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.
24601
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 9:58pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > 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
I'm delighted that you placed Keaton in second position, Dan!
24602
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:01pm
Subject: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Kubrick is the sort of middle level director who films are the
most
> frustrating to critics, IMHO.
Not at all. Critics love discussing his films because they can
wallow in interpretation instead of analyzing style. JPC
24603
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) evillights
On Sunday, March 20, 2005, at 02:45 AM, Fernando Verissimo wrote:
> the ghosts of the hotel (except for those skeletons, that will always
> remain a mistery to me. Those stupid, dumb, ugly skeletons).
I thought these skeletons had been discussed in three or four posts up
to this point on here already -- the hotel presents them because, to
Wendy (or to Danny, although the level of maturation between the two is
roughly equivalent), they are what she apprehends as "a scary thing" --
they're mediated signs of scary.
craig.
24604
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:15pm
Subject: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 mclayf00
Personally, while I don't think interpretative critcism is a
particularly bad, good, necessary or unnecessary thing, I do think
you've got to deal with the film itself and not with what Tony
Williams pointed out [in regards to Chion's hypothetical child waiting
born at the end of "Eyes Wide Shut"] as some "individual wish
fulfillment concerning what one would like to be there and what
actually appears in the text".
24605
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Interpretation evillights
On Sunday, March 20, 2005, at 05:01 PM, jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Not at all. Critics love discussing his films because they can
> wallow in interpretation instead of analyzing style. JPC
Who are these critics? I would think that if one removed the word
"wallow" from the above, we could see that "analyzing" would better
shift to the former, interpretation, rather than the latter, style. At
least as I understand the terms. Analysis, discussion, meaning,
plumbing the depths, content: interpretation. The film on top of the
pond: style.
In truly great artists, of course, style and content are inseparable --
as in the work of Kubrick.
craig.
24606
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:19pm
Subject: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
>
> > Kubrick is the sort of middle level director who films are the
> most
> > frustrating to critics, IMHO.
>
> Not at all. Critics love discussing his films because they can
> wallow in interpretation instead of analyzing style. JPC
Blissfully unaware that any worthwhile piece of interpretation must
ultimately confront style head-on and use it as empirical evidence.
24607
From: "Maxime Renaudin"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:26pm
Subject: Re: Interpretation jaloysius56
The film looks at me as I look at it; the film questions me as I
question it. For this necessary exchange to be possible, the
filmmaker still has to set up such open space where the dialogue
does exist. Some directors bolt their work so well that any such
dialogue is forbidden. As well as any interpretation.
Not that the interpretation adds anything to the movie, to
its 'intrinsic value', but it allows the film to exist afterwards.
The faculty of being interpreted is a necessity, but the very
interpretation belongs to the intimacy of the viewer's imagination,
and, I guess, has not much to do with the critical analysis, if not
to take its place.
As for Kubrick, it seems to me that this huge interpretative mass
results from a deliberate intention, from K., of confusing the
issue, of cultivating an art of apparent complexity where the
multiple meanings eventually resolve themselves in a lack of meaning.
24608
From: "filipefurtado"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 10:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Woo (Was: High ground + some wisdom) filipefurtado
One of the problems of Woo's American films is that a lot of his cinema depends on the editing and I have the impression that he hasn't much control on the editing room on any of those films. It's good to remember that the three best HK ones (Killer/Bullet in the Head/Hard Boiled) are the ones in which he did control the editing. Woo has always being uneven (most of the early HK stuff is worse than Paycheck), but the best ones are great. He does more with Magnificent Obsession as a starting point in The Killer than anything Mellville ever did in those tepid thrillers of his. Among the American films Windtalkers and Face/Off are pretty good, Broken Arrow and Paycheck are pretty bad, Hard Target is a lot better than a Van Demme vehicle should be and MI:2 is curious mess. It's also good to remember that he is very much an HK guy and they seem to believe that there's nothing wrong about doing hack work on occasion (Tsui Hark who is far more talented does that sometimes too).
Mike, I have never seen an inteligent Woo fan that praises him just because he raise the violence level, they can praise him because how he stages violence which is far different. The guy is a post-humanist, there's no people in his films, just bodies. I understand how one may be turn off by that, by I have no problems with it.
Filipe
__________________________________________________________________________
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br/
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
24609
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) mathieu_ricordi
Quoting hotlove666 :
>
> 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?
It is because their burden, as displayed in the final photo, and
the countless other clues pointed out in my previous explenation
is one that will continue to be passed down. As I said before, the
hotel and its "spooks" are an extension of Jack's mind, and as we
continue, Danny's mind as well. The violent white man as unfit father
and the son, inheriting the violence and channeling it through an
oedipal struggle bring out a rude and develish imagination in the two
males whose new isolated dwellings re-inforce.
> 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?
Because Kubrick is a manifester of the human condition, and his
fanciful and highly interesting use of different genres should
not detract from this. He makes it quite known through his use of cutting
who opened the door, and the horror of it. As in the 'art of the grotesque',
Kubrick always finds a way to manifest his character's foibles and real
underpinnings with huge/hyperbolic visual components that are often seen as
being objectively real as opposed to a subjective extension of the
personages situation (as in the "Eyes Wide Shut" orgy, which I still
hear people claiming is real). But no matter how hyperbolic he gets,
Kubrick always presents us with clear logical clues to let us know
exactly what he's on about (in EWS again, it is the lead ins to each
succesive dream state, through the use of carpet color, background
masks, and subtle changes like Cruise's bag the next day reading
"Rainbow Tuxedos" instead of costumes). "The Shining" is the same
thing, the Horror/Supernatural fronts are another artistic rendering
of Kubrick's 'war/conflict under fake guises' re-enactment.
24610
From: "Saul"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:08pm
Subject: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 asitdid
Online Now Send IM
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield"
wrote:
>
> Personally, while I don't think interpretative critcism is a
> particularly bad, good, necessary or unnecessary thing, I do think
> you've got to deal with the film itself and not with what Tony
> Williams pointed out [in regards to Chion's hypothetical child waiting
> born at the end of "Eyes Wide Shut"] as some "individual wish
> fulfillment concerning what one would like to be there and what
> actually appears in the text".
But what does "the film itself" mean? Does anyone see in a text
anything BUT what they want to see? Composing a review on "Mouchette"
(I have no idea when this DVD was released, perhaps years ago, all I
know is I was sent a copy to review), I realized that Bresson -
perhaps due to his obliqueness, perhaps due to many other things - is
extremely open to interpretation, and more, to people seeing what they
want to see. To use Schrader as an example, what he sees in Bresson in
his essay "Transcendental Style in Cinema" is very much what Schrader
is interested in, not necessarily what Bresson is interested in,
though having read that piece it's very easy to 'see' in the films
Schrader's ideas. Though just as easy to read Sontag or someone else
and see their ideas in the films – or to see none. Schrader's
interview with Bresson in FILM COMMENT Sept-Oct 1977 even begins with
a quote from a letter Bresson wrote Schrader apropos of the
publication of his essay: "I have always been very surprised not to
recognize myself in the image formed by those who are really
interested in me"
- S
24611
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:42pm
Subject: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- 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.
But not my bank account. I only subscribe to magazines I get for
free, and Cinema 0 isn't one of them.
24612
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 11:56pm
Subject: The World Won't Listen evillights
On Sunday, March 20, 2005, at 10:35 AM, MG4273@... wrote:
> Kubrick's films tend to improve on repeated viewings.
> 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.
Ridiculous. Mike, as someone who readily admits you've never seen
several of Kubrick's films, how can you make a statement like, Kubrick
is a "middle level director... [who] is not the great genius of film.."
etc., with any pretense of authority? The kind of discussion spawned
by 'The Shining' alone over the last few days on this list --
aesthetic, plastic, and political (and that's not counting the musings
upon who opened the pantry door, except when it counts) -- would seem
to have provided the smoking-gun that should, by all rights, shift the
position of this director in the minds of his detractors from "middle
level director" (ha!!!) to "pantheon promontor."
But what's very strange to me indeed (wacko, generalizing tangent
coming up, please take cover - which I should note has little to do
with the literality of Mr. Grost's post, but rather radiates from the
aura of it, an aura that points to a broader shade/weft/warp whose
vibes I tend to detect 'round these parts) and yet which I also
recognize, alas, as simply another necessarily real and bafflingly
non-aberrant branch of the human fractal, is that one can provide all
the evidence (yes, there are individual tastes, but there is also solid
-evidence-) for the merit of a filmmaker, and those who are on the
other side of the battle-line (and yes, there are battle-lines here)
handed the evidence will respond not with tangible counter-evidence,
but with pooh-pooh'ing of the following sort: "Hmm. Auteurists
traditionally never give Stanley Kubrick / Hollis Frampton / _________
much consideration. (And that's good enough for me to get back to
denigrating said director as deficient in the qualities I detect in
Michael Curtiz.)" As if, (1) Whatever Andrew Sarris hallucinated in
his supposedly breakthrough book fucking matters in the -slightest-
with regard to formulating any "pantheon of record," given the flagrant
Thomsonian omissions and his own disclaimer around the highly
subjective nature of his volume, (2) Andrew Sarris would ever be
prepared to make an aesthetic statement or expression of his own, let
alone be willing to die for it; (3) Evolution of the
auteurist-anatomical specimen were a possibility fully denied by old
men weened on the teat of Mervyn Le Roy; (4) "Auteurism" were not only
(a) a ridiculous term on every conceivable level, whose perpetuators
should know better than to use with a straight face, if they take at
all into account the repercussions of bandying about a word whose
suffix stands in for "shorthand for individual thought, connoting the
assertion of volunteering for groupthink"; but also (b) a word that
brings along with it the baggage, no matter how much its adopters will
speak to the contrary, of a singular, dominant, phylum-and-genus
Hollywood Golden-Age Studio-Era pantheon.
Such a response ("Hmm. Auteurists traditionally... ____ ... I ...
Curtiz"), or rather, the aura-response, strikes me as magnificently
non-sequitur. For all of the marvelous evidence put forth by so many
of the brilliant contributors to this list (and non-'Shining'-wise, I'd
like to single out Zach's recent short analysis of 'Faces' as
particularly praiseworthy), what I frequently witness playing out (or
which I hallucinate, you can be the judge) is a scenario akin to the
following: A man sits down across the table from another man. The
first man pulls out a flashcard. It's a photograph of Niagara Falls.
He extends a question: "What is this?" The man across the table
responds, "Broccoli." The first man, stone-faced, says: "It is a
photograph of Niagara Falls." To which the man across the table
replies: "But it has the plastic qualities of broccoli."
(And then pisses his pants.)
(For emphatic or comedic measure, as you will.)
Somewhere, there's hyperopia; and the far-sightedness comes not from
the denial of abstractly conceptualizing the falls, but from (a sight
I've witnessed) the fact that, oddly enough, some far-sighted men, when
handed a mirror, reflexively remove their glasses.
craig.
24613
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 0:01am
Subject: Note on a minor Fregonese hotlove666
I just watched Brahm's The Lodger and Fregonese's Man in the Attic
back to back. Even though MITA is very minor Fregonese (made jsut
before The Raid), it is so much better than The Lodger - using
virtually the same script! - that it can serve as a case study for
auteurism. Brahm is definitely Miscellany, and Fregonese - not
mentioned in The American Cinema [sic] - belongs in Expressive
Esoterica.
The Brahm film, while flashily lit and staffed w. medium-level talent
(Oberon, Sanders) has no unity, no meaning, no drama beyond what
Laird Craiger is able to achieve on his own, which isn't much.
Fregonese's style, built around the all-in-one, varied w. pans and
small moves, creates a believable universe w. the same characters,
dialogue and even sets (handicapped by a poor performance from a
miscast Palance). Fregonese even manages to smuggle in a Hitchcockian
complicit shot-reverse shot btween Palance and Frances Bavier (?) as
the landlady that briefly restores the moral dimensions of Belloc-
Lowndes' novel and Hitchcock's film of it, even though the script
gives him no further opportunities to explore that. Needless to say
he's right at home with the scenes, also in the Brahm, where the
bobbies are on horseback...
One puzzle: This was released in 1953, preumably to cash in on the
coming horror boom by remaking a Fox film not yet a decade old, but
at the end Palance wades into the Thames like The Creature from the
Black Lagoon....which wasn't released til 1954!
24614
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 0:11am
Subject: Re: Re: Interpretation evillights
On Sunday, March 20, 2005, at 05:26 PM, Maxime Renaudin wrote:
>
> As for Kubrick, it seems to me that this huge interpretative mass
> results from a deliberate intention, from K., of confusing the
> issue, of cultivating an art of apparent complexity where the
> multiple meanings eventually resolve themselves in a lack of meaning.
As an epilogue to the post I just made, Maxime's words above are
precisely the kind of non-sequitur I would like to bitch about. Take
this series of events: Much discussion on 'The Shining' bounds back and
forth, with most of it stemming on the myriad reflections and
reverberations throughout the film, not as empty signifiers, but as
signifiers with meaning, evidence of an aesthetic structure, a thesis,
an honest intellectual expression; discussion continues, including the
relationship of the camera to the story/expression, and the
relationship of the materiality of the image to the broader concerns of
the film, and of Kubrick (with regard to his oeuvre as a whole) ; then
someone throws a few words into the fray to the effect that there's all
this discussion and no-one's talking about meaning, and a meme is born;
this meme echoing still, the whole metamorphoses not into "the proof of
great art yielding manifold riches, not in a connect-the-dot
descry-in-the-waters, grasp-at-straws kind of way, but in the detection
of a true, human-made, conscious aesthetic pattern" but, "the only
thing that can be gotten out of the Kubrick cinema is that it's a
cinema cultivated for fanboys to read into." Complete bullshit.
craig.
24615
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 0:11am
Subject: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul" wrote:
>
> Does anyone see in a text
> anything BUT what they want to see?
Actually, no, probably not. I suppose the validity of an
interpretation -- not to mention the evidence that supports it -- is
ultimately in the eye of the beholder.
24616
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 0:15am
Subject: Re: Interpretation hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
Complete bullshit.
>
> craig.
I
think
I'll
just
"lurk"
for
awhile
and
see
what
happens
next...
24617
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 0:19am
Subject: The Lodger (was Re: Note on a minor Fregonese) rashomon82
Bill:
> The Brahm film, while flashily lit and staffed w. medium-level
> talent (Oberon, Sanders) has no unity, no meaning, no drama beyond
> what Laird Craiger is able to achieve on his own, which isn't
> much.
Sorry to change the subject so suddenly Bill (I would love to see
the Fregonese), but I think THE LODGER is a superb film! (The other
two Brahm films I've seen are worthwhile--THE LOCKET is another
fantastic one, and THE UNDYING MONSTER is a very minor but very
pleasant film. Have had HOT RODS TO HELL sitting around on video
for months and months now. And I can't seem to locate HANGOVER
SQUARE in rep houses or video dubs.)
It's been a while so I won't be able to offer a sustained analysis
of any sort, but I remember thinking that THE LODGER had a coherence
to it. Laird Cregar is indeed great; Brahm films him like a
monument, playing up his physicality if I recall, but in the same
way that this twentysomething shooting star played middle-aged men,
his character is more projection than substance--the insecurity is
all there in his eyes. Cregar supplies it, Brahm captures it. I
thought the film fit into a 'cinema of decor,' the same way people
sometimes classify Minnelli.
--Zach
24618
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 0:44am
Subject: Re: The World Won't Listen rashomon82
Craig wrote:
> but with pooh-pooh'ing of the following sort: "Hmm. Auteurists
> traditionally never give Stanley Kubrick / Hollis Frampton /
> _________ much consideration. (And that's good enough for me to
> get back to denigrating said director as deficient in the
> qualities I detect in Michael Curtiz.)"
This tends to happen (and at certain times I'm sure we've all been
guilty of it to varying degrees) largely due to laziness--it's hard
and unappetizing to engage with films that don't speak to you, or
which might even drive you crazy, and uncaring dismissal (out of
disdain, out of convention) is the quickest way out of that.
With Kubrick, though, well--I wouldn't feel too bad that there is
still some auteurist holdout on him. There's SO much ink on him,
he's one of the handful of filmmakers who could (speaking
pragmatically here) inspire an entire course on his work in any
university film studies department, he really has it better than
almost anyone out there as far as rep goes. Kubrick gets so much
acclaim from mainstream magazines, cultish websites, academic
journals, etc. that it's a bit hard to be sympathetic when one
loose, now-marginal corner of film culture decides he's not that
great. But Craig, you're absolutely right that this doesn't justify
simple dismissals, and nobody who offers an intelligent, reasoned
defense should be grouped with the sort of unthinking Kubrick fanboy
I was when I was 16 or 17 (i.e., the age that Gabe was hobknobbing
with Assayas and Wong). If people want to dismiss Kubrick, or knock
him down a few notches, he's such a big name at this point in time
that it's probably fair to say the "burden of proof" is on them.
Recourse to old-time evaluations doesn't seem to cut it anymore.
My own relationship with Kubrick has been quite rocky in the past
several years. It's painful when one's tastes change and you find
that you're responding negatively to films you once cherished. Last
I was able to tell, I still like EYES WIDE SHUT and THE SHINING a
whole lot; but DR. STRANGELOVE and A CLOCKWORK ORANGE and FULL METAL
JACKET were hard for me to confront even after initially loving
them. For years I've held on seeing BARRY LYNDON because I'm
terrified that this beloved film will destroy my relationship to
Kubrick. I like the optimism of knowing it still *might* be a
masterpiece. It's the same reason why I haven't watched 2001 (once
such a beloved film of mine) since high school. So anyway I'm
partly sympathetic to both sides of the Kubrick-among-auteurists
divide.
> (and non-'Shining'-wise, I'd
> like to single out Zach's recent short analysis of 'Faces' as
> particularly praiseworthy),
Well thanks, Craig!
--Zach
24619
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 0:45am
Subject: Re: Re: Top 25 directors sallitt1
> I'm delighted that you placed Keaton in second position, Dan!
Where would he place for you? - Dan
24620
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sun Mar 20, 2005 7:53pm
Subject: Re: The World Won't Listen nzkpzq
Craig Keller is right. I have not seen all of Kubrick's films, and should not
be making overall assessments of his quality as a filmmaker.
On paying attention to Andrew Sarris: Sarris is a great critic and great film
historian. "The American Cinema" truly was a breakthrough book, that opened
so many people's eyes to so much cinema history. One can still learn from this
wonderful book.
There is a fine line between "respectful attention to other people's ideas"
and the need "to think for oneself, and not indulge in groupthink". This is
always a balancing act. Film criticism, like most disciplines, is desparately in
need of original ideas. Hopefully, we will be able to move forward with new
approaches, but still appreciate valid ideas from the past.
Mike Grost
24621
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 0:57am
Subject: Re: The World Won't Listen samfilms2003
> what I frequently witness playing out (or
> which I hallucinate, you can be the judge) is a scenario akin to the
> following: A man sits down across the table from another man. The
> first man pulls out a flashcard. It's a photograph of Niagara Falls.
> He extends a question: "What is this?" The man across the table
> responds, "Broccoli." The first man, stone-faced, says: "It is a
> photograph of Niagara Falls." To which the man across the table
> replies: "But it has the plastic qualities of broccoli."
I promised to say no more on the point, but suddenly I've become
a revisionist; my famous intuition was right after all. It was Poto and
Cabengo who opened the pantry door. 2, 3, many pantry doors.
-Sam
24622
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:00am
Subject: Re: The Lodger (was Re: Note on a minor Fregonese) cellar47
--- Zach Campbell wrote:
Laird Cregar is indeed great; Brahm films
> him like a
> monument, playing up his physicality if I recall,
> but in the same
> way that this twentysomething shooting star played
> middle-aged men,
> his character is more projection than substance--the
> insecurity is
> all there in his eyes. Cregar supplies it, Brahm
> captures it.
Laird Creagar is an axiom of the cinema. "Hangover
Square" is indeed the one to see -- a film by Laird
Cregar and Bernard Herrmann. It changed Stephen
Sondheim's life, for one thing.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24623
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:01am
Subject: The Lodger (was Re: Note on a minor Fregonese) samfilms2003
> Have had HOT RODS TO HELL sitting around on video
> for months and months now.
I have fond memories of this from the WCBS-TV Channel 2
Late Show Insomniatheque. In the days before I was a "film
person"
Best,
S.M. Rose & Tom DeCarlo
24624
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:06am
Subject: Re: Re: The World Won't Listen cellar47
--- Zach Campbell wrote:
>
> My own relationship with Kubrick has been quite
> rocky in the past
> several years. It's painful when one's tastes
> change and you find
> that you're responding negatively to films you once
> cherished. Last
> I was able to tell, I still like EYES WIDE SHUT and
> THE SHINING a
> whole lot; but DR. STRANGELOVE and A CLOCKWORK
> ORANGE and FULL METAL
> JACKET were hard for me to confront even after
> initially loving
> them. For years I've held on seeing BARRY LYNDON
> because I'm
> terrified that this beloved film will destroy my
> relationship to
> Kubrick. I like the optimism of knowing it still
> *might* be a
> masterpiece. It's the same reason why I haven't
> watched 2001 (once
> such a beloved film of mine) since high school. So
> anyway I'm
> partly sympathetic to both sides of the
> Kubrick-among-auteurists
> divide.
As a non-fanboy ( I LOATHE Tarantino and all he stands
for) I feel it necessary to put my two Kubrickian
cents in. "Lolita" was the one that mademe love him,
though Iliked "Paths of Glory" quite a bit. Didn't get
inot "Spartacus" until much later -- and it's not
really a Kubirckj film as such.
"Dr.Strangelove" is a key 60's film along with "Bonnie
and Clyde" and "2001" which I saw 12 times in Cinerama
at the Capitol theater in New York.
Didn't much care for "Clockwork orange," however.
"Barry Lyndon" is arguably his best film. I especially
love the last scene and the final title card.
"The Shining" is an enjoyable potboiler.
I was impressed with "Full Metal Jacket" at first, but
my regard for it has faded.
"Eyes Wide Shut," however is teriffic.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24625
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 1:55am
Subject: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- 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.
>
> But not my bank account. I only subscribe to magazines I get for
> free, and Cinema 0 isn't one of them.
But you seem to be on a first-name basis with most of those people.
Can't they put you on their mailing list?
24626
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:01am
Subject: Re: The World Won't Listen jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> craig.
Hey Craig, aren't you hyperventilating a wee bit?
I say it's spinach and the hell with it.
24627
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:04am
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors blakelucaslu...
--- 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....
>
> Clarke
I think I know everyone else on your list, Dan, but who is this?
The only one I know is Shirley Clarke and that just doesn't sound
like you? I don't remember you ever talking about her. You never
seemed to have any interest in New York independent filmmaking of
that era, even Cassavetes. Movies that had jazz soundtracks were
never an enticement for you. You didn't seem impressed when I was
interviewing her on my radio show along with Ornette Coleman in
1985, or even go to the documentary she made about Ornette when it
showed as far as I know. I'm probably digressing from your list
pretty far just writing this much but if by any chance it is her,
I'd be interested to know more about it.
Just a thought but would it be better to have full names on lists
like these? Just taking up your list alone, there is a Marcel
Ophuls, an Alexsander Ford, a Jean Becker, a John Sturges, a Dick
Powell... At one time the name "Mann" would have been on your list
(and of course I'm sorry this is no longer true). The name of
Michael Mann has come up a lot in various posts lately, a lot of
sentiment out there for that guy. Then there's Delbert and Daniel,
of course. There's probably someone somewhere that would vote for
any of those guys. And while I wouldn't think it would be you, you
never know.
Like "Clarke." I can't wait for the answer.
Blake
24628
From: "Maxime Renaudin"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:05am
Subject: Re: Interpretation jaloysius56
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
Craig, I'm not sure to get your point. Are you trying to tell me
that I shall have no other choice than to admire K. as you do, in
view of the evidence of genius, materialized by hundred of
authorized papers.
His pieces are absolutely uninspiring to me. That's the way I am,
that's the way I respond to the movies. I don't know about the
Kubrick fanboys... I understand that some venerable critics find
their way trough his films, but please allow me to respond to his
work as I feel. And if I want to dismiss the whole thing, unlocked
pantry doors won't change anything...
Reading through a few of the related past posts (which I hadn't read
before, I was actually more responding to JP question than trying to
discuss K., who was here simply a practical example), I shall admit
that I'm still looking for "the myriad reflections and
reverberations throughout the film, not as empty signifiers, but as
signifiers with meaning, evidence of an aesthetic structure".
"Kubrick is a manifester of the human condition", Mathieu Ricordi
wrote. This is probably the most extravagant remark I have ever read
about Kubrick. And this precisely where I stand, 'on the other side
of the battle-line': as my ultimate credo, K. is the kind of
filmmaker who is desperately unable to film the face of a woman in
love; and, moreover, the kind who simply doesn't care about. I
simply feel that the machinery runs empty. As for the machinery, his
somewhat systematic visual approach – the poverty of his grammar is
rather staggering – is nothing but irritating to me.
24629
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:05am
Subject: Re: Interpretation jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
> wrote:
>
> Complete bullshit.
> >
> > craig.
>
> I
> think
> I'll
> just
> "lurk"
> for
> awhile
> and
> see
> what
> happens
> next...
Wise move, Bill. Projectiles are flying to and fro. Better run for
cover.
24630
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:16am
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > I'm delighted that you placed Keaton in second position, Dan!
>
> Where would he place for you? - Dan
You know I don't do lists, Dan, but he of course places way up
there. I have the books to prove it!. JPC
24631
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:23am
Subject: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) noelbotevera
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>
> 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.
>
I don't know...couldn't spot a feathered headdress among the lot of
them.
I think they're party guests that waited too long for the canapes.
Americans never seem to serve good party food--you just get enough
food (on a tiny plate at that) to remind you that you're hungry.
24632
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:26am
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
>
> --- 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....
> >
>
> > Clarke
>
> I think I know everyone else on your list, Dan, but who is this?
> The only one I know is Shirley Clarke and that just doesn't sound
> like you? I don't remember you ever talking about her. You never
> seemed to have any interest in New York independent filmmaking of
> that era, even Cassavetes. Movies that had jazz soundtracks were
> never an enticement for you. You didn't seem impressed when I was
> interviewing her on my radio show along with Ornette Coleman in
> 1985, or even go to the documentary she made about Ornette when it
> showed as far as I know. I'm probably digressing from your list
> pretty far just writing this much but if by any chance it is her,
> I'd be interested to know more about it.
If you're going to make a List, you might as well have fun. Clarke
is a wonderful crazy choice. She did some great stuff (The Cool
World, The Connection, Portrait of Jason) although I don't think the
Ornette docu is very good. I have fond memories though and I
remember writing a longish obit piece on her for POSITIF. OT: I
remember seeing a stage production of The Connection in Paris when I
was very young. Later saw the movie.
JPC
24633
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:45am
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
> wrote:
> >
>
> >
> > > Clarke
> >
> > I think I know everyone else on your list, Dan, but who is
this?
> >
> If you're going to make a List, you might as well have fun. Clarke
> is a wonderful crazy choice. She did some great stuff (The Cool
> World, The Connection, Portrait of Jason) although I don't think
the
> Ornette docu is very good. I have fond memories though and I
> remember writing a longish obit piece on her for POSITIF. OT: I
> remember seeing a stage production of The Connection in Paris when
I
> was very young. Later saw the movie.
> JPC
"A wonderful crazy choice." I agree--I like her and the first two
of the movies you mentioned specifically. I think she had a real
place in American cinema. I enjoyed her as a person and that hour
long radio interview with her and Ornette is a fond memory for me.
Still, Dan hasn't said that's who he meant. And I never knew him to
just "have fun" when faced with all directors and narrowing it down
to 25. He approaches these things with mathematical precision, as
he'll be the first to acknowledge I'm sure.
Blake
24634
From: "Yoel Meranda"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:04am
Subject: Re: Plasticity (Was: Off with their heads!) ymeranda
Zach,
We really are talking about two different kinds of
"aesthetics" here
and I believe there is room for both of us being right because
we're
using the same words to talk about different things.
I have seen films from many of the filmmakers Bill mentioned in
response to my addition to "American Cinema" and as I wrote
to him,
I enjoyed those experiences too. Tim Burton, Martin Scorsese, Robert
Altman, Woody Allen (I will see his new film after Peter's
comments), George Lucas, Steven Soderbergh, James Cameron, Paul
Verhoeven all have their virtues either in terms of telling good
effective stories or in terms of creating challenging intellectual
or emotional experiences. And if you choose to define aesthetics so
broadly that it includes all human achievement ever accomplished by
artworks, I'm not going to argue that mine is right and yours is
wrong. I understand that this is a matter of different values people
have and how they prioritize them.
The way I use the word, "aesthetics" refers to a particular
kind of
human achievement that can only be accomplished by artworks and I
would say that its value does not falter a bit by the cultural
arguments you're making because it arises from the qualities of
the
nervous system that we all share.
I'll leave the floor to Brakhage for a few paragraphs from his
essay "In Consideration of Aesthetics" in his book
"Telling Time".
Please keep in mind that he is using the words "art"
and "aesthetics" in the way I do, so what he says does not
really
pose a challenge to your definition of aesthetics. He makes clear at
the end that all these are only rules for a particular kind of
aesthetics he is trying to analyze.
"The brain is light (wave/particle) in electric (synaptic)
movement:
the movement (electrical investments) are as infinite as the
possible neural connections, but its lightning-like activity is
specifically paced (by the ABCs of its waves and the outside limits
of its variable seizures) and thus Timed, finite!
Each brain's main job is reference (thus re-presentational) but
its
life unto itself is that of Timed light. Its electric moves react to
input: thus the senses impose wavery particulars upon the contained
free-play of illumination. Its physiology (and that of the whole
nervous system) composes, the very shapes of cells being something
of a fret pattern to contain this all-sensory storm of sparks, to
impose, for example, visual form.
Visual Forms, reinforced by the similarity of eye input (into
content), interplay with the prime cognition that "All that is is
light" (Suns Scotus Erigena). This interplay is the
balance/counter-
balance of any brain's genetic cultural individual
"dance" and this,
therefore, stance-dance would seem to be the only fully meaningful
(i.e., means-less-usage) entertainment available of cognition (as
distinct from re-cognition).
Film ought aesthetically to exist flickering electric and free of
photographic animation, free of the mechanical trickery of, the
outright fakery of the illusion of movie pictures. All interferences
with The Light (all shaped tones and formal silhouettes) ought to be
an illumination of source-as-light (or at least subservient, as
symbol, say, representatives of Time, to Light's life…as is,
to be
sure, the almost equal space of Black in the projection of every
split second of lighted frame). The light, then, would be seen to
move because of the light-signifying shapes and tones in their
signatory continuities (especially if these were tones in visual
chromatic harmony, and shapes in evolutionary form at one with
illumination). This anyway, is the aspiration of artists whose Art
aspires to Music, and "Art is art-as-art. And every thing else is
everything else" (Barnett Newman, painter, sculptor)."
As I understand it, you do agree with Brakhage that the effect he
talks about IS possible and that some films really do work in this
way. The rest is a matter of what you value in life and I'll try
to
defend why I value Brakhage's "aesthetics" over yours.
At any given moment, the brain is in the process of taking new
abstract information and categorizing it in ways that would "make
sense" to us. When we see a woman's navel, we categorize it
using
our memories of related perceptual experiences, which were also
partly abstract. It is not like we have a part of our brain that
works abstractly and a part of it that is not: they are intertwined
and IMPOSSIBLE to separate. Abstract and representational are one
and the same, because we do not have an "ideal concept" of a
woman's
navel but only an idea of it intrinsically linked to the sum of
abstract/representational memories we have.
What great artworks can do is to challenge the way we process the
abstract information and how they are categorized. It is as if the
relationships between abstract and representational are reshuffled
and that changes the way we experience anything at any given moment
because the way we make "sense" of the world is fundamentally
related to this. The reshuffling also makes a small but essential
effect on our thinking because thinking requires categories while
artworks can blur the lines between different concepts, by
establishing new relationships between abstract form and content.
The interesting part is that this whole "reshuffling" also
gives a
huge amount of biological pleasure and the viewer feels like he/she
is being taken out of himself/herself in a specific way that is not
possible for other experiences to achieve. When I realized that
films could create such experiences (although I didn't know what
was
happening at first), I began to actively seek those, as opposed to
others. I'm not saying that films that don't work abstractly
cannot
offer profound discoveries, because they do. I only claim that there
is more to us than our cultural heritage and that some artworks
offer possibilities that are based on the way our nervous system
works.
My addition to Brakhage would be that when "that" happens,
the
narrative and the conceptual content or whatever else there is that
is "interesting" also become meaningful in a different way.
How we
look at stories, or human interactions, or concepts is also changed
by each film.
Whether different civilizations in history defined art differently
or whether they had a word for "art" at all does not matter
here as
long as the particular artworks have the ability to affect us in the
way I tried to describe. If I understand you correctly, you do not
deny that those experiences exist. You only claim that they are not
more valuable than others and this is where we disagree.
Yoel
24635
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:12am
Subject: Re: Re: Top 25 directors cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> If you're going to make a List, you might as well
> have fun. Clarke
> is a wonderful crazy choice. She did some great
> stuff (The Cool
> World, The Connection, Portrait of Jason) although I
> don't think the
> Ornette docu is very good. I have fond memories
> though and I
> remember writing a longish obit piece on her for
> POSITIF. OT: I
> remember seeing a stage production of The Connection
> in Paris when I
> was very young. Later saw the movie.
She was also a teriffic person. I worked on the
publicity for "Portrait of jason" and have arm
memories of hanging with her. She had the penthouse at
the Chelsea.
She appears as herself in Varda's "Lions Love" and it
captures what she was like quite accurately. Wish the
damned film was available!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24636
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:16am
Subject: Re: Re: Top 25 directors sallitt1
> Still, Dan hasn't said that's who he meant. And I never knew him to
> just "have fun" when faced with all directors and narrowing it down
> to 25. He approaches these things with mathematical precision, as
> he'll be the first to acknowledge I'm sure.
Blake knows me too well.... I'm trying not to be such a list-makin' fool
these days, but you can't keep a bad gene down.
The Clarke in question is Alan Clarke, Blake - he's a British TV director
who peaked really hard in the 80s, and then died. Check him out - you can
find THE FIRM and ELEPHANT on DVD, and RITA SUE AND BOB TOO might still be
available on VHS somewhere.
> The only one I know is Shirley Clarke and that just doesn't sound
> like you? I don't remember you ever talking about her.
I really haven't seen enough Shirley Clarke to have an opinion. I keep
meaning to catch up with her.
> At one time the name "Mann" would have been on your list (and of course
> I'm sorry this is no longer true).
Anthony Mann would show up if I made a 35 or 40-best directors list.
It's true he's dropped a little for me over the years, but I still love
him.
Anyway, I thought you'd enjoy seeing Naruse in my top ten. - Dan
24637
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:07am
Subject: Re: Against interpretation (?) cinebklyn
JPC writes:
> 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).
For me, the interpretating frenzy that a movie
triggers can heighten my anticipation if I have
not seen it. It gives me the hope that I might be
encountering a work of art that is substantial.
If a film has caused an interpreting frenzy within
me, then there is the pleasure of dealing with a
movie that excites me intellectually, emotionally,
spiritually, etc.
> Critics love discussing his films because they can
wallow in interpretation instead of analyzing style.
But isn't analyzing style and and engaging in
interpretation intertwined for many people?
For me analyzing style only opens a small window
on a film. It is like identifying ingredients in a
dish: in addition to identifying them, the question is
how they come together in your mouth -- is the result
savory, foul or tasteless?
In a film, the question for me is how do the various
elements of style come together when I experience
them? What cinematic, aethetic, spritual, political,
emotional taste do they create for me?
Brian
24638
From: Peter Henne
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:21am
Subject: Re: Re: THE SHINING explained (!) peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
Wendy has had adult life experience that Danny hasn't. She is basically naive as adults go, but to construct her as a "child woman" is to slide into an impossible Victorian myth of married women. Think about what Wendy must have gone through as wife, and Danny as child. Married to an alcoholic just doesn't equate to being the young child of one.
Peter Henne
Craig Keller wrote:
to
Wendy (or to Danny, although the level of maturation between the two is
roughly equivalent)
craig.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
24639
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:30am
Subject: re: Standing up for Woo apmartin90
I want to stand up for John Woo. I would also stand up for Nicole Brenez if
she needed it - but since she is one of the most brilliant film-thinkers on
the planet today, I think she can survive the slur of being called a "motor
mouth". (What hell would erupt on this list, I wonder, if, for example, Tag
Gallagher - or even Serge Daney! - was idly called a "motor mouth"?)
Woo is a major figure of '80s and '90s cinema - a major stylist, with all
the force that can come with a style fully achieved and delivered. It's
partly that force which is behind Nicole's description of one of his key
films as "our Potemkin" - and you may not agree with that description, but
at least try to understand it before you dismiss it. I am not a huge
defender of his American period (despite some great scenes and ideas here
and there), but his reputation solidly rests on the BETTER TOMORROW films,
THE KILLER and (especially for me) HARD BOILED. I rate HARD BOILED as a more
significant film of the '90s than GOODFELLAS. I disagree with David that Woo
can be boiled down to a poor imitation of Melville (or Leone or Kurosawa or
Chang Cheh or whomever).
Woo's film style is absolutely dazzling, a coherent whole. It's the way he
integrated slow motion, montage, gesture, sound deisgn and narrative which
is special to him - and the way he really energised the HK tradition of
genre-mixing (Chow Yun-fat with that baby pissing down his leg in the middle
of gunfire mayhem in HARD BOILED is an absolutely primal screen image for me
- what American action movie, even a good one by Michael Mann, ever had
anything as bold, as surreal, as funny as this?).
Those on the list unfamiliar with back issues of POSITIF may not know that
Nicole Brenez herself - who edited an extraordinary special journal issue of
ADMIRANDA on contemporary action cinema back in 1996 - also put together a
collectively-written 'lexicon' called WOO's WORDS which appeared in a 1998
issue of POSITIF. English-writing contributors to it included me and Kent
Jones. An English form of the original, longer 'uncut' version will be
appearing in a HK dossier in a future ROUGE.
I feel that many film critics around the world have lost touch with a
certain excitement about action cinema - as sometimes an almost experimental
form - that circulated like a buzz in the mid to late '90s. That's a crying
shame, in my opinion. No wonder we read so little about talented filmmakers
like Johnny To on A FILM BY!
motor-mouth Adrian
24640
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:16am
Subject: The Lodger (was Re: Note on a minor Fregonese) tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
"Laird Creagar is an axiom of the cinema. 'Hangover Square' is indeed
the one to see -- a film by Laird Cregar and Bernard Herrmann."
Second that. THE LODGER pales by comparison, but Brahm had something
to do with HANGOVER SQUARE worthwhile. Wasn't it Cregar's last
film? I though he was great in HEAVEN CAN WAIT too.
Richard
24641
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:18am
Subject: Re: Standing up for Woo hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
No wonder we read so little about talented filmmakers
> like Johnny To on A FILM BY!
>
> motor-mouth Adrian
I watched my first Johnny To film because of praise I read for it on
a_film_by: Throwdown. There's a great scene in the middle, when there
are 3 conversations going on and then a slo-mo fight erupts, but
there's not enough on either side of it to make the movie memorable.
I duped it, then erased it. If he has made one that is as good
throughout as that three-way scene, I'd love to see it.
I guess I should at least offer an alternative to these HK filmmakers
I don't find great, and that would be Kirk Wong. (Fruit Chan is doing
something altogether diferent.) Different strokes for different
folks, time will tell, etc.
I'm sorry I said that about Nicole Brenez. That was very rude. I
can't wait to see her Ferrara book, after hearing your description of
it.
24642
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:32am
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Anyway, I thought you'd enjoy seeing Naruse in my top ten. - Dan
Of course I did enjoy seeing that. Mikio is seventh on my own list
these days. Most interested in clarifying the identity of "Clarke"
I was also tempted to make a few observations and queries about some
of your other choices and the corresponding absences. I will try to
do so tomorrow if you encourage me.
In any event, when JPC suggested one might as well have fun with
these lists I was sorely tempted to write "How much fun can one have
with Maurice Pialat and Catherine Breillat?" Just a joke--but you
know what I mean...
24643
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:37am
Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Shut matt_c_armst...
> 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.
Of course we already alluded to this but the way that all sex in EWS
is overshadowed by death is what makes Kubrick's film similar
to "After Hours."
There are other formal and narrative similarities. Both films
feature yuppie male protagonists navigating an infernal NYC in the
wee hours. The trouble begins in both movies when the main
characters smoke pot. Both protagonists come very close to bedding a
succession of blondes, but find their paths frustrated and the
scepter of death everywhere. Both characters find their gay panic
buttons pushed. The S&M club in "After Hours" functions in much the
same way that the orgy set piece does in EWS. Both characters find
themselves responsible for the death of a woman they had planned on
having sex with. Both are pursued by people intent on harming them.
And finally Paul's encasement in the plaster statue parallels
Cruise's mask in EWS. These are just some of the details that occur
to me, having not seen either movie in quite some time.
24644
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01am
Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Shut hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:
>
These are just some of the details that occur
> to me, having not seen either movie in quite some time.
"That's a good, clear report -"
24645
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01am
Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Shut hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:
>
These are just some of the details that occur
> to me, having not seen either movie in quite some time.
"That's a good, clear report -"
24646
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:01am
Subject: Re: Eyes Wide Shut hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:
>
These are just some of the details that occur
> to me, having not seen either movie in quite some time.
"That's a good, clear report -"
24647
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:05am
Subject: Hangover Square hotlove666
I just watched it. Boy, that really is a lot better than The Lodger!
The comparison that springs to mind: Hangover Square is to The Lodger
as Horror of Dracula (aka Dracula in the UK) is to Curse of
Frankenstein. The first was sort of a dry run; the second, with a
harmonious team alredy assembled and a better budget thanks to the
success of the first, was a small masterpiece.
24648
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:25am
Subject: Re: Re: Top 25 directors sallitt1
> I was also tempted to make a few observations and queries about some
> of your other choices and the corresponding absences. I will try to
> do so tomorrow if you encourage me.
Go for it.
> In any event, when JPC suggested one might as well have fun with
> these lists I was sorely tempted to write "How much fun can one have
> with Maurice Pialat and Catherine Breillat?" Just a joke--but you
> know what I mean...
Well, how much fun can you have with Naruse? - Dan
24649
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:30am
Subject: Re: Hangover Square sallitt1
> I just watched it. Boy, that really is a lot better than The Lodger!
Yeah, HANGOVER SQUARE is the only one I've seen that really jumps out.
THE LOCKET has the nerve to layer flashbacks four deep, but it doesn't
seem as intense on a moment-by-moment basis. - Dan
24650
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 0:44pm
Subject: Re: Standing up for Woo rashomon82
Bill:
> If he has made one that is as good
> throughout as that three-way scene, I'd love to see it.
I really liked THE MISSION. To co-directed FULLTIME KILLER too,
didn't he? That one was OK. My favorite HK action filmmaker is
Tsui Hark, though I admit it's been a while since I've seen any of
his films. (In fact seeing THE KILLER recently has gotten me revved
up to take another dive into these works.)
--Zach
24651
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:55pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors michaelkerpan
Group 1 (in order)
Yasujiro OZU
Mikio NARUSE
Luis Buñuel
Group two (alphabetical)
Grigori Kozintsev
Jacques Rivette
Orson Welles
Group three (random -- and highly unstable selection)
Shohei IMAMURA
F.W. Murnau
Ernst Lubitsch
HOU Hsiao Hsien
Abbas Kiarostami
Hiroshi SHIMIZU
Sadao YAMANAKA
Kenji MIZOGUCHI
ZHANG Yimou
Takeshi KITANO
Isao TAKAHATA
Frederic Back
Yuri Norstein
Hirokazu KORE'EDA
Akira KUROSAWA
Werner Herzog
Norman Z. McLeod
Howard Hawks
HONG Sang-soo
Jean-Luc Godard
Non-directorial auteurs
Harold Lloyd
W.C. Fields
Keeping an eye on (too young – or not enough films seen):
Ann HUI
BONG Joon-ho
JEONG Jae-eun
HUR Jin-ho
LEE Chang-dong
PARK Kwang-su
JIA Zhangke
Naomi KAWASE
ZHANG Yuan
Johnny TO
Stanley KWAN
KIM Ji-woon
Masahiro SHINODA
Alain Tanner
24652
From: "cairnsdavid1967"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 2:59pm
Subject: Re: Hangover Square cairnsdavid1967
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > I just watched it. Boy, that really is a lot better than The
Lodger!
>
> Yeah, HANGOVER SQUARE is the only one I've seen that really jumps
out.
> THE LOCKET has the nerve to layer flashbacks four deep, but it
doesn't
> seem as intense on a moment-by-moment basis.
LOCKET is the one that made me appreciate Brahm's mind - it seems a
smart, if crazy, show. HANGOVER SQUARE on the other hand is an
entertaining travesty of a great book. Brahm, in defending the
changes made to the script, revealed that he hadn't actually read the
novel, which made me dismiss him for a while as having a great eye
but with nothing behind it.
Cregar loved the book, thought the movie would make a star of him,
and went on suspension rather than do the script they came up with.
The film's poor reception helped kill him.
The other great Cregar I've seen is I WAKE UP SCREAMING, where he's
extremely memorable as an obsessed detective modelled on Cornell
Woolrich.
24653
From: "Fred Patton"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 3:51pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors fred_patton
re: #24651 - "Re: Top 25 directors", Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Did Wong Kar-wai, Tsai Ming-liang and Shunji Iwai all oversleep and
miss roll call? More so in Wong's case, based on other inclusions.
This list gives me a handful of leads: Grigori Kozintsev, Hiroshi
SHIMIZU, Sadao YAMANAKA, Isao TAKAHATA, Frederic Back, and Yuri
Norstein. I've had Kawase's "Shara" sitting conspicuously in my
unwatched pile for too long.
I'm not one for generating lists, yet I have to nerve to ask that
even if they aren't annotated, that they at least have some three or
four sentences to frame them on a more individuated basis. I have
quite a lot of nerve; perhaps I will reply to this post and flame it.
Fred Patton
24654
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:15pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors thebradstevens
Okay, here's my list, in no particular order:
Abel Ferrara
Monte Hellman
Michael Cimino
Sam Peckinpah
Elaine May
Nicholas Ray
Vincente Minnelli
John Cassavetes
Orson Welles
Alfred Hitchcock
Howard Hawks
John Ford
Yasujiro Ozu
Kenji Mizoguchi
Hou Hsiao-Hsien
Tsai Ming-Liang
Jean Renoir
Robert Bresson
Jacques Rivette
Carl Dreyer
Luis Bunuel
Theodoros Angelopoulos
Michelangelo Antonioni
Marco Ferreri
Satyajit Ray
24655
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:23pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Patton" wrote:
There wasn't a precedent for comments on the initial list. ;~}
> Did Wong Kar-wai, Tsai Ming-liang and Shunji Iwai all oversleep and
> miss roll call? More so in Wong's case, based on other inclusions.
Tsai I dislike intensely. There's just something about the rhythm of
his work (and -- less importantly -- content) that aggravates me.
I don't dislike the Wong I've seen -- but neither did his work send me
out looking desperately for more.
Iwai's films never sounded interesting enough to pay money for. Too
pop-ish.
> This list gives me a handful of leads: Grigori Kozintsev, Hiroshi
> SHIMIZU, Sadao YAMANAKA, Isao TAKAHATA, Frederic Back, and Yuri
> Norstein. I've had Kawase's "Shara" sitting conspicuously in my
> unwatched pile for too long.
Kozintsev's "Lear" and "Hamlet" are (and long have been) two of my
favorite films. "Don Quixote" is wonderful (and I'm hoping Ruscico
will finally deliver its long-promised, long-delayed restored
widescreen DVD of this sometime thius year). K's collaborations with
Trauberg -- "New Babylon", "Odna" and "Maxim" are pretty fascinating too.
Shimizu is a new discovery. All seven or so of the films I've seen
have been fascinating. He has a uniquely light hand with his
narration -- even when his stories are tragic. "Arigato-san",
"Ornamental Hair Pin", "Girls at the Harbor" and "Notes of an
Itinerant Performer" are all masterpieces on the level of Ozu's,
Naruse and Mizoguchi's contemporary work.
I've seen all three of Yamanaka's surviving films -- and love all
three. "Humanity and Paper Balloons" will be avaialble subbed soon --
from Eureka/Masters of Cinema. One of the most important DVD releases
of the year -- in my book.
Takahata is my favorite director of animated features. While I love
his Ghibli colleagues work -- it does not impress (or move) me as much
as Takahata's. "Only Yesterday" (the story of a 20-something "office
lady" on a working farm vacation) is my favorite. "Grave of the
Firefliues" is one of the most powerful films ever about the impact of
war on children. His less well-known "Our Neighbors the Yamadas" and
"Goshu the Cellist" are also both superb.
Frederick Back's complete animated works are available on DVD from
Canada (thank you, CBD and www.archambault.ca). My vote for the ,most
visually beautifuyl animation ever -- especially may favorites "Crac!"
and "Grande Fleuve".
Norstein's tiny body of complete works is also available on DVD. I
like "Hedgehog in the Mist" even better than the more acclaimed "Tale
of Tales".
I like Kawase's "Shara" more than Kore'eda's "Nobody Knows".
Curiously, this has some of the "lightness" I love so much in Shimizu.
Her earlier "Suzaku" is also wonderful. Not a film maker, though,
for anyone who wants "action" in their movies.
> I'm not one for generating lists, yet I have to nerve to ask that
> even if they aren't annotated, that they at least have some three or
> four sentences to frame them on a more individuated basis. I have
> quite a lot of nerve; perhaps I will reply to this post and flame it.
Additional details available on application at the front desk. ;~}
MEK
24656
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 4:27pm
Subject: Re: Plasticity (Was: Off with their heads!) samfilms2003
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Yoel Meranda" wrote:
> Film ought aesthetically to exist flickering electric and free of
> photographic animation, free of the mechanical trickery of, the
> outright fakery of the illusion of movie pictures. All interferences
> with The Light (all shaped tones and formal silhouettes) ought to be
> an illumination of source-as-light (or at least subservient, as
> symbol, say, representatives of Time, to Light's life…as is,
> to be
> sure, the almost equal space of Black in the projection of every
> split second of lighted frame). The light, then, would be seen to
> move because of the light-signifying shapes and tones in their
> signatory continuities (especially if these were tones in visual
> chromatic harmony, and shapes in evolutionary form at one with
> illumination).
Sorry to back quote so much.
This would almost seem to suggest a say 75+ MHz electronic display of
~ 40 or more fps would be closer to "Film ought" than Stan's beloved
24 fps celluloid.
But, saccadic eye movement kinda *is* an evolutionary trick. Good one too:
frogs can't catch dead flies.
At the end of the Day, SB is more romantic than scientist. Pace Sitney.
-Sam
24657
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:05pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors jpcoursodon
>
> > In any event, when JPC suggested one might as well have fun with
> > these lists I was sorely tempted to write "How much fun can one
have
> > with Maurice Pialat and Catherine Breillat?" Just a joke--but
you
> > know what I mean...
>
> Well, how much fun can you have with Naruse? - Dan
Well, pialat and Breillat are fun in their own twisted way --
especially if you expand the notion of "fun" at bit. JPC
24658
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:19pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Well, how much fun can you have with Naruse?
Lots.
His work is hardly so dour and pessimistic as cinematic urban folklore
would have it. Of the 19 films I've seen, most had a significant
degree of humor -- and few were "hopeless".
24659
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:36pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
"Keeping an eye on (too young – or not enough films seen):
...
"Masahiro SHINODA"
Shinoda retired from filmmaking in 2003 with his last film SPY SORGE,
a 3 hour epic about the Ozaki-Sorge spy ring. It was a commercial
and critical hit in Japan as was his previous film FUKURO NO
SHIRO/OWL'S CASTLE which does for the ninja genre what KAWAITA
HANA/PALE FLOWER did for the yakuza eiga.
Shinoda is worth investigating. His fantasy films (HIMIKO, SAKURA NO
MORI/UNDER THE CHERRY BLOSSOMS, YASHA GA IKE/DEMON POND) are hard to
take for most western audiences but they're of great interest. I hope
that you're able to see samples of his films from different periods
of his career since he was very prolific though at present that's
going to be difficult.
Of his recent movies SPY SORGE and FUKURO NO SHIRO are available on
Japanese DVD with sub-titles. Pictures from the '80s are SETOUCHI
SHONEN YAKU DAN/MACARTHUR'S CHILREN and YARI NO GONZA/GONZA THE
SPEARMAN on sub-titled laser disc, and from the '60s SHINJU TEN NO
AMIJIMA/DOUBLE SUICIDE and KWAITA HANA/PALE FLOWER on sub-titled DVD.
As you can see, there big gaps. Now that he's retired maybe someone
will mount a retrospective.
Another outstnding Japanese filmmaker I'll recommend is Haneda
Sumiko. I think she's Japan's greatest woman director. She's been
making pictures since the 1950s, all documentaries, though I've only
seen her films dating form the 1970s onward. The 1976 USUZUMI NO
SAKURA/THE GRAY BLOSSOMED CHERRY TREE is one of the best Japanese
films of that decade. The most recent film of her's that I've seen
is ONNATACHI NO SOGEN/PROOF OF WOMEN (1996)about women who pioneered
the post-war labor movement.
The great irony is that Koreeda Hiroyuki, much influenced by
Haneda's documentaries in his own documentaries, is well known
outside of Japan while Haneda remains completely unknown. In fact,
I'd put Haneda Sumiko on my list of top 25 filmmakers.
Richard
24660
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:47pm
Subject: Re: Hangover Square hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
HANGOVER SQUARE on the other hand is an
> entertaining travesty of a great book. Brahm, in defending the
> changes made to the script, revealed that he hadn't actually read
the
> novel, which made me dismiss him for a while as having a great eye
> but with nothing behind it.
>
> Cregar loved the book, thought the movie would make a star of him,
> and went on suspension rather than do the script they came up with.
What were the changes?
> The film's poor reception helped kill him.
He was obviously a sensitive actor - delicacy, sensitivity and
hulking form. Vincent Price was Fox's replacement after killing him,
I guess. Cregar is very memorable in Hangover Square.
>
> The other great Cregar I've seen is I WAKE UP SCREAMING, where he's
> extremely memorable as an obsessed detective modelled on Cornell
> Woolrich.
I bet!
24661
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:48pm
Subject: Masahiro Shinoda (was: Top 25 directors) michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> "Masahiro SHINODA"
>
> Shinoda retired from filmmaking in 2003 with his last film SPY SORGE,
> a 3 hour epic about the Ozaki-Sorge spy ring. It was a commercial
> and critical hit in Japan as was his previous film FUKURO NO
> SHIRO/OWL'S CASTLE which does for the ninja genre what KAWAITA
> HANA/PALE FLOWER did for the yakuza eiga.
Shinoda is the greatest film maker I have ever met in person (and even
exchanged bows with). ;~}
I've only seen "Double Suicide" and "Pale Flower" -- and found them
both wonderful.
> Shinoda is worth investigating. His fantasy films (HIMIKO, SAKURA NO
> MORI/UNDER THE CHERRY BLOSSOMS, YASHA GA IKE/DEMON POND) are hard to
> take for most western audiences but they're of great interest. I hope
> that you're able to see samples of his films from different periods
> of his career since he was very prolific though at present that's
> going to be difficult.
According to CD Japan, a Shinoda feast is about to be served up...
Kaseki no mori / The Petrified Forest (English Subtitles)
Release: 2005/05/27
Sakura no mori no mankai no shita / Under the Blossoming Cherry Trees
(English Subtitles)
Release: 2005/05/27
Hanre Goze Orin / Ballad of Orin (English Subtites)
Release: 2005/05/27
Shonen jidai / Takeshi: Childhood Days (English Subtitles)
Release: 2005/04/28
Shokei no shima / Captive's Island (English Subtitles)
Release: 2005/04/28
Chinmoku / Silence (English Subtitles)
> Another outstnding Japanese filmmaker I'll recommend is Haneda
> Sumiko. I think she's Japan's greatest woman director. She's been
> making pictures since the 1950s, all documentaries, though I've only
> seen her films dating form the 1970s onward. The 1976 USUZUMI NO
> SAKURA/THE GRAY BLOSSOMED CHERRY TREE is one of the best Japanese
> films of that decade. The most recent film of her's that I've seen
> is ONNATACHI NO SOGEN/PROOF OF WOMEN (1996)about women who pioneered
> the post-war labor movement.
I'm assuming none of Haneda's work is readily available.
> The great irony is that Koreeda Hiroyuki, much influenced by
> Haneda's documentaries in his own documentaries, is well known
> outside of Japan while Haneda remains completely unknown. In fact,
> I'd put Haneda Sumiko on my list of top 25 filmmakers.
Of course, Hirokazu Kore'eda's documentaries aren't available. (And
when they were shown here in Boston -- one time only -- I was sick).
24662
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sarris, Roud & Experimental Film (was: The NEW American Cinema) sallitt1
> I don't think so, Brian, because an understanding of cinema's formal,
> aesthetic qualities negates the categories of "avant-garde" and
> "non-avant-garde" (mainstream, narrative, whatever).
I floated an idea in post #19413, proposing that the mind may work
differently to assimilate narrative and non-narrative films. Fred
disagreed in post #19428. My idea is only a hypothesis - but I would like
to establish this as a two-sided issue, rather than a disagreement between
those who understand cinema form and those who don't. - Dan
24663
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 5:54pm
Subject: Ferrara (Was: Lee J. Cobb in PARTY GIRL) sallitt1
> Blake, why don't you try the last one, R-'XMAS? Or CHINA GIRL? NEW
> ROSE is my favorite, but it might be too - excuse the expression -
> avant-garde for you to tackle first.
I think CHINA GIRL is a great introduction, because it has some of the
qualities of a good 50s genre film transformed by style. - Dan
24664
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:08pm
Subject: Re: Interpretation/CINEMA 09 hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> But you seem to be on a first-name basis with most of those people.
> Can't they put you on their mailing list?
I am, but my friendship with Bernard was sabotaged a while back by a
Machiavel. I saw him again in November and we made up to the extent
of my proposing to send him my essay on The Making of The Naked Dawn.
Bernard - after poopooing the idea and then thinking it over for a
minute - finally graciously told me to send it on. He recently
supplied "Eating Sea Urchins" frames for my Bunuel book. Maybe if he
likes "Ulmer at Work" we'll have officially made up and he'll put me
on the list. If he refuses it, we'll be enemies for life.
I really love that magazine, but so far I've had to content myself
with stealing a friend's copies. Who is financing it, and what'si t's
relation to the old Cienmatheque magazine? It's very lavish, and with
the DVDs included in each issue now, I'd think it'd be quite a pricey
production.
So if I have understood you, JP, I have to submit my article, have it
accepted, get of the s--- list and request a back issue to find out
why the space men waited 7 years to put in another appearance after
OW's War of the Worlds? According to Buckaroo Banzai, they never went
away...
24665
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:17pm
Subject: Clarke (Was: Top 25 directors) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> She was also a teriffic person. I worked on the
> publicity for "Portrait of jason" and have arm
> memories of hanging with her. She had the penthouse at
> the Chelsea.
A very good woman. She was in residence up the hill at UCLA when I
got to know her. I maintain that there is no Shirley Clarke film that
doesn't manifest brilliance somewhere, and none except Scarey Time,
Jason and Cool World that isn't screwed up somewhere - usually by
Shirley's insistence on doing justice to some ideology or other. That
was her generosity of spirit.
>
> She appears as herself in Varda's "Lions Love" and it
> captures what she was like quite accurately. Wish the
> damned film was available!
I hear there's a DVD in the works. Don't ask me where.
24666
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:19pm
Subject: Re: Against interpretation (?) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Charles Dauth"
wrote:
> In a film, the question for me is how do the various
> elements of style come together when I experience
> them? What cinematic, aethetic, spritual, political,
> emotional taste do they create for me?
>
One could argue that what we "consume" in a film is meanings. I don't
think anyone is just responding to the "retinal circus."
24667
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: Hangover Square cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> He was obviously a sensitive actor - delicacy,
> sensitivity and
> hulking form.
A lighter version of the equally hulking Raymond Burr.
And quite like Burr offscreen as well.
Vincent Price was Fox's replacement
> after killing him,
> I guess.
And quite like Uncle Vinnie too!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
24668
From: "Fred Patton"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:22pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors fred_patton
Most informative, thank you, and great news about the MoC release.
I'm already waiting for NAKED ISLAND. I am especially keen to see
some Grigori Kozintsev, Hiroshi SHIMIZU, and Sadao YAMANAKA, though
it will probably have to be on DVD.
Iwai does require a bit of a sweet-tooth (sentimentality), though
ALL ABOUT LILY CHOU CHOU is certainly an exception. It's a visually
striking tour through an elliptical narrative. Pop culture is
certainly a central element of Iwai's work, which makes sense, since
as with Kiarostami he started out with educational programs. I've
enjoyed the good bit of Iwai I've come across, including some TV
work. ALL ABOUT LILY CHOU CHOU and LOVE LETTER stand as my
favorites. And no, I'm not recommending you try these, and it could
very well be popish. Iwai is at least a guilty pleasure, though
certainly no room on a top 25 list. Haven't seen HANA AND ALICE yet.
I understand easily enough the distaste for Tsai. Like Kim Ki-duk
and Yonfan, he is rather polarizing. The HOLE remains my favorite so
far. With Michelangelo Antonioni leading my A team, I found a good
starting point for Tsai. I'm sure you hated VIVE L'AMOUR. Yonfan, I
caught for the first time this weekend, on DVD, with COLOUR
BLOSSOMS. Dazzling color, and the most oblique camera angles and
pans I recall anywhere, unless maybe Michael Snow. It was an
interesting introduction, and taking momentary stock of it, I say it
wasn't visual soup, but some other broth. I've not watched Kim's 3-
Iron yet, but I will say BIRDCAGE INN is my favorite, with Kim on
his best behavior, excepting SPRING, SUMMER, FALL, WINTER... AND
SPRING. I've been divided with regard to his work from the
beginning, but he remains one I like to keep tabs on.
Excluding Antonioni and Snow, my interest in Hong and Hou and some
others on your list eclipse these others I've mentioned in passing,
even though I don't like Hong's subject matter. I'm the only one I
know who favors THE POWER OF KANGWON PROVINCE over the rest, which I
find is overlooked or underestimated. It's a foundation work for
him, even if not his best.
While I am on an Asian cinema angle, my favorite recent discovery is
Apichatpong Weerasethakul's BLISSFULLY YOURS. It's been said to have
no story, which is naive propaganda at best. It resounds on both an
individual level and the political--globalization, illegal
immigration, for a start--but in all cases, it does so obliquely.
Weerasethakul's approach is entirely fresh.
Fred Patton
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
> Additional details available on application at the front desk. ;~}
>
> MEK
24669
From: "Brian Dauth"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:29pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors (Annotated) cinebklyn
I have always liked Isaiah Berlin's distinction between the hedgehog
and the fox.
As I compiled my list, I noticed that I prefered "fox" directors to
ones whom I thought of as "hedgehogs."
What is a "fox" director?
For me, it is a director who has worked in different genres and who
was able to adapt his style to different needs. For example, Mitchell
Leisen made a great sophisticated comedy (Midnight), "women's
picture" (To Each His Own) and film noir (No Man of Her Own). Each
is definitely a Leisen film, while at the same time a fine
representative of its genre.
I also have a preference for directors who create strong, interesting
roles for women.
The top of my top 25 would be:
Rainer Werner Fassbinder -- challenged notions about gender, sex,
politics and still made fabulous movies
Shohei Imamura -- 4 distinct phases -- each a rebirth and deepening
of his art
Chuck Jones -- matched verbal wit with visual wit making 6 minute
(and longer) gems
Mitchell Leisen -- created depths of feeling without slipping (most
of the time) into decor cinema.
Joseph L. Mankiewicz -- first among equals with Imamura
Kenji Mizoguchi -- most Buddhist of directors -- with a generous
appreciation of human behavior and spirituality
The rest:
Robert Aldrich
Luis Bunuel
David Cronenberg
Jonathan Demme
Clint Eastwood
Milos Forman -- amazing ability to make films that commented on the
times during which they were made without necessitating that they be
contemporary films.
Bob Fosse
John Frankenheimer
Sam Fuller
Howard Hawks
Alfred Hitchcock
Buster Keaton
Akira Kurosawa
Sergio Leone -- A hedgehog among foxes, but I love his films
King Vidor
Charles Walters
James Whale
Billy Wilder
Frederick Wiseman
24670
From: "Henrik Sylow"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:48pm
Subject: Re: Against interpretation (?) henrik_sylow
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Charles Dauth"
> wrote:
>
> > In a film, the question for me is how do the various
> > elements of style come together when I experience
> > them? What cinematic, aethetic, spritual, political,
> > emotional taste do they create for me?
> >
> One could argue that what we "consume" in a film is meanings. I don't
> think anyone is just responding to the "retinal circus."
Meanings is a very good word, Bill.
One can approach a film in so many ways: Structual, deconstructive,
dialectic, story (here especially script intentions vs. scene
structure), story vs. cinematography, story vs. production,
directorial intentions vs. producer intensions, signefice vs.
signifiers, how point-of-view is supported by inserts, by
juxtapositions, total compositions and many many more.
But all in all, when viewing we approach the text based on an
assumption in order to comprehend what the directors (or the text) is
trying to tell us. We look for the meaning of the text, as Bill said.
Henrik
24671
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:58pm
Subject: Re: Against interpretation (?) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
We look for the meaning of the text
Henrik
Or, more viscerally, we consume the meanings produced by the text. I
think this is what Barthes was getting at in S/Z.
24672
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:15pm
Subject: Re: Hangover Square hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> >
> > He was obviously a sensitive actor - delicacy,
> > sensitivity and
> > hulking form.
>
> A lighter version of the equally hulking Raymond Burr.
>
> And quite like Burr offscreen as well.
>
> Vincent Price was Fox's replacement
> > after killing him,
> > I guess.
>
> And quite like Uncle Vinnie too!
David, are you suggesting that Cregar may have been.....gay?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
24673
From: BklynMagus
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:20pm
Subject: Re: Against interpretation (?) cinebklyn
hl666 writes:
> One could argue that what we "consume" in a film is
meanings. I don't think anyone is just responding to the
"retinal circus."
I like this idea.
We consume the meanings in the text judged by
our own tastes/perceptions.
As we grow and our tastes/perceptions change, so
does our "stomach" for the meanings of a particular
film.
Brian
Yahoo! Groups Links
24674
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:30pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Patton" wrote:
> Excluding Antonioni and Snow, my interest in Hong and Hou and some
> others on your list eclipse these others I've mentioned in passing,
> even though I don't like Hong's subject matter. I'm the only one I
> know who favors THE POWER OF KANGWON PROVINCE over the rest, which I
> find is overlooked or underestimated. It's a foundation work for
> him, even if not his best.
Hong is like Jane Austen -- but more explicit sex and less settled
endings.
My favorite Hong is "Virgin Stripped Bare" -- but I wouldn't even try
to argue that it it is ""the best" of his films. They all strike me
as wonderful -- and non-fungible. I rather think I need them all.
> While I am on an Asian cinema angle, my favorite recent discovery is
> Apichatpong Weerasethakul's BLISSFULLY YOURS.
I haven't really tried to tackle Thai films yet. I am running out of
time and money as it is. )One of these days, however...
I forgot to include Akihiko Shiota 0n my "need to watch out for" list.
Alas, only the least of his films to date (Moonlight Whispers) is
available subbed in the US. His "Gaichu" (Harmful Insect) is one of
my favorite recent films. And his "Don't Look Back" is also quite
good. "Yomigaeri" (Resurrection) is mainstream potboiler that Shiota
almost manages to make into something more. (Available subbed from HK).
24675
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 7:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Hangover Square cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> David, are you suggesting that Cregar may have
> been.....gay?
> >
A ringing "Well DUH!" is the only appropriate reply.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24676
From: "Fred Patton"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:03pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors fred_patton
As it happens, I've had a unsubbed copy of Gaichu lying around. I
even managed to find a subtitle script with English subs on the
Internet. Fortunately, there's some bootleg copy with English subs
heading my way, sparing me the tedium. Definitely a film I've been
looking forward to.
Fred Patton
P.S. I've got that HK Universe copy of Yomigaeri, another disc not
yet consumed.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
> I forgot to include Akihiko Shiota 0n my "need to watch out for"
list.
> Alas, only the least of his films to date (Moonlight Whispers) is
> available subbed in the US. His "Gaichu" (Harmful Insect) is one
of
> my favorite recent films. And his "Don't Look Back" is also quite
> good. "Yomigaeri" (Resurrection) is mainstream potboiler that
Shiota
> almost manages to make into something more. (Available subbed from
HK).
24677
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Top 25 directors blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Well, how much fun can you have with Naruse? - Dan
Hideko and that bus driver were having a lot of fun with that bus
tour they set up as Hideko the Bus Conductress came to an end...
Yes, I guess you made your point.
24678
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:24pm
Subject: Re: Masahiro Shinoda (was: Top 25 directors) tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
"According to CD Japan, a Shinoda feast is about to be served up..."
SHOKEI NO SHIMA is the best of that group, but see them all if you
can.
"I'm assuming none of Haneda's work is readily available."
Not for home viewing at the moment, but the Japan Foundation screened
a selection of her films here in Los Angeles in 1998. The Koreeda
documentary program was in LA too, but otherwise the documentaries
are unavailable as you noted.
I just remembered a contemporary of Shinoda, Yoshida Yoshishige
famous here for EROSU PURASU GYKUSATSU/EROS PLUS MASSACRE but who's
earlier films resembled Sirk (AKITSU ONSEN/AKITSU HOT SPRINGS(1962)
and JOEN/THE AFFAIR(1967)a kind of Sirk-Antonioni hybrid.) Several
of his films are available on DVD some sub-titled, most not. You can
add him to your "subjects for further research" category.
Richard
24679
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:25pm
Subject: Shiota (Was: Top 25 directors) sallitt1
> I forgot to include Akihiko Shiota 0n my "need to watch out for" list.
> Alas, only the least of his films to date (Moonlight Whispers) is
> available subbed in the US. His "Gaichu" (Harmful Insect) is one of
> my favorite recent films.
I'll second the endorsement for HARMFUL INSECT - I'm glad I kept trying
after MOONLIGHT WHISPERS (though that film isn't bad, just somewhat
unsatisfying). I found HARMFUL INSECT very difficult to follow, and had
to watch it a second time before I could piece it together enough to
appreciate it. - Dan
24680
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:30pm
Subject: Re: Hangover Square blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
> wrote:
> HANGOVER SQUARE on the other hand is an
> > entertaining travesty of a great book. Brahm, in defending the
> > changes made to the script, revealed that he hadn't actually
read
> the
> > novel, which made me dismiss him for a while as having a great
eye
> > but with nothing behind it.
> >
> > Cregar loved the book, thought the movie would make a star of
him,
> > and went on suspension rather than do the script they came up
with.
>
> What were the changes?
>
> > The film's poor reception helped kill him.
>
> He was obviously a sensitive actor - delicacy, sensitivity and
> hulking form. Vincent Price was Fox's replacement after killing
him,
> I guess. Cregar is very memorable in Hangover Square.
> >
> > The other great Cregar I've seen is I WAKE UP SCREAMING, where
he's
> > extremely memorable as an obsessed detective modelled on Cornell
> > Woolrich.
>
> I bet!
24681
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:30pm
Subject: Re: Hangover Square blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
> wrote:
> > The other great Cregar I've seen is I WAKE UP SCREAMING, where
he's
> > extremely memorable as an obsessed detective modelled on Cornell
> > Woolrich.
>
> I bet!
And yet, in the remake VICKI (Harry Horner; 1953), Richard Boone
gives a far more subtle interpretation to this same role.
Which doesn't take away from HANGOVER SQUARE--Cregar's best moment
and Brahm's too. Consider this one more vote for a memorable film
that holds up when you come back to it. Whenever I see another Brahm
I just wonder why he could never seem to quite come up to it. Has
anyone else mentioned the role that Bernard Herrmann's music (a
whole little piano concerto written by Credgar's composer character)
played here. It was definitely an essential element, as really
reflected who this character was.
24682
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:32pm
Subject: Re: Shiota (Was: Top 25 directors) michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I'll second the endorsement for HARMFUL INSECT - I'm glad I kept trying
> after MOONLIGHT WHISPERS (though that film isn't bad, just somewhat
> unsatisfying). I found HARMFUL INSECT very difficult to follow, and
had
> to watch it a second time before I could piece it together enough to
> appreciate it.
Did you see this subbed? The first time I watched it, I had to tackle
it without a (linguistic) net. By my second DVD viewing, I had found
a subtitling script, however. I don't think I missed too much the
first time though.
Luckily, there's not much dialog. ;~}
The ending of this is about as shattering as the ending of Mizoguchi's
"Street of Shame".
MEK
24683
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 8:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Shiota (Was: Top 25 directors) sallitt1
>> I'll second the endorsement for HARMFUL INSECT
>
> Did you see this subbed? The first time I watched it, I had to tackle
> it without a (linguistic) net. By my second DVD viewing, I had found
> a subtitling script, however. I don't think I missed too much the
> first time though.
I saw the subtitled print, and couldn't make heads or tails of it even
with the subtitles - I hate to think of what it would be like without
translation....
I know other people who didn't think the film was so hard to grok, so
maybe it just hit me on a bad day. But, even the second time, I had to
focus hard to pick things up. And there's one thing I never got: whose
house was firebombed near the end? - Dan
24684
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:00pm
Subject: Re: Shiota (Was: Top 25 directors) michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I saw the subtitled print, and couldn't make heads or tails of it even
> with the subtitles - I hate to think of what it would be like without
> translation....
The only thing I absolutely didn't catch was the fact that the girl
and her former teacher were talking at total cross-purposes in their
letters back and forth. (Since my Japanese reading ability is minimal).
> I know other people who didn't think the film was so hard to grok, so
> maybe it just hit me on a bad day. But, even the second time, I had to
> focus hard to pick things up. And there's one thing I never got: whose
> house was firebombed near the end?
S
P
O
I
L
E
R
Her best (and only) friend's house. Shiota (in interviews) claims the
action is ultimately inexplicable. My sense is that she (wrongly)
blamed her friend for her problem with her boyfriend (she blamed her
friend for telling him gossip, so they would break up). But this is
just a guess.
24685
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: Shiota (Was: Top 25 directors) sallitt1
>
>
> S
>
> P
>
> O
>
> I
>
> L
>
> E
>
> R
>
> Her best (and only) friend's house.
That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure.
> Shiota (in interviews) claims the action is ultimately inexplicable.
I'm okay with this concept.
But what about that pantry door in THE SHINING? - Dan
24686
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:21pm
Subject: Re: Shiota (Was: Top 25 directors) michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> But what about that pantry door in THE SHINING?
I pass.
Too many Kubrick experts here for an amateur like me to meddle with that.
;~}
Too bad Shiota's "Don't Look Back" is near invisible. An excellent
job of getting fine performances from grade school boys -- in a very
realistic feeling story (covering what would seem to be the last year
of grade school). I suspect there is a grand total of one subtitled
print (in the Japan foundation's library).
MEK
24687
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 9:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Hangover Square cellar47
--- Blake Lucas
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
Has
> anyone else mentioned the role that Bernard
> Herrmann's music (a
> whole little piano concerto written by Credgar's
> composer character)
> played here. It was definitely an essential
> element, as really
> reflected who this character was.
>
I believe I mentioned that Sondheim was overwhelmed by
it. In Meryle Secrest's bio: "He and Jimmy
[Hammerstein] went for the seven o'clock showing. Then
Jimmy went home and Sondheim stayed for the nine
o'clock so as to memorize the first six or eight bars
of the score, the pages of which are seen for a matter
of seconds. After playing the theme over and over
again, he wrote a fan letter care of Twentieth-Century
Fox. About three months later, 'I got a reply back
from Herrmann. It turned out he lived right around the
corner from where Ilived with my mother in New York.
In tiny handwriting he said how rare it was that
composers got fan letters.' He would never forget that
pieno concerto and gave it credit for influencing one
of his major works decades later."
That major work was, of course, "Sweeney Todd."
"Hangover Square" was a favorite of a film critic
whose name hasn't been mentioned here as yet -- Ken
Kelman.
Is Ken still around, Fred?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24688
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 10:03pm
Subject: Say What?! (Was Re: Eyes Wide Shut) peckinpah200...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> --- 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?
Perhaps "chipmunk guy" intended to play Raymond Burr's role as
Steve Martin in a remake?
Tony Williams
24689
From: MG4273@...
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:22pm
Subject: Wong Kar-wai (was: Plasticity) nzkpzq
"Days of Being Wild" (Wong Kar-wai, 1990) is just now getting a belated US
release. This is a good film, full of the plastic virtues whose absense this
thread has often lamented in contemporary films. Almost all the shots in this
film are well composed, with their visual patterns being rich in interest. The
film is a romantic melodrama, in a genre that resembles something like "Some
Came Running" (Minnelli) or Sirk's films. Pay no attention to marketers that
claim it is a film noir...
Don't think this is quite at the level of "Chung-king Express" of "In the
Mood for Love", my two favorites of Wong. But it is a good movie, and recommended
to all. Especially if it comes to a theater near you.
Mike Grost
24690
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:29pm
Subject: Re: Plasticity (Was: Off with their heads!) rashomon82
OK, Yoel, thanks for your thoughtful response. I think we're making
progress at least (and hopefully not boring the rest of the list
members too much).
When you write that Burton, Scorsese, Altman, Allen, Lucas,
Soderbergh, Cameron, and Verhoeven "all have their virtues" in
either storytelling or "creating challenging intellectual or
emotional experiences" I would more or less agree (although I don't
love any of those filmmakers myself; I do like some of them). But
telling effective stories isn't what I've ever tried to defend as
great art. And "creating challening intellectual or emotional
experiences" is such a broad idea that it can apply to any film or
filmmaker. (Although I do understand, Yoel, that what you're
arguing in favor of is something that is not
distinctly "intellectual" or "emotional.")
To repeat myself, I think that ultimately what is great in art is an
aesthetic (my "loose" definition) that manifests itself on any
number of planes (but no one "essential" plane) via intelligence,
insight, richness, sophistication, beauty, etc. Form is the key to
greatness, but form is a very complex, very broad thing indeed. I
don't think that anybody has to acknowledge and love my favorite
filmmakers--I just don't want some of them knocked as something less
than art, as "merely" interesting at best, simply because they don't
work richly on the exact same plane that one's own favorites do. To
denigrate most avant-garde film or classical Hollywood for any
number of reasons (out of dedication to social realism, for
instance) might be an entirely "feasible" and "logical" choice of
aesthetics on a viewer's part, too, but I would argue with that
position just as much.
Ultimately I am for (or: I TRY to be for) openness, for
multivalence. I love most of the filmmakers that you and Fred love,
for instance (excepting those whom I haven't yet seen). Bresson,
Rossellini, Dreyer, Ford, Sirk, Brakhage, Conner: giants, all of
them. But Pasolini, Buñuel, Ruiz, Cassavetes, Pialat, Ferrara,
Farocki, Burnett … none of these are simply about "telling good
stories" or "delivering emotional impact" or "offering
identification." The prospect of labelling and dismissing them such
is absurd, factually inaccurate … and since my view of art is
reactive, I surely consider them art. And if they aren't to be
considered "art," I don't know what else to call them (do you,
Yoel?) --but they are definitely, definitely, definitely worth
seeing, feeling, pondering, discussing … and I think they offer
experiences as deep and enriching as the experiences that Fred
writes about in his reviews (experiences which I have when I see
certain films, too).
Perhaps, Yoel, you would say that this is because I really do not
understand and thus have not *truly* experienced, say, THE
SEARCHERS. But I could just as easily say that you do not
understand and thus have not *truly* experienced, for example, À NOS
AMOURS (a film which you may or may not have seen; I don't know).
And we'd get ourselves nowhere. I think the best thing we can do is
to constantly keep a voice in the back of minds that tells us to be
ready to abandon any principle that might get in the way of our
appreciating great art--to let the art, and not the principles,
guide us. It's what I try my best to do.
--Zach
p.s. I had read this years ago and just revisited it recently; it
deserves to be mentioned here: Adrian's defense of Cassavetes on
formal terms - a landmark piece.
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/16/cassavetes_forms.html
24691
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 11:34pm
Subject: Re: Say What?! (Was Re: Eyes Wide Shut) cellar47
--- peckinpah20012000
wrote:
>
> Perhaps "chipmunk guy" intended to play Raymond
> Burr's role as
> Steve Martin in a remake?
>
I wouldn't mention a Big Ol' Gay Homosexual like
Raymond Burr, if I were you. A lawsuit-threatening
letter from Cruise's lawyers will surely follow.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
24692
From: MG4273@...
Date: Mon Mar 21, 2005 6:54pm
Subject: Re: Say What?! (Was Re: Eyes Wide Shut) nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-03-21 17:11:14 EST, Tony Williams writes:
<< > Did I miss something here? Is Godzilla gay? Why am I always the last one
to know about these things? >>
Actually Godzilla has the rights to Patrick White's novel, "The Twyborn
Affair". G and his long-time companion Mothra are hoping to make their serious
dramatic debuts. A prominent Belgian filmmaker has been approached to direct,
(they threatened to stamp out Bruges if he doesn't sign) but nothing has been
finalized.
Mike Grost
24693
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 22, 2005 0:24am
Subject: Re: Hangover Square hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> >
> > David, are you suggesting that Cregar may have
> > been.....gay?
> > >
>
> A ringing "Well DUH!" is the only appropriate reply.
>
Well, the AMC host who introduces my rather good off-the-air tape of
Hangover Square says that he was engaged when he went on the crash
diet and wanted to impress his sweetheart. So there!
Anyway, I came across his brief bio in an old film mag at Larry E's
this afternoon, completely by chance. I had forgoten that Zanuck
wanted him for Laura - it would've been a dead giveaway, of course.
Apparently it was an early form of bariatric surgery that killed him.
That high-angle shot of him climbing the Guy Fawkes bonfire with
Linda Darnell in his arms, his face turned up to the camera in a
terible trance, is one of the supreme moments ever.
Have any of his plays ever been performed?
24694
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 22, 2005 0:29am
Subject: Re: Masahiro Shinoda (was: Top 25 directors) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> I just remembered a contemporary of Shinoda, Yoshida Yoshishige
> famous here for EROSU PURASU GYKUSATSU/EROS PLUS MASSACRE but who's
> earlier films resembled Sirk (AKITSU ONSEN/AKITSU HOT SPRINGS(1962)
> and JOEN/THE AFFAIR(1967)a kind of Sirk-Antonioni hybrid.) Several
> of his films are available on DVD some sub-titled, most not. You
can
> add him to your "subjects for further research" category.
>
> Richard
Add him to your "one of the best Japanese directors ever" list on the
strength of long-ago viewings of Eros+Massacre and Coup d'Etat (at
MOMA). Where do I order those DVD's? He recently made a comeback film
after many years of inactivity. With Hani and Oshima he was a leading
light of the Japanese New Wave of the 70s. Hani's work is also not to
be missed - First Love, Infernal Version is amazing.
24695
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Tue Mar 22, 2005 0:31am
Subject: Say What?! (Was Re: Eyes Wide Shut) tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 05-03-21 17:11:14 EST, Tony Williams writes:
"Actually Godzilla has the rights to Patrick White's novel, 'The
Twyborn Affair'. G and his long-time companion Mothra are hoping to
make their serious dramatic debuts. A prominent Belgian filmmaker has
been approached to direct, (they threatened to stamp out Bruges if he
doesn't sign) but nothing has been finalized."
Well, Mothra is female, the only female daikaiju (giant monster) as
it happens. Toho concocted this romance to cover Godzilla's real
orientation, especially since his actual long time companion is
Gamera who's under contract to Daiei, Toho's rival. The truth would
be disasterous for both studios.
Richard
24696
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 22, 2005 0:32am
Subject: Re: Hangover Square hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
>
> > wrote:
> > HANGOVER SQUARE on the other hand is an
> > > entertaining travesty of a great book. Brahm, in defending the
> > > changes made to the script, revealed that he hadn't actually
> read
> > the
> > > novel, which made me dismiss him for a while as having a great
> eye
> > > but with nothing behind it.
> > >
> > > Cregar loved the book, thought the movie would make a star of
> him,
> > > and went on suspension rather than do the script they came up
> with.
> >
> > What were the changes?
> >
> > > The film's poor reception helped kill him.
> >
> > He was obviously a sensitive actor - delicacy, sensitivity and
> > hulking form. Vincent Price was Fox's replacement after killing
> him,
> > I guess. Cregar is very memorable in Hangover Square.
> > >
> > > The other great Cregar I've seen is I WAKE UP SCREAMING, where
> he's
> > > extremely memorable as an obsessed detective modelled on
Cornell
> > > Woolrich.
> >
I bet!
The description of this in his mini-bio makes me want to see it. He's
obsessed with the idea that a private eye played by Victor Mature has
committed murder. At one point Mature wakes up to frind Cregar in his
apartment collecting evidence. Cregar's own apartment is revealed to
be a shrine to the murdered woman....
24697
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 22, 2005 0:35am
Subject: Re: Hangover Square hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
Has
> anyone else mentioned the role that Bernard Herrmann's music (a
> whole little piano concerto written by Credgar's composer character)
> played here. It was definitely an essential element, as really
> reflected who this character was.
Particularly when he's playing it at the premiere with flashbacks of
the murders, forgotten till now, flooding his mind! The scene where
Sanders obliges him to begin remembering anticipates the incredible
last 20 minutes of The Boston Strangler by several years.
24698
From: "Fred Patton"
Date: Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:00am
Subject: Yoshishige Yoshida on DVD (was: Re: Masahiro Shinoda ) fred_patton
Yoshishige Yoshida titles are available from cdjapan.co.jp:
http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/list_from_code_banner.html?key=200485
but only in one case are there subtitles (French):
FEMMES EN MIROIR
http://www.cdjapan.co.jp/detailview.html?KEY=GNBD-1088
As usual, it's an expensive transaction...
Fred Patton
24699
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:16am
Subject: Re: Hangover Square blakelucaslu...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
> wrote:
>
> Particularly when he's playing it at the premiere with flashbacks
of
> the murders, forgotten till now, flooding his mind! The scene
where
> Sanders obliges him to begin remembering anticipates the
incredible
> last 20 minutes of The Boston Strangler by several years.
It's nice to see those last 20 minutes of The Boston Strangler
remembered. An incredible passage of filmmaking that is one of the
high points of Richard Fleischer's career, especially a single
long sustained shot of Di Salvo's face physically reflecting the
emotional pressure of the realization when he begins to see it's
him, stunningly played by the still underrated Tony Curtis.
24700
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Mar 22, 2005 1:25am
Subject: Re: Hangover Square hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
>
> It's nice to see those last 20 minutes of The Boston Strangler
> remembered. An incredible passage of filmmaking that is one of the
> high points of Richard Fleischer's career, especially a single
> long sustained shot of Di Salvo's face physically reflecting the
> emotional pressure of the realization when he begins to see it's
> him, stunningly played by the still underrated Tony Curtis.
Silence has never been used better - the yawning silences as Fonda
let's what he's saying sink in, the quick silent flashes of bodies at
the crime scenes that begin to pop into De Salvo's mind.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact