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.
25301
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 6:50pm
Subject: Re: Sin City hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong" wrote:
>
> Saw this the other night and had a very strong negative reaction. I'm
> sure my political sensibilities got in the way of my appreciation, but
> even on its own terms, the movie is a failure. I posted a review here:
>
> http://democracysblooperreel.typepad.com/democracys_blooper_reel/2005/0
> 4/the_tortured_ch.html
Well-argued. I don't agree about the film's worth, but the parallels to Afghanistan
make sense.
25302
From: Fred Camper
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 6:52pm
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk fredcamper
joe_mcelhaney wrote:
> ...one may quarrel with Fassbinder's
> stylistic choices or with the ideology of the films. But if one is to
> criticize them, one must at least understand the most basic level at
> which they operate.
Well, but what you've done is elucidate a theme about Germany and
history. What makes a film of work of art for me is when it uses film
style (which, with a nod to Zach, I'll admit can include acting
systematically used) to create a vision. If you (of Dan) would like to
argue that Fassbinder has a style that rises to the level of systematic
expression, please do so. Zach's defense of Cassavetes a while back met
that test for me -- that is, that if I saw what he sees in Cassavetes
films I'd probably acknowledge their merit, or at least their formal
interest. All I see in Fassbinder are flourishes and "touches" and style
superficially used. And I've only seen seven or eight of the films; at a
certain point I had enough.
Fred Camper
25303
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 7:03pm
Subject: Re: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) cellar47
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
> God, I wish you had not said this, David. Now that
> you say it I
> have no doubt Haynes did intend this exactly as you
> say. It only
> makes the film more trivial, not to say
> reprehensible.
>
HUNH?
> Yes, Rock Hudson was gay. So are a lot of actors,
> and a lot of them
> are straight also. They are supposed to be able to
> play different
> roles of either sexual persuasion regardless of
> this.
>
Right.Except thateveryone is supposed to be straight.
Even when they're not.
> In spite of that fact, a film was made a few years
> ago based on the
> thesis that all of Rock Hudson's roles revealed that
> he was gay, and
> that this is what you see in his performances. I'm
> guessing you
> probably support that view.
>
The film,"Rock Hudson's Home Movies" by Mark Rappaport
is a satire. It plays with notion of gay "visibility"
in the homophobic "you can always tell one of them
cause theygive themselevs away" sense.
> What does that say about him as an actor? Would you
> say a straight
> actor playing a gay man reveals that he is straight
> (say Dennis
> Quaid in Far from Heaven)? Why have them even try
> to play the
> role? What an insult this kind of thinking is.
>
Don't be ridiculous. This isn't what's being said by
with Mark or Todd.
What say you of Raymond Burr?
Kevin Spacey?
I know this is opening up a whole can of worms, but so
be it!
> This is not to argue the formal accomplishment of
> "All That Heaven
> Allows" (which goes far beyond Hudson's screen
> persona, of course
> --his presence and performance are only one artistic
> element), now
> being argued in relation to Fassbinder and Haynes in
> other posts,
> including one I already sent. But may I be so bold
> as to suggest
> that Rock Hudson was unusually persuasive playing
> attractive
> heterosexual leading man roles (and hasn't been
> given enough credit
> for this). Especially in "All That Heaven Allows"
> and other Sirk
> movies. If you doubt it, ask my wife or any woman.
> Or just ask me,
> because I'm straight and always believe him in these
> roles.
>
As well you should. He was a much better actor than he
was given credit for -- something I go into in my book
"Open Secret." When he started out he could barely
deliver lines. But he grew in the job.
> His gayness was his business and like many other
> people you love to
> discuss in some of your "gayer than thou" posts, it
> seems like he
> preferred to keep it this way.
HE HAD NO CHOICE IN THE MATTER!!!
Have you know awareness of the historical realities of
same-sex life in our time?
It was AGAINST THE LAW until quite recently -- years
after Hudson's death.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
25304
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 7:08pm
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk cellar47
--- Fred Camper wrote:
>
> Well, but what you've done is elucidate a theme
> about Germany and
> history. What makes a film of work of art for me is
> when it uses film
> style (which, with a nod to Zach, I'll admit can
> include acting
> systematically used) to create a vision. If you (of
> Dan) would like to
> argue that Fassbinder has a style that rises to the
> level of systematic
> expression, please do so.
Well what theatmeans, fred, is you're removing
historical perspective and the po;litical insight that
goes along with it, from any serious consideration of
artistic expression. Fassbinder's entire career was
devoted to analyzing the powestwar Germany he grew up
in. This wasn't a matter of mere "touches" and
"flourishes."
. And I've only seen seven or
> eight of the films; at a
> certain point I had enough.
>
Which would move me to say you haven't seen enough.
But maybeyour resistance is more fundamental. Which
ones have you seen? Maybe I could reccomend one or two
that might make you change your mind about him.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
25305
From: Ram shankar R
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 7:26pm
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk [Was The Film Journal: A New Issue and a New Direction] r_ram_shankar
Hello all,
> I might extend the comparison to Haynes's "Far From
> Heaven," which I
> rather liked. In the Haynes, the characters can't be
> happy because of
> local conditions, racism or homophobia. In Sirk,
> characters can't be
> happy because of the state of the universe.
I am a new entrant to this club. I was quite taken by
Imitation of life. I am quite interested to know about
Sirk's early Hollywood works and his depictions on
material existence.
I have been having this thought on Far From Heaven for
a while now. That is really a good way to put it. As a
whole the work felt mostly unattached to material
existence in a very lazy sort of way.
Personally, with regards to Far from heaven initially
the black gardener seems to have dropped into
Connecticut from somewhere, lets say aggreable. Also
at the end he leaves the place to somewhere aggreable.
This as such makes the equation pretty simplistic.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com
25306
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 7:28pm
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) jess_l_amortell
> His gayness was his business and like many other people you love to
> discuss in some of your "gayer than thou" posts, it seems like he
> preferred to keep it this way.
One suspects that ideally he might not have -- considering they had to marry him off and go to other measures to conceal it.
> the appearance of gayness in this character could only
> undermine the movie.
Not necessarily; the film actually seems to allude to it, in Wyman's notorious line about whether he'd prefer her as a man.
25307
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 7:32pm
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>> >
>
> The film,"Rock Hudson's Home Movies" by Mark Rappaport
> is a satire. It plays with notion of gay "visibility"
> in the homophobic "you can always tell one of them
> cause theygive themselevs away" sense.
>
This is the first time I've heard the movie described this way.
So that's a good answer. And I admit, I didn't see it. Because
what I thought was the subject (described in previous post) seemed
like an insult to Hudson so I didn't want to. I trust you are right
that was the intention. If so, it backs up what I said--that we
don't need to know an actor's sexual proclivities, just judge them
as to whether they are believable in the part.
>
> What say you of Raymond Burr?
>
> Kevin Spacey?
>
In spite of what you said about the Mark Rappaport movie, these
references to Burr and Spacey start up the same thing all over again.
I believe Burr as a tired wife murderer in "Rear Window" or an
insidious blackmailer in "Pitfall" and even as the all-too-straight
"Perry Mason." In fact, he's always convincing in a wide range of
roles, admittedly often villainous in the first part of his career.
Same with Spacey--a wide range of roles.
I take the attitude if they want us to know it, OK, and if they
don't it's just not relevant to these discussions.
But there is one thing I'm sure we agree about--and it does apply to
the closeted existence of gay actors in the past (and even in the
present, in which they are still afraid it will hurt their box
office). People should be allowed to be who they are. And I'd say
that directors as diverse as both Sirk and Fassbinder dealt very
deeply with this. I don't feel this with Haynes, no matter his
agenda, and I still reject "Far from Heaven."
But on the personal side, I'm sympathetic. I only wanted to say
that knowing Rock Hudson was gay for years now did not change his
believability on screen for me in the kind of roles he was cast in.
Probably I appreciate this kind of acting more than I did when I was
younger, in fact.
By the way, David, an actor of Hudson's time who I just loved--and
in fact he was a close friend of Hudson's--saw his Hollywood career
destroyed because he was gay. That was George Nader.
Blake
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
25308
From: Ram shankar R
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 7:32pm
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk [Was The Film Journal: A New Issue and a New Direction] r_ram_shankar
>
> I wouldn't say "local." Todd resituates the Sirkian
> world historically. Sirk made contemporary films.
> Todd's is a period piece about the Sirkian world --
> making its subtext a primary text. Sirks
> confrontation
> with racism in "Imitation of Life" becomes a desire
> for what would have been caled "race-mixing" in
> thattime. Likewise Rock Hudson's off-screen gayness
> becomes a major on-screen plot element.
It is not just racism, right? It is the entire flow.
Gold digger in NYC. Day in the beach... life moves on.
Finally Annie's death.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
25309
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 7:54pm
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
All I see in Fassbinder are flourishes and "touches" and style
> superficially used. And I've only seen seven or eight of the
films; at a
> certain point I had enough.
>
> Fred Camper
Seven or eight might be enough with many directors. And even with
Fassbinder if this group includes "The Merchant of Four Seasons"
(made around the time he discovered Sirk and wrote that article
about him) and "Effi Briest" and "In a Year with 13 Moons." If you
did see these, I couldn't argue that you might appreciate him more
if you saw something else.
However, someone with your formal interests really should give a
chance to his multi-part "Berlin Alexandrplatz" (originally made for
TV in 13 chapters and epilogue), based on Fassbinder's favorite
novel. I believe this one shows all of his gifts and interests, and
is one of the greatest movies ever made, not quite as perfect as
the best Sirk (inevitably too unwieldy and Fassbinder deliberately
"poisons it" in the epilogue, though this is one aspect which makes
it especially interesting from a purely aesthetic standpoint) but no
less imposing. This masterpiece is definitely worth sustained
analysis from a purely formal point of view, and in fact I have made
the attempt myself, as much as my format allowed (in Magill's 1983)
though probably with modest results--it's one I would like to get
back to. And by the way, the historical/political aspect other
posters have alluded to is very important in this, but without
inhibiting its formal interest in the least. It is also a deeply
powerful statement about human sexuality, suppressed and otherwise.
Any Sirk/Fassbinder comparisons shouldn't be facile, as I suggested
before. I do think they can be mutually illuminating, though. And
I support those who found Fassbinder too tough to be "humanistic"
(at least in the usual sense)--he is pretty remorseless. So,
interestingly, is Sirk, who does allow a more tragic vision.
One more thing--they both had a sense of humor, though Sirk could
summon more charm (in a movie like "Take Me to Town") without in the
least betraying his sensibility and vision of things.
Blake
25310
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 7:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) cellar47
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
If so, it backs up what I
> said--that we
> don't need to know an actor's sexual proclivities,
> just judge them
> as to whether they are believable in the part.
"Believabilty" in a part is not the isue. The part is
only one part of the way actors function in Holywood
-- particularly in the studio era. They had "imgaes"
to maintain through public relations. Indeed Todd
makes reference to this in "Far From Heaven" when
pictures are taken of Julianne Moore for an article
about "Mrs.Magnutach" -- which is what her character
ahd become to the people of her community.
> >
> In spite of what you said about the Mark Rappaport
> movie, these
> references to Burr and Spacey start up the same
> thing all over again.
> I believe Burr as a tired wife murderer in "Rear
> Window" or an
> insidious blackmailer in "Pitfall" and even as the
> all-too-straight
> "Perry Mason." In fact, he's always convincing in a
> wide range of
> roles, admittedly often villainous in the first part
> of his career.
Sure. Why shouldn't you? But do you own the DVD of
"AStar is Born" that includes the footage of the
premiere? Note the sailor that Burr brought along with
him along with his official "date." "I'm just showing
this young man a little of the glamour of Hollywood."
If that's your story, Ray, you stick to it!
> Same with Spacey--a wide range of roles.
True. But he's just as fmous for his Adventures in
Dogwalking. A very sad case.
> I take the attitude if they want us to know it, OK,
> and if they
> don't it's just not relevant to these discussions.
>
Except when they are.
> But there is one thing I'm sure we agree about--and
> it does apply to
> the closeted existence of gay actors in the past
> (and even in the
> present, in which they are still afraid it will hurt
> their box
> office). People should be allowed to be who they
> are.
People do not have that pweor, and never have -- for
reasosn I go into AT GREAT LENGTH in my book.
And I'd say
> that directors as diverse as both Sirk and
> Fassbinder dealt very
> deeply with this. I don't feel this with Haynes, no
> matter his
> agenda, and I still reject "Far from Heaven."
>
> But on the personal side, I'm sympathetic. I only
> wanted to say
> that knowing Rock Hudson was gay for years now did
> not change his
> believability on screen for me in the kind of roles
> he was cast in.
> Probably I appreciate this kind of acting more than
> I did when I was
> younger, in fact.
>
Blake, I knew Rock Hudosn was gay before I knew that I
was.
> By the way, David, an actor of Hudson's time who I
> just loved--and
> in fact he was a close friend of Hudson's--saw his
> Hollywood career
> destroyed because he was gay. That was George
> Nader.
>
Not entirely true. Nader's career never really got off
the ground -- even hen he went to England and got
better parts, like Seth Holt's"Nowehere to Go" where
he co-starred with Maggie Smith. He just didn't have
it in him. But he retired comfortably to Palm Springs
in wrote a really interesting Science Fiction novel
called "Chrome" -- about gay robots in love.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
http://personals.yahoo.com
25311
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 8:03pm
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk [Was The Film Journal: A New Issue and a New Direction] cellar47
--- Ram shankar R wrote:
>
> It is not just racism, right? It is the entire flow.
> Gold digger in NYC. Day in the beach... life moves
> on.
> Finally Annie's death.
>
True, but racism is the one barrier the characters
can't transcend. Susan Kohner can't will herself into
the white world and Lana Turner can't really
understand Annie. At the end, of course, by begging
her mother's forgiveness -- in, let's face it, the
greatest emotional scene in the history of the cinema
-- Kohner becomes reconciled with her race and
therefore has a chance of moving forward.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
25312
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 8:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk cellar47
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
>
> However, someone with your formal interests really
> should give a
> chance to his multi-part "Berlin Alexandrplatz"
> (originally made for
> TV in 13 chapters and epilogue), based on
> Fassbinder's favorite
> novel.
I quite agree.
It shouldn't be forgotten that it was thanks to
Fassbinder that Sirk got a chance to direct three
short films (all adaptations of short plays) in the
late seventies. They were all made in collaboration
with a group of film students but the actors were all
supplied by RWF, including himself.
"Talk to MeLike the Rain" by Tennessee Williams stars
Elizabeth Trissenaar. "new Year's Eve" by Arthur
Schitzler stars Hanna Schygulla, and "Bourbon Street
Blues" a version of Williams' "The Lady of Larspur
Lotion" stars Rainer Werner Fassbinder.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25313
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 8:19pm
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> >
>
> Blake, I knew Rock Hudosn was gay before I knew that I
> was.
>
>
> > By the way, David, an actor of Hudson's time who I
> > just loved--and
> > in fact he was a close friend of Hudson's--saw his
> > Hollywood career
> > destroyed because he was gay. That was George
> > Nader.
> >
>
> Not entirely true. Nader's career never really got off
> the ground -- even hen he went to England and got
> better parts, like Seth Holt's"Nowehere to Go" where
> he co-starred with Maggie Smith. He just didn't have
> it in him. But he retired comfortably to Palm Springs
> in wrote a really interesting Science Fiction novel
You are more versed in this kind of thing than I am, because I'm
really not into it, but somewhere along the line I thought I picked
up that Nader was sacrificed to Confidential to protect Hudson,
which might explain why Nader was made executor. I'd guess we
disagree about Nader's talent. I don't know what he had in him to
make the kind of career I'd have liked him to have, and maybe he was
just too much of a 50s type (always playing straight romantic leads,
of course, though in "Four Guns to the Border" there is in fact some
interesting homoerotic horseplay with Jay Silverheels, of all people)
but I thought he was just wonderful in things like "The Unguarded
Moment," "Away All Boats," "Flood Tide"... That's just me, but I
didn't think "Nowhere to Go" was necessarily a better part, though
it was certainly a change of pace and he was again, excellent.
Nader died soon after I read he was living in Palm Springs--I really
wished I had gone up to try to meet him and get one really good
interview that acknowledged him.
Where we disagree on this whole thing is pretty simple. I just
don't care about people's private lives when dealing with films in a
critical way, especially not actors--where I feel it is completely
irrelevant--but not even directors or writers. If I feel there is
some motive force of heterosexuality, homosexuality, bisexuality or
transexuality or whatever playing a creative part in a director's
work and the meaning of the work, I will acknowledge that--but
without reference to what their sexual practices or identity are in
life. For example, there may be a homoerotic subtext in Hawks in
some of his films (well, surely, there is), and I feel that comes
from him, but that may well have been the only expression this had
in his life. So let's look at it only in context of the films.
That's not to say people's private lifes--and dealing with the
prejudices and repressions of society--are not as important as films.
They may be more important. But they are a different thing.
Blake
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Personals - Better first dates. More second dates.
> http://personals.yahoo.com
25314
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 8:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) cellar47
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
>
> You are more versed in this kind of thing than I am,
> because I'm
> really not into it, but somewhere along the line I
> thought I picked
> up that Nader was sacrificed to Confidential to
> protect Hudson,
> which might explain why Nader was made executor.
An Urban Myth. He was made executor because they were
good friends.
> I'd guess we
> disagree about Nader's talent. I don't know what he
> had in him to
> make the kind of career I'd have liked him to have,
> and maybe he was
> just too much of a 50s type (always playing straight
> romantic leads,
> of course, though in "Four Guns to the Border" there
> is in fact some
> interesting homoerotic horseplay with Jay
> Silverheels, of all people)
> but I thought he was just wonderful in things like
> "The Unguarded
> Moment," "Away All Boats," "Flood Tide"... That's
> just me, but I
> didn't think "Nowhere to Go" was necessarily a
> better part, though
> it was certainly a change of pace and he was again,
> excellent.
He did, but he just didn't have what it takes to
excite the public as a leading man.
> Nader died soon after I read he was living in Palm
> Springs--I really
> wished I had gone up to try to meet him and get one
> really good
> interview that acknowledged him.
>
Itried myself. In his later years he was very closed
off. But his lover, Mark Miller, was avialable for
comment.
> Where we disagree on this whole thing is pretty
> simple. I just
> don't care about people's private lives when dealing
> with films in a
> critical way, especially not actors--where I feel it
> is completely
> irrelevant--but not even directors or writers.
It's not as simple as you think. You're asking
moviegoers not to think of an elephant.
If I
> feel there is
> some motive force of heterosexuality, homosexuality,
> bisexuality or
> transexuality or whatever playing a creative part in
> a director's
> work and the meaning of the work, I will acknowledge
> that--but
> without reference to what their sexual practices or
> identity are in
> life.
And I don't understand why> It's pretty clear that
Todd knows he's talking about in "Far From Heaven" and
that Joel Schumacher doesn't have clue in "Flawless."
In fact when anyone ever suggests that gays possess
inate taste, talent, sensitivity et. al. I always
replay "You mean to say we've all been underestimating
Joel Schumacher?"
For example, there may be a homoerotic
> subtext in Hawks in
> some of his films (well, surely, there is), and I
> feel that comes
> from him, but that may well have been the only
> expression this had
> in his life. So let's look at it only in context of
> the films.
>
The context of his films is suffient for any
discussion of homoeroticism. But with other directors
there's spill over into life that shouldn't be
ignored.
> That's not to say people's private lifes--and
> dealing with the
> prejudices and repressions of society--are not as
> important as films.
> They may be more important. But they are a
> different thing.
Public figures don't have "private lives."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25315
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 8:30pm
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- Blake Lucas wrote:
> If so, it backs up what I
> > said--that we
> > don't need to know an actor's sexual proclivities,
> > just judge them
> > as to whether they are believable in the part.
Luc Moullet cites Cary Grant's bisexuality in his Politique des acteurs - about Grant,
Stewart, Wayne and Cooper - prefacing it by saying that he normally wouldn't, but
it's relevant to the theme of doubleness that runs thru Grant's oeuvre.
I've seen Mark's Hudson film, and it does contain excerpts where his gayness is
being weirdly foregrounded as a theme. You could say this about Man's Favorite
Sport in its entirety - althoughh what Shickel calls "Howard's mother hen" side keeps
it from being nasty. Ditto the famous moment in Bringing Up Baby. And again, the
themes of homosociality and homosexuality are important enough in Hawks that it
kind of has to be taken into account in both pictures, if only as subtext.
>
> > Same with Spacey--a wide range of roles.
>
> True. But he's just as fmous for his Adventures in
> Dogwalking. A very sad case.
He's enormously respected in Europe. As far as I'm concerned, he's the anti-
Malkovich.
> Nader's career never really got off
> the ground -- even hen he went to England and got
> better parts, like Seth Holt's"Nowehere to Go" where
> he co-starred with Maggie Smith.
Glad someone else saw this great film. Nader's fine in a role more challenging than
The Man and the Challenge, but the film is an auteurist wonder, the most complete
demonstration apart from Station Six of why Holt belonged in Expressive Esoterica,
despite his small output.
25316
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 8:35pm
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> It shouldn't be forgotten that it was thanks to
> Fassbinder that Sirk got a chance to direct three
> short films (all adaptations of short plays) in the
> late seventies. They were all made in collaboration
> with a group of film students but the actors were all
> supplied by RWF, including himself.
> "Talk to MeLike the Rain" by Tennessee Williams stars
> Elizabeth Trissenaar. "new Year's Eve" by Arthur
> Schitzler stars Hanna Schygulla, and "Bourbon Street
> Blues" a version of Williams' "The Lady of Larspur
> Lotion" stars Rainer Werner Fassbinder.
Does anyone know where these can be had on tape? I saw all three in Berkeley in
'81. The one that impressed me was Bourbon Street - as I recall, however, it was in
English, while New Year's Eve was in German w/out subtitles - hard to digest, as it
was very dialogue-heavy. Anyway, Bourbon Street really is a final testament, with
the Dreyer influence front and center for all to see.
25317
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 8:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> I've seen Mark's Hudson film, and it does contain
> excerpts where his gayness is
> being weirdly foregrounded as a theme. You could say
> this about Man's Favorite
> Sport in its entirety - althoughh what Shickel calls
> "Howard's mother hen" side keeps
> it from being nasty.
Michel Delahaye makes that very point in his review of
"Man's favorite Sport?' in CdC #160, November 1964.
Ditto the famous moment in
> Bringing Up Baby. And again, the
> themes of homosociality and homosexuality are
> important enough in Hawks that it
> kind of has to be taken into account in both
> pictures, if only as subtext.
> >
As I point out in my book "Because I went GAY all of a
sudden!" was a Cary Grant ad-lib.
>
> He's enormously respected in Europe. As far as I'm
> concerned, he's the anti-
> Malkovich.
I seriously doubt Malkovich has the reputation for
hitting on people the way Spacey does. For all his
manifest feyness, Malkovich is straight. His affari
with Michelle Pfeiffer during the shooting of
"Dangerous Liansons" broke up his marriage to Glenn
Hedley (who I for one miss) and her longtime romance
with Fisher Stevens ( who I for one don't.)
>
> Glad someone else saw this great film. Nader's fine
> in a role more challenging than
> The Man and the Challenge, but the film is an
> auteurist wonder, the most complete
> demonstration apart from Station Six of why Holt
> belonged in Expressive Esoterica,
> despite his small output.
>
>
I'm crazy about "Station Six Sahara"!
__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
25318
From: samadams@...
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 8:51pm
Subject: Re: Sin City arglebargle31
Re: your review -- I don't think it's at all "foolish" at all to look
at the film through a political lens. A friend of mine almost quit
watching the show "24" last week because, as he wrote, "My torture
tolerance is only so high." My feelings about Sin City can be summed
up in the fact that when I heard a co-worker of mine praising the
movie, I felt the sudden urge to punch him. It's visually striking
for about five minutes, and then 2 hours and one minute of vile,
cryptofascist, unbelievably misogynist and absurdly adolescent
repugnance. Jesus effin Christ.
In sum, I do not like it.
Sam
At 7:03 PM +0000 4/7/05, a_film_by@yahoogroups.com wrote:
>essage: 21
> Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:42:46 -0000
> From: "Matt Armstrong"
>Subject: Sin City
>
>
>Saw this the other night and had a very strong negative reaction. I'm
>sure my political sensibilities got in the way of my appreciation, but
>even on its own terms, the movie is a failure. I posted a review here:
>
>http://democracysblooperreel.typepad.com/democracys_blooper_reel/2005/0
>4/the_tortured_ch.html
25319
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 9:23pm
Subject: Re: Sin City hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
My feelings about Sin City can be summed
> up in the fact that when I heard a co-worker of mine praising the
> movie, I felt the sudden urge to punch him.
Glad I'm out of punching range - that's overreacting, Sam (as is killing people for
beating up on women: cf. Matt's Afghanistan quote).
Crypto-fascist: The film is the graphic novel. You aand Matt might take a look at
Frank Miller's DK2, which is a very effective blast at the Bush Society in which
Batman (The Dark Knight) and Superman represent opposed solutions to the
problem: fascism and democracy. Miller sides with Superman, but The Dark Knight,
who is like the anti-establishmentarian avengers in Sin City, does get to make his
case.
Misogynistic: Owen throws in with prostitutes who have become Amazons to get rid
of pimps and shakedown cops, but the film also sympathizes with the treacherous
hooker who just wants out - she gets a happy ending. Owen is the only sexually
active hero. Willis is so self-sacrificing in this respect as to be funny, and Rourke
gets laid one time in his life and spends the rest of the movie avenging the death of
the woman who took pity on him (even though she had an agenda). I think you mean
"misogynistic."
Violent: Comics are violent. Frederick Wertham was the best interpreter of the
genre. Certainly Miller has read him - the first Dark Knight books were obviously
inspired by Wertham's writing about superhero comics.
I think hating this movie or enjoying it depends on how you feel about film noir,
which aficianados see as being degraded by it. To me a film noir is just a film, so I
don't have that reason to hate Sin City.
25320
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 9:27pm
Subject: Re: Sin City matt_c_armst...
I guess I'm ambivalent because the genre itself is apolitical. I do
think there's a place in art for violent fantasies. And I've liked a
lot of movies which could be accused of this. Ichi the Killer,
Oldboy, Sympathy for Mister Vengeance and the Kill Bill films are
the most recent examples. In each of these films, there's something
to mitigate the carnage. There are strong characters, moral
consequences, emotional depth, even humor. Sin City is almost
humorless.
I am willing to bet that Tarantino, Rodriguez and Miller aren't
troubled by the sadism in their film. Though they may not "agree"
with their hero's actions, they clearly invite us to indulge in
violent wish fulfillment. It's understood that the villains deserve
to die slowly and horribly (usually because they intend to defile a
helpless woman or girl.)
For the past year I've often wondered just what other Americans
think and feel about our conduct in the world. In particular I
wonder how torture, war crimes and sexual humiliation have become
not only status quo, but folded into our mass entertainment. To be
honest, I wonder if the popularity of "Sin City" at this point in
time explains American passivity toward the atrocities commited in
our names. Maybe it's not passivity at all. Maybe many people think
the torturers are heroes.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
> Re: your review -- I don't think it's at all "foolish" at all to
look
> at the film through a political lens. A friend of mine almost quit
> watching the show "24" last week because, as he wrote, "My torture
> tolerance is only so high." My feelings about Sin City can be
summed
> up in the fact that when I heard a co-worker of mine praising the
> movie, I felt the sudden urge to punch him. It's visually striking
> for about five minutes, and then 2 hours and one minute of vile,
> cryptofascist, unbelievably misogynist and absurdly adolescent
> repugnance. Jesus effin Christ.
>
> In sum, I do not like it.
>
> Sam
>
> At 7:03 PM +0000 4/7/05, a_film_by@yahoogroups.com wrote:
> >essage: 21
> > Date: Thu, 07 Apr 2005 18:42:46 -0000
> > From: "Matt Armstrong"
> >Subject: Sin City
> >
> >
> >Saw this the other night and had a very strong negative reaction.
I'm
> >sure my political sensibilities got in the way of my
appreciation, but
> >even on its own terms, the movie is a failure. I posted a review
here:
> >
>
>http://democracysblooperreel.typepad.com/democracys_blooper_reel/200
5/0
> >4/the_tortured_ch.html
25321
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 9:50pm
Subject: Re: Sin City hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong" wrote:
>
> For the past year I've often wondered just what other Americans
> think and feel about our conduct in the world. In particular I
> wonder how torture, war crimes and sexual humiliation have become
> not only status quo, but folded into our mass entertainment. To be
> honest, I wonder if the popularity of "Sin City" at this point in
> time explains American passivity toward the atrocities commited in
> our names. Maybe it's not passivity at all. Maybe many people think
> the torturers are heroes.
I take your point, and I don't necessarily disagree, although Sin City predates 9/11.
But the vigilante hero has been a long time coming. Kiss Me Deadly is ambivalent
about Mike Hammer, but doesn't consider him scum. Later youget into the amoral
violence of spaghetti westerns and their successors, the Death Wish films etc. By
the 80s "we" were rooting for Joe Don Baker in Framed and Walking Tall, although I
think Karlson, like Aldrich, old-fashioned liberals, put him in context visually. But
throughout the 60s, 70s, 80s and 90s the idea of extra-legal violence being ok in a
good cause was out there in the media. (A big offender: DePalma in The
Untouchables.) Actually, I'd say Frank Miller is pretty conscious of this as an option
but also as a problem. I certainly wouldn't call any of his comics apolitical!
Then you get into what it's all leading to. Abu Ghraib, apparently - but there may be
other, less predictable meanings. The Jacobeans were fascinated by the figure of
the Revenger, who contests the state's (and God's) monopoly on legitimate violence.
In retrospect we can see that they were building up to beheading their King. One
reason the famous Young Mister Lincoln piece in CdC was radical was that it
questioned the bourgeois idea, embodied by Lincoln, that the state has that
monopoly. When we talk about violence, we have to remember that revolutions are
also violent. Only one of the vigilantes in Sin City wears a badge.
25322
From: "Gabe Klinger"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 9:51pm
Subject: Re: Pierre Rissient: alive and well gcklinger
Bill wrote:
> > Let's just say, put Bill and Pierre in the same room and you have an
> overdose of cinephilia.
> >
> > Gabe
>
> If such a thing is possible.
I meant it affectionatelly.
2 or 3 things I know about Pierre:
I had a blast talking with him, Bill, and Scott Foundas one night in LA... Scott and I
were definitely in awe of Bill and Pierre's encyclopedic knowledge. We remained, for
the rest of my time in LA, humbled and fondly recalling that night...
Pierre doesn't take the metro, because he likes to be in the light. I took a bus with
him from St. Germain to his office at Pathe on the Champs elysee and on the way he
pointed out all of his old haunts (i.e. movie theaters). I felt this was probably as close
I would ever get to the early days of the nouvelle vague.
Todd McCarthy is (or was) apparently making a movie about Pierre.
I don't know that much else about him (Bill already covered the bases on his interest
in Asian film). I know he lived in Fritz Lang's house in L.A., and has a lot of stories
about that. He is also a generous, insightful, and truly refreshing person to be
around. Jackie Raynal is a huge fan of Cinq et la peau but the film is nearly
impossible to see nowadays. Not even Pierre knows of any prints.
Gabe
25323
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 10:00pm
Subject: Re: Sin City matt_c_armst...
> Crypto-fascist: The film is the graphic novel. You aand Matt might
take a look at
> Frank Miller's DK2, which is a very effective blast at the Bush
Society in which
> Batman (The Dark Knight) and Superman represent opposed solutions
to the
> problem: fascism and democracy. Miller sides with Superman, but
The Dark Knight,
> who is like the anti-establishmentarian avengers in Sin City, does
get to make his
> case.
Many people I respect love Miller's work. I've never been a comic
book reader, but I don't doubt that it has plenty of political
nuance. You're talking about DK2, though. Not the movie "Sin City."
The only real political notion in the movie is that the government
and church are corrupt and deviant. We get an all-powerful senator
and his kiddie-raping son, cannibal priests and a woman-beating cop.
The anti-establishment avengers are "empowered" street hookers who
also torture and murder their enemies, apparently without conscience.
> Misogynistic: Owen throws in with prostitutes who have become
Amazons to get rid
> of pimps and shakedown cops, but the film also sympathizes with
the treacherous
> hooker who just wants out - she gets a happy ending.
Does she? I guess I read that final scene wrong.
Owen is the only sexually
> active hero. Willis is so self-sacrificing in this respect as to
be funny, and Rourke
> gets laid one time in his life and spends the rest of the movie
avenging the death of
> the woman who took pity on him (even though she had an agenda).
Rourke may be shunned sexually by women, but he seems to have plenty
of female friends, including a lesbian parole officer who lounges
around naked in front of him.
Willis' sacrifice is "rewarded" when the girl whose virginity he
saves as a girl grows up to be a beautiful stripper, who loves him
only. Yet another older man/young girl surrogate daddy fantasy.
Hardly original.
> Violent: Comics are violent.
I agree with you here. And I've often enjoyed violent movies, comic
book movies. Other critics have apparently failed to reconcile their
visceral pleasure in the material with their other sensibilities.
David Edelstein's response, was just to say fuckit!
http://www.slate.com/id/2115999/
I'd be a hypocrite if that were my only issue with the movie. Sin
City simply doesnt feel all that substantive. It's just
virtuosically mean-spirited.
25324
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 10:11pm
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> >
> > --- Blake Lucas wrote:
> > If so, it backs up what I
> > > said--that we
> > > don't need to know an actor's sexual proclivities,
> > > just judge them
> > > as to whether they are believable in the part.
> Luc Moullet cites Cary Grant's bisexuality in his Politique des
acteurs - about Grant,
> Stewart, Wayne and Cooper - prefacing it by saying that he
normally wouldn't, but
> it's relevant to the theme of doubleness that runs thru Grant's
oeuvre.
>
This only bears out what I've been trying to see, Bill. The
doubleness that runs thru Grant's oeuvre is what is of interest, so
of course we are interested in anything that might throw more light
on it--but we can take this as something within Grant (bisexuality)
without needing to know the sexuality he actually practiced.
> I've seen Mark's Hudson film, and it does contain excerpts where
his gayness is
> being weirdly foregrounded as a theme.
This seems to confirm what I had heard about the film, contrary to
what David said earlier.
You could say this about Man's Favorite
> Sport in its entirety - althoughh what Shickel calls "Howard's
mother hen" side keeps
> it from being nasty. Ditto the famous moment in Bringing Up Baby.
And again, the
> themes of homosociality and homosexuality are important enough in
Hawks that it
> kind of has to be taken into account in both pictures, if only as
subtext.
Note I was writing about homoerotic/homosexual subtext in Hawks
while you were writing this (and David also responded to that).
Again, Hudson's actual gayness is not the issue in Man's Favorite
Sport?--it should be the Hawks subtext we are responding to, and I
feel it is. Hudson plays in that context. The most famous scene
entirely built on sexual chemistry/interaction between two men in
Hawks--the shooting match in Red River--was played by two actors, one
straight, one bisexual. And again, I don't really care if I know
this or not, though interestingly I feel it's Ireland more than
Clift who really gets into it (they are both fine, though--maybe
it's just that Cherry/Ireland seems more like the aggressor).
> >
In later post, David told us Grant improvised the line in Baby
"I just went GAY all of a sudden." That was interesting to me.
Because this is a big moment, in 30s comedy and otherwise. And it's
difficult not to speculate why he was inspired to say this,
obviously. But why shouldn't Grant come up with it? He was a
brilliant actor, as we all know. But still, its presence in the
film has to be on the election of director Hawks, and in that way it
is more relevant to him, and it's very consistent with the other
comedies, with Grant (or Hudson). Thus the drag ending of Male War
Bride for example. Hawks seemed (understandably) to find Grant a
perfect actor. Maybe he was responding to something in his persona
that freed him to creatively deal with sexual ambivalence. Just a
thought but one worth pursuing. Again, it's relevant because of the
part it plays in the FILMS.
>> > Nader's career never really got off
> > the ground -- even hen he went to England and got
> > better parts, like Seth Holt's"Nowehere to Go" where
> > he co-starred with Maggie Smith.
>
> Glad someone else saw this great film. Nader's fine in a role more
challenging than
> The Man and the Challenge, but the film is an auteurist wonder,
the most complete
> demonstration apart from Station Six of why Holt belonged in
Expressive Esoterica,
> despite his small output.
Hope you noticed that Nowhere to Go did not elude me either, and
that was more for Holt than Nader, much as I like the actor. I do
think Holt was brilliant--and especially the one you mention,
Station Six Sahara. Is that available anywhere? Because I am just
pining to see that one again someday.
Blake
25325
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 10:34pm
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> The context of his films is suffient for any
> discussion of homoeroticism. But with other directors
> there's spill over into life that shouldn't be
> ignored.
Why not? It's interesting maybe, but it just isn't about their art.
Murnau's death was a real loss to me, maybe to most people who love
cinema, I'd guess. So sure, I can't help but be interested in what
happened. Though how everyone who wasn't in the car is so sure of
what exactly what did happen, in all salacious detail, is something
I don't quite get. But even if I am interested, Murnau had
completed his last film. It's just gossip and melodrama about
someone's life, you know. The story that he moved a sacred stone
while making Tabu is more interesting to me. It doesn't make Tabu
a greater work of art--unless God knows something we don't--but if
you are into metaphysics/supernatural/curses/religion in relation to
creativity, something I don't entirely discount, who knows if maybe
there is some relationship which can never be proven.
> > That's not to say people's private lifes--and
> > dealing with the
> > prejudices and repressions of society--are not as
> > important as films.
> > They may be more important. But they are a
> > different thing.
>
> Public figures don't have "private lives."
>
No, I guess not. But this is where we part company, because in all
fairness, they should. And with artists, it should be up to us to
understand them based on analysis of their work. I stand by that.
>
Blake
__________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
25326
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 10:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) cellar47
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
> >
> This only bears out what I've been trying to see,
> Bill. The
> doubleness that runs thru Grant's oeuvre is what is
> of interest, so
> of course we are interested in anything that might
> throw more light
> on it--but we can take this as something within
> Grant (bisexuality)
> without needing to know the sexuality he actually
> practiced.
I don't know why you regard this as an optional extra.
Grant's bisexuality and his obvious appeal to both men
and women on any number of different levels is one of
the glories of the cinema and is the absolutely
pivotal reason why he's the Greatest Movie Who Ever
Lived.
>
The most
> famous scene
> entirely built on sexual chemistry/interaction
> between two men in
> Hawks--the shooting match in Red River--was played
> by two actors, one
> straight, one bisexual.
Monty wasn't bisexual, Blake. I've been talking about
him a lot latelywith Jack Larson (I've been begging
him to write his memoirs already!) who had a rather
easygoing affir with him around the timeof "The
Heiress" and "I Confess." He says everybody confuses
Monty after the accident with Monty before the
accident. Post-accident was the haunted Monty,
destroyed by drugs and alcohol. Pre-accident he was,
Jack says "a lot like Jerry Lewis."
And again, I don't really
> care if I know
> this or not
Well you should. Not know is sloppy film scholarship.
> > >
> In later post, David told us Grant improvised the
> line in Baby
> "I just went GAY all of a sudden." That was
> interesting to me.
> Because this is a big moment, in 30s comedy and
> otherwise. And it's
> difficult not to speculate why he was inspired to
> say this,
> obviously. But why shouldn't Grant come up with it?
> He was a
> brilliant actor, as we all know. But still, its
> presence in the
> film has to be on the election of director Hawks,
> and in that way it
> is more relevant to him, and it's very consistent
> with the other
> comedies, with Grant (or Hudson).
I would say it's presence in the film was godsend for
hawks. It speaks of Hawks' penchant for improvisation,
and the rewards gained therefrom.
Thus the drag
> ending of Male War
> Bride for example. Hawks seemed (understandably) to
> find Grant a
> perfect actor. Maybe he was responding to something
> in his persona
> that freed him to creatively deal with sexual
> ambivalence.
There, I think not. Drag was a comedy staple--
especially of the "Charlie's Aunt" variety as apparent
in "War Bride."
I do
> think Holt was brilliant--and especially the one you
> mention,
> Station Six Sahara. Is that available anywhere?
> Because I am just
> pining to see that one again someday.
>
Now THERE'S movie! Oil riggers in the desert. Tensions
both sexual and other mounting. We're justabout to
reach a crisis point when all of a sudden a huge
convertible arrives out of nowhere with an unspeakably
luscious Carroll Baker passed out in it.
Nobody went out for popcorn!
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
25327
From: MG4273@...
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 6:43pm
Subject: Many Comics are NOT violent (OT) (was: Sin City) nzkpzq
Am enjoying the Sin City discussion very much - but have not seen the movie
or read the original comic book.
But the fact is that lots of comic books are not violent. Or have only very
modest violence (such as a brief fist fight, say, taking up one percent of a
story).
There ARE many violent comic books - and a vocal group of comic book fans who
only read comics for well-drawn "action" scenes (the polite term for violence
in comics). But such comics are only one stream in a vast history of comic
books.
Many comic books are plot-oriented. They have amazing, complex plots. Plots
that might wow a_film_by-ers who who read them.
There is a VERY strong pacifist, anti-war tradition in comic books. Countless
1950's and 1960's comic books dealt with heroes who used non-violent means to
overthrow sinister war-mongering dictators. In fact, this was the ur-plot of
around 15 years of comic book history!
Krypton (Superman's home planet), was a peaceful Utopia, without war, and
with a democratic world government. Its poetic epic, "The Kryptoniad", centers on
the ancient Kryptonian who abolished war there. "Krypton lay in darkest
night..." the poem opens...
Mike Grost
25328
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 10:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) cellar47
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
>
> Why not? It's interesting maybe, but it just isn't
> about their art.
> Murnau's death was a real loss to me, maybe to most
> people who love
> cinema, I'd guess. So sure, I can't help but be
> interested in what
> happened. Though how everyone who wasn't in the car
> is so sure of
> what exactly what did happen, in all salacious
> detail, is something
> I don't quite get.
Well that death, as gaudily related by Kenneth Anger,
is one detail of his life.Murnau was gay. There are
homoerotic threads in a few of the movies that
survive, but that's about all one can say at this
point.
> > Public figures don't have "private lives."
> >
> No, I guess not. But this is where we part company,
> because in all
> fairness, they should.
Why?
Why is heterosexuality public and homosexuality
"private"?
For no good reason, that's why!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25329
From: MG4273@...
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 7:05pm
Subject: Re: Minnelli & Gaslight (was: Trafic 53) nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-04-07 13:28:49 EDT, Joe McElhaney write:
<< But he also mentions Minnelli's work on the films of others, including
Best Foot Forward, The Heavenly Body, and two Cukors, Gaslight and A Life of Her
Own. All of this is news to me >>
Holy retakes, Batman!
How extensive is the Minnelli contribution to "Gaslight"? In some ways, this
seems like a very Minnelli picture - lush Victorian settings, feminist theme
about the oppression and second-class status of women in traditional society,
use of "Home, Sweet Home" on the soundtrack, big staircases, emotions running
amok, themes of madness and emotional breakdown...
Also saw "Best Foot Forward" a long time ago. Would be curious to know what
Minnelli contributed to this musical.
Mike Grost
25330
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 11:11pm
Subject: Re: Minnelli & Gaslight (was: Trafic 53) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 05-04-07 13:28:49 EDT, Joe McElhaney write:
>
> How extensive is the Minnelli contribution to "Gaslight"? In some ways, this
> seems like a very Minnelli picture -
He did a Gaslight of his own, Undercurrent, two years later.
25331
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 11:12pm
Subject: re: Pierre Rissient apmartin90
I'm going to have to be politically correct for a moment here and add:
when we say things like 'Pierre Rissient discovered King Hu' or 'he was
the first cinephile to set foot in Korea' (and I am not just referring
to AFB members, people say such things all the time about Pierre), we
do mean APART FROM ALL THE CHINESE FILMGOERS WHO HAD ALREADY DISCOVERED
KING HU and APART FROM ALL THE KOREAN CINEPHILES, don't we?
People, please, watch the casual Euro-centrism !!!!!!!!! Asian cinema
(and cinephilia) existed before this famous Frenchman 'discovered' them
!!!!!!!!!! It sounds like an imperialist narrative of a Great Explorer
!!!!!!
Adrian
25332
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 7, 2005 11:18pm
Subject: Re: Pierre Rissient hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> I'm going to have to be politically correct for a moment here and add:
> when we say things like 'Pierre Rissient discovered King Hu' or 'he was
> the first cinephile to set foot in Korea' (and I am not just referring
> to AFB members, people say such things all the time about Pierre), we
> do mean APART FROM ALL THE CHINESE FILMGOERS WHO HAD ALREADY
DISCOVERED
> KING HU and APART FROM ALL THE KOREAN CINEPHILES, don't we?
>
> People, please, watch the casual Euro-centrism !!!!!!!!! Asian cinema
> (and cinephilia) existed before this famous Frenchman 'discovered' them
> !!!!!!!!!! It sounds like an imperialist narrative of a Great Explorer
> !!!!!!
>
> Adrian
Got me.
25333
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 1:09am
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Blake Lucas wrote:
The
> > doubleness that runs thru Grant's oeuvre is what is
> > of interest, so
> > of course we are interested in anything that might
> > throw more light
> > on it--but we can take this as something within
> > Grant (bisexuality)
> > without needing to know the sexuality he actually
> > practiced.
>
> I don't know why you regard this as an optional extra.
> Grant's bisexuality and his obvious appeal to both men
> and women on any number of different levels is one of
> the glories of the cinema and is the absolutely
> pivotal reason why he's the Greatest Movie Who Ever
> Lived.
>
>
> >Of course "Grant's bisexuality and his obvious appeal to both men
and women on any number of different levels is one of the glories of
cinema" is something I absolutely agree with and you said that very
well, David. But again, we can read all of this in his on-screen
persona and don't need to know anything about him beyond it. Though
inevitably, it seems, we all do.
>
> The most
> > famous scene
> > entirely built on sexual chemistry/interaction
> > between two men in
> > Hawks--the shooting match in Red River--was played
> > by two actors, one
> > straight, one bisexual.
>
> Monty wasn't bisexual, Blake. I've been talking about
> him a lot latelywith Jack Larson (I've been begging
> him to write his memoirs already!) who had a rather
> easygoing affir with him around the timeof "The
> Heiress" and "I Confess." He says everybody confuses
> Monty after the accident with Monty before the
> accident. Post-accident was the haunted Monty,
> destroyed by drugs and alcohol. Pre-accident he was,
> Jack says "a lot like Jerry Lewis."
>
>I guess you are saying Monty Clift was simply gay, not bisexual.
OK, it doesn't make the playing of that screen less interesting
--I guess abstractly it makes it more interesting that Ireland gave
it so much if he was straight (as I understand). But again, doesn't
this all just show they are actors. Even Dennis Quaid in Far from
Heaven--I wish he hadn't had to say "Yes, I had to kiss a guy, but
after the first few takes it was just one more day at the office."
Kind of like Tom Hanks' acceptance speech for Philadelphia--you
know, "I just loved playing this gay character, me a STRAIGHT man."
It seems like you should rebel against these guys acting this way
more than me, David.
Now for the interesting part--"a lot like Jerry Lewis." There seems
to be an implication here... Or maybe you just mean "gay" as in
light-hearted and with a great sense of humor. Either way, he's
just the great Jerry Lewis to me.
By the way, it's nice to hear the name Jack Larson, who I remember
as partner (both professionally and personally) with James Bridges,
a very underrated director who I actually threw into Expressive
Esoterica for that New American Cinema poll. This was mainly for
"Mike's Murder"--beautiful film, which eloquently dramatized a bi-
sexual character and his effect on the lives of several people, male
and female. I put it 4th on my 10 Best List at the Reader that year.
By the way, I didn't know Bridges was gay when I saw it--didn't seem
to make my appreciation less.
> > In later post, David told us Grant improvised the
> > line in Baby
> > "I just went GAY all of a sudden." That was
> > interesting to me.
> > Because this is a big moment, in 30s comedy and
> > otherwise. And it's
> > difficult not to speculate why he was inspired to
> > say this,
> > obviously. But why shouldn't Grant come up with it?
> > He was a
> > brilliant actor, as we all know. But still, its
> > presence in the
> > film has to be on the election of director Hawks,
> > and in that way it
> > is more relevant to him, and it's very consistent
> > with the other
> > comedies, with Grant (or Hudson).
>
> I would say it's presence in the film was godsend for
> hawks. It speaks of Hawks' penchant for improvisation,
> and the rewards gained therefrom.
>
>
That's beautifully said, especially use of the word "godsend." If
you look back I think you'll find it's consistent with what I said.
A great director takes and uses what's given--he or she doesn't need
to think of everything on their own; sometimes it comes to them in
their role of director and they are discerning enough to know it.
>
>
> I do
> > think Holt was brilliant--and especially the one you
> > mention,
> > Station Six Sahara. Is that available anywhere?
> > Because I am just
> > pining to see that one again someday.
> >
>
>
> Now THERE'S movie! Oil riggers in the desert. Tensions
> both sexual and other mounting. We're justabout to
> reach a crisis point when all of a sudden a huge
> convertible arrives out of nowhere with an unspeakably
> luscious Carroll Baker passed out in it.
>
> Nobody went out for popcorn!
>
>
>Personally, I'd never eat popcorn again if I could see this one
more time. Anyone notice my query about possible availability?
Because I feel like one of those guys with sexual and other tensions
mounting, just waiting for luscious Carroll Baker to show up.
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Messenger
> Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
> http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
25334
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 1:26am
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> --- Blake Lucas wrote:
>
> > Murnau's death was a real loss to me, maybe to most
> > people who love
> > cinema, I'd guess. So sure, I can't help but be
> > interested in what
> > happened. Though how everyone who wasn't in the car
> > is so sure of
> > what exactly what did happen, in all salacious
> > detail, is something
> > I don't quite get.
>
> Well that death, as gaudily related by Kenneth Anger,
> is one detail of his life. Murnau was gay. There are
> homoerotic threads in a few of the movies that
> survive, but that's about all one can say at this
> point.
>
Kenneth Anger is the one I was referring to all right. Was he in
the car? Even you acknowledge it was "gaudily related" and "one
detail of his life." Actually, though, I recall Robin Wood writing
about Murnau at the time he came out and making quite a lot of
Murnau's gayness--analyzing the films in terms of repression of
the erotic and the individual and so on, and rather movingly saying
the Murnau films he knew then (more have surfaced since) were kind
of a "key text" of his own life, and that the sharing of
understanding of these films between him and his wife was very
important to them in accepting the change that was coming for him.
> > > Public figures don't have "private lives."
> > >
> > No, I guess not. But this is where we part company,
> > because in all
> > fairness, they should.
>
> Why?
>
> Why is heterosexuality public and homosexuality
> "private"?
>
> For no good reason, that's why!
>
I don't say heterosexuality should be public and homosexuality
private--I have not said that once, as you are well aware. I think
heterosexuality should be just as private if someone wants it to be,
or just as open if they want it to be. But not if they don't want
it to be. That's all. For example, you have been known to
sometimes acknowledge you are gay. And I sometimes acknowledge I'm
straight when I feel it has some relevance--as in recent "eroticism"
thread of "I Feel a List Coming On." But that's our choice. I just
have trouble with this being discussed about people when we don't
know if they would want it to be, and from sources which may not
even be verifiable in all cases anyway.
I've noticed in these exchanges how many of the same movies we seem
to like--everything from "Morocco" to "Station Six Sahara" and from
"Imitation of Life" to "Berlin Alexanderplatz"--and often for many
of the same reasons, some directly having to do with the boldness
and openness with which they explore questions of sexual identity.
But in this public/private thing, we just completely disagree,
obviously. You've made it clear where you're coming from. I hope I
have done the same. Maybe it's time to put it to bed, so to speak.
Or take the last word, if there is one. That would be fine with me.
Blake
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
25335
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 1:27am
Subject: Re: Pierre Rissient jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
> I'm going to have to be politically correct for a moment here and
add:
> when we say things like 'Pierre Rissient discovered King Hu'
or 'he was
> the first cinephile to set foot in Korea' (and I am not just
referring
> to AFB members, people say such things all the time about Pierre),
we
> do mean APART FROM ALL THE CHINESE FILMGOERS WHO HAD ALREADY
DISCOVERED
> KING HU and APART FROM ALL THE KOREAN CINEPHILES, don't we?
>
> People, please, watch the casual Euro-centrism !!!!!!!!! Asian
cinema
> (and cinephilia) existed before this famous Frenchman 'discovered'
them
> !!!!!!!!!! It sounds like an imperialist narrative of a Great
Explorer
> !!!!!!
>
> Adrian
Exactly! I picture Pierre wearing his cinephilic pith helmet and
venturing into darkest South East Asia or whatever. And reporting
about the natives to Eurocentrists who've never left The Champs
Elysees except to travel south to the Cannes Festival. But at least
he made the effort. And this "famous Frenchman" is famous to maybe
three dozen people in the entire world. It just happens that people
who know him, either slightly (like me) or better, feel like saying
a word on his behalf, because his life truly has been an exceptional
itinerary in cinephilia.
By the way, the last time I saw him, in 2000 at the Montreal Film
Fest. we had several encounters and I remember we discussed EYES
WIDE SHUT which I had recently reviewed with mixed feelings and he
told me he thought the film was a total piece of shit, or words to
that effect. At one point I remember a somewhat inebriated dinner
where we discussed the Marx Brothers, of all things. At one point he
complained to me that he didn't have a pension and had to live from
hand to mouth, but to me he always gave the impression of living
the life of Riley (whoever Riley may have been). Sorry for drifting
to OT territory...
JPC
25336
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 1:41am
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) joka13us
>I dothink Holt was brilliant--and especially the one you mention,
>Station Six Sahara. Is that available anywhere? Because I am just
>pining to see that one again someday.
>
>Blake
Yes it's available, but only as a public domain title on VHS. Fair
quality from a 16mm print. I have it here Blake, if you want to see
it.
--
- Joe Kaufman
25337
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 2:02am
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> > It shouldn't be forgotten that it was thanks to
> > Fassbinder that Sirk got a chance to direct three
> > short films (all adaptations of short plays) in the
> > late seventies. They were all made in collaboration
> > with a group of film students but the actors were all
> > supplied by RWF, including himself.
> > "Talk to MeLike the Rain" by Tennessee Williams stars
> > Elizabeth Trissenaar. "new Year's Eve" by Arthur
> > Schitzler stars Hanna Schygulla, and "Bourbon Street
> > Blues" a version of Williams' "The Lady of Larspur
> > Lotion" stars Rainer Werner Fassbinder.
>
>
> Does anyone know where these can be had on tape? I saw all three
in Berkeley in
> '81. The one that impressed me was Bourbon Street - as I recall,
however, it was in
> English, while New Year's Eve was in German w/out subtitles - hard
to digest, as it
> was very dialogue-heavy. Anyway, Bourbon Street really is a final
testament, with
> the Dreyer influence front and center for all to see.
Bill, do you remember that you and I met at this event in Berkeley?
It was a little Sirk festival, with the great filmmaker himself
present. You drove up with Barbara, and I drove up with two friends
who weren't as attractive as Barbara, but they were my friends and
we all loved Sirk. We met at a screening my friends and I arranged
of Europa '51--it was the five of us, and a sixth person who invited
herself in to see this personal favorite of hers--Susan Sontag (I
recalled this to Joe McElhaney after he wrote about her in a_f_by).
What a weekend--not just the Sirk but meeting you and Barbara and
other great films we had screened, including a 35 nitrate print of
Docks of New York so exquisite it practically dissolved one's eyes
to watch it. The three short Sirk films were as described above,
a little hard to follow obviously in the absence of subtitles though
not in the case of Bourbon Street Blues, longest of the three, and
this one had Sirk's directing credit in the identical flowing script
to his credit on Imitation of Life. I would love to see those
again. But the highlight was The Tarnished Angels--what was then a
mint 35 scope print on a huge screen, very well-attended and
riveting for the audience. Sirk came out to speak afterward,
clearly proud of the film. I wish I could remember more of what he
said. I do remember that someone asked him why he used Rock Hudson;
he at first began with a kind of diffident "most popular star of the
day" but then became very passionate, declaring something like "I
thought he gave a really excellent performance in this...he's
wonderful in it." But what I remember most was something like
this: "Of all the films I've made, this is MY film. It is exactly
the way I wanted to be." And of course that dream went way back for
him. It really moved me to see that he knew he had made a work of
art as great as this one is and always will be.
Blake
25338
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 2:21am
Subject: Re: Pierre Rissient, King Hu bufordrat
jpcoursodon wrote:
>He discovered Hong Kong's King Hu, loved "A Touch of Zen" then, in a typical Rissient reversal, totally rejected the man who, he wrote, "sank into the most sordid vileness I ever witnessed.").
>
>JPC
>
>
Was Rissient talking about King Hu's subsequent films or about his
personal life?
-Matt
25339
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 3:17am
Subject: Re: Pierre Rissient, King Hu jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman wrote:
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >He discovered Hong Kong's King Hu, loved "A Touch of Zen" then, in
a typical Rissient reversal, totally rejected the man who, he
wrote, "sank into the most sordid vileness I ever witnessed.").
> >
> >JPC
> >
> >
> Was Rissient talking about King Hu's subsequent films or about his
> personal life?
>
> -Matt
About both, from what I understood. But we've never discussed it.
It was something he wrote. JPC
25340
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 3:56am
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk fredcamper
To the new member interested in the early Sirks, most are either great
or with great parts. I don't think "Mystery Submarine" or "Thunder on
the Hill" are very good. "Hitler's Madman," "Summer Storm," and "A
Scandal in Paris" are particularly great, and "The First Legion" is
tremendous.
The Fassbinders I've seen are "The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant," "The
Mechant of Four Seasons," "The Marriage of Maria Braun," "Fox and His
Friends," "Lola," and "Veronika Voss," so that's only six. I thought I'd
seen one other but can't figure out which.
That Fassbinder's films might be historically or politically
illuminating I don't dispute, nor do I quarrel with those who like them
for those reasons. It's just that to me those reasons are not aesthetic
or cinematic, unless and until you can show that the forms of his films
play into these themes.
With Sirk, as with most filmmakers I love, there's a kind of visual
architecture that's expressive and visionary, in his case of blockages
and perceptual paradoxes that sets up the theme of "Sirkian
impossibility," the notion that the characters can never become whole
flesh and blood characters because of the trap of the cosmos itself. I
have not read much Fassbinder criticism and haven't seen his films
defended on formal terms. Surely his article on Sirk is not a
particularly cinematic defense.
I'm also less interested in arguing against filmmakers whose work I
don't get than in arguing for those whose work I love. I'd like to see
those who like Fassbinder defend his work, and the notion that he has
more "talent" than Sirk, than speak of my own possible blind spot with
Fassbinder.
Fred Camper
25341
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 0:09am
Subject: Re: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) scil1973
In a message dated 4/7/05 1:55:32 PM, lukethedealer@... writes:
> His gayness was his business and like many other people you love to discuss
> in some of your "gayer than thou" posts, it seems like he preferred to keep
> it this way.>>
>
Actually, Blake, Rock Hudson's homosexuality was the business of many people,
particularly those who had a large investment in maintaining his heterosexual
image in the 1950s and beyond. And hopefully you realize by now that Hudson
didn't necessarily prefer to keep his sexuality private. Even if you don't
agree that the personal is political and that it is a gay man's social imperative
to come out, you should know that an enormous range of institutional beliefs
and practices that can be gathered, for the sake of brevity, under the rubric
of homophobia may constrain a gay man's ability to make his sexuality public,
to make it anyone else's "business," if you will. And, at the end of the day,
David IS gayer than thou, at least (although a heterosexual man could certainly
be gayer than David).
> And if you do really think it's relevant in his performances (especially in
> this particular Sirk
> movie) than may I suggest you are totally trashing his ability as an actor,
> as the appearance of gayness in this character could only undermine the
> movie.
>
As I always ask when I hear totalizing (witness the word "totally") of this
sort, for whom? That is, the appearance of gayness in this character could only
undermine the movie FOR WHOM? For you, clearly. But not for everyone, just as
clearly. The issue of believability is entirely beside the point when it
comes to gay male reception of Rock Hudson films. In fact, the stories in these
films are often irrelevant too. Given the poverty of gay/lesbian images in
cinema even to this day, gay and lesbian viewers are free to find homosexuality
everywhere, to quote Karen Hollinger (and, I think, D. A. Miller). Will our
alternative, forever unverifiable readings and pleasures abrade against your
appreciation of Hudson's ability to convincingly portray a heterosexual male?
Undoubtedly. But we'll get over it.
<>
I'd be the last person on this list to place strictures on cinema viewing
(witness the myriad film vs. video showdowns I've taken part in on this list).
But, sheesh, maybe you should at least SEE Rappaport's film before ripping on it
(although you should then probably ignore my post on METROPOLITAN). And you
might want to page through OPEN SECRET as well.
> we can take this as something within Grant (bisexuality) without needing to
> know the sexuality he actually practiced.>>
>
This I find truly perplexing. Let me see if I am understanding you correctly.
If we can read Grant's (or whoever's) bisexuality (or other non-het
sexuality) from the film itself, then we don't need to know about his sexuality outside
of the frame or in his "real" life (even though we know or "know" or whatever
about his sexuality in real life). Am I close? If so, then two things. One,
what if we CAN'T read Grant's bisexuality off the screen? And two, as with the
"for whom?" comment above, I would ask: What you mean WE, straight boy? Given
the preponderance of heterosexual images and narratives in film, song, TV,
etc., I, for one, need to know, to tweak the famous National Enquirer tagline
(more on that later). Defending alternative readings gets exhausting, ya know.
But Blake, do you PURPOSELY avoid information about the sexuality anyone
actually practiced? Is that why you haven't read OPEN SECRET (assuming you
haven't)? Are you afraid it will reveal these sexual practices to you? And what
counts as evidence for you? Is Grant's gay line from BRINGING UP BABY enough for
you to grant Grant his bisexuality offscreen? Is that "Who's a Fairy?" Tijuana
Bible necessary? Would you have had to have been in the back seat while Murnau
was chomping down on that boy? And assuming you never actively seek out this
information, what if you come across it by accident? What if Kevin Spacey hits
on you? What if you walked in to a bathroom stall and saw Hudson taking it up
the ass? What if Joel Schumacher says on Oprah "Yup, I'm gay, y'all?" For that
matter, what if Schumacher told you this directly at a party? What would you
do? Shut your ears? Tell him "I prefer to infer your sexuality through your
films ONLY?" Run away in horror? This sounds bitchy but I'm being serious. You
know what they say about enquiring minds...
<>
On this matter, allow me to quote Andrea Weiss from her nice piece "'A Queer
Feeling When I Look At You': Hollywood stars and lesbian spectatorship in the
1930s":
"It is this insistence by the dominant culture on making homosexuality
invisibile and unspeakable that both requires and enables us to locate gay history
in rumour, innuendo, fleeting gestures and coded language."
And finally, I'd like to politely suggest that you read Patricia Meyer
Spacks' book GOSSIP.
Best,
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25342
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 5:20am
Subject: Re: Pierre Rissient noelbotevera
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
> I'm going to have to be politically correct for a moment here and
add:
> when we say things like 'Pierre Rissient discovered King Hu'
or 'he was
> the first cinephile to set foot in Korea' (and I am not just
referring
> to AFB members, people say such things all the time about Pierre),
we
> do mean APART FROM ALL THE CHINESE FILMGOERS WHO HAD ALREADY
DISCOVERED
> KING HU and APART FROM ALL THE KOREAN CINEPHILES, don't we?
>
He promoted King Hu, dropped him, did the same with Brocka (they had
a falling out too), and is presently doing the same to U Wei Bin
Haji Saari (saw him in the Singapore Film Festival screening of A
Poet). That's kind of why I like to call him Mephisto.
Talking about eurocentrism, or I don't know why talk about the
aforementioned made me remember this, but someone told me a story
about how the Chinese Fifth Generation first attended the Hong Kong
Film Festival with their pictures: total country hicks, looking with
awe at all the tall buildings. Not anymore...
25343
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 6:58am
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
What you mean WE, straight boy?
>
[And to those who didn't read the rest it's post 25341]
I really appreciate that you took the trouble to write all this,
Kevin, even if there were moments when I kind of felt like I was
being attacked in some way.
I only hope that you also read all of what I wrote in earlier posts
today and are not trying to take a few lines out of context to serve
an agenda, which is what I find critics do who place ideology ahead
of everything else.
If you did read what I said, you'd know I don't ask anyone to hide
their sexuality--I only am uncomfortable with off-screen sexuality
of others being emblazoned here even if those people might not want
it that way. If they've had it out there and want it out there,
fine. I'm certainly knowledgeable enough about film history to know
of past pressures--plainly they were both cultural and commercial,
but I don't think we can know in any every case how open someone
wanted to be.
I kind of made a point of George Nader to show where my sympathies
are in this. Maybe you missed that. I thought what I said about
Cary Grant was very clear. And what I said about directors was
clear. As critics we should be able to recognize a homosexual or
bisexual nature as animating a work of art in some important way,
and shouldn't need to know about the person's life in order to have
this understanding. If we do, we do, but it's just not relevant to
understanding art.
This is supposed to be a group devoted to studying how filmmakers
express themselves through form and style. Yet one constantly opens
up a post and it's who's screwing whom? It just gets wearisome
sometimes, Kevin.
No apologies on that Rappaport movie--I only said what I'd heard
about it and while one post refuted that, another one supported what
I'd heard. I made no judgement on it as a realized work--I only
raised questions about the reputed subject of it.
I have a terrible feeling that you are coming away from today after
carelessly reading me with some notion that is contrary to who I
am. I know I can't presume this, but I don't think David sees me
that way because we know each other and in fact spent some time
together the other evening. My disagreement with him is only about
one thing and I think it's clear what it is. In one of my last
posts I observed that we seem to like many of the same movies for
similar reasons. Not Far From Heaven, maybe, but everything doesn't
stand or fall on that, does it?
As far as actual movies are concerned, which is what this is
supposed to be about, if you didn't pick up something about my
tastes and interests that contradicts that "straight boy" comment of
yours then I don't think the fault is with me.
And I am guessing that whether they will say so or not, there are
gay members of the group who have some sympathy for the point I
wanted to make.
Although it is another subject probably, I'd like to suggest that
rather than read in people's private lives into Hollywood movies of
an earlier time, a time admittedly of much suppression of
homosexuality, that you might more profitably see the wealth of
actual homoerotic and homosexual subtext which richly attaches to so
many of the movies we love. In art, there are always ways to
express anything.
Blake
25344
From: MG4273@...
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 3:35am
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) nzkpzq
Some mixed thoughts:
1) There is indeed a gap between art and life. Ultimately, we have to be
concerned with what is on screen.
I have argued in previous posts that Robert Bresson's films express gay
themes, and often look at gay characters: eg, that the protagonists of "Diary of a
Country Priest", "A Man Escaped" and "Trial of Joan of Arc" are all gay. This
is NOT based on anything I know about Bresson's life (which is next to
nothing). And I do not feel the need to wait around till the National Enquirer or
whoever makes revelations about Bresson's life. Maybe there will never be any
revelations, or nothing to reveal.
2) Personal revelations can apply to the talented and the talentless.
Furthermore, they tend to be woefully incomplete and partial. They are of much less
interest than what can be seen on screen. I know NOTHING about Anthony Mann,
for instance - have never even read a real interview with him. Does this stop us
from appreciating his wonderful films? I hope not!
3) Gayness can be reflected on screen in ways other than sexual orientation.
Many gay performers tend to have unique personalities - we feel we shall never
see anyone like them again - eg, Fred Astaire, Sir John Gielgud, Cary Grant.
This perhaps reflects the fact that many gay people do not "fit in", and
instead had to develop strong individual personalities while growing up. Raymond
Burr is an example of this. He seems utterly different from anyone else on
screen. His popularity for years as Perry Mason reflected this. He had an intensity
of individual personality. Many performers with a gay sensibility tend to be
deeply loved by the public. Clifton Webb is an example. People were just crazy
about him, in part because he seemed to be utterly himself. The same was true
of Agnes Moorehead, or Tallulah Bankhead or the TV comedienne Nancy Kulp.
This is a complex phenomenon, and does not mean (unfortunately) that the same
public endorsed equality for gays and lesbians.
4) Gayness was often expressed in coded ways, in popular art, because of
taboos against open expression. So actually looking at films, or comics, or
mystery stories for gay expression is a worthwhile task. It pays to be open minded,
and to try to see what might be there, just under the surface.
In summary, I am skeptical about attempts to equate art and life. We should
be studying art. But I am also skeptical about attempts to insist on
heterosexual readings of art. Works of art are very complex, and gay artists have often
expressed complex feelings and ideas in them.
Mike Grost
25345
From: Ram shankar R
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 9:40am
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk r_ram_shankar
--- Fred Camper wrote:
> To the new member interested in the early Sirks,
> most are either great
> or with great parts. I don't think "Mystery
> Submarine" or "Thunder on
> the Hill" are very good. "Hitler's Madman," "Summer
> Storm," and "A
> Scandal in Paris" are particularly great, and "The
> First Legion" is
> tremendous.
Thanks!
> With Sirk, as with most filmmakers I love, there's a
> kind of visual
> architecture that's expressive and visionary, in his
> case of blockages
> and perceptual paradoxes that sets up the theme of
> "Sirkian
> impossibility," the notion that the characters can
> never become whole
> flesh and blood characters because of the trap of
> the cosmos itself.
To think that the cosmos traps people into their
impossibilities. At this moment, it looks like
carrying material existence too far. Well, in any
case, I need to see his movies for a while to say
anything further.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25346
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 11:53am
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk joe_mcelhaney
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> That Fassbinder's films might be historically or politically
> illuminating I don't dispute, nor do I quarrel with those who like
them
> for those reasons. It's just that to me those reasons are not
aesthetic
> or cinematic, unless and until you can show that the forms of his
films
> play into these themes.
>
> With Sirk, as with most filmmakers I love, there's a kind of visual
> architecture that's expressive and visionary, in his case of
blockages
> and perceptual paradoxes that sets up the theme of "Sirkian
> impossibility," the notion that the characters can never become
whole
> flesh and blood characters because of the trap of the cosmos
itself. I
> have not read much Fassbinder criticism and haven't seen his films
> defended on formal terms. Surely his article on Sirk is not a
> particularly cinematic defense.
>
> I'm also less interested in arguing against filmmakers whose work I
> don't get than in arguing for those whose work I love. I'd like to
see
> those who like Fassbinder defend his work, and the notion that he
has
> more "talent" than Sirk, than speak of my own possible blind spot
with
> Fassbinder.
I do think that the problem you're having with Fassbinder is, in
fact, a blind spot and this makes it difficult to substantially
discuss his work with you. And like you, I'd much rather talk about
filmmakers I admire with those who share this admiration than defend
a favored filmmaker to a skeptic. It's an exhausting process and, for
me anyway, usually not very rewarding. Consequently, I don't have a
tremendous amount of interest in defending Fassbinder. I don't think
he needs defending. Moreover, I would never make the absurd claim
that he had more talent than Sirk, a remark which seems to have set
you off here. They were both brilliant filmmakers and are closer in
many ways than you seem to realize. In fact, I am often struck by how
your descriptions of what makes a Sirk film great could also be
applied to Fassbinder. They were both attracted to a cinema
of "perceptual paradoxes," of characters who constantly struggle to
become "flesh and blood." It is indeed a trap that these characters
find themselves caught in although what I see as the source of
entrapment in the work of both directors is less the "cosmos" than
much more specific social and cultural matters. (On this matter, both
directors, it should also be pointed out, are part of a long
German/Austrian tradition of looking at the world in these terms and
in different ways this manner of seeing could be applied to Lang,
Pabst, Lubitsch, Ophuls, etc.)
As for how Fassbinder's thematic and historical ambitions relate to
his visual style, I honestly don't know where to begin. It seems to
me that almost every shot in his films is determined by a type of
visual intensity, an almost anguished desire to relate the look of
the films (lighting, camera angles, camera movement, the blocking and
staging of action, the use of sound) back to the basic thematics.
Obviously if I had one of the films in front of me and you sitting
next to me I could take you through the films and explain in a
detailed manner how I see these connections operating. But it's too
much to deal with in an online post and my guess is that it has been
so long since you've seen these films that even if I were to cite
specific moments you wouldn't remember them. I am stupefied that you
can't see these connections but this must be the blind spot again.
Doing a little of reading on Fassbinder might help you begin to see,
if you truly are interested in breaking through. Thomas Elsaesser's
book on Fassbinder is excellent and he' s attentive to both political
and aesthetic issues.
25347
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 0:29pm
Subject: Re: Minnelli & Gaslight (was: Trafic 53) joe_mcelhaney
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 05-04-07 13:28:49 EDT, Joe McElhaney write:
>
> << But he also mentions Minnelli's work on the films of others,
including
> Best Foot Forward, The Heavenly Body, and two Cukors, Gaslight and
A Life of Her
> Own. All of this is news to me >>
>
> Holy retakes, Batman!
> How extensive is the Minnelli contribution to "Gaslight"?
I know that the last brief sequence of "Gaslight" was done after the
film had been cut. That's when Selznick saw it and recommended that a
sequence confirming that Bergman would fully recover from her
neurosis and that she and Joseph Cotten would now begin to have a
romance be added to the film. This may have been what Minnelli shot
since I think Cukor was already working on "Winged Victory" at
Fox. "A Life of Her Own" was a film with such a troubled post-
production history that it's anyone's guess who did what. Both
Minnelli and Cukor had long take visual styles which also employed
complex staging of action. And by this point Cukor was also using a
more mobile camera. Possibly the last sequence of this film was
Minnelli's since it was a revised "upbeat" ending after the original
one of Lana Turner committing suicide was scrapped.
25348
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 1:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) cellar47
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
Even Dennis
> Quaid in Far from
> Heaven--I wish he hadn't had to say "Yes, I had to
> kiss a guy, but
> after the first few takes it was just one more day
> at the office."
> Kind of like Tom Hanks' acceptance speech for
> Philadelphia--you
> know, "I just loved playing this gay character, me a
> STRAIGHT man."
> It seems like you should rebel against these guys
> acting this way
> more than me, David.
>
I think not. The most "exciting" scenes we see on the
screen were often as not a chore to shoot. And sex and
romance are always highly choreographed to a degree
that removes any potential fun for the actors
participating -- regardless of sexual orientation.
> Now for the interesting part--"a lot like Jerry
> Lewis." There seems
> to be an implication here... Or maybe you just mean
> "gay" as in
> light-hearted and with a great sense of humor.
> Either way, he's
> just the great Jerry Lewis to me.
>
What Jack was talking about was how goofy Monty was.
The world has the impression of a dark "serious" actor
with no end of "personal problems." But the guy Jack
knew wasn't like that at all, and according to him was
greatfun to be with.
> By the way, it's nice to hear the name Jack Larson,
> who I remember
> as partner (both professionally and personally) with
> James Bridges,
> a very underrated director who I actually threw into
> Expressive
> Esoterica for that New American Cinema poll. This
> was mainly for
> "Mike's Murder"--beautiful film, which eloquently
> dramatized a bi-
> sexual character and his effect on the lives of
> several people, male
> and female. I put it 4th on my 10 Best List at the
> Reader that year.
> By the way, I didn't know Bridges was gay when I saw
> it--didn't seem
> to make my appreciation less.
>
And I'm sure you didn't knwo Paul Winfield was gay
either -- or that his climactic speech was based on
something that actually happened to him. "Mike's
Murder" (which is far and away bridges' bestfilm) was
based on the death of somene they actually knew and
that Winfield loved. I've written about this for "The
Advocate."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25349
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 1:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) cellar47
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
> >
> Kenneth Anger is the one I was referring to all
> right. Was he in
> the car?
He sure as hell writes as if he were!
Even you acknowledge it was "gaudily
> related" and "one
> detail of his life." Actually, though, I recall
> Robin Wood writing
> about Murnau at the time he came out and making
> quite a lot of
> Murnau's gayness--analyzing the films in terms of
> repression of
> the erotic and the individual and so on, and rather
> movingly saying
> the Murnau films he knew then (more have surfaced
> since) were kind
> of a "key text" of his own life, and that the
> sharing of
> understanding of these films between him and his
> wife was very
> important to them in accepting the change that was
> coming for him.
>
Well Wood speaks for himself.Personally I find
Murnau's gayness to be more a fact in his biography
than an active element in his art -- insofar as weknow
it. For we're only familiar with a small handful of
films.
> >
> I don't say heterosexuality should be public and
> homosexuality
> private--I have not said that once, as you are well
> aware. I think
> heterosexuality should be just as private if someone
> wants it to be,
> or just as open if they want it to be. But not if
> they don't want
> it to be. That's all.
That's not the way it works, Blake.heterosexuality is
ALWAYS public, because it's seen as absolutely
universal. And as we are coming to relaize this is not
the case atall. That's what Christopher Isherwood as
talking about when he called it "The Heterosexual
Dictatorship."
For example, you have been
> known to
> sometimes acknowledge you are gay. And I sometimes
> acknowledge I'm
> straight when I feel it has some relevance--as in
> recent "eroticism"
> thread of "I Feel a List Coming On." But that's our
> choice.
It's not "choice." It's a conscious political practice
with which I have been actively involved for close to
40 years.
I just
> have trouble with this being discussed about people
> when we don't
> know if they would want it to be, and from sources
> which may not
> even be verifiable in all cases anyway.
>
Well sure. But in my view this is (or should be) all
part of common knowledge. Murnau may be of pivotal
import to Robin Wood, but I don't know enough about
his life or work to find him so vis-a-vis his gayness.
I do, however know quite a bit about the life and art
of James Whale, George Cukor, Charles Walters, Edmund
Goulding, and Mitchell Leisen -- to name a few top
studio era names.
> I've noticed in these exchanges how many of the same
> movies we seem
> to like--everything from "Morocco" to "Station Six
> Sahara" and from
> "Imitation of Life" to "Berlin Alexanderplatz"--and
> often for many
> of the same reasons, some directly having to do with
> the boldness
> and openness with which they explore questions of
> sexual identity.
>
Yes. And it's that wonderful?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
25350
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 2:00pm
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk cellar47
--- Fred Camper wrote:
>
> The Fassbinders I've seen are "The Bitter Tears of
> Petra von Kant," "The
> Mechant of Four Seasons," "The Marriage of Maria
> Braun," "Fox and His
> Friends," "Lola," and "Veronika Voss," so that's
> only six. I thought I'd
> seen one other but can't figure out which.
>
Then I wouldreccomend thatyou see "Berlin
Alexanderplatz," "Querelle" and above all "Beware of a
Holy Whore" -- his "8 1/2" and one of the bestmovis
about moveimaking ever made. It all takes place ata
hotel in Spain where the cast and crew arewaiting for
the money to arrive. it's a recreation of the shooting
of "White" -- and Lou Castel plas Fassbinder.
> That Fassbinder's films might be historically or
> politically
> illuminating I don't dispute, nor do I quarrel with
> those who like them
> for those reasons. It's just that to me those
> reasons are not aesthetic
> or cinematic, unless and until you can show that the
> forms of his films
> play into these themes.
Well then you're emphapsizing beliefs beyond someone
like Fassbinder. You seem to regard politics as a
contaminating element destroying the pure realm of
art.
I cannot agree. To me art and politics aren't so
simply divisible.
I
> have not read much Fassbinder criticism and haven't
> seen his films
> defended on formal terms. Surely his article on Sirk
> is not a
> particularly cinematic defense.
>
Not along the terms you state. While there's no space
to go into detail here "Berlin Alexanderplatz" is
highly architectural in that it strives to recreate a
pre-war Berlin that has been completely destroyed --
and succeeds.
> I'm also less interested in arguing against
> filmmakers whose work I
> don't get than in arguing for those whose work I
> love. I'd like to see
> those who like Fassbinder defend his work, and the
> notion that he has
> more "talent" than Sirk, than speak of my own
> possible blind spot with
> Fassbinder.
>
Well I for one don't clam that fassbinder has "more
talent" than Sirk as it's a ridiculous notion. They're
very different filmmakers from very different eras.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
25351
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 2:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) cellar47
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
As critics we should be able to recognize a
> homosexual or
> bisexual nature as animating a work of art in some
> important way,
> and shouldn't need to know about the person's life
> in order to have
> this understanding. If we do, we do, but it's just
> not relevant to
> understanding art.
>
Now this is really the sticking point, Blake -- and it
has to do with a lot more than sexuality.As critics we
should want to know as much as we possibly can about a
work and its maker(s). Whenever we have access to a
filmmaker we like, what do we do? Ask him or her every
question we can think of about their work, how it was
made, and where they got their ideas and/or
inspiration. Sexuality quite obviously plays a role in
all of this. And when you've got a real live Todd
Haynes, Patrice Chereau, or Gus Van Sant (generally
accompanied by boyfriend du jour) sitting in front of
you it's downright irresponsible to avoid the obvious.
> I have a terrible feeling that you are coming away
> from today after
> carelessly reading me with some notion that is
> contrary to who I
> am. I know I can't presume this, but I don't think
> David sees me
> that way because we know each other and in fact
> spent some time
> together the other evening.
And that was one great evening, in which I had the
chance to the highlights of my evolving "Those Who
Love Me Can Take the Train" seminar with a Hi-Def TV.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
25352
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 2:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) cellar47
--- MG4273@... wrote:
> Some mixed thoughts:
> 1) There is indeed a gap between art and life.
> Ultimately, we have to be
> concerned with what is on screen.
> I have argued in previous posts that Robert
> Bresson's films express gay
> themes, and often look at gay characters: eg, that
> the protagonists of "Diary of a
> Country Priest", "A Man Escaped" and "Trial of Joan
> of Arc" are all gay. This
> is NOT based on anything I know about Bresson's life
> (which is next to
> nothing). And I do not feel the need to wait around
> till the National Enquirer or
> whoever makes revelations about Bresson's life.
> Maybe there will never be any
> revelations, or nothing to reveal.
Well Jonathan Rosenbaum recently dropped the bombshell
that in his youth Bresson was a gigolo -- thus making
the exquiste "Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne" far mroe
central to his life and art that I had ever imagined.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
25353
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 3:18pm
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) tharpa2002
Blake Lucas wrote:
"As critics we should be able to recognize a homosexual or bisexual
nature as animating a work of art in some important way, and
shouldn't need to know about the person's life in order to have
this understanding. If we do, we do, but it's just not relevant to
understanding art."
David Ehrenstein wrote:
"Now this is really the sticking point, Blake -- and it has to do
with a lot more than sexuality. As critics we should want to know as
much as we possibly can about a work and its maker(s). Whenever we
have access to a filmmaker we like, what do we do? Ask him or her
every question we can think of about their work, how it was made, and
where they got their ideas and/or inspiration. Sexuality quite
obviously plays a role in all of this. And when you've got a real
live Todd Haynes, Patrice Chereau, or Gus Van Sant (generally
accompanied by boyfriend du jour) sitting in front of you it's
downright irresponsible to avoid the obvious."
I don't claim that you can't understand the work without knowing who
made it, and though I'm not a critic, I have to agree with David
here. As a rank and file cinephile, knowing about a favorite
filmmaker's sexuality, politics, and tastes and what relation they
have to his/her artistic choices deepens my appreciation for the
works. Reading Yoda Yoshitaka's biography of Mizoguchi, for example,
gave me insights into his ouevre. It's also interesting to know the
circumstances under which any given picture was made, and that may
include details of the filmmaker's personal life.
Richard
25354
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 4:01pm
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) jess_l_amortell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas" wrote:
> As critics we should be able to recognize a homosexual or
> bisexual nature as animating a work of art in some important way,
> and shouldn't need to know about the person's life in order to have
> this understanding. If we do, we do, but it's just not relevant to
> understanding art.
>
> This is supposed to be a group devoted to studying how filmmakers
> express themselves through form and style. Yet one constantly opens
> up a post and it's who's screwing whom? It just gets wearisome
> sometimes, Kevin.
You yourself, in the magnificent post 25076, reported that an actress had been creatively stimulated by her director's offscreen kiss -- "Revealingly, Miller said that Carlson himself kissed her before the sequence in a way that so aroused her that she carried it into the sequence."
(So one might assume that if, let's suppose, Rock Hudson had described being similarly prepared by his director for a torrid scene with Dorothy Malone or Paula Prentiss, you'd have deemed such information of at least comparable interest.)
25355
From: "Henrik Sylow"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 4:22pm
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) henrik_sylow
> Blake Lucas wrote:
>
> "As critics we should be able to recognize a homosexual or bisexual
> nature as animating a work of art in some important way, and
> shouldn't need to know about the person's life in order to have
> this understanding. If we do, we do, but it's just not relevant to
> understanding art."
>
> David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> "Now this is really the sticking point, Blake -- and it has to do
> with a lot more than sexuality. As critics we should want to know as
> much as we possibly can about a work and its maker(s). Whenever we
> have access to a filmmaker we like, what do we do? Ask him or her
> every question we can think of about their work, how it was made, and
> where they got their ideas and/or inspiration. Sexuality quite
> obviously plays a role in all of this. And when you've got a real
> live Todd Haynes, Patrice Chereau, or Gus Van Sant (generally
> accompanied by boyfriend du jour) sitting in front of you it's
> downright irresponsible to avoid the obvious."
To me, homosexuals, and for that matter other sexual directions like
bdsm, make an effort when noting upon sexuality in their work,
opposite heterosexuals, who use sexuality very casual and often
indifferent.
Perhaps its because homosexuals have to "come out", that is, seperate
themselves from a heterosexual world and its notions of sexuality,
hence their use of sexuality is more "in your face" than a
heterosexual director would portrait or note upon heterosexuality.
For instance, sexuality is very important in films of for instance
Todd Haynes or Lisa Cholodenko, but I never saw Gus Van Sants films as
gay (except "My Own Private Idaho").
The other way around, I was very surprised when reviewing
"Irreversible" to learn that Noe wasn't gay but, in his own words, as
straight as can be, but once I knew it, alot of his images did make
more sense.
And while we are talking about gays, I would really like to hear
peoples reaction to this "gay chic" thing thats going around, not only
on prime time tv with these five guys making a geek into a
metrosexual, but also Hollywoods use of a gay token guy, like in
"Agent Catwalk 2" and "Hitch".
Henrik
25356
From: BklynMagus
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 4:37pm
Subject: Re: Defending Fassbinder (Was: Fassbinder/Sirk cinebklyn
Since I started this discussion I should remain a part of it.
Please forgive any sketchiness in my argument -- my father
passed away Wednesday and my brain is a bit preoccupied.
But since I first saw Fassbinder films with my Dad and he even
took me "backstage" at the NYFF to meet him (I was still in high
school and had no idea at the time how important Fassbinder
would become for me), I want to write a few words.
First about my assertion that Fassbinder is more talented than
Sirk. I stand by that and do believe that Fassbinder is the
greater artist. I find stating that no different that saying that
Fassbinder is a greater talent than Joel Schmacher. Fassbinder
is a major talent and Sirk a minor one.
In different combinations and to different degrees, Fassbinder
was a director, writer, actor, editor and cinematographer. I will
admit that I am partial to writer-directors over directors, and this
has been true since my earliest stirrings of cinephilia. I include
directors such as Hitchcock, Hawks, Preminger, and Mizoguchi
among writer-directors even though they did not take screen
credit: the scripts of their films were theirs no matter who
wielded the pen.
As I stated in a previous thread, I believe Sirk most often worked
in the margins of his films, commenting on and subverting the
narrative that had been assigned to him. For me Fassbinder's
films are (in part) works that subvert the narrative of the society in
which they were made, West German society. Whereas Sirk must
distract his viewers with his compositional and framing skills from
the dull narrative he is obligated to film, Fassbinder's movies are
more complete works to me since he controlled writing, directing,
casting, etc. Instead of just working in the margins of a film,
Fassbinder worked across the whole frame and sountrack, but in the
margins of society, creating films that were not divided against
themselves as Sirk's were.
As an example: Fassbinder's "Martha" is a movie about a middle-class
sadist slowly and inexorably taking control of a woman's life. As
the movie progresses and Martha is increasingly hemmed in by her
husband and his middle-class value system, Martha has less and less
freedom in the frame. People and objects seem to check every
move Martha tries to make.
Fassbinder will also combine acting styles in his films to convey
his ideas. In "Fear of Fear," Hanna Shygulla wafts through as if she
were in another movie -- and she is. She has escaped the confines
of the world of the heroine and acts accordingly.
I would also point to the opening scene in "Beware of a Holy Whore"
in the hotel lobby. At the bar in front you have cast and crew drinking,
and in the background you have cast and crew getting it on on a couch.
Fassbinder uses rack focusing to switch from one event to another,
allowing them to comment on each other (it is here and in other areas
that you see Fassbinder's deep debt to Mankiewicz. His later addition
of Sirk flourishes enriched his cinema, but the foundation of his
approach is Mankiewiczean).
Also see "Chinese Roulette," an incredibly beautiful film about unloving
parents. The movie combines Mankiewiczean game playing with
Sirkean camera choreography. The camera is as relentless in circling
and probing the parents as their daughter is in attacking them. The
use of glass and mirrors reinforces that no matter what you see --
whether it be an image or its reflection -- the ugliness of humanity is on
display.
Brian
25357
From: "Rick Curnutte"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 4:46pm
Subject: Disaster strikes racurnutte1
Everyone,
My laptop crashed 2 days ago and I essentially lost every contact and
email from the last 3 months, which means I may have lost your "Sarris
Update" (tentatively titled, of course) ballots. Could you please send
them to me off-list so I can be sure?
Thanks,
Rick Curnutte
25358
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 4:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) cellar47
--- Henrik Sylow wrote:
>
> And while we are talking about gays, I would really
> like to hear
> peoples reaction to this "gay chic" thing thats
> going around, not only
> on prime time tv with these five guys making a geek
> into a
> metrosexual, but also Hollywoods use of a gay token
> guy, like in
> "Agent Catwalk 2" and "Hitch".
>
That just goes to show how far things have comesince
Vito Russo wrote "The Celluloid Closet." Back then he
was searchign for every scrap of gay/lesbian stores
and images he could find. And most of the ones he
found were homophobic. Today gay and lesbian is
acknowledged as an element of sophistication.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Messenger
Show us what our next emoticon should look like. Join the fun.
http://www.advision.webevents.yahoo.com/emoticontest
25359
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 4:54pm
Subject: Early Sirk (Was: Fassbinder/Sirk) sallitt1
> --- Fred Camper wrote:
>> To the new member interested in the early Sirks,
>> most are either great
>> or with great parts. I don't think "Mystery
>> Submarine" or "Thunder on
>> the Hill" are very good. "Hitler's Madman," "Summer
>> Storm," and "A
>> Scandal in Paris" are particularly great, and "The
>> First Legion" is
>> tremendous.
I'm a big big fan of SLEEP MY LOVE, which most other Sirkians seem not to
like as much.
SUMMER STORM and THE FIRST LEGION are also big favorites. SHOCKPROOF
isn't that good, but it's certainly worthwhile.
I haven't yet found my way into A SCANDAL IN PARIS, which is generally
admired; and I also had trouble understanding the good reputation of
LURED. I didn't enjoy HITLER'S MADMAN, and didn't even know that it had a
following.
- Dan
25360
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 5:13pm
Subject: Writers and directors (Was: Defending Fassbinder) sallitt1
> I include
> directors such as Hitchcock, Hawks, Preminger, and Mizoguchi
> among writer-directors even though they did not take screen
> credit: the scripts of their films were theirs no matter who
> wielded the pen.
I think it's a good idea to be careful here. Though these directors have
strong personalities and may have written without credit, one can still
detect other writers' personalities in their films. For instance, Ben
Hecht's style is evident in the films he wrote for all of the American
directors you mention. In my opinion, some of the best films by these
directors have writers with identifiable styles. - Dan
25361
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 5:59pm
Subject: Re: All That Gayness Allows (Was:Fassbinder/Sirk) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
>
>
> You yourself, in the magnificent post 25076, reported that an
actress had been creatively stimulated by her director's offscreen
kiss -- "Revealingly, Miller said that Carlson himself kissed her
before the sequence in a way that so aroused her that she carried it
into the sequence."
> (So one might assume that if, let's suppose, Rock Hudson had
described being similarly prepared by his director for a torrid
scene with Dorothy Malone or Paula Prentiss, you'd have deemed such
information of at least comparable interest.)
Yes I would, Jess.
Remember that Miller volunteered this information herself and in the
hypothetical example you give Hudson volunteers it. Even if that
weren't true, though, some crew member or assistant or co-star could
be around now who might say "The director kissed the actress before
we shot the scene and it seemed to really heat her up." That would
be OK with me, too. Being on the set at work on a film gives a
privileged perspective in my view. That is only my view.
I read a lot of good posts this morning following up yesterday. A
lot of good things were said and I just can't take time to respond
individually to each one as I'd like. Anyway, this should be a
general discussion among members.
As I've probably overelaborated by now, I tend to rebel against a
gossipy tone about film people that has nothing to do with films.
But to all those who wrote to say a filmmaker's life is revelant and
we can learn more about them from it, I readily accede to that in
context of scholarship, if not in gossip. Thus Kenneth Anger
fantasizing about the last ride of Murnau is a very different thing
to me than a Mizoguchi biography someone else mentioned in another
very articulate post. Incidentally, someone mentioned Anthony Mann,
and I'll try to find that post and answer directly later. A few
years ago his daughter appeared at a retrospective and revealed some
things about his early life which were absolutely revelatory. It
didn't make me love or even understand his films more as works of
art, but it did help clarify why they are the way they are.
The Miller incident is kind of in an area in between gossipy and
scholarship, isn't it? I'm human. Because of personal feelings
about her, the sequence and the film, how could I not be fascinated?
It didn't make the film any better (saw it again recently), but was
very interesting to know. I thought the eroticism thread was meant
to be kind of playful and personal and approached it that way.
Of course, what motivated me most to respond to you first was the
compliment you paid that post off the top. Thanks so much for
ascribing to it far more than it deserves. For sure, that one was
the most fun to write.
Blake
25362
From: BklynMagus
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 7:00pm
Subject: Re: Writers and directors (Was: Defending Fassbinder) cinebklyn
Dan writes:
> In my opinion, some of the best films by these
directors have writers with identifiable styles.
Agreed. But in these cases there is a discernable
style in the crafting of the dialogue.
For me that is not the case in Sirk. Often the dialogue
is wooden and banal. I often wonder if he
overdeveloped his visual style as a counterpoint to
the poorly crafted scripts he was handed.
The reason I rate Sirk lower than Fassbinder is that
his dialogue doesn't exhibit the same craftmanship as
his visuals. For me, the aural and the verbal is as
much a part of the film as the visual. When a film is
silent, it is the auteur's choice to have no sound. When
she chooses to have sound, then she is responsible
for its quality (or lack thereof).
Brian
25363
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 7:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: Writers and directors (Was: Defending Fassbinder) fredcamper
BklynMagus wrote:
> ...The reason I rate Sirk lower than Fassbinder is that
> his dialogue doesn't exhibit the same craftmanship as
> his visuals. ...
This puts you in opposition to the mainstream of American autuerism.
In my view, a great film is not like a restaurant meal in which all the
ingredients, or courses, have to be top quality, because great direction
can transform every other element of a film into something completely
different from what it would be if the same film were given mediocre or
worse direction.
Witness the line of the Fred McMurray character in "There's Always
Tomorrow," that he is not dead but "Alive --alive and wanting you." This
is about as corny as a soap opera line gets, but it is so charged with
meaning by the film's imagery that it is incredibly moving.
On a side note, I have a personal aversion to the term "visuals" and try
never to use it. This term makes a film's images seem like book
illustrations or something. The imagery is the spine of a great film,
just as music is the "spine" of an opera.
I'm no opera expert, but is it often said of a great opera that the
lyrics or dialogue don't match the quality of the music?
Fred Camper
25364
From: BklynMagus
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 8:11pm
Subject: Re: Writers and directors (Was: Defending Fassbinder) cinebklyn
Fred writes:
> This puts you in opposition to the mainstream of
American autuerism.
I'm in opposition to the mainstream of American most
everything, so it is a position I am comfortable with.
> In my view, a great film is not like a restaurant meal
in which all the ingredients, or courses, have to be top
quality
I disagree. A bad performance from one actor can throw
off an entire movie. As much as I adore "A Letter to Three
Wives," the ineptitude of Jean Crain's performance cannot
be ignored. It disrupts the harmony of the picture, which
otherwise is pitched at a very high level. I am just thankful
that Mankiewicz prevailed and Anne Baxter and not Jeanne
Crain played Eve.
> . . . because great direction can transform every other
element of a film into something completely different from
what it would be if the same film were given mediocre or
worse direction.
True, but even the greatest direction cannot make Jeanne
Crain's performances better than acceptable or wooden
dialogue poetic or witty.
> Witness the line of the Fred McMurray character in "There's
Always Tomorrow," that he is not dead but "Alive --alive and
wanting you." This is about as corny as a soap opera line gets,
but it is so charged with meaning by the film's imagery that it
is incredibly moving.
I would have to see the film again, but I am dubious. I think
Sirk's visuals carry meaning, but they and their meaning do not
rehabilitate the infelicities of his dialogue.
> The imagery is the spine of a great film, just as music is the
"spine" of an opera.
Film can be more than just a visual medium. Some directors
choose to make the imagery the spine, but others make other
choices. I do not think film can or should be reduced to an
imagery-uber-alles art form.
> I'm no opera expert, but is it often said of a great opera that the
lyrics or dialogue don't match the quality of the music?
Da Ponte's libretto's for Mozart give to the lie to this statement. One
of the reasons that people have been ignoring librettos is that
more and more operas are performed only in their original
language (which has led to increasingly poor diction among American
singers. The sound of the voice, rather than its ability to convey
language, is what is prized now).
In American musical theater on the other hand, the quality of the
words still needs to match the quality of music.
Brian
25365
From: MG4273@...
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 5:12pm
Subject: Re: Early Sirk (Was: Fassbinder/Sirk) nzkpzq
There are some comments on some early Sirk's on my website at:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/sirk.htm
Recently had a chance to see "The Tarnished Angels" letterboxed for the first
time, on TCM. (There seems to have been a California law that it could only
be shown pan-and-scan on TV before that :) It really looks spectacular seen
full frame, a symphony of beautiful compositions.
Mike Grost
25366
From: Peter Henne
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 9:39pm
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
When Fred says "forms playing into themes," I understand him to mean form matching content, or form and content becoming one, but maybe that is not what he means. "Forms playing into themes" on my understanding cannot be sufficient grounds for admiring a work. For example, a mainstream style employed to depict mainstream characters isn't of itself artistically interesting. In post #25302 Fred stated that Fassbinder's films lack "systematic expression" and "vision," and he seemed to use these two terms interchangeably. I'd like to suggest they don't mean the same thing--again, the standard Hollywood fare which depicts mainstream life by mainstream means is both systematic and an expression, but "vision" to me implies something revelatory, pulling us out of ordinary understanding. A visionary work does much more than match form and content, and I believe the main thrust of Fred's disapproval is about Fassbinder lacking vision.
I think that the style of Fassbinder's films do match their content, and at any rate, that hypothesis will make discussion of him more interesting. My own problem with Fassbinder is not the relevance of his form to his themes, but that his themes are shallow and his form is mannered. I think it was David who wrote that Fassbinder's films reveal a man over and over trying to care about someone other than himself, and repeatedly failing. David meant that admiringly, but I only see it as falling short. I don't find this failure in any way noble, tragic, or enlightening on the human spirit--it is just failure. Show me the opposite case. So many artists in history and in recent times do exactly the opposite, give us a gift which genuinely elevates our lives, or beauty to cherish, or dilemmas through which we will work and come to a higher understanding of life and art. I don't think Fassbinder falls into that category of artists who sound a warning of nihilism--I can't detect anything but
moral collapse in his films, and I would not dignify it by calling it resignation. I get a lot out of reading Samuel Beckett's plays, where the struggle to reach meaningfulness by the writer and his characters is so palpable, whereas in Fassbinder I sense a meaningful existence is not even an option and ruled out from the start. In fact, Fassbinder could be called post-Beckett. The characters drift in and out without any drive, any sustaining purpose, and what's more they hardly put in any effort to find these things: in the Fassbinder world it's just easier to roll over and croak. I can't see that the director provides any counterpoint, any "voice" that would lead me to discover the films' viewpoint does not coincide with the characters' in this respect . None of the films I've seen by Fassbinder (about 10) has ever shown me an original style--so I agree with Fred that his style is borrowed from Sirk, and I would add a multitude of others (to start with, Minnelli, Bergman, Godard).
One cinephile friend of mine considered Fassbinder a "response" to Godard, yet it can't be denied that for most of his career Fassbinder's mode was a pretty straightforward realist narrative.
I believe I have given Fassbinder a fair shot, seeing his films on the recommendations of friends over a period of about five years, starting about 15 years ago. I saw "Beware of a Holy Whore" (maybe the best of a sorry lot), "Effie Briest," "The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant," "Fox and His Friends," "Ali: Fear Eats the Soul," "The Merchant of Four Seasons," "The Marriage of Maria Braun," and at least two or three others that I can't remember.
Peter Henne
Fred Camper wrote:
The Fassbinders I've seen are "The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant," "The
Mechant of Four Seasons," "The Marriage of Maria Braun," "Fox and His
Friends," "Lola," and "Veronika Voss," so that's only six. I thought I'd
seen one other but can't figure out which.
That Fassbinder's films might be historically or politically
illuminating I don't dispute, nor do I quarrel with those who like them
for those reasons. It's just that to me those reasons are not aesthetic
or cinematic, unless and until you can show that the forms of his films
play into these themes.
Fred Camper
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo! Personals
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25367
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 9:59pm
Subject: Sirk/Fassbinder rashomon82
To me there have been two completely untenable positions stated in
this discussion.
1. Brian's insinuation that the alleged gap between Fassbinder and
Sirk is even comparable to the gap between Fassbinder and
Schumacher. To quote Alicia Silverstone from a favorite movie of
Adrian's ... "AS IF!"
2. Fred's jaw-dropping mischaracterization of Fassbinder's work
as "nice humanist melodrama." Fred, I don't know if somebody
switched the reels of the Fassbinder films you saw with some
incredibly mawkish German soap opera or something, but the films are
actually harsh, non-humanist, and not melodramatic (though they do
employ melodramatic tropes--not the same thing though). One of the
reasons people have brought up, say, history and politics (and
not "aesthetics" on your terms, yet) is that, as Joe pointed out, if
one is to critique Fassbinder, one should at least understand his
work on its most basic level. Thus far, nothing you have written
about him seems to convince Fassbinder's supporters here (myself
included) that you "get" his work at all. And in order to get it,
one must acknowledge before anything else what its topics and its
terms are, which are above all political, social, and historical.
(In this sense he's probably more like Godard or Kluge than Douglas
Sirk.) Dismissing his films as nice humanist melodramas is like
dismissing Hemingway for his baroque lyrical expressionism--it
simply makes no sense.
Now, it's true that no one here has yet defended Fassbinder
on "your" terms, or terms you would recognize to make the work
great, that is, form/aesthetics. (Although, to quote Joe again,
it's probably because he "needs" no defense--your curt and
mystifying dismissal of him doesn't warrant anything other than
righteous indignation upon his defenders' part.) But you yourself
have offered no substantial defense of Sirk on "your" terms,
either! You've trafficked in vague generalities in this thread,
about Sirk's "vision of the cosmos," which is of course true enough,
but the same can just as easily be said about Fassbinder
(i.e., "Petra von Kant's apartment is suffocating because Fassbinder
sees the universe as suffocating"). Thus far, in this discussion,
nobody has said very much about what--aesthetically speaking--makes
either Sirk or Fassbinder important. (I'm not saying that you've
never written insightfully about Sirk's aesthetic, though--only that
in this discussion you're guilty of having four fingers point back
at yourself.)
That said, I promise I will try in the next few months to do
something substantial to the list that engages Fassbinder and form,
hopefully next time I sit down and watch a film of his, because I
firmly believe he "works" on a formal level, quite brilliantly, at
least some times. (In the meantime, Manny Farber's writing on
Fassbinder is quite interesting--although his aesthetic sense is of
course quite different from yours, Fred. But it's a start.)
For the record, however, and before I move on, I want to point out
that I do love Sirk more than Fassbinder. I like Haynes (and FAR
FROM HEAVEN) a lot, too.
Now, when Fred writes this:
> In my view, a great film is not like a restaurant meal in which
> all the ingredients, or courses, have to be top quality, because
> great direction can transform every other element of a film into
> something completely different from what it would be if the same
> film were given mediocre or worse direction.
I agree. But I don't know how far one can take it as a general
principle (and I don't think it should be taken as a prescription).
For Sirk, the dialogue is very often corralled into a vision and
imbued with profundity (in my opinion). But I know of at least one
great filmmaker of classical Hollywood whose dialogue very often was
bad, and whose merits often work brilliantly in spite of subpar
dialogue: Nicholas Ray. To me, great direction needn't
necessarily "transform," "transcend," or "fix" bad dialogue. It
does in some auteurs' films, and doesn't in others. Different
directors, obviously, have different ways of handling obstacles that
come before them. If you're Sturges or Mankiewicz you make sure you
try to control the script because you're sure you'll work best that
way. If you're Sirk, Ford, or Borzage, it doesn't matter, your
material often suits you and you "flow" over its pricklier intrinsic
flaws anyway. If you're Ray, you imbue your films with a
contestatory frisson. And so on and so forth ...
--Zach
25368
From: BklynMagus
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 11:15pm
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk cinebklyn
Peter writes:
> My own problem with Fassbinder is not the relevance of his
form to his themes, but that his themes are shallow and his
form is mannered.
I do not regard a comprehensive, critical analysis of postwar
West Germany a shallow pursuit.
> I don't find this failure in any way noble, tragic, or enlightening
on the human spirit--it is just failure.
The question is: why do Fassbinder's characters fail? Failure is a
fact of existence, neither ennobling nor debasing. Why do Fox,
Effi, and Elvira end up the way that they do?
> So many artists in history and in recent times do exactly the
opposite, give us a gift which genuinely elevates our lives, or beauty
to cherish, or dilemmas through which we will work and come to a
higher understanding of life and art.
I think Fassbinder does all that and more. His vision elevates me in
that he provides me with a comprehensive and incisive portrait of
Western culture, specifically West German culture, even more
specifically middle-class West German culture during the middle of the
20th century. He also elevates me in the sense that he makes it
apparent to me that things need not be this way.
As for beauty, "Effi Briest," "Fox and his Friends," "Querelle" are
extraordinarily beautiful to me -- not in a tawdry "Look what I can do
with the camera, Ma" way, but in the way he illuminates the lives of
his characters and the environments they inhabit (and the interactions
between them).
> I can't detect anything but moral collapse in his films, and I would not
dignify it by calling it resignation.
You would be wrong to call it resignation. Fassbinder's characters are
fighters -- Effi, Veronika, Elvira -- they may lose, but they never just
resign from the game.
> The characters drift in and out without any drive, any sustaining purpose,
and what's more they hardly put in any effort to find these things: in the
Fassbinder world it's just easier to roll over and croak.
I just cannot see this. Veronika, Fox, Maria Braun, Lola are all fighters.
Elvira goes from being a man to being woman to back to being a man
all in the hope of finding her place in the world. Elvira does not fail. The
world fails Elvira.
> I can't see that the director provides any counterpoint, any "voice" that would
lead me to discover the films' viewpoint does not coincide with the characters' in
this respect.
Fassbinder is not in the uplift business. His films are not about spiritual
transcendence or grace. He leaves all that to the religionistas. He chronicles
the lives of middle class and lower middle class Germans as they struggle
to survive in the late capitalist environment of Western Europe. As a
director, Fassbinder is materialist in his thinking.
> None of the films I've seen by Fassbinder (about 10) has ever shown me an
original style--so I agree with Fred that his style is borrowed from Sirk
His style is based on Mankiewicz with touches added from Sirk, Visconti and others.
But he uses these borrowed elements in his own way and for his own purposes.
Brian
25369
From: BklynMagus
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 11:18pm
Subject: Re: Sirk/Fassbinder cinebklyn
Zach writes:
> Brian's insinuation that the alleged gap between
Fassbinder and Sirk is even comparable to the gap
between Fassbinder and Schumacher.
I did not insinuate anything of the kind. Please
respect me and read my posts and not my mind.
If I am unclear about something, please ask for
clarification. I am well aware that I am not always
as clear as I should be, despite the care I take with
my posts.
To be clearer: to my mind the gap between Fassbinder
and Sirk is certainly smaller than the gap between Sirk
and Schumacher. Others may disagree.
That said, I still perceive Fassbinder as a greater artist
than Sirk.
> For Sirk, the dialogue is very often corralled into a vision
and imbued with profundity (in my opinion).
What do you mean when you say "dialogue is very often
corralled into a vision and imbued with profundity"?
And how do you measure profoundity? Your scale?
Mine? Sirk's?
> To me, great direction needn't necessarily "transform,"
"transcend," or "fix" bad dialogue.
What would you suggest is the most useful approach to
dealing with bad dialogue when confronted with it on
the screen?
> If you're Sirk, Ford, or /Borzage, it doesn't matter, your
material often suits you and you "flow" over its pricklier
intrinsic flaws anyway.
And producing a work of art where you just "flow" over
any instrinsic flaws is the sign of major talent? If a filmmaker
is considered an auteur, doesn't that make him responsible
for the entire work?
Brian
25370
From: Peter Henne
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 0:13am
Subject: Re: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
Brian,
Thanks for your response.
1) You have seen more Fassbinder than I have; nevertheless, I've seen a substantial number of his films, and I believe most of the ones which his supporters consider to be his best. That is in part why I chose those to see. And I don't think that certain of his films, such as "Maria Braun," successfully work as parables of wartime and post-War Germany, though I recognize Fassbinder intends them to be. Much of my reason is that the characters cannot possibly represent a whole society which was not only hypocritical, and not only suffered, but to a large degree learned from its horrific mistakes and substantially on its own rebuilt a better (not ideal, just much improved) society. Fassbinder keys into hypocrisy, less so on suffering, but to give a well-rounded picture he would have to look at the rebuilding (moral and otherwise) Germans have done.
2) I've yet to see Fassbinder pose a genuine alternative to his despair (or just bitching). I think there's an intertitle in "Effie Briest" about wishing to have a single, genuine human feeling--and he leaves off that train of discourse at that. To my knowledge, that's the closest he's come to presenting a personal or social direction that could be actually helpful. I do think this is political, especially since Fassbinder marks himself out as such (else why the polarized images of state leaders at the end of "Maria Braun"?). While I too would classify Fassbinder as a materialist filmmaker, what does he do with his materialism?
3) In the films I've seen, I wouldn't characterize the characters as fighters as treated by Fassbinder. In their bored, insolent manner as directed by Fassbinder, they just don't have a whole lot of fight in them. Yes, that is a general remark, but that is the consistent impression I have come away with, and to oblige I will go into some more detailed reflection film by film on my own, which may be reported back here. The bourgeois clutter surrounding the characters in "Effie Briest" and the way it is framed completely forestalls any rebellion--that must be part of the point of the film.
4) I'm not into facile uplift myself, and I'm not even sure what a religionista is. At least you might agree that transcendence in art need not be programmatic or sanctioned by a religion.
Peter
BklynMagus wrote:
Fassbinder is not in the uplift business. His films are not about spiritual
transcendence or grace. He leaves all that to the religionistas. He chronicles
the lives of middle class and lower middle class Germans as they struggle
to survive in the late capitalist environment of Western Europe. As a
director, Fassbinder is materialist in his thinking.
His style is based on Mankiewicz with touches added from Sirk, Visconti and others.
But he uses these borrowed elements in his own way and for his own purposes.
Brian
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25371
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 0:23am
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk cellar47
--- Peter Henne wrote:
I
> think it was David who wrote that Fassbinder's films
> reveal a man over and over trying to care about
> someone other than himself, and repeatedly failing.
> David meant that admiringly, but I only see it as
> falling short.
I didn't mean it that way at all. I was simply stating
a fact.
I don't find this failure in any way
> noble, tragic, or enlightening on the human
> spirit--it is just failure.
RWF would probably agree with you -- save to point out
that this is the Human Condition.
Show me the opposite
> case. So many artists in history and in recent times
> do exactly the opposite, give us a gift which
> genuinely elevates our lives, or beauty to cherish,
> or dilemmas through which we will work and come to a
> higher understanding of life and art.
Know any? I sure as hell don't.
None of the films I've seen by
> Fassbinder (about 10) has ever shown me an original
> style--so I agree with Fred that his style is
> borrowed from Sirk, and I would add a multitude of
> others (to start with, Minnelli, Bergman, Godard).
> One cinephile friend of mine considered Fassbinder
> a "response" to Godard, yet it can't be denied that
> for most of his career Fassbinder's mode was a
> pretty straightforward realist narrative.
>
That all depends on what you mean by "realist." The
closer you look at Fassbinder the less
documentary-like he seems.
> I believe I have given Fassbinder a fair shot,
> seeing his films on the recommendations of friends
> over a period of about five years, starting about 15
> years ago. I saw "Beware of a Holy Whore" (maybe the
> best of a sorry lot), "Effie Briest," "The Bitter
> Tears of Petra von Kant," "Fox and His Friends,"
> "Ali: Fear Eats the Soul," "The Merchant of Four
> Seasons," "The Marriage of Maria Braun," and at
> least two or three others that I can't remember.
>
Have you seen "In a Year of 13 Moons"? That's the one
he not only write and directed but photographed and
edited.
I also reccomend his segment of the omnibus film
"Germany in Autumn." He confesses to Armin (the
mostdevoted of all his lovers) that a relationship is
impossible, and he gaods his mother into saying what
she really believes -- that things were better under
Hitler. Then he snorts a whole mess of coke and passes
out.
Great little film.
>
>
> Fred Camper wrote:
>
> The Fassbinders I've seen are "The Bitter Tears of
> Petra von Kant," "The
> Mechant of Four Seasons," "The Marriage of Maria
> Braun," "Fox and His
> Friends," "Lola," and "Veronika Voss," so that's
> only six. I thought I'd
> seen one other but can't figure out which.
>
> That Fassbinder's films might be historically or
> politically
> illuminating I don't dispute, nor do I quarrel with
> those who like them
> for those reasons. It's just that to me those
> reasons are not aesthetic
> or cinematic, unless and until you can show that the
> forms of his films
> play into these themes.
>
>
> Fred Camper
>
>
>
>
>
> ---------------------------------
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Better first dates. More second dates. Yahoo!
> Personals
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25372
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 0:39am
Subject: Re: Trafic 53 thebradstevens
> Brion discusses, among other things, some of the production
> circumstances of Minnelli's films and mentions the retakes done by
> other directors on some of these: Kismet, Gigi, Lust for Life, all
of
> which is pretty well documented. But he also mentions Minnelli's
work
> on the films of others, including Best Foot Forward, The Heavenly
Body,
> and two Cukors, Gaslight and A Life of Her Own. All of this is news
to
> me.
Me too. Does Brion specify which parts of BEST FOOT FORWARD Minnelli
was responsible for?
There's an interview with Walter Reisch in Patrick McGilligan's
BACKSTORY 2 in which mention is made of Minnelli working on THE
HEAVENLY BODY
I know that Minnelli directed 2 scenes in ALL THE FINE YOUNG
CANNIBALS and the climax of THE BRIBE (which anticipates the climax
of SOME CAME RUNNING).
25373
From: BklynMagus
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 1:31am
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk cinebklyn
Peter writes:
> Much of my reason is that the characters cannot possibly represent a whole society which was not only hypocritical, and not only suffered, but to a large degree learned from its horrific mistakes and substantially on its own rebuilt a better (not ideal, just much improved) society.
My guess (only a guess folks) is that Fassbinder would disagree with you. I don't think that he believes the Germans have learned from their mistakes. In that way, he reminds me of Gunter Grass. Fassbinder is a scold, but to me a marvelous one.
> Fassbinder keys into hypocrisy, less so on suffering, but to give a well-rounded picture he would have to look at the rebuilding (moral and otherwise) Germans have done.
I think for Fassbinder to be alive is to suffer, so to make something special/noble out of suffering or to maintain that passing through suffering leads to some type of wisdom or enlightenment would be inconsistent with his vision. I think he is critiquing the "wisdom through suffering" dogma. Martha in "Martha" suffers a great deal and doesn't learn a thing, not because she is stupid, but because suffering is not a path to wisdom. She just ends up a victim of her controlling husband.
> I've yet to see Fassbinder pose a genuine alternative to his despair (or just bitching).
But (to mention someone you brought up) does Beckett either? I love "The Lost Ones" because of its haunting refrain: "If this notion is to be maintained." I think Fassbinder is very much in the tradition of Beckett. "I can't go on; I'll go on" could be the mantra for Elvira, Fox, Willie, and several other Fassbinder characters.
> I think there's an intertitle in "Effie Briest" about wishing to have a single, genuine human feeling--and he leaves off that train of discourse at that. To my knowledge, that's the closest he's come to presenting a personal or social direction that could be actually helpful.
All dialogue and intertitles in "Effi Briest" are taken directly from Theodor Fontane. I think Fassbinder locates the time when a different direction might have been taken as being in the past.
> I do think this is political, especially since Fassbinder marks himself out as such (else why the polarized images of state leaders at the end of "Maria Braun"?).
What is important is the postwar chancellor he leaves out -- Willy Brandt.
> While I too would classify Fassbinder as a materialist filmmaker, what does he do with his materialism?
What should he do? It is his view of the world. He analyzes and critiques West German culture from this viewpoint, and chronicles the behaviors, actions, etc that engenders his characters' suffering. To me, Fassbinder is saying this mess was created by material causes and can only be undone by working on the same plane. He doesn't present an alternative in a conventional way, since he only believes in one plane -- the material one. A deep understanding of the processes of material reality is his alternative, and he offers his films as examples of how this understanding can be achieved.
> In their bored, insolent manner as directed by Fassbinder, they just don't have a whole lot of fight in them.
Try "In a Year With 13 Moons."
> The bourgeois clutter surrounding the characters in "Effie Briest" and the way it is framed completely forestalls any rebellion--that must be part of the point of the film.
I don't think the clutter forestalls it completely -- just to a very great degree. There are slivers of hope in Fassbinder, just not many.
> At least you might agree that transcendence in art need not be programmatic or sanctioned by a religion.
I guess I am not sure what "transcendence in art" is (or transcendence of any kind for that matter). I like art that brings reality into clearer, sharper focus -- maybe I can say I like art that transcends the clutter of life, but does not leave the material plane of existence. If one transcends it, one is dead.
Brian
25374
From: Peter Henne
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 1:46am
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
David,
Really sorry to put words in your mouth there. I thought I had your meaning down, clearly didn't.
And you're right that "realism" is an oversimplification for RWF. The excessive stylization of sets and color schemes moves his films away from realism. With Fassbinder, it's a nudge, and with Sirk, it's a push. No, I haven't seen "In a Year of 13 Moons," and I can re-open the casebook on Fassbinder to give this film a try.
Peter
David Ehrenstein wrote:
--- Peter Henne wrote:
I
> think it was David who wrote that Fassbinder's films
> reveal a man over and over trying to care about
> someone other than himself, and repeatedly failing.
> David meant that admiringly, but I only see it as
> falling short.
I didn't mean it that way at all. I was simply stating
a fact.
That all depends on what you mean by "realist." The
closer you look at Fassbinder the less
documentary-like he seems.
Have you seen "In a Year of 13 Moons"? That's the one
he not only write and directed but photographed and
edited.
>
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25375
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 9:55pm
Subject: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow scil1973
In a message dated 4/8/05 1:59:29 AM, lukethedealer@... writes:
> I don't think we can know in any every case how open someone wanted to be.
>
> First off, yes, Blake, I read every single one of your posts with a great
> deal of care. To the above, I would say this. Yes, of course, we cannot know
> in any and every case how open someone wanted to be. But you've used that fact
> to completely close off any further discourse on the matter. Even though we
> also cannot know in any and every case how CLOSETED someone wanted to be, you
> seem willfully deaf to (even informed, scholarly) discussion (or would deem
> such discussion utterly worthless if not downright unethical) of the
> sexualities of Adrian, Gary Cooper, Randolph Scott, Great Garbo, Marlene Dietrich,
> Dorothy Arzner, Sergei Eisenstein, and (what's this?) Fred Astaire (never heard
> this before, Mike...please advise) because none of them (as far as I know)
> ever "had it out there and want(ed) it out there, fine." It all goes back to
> this question of evidence which is why I was unmoved by your praise of George
> Nader. Nader gets a Blake Pass because he was (eventually) out. Thus, you
> seem to require evidence of the "My name is Rock Hudson, star of ALL THAT HEAVEN
> ALLOWS, and I am a big flaming homosexual" variety in order to have a
> discussion of homosexuality or whatnot. Such requirements are extremely problematic
> when it comes to criticism, history, discourse in general, etc. Greyson's
> URINAL is partially about this dilemma, reclaiming historical figures as gay or
> lesbian even though we "can't" due to the lack of evidence of the sort
> outlined above.
>
<< I thought what I said about Cary Grant was very clear. And what I said
about directors was clear. As critics we should be able to recognize a homosexual
or bisexual nature as animating a work of art in some important way, and
shouldn't need to know about the person's life in order to have this understanding.
If we do, we do, but it's just not relevant to understanding art. >>
Blake, I confess I still have absolutely no idea what you're getting at here.
How can we possibly recognize a homosexual or bisexual nature (touchy, touchy
word there) as animating a work of art in ANY way WITHOUT knowing about the
person's life? Let me very prosaically outline a critical course of action
below and then you can tell me if this is what you're saying we as critics should
be doing.
So I'm watching BRINGING UP BABY and I notice certain "gay" elements to
Grant's performance. I then methodically list these elements. I begin to realize
that there are enough of these elements and that they are so intertwined into
the film's mechanics that I can conclude that they are animating the work in an
important way. Am I right so far? Because here's where I get confused. What
exactly am I supposed to pronounce at this point? How do I talk about this
"nature" you mention? How can I give it, um, form in a critical essay? Is there
this vaporous homosexual nature that can get attached to certain films and that
floats freely of any actual person's "actual" life thus allowing Grant (or
anyone regardless of their personal, sexual lives) to attach it to BRINGING UP
BABY? Or is there something homosexual in Grant's nature that animates the film
homosexually? Or another option?
But what if I go further, Blake? What if I seize on his relationship with
Scott, publish the photographs of them cavorting together on the lawn? What if I
mention the "Who's A Fairy?" Tijuana Bible? What if I reference Ehrenstein and
Russo in my bibliography? In short, what if I do, in fact, aim to learn about
"the person's life" which, after all, I am learning through discourses no
less coded than a film like BRINGING UP BABY itself? Is my pursuit of this
information unethical? Is it appalling scholarship? Will this information always and
forever have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with BRINGING UP BABY? And
what do you do when confronted with such information yourself? Take those
cavorting photographs. Do they exist in some sort of epistemological neverland for
you, forever awaiting official homosexual confirmation from beyond the grave?
And how would you present this information at a conference or just face to
face with someone at a bar? What if you said "a homosexual nature animates
BRINGING UP BABY" and then someone asked you (logically, I would say) "Oh wow! I
never realized that about BRINGING UP BABY. So, Blake, do you think Cary Grant
was gay?" Would you then say "Oh no no no no no! As a critic, I refuse to even
speculate on anyone's personal life for that is NOT the task of the critic?"
I'm seriously asking this, Blake. In sum, I seriously want to know how we, as
critics, can possibly recognize a homosexual or bisexual nature as animating
a work of art in ANY way WITHOUT knowing about the person's life and I
seriously would like you to outline a critical program of action in approaching this
matter.
<
themselves through form and style. Yet one constantly opens up a post and it's
who's screwing whom? It just gets wearisome sometimes, Kevin.>>
Oh gawd! Form form form form form form!! Just as you value certain notions of
the personal (Richard's comments on Mizoguchi) over others (Ehrenstein's on
anyone's homosexuality), you clearly value certain notions of form over others.
I think beefcake photos of 1950s actors are very much a formal concern; Fred
Camper and you, no doubt, don't. So be it. But don't think your position is
any less ideological than mine. So I'm "serv(ing) an agenda" (name it, Blake - a
homosexual one!) which is what you find "critics do who place ideology ahead
of everything else?" Gawd, you sound like a right wing nut there with that
word "agenda," Blake. Look, it's simple. Anyone who says anything remotely like
"Oh, I'm just looking at the film itself and its formal properties; I'm not
concerning myself with ideological matters that distort the purity of formal film
analysis such as sexuality, history, feminism, race, class, postcolonialism,
etc." is making a statement REPLETE with ideology. In fact, it's probably even
more ideological because the way ideology works is to mask its machinations
as somehow natural. Witness your phrase "everything else" which is practically
a synonym for "nature" here, rendering queer concerns minute and
agenda-serving by comparison. "Heteronormative" us pods in the ivory tower call that and it
stinks.
Finally, one does not CONSTANTLY open up a post and it's who's screwing who.
Come on, Blake. Do you seriously honestly truly really believe that to be the
case? SERIOUSLY? Because it's just not true and somewhere deep down, I think
you know that. Precious, precious few of the posts to this list are about who's
screwing who. When they do happen, they tend to stick out precisely because
of their infrequency.
And Mike, when you say that "(personal revelations) are of much less interest
than what can be seen on screen," I must attach my eternal rhetorical
prepositional phrase: for whom?
Kevin John
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25376
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 1:59am
Subject: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk cellar47
--- Peter Henne wrote:
> David,
>
> Really sorry to put words in your mouth there. I
> thought I had your meaning down, clearly didn't.
>
No offense taken.
> And you're right that "realism" is an
> oversimplification for RWF. The excessive
> stylization of sets and color schemes moves his
> films away from realism. With Fassbinder, it's a
> nudge, and with Sirk, it's a push. No, I haven't
> seen "In a Year of 13 Moons," and I can re-open the
> casebook on Fassbinder to give this film a try.
>
And once you see it you'll of course have to revisit
"You're Never Too Young" -- the martin and Lewis
remake of "The Major and the Minor" to understand the
"Face the Music" number in context.
It's high time that I mentioned that back in 83 I
seriously considered doing a book on Fassbinder. I
interviewed a considerable number of people including
Ingrid Caven, Dieter Schidor, Ulli Lommel, Daniel
Schmid and Raul Gimenez. But my inability to speak of
read German created a roadblock and then people
started dropping dead from AIDS (Gimenez, Schidor,
Kurt Raab among them)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Make Yahoo! your home page
http://www.yahoo.com/r/hs
25377
From: Peter Henne
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 2:31am
Subject: Re: Re: Fassbinder/Sirk peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
Brian,
You're right that Fassbinder would not agree that the Germans learned anything from Nazism. But that's just my point: his position is too neatly cynical, and blind to the obstacles that actually have been overcome. Do you think a transition from a barbarically racist culture to a fair-minded one is going to happen completely in one or two generations? It couldn't and hasn't, but there's no question that culturally speaking the difference between the Germany of 1942 and 1982 (the year of Fassbinder's death) is one of night and day. He does not take into account the total picture of what a nation is capable of, historically considered.
I'd offer to play a violin for Fassbinder's suffering, but, you know, can't play one. Perhaps Fassbinder made a show (or spectacle?) of his personal suffering; other artists suffer, not all of them make a fuss about it.
What I meant about Beckett is that, in play after play, the characters persistently try to make sense of their own words, bodies, place, sometimes their relations. I don't really hear an echo of this curiosity and determination in Fassbinder's characters, who seem passive and hopeless to me, even when they ostensibly undertake action.
I wish I could find slivers of hope in Fassbinder's films as you do, just a trace that showed me there was a pulse of life. Cynicism is as much of a trap as sentimentality, and artists rebelling against one extreme can end up at the other. You have made an enlightening point about the source of "Effi Briest"'s intertitles--I'm not sure if it will save the film for me, but definitely something for me to reflect on.
As for transcendence, I recommend it. Life without that dimension is dead to me.
Peter
BklynMagus wrote:
My guess (only a guess folks) is that Fassbinder would disagree with you. I don't think that he believes the Germans have learned from their mistakes. In that way, he reminds me of Gunter Grass. Fassbinder is a scold, but to me
I think for Fassbinder to be alive is to suffer, so to make something special/noble out of suffering or to maintain that passing through suffering leads to some type of wisdom or enlightenment would be inconsistent with his vision. I think he is critiquing the "wisdom through suffering" dogma. Martha in "Martha" suffers a great deal and doesn't learn a thing, not because she is stupid, but because suffering is not a path to wisdom. She just ends up a victim of her controlling husband.
I guess I am not sure what "transcendence in art" is (or transcendence of any kind for that matter). I like art that brings reality into clearer, sharper focus -- maybe I can say I like art that transcends the clutter of life, but does not leave the material plane of existence. If one transcends it, one is dead.
Brian
__________________________________________________
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]
25378
From: MG4273@...
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 10:35pm
Subject: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow nzkpzq
I'll stick to my stand about works of art being more significant in film
history than personal lives.
Take John Ford. The gay relationship between the John Wayne and Jeffrey
Hunter character in "The Searchers" or between Hunter and Woody Strode's character
in "Sergeant Rutledge", is very interesting. Why not try talking about this in
detail? These are clearly love relationships. There are endless male bonding
relationships in Ford. They stretch back to the silent era, for pete's sake!
Or the relationship between Randolph Scott and the young Mexican he tries to
save in "Buchanan Rides Alone".
You could write a whole book about homosexuality in Hawks' films.
Or about the relationship between the young woman left behind, and one of the
women who disappears in "Picnic At Hanging Rock" (Peter Weir).
Or the relationship between the heroine and her mother-in-law in "Early
Summer" / "The Barley Harvest Season" (Ozu).
Or why the ghost cop (played by Robert Patrick) is haunting the hero (played
by Dean Cain) in "Rag and Bone" (James D. Parriott).
Why is Roger Le Cocco so jealous of Vinnie's close relationship with his boss
in "Wiseguy"?
Why do "Alias Smith and Jones" roam the West together?
Why is William Haines so desperate for social acceptance in "West Point"
(Edward Sedgwick)?
Who are those angels in "The Color of Pomegranates" (Paradjanov)?
Why is "Michael" (Dreyer) one of the pinnacles of the silent screen?
Mike Grost
25379
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 2:52am
Subject: Re: Sirk/Fassbinder fredcamper
Thanks to David and others for the Fassbinder recommendations. I had
heard before that "Berlin Alexanderplatz" was interesting "formally."
I'll see it if I can.
Brian, in 25356:
"Whereas Sirk must distract his viewers with his compositional and
framing skills from the dull narrative he is obligated to film,
Fassbinder's movies are more complete works to me since he controlled
writing, directing, casting, etc. Instead of just working in the margins
of a film, Fassbinder worked across the whole frame and soundtrack..."
And in 25364
"I think Sirk's visuals carry meaning, but they and their meaning do not
rehabilitate the infelicities of his dialogue."
This is the old restaurant meal separation, and it's the same kind of
critical approach that was practiced (with considerably less
sophistication) by mainstream newspaper critics for decades. I don't
accept what I consider this false separation of a film into its
"ingredients." A great film, one controlled by a filmmaker's vision,
transforms all its parts. "Infelicities" of dialogue is a meaningless
concept, because against what standard are they judged? (I'm reminded of
an audience at Bard College in I believe the late 1980s that didn't want
to accept "Written on the Wind" when I showed it because of its "bad
acting" and "bad script." When I asked for a film that was an example of
a good script well acted, I was offered "A Place in the Sun.") Is not
the dialogue of Fuller's "Shock Corridor" incredibly crude, never mind
full of "infelicities"? ("Nymphos!") The notion that a great filmmaker's
vision transforms a film's parts, and that individual parts can't be
judged according to some standard external to an auteur's oeuvre, is at
the core of auteurism. And American auteurism is hardly a mainstream
"American" value.
I know of few lines in cinema more moving than Mitch Wayne's advice to
Marylee at the end of "Written on the Wind" to acknowledge "how far
we've come from the river," or Sarah Jane's whispered "I love you,
mamma" near the end of "Imitation of Life." Yet if these lines are not
banal, nothing is.
About "humanism," I apparently was using the term too imprecisely. What
I mean by it is a cinema centered around its characters, and for which
the fates of the characters are of central importance. Thus Brian's
defense of Fassbinder in 25356:
"As an example: Fassbinder's 'Martha' is a movie about a middle-class
sadist slowly and inexorably taking control of a woman's life. As the
movie progresses and Martha is increasingly hemmed in by her husband and
his middle-class value system, Martha has less and less freedom in the
frame. People and objects seem to check every move Martha tries to make."
seems to me to be proof of my case. The defenses of Fassbinder that I've
seen tend to revolve around how his style expresses the emotional lives
of his characters.
I'm sorry that Zach didn't think I was offering an adequate defense of
Sirk; I thought I was, and on different terms. The perceptual paradoxes
that Sirk's compositions set up *do* articulate the emotions and
narrative positions of his characters, but they do much more than that
as well. They establish a kind of architecture of blindness, in which
the objects of the world are presented as irrational, incomprehensible,
threatening, and ultimately unseeable. Who can really "see" the
death-mask in "The Tarnished Angels," or even resolve the goofy Mardi
Gras masks in that film. Who can logically parse the bizarre image of
LaVerne walking in a field of parked plans as Matt Ord looks at her?
None of the colors in the Miami hotel room scene in "Written on the
Wind" blend smoothly with each other, as is supposed to happen in
"pleasing" interior decorating schemes of the era; instead, they all
seem separated from each other in space. The "rainbow" scene in "All
That Heaven Allows" gives an awful meaning to the daughter's "I don't
understand anything" at the same time that it is candy-cane pleasant.
The small figures I mentioned in my earlier post are yet other examples
of these irrational paradoxes. The out of focus altar at the end of "The
First Legion" echoes the crazy earlier shot with the elephant home
movies and Father Sierra walking, both visions of the failure to
comprehend. Sirk's cinema is not simply about articulating his plots and
his characters' plights, but about issues of perception, and a general
view of human existence, articulated through visual style, and of which
his characters provide examples.
Peter, in 25366
"My own problem with Fassbinder is not the relevance of his form to his
themes, but that his themes are shallow and his form is mannered."
I'm not sure that the "depth" of a filmmaker's themes can be judged
apart from the depth of his forms, but the Fassbinder films I've seen
seem "mannered" to me too. I don't get a particular sense of space from
his work, or a particular kind of visual pleasure. His style seems
superficial, and often shifts from film to film.
I may be misunderstanding Peter here, but I think "failure" is as good a
theme as any other. It's one of Sirk's great themes, actually. What's
profound is not the theme itself but what Sirk does with it.
Zach, in 25367:
"To me, great direction needn't necessarily "transform," "transcend," or
"fix" bad dialogue. It does in some auteurs' films, and doesn't in
others...."
I agree with this and all that Zach wrote after it. I suppose it's even
possible that I'd admit that at some moments of some great films an
awkward piece of dialogue was a minor flaw. But my emphasis here is on
"minor." Great film art is not some quantity that is "fungible" with
"felicitous" dialogue. The latter might be nicely crafted and
pleasurable to hear; the former is transformative.
Brian in 25369
"If a filmmaker is considered an auteur, doesn't that make him
responsible for the entire work?"
I hope others more knowledgeable about the history of auteurism in
France will join in, but from the beginning in the U.S. auteurists
talked about a *tension* between a Hollywood auteur and his material.
The auteur theory never claimed that the director had control over every
aspect of his productions, or that the degree of directorial control had
any correlation with quality. This is Auteurism 101, in my opinion.
Fred Camper
25380
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 3:38am
Subject: Re: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow cellar47
--- MG4273@... wrote:
> I'll stick to my stand about works of art being more
> significant in film
> history than personal lives.
> Take John Ford. The gay relationship between the
> John Wayne and Jeffrey
> Hunter character in "The Searchers" or between
> Hunter and Woody Strode's character
> in "Sergeant Rutledge", is very interesting. Why not
> try talking about this in
> detail? These are clearly love relationships. There
> are endless male bonding
> relationships in Ford. They stretch back to the
> silent era, for pete's sake!
Well as you should know Ford was subject to 'strange
twilight urges." Indeed no less an eminence than
Maureen O'Hara spoke about it in her autobiography.
> Or the relationship between Randolph Scott and the
> young Mexican he tries to
> save in "Buchanan Rides Alone".
> You could write a whole book about homosexuality in
> Hawks' films.
> Or about the relationship between the young woman
> left behind, and one of the
> women who disappears in "Picnic At Hanging Rock"
> (Peter Weir).
> Or the relationship between the heroine and her
> mother-in-law in "Early
> Summer" / "The Barley Harvest Season" (Ozu).
Ozu was gay,
> Or why the ghost cop (played by Robert Patrick) is
> haunting the hero (played
> by Dean Cain) in "Rag and Bone" (James D. Parriott).
>
> Why is Roger Le Cocco so jealous of Vinnie's close
> relationship with his boss
> in "Wiseguy"?
> Why do "Alias Smith and Jones" roam the West
> together?
> Why is William Haines so desperate for social
> acceptance in "West Point"
> (Edward Sedgwick)?
> Who are those angels in "The Color of Pomegranates"
> (Paradjanov)?
Paradjanov was gay. In fact he was sent to prison for
being gauy.
> Why is "Michael" (Dreyer) one of the pinnacles of
> the silent screen?
>
Dreyer was in love with Rudolph mate. In fact he so
besotted was he by this great cinematographer than he
had a nervous breakdown during the shooting of
"Vampyr" and later claimed not to remember a thing
about its making.
But this is all anecdotal. Gayness in the cinema
requires in-depth study -- whicih I've tried to do in
"Open Secret"
Nowadays with "openly gay" filmmakers like Todd
haynes, Gus Van Sant, Bill Condon, Patrice Chereau,
and Lisa Chodolenko things can be dealt with far more
directly.
George Cukor was gay. Only a few of his films touch on
gayness in any way. He wasn't a gay filmmaker as we
know it today and shouldn't be discussed in terms of
today. James Whale as well.
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
25381
From: MG4273@...
Date: Fri Apr 8, 2005 11:53pm
Subject: Re: Paradjanov (was: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow) nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-04-08 23:39:08 EDT, David E writes:
<< Paradjanov was gay. In fact he was sent to prison for being gay.
>>
I remember in the 1970's, when many of the world's leading film directors
signed the clemency petition, urging Paradjanov 's release from prison (he
ultimately served 5 years at hard labor, if memory serves). The Soviet government,
like Communists everywhere, was always fanatic in its hatred of gays.
Robert Bresson's name was prominent on the petition, bless his heart!
Mike Grost
25382
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 4:13am
Subject: Ozu's Early Summer (was: All The Gayness... etc.) michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- MG4273@a... wrote:
> > Or the relationship between the heroine and her
> > mother-in-law in "Early
> > Summer" / "The Barley Harvest Season" (Ozu).
>
> Ozu was gay,
While issues of sexual identity may well be highly pertinent in a film
like "Late Spring", I just don't see it in "Early Summer".
Noriko's own family there is rather cold and detached (not evil, mind
you) -- and they clearly have just this sort of future planned out for
her -- given the marital candidate THEY would prefer she accept.
Noriko does not appear to feel oppressed in sexual terms so much as in
familial ones. Her neighbors (mother, son, and grand-daughter) appear
to her to be a much warmer and engaging family -- and they are a known
quantity to her. When she has an unexpected chance to change
families, as it were, she grabs it. She happily accepts all three as
one package. Romance has nothing to do with her decision (and her
shocked husband-to-be surely understands this), rather it is based on
a feeling that she can be comfortable if she makes this choice.
25383
From: "cjsuttree"
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 4:14am
Subject: Early Fassbinder [Re: Sirk/Fassbinder] cjsuttree
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
[...]
I agree with almost all of what you said. Fassbinder was
no humanist, although I don't find him completely cynical
either. I don't think he failed to elicit or express his
sympathy for the protagonist in The Merchants of Four Seasons,
or The Stationmaster's Wife, or Mother Buster Goes to Heaven.
There is plenty of sympathy even for the scheming, manipulative
bitch types in many (but not all) of his films. If he had
live he would probably have made the greatest film about AIDS.
As for criticizing Fassbinder for being purely a scold and
for presenting no "solution" to the social malaise he depicted
-- well, that is a hard one. I certainly admire artists who
fight and struggle to find a way out, not just for himself/
herself but for the audience who look up to him/her. Again,
perhaps if he had lived ...
With all this focus on Fassbinder's supposed mimicry of Sirk,
I'm surprised no one has brought up the short interview with the
two directors reproduced in the recent book "The Anarchy of
the Imagination." The two expressed a great deal of admiration
for each other. Sirk especially praised Fassbinder's "image
of his reality" and his unmistable directorial signature.
(Here I agree wholeheartedly with whoever stressed that
Fassbinder did not have a "realist" style. He made a name
for himself in theater, after all. His cinema is anything
but realist; his rhythm and pacing is so distinct that I swear
you'd recognize one of his films after watching it for a few
seconds.) This mutual admiration society thing may not mean
anything. Transitivity seldom works for me; more often than
not I seldom care for my favorite director's favorite directors.
But it is at least worth a mention.
In that short interview, Fassbinder claimed that he first
saw Sirk's film before shooting The Merchants of Four Seasons.
If you believe him, his early films should be relatively
free from Sirk's influence. And they are nothing to scoff
at. Love is Colder than Death and Gods of the Plague are
heavily influenced by American gangster films and film noir
by way of Chabrol (the former was supposedly dedicated to
Chabrol. Katzelmacher is a favorite of mine; perhaps it
channels Godard and Band of Outsiders a bit, but it has that
stagy, time's-passage-as-wading-in-molasses quality to it that
is evident in late Fassbinder, with the characters mostly facing
the camera and seemingly addressing the audience as much as
each other. (These films are as far from melodramas
as you can imagine, by the way.) Rio das Mortes and
Pioneers in Ingolstadt, probably made for TV, are real
treats too (the latter probably channels Ophuls, at least
thematically).
Fassbinder comes off as an irrepressible teenager in this
book, making top-ten lists of everything from favorite
films (Visconti) to pop-stars (Elvis) to soccer player to operas.
It is useful to remember that Fassbinder was no video store
clerk. He was an established figure in theater, and had
a larger-than-life appeptite for books, operas, and so on. (It is
perhaps in this respect he is most like Godard.) Trying to
reduce his aethestics to a sum of movie directors that came before
him, or (especially) pigeonholing him as an imitator of Sirk
simply makes no sense. If he were that, he would be of no
interest to me whatsoever.
25384
From: "Saul"
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 11:49am
Subject: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow asitdid
Online Now Send IM
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> George Cukor was gay. Only a few of his films touch on
> gayness in any way. He wasn't a gay filmmaker as we
> know it today and shouldn't be discussed in terms of
> today. James Whale as well.
> >
David, for the ignorants like me, is there somewhere I can get a
complete list of 'gay filmmakers'? Or will someone post one of afb? I
certainly heard a lot of names mentioned as gay this past day that I
didn't know were.
25385
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 1:16pm
Subject: Re: Sirk/Fassbinder rashomon82
Brian wrote:
> I did not insinuate anything of the kind. Please
> respect me and read my posts and not my mind.
> If I am unclear about something, please ask for
> clarification. I am well aware that I am not always
> as clear as I should be, despite the care I take with
> my posts.
You wrote: "I stand by that and do believe that Fassbinder is the
greater artist. I find stating that no different that saying that
Fassbinder is a greater talent than Joel Schmacher." That "no
different" packs quite a punch! But if that's not how you feel,
then it's not how you feel. Sorry to presume too much.
> > For Sirk, the dialogue is very often corralled into a vision
> > and imbued with profundity (in my opinion).
>
> What do you mean when you say "dialogue is very often
> corralled into a vision and imbued with profundity"?
When you (or, um, when I and many others) watch something by Sirk,
the "vision" of the film--to put it in Camperian terms, its sweep of
imagery and tempo, its acting styles, and its editing--put forth a
mood or atmosphere which (a) some of us find amazing/brilliant/etc.
in itself, and (b) which is intense enough to overtake whatever
power the screenplay or dialogue hold which might be. I can't be
precise since it's been many, many months since I've seen anything
by Sirk. In ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS, the dollar-store
transcendentalism acquires a certain 'echo-chamber' or 'found
poetry' effect where the words take on an abstracted, aestheticized
feeling amidst a much more powerful, non-dialogue-located thrust.
(Sorry if this is too out-of-left-field a comparison, but something
springing to mind is Mikel Rouse's amazing new-music opera FAILING
KANSAS, which uses transcripts of interviews surrounding the 'In
Cold Blood' murders to great effect as lyrics.) An example of Sirk
being less successful with bad material is, to me, MAGNIFICENT
OBSESSION, a film I still admire, but I think that (a) Sirk was
working with (against?) a more obviously limited script, and (b) his
own "visionary" achievement was not as great as in, say, ALL
THAT... So the result is a lesser film.
By contrast, Nick Ray's films sometimes have rather distasteful
dialogue ("What does he know about man alone?" or the
immortal "You're tearing me apart!" in REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE), but
his films are often about the outsider grasping for straws to
succeed in society, so a lot of times the dialogue will refer to
self-psychologizing that deepens the aloneness and confusion of the
characters (and reinforces Ray's own "vision of the cosmos"). The
dialogue isn't swept up in Ray's vision in the way that bad dialogue
often is in Sirk's, except in the sense that to me Ray's art works
on a dialectical level with the obstacles and restrictions he's
working against--his films are about the struggle of their own
making, in a certain way. And in his cleaner and crisper
masterpieces, like JOHNNY GUITAR or BIGGER THAN LIFE (a film I don't
even "like" simply because I'm too much of a wuss to handle it),
there's not so much bad dialogue because Ray is in synch with his
material and gets to make films more overtly critical of their
subjects. But in WIND ACROSS THE EVERGLADES or BITTER VICTORY, the
corrosive critique is part and parcel with the disjointedness of the
films: seeing a troubled Ray masterpiece gives one an exhilirating
and odd feeling because it seems to push against itself from all
sides. There may be problems in their dialogue or in their
structures, but the art lies elsewhere, and attacking these films
for their obvious imperfections seems so ... beside the point.
> And how do you measure profoundity? Your scale?
> Mine? Sirk's?
Mine, of course. And you measure profundity on your scale. And we,
y'know, communicate and try to find common ground to understand one
another better.
> What would you suggest is the most useful approach to
> dealing with bad dialogue when confronted with it on
> the screen?
As I hopefully suggest above, it depends on the filmmaker.
> And producing a work of art where you just "flow" over
> any instrinsic flaws is the sign of major talent?
Well, empirically, yes, because only a handful of filmmakers I know
can do this, and even then not with 100% consistency: among
classical Hollywood filmmakers, Ford, Hawks, Sirk, Borzage, a few
others maybe. (Ford and Hawks are just extremely powerful
presences, though, and their control over their films often limited
bad dialogue--as you yourself point out vis-a-vis Hawks, he's
a "writer" of his films too.) If a line or a few lines that look
corny, mawkish, or bland on paper get you in the gut, that's because
the actor and/or director "sold it." (And that's no small thing.)
If the same line assaults you, dizzies you, makes you experience the
rest of the film with sharper senses, it's because someone (usually
but not necessarily a director) is working at a high level that re-
orients the elements of a film in some meaningful way. It doesn't
have to be dialogue to be re-oriented, though. The generic riding-
into-the-distance at the end of MY DARLING CLEMENTINE is 100% horse
opera, 100% Ford. Luckily 'Ford' is more powerful than 'horse
opera,' and those final minutes should shake the earth beneath your
feet ... they do for me anyway.
But I'm not saying this is the only sign of a major talent, or the
surest sign of a major talent. Some filmmakers can't work on
assignment, can't deal with directing films with scripts they didn't
conceive of and write. Some filmmakers can't and don't deal with
scripts at all. People have different paths. To me it's ideal to
recognize and appreciate potential in as many of them as possible.
I agree with you, Brian, that if a filmmaker is using sound (or more
precisely, dialogue) he or she is "responsible" for it. But I don't
think we should judge the scripts necessarily based on how they
would sound if we sight-read it from a page--they're often
integrated into something more powerful than themselves alone.
--Zach
25386
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 1:27pm
Subject: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
>
>
> I'm seriously asking this, Blake. In sum, I seriously want to know
how we, as
> critics, can possibly recognize a homosexual or bisexual nature as
animating
> a work of art in ANY way WITHOUT knowing about the person's life
and I
> seriously would like you to outline a critical program of action
in approaching this
> matter.
>
Although I very much agree with a lot Kevin has said in this post
(and which I have had to delete for space considerations)I find the
above quite troubling. Aren't you implicitly saying, Kevin, that a
knowledge of a person's life is necessary to understanding the
person's work as an artist? Or if you're not, how do you justify
your granting "sexual orientation" a special, privileged status as
something one HAS to know, whereas other "preferences", tastes,
beliefs etc... are not, apparently, necessary or important to such
understanding?
I am quite willing -- as a critic or just an ordinary spectator --
to accept the fact that Cary Grant was bisexual, but I don't see
how it might have much impact on my appeciation of his performance
(in BRINGING UP BABY or any other film)or of his films in general or
any of them in particular. I tend to agree with Mike that "what we
see on the screen" is what counts the most. By the way I don't see
how the famous "Gay" exclamation from BUB can be seen as some kind
of homosexual "confession". Placed in a similar situation, I think I
might very well have reacted with the same helpless exasperation
(what the character is really saying is: "the suggestion that i
have 'turned gay' all of a sudden is totally absurd and idiotic but
it fits into this totally absurd and idiotic situation I find myself
in.") Of course anybody is free to read whatever they want into it...
JPC
> Finally, one does not CONSTANTLY open up a post and it's who's
screwing who.
> Come on, Blake. Do you seriously honestly truly really believe
that to be the
> case? SERIOUSLY?
Well, David does it all the time, you have to admit.
25387
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 1:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow cellar47
--- Saul wrote:
>
> David, for the ignorants like me, is there somewhere
> I can get a
> complete list of 'gay filmmakers'? Or will someone
> post one of afb? I
> certainly heard a lot of names mentioned as gay this
> past day that I
> didn't know were.
>
Well you could get ahold of my book, Saul. But a short
list of the most important names (off the top ofmy
head) would include:
Sergei Eisenstein
Jean Cocteau
Norman McLaren
Kenneth Anger
Andy Warhol
James Whale
George Cukor
Edmund Goulding
Mitchell Leisen
Charles Walters
Dorothy Arzner
Luchino Visconti
Jacques Demy
Rainer Werner Fassbinder
Gus Van Sant
Todd Haynes
Patrice Chereau
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25388
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 1:56pm
Subject: Re: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> I am quite willing -- as a critic or just an
> ordinary spectator --
> to accept the fact that Cary Grant was bisexual,
> but I don't see
> how it might have much impact on my appeciation of
> his performance
> (in BRINGING UP BABY or any other film)or of his
> films in general or
> any of them in particular. I tend to agree with Mike
> that "what we
> see on the screen" is what counts the most. By the
> way I don't see
> how the famous "Gay" exclamation from BUB can be
> seen as some kind
> of homosexual "confession". Placed in a similar
> situation, I think I
> might very well have reacted with the same helpless
> exasperation
> (what the character is really saying is: "the
> suggestion that i
> have 'turned gay' all of a sudden is totally absurd
> and idiotic but
> it fits into this totally absurd and idiotic
> situation I find myself
> in.") Of course anybody is free to read whatever
> they want into it...
It's not a question of "reading in" to something
that's staring you right in the face. Moreover "what
we see on screen" is not a "confession' on Grant's
part but a comic acknowledgement of how the situation
might be read -- as he's being asked what he's doign
wearing a frilly nightgown.
Cary Grant's bisexuality is part and parcelof his
seductive charm -- over a whole range of films and
perfomances. I think of the way he moves around the
living roomin the opening sequence of"The Awful Truth"
or stares down James Mason in the library scene in
"North by Northwest" or races around in a sports car
with Marilyn Monroe in "Monkey Business." No man in
the history of the cinema moves this way -- with such
utterly non-macho ease that is at the same time
completely commanding.
Or as Audrey Hepburn said in "Charade" --"Do you want
to know what the matter with you is? Nothing."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25389
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 1:57pm
Subject: Re: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow cellar47
Oh and Ozu and Robret bresson too.
Put Minnelli and Losey in the Bi column.
--- David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- Saul wrote:
>
> >
> > David, for the ignorants like me, is there
> somewhere
> > I can get a
> > complete list of 'gay filmmakers'? Or will someone
> > post one of afb? I
> > certainly heard a lot of names mentioned as gay
> this
> > past day that I
> > didn't know were.
> >
>
> Well you could get ahold of my book, Saul. But a
> short
> list of the most important names (off the top ofmy
> head) would include:
>
> Sergei Eisenstein
> Jean Cocteau
> Norman McLaren
> Kenneth Anger
> Andy Warhol
> James Whale
> George Cukor
> Edmund Goulding
> Mitchell Leisen
> Charles Walters
> Dorothy Arzner
> Luchino Visconti
> Jacques Demy
> Rainer Werner Fassbinder
> Gus Van Sant
> Todd Haynes
> Patrice Chereau
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
25390
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 2:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow fredcamper
jpcoursodon wrote:
> .... how do you justify
> your granting "sexual orientation" a special, privileged status as
> something one HAS to know, whereas other "preferences", tastes,
> beliefs etc... are not, apparently, necessary or important to such
> understanding?
...
I agree 1,000 per cent with this little "critique" of the privileging of
sexual orientation over other things.
A straight filmmaker who takes J.S. Bach and Gertrude Stein and J.M.W.
Turner as his paradigm for great art (I'm thinking of Brakhage here) is
going to produce *very* different work than someone who is more
interested in African-American musicals, early films, and so on (Ken
Jacobs). So a filmmaker's cultural tastes is one thing of great
importance rarely heard about here.
I'm as interested in who is shtupping who as anyone else, but I have the
additional problem that we our discussion seems most often limited to
those three words, "straight," "bi," and "gay," as if any of them tells
us a whole lot. The words tell us something, sure, but not all *that*
much. Straight or bi or gay men can be almost 180 degrees opposite each
other in their sexual lives and desires. One straight man might be a
"fuck 'em and forget 'em" seducer; another might be a tender and
solicitous lover of only one woman; another may only want to perform
oral sex on a woman -- a heterosexual bottom, perhaps? (The existence of
such a species was raised for me by a certain prince's "I'll be your
tampon" fantasy outed via a purloined cell phone call some years ago.)
There are straight sadists and straight masochists and straight foot
fetishists and straight cross-dressers and straight men whose favorite
form of sex centers on only one particular act and straight narcissists
who want their bodies worshipped and straight men who prefer intercourse
where the two people orgasm together and "feel" equal. And so on and so
on. So when I read about a filmmaker's orientation, I certainly take
note of it, but I don't necessarily feel that I've learned very much,
certainly nowhere near as much as I learn from the films, if I feel I'm
"getting" them. Now a book about how different filmmakers actually had
sex, and what they preferred, *that* might reveal soemthing. Though I
wonder how much. According to Kenneth Anger, Cukor's fetish was to "suck
'em dry." Try as I might, I can't relate that very well (perhaps for
reasons related to the ones David gives) to his films, though it does
perhaps illuminate a single scene in "Rich and Famous," with the part of
Cukor being played by a woman -- made at a time when greater openness
about sex was permitted in Hollywood films. But it also seems to me that
what's profoundest about Cukor -- the Claire Bloom long take, say, in
"The Chapman Report," to take a scene that deals specifically with sex
-- is much more profound and much more specific than anything that can
be contained in words such as "gay" or "sucks 'em dry."
Fred Camper
25391
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 3:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow cellar47
--- Fred Camper wrote:
>
> I'm as interested in who is shtupping who as anyone
> else, but I have the
> additional problem that we our discussion seems most
> often limited to
> those three words, "straight," "bi," and "gay," as
> if any of them tells
> us a whole lot. The words tell us something, sure,
> but not all *that*
> much.
In isolation, no. But sexual orientation exists in
cultural context. Heterosexuality has absolute power
over everything -- so much so that it never need say
anthing about tiself. Gay, lesbain, Bi is forced into
a constant series of explanations -- made over the din
of of the Heterosexual Dictatorship screaming "WHO
CARES?!?!!!" at the top of its lungs, when it's
painfully obvious precisely who cares and why.
Now a book about how different
> filmmakers actually had
> sex, and what they preferred, *that* might reveal
> soemthing.
Not really. Gayness isn't to be reduced to a series of
sexual acts, any more than heterosexuality is.
Though I
> wonder how much. According to Kenneth Anger, Cukor's
> fetish was to "suck
> 'em dry." Try as I might, I can't relate that very
> well (perhaps for
> reasons related to the ones David gives) to his
> films, though it does
> perhaps illuminate a single scene in "Rich and
> Famous," with the part of
> Cukor being played by a woman -- made at a time when
> greater openness
> about sex was permitted in Hollywood films. But it
> also seems to me that
> what's profoundest about Cukor -- the Claire Bloom
> long take, say, in
> "The Chapman Report," to take a scene that deals
> specifically with sex
> -- is much more profound and much more specific than
> anything that can
> be contained in words such as "gay" or "sucks 'em
> dry."
>
Oh kenneth Anger has his puerient interests to play
with. They don't say that much about Cukor. John
Rechy, who actually attended Cukor's pool parites,
tells me he was quite decorous. No sexual goings on
were permitted on the premises. He had parties for men
to meet other men and then carry on elsewhere shoudl
they choose to do so. Anyone who tried for anything
more was shown the door and not invited back.
Cukor was crazy about Claire Bloom, and loved the way
she played the role in "The Chapman Report." Perhaps
it suggests something of his own feelings about sex,
perhaps not.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25392
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 3:47pm
Subject: re: All the gayness ... apmartin90
Re: David's intriguing list of gay directors: I may have missed
something, but how do we know that Bresson was gay, apart the immense
beauty of men he filmed and the erotic way he filmed them? - which is
also equally true of the women in his films. In terms of his 'private
life', I am one of the AFB members who heard, from someone who was in a
position to personally know, a rather lively story about how Bresson
methodically 'stole' a woman from one of his best friends. He was a
gigolo (apparently) and he was married (definitely - and his widow is
completely devoted to his memory and legacy) - but what else tells us
he way gay, or bi?
curious Adrian
25393
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 11:58am
Subject: Re: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow scil1973
Gawd, first "agenda" and now "special" (rights?). David, hold my hand, baby.
JP, look at my question again:
"I seriously want to know how we, as critics, can possibly recognize a
homosexual or bisexual nature as animating a work of art in ANY way WITHOUT knowing
about the person's life."
I did NOT, you notice, ask how can we possibly recognize ANY nature or
ANYTHING AT ALL animating a work of art without knowing about a person's life. Blake
himself, NOT me, said that we can recognize a HOMOSEXUAL or BISEXUAL nature.
So I was only asking about how we can recognize a that particular kind of
nature as animating a film, not about how we can recognize ANYTHING that could
possibly animate a film. In short, no, of course I don't think that a knowledge
of a person's life is necessary to understanding the person's work as an
artist. Thus, I am not granting "sexual orientation a special, privileged status as
something one HAS to know, whereas other "preferences", tastes, beliefs etc...
are not, apparently, necessary or important to such understanding." That's
absurd if not downright paranoid. What Blake seems to be doing is DEPRIVILEGING
sexuality. ALL I'm trying to do is place is at the same (hello, EQUAL) level
as other preferences, tastes, beliefs, etc. And please, NOT in every
instance...only in those instances where we can, as Blake says we can, recognize a
homosexual or bisexual nature as animating a film in an important way.
And Blake's statement is STILL convoluted and extremely confusing to me. Do
you really understand it, JP? Cuz if you do PLEASE explain it to me. If we can
indeed recognize a homosexual or bisexual nature as animating a film in an
important way, WHERE THE FUCK DOES THIS HOMOSEXUAL OR BISEXUAL NATURE COME
FROM?!?!??! If it does come from a person (and because I'm still utterly confused a
bout Blake's statement, I'm not so sure about this), then why is it appalling
scholarship or unethical or useless or irrelevant or a waste of time or just
plain stupid or whatever to link this homosexual or bisexual nature to that
person? If we indeed conclude that Cary Grant is totally responsible for a
bisexual nature animating BRINGING UP BABY in an important way, Blake SEEMS to be
saying (again, I'm not sure) that we as critics MUST stop at this point. We must
NOT go outside the film text itself (as if we could police those boundaries
with absolute authority but that's another matter) because, as Blake says, "it's
just not relevant to understanding art." That, I think, is preposterous. And
please, JP, don't get literal. BRINGING UP BABY is just an example here. The
key phrase above is "if we indeed conclude..." Insert any film that may have a
homo/bisexual animating it in an important way.
Lemme hit you with a non-sexual critical mode of inquiry. Take THE SOPRANOS.
So I'm watching THE SOPRANOS and I become intrigued by its New Jersey setting.
I know that Jersey is constantly ridiculed by New Yorkers and I want to write
an essay on setting the show in such a deprivileged zone. And I do a little
research. And I find this article in the NY Times by Charles Strum all about
the New Jerseyness of the show. And lo - I find out that (ta-dum!) David Chase
is from New Jersey. Or let's say that Times piece wasn't out yet. Let's say my
curiosity about New Jersey led me to interview Chase. And I ask him "So what's
up with Jersey?" "Well, Kevin, I'm from Jersey!" "Oh shit! You're from
Jersey?!? Wow! Well, can you talk about this matter a little further please?" Now I
think we can all agree that the show's Jersey setting is pretty important to
the mechanics of the narrative and whatnot. But as a critic, did I commit an
unpardonable critical error by even pursuing Chase on this matter? Must I
recognize that Jersey animates THE SOPRANOS in an important way without even
dreaming of talking to Chase or learning about this person's life? Is the very
impulse of wanting to chat with Chase about Jersey in the hopes that he can
illuminate something further about this aspect (with, yes, yes, of course, no
guarantee that he will be able to) so utterly irrelevant to the task of the critic?
Will anything Chase says about Jersey or anything else always and forever have a
bsolutely nothing whatsoever to do with understanding the art of THE SOPRANOS?
So JUST AS AN EXAMPLE, insert BRINGING UP BABY and Grant above and you see
how absurd this all is.
And re: David and his posts on who's screwing whom, I bet if we did a
statistical analysis (which the folks on this list obsessed with hard evidence might
actually dig), we'd find that not even half of his his posts are about who's
screwing whom. In fact, I'd be shocked if 25% of his posts were about it.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25394
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 4:18pm
Subject: Re: re: All the gayness ... cellar47
The movies themselves, actually.
I believe it was someone on the list(though I amy be
wrong) who said that Bresson invariable cast "The most
beautfiful boys in the Marais."
Yes, I'm fully aware of the fact that he was married.
So was Jacques Demy.
--- Adrian Martin wrote:
> Re: David's intriguing list of gay directors: I may
> have missed
> something, but how do we know that Bresson was gay,
> apart the immense
> beauty of men he filmed and the erotic way he filmed
> them? - which is
> also equally true of the women in his films. In
> terms of his 'private
> life', I am one of the AFB members who heard, from
> someone who was in a
> position to personally know, a rather lively story
> about how Bresson
> methodically 'stole' a woman from one of his best
> friends. He was a
> gigolo (apparently) and he was married (definitely -
> and his widow is
> completely devoted to his memory and legacy) - but
> what else tells us
> he way gay, or bi?
>
> curious Adrian
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
25395
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 0:32pm
Subject: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow nzkpzq
When I saw "Diary of a Country Priest" (Robert Bresson) in 1972, the scene in
which the priest shares a motorcycle ride with a handsome, kind-hearted young
biker immediately seemed like a romantic encounter between two men. There is
a long tradition of motorcycles as gay imagery (think of "Scorpio Rising",
etc).
Similarly, "A Man Escaped" deals with two men who come two trust one another,
and who gradually become closer and closer to each other as people. It seems
like a gay love story.
I have no idea if Bresson was gay, or some variant thereof in real life. Or
not.
In the case of John Ford, I noticed how much emphasis there is on the
handsome, sincere young men in his films. And how often they have a relationship of
best friends with the hero.
And how many Ford films deal with all male groups. Ford even made a movie
called "Men Without Women". (Which I have never been able to see).
In both cases, I thought of this as "gay content".
There is certainly straight content in these men's films, too.
I wrote about the Bresson. But have never written much about the Ford.
I know for a fact that straight directors, writers, etc, sometimes put gay
characters in their films. Example: Frank Borzage, Preston Sturges. Two men who
almost certainly were straight men, based on everything one knows about both
their lives and films. But Borzage created the noble chef in "History Is Made
at Night", who is probably a gay man in love with the hero. And Sturges
included Franklin Pangborn right at the heart of his stock company in "Sullivan's
Travels". Pangborn is at the forefront of trying to rescue hero Joel McCrea by
phone at the end of the film. These are very generous, idealistic portraits of
gay men by straight directors.
I am digressing.
In any case, I saw tons of gay content in Ford's films, decades before
Maureen O'Hara dropped her recent bombshell about seeing John Ford kissing another
man in his office. During the last century, Ford's films have always been
written about as if they only had straight content. O'Hara's brief bit of biography
has done more to change how people see John Ford than the 100 films he made
about close male relationships and male bonding in groups.
This seems a bit strange to me. Can't we look at films, and SEE the straight
or gay characters and relationships in them? Must we always be blind, till we
read something in the tabloids?
Let's clarify. I am not opposed to biographical revelations of homosexuality
(or heterosexuality). At the least, they give us clues to look for a key part
of human experience in film. I have benefited from them myself, as a film
viewer, helping me bring a director's point of view into focus (eg, in the case of
Ozu, and Leisen, where I knew about the director's sexual orientation before
experiencing their films). Any true statement that helps bring about an
honest, respectful equality between gay and straight people is highly welcome!
Still, I believe that works of art are central to what we are discussing. We
definitely need to look at THE FILMS, rather than people's personal lives.
Film art is what is important. And this definitely includes gay content in films.
Mike Grost
25396
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 5:21pm
Subject: Re: Trafic 53 joe_mcelhaney
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
>
> Does Brion specify which parts of BEST FOOT FORWARD Minnelli
> was responsible for?
Alas, Brion is not specific about what Minnelli did on any of these
films he lists.
>
>
> I know that Minnelli directed 2 scenes in ALL THE FINE YOUNG
> CANNIBALS and the climax of THE BRIBE (which anticipates the climax
> of SOME CAME RUNNING).
Thanks for reminding me about The Bribe. I'd heard about this once a
long time ago and forgot all about it. It's a film I've never seen but
I'll keep an eye out for it now on TCM. Ditto The Heavenly Body. I
did slog through All the Fing Young Cannibals a few months ago on TCM
but couldn't find any footage that remarkably stood out from the rest.
I may have gone into a coma of boredom, though, my senses deadened by
the rest of the film and consequently unable to detect Minnelli's hand
anywhere.
Wasn't Anthony Mann doing a fair amount of uncredited cleanup and
retake work at MGM during this period as well?
(Sorry to interrupt all of these exciting recent sex posts with such
mundane matters.)
25397
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 5:43pm
Subject: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Gawd, first "agenda" and now "special" (rights?). David, hold my
hand, baby.
>
Kevin, I think you're hyperventilating for no clear reason. I
wrote that I agreed with most of what you had been saying in
response to Blake, so it should be clear that I disagree with most
of what he wrote. Moreover, I'm like you, I found his arguments
convoluted and not easy to follow, so I'm definitely not the one to
enlighten you about their ultimate meaning or merit.
JPC
> JP, look at my question again:
>
> "I seriously want to know how we, as critics, can possibly
recognize a
> homosexual or bisexual nature as animating a work of art in ANY
way WITHOUT knowing
> about the person's life."
> I did NOT, you notice, ask how can we possibly recognize ANY
nature or
> ANYTHING AT ALL animating a work of art without knowing about a
person's life. Blake
> himself, NOT me, said that we can recognize a HOMOSEXUAL or
BISEXUAL nature.
> So I was only asking about how we can recognize a that particular
kind of
> nature as animating a film, not about how we can recognize
ANYTHING that could
> possibly animate a film. In short, no, of course I don't think
that a knowledge
> of a person's life is necessary to understanding the person's work
as an
> artist. Thus, I am not granting "sexual orientation a special,
privileged status as
> something one HAS to know, whereas other "preferences", tastes,
beliefs etc...
> are not, apparently, necessary or important to such
understanding." That's
> absurd if not downright paranoid.
FINE! You've just answered my question. Nothing paranoid about
asking for clarifications though...
What Blake seems to be doing is DEPRIVILEGING
> sexuality.
Yes, in a sense, I think that's what he did. But doesn't that
suggest that sexuality (and in this case homosexuality)
was "privileged" in the first place?
ALL I'm trying to do is place is at the same (hello, EQUAL) level
> as other preferences, tastes, beliefs, etc. And please, NOT in
every
> instance...only in those instances where we can, as Blake says we
can, recognize a
> homosexual or bisexual nature as animating a film in an important
way.
>
Instances that are very few indeed. And what is a homosexual or
bisexual "nature" anyway? Would we talk about a
heterosexual "nature"? I know the term comes from Blake but you
seem to more or less accept it at face value...
> And Blake's statement is STILL convoluted and extremely confusing
to me. Do
> you really understand it, JP?
No, not really. See above...
>
> Lemme hit you with a non-sexual critical mode of inquiry. Take THE
SOPRANOS.
"Please!"
I could never get beyond the first episode of that famed show.
As for New Jersey, I like to quote the character in "Happiness" who
lives there and apologetically comments: "I live in a state of
irony."
> And re: David and his posts on who's screwing whom, I bet if we
did a
> statistical analysis (which the folks on this list obsessed with
hard evidence might
> actually dig), we'd find that not even half of his his posts are
about who's
> screwing whom. In fact, I'd be shocked if 25% of his posts were
about it.
>
Considering that David has penned several hundreds of posts since
the birth of a_film_by, he would soon have run out of names to cite
even if limiting himself to a small percentage of posts on the
subject. I just meant that he never (or at least very seldon) misses
an opportunity. It doesn't bother me but I can see how some people
may find it a bit obnoxious (but then some may find my trading song
lyrics with David obnoxious too).
So -- to reaffirm my hetero-ness and musically challenge David
again I'll sing on my way out: "We need some frilly skirts to boost
our morale!"
JPC
> Kevin John
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25398
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 5:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: Trafic 53 cellar47
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
>
> Thanks for reminding me about The Bribe. I'd heard
> about this once a
> long time ago and forgot all about it. It's a film
> I've never seen but
> I'll keep an eye out for it now on TCM.
CarlReiner's Steve Martin comedy "Dead Men Don't Wear
Plaid" -- in which Martin is edited into a whole
series of Hollywood films, some famous others not,
makes extensive use of "The Bribe."
Ditto The
> Heavenly Body. I
> did slog through All the Fing Young Cannibals a few
> months ago on TCM
> but couldn't find any footage that remarkably stood
> out from the rest.
> I may have gone into a coma of boredom, though, my
> senses deadened by
> the rest of the film and consequently unable to
> detect Minnelli's hand
> anywhere.
>
I would hazard a guess that it was in his contract to
do retakes whenever needed, and his role thein was
simply to "direct traffic."
This is quite different than with a production like
"Lovely to Look At" which was directed by Mervyn
LeRoy, except for the great fashion show finale
directed -- and explicitly credited to Minnelli.
He took longer to shoot it than LeRoy did on the film
proper. Great fun with Marge and Gower at one point
doing a kind of comic reprise of the "This Heart of
Mine" number from "Ziegfeld Follies."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25399
From: "Gabe Klinger"
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 5:58pm
Subject: La Cicatrice interieure gcklinger
This film by Philippe Garrel (1972), starring Nico, Pierre Clementi, Daniel Pommereulle,
and Garrel, screened yesterday in Chicago in a gorgeous 35mm print that came
from the Cinematheque francaise (courtesy of Pip Chodorov).
I've only been familiar with Garrel's films from the '90s, though LA CICATRICE INTERIEURE,
which people say is more experimental and less a part of his current work, still includes
some of his basic tendencies:
the single-minded search for beauty (more on this below).
the crazed infatuation with Nico, which is an element in all of his recent films
(Adrian knows better than me).
baroque cinema style.
stunning location shooting.
Garrel is a very lucid filmmaker, which is why so many cinephiles enjoy his work. LA
CICATRICE INTERIEURE belongs to the art film tradition that let's you savor every detail of
the frame -- for it's beauty. Garrel isn't about temporal displacement, like Hou Hsiao-
hsien, for example. He gives us time to look at his images because he wants us to be in
awe of them.
David E. -- aren't you a huge fan of this film?
Gabe
25400
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 9, 2005 6:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: All The Gayness That Blake (and a little Mike) Allow cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
And what is
> a homosexual or
> bisexual "nature" anyway? Would we talk about a
> heterosexual "nature"?
Well I don't know about "nature," but it's pretty
obvious that there are certain cultural areas that
gays pay more attention to than straights -- and here
I'm not simply talking about sexuality.
As I believe I said at one point I knew Jacques Demy
was gay before he did. No straight director could have
made a film like"Lola." It has no "gay content" per
se. The sailors are all very cute, but that's minor
detail. What always got to me about it was the seriosu
attention Demy lavished on characters who in other
contexts would be dismissed as idle dreamers. Lola the
cabaret singer pining for the man who left her with
child years before could be traced to certain 30's
films. But Roland is different. It starts with him
losing his job, and he shows no real interest in
getting another. He's as far from "mcho" as one could
imagine. But that's not it either. It's that Demy
doesn't criticize or punish his dreamy casualness
about life.
Classic cinema is filled with resolute heroes who says
what they mean and do what they say. Rick in
"Casablanca" seems reluctant to act at first, but
that's because he isn't given to taking chances.
Moreover when he does take action it's with absolute
resolve and to devestating effect. In the 60's college
kids in the U.S. embraced Bogie as cooler and hipper
than John Wayne. But there's a level at which they're
not all that different from one another.
I can't imagine any of those kids embracing a Demy
hero.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact