first half was pretty cool, then in came a lot of boring explosions and
I became numb.
fv
24571
From: "Fernando Verissimo"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:13am
Subject: Re: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) f_verissimo
> those skeletons that will always remain a mystery to me
>
> Maybe they're the key! Certainly Kubrick's insistence on including
> them (in the American version) amounted to commercial suicide, so
> they must be important.
Did that scene provoke uncontrollable laughter in American audiences?
Man, was I sad when I first watched the American version... those goddamn
ridiculous, cheesy skeletons in one of my all-time favorite movies...
There's absolutely no excuse for that. They shouldn't be there!
But I should be glad that the severed head we have a glimpse of in Vivian
Kubrick's making of didn't make it into any known version of the film. Thank
God for that!
24572
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:10am
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) thebradstevens
> Anyway, that leaves us with that picture on the wall, that somehow
> desauthorizes the sexual molestation reading. It's a piece of
evidence we
> can't just leave aside: to that we will never find a reasonable
explanation.
>
Well, look at the ending of the studio version of BLADE RUNNER, which
makes use of outtakes from THE SHINING. Perhaps Jack is really a
replicant. So the person in the photo is simply an older relpicant of
the same design.
Maybe it was Rick Deckard who opened the pantry door.
I'm going to lie down now.
24573
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:12am
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Fernando Verissimo"
verissimo@u...> wrote:
> > those skeletons that will always remain a mystery to me
> >
> > Maybe they're the key! Certainly Kubrick's insistence on including
> > them (in the American version) amounted to commercial suicide, so
> > they must be important.
>
Many of the 'ghosts' relate in some way to Danny, as if they were
being summoned up from his subconscious mind. The skeletons make a
lot more sense when seen as a child's nightmare.
24574
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:09am
Subject: Re: Mondino, Anchorman (Was: The Wall) nzkpzq
Jean-Baptiste Mondino has been working fairly continuously in the video world
since 1981.
Here is his filmography in the mvdb:
http://www.mvdbase.com/tech.php?last=Mondino&first=Jean-Baptiste
I too very much liked some of his 80's videos, especially "The Boys of
Summer" (1984) with Don Henley, and "Russians" (1985) with Sting. But have
completely lost track of his work since then (a common problem in my music video
viewing, unfortunately). He had a creative use of back-projection, posing action in
front of the screen with contrasting action behind. This is a mildly
avant-garde approach one also finds in some of the work of Carlos Saura, such as
"Goya" and "Tango", two of my favorite movies of recent years.
Dan Sallitt writes:
"There used to be a guy named Mondino who made these old-timer-friendly music
videos, with a strong sense of space and lots of grave, emotive tracking
shots. Is he still around?"
Mike Grost
24575
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:56am
Subject: Re: High ground + some wisdom (was Re: The NEW American Cinema) nzkpzq
My problem with understanding these Brenez comments is entirely my own: I
have just seen less than half of the films she is discussing. I am so ignorant!
Question, the one film seen here by Paul J. Sharits, "S:tream:S S:ection
S:ection:S S:ectioned" (1968 - 1970) is all about running water. It is remarkably
beautiful, and a great viewing experience I would recommend to all. But it is
a million miles away from anything that could be described as "cruelty".
There is a whole tradition of "beautiful avant-garde films about water in
motion". One thinks of Kenneth Anger's gorgeous "Eaux d'artifice". And people are
still making such films. At MediaCity film festival saw "Der Klang des
Meeres" (Wolfgang Lehmann, Telemach Wiesinger, 2004), which consists of transformed
shots of the ocean.
For what's its worth, I too am baffled by John Woo. Thought "Mission
Impossible" was the pits, and "Hard Target" and "Face/Off" seemed worthless too. The
enthusiasm for John Woo is often couched in critical terms that are bound to
turn me off: "John Woo has raised screen violence to new levels!" or "The most
violent films in the history of the cinema!" etc just make me cringe!
I plan to keep on learning. One day, perhaps, will have seen all these
filmmakers...
Mike Grost
24576
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 1:55pm
Subject: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 jpcoursodon
In post #24546 I suggested a possible discussion of the wisdom of
interpretation. No one picked it up, not even to challenge or
ridicule it. Perhaps it was too trite a topic for this august forum.
Change of subject: to all of you who read French I recommend the
Spring issue of CINEMA 09, which is full of fascinating
stuff. "Rohmer Unknown" deals with his early pedagogical shorts and
discusses at length the making of his first -- now lost -- feature,
an adaptation of the famous children novel LES PETITES FILLES
MODELES which was never completed because the producer (a wealthy
student from Dahomey -- now Benin)refused to pay for post-prod.
expenses. Lots of stills. I had never heard of this hapless
production (1952)... There's a curious piece on UFOs that posits,
among many intriguing insights, that the flying saucers phenomenon
was a direct consequence of Welles' "War of the Worlds" broadcast...
There's a fine rumination by Aumont titled "In Praise of
melancholy". Tesson on Ozu, Naruse, Mizoguchi "by the seaside". An
article on Tarkovski and Joseph Beuys... Much more, including a
review of the French translation of Jonathan's wonderful "Moving
Places" (I wished someone had asked me to translate it!). AND a DVD
of three early Rohmer shorts (Mallarme, Hugo). Very fine issue, but
the revue always is.
JPC
24577
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: Top 25 directors sallitt1
>> A top-25 directors list is easier to make than a new version of The
>> American Cinema....
>
> As distinctive for its omissions as for its inclusions!
Well, not making a top-25 list is no disgrace. Lots of major directors
fall just below the cutoff.
In an attempt to ward off "genre inflation," I used math formulas to make
this list! Then made little subjective adjustments before posting it. -
Dan
24578
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 2:23pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >> A top-25 directors list is easier to make than a new version of
The
> >> American Cinema....
> >
> > As distinctive for its omissions as for its inclusions!
>
> Well, not making a top-25 list is no disgrace. Lots of major
directors
> fall just below the cutoff.
>
> In an attempt to ward off "genre inflation," I used math formulas
to make
> this list! Then made little subjective adjustments before posting
it. -
> Dan
Is your list by order of preference or random?
24579
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 3:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: Top 25 directors sallitt1
> Is your list by order of preference or random?
It's in order of preference, though those choices are somewhat arbitrary.
Hawks is definitely my favorite. - Dan
24580
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:35am
Subject: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-03-20 08:57:19 EST, JPC writes:
<< In post #24546 I suggested a possible discussion of the wisdom of
interpretation. No one picked it up >>
I've been staying out of "The Shining" discussion, because I've never seen
the movie. But quicker than you can say "Rien pour Robert", I will now jump in!
I have seen 2001, and still do not understand the ending. Like the entire
rest of the filmgoing world, I do not understand: 1) What is going on at a
literal level 2) What It All Means, philosophically. When I first saw the film in
1968, I was really annoyed. But more recent viewings have encouraged a strong
affection for the film, anyway. The whole Stargate finale is an amazing visual
experience. Even if it is unclear at the above levels, it is still greatly
worth watching. Perhaps this film will be permanently Unclear. I have never read
any sort of "interpretation" that adds a farthing to the film experience - and
there have been dozens. At the risk of sounding anti-intellectual, enough
already! The film is far more interesting as an experience in color, form and
light, than as a sf puzzle to be solved.
A customs agent once refused to let Arthur C. Clarke into the US, until he
explained the finale of 2001 to him...
Kubrick's films tend to improve on repeated viewings. The first screening of
"Eyes Wide Shut" seemed a trivial anecdote. Only a second viewing opened my
eyes to the film's mise-en-scene, with its camera movements down long corridors
of ornately decorated rooms. These recalled the travelling shots in the
chateau near the beginning of "Paths of Glory", and the Versailles like ornate rooms
in which the astronaut so mysteriously finds himself at the end of 2001.
Kubrick is the sort of middle level director who films are the most
frustrating to critics, IMHO. He is not the great genius of film depicted by
Kubrick-olatry. But he is also an auteur who makes personal films with a distinctive
visual style and set of personal themes.
I greatly prefer the original version of "The Big Sleep" (Howard Hawks), to
Hawks' second version, in which cut exposition scenes leave an utterly
incomprehensible plot. I am also bewildered by critics who rationalize this second
version as better, precisely BECAUSE of its jumbled scenario.
One final note: I have never used drugs, alcohol or tobacco, and I never
will. I am horrified by the thought that anyone would take my enthusiasm for
experimental films or 2001 as any sort of participation in the so-called drug
culture.
Please avoid all drugs and alcohol. They will ruin your mind and your life!
Mike Grost
24581
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 3:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 cellar47
--- MG4273@... wrote:
The first screening of
> "Eyes Wide Shut" seemed a trivial anecdote. Only a
> second viewing opened my
> eyes to the film's mise-en-scene, with its camera
> movements down long corridors
> of ornately decorated rooms. These recalled the
> travelling shots in the
> chateau near the beginning of "Paths of Glory", and
> the Versailles like ornate rooms
> in which the astronaut so mysteriously finds himself
> at the end of 2001.
And Quilty's home in "Lolita." The painting he crawls
behind to die could have hung in "Paths of Glory,"
"Barry Lyndon" or "2001."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24582
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:17am
Subject: Eyes Wide Shut nzkpzq
In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > Hey, the hotel manager in EWS is gay! (What a nutty performance!
> Pee
> > Wee Herman couldn't top it...) Maybe Barry Nelson is, too, if the
> two
> > films mirror each other.
>
> He's just the guy at the desk, not the manager, but no matter.
> He's just about the best thing in the entire movie. JPC >>
Guys - a differing take on this. I thought the desk clerk was an offensive
anti-gay stereotype. He giggles when describing the hitman's murders. This is
part of a long history that depicts gay men as perverts who relish cruelty, and
who lack "normal" feelings. These show up a lot in prose mystery fiction:
Phillip MacDonald's "Love Lies Bleeding", Sarah Cauldwell's "Thus Was Adonis
Murdered".
Similarly, the costume shop owner is part of another stereotype: the crooked
immigrant who will do anything sleazy for money.
EWS can be read as a story of a noble "white bread" guy (Tom Cruise) who
meets the evil side of humanity (consisting of minority groups). Not a pretty
picture!
Mike Grost
24583
From: "Henrik Sylow"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:27pm
Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Shut henrik_sylow
Try then to read EWS as Cruise being heterophobic, i.e. about to come
out of the closet as homosexual. At no point does he interact in
heterosexual sex, he is repulsed by it even.
Its awfully easy to read things into a text, but that doesn't make a
reading correct.
Henrik
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > > Hey, the hotel manager in EWS is gay! (What a nutty performance!
> > Pee
> > > Wee Herman couldn't top it...) Maybe Barry Nelson is, too, if the
> > two
> > > films mirror each other.
> >
> > He's just the guy at the desk, not the manager, but no matter.
> > He's just about the best thing in the entire movie. JPC >>
>
> Guys - a differing take on this. I thought the desk clerk was an
offensive
> anti-gay stereotype. He giggles when describing the hitman's
murders. This is
> part of a long history that depicts gay men as perverts who relish
cruelty, and
> who lack "normal" feelings. These show up a lot in prose mystery
fiction:
> Phillip MacDonald's "Love Lies Bleeding", Sarah Cauldwell's "Thus
Was Adonis
> Murdered".
> Similarly, the costume shop owner is part of another stereotype: the
crooked
> immigrant who will do anything sleazy for money.
> EWS can be read as a story of a noble "white bread" guy (Tom Cruise)
who
> meets the evil side of humanity (consisting of minority groups). Not
a pretty
> picture!
>
> Mike Grost
24584
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:34pm
Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Shut cellar47
--- MG4273@... wrote:
> In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
>
> Guys - a differing take on this. I thought the desk
> clerk was an offensive
> anti-gay stereotype.
I disagree. He's played by the fabulous Alan Cumming
(see also "Urbania" and"The Anniversary Party") and
while --
He giggles when describing the
> hitman's murders. This is
> part of a long history that depicts gay men as
> perverts who relish cruelty, and
> who lack "normal" feelings.
It's part of a larger joke that Kubrick is having on
his star, whose paranoia about saempsexuality is quite
well-known.
These show up a lot in
> prose mystery fiction:
> Phillip MacDonald's "Love Lies Bleeding", Sarah
> Cauldwell's "Thus Was Adonis
> Murdered".
And in the movies "The Maltese falcon" and "Desert
Fury."
> Similarly, the costume shop owner is part of another
> stereotype: the crooked
> immigrant who will do anything sleazy for money.
> EWS can be read as a story of a noble "white bread"
> guy (Tom Cruise) who
> meets the evil side of humanity (consisting of
> minority groups). Not a pretty
> picture!
>
Don't forget that La Cruise nearly gets gay-bashed by
a group of young street toughs.
And then there's AIDS via the prostitute.
"EWS" is a very complex film.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24585
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 4:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: Eyes Wide Shut cellar47
--- Henrik Sylow wrote:
> Its awfully easy to read things into a text, but
> that doesn't make a
> reading correct.
>
Well then what do you make of THIS?
http://www.ehrensteinland.com/htmls/library/tomcruiseletters.html
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24586
From: "Henrik Sylow"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Shut henrik_sylow
David, that was damn scary. Very Bush-ish.
I really like the part, where he on Sept. 22 says, that he will
injunct the book from being publicated, and then she says on Sept. 23,
that the book already has been publicated.
But is Cruise gay?
And I retract my postulate about "correct" reading :)
Henrik
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- Henrik Sylow wrote:
>
> > Its awfully easy to read things into a text, but
> > that doesn't make a
> > reading correct.
> >
>
> Well then what do you make of THIS?
>
> http://www.ehrensteinland.com/htmls/library/tomcruiseletters.html
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
24587
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: Eyes Wide Shut cellar47
--- Henrik Sylow wrote:
>
> But is Cruise gay?
>
Rarely has "The Lady doth protest too much," been more
a propos. I tracked him quite seriously and came
fairly close to a possible party of the second part --
an obscure production executive. But it takes two to
tango and there was no movement on that party's part.
I did, however establish that Cruise and rebecca
DeMornay got it on during the shooting of "Risky
Business." Armisted Maupin's boyfriend was their limo
drive and the two liked to carry on in the back seat.
He also dated Cher -- which naturally suggests that
he's really more gay than bi.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24588
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:37pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> Many of the 'ghosts' relate in some way to Danny, as if they were
> being summoned up from his subconscious mind. The skeletons make a
> lot more sense when seen as a child's nightmare.
That's true! Of course Wendy is seeing them - but she's childike too.
24589
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:41pm
Subject: High ground + some wisdom (was Re: The NEW American Cinema) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> My problem with understanding these Brenez comments is entirely my
own: I
> have just seen less than half of the films she is discussing. I am
so ignorant!
> Question, the one film seen here by Paul J. Sharits, "S:tream:S
S:ection
> S:ection:S S:ectioned" (1968 - 1970) is all about running water.
It is remarkably
> beautiful, and a great viewing experience I would recommend to all.
But it is
> a million miles away from anything that could be described
as "cruelty".
She may be mixing it up with some other Sharits that is pretty cruel
stuff - scissors and tongues and the like.
> There is a whole tradition of "beautiful avant-garde films about
water in
> motion". One thinks of Kenneth Anger's gorgeous "Eaux d'artifice".
And people are
> still making such films.
And Joris Ivens' first film.
Tag Gallagher was amazed that no one ever commented on the casual way
in which people are killed in Woo's films, which appalled him. Of
course we're way past that now into overkill, but it was an
interesting point.
24590
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:42pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors cinebklyn
In alpha order:
Robert Aldrich
Luis Bunuel
David Cronenberg
Jonathan Demme
Clint Eastwood
Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Milos Forman
Bob Fosse
John Frankenheimer
Sam Fuller
Howard Hawks
Alfred Hitchcock
Shohei Imamura
Chuck Jones
Buster Keaton
Akira Kurosawa
Mitchell Leisen
Sergio Leone
Joseph L. Mankiewicz
Kenji Mizoguchi
King Vidor
Charles Walters
James Whale
Billy Wilder
Frederick Wiseman
Brian
24591
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:44pm
Subject: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> In post #24546 I suggested a possible discussion of the wisdom of
> interpretation. No one picked it up, not even to challenge or
> ridicule it. Perhaps it was too trite a topic for this august
forum.
No, we were just making it tough on you.
There's a curious piece on UFOs that posits,
> among many intriguing insights, that the flying saucers phenomenon
> was a direct consequence of Welles' "War of the Worlds"
broadcast...
So why did they first appear 9 years later?
24592
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:47pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) peckinpah200...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Strictly speaking Jack wants to kill Danny out of
> > jealousy for the attention he's getting from everyone.
> > The physical attack he makes on Danny, prior to the
> > action of the film, MAY have a sexual component to it,
> > but as I said that's not made at all clear.
>
> You get the feeling when he's holding him in his lap that Jack
might
> just be thinking about eating Danny's flesh.
If this is true, then it represents a reversal of Freud's TOTEM
AND TABOO very much in line with Kubrick's theme of the regressive
aspect of individuality and society.
Tony Williams
24593
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:48pm
Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Shut hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- MG4273@a... wrote:
> > In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
>
> >
> > Guys - a differing take on this. I thought the desk
> > clerk was an offensive
> > anti-gay stereotype.
>
> I disagree. He's played by the fabulous Alan Cumming
> (see also "Urbania" and"The Anniversary Party") and
> while --
Did you like Urbania, David? I did, but I wished they'd done
the "reveal" before the ending, a la Vertigo. My friend Ed Marx
edited it.
24594
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 5:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Eyes Wide Shut cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Did you like Urbania, David? I did, but I wished
> they'd done
> the "reveal" before the ending, a la Vertigo. My
> friend Ed Marx
> edited it.
>
>
>
>
I love "Urbanoia," and I don't think the "reveal"
matters all that much in that the central character is
quite obviously in a state of mourning throughout the
action. Precisely how his lover died is something of a
secondary concern, IMO.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
24595
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 6:05pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) peckinpah200...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Fernando Verissimo"
> verissimo@u...> wrote:
>
> those skeletons that will always remain a mystery to me
>
> Maybe they're the key! Certainly Kubrick's insistence on including
> them (in the American version) amounted to commercial suicide, so
> they must be important.
Another explanation is possible. We must remember that the Overlook
is built on an old Indian burial ground from which the remains have
been removed. Thus the skeletons may represent those Indians now put
into grotesque waxworks positions or signify a reminder to those
party animals of past, present, and future that mortality awaits
them despite attempts to deny it.
On J.P's comments concerning interpretation and the number of
posts of Kubrick - does this not reveal that the films are
challenging in many ways to evoke such diverse meanings, a
deliberate "auteur" strategy?
Tony Williams
24596
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 6:22pm
Subject: Re: Woo (Was: High ground + some wisdom) peckinpah200...
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
> wrote:
> >
> > Woo was a genial and visionary director in Hong Kong, but in
> Hollywood
> > he is nothing but a hack, simply because Hong Kong and Hollywood
are
> > two completely different worlds in terms of film making.
> >
>
> The nadir was Mission Impossible 2, where Cruise apparently
decided
> to be Stanley Kubrick. Why the hell hasn't Mr. Woo worked with Mr.
> Chow here? He'd be great for the remake of Bring Me the Head of
> Alfredo Garcia that he's dying to make!
Woo's HARD BOILED does contains some outstanding scenes but it is
not BATTELSHIP POTEMKIN. I've heard that he used DIE HARD as a model
to move into Hollywood but, like most contemporary directors, has
become a victim of the present system as we know it. Naturally, his
American films have not been as outstanding as his Hong Kong work
from A BETTER TOMORROW to BULLET IN THE HEAD. But there have been
some exceptions when positive circumstances allow such as FACE/OFF
and WINDTALKERS which is more about Nicolas Cage as a tormented
Wangy Yu figure from the Chang Cheh era who wants to be a "fucking
good Marine" and now finds his traditional love of the Corps
hindered by the task the Army wants him to perform. Despite
censorship restrictions by the Pentagon, this theme clearly emerges.
But John Woo and producer-friend Terence Chang are Hong Kong guys
who know how the system operates. PAYCHECK has some interesting
Hitchcock traits (but more buried that FACE/OFF) but it emerges as a
formula film.
Yes, we are all hoping for a John/Chow Yun-fat reunion since KING'S
RANSOM appears to continually fold. But we dread something on the
lvel of BULLET PROOF MONK which an amazon.com review descrived as "I
got this film for free and I still felt cheated." Me too. It was the
fisrst DVD I've actually fast forwarded.
In industrial terms, John Woo has nowhere to go except try to play
the game in Hollywood and recognize, as Robert Aldrich did, that one
has to play with whatever cards are dealt on the gambling table. He
can not go back to Hong Kong since the industry is in the dolldrums
and times have changed. But he might yet get those Four Aces at the
Hollywood card table and surprise us all.
Tony Williams
24597
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 6:45pm
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Many of the 'ghosts' relate in some way to Danny, as if they were
> > being summoned up from his subconscious mind. The skeletons make
a
> > lot more sense when seen as a child's nightmare.
>
> That's true! Of course Wendy is seeing them - but she's childike
too.
As Jack condescendingly points out, she is a "confirmed ghost story
and horror film addict".
But my interpretation is that the hotel is drawing images from
Danny's mind. Wendy also sees the individual in the bear costume,
which may be related to one of Danny's traumatic memories.
24598
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 6:51pm
Subject: Say What?! (Was Re: Eyes Wide Shut) thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Well then what do you make of THIS?
>
> http://www.ehrensteinland.com/htmls/library/tomcruiseletters.html
I was fascinated to find the following statement in one of those
letters:
"Second, no doubt you recall that when you dealt recently with my
partner Charles Shephard concerning the proposed book about Godzilla,
you took the same position and refused to disclose the book to him.
That decision on your part resulted not only in a lawsuit but an
injunction againt the publication of that book."
Did I miss something here? Is Godzilla gay? Why am I always the last
one to know about these things?
24599
From: "Saul"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:40pm
Subject: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 asitdid
Online Now Send IM
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I have seen 2001, and still do not understand the ending. Like the
entire
> rest of the filmgoing world, I do not understand: 1) What is going
on at a
> literal level 2) What It All Means, philosophically. When I first
saw the film in
> 1968, I was really annoyed. But more recent viewings have encouraged
a strong
> affection for the film, anyway. The whole Stargate finale is an
amazing visual
> experience.
Films can be made both simple and complex, and the 'what the hell is
happening' of 2001 can be seen as no more confusing, in a way, than
many Hollywood plots we accept as 'logical'. I mean, to say that
Bowman lands on the Jupiter (retro-styled) space station, is caused by
an alien presence to regress, and then inherits the whole world, makes
a hell of a lot more sense than the plot's of some Hollywood films
I've recently sat through...
But as recent discussions on THE SHINING made oh-so-clear, Kubrick
films not only need not be explained to be enjoyed, but in some cases
are sometimes better left unexplained...
24600
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:55pm
Subject: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>>
> So why did they first appear 9 years later?
Read the piece, Bill. Your French is good enough.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact