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.
25501
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:28pm
Subject: Re: Sirk/Fassbinder tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"What does that mean anyway, 'imitation of life'? What is it that
is 'imitated'? Where is the 'real' life to be found in the first
place so that you can 'imitate' it? The entire terminology has always
seemed terribly unclear and obfuscating to me."
I always took it to be a metaphor of alienation. The real life as
presented in the film exists on the edges of the scenes involving the
principals to the extent that it exists at all. Maybe the title
refers to the imitation of an idea of life. Anyway, the title comes
from the Fannie Hurst novel and Sirk probably had to use it. Even
so, it's a rich metaphor. I told it to three different poets I know
and they liked it.
"Sirk sets up characters who are mediocre or superficial or flawed
and invites us to feel smugly superior to them and their choices in
life. He is a great filmmaker and I do admire him but this much
vaunted aspect of his cinema is something I find troubling and
distasteful."
I never got that invitation from Sirk. The charcaters seemed trapped
by the mise-en-scene which I see as a metaphor for different things
depending on the film, so my feeling was one of pity for those
characters and mild dread that the world Sirk portrayed could also be
the one I was living in. It's reminiscent of Norman Mailer's musings
on the deadly and toxic effects of the built enviorment and its
accoutrements on the people who must inhabit it.
As to his admirers, the few I've met face to face haven't at all been
smug, but some of the ones that have written about Sirk's films have
seemed a little smug to me.
About the implied critic of consumer society in Sirk's films,
Marxist critics pick up on it and base their analysis of the films
exclusively on this theme (more than a little reductive IMO but still
interesting.) Since the 1950s there's been on on-going critique of
the American way of life: "The Organization Man'" "The Waste
Makers," "Growing Up Absurd," "Fast Food Nation" etc. From one point
of view Sirk's films are the expression of that critique at the level
of popular culture.
Finally, my understanding of Sirk is that this alienation is
existential not economic or cultural, that the charcaters would be
trapped no matter where they stand on the scocio-economic scale, and
I think he would include himself among them.
Richard
25502
From: BklynMagus
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 3:40pm
Subject: Re: Sirk/Fassbinder cinebklyn
Jess writes:
"And others might point out that *both* were ranked above your man
Mankiewicz, for example
We cinematic Renfields are devoted to the master, and endure the
anti-Mankiewiczean forces of darkness as best we can. LOL.
I will respond to Fredpost and the others through the course of the
week. My Dad's wake starts today, so if my I am a bit tardy, please
know that I am not ignoring anyone.
Brian
25503
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 4:34pm
Subject: Sudden Rain (Was: I Feel a List Coming On) sallitt1
> The most unusual, possibly erotically-tinged scene in Naruse -- the
> rather maniacal volleyball (?) match between Setsuko Hara and Shuji
> Sano at the end of "Shu'u" (Sudden Rain). I never have quite figured
> out how to read this.
I never have quite figured out how to *see* this. Where did you run
across it? - Dan
25504
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:14pm
Subject: Re: Sudden Rain (Was: I Feel a List Coming On) michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I never have quite figured out how to *see* {Naruse's "Sudden Rain"}.
> Where did you run across it?
A copy of a copy (recursively) of a converted PAL TV broadcast. I
think this one was actually subtitled. Definitely low-fi. ;~}
MEK
25505
From: MG4273@...
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 5:50pm
Subject: Lancelot du lac nzkpzq
Just watched Lancelot du lac (Robert Bresson, 1974). The film is hugely impressive, especially in its complex mise-en-scene. But thinking about What It All Means is full of challenges. Some questions:
1) Why are the knights so murderous to each other? Clearly, they are driven jealousy, and a struggle for position. They will kill each other at the drop of a hat. This process destroyed the quest for the grail, and takes up the whole rest of the film.
Does Bresson regard this as an anti-war statement? Do the knights represent soldiers, and other people who use violence? Nazis? Or do they represent capitalism? Or all human beings?
2) The knights are an all-male group, and wear a common "uniform" - highly glamorized armor. Is there a gay sensibility at work here? How do the knights compare / contrast to another all-male group in Bresson, the pickpockets?
3) Lancelot winds up killing his best friend, Gawain. In "A Man Escaped", the hero thinks seriously about killing his new cellmate, but decides against it, building a close relationship, instead. What does this mean?
4) Joan of Arc's voices tell her to remain a virgin, and not to have heterosexual sex at all. Lancelot also hears divine voices, telling him not to have heterosexual, adulterous sex with Guinevere. Are these voices related in meaning?
5) Guinevere is seated while talking with men, just like Joan. Does Bresson endorse her actions, or condemn them?
6) Guinevere says Lancelot's love of her is just an excuse for the men to commit violence against each other, not its true cause. Does Bresson agree? (I think yes, but cannot prove it.)
7) Guinevere and Lancelot are under constant, evil surveillance by the knights, like like Joan was in prison. Here, the goal of the surveillance is explicitly to prevent Guinevere and Lancelot from have sex. Is this sinister surveillance anti-sexual throught Bresson? Does it stand for the constant attempt by society to monitor and prevent homosexual relationships? If it stands for something else, what is it? As far as I can tell, homosexuality was the only proscribed, constantly monitored action in France in 1950-1980, an otherwise free and open society. Or is this a reference to the Nazi occupation? Why is Bresson so deeply concerned with observation & monitoring in his films? What is its real world correlative?
Mike Grost
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25506
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:28pm
Subject: Re: Lancelot du lac cellar47
--- MG4273@... wrote:
>
> 1) Why are the knights so murderous to each other?
> Clearly, they are driven jealousy, and a struggle
> for position. They will kill each other at the drop
> of a hat. This process destroyed the quest for the
> grail, and takes up the whole rest of the film.
This is the Human Condition. We are murderous beasts.
> Does Bresson regard this as an anti-war statement?
Bresson would obviously prefer people not murder each
other, therefore "anti-war" is a tad too
self-contained an intent.
> Do the knights represent soldiers, and other people
> who use violence? Nazis? Or do they represent
> capitalism? Or all human beings?
>
The last-mentioned.
> 2) The knights are an all-male group, and wear a
> common "uniform" - highly glamorized armor. Is there
> a gay sensibility at work here?
Well DUH!
How do the knights
> compare / contrast to another all-male group in
> Bresson, the pickpockets?
>
That's an interesting question. I'll have to think
about it a bit.
> 3) Lancelot winds up killing his best friend,
> Gawain. In "A Man Escaped", the hero thinks
> seriously about killing his new cellmate, but
> decides against it, building a close relationship,
> instead. What does this mean?
>
s Serge Daney pointed out in his CdC review of "Le
Diable Probablement" the "best friend" figure is a
quite prominent in Bresson. Generally he's desirous of
the woman in the picture. Jost in "A Man Escaped"
isn't a "best friend" figure at all, and in fact is
rather unique in Bresson.
> 4) Joan of Arc's voices tell her to remain a virgin,
> and not to have heterosexual sex at all. Lancelot
> also hears divine voices, telling him not to have
> heterosexual, adulterous sex with Guinevere. Are
> these voices related in meaning?
Possibly. But I think it's a bit too schematic t draw
direct lines. It's quite well grounded historically
that Joan was a virgin and foreswore having sex with
men. From all that I've read I gather she was a
transexual.
>
> 5) Guinevere is seated while talking with men, just
> like Joan. Does Bresson endorse her actions, or
> condemn them?
>
Agian, I don't think they're comparable.
> 6) Guinevere says Lancelot's love of her is just an
> excuse for the men to commit violence against each
> other, not its true cause. Does Bresson agree? (I
> think yes, but cannot prove it.)
Yes, and the film itself proves it.
>
> 7) Guinevere and Lancelot are under constant, evil
> surveillance by the knights, like like Joan was in
> prison. Here, the goal of the surveillance is
> explicitly to prevent Guinevere and Lancelot from
> have sex. Is this sinister surveillance anti-sexual
> throught Bresson? Does it stand for the constant
> attempt by society to monitor and prevent homosexual
> relationships? If it stands for something else, what
> is it? As far as I can tell, homosexuality was the
> only proscribed, constantly monitored action in
> France in 1950-1980, an otherwise free and open
> society. Or is this a reference to the Nazi
> occupation? Why is Bresson so deeply concerned with
> observation & monitoring in his films? What is its
> real world correlative?
>
Now it REALLY gets complicated. Surveillance figures
prominently in two of Bresson's most important
films:"A Man Escaped" and "Pickpocket." But I wouldn't
be quick to pick a particular correlative.
Homosexuality may have been "monitored" in France from
1950-1980 but those were the prime years for Cocteau
and Genet.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25507
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:54pm
Subject: Re: Lancelot du lac samfilms2003
> > 4) Joan of Arc's voices tell her to remain a virgin,
> > and not to have heterosexual sex at all. Lancelot
> > also hears divine voices, telling him not to have
> > heterosexual, adulterous sex with Guinevere. Are
> > these voices related in meaning?
>
> Possibly. But I think it's a bit too schematic t draw
> direct lines. It's quite well grounded historically
> that Joan was a virgin and foreswore having sex with
> men. From all that I've read I gather she was a
> transexual.
From my research, I wouldn't buy a transexual theory. Anyway one
might as "the voices" in terms of what Lancelot hears and what
Joan *thinks* she is hearing is authoritative voice of the Middle
Ages so to speak.
> > 6) Guinevere says Lancelot's love of her is just an
> > excuse for the men to commit violence against each
> > other, not its true cause. Does Bresson agree? (I
> > think yes, but cannot prove it.)
>
> Yes, and the film itself proves it.
Homer might also agree ;-)
> >
> > 7) Guinevere and Lancelot are under constant, evil
> > surveillance by the knights, like like Joan was in
> > prison. Here, the goal of the surveillance is
> > explicitly to prevent Guinevere and Lancelot from
> > have sex. Is this sinister surveillance anti-sexual
> > throught Bresson? Does it stand for the constant
> > attempt by society to monitor and prevent homosexual
> > relationships? If it stands for something else, what
> > is it? As far as I can tell, homosexuality was the
> > only proscribed, constantly monitored action in
> > France in 1950-1980, an otherwise free and open
> > society. Or is this a reference to the Nazi
> > occupation? Why is Bresson so deeply concerned with
> > observation & monitoring in his films? What is its
> > real world correlative?
> >
>
> Now it REALLY gets complicated. Surveillance figures
> prominently in two of Bresson's most important
> films:"A Man Escaped" and "Pickpocket." But I wouldn't
> be quick to pick a particular correlative.
I agree this is complicated. Not to advance any particular theory
re Bresson and sexual preference but I'll note that in what seems
to me the most directly erotic scene for me in Bresson - the two
standing naked lovers in "Four Nights Of A Dreamer" - we are
acutely aware of the mother being out in the hall, a "monitoring"
precense if there ever was one.
-Sam
25508
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:59pm
Subject: Re: RELEVANCE of sexual identity to artworks' meaning REVEALED!!! (was: the gay hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> OOPS! Sent that first one too early.
>
> <
> teasing out the meaning of artworks.>>
>
> I think more often than not scholars/critics attempt to freeze the study of
> film into a solely formalist enterprise precisely in order to avoid,
> self-consciously or not, dealing with these issues of sexual identity, race, class,
etc.
D. A. Miller's monograph on Incidences, Barthes' epigrammatic semi-novel in which
pickups are mentioned, is good on this if you can find it: Bringing Out Roland
Barthes. If you can't find it, let me know and I'll send you a Xerox.
25509
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 9:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: Lancelot du lac cellar47
--- samfilms2003 wrote:
>
> I agree this is complicated. Not to advance any
> particular theory
> re Bresson and sexual preference but I'll note that
> in what seems
> to me the most directly erotic scene for me in
> Bresson - the two
> standing naked lovers in "Four Nights Of A Dreamer"
> - we are
> acutely aware of the mother being out in the hall, a
> "monitoring"
> precense if there ever was one.
>
True. And I'm glad you brought that one up because I
failed to mention the gorgeous Guillaume des Forets in
my Bresson Babe list.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25510
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: RELEVANCE of sexual identity to artworks' meaning REVEALED!!! (was: the gay cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> D. A. Miller's monograph on Incidences, Barthes'
> epigrammatic semi-novel in which
> pickups are mentioned, is good on this if you can
> find it: Bringing Out Roland
> Barthes. If you can't find it, let me know and I'll
> send you a Xerox.
>
>
>
>
Barthes' "Incidents" and Miller's "Bringing Out Roland
Barthes" were published as a set by the University of
California Press in 1992.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25511
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:05pm
Subject: Re: Dialogue, Lucas, Dwan (Was: Sirk/Fassbinder) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> > If more films like Chances and While Paris Sleeps become
> > available, he might turn out to be a Pantheon director. While Paris
> > Sleeps is wonderful, and again when he talks to PB about it, he
> > stresses how happy he was with the dialogue.
>
> I'm so glad you finally opened the dvd, Bill!
> Wicked ('31) is pretty good too. Is What a widow! ('30) available
> somewhere? Should these gems resurface, it could only prove that
> Dwan's genius always found its way out, and did not die with the sound
> era, nor waited Bogeaus to rise.
I certainly agree with that. The Bogeaus films are lovely, but not uniformly great, and
I'm also very fond of the Wurtzels, the Yateses and the Smalls. But the early sound
films before his "fall" which I've seen now thanks to you are really something. The
understated performances, the stylization of the images in Chances just makes the
people in the frame more incandescent - eg the moment when Fairbanks realizes
that his brother is in love with Rose Hobart, shown in profile.
But we don't need them to put him
> right where he belongs, this damned Pantheon.
I think so. And putting him where he belongs would require rewriting film history a
bit.
25512
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 10:10pm
Subject: Re: RELEVANCE of sexual identity to artworks' meaning REVEALED!!! (was: the gay hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> OOPS! Sent that first one too early.
>
> <
> teasing out the meaning of artworks.>>
>
> I think more often than not scholars/critics attempt to freeze the study of
> film into a solely formalist enterprise precisely in order to avoid,
> self-consciously or not, dealing with these issues of sexual identity, race, class,
etc.
D. A. Miller's monograph on Incidences, Barthes' epigrammatic semi-novel in which
pickups are mentioned, is good on this if you can find it: Bringing Out Roland
Barthes. If you can't find it, let me know and I'll send you a Xerox.
25513
From: MG4273@...
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 6:54pm
Subject: Re: Dialogue, Lucas, Dwan (Was: Sirk/Fassbinder) nzkpzq
For a very brief moment in film history, it looked as if Douglas Fairbanks,
Jr had the Right Stuff to be a leading man. "Chances" (Dwan, 1931) and "Union
Depot" (Alfred E. Green, 1931) are really interesting movies. Fairbanks' screen
image was probably helped here by Warners costume designer Earl Luick, who
did his clothes for both of these, and "Little Caesar" (1930). Dwan in
particular seemed to love having his characters dressed up to the max.
"Union Depot" seems to be the lively, fun exception to the general stolidity
and dulness of Green's work. I also enjoyed "The Jolson Story", but all the
musical scenes in this were reportedly directed by the great Joseph H. Lewis, so
that film hardly qualifies as pure Green.
Mike Grost
25514
From: "Maxime Renaudin"
Date: Mon Apr 11, 2005 11:23pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh jaloysius56
Gabe wrote:
> The only "blackmail" here is convincing us that these
> are real people.
These people are not "real"; they are puppets. Realism is an
illusion, particularly when it is supposed to rise from the
accumulation of details, as you are saying, if I understand you
correctly.
The only truth (at least here, with regard to the declared ambitions
of Leigh) is the truth of sentiments. And here, there isn't any.
The blackmail comes from the forced gaze. The knowing wink of
Leigh's camera that satisfies itself in a cliché where anyone can
find its way, accomplice, in spite of oneself, in this enterprise of
negation of the characters' individuality.
> If Leigh is contemptuous of these characters you would have to
> consider the depth and detail in which he has created them in the
first
> place. After all, what kind of person or artist would take
> such painstaking measures just to say "i hate this person" or
> "i hate this kind of person".
> But I don't find that that's the case with Leigh. I think his
> way of filmmaking is one of giving us all the details, plain and
simple.
I wasn't clear about that. I don't think that Leigh is thinking, or
saying, "I hate these people". I guess it's the exact opposite. I'm
talking about his mise-en-scène, not about his intentions. The
contempt is not in these intentions, which, again, I believe
sincere, but in the gaze.
I'd love to consider the "depth and detail", but, if I can see the
details, I can't see any depth. The accumulation of details
confines, traps the actors/characters in a smooth shell that
irremediably prevents me to feel their pain, to touch their heart. I
sense them suffocate, tangled up in the narrows features of the
damned single image in which Leigh put them, and which they hold up
pitifully from the beginning to the end, graceless hero of tragedy
without gods, passion or tears. Such suffocation could be great...
if only it was on the screen... I'd love to hear them scream, to see
them struggle, but Leigh had made his point very clear in the very
first shot, and there was nothing more to add.
Maxime
25515
From: "Gabe Klinger"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 2:39am
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh gcklinger
> The only truth (at least here, with regard to the declared ambitions
> of Leigh) is the truth of sentiments. And here, there isn't any.
> The blackmail comes from the forced gaze. The knowing wink of
> Leigh's camera that satisfies itself in a cliché where anyone can
> find its way, accomplice, in spite of oneself, in this enterprise of
> negation of the characters' individuality.
Oddly, in Leigh's films the actors seem to possess that concern and "truth of sentiments".
If there's a wink, it would have to come from them.
> I wasn't clear about that. I don't think that Leigh is thinking, or
> saying, "I hate these people". I guess it's the exact opposite. I'm
> talking about his mise-en-scène, not about his intentions. The
> contempt is not in these intentions, which, again, I believe
> sincere, but in the gaze.
No, I get it. You're saying his contempt is inadvertent. Or that basically Leigh is a stupid
filmmaker. I disagree, but whatever...
> I'd love to consider the "depth and detail", but, if I can see the
> details, I can't see any depth. The accumulation of details
> confines, traps the actors/characters in a smooth shell that
> irremediably prevents me to feel their pain, to touch their heart. I
> sense them suffocate, tangled up in the narrows features of the
> damned single image in which Leigh put them, and which they hold up
> pitifully from the beginning to the end, graceless hero of tragedy
> without gods, passion or tears. Such suffocation could be great...
> if only it was on the screen... I'd love to hear them scream, to see
> them struggle, but Leigh had made his point very clear in the very
> first shot, and there was nothing more to add.
In the case of the characters in VERA DRAKE, these are not people who scream, struggle,
or who are involved in any extraordinary acts. For chrissakes, Vera's son was in the military
and saw many of his buddies die but is hardly emotional about it. If Vera screamed that
would not relieve the viewer of a suffocation, but impose something about the nature of
humans that I find much more presumptuous than what Leigh is already saying about
class in Britain in that time period.
Gabe
25516
From: "Robert Keser"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:27am
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh rfkeser
I don't agree that the distance that Leigh maintains is an
expression of his inadvertent contempt. To me, it seems more a
gesture of respect to the couple, allowing them the dignity of their
own space instead of intruding on their intimacy. If the camera had
been pushed up into their faces, that's what would make me
queasy.
Equally, part of Leigh's point, as I read it (and similar to
Gabe's view), is to give an idea of how emotionally repressed
Britons of this period were due to their internalized class
strictures, conducting their social lives in terms of superficial
civilities ("Have a cup of tea, dear?"). The behavior of the
Drake family kept reminding me of stiff-upper-lip dramas like Noel
Coward's THIS HAPPY BREED. So, even if the camera were closer,
the characters would not necessarily "perform" for it. We
might "love to see them scream" but these people would simply not
behave that way.
What bothered me in the film, though, was the "holy fool"
aspect of Vera: how could she not even suspect that money was
changing hands for her services? Divorcing her actions from any
profit motive may be an attempt to keep her actions pure and, in a
way, abstract. But it also suggests a particularly unflattering
naïveté.
--Robert Keser
25517
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:17am
Subject: re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh apmartin90
I must confess that I was almost kicked out of a local library the other day
for laughing out loud when I opened a copy of recent CAHIERS to see SIDEWAYS
and VERA DRAKE voted 'one star' or 'don't bother'. This was a liberating
moment for me, in a country where it seems many middlebrow filmgoers and
film reviewers regard these two films as The Greatest Cinema Since Woody
Allen Was Good.
VERA DRAKE is far from Leigh's worst film (his 'period' films tend to be
more strictly planned, controlled and stylised than crap like ALL OR NOTHING
or CAREER GIRLS), but I do, generally, think he is a bad, bad filmmaker,
horribly overrated in some quarters. So I am with CAHIERS - and Maxime! - on
this one (POSITIF is much kinder to Leigh). Again, the problem has a special
acuteness here in Australia, where Brit-dudes arrive to teach 'The Mike
Leigh Method' to budding filmmakers - and the results are a sorry spectacle
indeed.
I agree with Maxime to the extent that I think Leigh is an astonishingly
schematic filmmaker. His films remind me of what Gorin (quoted by Durgnat)
once said about Fassbinder (fairly or not): something like 'his films are
like encephalograms, each life is drawn as a straight flat line, and after
the opening scenes all that's is left is all the predictably depressing
moves'. I never feel that Leigh DISCOVERS anything in the process of making
his film: he has all the answers figured out before he starts, which is what
I have come to expect from any artist (in any medium) who bangs on publicly
about 'I make my films to raise questions' !!!
And as for that 'Method', jeez Louise!! His work with actors - the famous
weeks or months of improvisation with the actors 'in character' just hanging
out or drinking their cups of tea or whatever - leads to what is, for me at
any rate, an infuriating result: performances that are all 'surface', tics
and mannerisms of 'character' repeated ad nauseam. Combined with the
schematic narrative (and generally uninspired, indeed flat mise en scene),
it's painful.
Parting shot: if - and I stress 'if' - one sign of the ultimate worth of a
film or filmmaker is how regularly it inspires people to re-watch, study,
debate and interpret it - then it's very evident to me that even those most
fervent Leigh fans who love 'em rather quickly leave 'em. Who (a few
scholars aside) is writing in 2005 about MEANTIME, NAKED, TOPSY TURVY
anymore - the way we will forever keep going back to VERTIGO or EYES WIDE
SHUT? There's nothing to find or savour in Leigh's films, that's why! And
VERA DRAKE, I predict, will also quickly go the way of all nitrate, unto
dust!!!
Adrian
25518
From: "Gabe Klinger"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:53am
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh gcklinger
Adrian --
Using the Cahiers star ratings to ridicule SIDEWAYS and VERA DRAKE doesn't say a whole
lot though...
Case in point: to glance at the Cahiers back page and see that MILLION DOLLAR BABY has
been awarded the **** masterpiece rating by at four or five critics might lead one to think
that they agree with how most mainstream American critics feel about the film. But their
point of view couldn't be more different!!
In Frodon's interview with Eastwood they are talking about BRONCO BILLY. What American
reviewer ever even mentioned that film??!!
The Cahiers are reliable in the evaluation of certain films and filmmakers; but with Payne
and Leigh, their lack of interest is so obvious that I can't see why anyone would go to them
for their takes on those films. (Thankfully, POSITIF is usually more insightful on Leigh's
films.)
> I never feel that Leigh DISCOVERS anything in the process of making
> his film: he has all the answers figured out before he starts, which is what
> I have come to expect from any artist (in any medium) who bangs on publicly
> about 'I make my films to raise questions' !!!
What's interesting about Leigh, precisely, is that he works in this way. What's wrong with
being a little different?
He can hardly be blamed for the lousy films that have come as a result.
>Who (a few
> scholars aside) is writing in 2005 about MEANTIME, NAKED, TOPSY TURVY
> anymore - the way we will forever keep going back to VERTIGO or EYES WIDE
> SHUT?
I go back to TOPSY TURVY and NAKED at least as often as I go back to EYES WIDE SHUT.
And when I go back to the Kubrick I find myself doing so because of its shortcomings,
which are many. It's a fascinating and perverse work. You could say something like TOPSY
TURVY is more perfect, and for that reason one doesn't have to return to it as often.
>There's nothing to find or savour in Leigh's films, that's why! And
> VERA DRAKE, I predict, will also quickly go the way of all nitrate, unto
> dust!!!
How mean!!
Gabe
25519
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:08am
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger" wrote:
I hate to disagree with both Adrian and Maxime, but I loved Topsy-
Turvy. The Cahiers have been willfully blind to Leigh and Davies, while
championing Frears in the teeth of the evidence. Happily they seem to
have stopped flogging that one.
I also enjoyed Sideways. I'm less certain of Payne's relationship to
film art at this point - maybe he just makes "nice humanist films"
(brrr!) - but after umpty films, Leigh's position is pretty assured.
You also have to factor in the earlier ones. Kiss of Death and Bleak
Moments are great satire, but satirists are always misunderstood. Has
anyone noticed that Leigh's visual style is as immediately recognizable
as Truffaut's? Both lean toward neutrality, but any frame of a Leigh
film (or a Truffaut film) could only be by Leigh (or Truffaut).
25520
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:09am
Subject: Re: Dialogue, Lucas, Dwan (Was: Sirk/Fassbinder) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> For a very brief moment in film history, it looked as if Douglas
Fairbanks,
> Jr had the Right Stuff to be a leading man.
Then Clark Gable stole his ears.
25521
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 1:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh cellar47
--- Gabe Klinger wrote:
> In Frodon's interview with Eastwood they are talking
> about BRONCO BILLY. What American
> reviewer ever even mentioned that film??!!
>
I gave it a very favorable review for the
Herald-Examiner when it premiered. It'sstillone of my
favorite Eastwoods.
>
> What's interesting about Leigh, precisely, is that
> he works in this way. What's wrong with
> being a little different?
> He can hardly be blamed for the lousy films that
> have come as a result.
Oh yes he can!
It's been most encouraging to FINALLY see some
naysaying on Leigh. He's so reflexively well-regarded
I've simply been given to changing the subject.
"Naked" I find particularly loathesome -- and revealin
of the fact that he's far froma humanist. His basci
contemptfor people is sometimes blatant, sometimes
sneaky.
Leave us not forget-- he discovered Gary Oldman.
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
25522
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 2:58pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
> I hate to disagree with both Adrian and Maxime, but I loved Topsy-
> Turvy.
I loved "Topsy Turvy" too, but you have to admit that it was quite
an unusual project for Leigh. I don't think I would have detected his
auteurship if I hadn't known who the director was. I'm not at all a
big fan of those of his other films I have seen
JPC
25523
From: "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 3:49pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh dreyertati
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> I must confess that I was almost kicked out of a local library the
other day
> for laughing out loud when I opened a copy of recent CAHIERS to see
SIDEWAYS
> and VERA DRAKE voted 'one star' or 'don't bother'. This was a
liberating
> moment for me, in a country where it seems many middlebrow filmgoers
and
> film reviewers regard these two films as The Greatest Cinema Since
Woody
> Allen Was Good.
If I may propose a middle-ground between the clear overpraising of
Leigh (which, I must admit, I've been guilty of at times myself) and
Adrian's blanket dismissal, it seems to me that he started out as an
interesting if uneven director who ultimately may have been harmed by
getting overpraised after many years of being ignored outside the U.K.
(and perhaps a few other places--I don't know when he first became a
household name in Australia) while being cherished and perhaps even
ciddled a bit inside. I think there's a significant syndrome of the
ambitious artist (or critic--I can think of even more obvious examples
here) who remains marginal until reaching middle-age, then becomes
extravagantly overpraised, often by the same people who previously
ignored him (or her). I can think of many depressing examples of this
producing or at least exacerbating all sorts of character flaws. In
Leigh's case, having known him at least slightly, I think it's hurt him
both as a person and as an artist.
Jonathan
25524
From: "rpporton55"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:10pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh rpporton55
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum" <> > Allen Was >
Leigh's case, having known him at least slightly, I think it's hurt him
> both as a person and as an artist.
>
> Jonathan
Yes, I would second that. Although I didn't dislike "Vera Drake,"
it struck me as inferior to "Hard Labour," an early BBC Leigh film that
has many affinities with VD but makes its case more efficiently, and in
many respects, more movingly. In addition, having interviewed Leigh on
several occasions, it seems to me that he is now more full of himself
than ever and even more prickly than in the days when he felt obliged
to defend himself from the slings and arrows of British critics who
found his films condescending and littered with stereotypes. He now
seems to view any criticism as an assault on his integrity; to be
honest, I think he's become very pompous. Like Bill K., I'm a fan
of "Topsy-Turvy."
But I do think that he perhaps peaked with ""Naked" and "Life is Sweet."
I would agree with Adrian and co. that Leigh's films are highly
schematic. But I don't necessarily think that "schematic" is always
a epithet or a pejorative. His best films benefit from a salutary
schematicism that sustains his satirical agenda. When the films fall
flat,
(e.g. "All or Nothing" and much of "Secrets & Lies"), the schematic
nature of his filmmaking becomes annoying instead of edifying.
R. Porton
25525
From: "rpporton55"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:10pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh rpporton55
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum" <> > Allen Was >
Leigh's case, having known him at least slightly, I think it's hurt him
> both as a person and as an artist.
>
> Jonathan
Yes, I would second that. Although I didn't dislike "Vera Drake,"
it struck me as inferior to "Hard Labour," an early BBC Leigh film that
has many affinities with VD but makes its case more efficiently, and in
many respects, more movingly. In addition, having interviewed Leigh on
several occasions, it seems to me that he is now more full of himself
than ever and even more prickly than in the days when he felt obliged
to defend himself from the slings and arrows of British critics who
found his films condescending and littered with stereotypes. He now
seems to view any criticism as an assault on his integrity; to be
honest, I think he's become very pompous. Like Bill K., I'm a fan
of "Topsy-Turvy."
But I do think that he perhaps peaked with ""Naked" and "Life is Sweet."
I would agree with Adrian and co. that Leigh's films are highly
schematic. But I don't necessarily think that "schematic" is always
a epithet or a pejorative. His best films benefit from a salutary
schematicism that sustains his satirical agenda. When the films fall
flat,
(e.g. "All or Nothing" and much of "Secrets & Lies"), the schematic
nature of his filmmaking becomes annoying instead of edifying.
R. Porton
25526
From: "Henrik Sylow"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:20pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh henrik_sylow
Despite Adrian having a winter depression and imitating Russel Crowe
(must be an aussie thing), there is a far deeper consequence of his
comments, than the mere dismissal of Leigh.
Truffaut once said, that even the worst film by an auteur was better
than the best film by a mere director, something which many here
openly agree with. I only need to go back to the discussion around
"The Aviator", where David and his side argued, that it was a
masterpiece, and the other side argued, that it Scorsese had made a
crappy film. It was a silly discussion, people were sucked into it, it
because polarized and no one made any decent arguments.
While I have to say that "Topsy Turvy" and "Naked" are films I
frequently revisit in terms of acting and some incredible staging of a
scene, and that I admire Leighs "method", I have two questons:
If the notion of auteurism is so fragile, that a mere bad review can
make a director formerly known as an auteur be dismissed and trashed,
then what is auteurism worth?
Is auteurism then not only a naive approach to a director (and cinema
as such), where elements open for critisism is talked about in only
positive words and where even the worst flop is "overlooked" and "not
understood"?
Or is this just another "one up" thing? :)
Henrik
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> I must confess that I was almost kicked out of a local library the
other day
> for laughing out loud when I opened a copy of recent CAHIERS to see
SIDEWAYS
> and VERA DRAKE voted 'one star' or 'don't bother'. This was a liberating
> moment for me, in a country where it seems many middlebrow filmgoers and
> film reviewers regard these two films as The Greatest Cinema Since Woody
> Allen Was Good.
>
> VERA DRAKE is far from Leigh's worst film (his 'period' films tend to be
> more strictly planned, controlled and stylised than crap like ALL OR
NOTHING
> or CAREER GIRLS), but I do, generally, think he is a bad, bad filmmaker,
> horribly overrated in some quarters. So I am with CAHIERS - and
Maxime! - on
> this one (POSITIF is much kinder to Leigh). Again, the problem has a
special
> acuteness here in Australia, where Brit-dudes arrive to teach 'The Mike
> Leigh Method' to budding filmmakers - and the results are a sorry
spectacle
> indeed.
>
> I agree with Maxime to the extent that I think Leigh is an astonishingly
> schematic filmmaker. His films remind me of what Gorin (quoted by
Durgnat)
> once said about Fassbinder (fairly or not): something like 'his
films are
> like encephalograms, each life is drawn as a straight flat line, and
after
> the opening scenes all that's is left is all the predictably depressing
> moves'. I never feel that Leigh DISCOVERS anything in the process of
making
> his film: he has all the answers figured out before he starts, which
is what
> I have come to expect from any artist (in any medium) who bangs on
publicly
> about 'I make my films to raise questions' !!!
>
> And as for that 'Method', jeez Louise!! His work with actors - the
famous
> weeks or months of improvisation with the actors 'in character' just
hanging
> out or drinking their cups of tea or whatever - leads to what is,
for me at
> any rate, an infuriating result: performances that are all
'surface', tics
> and mannerisms of 'character' repeated ad nauseam. Combined with the
> schematic narrative (and generally uninspired, indeed flat mise en
scene),
> it's painful.
>
> Parting shot: if - and I stress 'if' - one sign of the ultimate
worth of a
> film or filmmaker is how regularly it inspires people to re-watch,
study,
> debate and interpret it - then it's very evident to me that even
those most
> fervent Leigh fans who love 'em rather quickly leave 'em. Who (a few
> scholars aside) is writing in 2005 about MEANTIME, NAKED, TOPSY TURVY
> anymore - the way we will forever keep going back to VERTIGO or EYES
WIDE
> SHUT? There's nothing to find or savour in Leigh's films, that's
why! And
> VERA DRAKE, I predict, will also quickly go the way of all nitrate, unto
> dust!!!
>
> Adrian
25527
From: "Damien Bona"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:22pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh damienbona
> It's been most encouraging to FINALLY see some
> naysaying on Leigh. He's so reflexively well-regarded
> I've simply been given to changing the subject.
>
> "Naked" I find particularly loathesome -- and revealin
> of the fact that he's far froma humanist. His basci
> contemptfor people is sometimes blatant, sometimes
> sneaky.
Thank you, David! I've gotten so weary over the years of trying to
point out to people how contemptuous Leigh is towards his characters
that I just keep quiet whenever his name comes up. (I've also wised up
and simply no longer waste my time seeing his pictures.) And his
condescension crosses all class lines, so that he's also worthless as a
social critic. Meanwhile, Ken Loach keeps making beautifully nuanced,
strongly political and hugely humanistic movies in relative anonymity.
25528
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:49pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
> If I may propose a middle-ground between the clear overpraising of
> Leigh (which, I must admit, I've been guilty of at times myself)
and
> Adrian's blanket dismissal, it seems to me that he started out as
an
> interesting if uneven director who ultimately may have been harmed
by
> getting overpraised after many years of being ignored outside the
U.K.
I'm not exactly a Leigh fan (and haven't yet seen VERA DRAKE), but I
might be tempted to argue the precise opposite: that Leigh's recent
films are vastly superior to his earlier work. The problem with Leigh
is pretty much the problem with Robert Altman: both of these
directors swing between snobbishly showing how superior they are to
their characters, and revealing an all-embracing love for them.
Sometimes the first tendency is allowed to dominate (NUTS IN MAY,
PRET A PORTER), sometimes the second (NAKED, MCCABE AND MRS MILLER),
but more usually both tendencies co-exist within any given film.
I usually like those Altman and Leigh films which present their
characters with affection, and am repulsed by those films in which we
are invited to laugh at the characters. The main difference between
these directors is that Altman is a masterful filmmaker, and even his
worst films are stylistically interesting, whereas this is clearly
not the case with Leigh (I could probably sit through A WEDDING again
just to admire the mise en scene, whereas nothing short of a loaded
gun pointed at my head could make me watch ABIGAIL'S PARTY again).
Having said that, Leigh does seem to be making a genuine effort to
reduce those parodic elements which so disfigure his earlier films -
it's difficult to imagine him making anything as one-dimensional as
NUTS IN MAY these days.
25529
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 4:54pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh thebradstevens
I should add that Leigh is a real cinephile. I've lost count of the
number of times I've seen him attending screenings at London's
National Film Theatre. He always seems to be by himself, for some
reason.
25530
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
>
> Truffaut once said, that even the worst film by an auteur was better
> than the best film by a mere director, something which many here
> openly agree with.
I'd still rather see a bad film by Mike Leigh - and he has made a few -
than the best film Sam Mendes ever makes.
25531
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:06pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona" wrote:
> Thank you, David! I've gotten so weary over the years of trying to
> point out to people how contemptuous Leigh is towards his characters
> that I just keep quiet whenever his name comes up. (I've also wised
up
> and simply no longer waste my time seeing his pictures.) And his
> condescension crosses all class lines, so that he's also worthless as
a
> social critic. Meanwhile, Ken Loach keeps making beautifully
nuanced,
> strongly political and hugely humanistic movies in relative anonymity.
Satirists are always accused of hating people. It's simply a convention
of the genre they work in. They are regularly described as mean
misanthropes - and some of them are - but we should try to maintain
some sense of history, particularly since we're in a period when satire
is the dominant mythos, whether we like it or not.
25532
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:07pm
Subject: Re: Mike Leigh hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona" wrote:
> Thank you, David! I've gotten so weary over the years of trying to
> point out to people how contemptuous Leigh is towards his characters
> that I just keep quiet whenever his name comes up. (I've also wised
up
> and simply no longer waste my time seeing his pictures.) And his
> condescension crosses all class lines, so that he's also worthless as
a
> social critic. Meanwhile, Ken Loach keeps making beautifully
nuanced,
> strongly political and hugely humanistic movies in relative anonymity.
Satirists are always accused of hating people. It's simply a convention
of the genre they work in. They are regularly described as mean
misanthropes - and some of them are - but we should try to maintain
some sense of history, particularly since we're in a period when satire
is the dominant mythos, whether we like it or not. Read Northrop Frye's
theory of mythoi in Anatomy of Criticism.
25533
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:06pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona" wrote:
> Thank you, David! I've gotten so weary over the years of trying to
> point out to people how contemptuous Leigh is towards his characters
> that I just keep quiet whenever his name comes up. (I've also wised
up
> and simply no longer waste my time seeing his pictures.) And his
> condescension crosses all class lines, so that he's also worthless as
a
> social critic. Meanwhile, Ken Loach keeps making beautifully
nuanced,
> strongly political and hugely humanistic movies in relative anonymity.
Satirists are always accused of hating people. It's simply a convention
of the genre they work in. They are regularly described as mean
misanthropes - and some of them are - but we should try to maintain
some sense of history, particularly since we're in a period when satire
is the dominant mythos, whether we like it or not.
25534
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh sallitt1
There will be some SPOILERS for VERA DRAKE here....
> What bothered me in the film, though, was the "holy fool"
> aspect of Vera: how could she not even suspect that money was
> changing hands for her services? Divorcing her actions from any
> profit motive may be an attempt to keep her actions pure and, in a
> way, abstract. But it also suggests a particularly unflattering
> naïveté.
I would say that Leigh wants to suggest in her an unflattering naivete.
Not guessing that her friend was charging for her services is the least of
it (maybe she did guess - who knows? But she doesn't want to deal with
it). What really comes back to bite her is that a) she was unequipped to
deal with the fact that her abortions might have a bad effect on the
patients; and b) she has dodged the fact that her activities might someday
cause a father figure (note that her obedience is total) to come knocking
on her door with a warrant.
I do think the film deals honestly with these flaws in Vera's character.
They are not swept under the rug.
Lots of negative feeling about Leigh here, more than I care to take on.
I'm trying to think of things to day that might be helpful to his
detractors.
It should be acknowledged that Leigh's direction of actors verges on
caricature, and definitely entails a broadly stated central concept that
is elaborated comically (even if the films are somber). I guess I can see
a viewer who doesn't like the films taking this for sarcasm or hostility.
The long shot of the pathetic couple Reg and Ethel walking in the park has
an alarming quality, I won't deny: even the dorkiest member of the
audience is forced into the position of attributing dorkiness to these
characters. Leigh does manage to give the characters a number of decent,
direct moments along the way, enough for the portraits to seem
sociologically plausible; but he doesn't spare the cues that put us in a
superior position.
This broadness is a thesis that will acquire an antithesis, though. Most
every big character in a Leigh film gets a moment, and that moment is set
up by our early reactions to the character. Reg's moment is prominent:
his bumbling toast at the gloomy Xmas party reveals him as the only man in
the movie to transcend the gender barrier of the abortion issue, and
crystallizes our knowledge that he married the daughter because he loves
the mother. Ethel's moment is smaller but quite forceful: Leigh was
saving her for that moment when she looks daggers at her brother Sid for
taking the moral high ground with Vera. Ethel does not need an
explanation for Vera's actions.
Vera's moment lasts for the whole second half of the movie and presumably
for the rest of her life, but it's still only one event: no further
development is likely. She is turned to stone, to borrow Hoberman's
poetic phrase.
Leigh's deepest effects are about structure, and you need a whole movie to
get them.
Though he is lumped with assorted realist filmmakers, he reminds me most
often of Lubitsch. Like Lubitsch, he builds in some distance between the
characters and the actors who present them: no one meeting the actors from
a Leigh film would expect them to behave as they do on-screen. And, like
Lubitsch, he waits for the moments where he can present a new perspective
and force a new evaluation.
Adrian lumped Payne and Leigh together, which is interesting. I think
Payne is a good director, but when he makes a film about abortion, both
sides get harsh treatment. When Leigh makes a film about abortion, both
pro and anti viewers come out with evidence that Leigh shares their point
of view. This comprehensive perspective is very difficult to achieve, and
require great honesty about and insight into people.
- Dan
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25535
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Satirists are always accused of hating people. It's
> simply a convention
> of the genre they work in. They are regularly
> described as mean
> misanthropes - and some of them are - but we should
> try to maintain
> some sense of history, particularly since we're in a
> period when satire
> is the dominant mythos, whether we like it or not.
>
Well I don't see him as a satirist at all. His curdled
mysanthropy takes all the air out of any portent of
satire.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
25536
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:25pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
Leigh does seem to be making a genuine effort to
> reduce those parodic elements which so disfigure his earlier films -
it's difficult to imagine him making anything as one-dimensional as
> NUTS IN MAY these days.
Satiric, The Brad. Parodies mock genres. Satire IS a genre - one of
the four mythoi of literature and of films that reflect literature:
tragedy, comedy, romance and satire. Satire has its own structures,
its own types of character ("less free" than the audience), imagery,
language and so on.
Leigh is a satirist. Fassbinder is a satirist. Fellini is a satirist
(hence Fellini's Satyricon, based on the founding work of the
mythos). Altman is a satirist. Welles, Sirk, Minnelli and many others
revered here have a vein of satire in their oeuvre, because they are
twentieth century artists. (Kafka is a satirist.) And loving one's
characters (!) is a criterion that automatically excludes satirists
from consideration. Lit crit didn't start to come to terms with
satire as a literary genre until the 60s, and it seems that
auteurism, with its innate sentimentalism, still has to catch up.
The easiest place to start is Frye's section on myth in Anatomy of
Criticism, but there are now many good books on the genre and its
leading practitioners, like Pope (always one of my heroes), which are
informed by the scholarship that has been done to make up for the
fact that Aristotle never wrote a book on the rules of satire, even
though satyr plays regularly "opened" for Greek tragedies. The
movement within Greek drama from Aeschylus to Sophocles to Euripides
is a movement from pure tragedy to tragedy inflected satirically -
it's no accident that we consider Euripides to be the most "modern"
of the Greeks. There is a similar evolution observable from
Elizabethan to Jacobean drama in England (and from the Elizabethan
Shakespeare to the Jacobean Shakespeare). The Revenger's Tragedy is
satire. The Malcontent is satire. The Duchess of Malfi is tragedy
inflected toward satire.
We tend to treat tragedy as noble and satire as base, but it isn't
satire or the satirist who is base - it is the world portrayed by
satire.
25537
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh cellar47
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Though he is lumped with assorted realist
> filmmakers, he reminds me most
> often of Lubitsch. Like Lubitsch, he builds in some
> distance between the
> characters and the actors who present them: no one
> meeting the actors from
> a Leigh film would expect them to behave as they do
> on-screen. And, like
> Lubitsch, he waits for the moments where he can
> present a new perspective
> and force a new evaluation.
>
And he reminds me LEAST of Lubitsch. "The Abbatoir
Around the Corner" may sound appealing to you, but not
to me. The closest Leigh can come to the sublime Frank
Morgan is Timothy Spall. Now I like Spall quite a bit,
but not very much in Leigh's movies. He's amazing as
the cabdriving husband in Chereau's "Intimacy" and his
peformance in "The Sheltering Sky" is worth looking at
in the context of what we'e been talking about re
Leigh. For while Bertolucci seems to be encouraging
caricature, the over-the-top-ness of Spall is not
without it subtleties. I especially like the way he
turns his back to avoid his mother's prying eyes when
he begs Malkovich and Scott for money.
> Adrian lumped Payne and Leigh together, which is
> interesting. I think
> Payne is a good director, but when he makes a film
> about abortion, both
> sides get harsh treatment. When Leigh makes a film
> about abortion, both
> pro and anti viewers come out with evidence that
> Leigh shares their point
> of view. This comprehensive perspective is very
> difficult to achieve, and
> require great honesty about and insight into people.
>
> - Dan
>
>
>
> [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/
25538
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Leigh is a satirist. Fassbinder is a satirist.
> Fellini is a satirist
> (hence Fellini's Satyricon, based on the founding
> work of the
> mythos).
Yet it's his leastsatiical film.
Altman is a satirist. Welles, Sirk,
> Minnelli and many others
> revered here have a vein of satire in their oeuvre,
> because they are
> twentieth century artists. (Kafka is a satirist.)
But that doesn't make Leigh a Welles, a Sirk, a
Minnelli, a Fassbinder or a Fellini.
> And loving one's
> characters (!) is a criterion that automatically
> excludes satirists
> from consideration.
Not at all. Altman is especially interesting in this
regard. In "Three Women" Shelley Duvall is is derided
seemingly without mercy as gauche, pushy, and
deluded-- yet it's clear that Altman loves her. The
repeated trope of her shutting the car door on the
edge of her dress is a mark of that love, as is
Altman's obvious outrage at Spacek's betrayal of her
in the film's last quarter.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
25539
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:42pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh thebradstevens
.
>
> Satiric, The Brad. Parodies mock genres. Satire IS a genre - one of
> the four mythoi of literature and of films that reflect literature:
> tragedy, comedy, romance and satire. Satire has its own structures,
> its own types of character ("less free" than the audience),
imagery,
> language and so on.
>
> Leigh is a satirist.
It is possible to produce satire without being snobbishly superior.
Leigh's ALL OR NOTHING contains one moment of hilarious satire, when
the Timothy Spall character wanders along a beach and looks out to
sea, like some kind of existential hero contemplating eternity. Yet
this is allowed to coexist with an essentially affectionate portrayal
of Spall's character.
The satire of DR STRANGELOVE implies a humanist rage at man's
stupidity. The 'satire' of NUTS IN MAY implies nothing but the
filmmaker's own feelings of snobbish superiority.
25540
From: MG4273@...
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:52pm
Subject: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh nzkpzq
I was not enthused by the three Mike Leigh films seen here.
Adrian Martin says Leigh lacks visual style; Brad Stevens says he is a poor filmmaker technically. So far, have to agree. What you see in Leigh is at the level of story and characters, and very little else.
Even here, there are difficulties. Much of Leigh is Marxist fantasy. Reportedly, do-it-yourself abortionists like Vera did not exist. Back-room abortion was always a quasi-medical procedure (medical operation), one that had horrendous difficulties for its users. Its dangers were a principal reason that so many people wanted to legalize abortion. Leigh has created Vera out of whole cloth, because he is a Communist who believes in the Nobility of the Working Classes. Similarly, the middle class sister-in-law is treated as the ultimate in Consumerist Evil because she wants a washing machine. Well, I am old enough to remember how awful laundry was in the Old Days - every housewife in the world wanted a washer and dryer!
I hope no one will ever use the soap method seen in the film - it will KILL people! It is not a real abortion method. This film is as much a fantasy as "Alien Vs. Predator".
Mike Leigh's vast reputation is typical of the problems facing cinephilia. Here is a filmmaker without visual or formal talent, whose films are largely Communist propaganda. Yet critics have been praising every effort he has made for decades.
Cinephiles are constantly telling newbies that they should get away from all that Hollywood junk, and see the treasures of High Film Art they are missing. Then - they steer them to Mike Leigh! Or Alexander Payne's "Sideways". Or Sam Mendes' "American Beauty" or Edward Yang's "Yi Yi".
Leigh is typical of the sort of junky "serious dramas about daily life" that today's critics dote on. A relentless effort to ram this drivel down the public's throat is not going to help anyone in the long run. Junk is junk.
Mike "Je vous dit merde!" Grost
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25541
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:02pm
Subject: Re: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh cellar47
--- MG4273@... wrote:
> Then - they steer them to Mike Leigh! Or Alexander
> Payne's "Sideways". Or Sam Mendes' "American Beauty"
> or Edward Yang's "Yi Yi".
> Leigh is typical of the sort of junky "serious
> dramas about daily life" that today's critics dote
> on. A relentless effort to ram this drivel down the
> public's throat is not going to help anyone in the
> long run. Junk is junk.
>
Well I, for one, wouldn't put Payne and Yang in the
same boat as the others.
> [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/
25542
From: "rpporton55"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:06pm
Subject: Re: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh rpporton55
> Even here, there are difficulties. Much of Leigh is Marxist
fantasy. Reportedly, do-it-yourself abortionists like Vera did not
exist. Back-room abortion was always a quasi-medical procedure
(medical operation), one that had horrendous difficulties for its
users. Its dangers were a principal reason that so many people
wanted to legalize abortion. Leigh has created Vera out of whole
cloth, because he is a Communist who believes in the Nobility of the
Working Classes. Similarly, the middle class sister-in-law is
treated as the ultimate in Consumerist Evil because she wants a
washing machine. Well, I am old enough to remember how awful laundry
was in the Old Days - every housewife in the world wanted a washer
and dryer! [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Well, whatever else you might say about Leigh (and you obviously
don't think much of him), he would strenuously deny that he's
either a
Communist or a Marxist. At most, he's vaguely sympathetic with the
Labour Party. And, as we know, under Blair that's far from socialist
(not to mention Marxist). In general, though, I think it's
difficult to discern a specific political agenda in most of his
films. If anything, they poke fun at doctrinaire politicos (See,
"Home Sweet Home," for example. R. Porton
gn
25543
From: MG4273@...
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:26pm
Subject: Re: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh nzkpzq
I will backtrack a little bit.
I know nothing about Mike Leigh the man.
The Mike Leigh films I have seen seem Communist in their content.
I think it was "High Hopes" in which the Noble Working Class Radicals make a reverent pilgrimage to Karl Marx's grave.
If this is not Communist filmmaking, what is?
It seems impossible for me to imagine any committed Liberal, Democratic Socialist or Anarchist (3 differing political groups) glorifying Karl Marx in a film this way. Marx devoted his life to attacking all such groups.
Similarly, "Topsy Turvy" devotes most of its running time to showing a capital-labor dispute between Evil Capitalist W.S Gilbert and the Noble, Mistreated Workers at his theater. This film suggests it is an inside look at England's most loved creators of musical theater. What it delivers is Lessons out of the Daily Worker about the Class Struggle. (We get endless looks at Gilbert's exploited servants at home, too.)
And Vera Drake is a pure look at Abortion and the Class Struggle. Based on a complete fantasy about the reality of early abortion.
Vera has alledgedly been using purple soap for 20 years to induce abortions, without ever having a mishap or an injured woman. This has nothing to do with reality.
Every working class character in this film is noble. Every upper class character is a monster.
Mike Grost
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25544
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:34pm
Subject: Re: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> The Mike Leigh films I have seen seem Communist in their content.
> I think it was "High Hopes" in which the Noble Working Class
Radicals make a reverent pilgrimage to Karl Marx's grave.
> If this is not Communist filmmaking, what is?
Yet there is the sense that we are supposed to laugh at the
characters for making this pilgrimage.
25545
From: "rpporton55"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:39pm
Subject: Re: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh rpporton55
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_
> Yet there is the sense that we are supposed to laugh at the
> characters for making this pilgrimage.
Right. For good or ill, they are figures of fun or seen as quaint
relics (despite the fact that they are the nominal "heroes.") YOu can
see that as either affectionate parody or condescension. But it does
not constitute an endorsement of Marxism...RP
25546
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:49pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens" wrote:
> It is possible to produce satire without being snobbishly superior.
Agreed, although I'm not sure about the added inflection of "snobbish," which implies
a class bias.
For the record, Frye following Aristotle distinguishes the characters of each mythos
according to their degree of freedom:
romance - more free than us
comedy - as free
tragedy - more free, then less (after the fall)
satire - less
So that superiority is built in. This is something cinephiles don't like - the Cahiers
translated this particular esthetic preference into a reflex political gotcha in the 70s
(borrowing some jargon from Lacan) by excoriating filmmakers who put the spectator
in the position of being a "non-dupe." Alrman is the example Serge Daney gives in
our interview, on-line at Steve Erickson's site. Everything he says about Altman is
being re-said here about Leigh.
>
> The satire of DR STRANGELOVE implies a humanist rage at man's
> stupidity. The 'satire' of NUTS IN MAY implies nothing but the
> filmmaker's own feelings of snobbish superiority.
How about humanist rage at the English class system, which produces warped
characters like the husband? I love that film, by the way. Steadman is hilarious in it.
25547
From: "rpporton55"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:57pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh rpporton55
--- In > tragedy - more free, then less (after the fall)
> satire - less
>
> So that superiority is built in. This is something cinephiles don't
like - the Cahiers
> translated this particular esthetic preference into a reflex
political gotcha in the 70s
> (borrowing some jargon from Lacan) by excoriating filmmakers who put
the spectator
> in the position of being a "non-dupe."
It is apparently a position that extends beyond the Cahiers and
Lacanians (who tend to unwittingly satirize themselves.) I recall an
interview with Straub in which he expressed disdain for "so-called
British humor and satire." Moving beyond STraub, it seems that Leigh's
films, mixed bag that they are, don't sit well with the irony-deficient.
RP
25548
From: MG4273@...
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 6:57pm
Subject: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) nzkpzq
I confess that I am not well suited to any irony or ambiguity in my responses to film.
I was trained as a mathematician and work in the computer industry.
I have a painfully literal mind - for better or worse.
Last New Years, I wrote for a fact that the two killers in "Elephant" (Gus Van Sant) were gay, because they took a naked shower together and kissed.
Seemingly the entire list wrote in, saying the killers weren't REALLY gay, and that I just did not understand sexual ambiguity.
It is about to happen again.
I saw the pilgrimage to Karl Marx's grave in Leigh's "High Hopes" as a ringing declaration of Communist principles by the filmmaker. Ones that were confirmed by the relentless look at Class Struggle in all 3 of the Mike Leigh films seen here.
The whole list is now about to write in and say I just did not get Leigh's tongue-in-cheek irony.
This may be possible.
I am almost constitutionally incapable of "getting" irony.
Mike Grost
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25549
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:11pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I confess that I am not well suited to any irony or ambiguity in my responses to
film.
>
Irony is one word - connotation is another. You like to force the denotative level of
significance, and that certainly is revealing with Leigh. I don't see anything wrong
with it. I was doing that when I adopted Jane Caputi's perfectly reasonable position
that serial killer cinema is all about cutting up women. It is! Then we get into multiple
meanings, which are on the connotative level, but it still doesn't hurt to remember
denotation.
25550
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 7:15pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
"I confess that I am not well suited to any irony or ambiguity in my
responses to film. I was trained as a mathematician and work in the
computer industry...I am almost constitutionally incapable of 'getting'
irony."
Then you're at one pole of a continuum, and it's always informative
to hear from someone who appreciates "the plain meaning of the text" as
well as being good to test one's interpertations against a precise
and meticulous critic like yourself. By the way, I like the precision
of your criticism at your web site, especially in regard to what you
had to say about Lang.
Richard
25551
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:05pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) cellar47
--- MG4273@... wrote:
> Last New Years, I wrote for a fact that the two
> killers in "Elephant" (Gus Van Sant) were gay,
> because they took a naked shower together and
> kissed.
> Seemingly the entire list wrote in, saying the
> killers weren't REALLY gay, and that I just did not
> understand sexual ambiguity.
Oh not the ENTIRE list. As you may recall from the
actual incident a laothesome closet queen Republican
operative named Matt Drudge floated the rumor that the
killers were gay. The kiss in "Elephant" is Gus was of
saying "So, what if they were?" it's but one of many
details culled from investigation of Columbine that he
included in the film.
> It is about to happen again.
> I saw the pilgrimage to Karl Marx's grave in Leigh's
> "High Hopes" as a ringing declaration of Communist
> principles by the filmmaker. Ones that were
> confirmed by the relentless look at Class Struggle
> in all 3 of the Mike Leigh films seen here.
> The whole list is now about to write in and say I
> just did not get Leigh's tongue-in-cheek irony.
> This may be possible.
> I am almost constitutionally incapable of "getting"
> irony.
>
Maybe. Maybe not. I simply wonder whether you, or
anyone else on the list has seen "Morgan: A Suitable
Case for Treatment" directed by Karel Reisz from a
screenplay by David Mercer. It's about a communist
obsessed with apes.
And it's better than anything Mike Leigh has ever
done.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25552
From: "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:07pm
Subject: Re: Vera Drake, Mike Leigh dreyertati
> it's difficult to imagine him making anything as one-dimensional as
> NUTS IN MAY these days.
Or as interesting as GROWN-UPS, alas--made only four years later.
25553
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 8:29pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) peckinpah200...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> > Maybe. Maybe not. I simply wonder whether you, or
> anyone else on the list has seen "Morgan: A Suitable
> Case for Treatment" directed by Karel Reisz from a
> screenplay by David Mercer. It's about a communist
> obsessed with apes.
>
> And it's better than anything Mike Leigh has ever
> done.
>
> Yes, I've seen MORGAN and I agree with you. It is from a play by
David Mercer, a far more humane and serious playwright than Mike
Leigh. I've been reading the postings with interest and found Mike's
reading of Leigh as a Commie far too literal. Yes, he does
condescend despite his attempts at social criticism but he is a
favorite British director within the current ideological system of
Blair's "Septic Isle."
When Leigh's stature rose in terms of funding, Ken Loach's fell.
But he was able to gain funding from Europe and other places to make
and distribute his films. I believe Stephen Frears called
him "reactionary" in a Cineaste (?) interview. But this is because
he sticks to his principles, feels for his characters, especially
for those with character flaws (SWEET SIXTEEN) and wants a change in
society. Who else would make a Romeo and Juliet film dealing with
the love between a Glasgow miss and Moslem in the midst of a country
now using anti-immigration and xenophobia as buzz words. Leigh's
attitudes and cinematic style is far too knowlingly gratuitous. With
Loach, one knows where one stands. He is the "committed" filmaker in
terms of a humane and generous attitude one never finds in Mike
Leigh.
Tony Williams
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25554
From: MG4273@...
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 5:56pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) nzkpzq
Never intended the suggestion that "High Hopes" (Mike Leigh, 1988) to be a
Communist film as some sort of "reading". It thought that it pure and simple was
an explicit, openly, proudly Communist film along the lines of "Ten Days That
Shook the World" (Sergei Eisenstein) or "Three Songs of Lenin" (Dziga
Vertov).
Am completely startled to learn that it is Not So.
Will try to keep on learning.
If I have mis-informed the list about this, my apologies to all.
If someone now tells me that Eisenstein and Dziga Vertov weren't Communists,
I will be really confused...
Mike Grost
25555
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 0:25am
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Never intended the suggestion that "High Hopes" (Mike Leigh, 1988) to be a
> Communist film as some sort of "reading". It thought that it pure and simple was
> an explicit, openly, proudly Communist film along the lines of "Ten Days That
> Shook the World" (Sergei Eisenstein) or "Three Songs of Lenin" (Dziga
> Vertov).
> Mike Grost
Thinking about the Leigh films as Communist is a useful exercise, even if he says
he isn't. After all, we have loads of critics left over from the 60s and 70s who write
as if they were sorta-kinda-youknow Communists themselves when they want to
bang away at Hwd or some other safe target - they should embrace that perspective
wherever they find it, and welcome its being brought to light. I'm all for bringing the
word back. Let's have a look at what we're talking about.
Here's a starter - I'm not a Communist, but I'd be a Communist if there were a party
promoting the abolition of classes and blood-sucking capitalist leeches getting rich
off working people that I thought was actually working toward all those things and
had some chance of pulling it off. Sounds like a good idea to me. Anyone else?
25556
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 0:33am
Subject: Re: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Here's a starter - I'm not a Communist, but I'd be a
> Communist if there were a party
> promoting the abolition of classes and blood-sucking
> capitalist leeches getting rich
> off working people that I thought was actually
> working toward all those things and
> had some chance of pulling it off. Sounds like a
> good idea to me. Anyone else?
>
>
>
I'm just wild about Abraham Polonsky and my favorite
communist film is "The Pajama Game."
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
25557
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:20am
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
>
> I'm just wild about Abraham Polonsky and my favorite
> communist film is "The Pajama Game."
"In twenty years from today
In twenty years from today
I can see it like a vision
Only twenty years from to day..."
She figured it out, with a pencil and a pad she figured it out.
And what she figured out was becoming a capitalist ("And buy a
pyjama factory"). Still, it's the most "communist" musical ever made.
(of course it's also the only one).
Sorry, Fred, I couldn't help it.
JPC
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
25558
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:29am
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> Here's a starter - I'm not a Communist, but I'd be a Communist if
there were a party
> promoting the abolition of classes and blood-sucking capitalist
leeches getting rich
> off working people that I thought was actually working toward all
those things and
> had some chance of pulling it off. Sounds like a good idea to me.
Anyone else?
In other words, Bill, you could never be a communist because you
know no party is going to "pull it off" even if it's "working toward
all those things". I suspect everybody always knew it, and that's why
it is so amazing that so many people -- "thinkers", intellectuals" --
of course they are often the most gullible -- managed to talk
themselves into believing in that daydream in spite of overwhelming
evidence to its fallacy.
25559
From: MG4273@...
Date: Tue Apr 12, 2005 10:05pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) nzkpzq
"Communism" has never meant "any sort of protest against the excesses of the
rich". It has always specifically referred to a form of government advocated
by Marx, and instituted by Lenin. It is very different from Liberalism,
Democratic Socialism, the various kinds of Anarchism, etc.
It has been a long time since my single viewing. But "The Pajama Game"
(Donen) seems to endorse democratic labor unions. I cannot remember the slightest
trace of Communist ideas in it. Labor Unions have a long history in democratic
societies. They were always banned in Communist ones - see the struggle of
Solidarity VS the Polish Communists, etc.
I never meant to hector the list with a purely political discussion. My only
point was that Mike Leigh's films seemed to reflect Communist ideas, at the
expense of any sort of historical reality. I was trying to define Leigh's
concerns as a filmmaker. This is On Topic for this list, one hopes.
Mike Grost
25560
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:13am
Subject: Communist musicals michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> Still, it's the most "communist" musical ever made.
> (of course it's also the only one).
> Sorry, Fred, I couldn't help it.
Lots of communist musicals, actually. Grigori Aleksandrov (one of
Eisenstein's colleagues) made a whole series of them -- including
"Volga Volga" and "Spring" (which even starred Cherkasov). Even
better is G. Rappaport's film of Shostakovich's "Cheryomushki". (Sort
of a communist reformer -- anti-corruption musical). In fact,
Cheryomushki is possibly my favorite film musical of all -- and
certainly my post Fred-and-Ginger favorite.
25561
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:38am
Subject: Soap-solution abortions (Was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) sallitt1
> Reportedly,
> do-it-yourself abortionists like Vera did not exist. Back-room abortion
> was always a quasi-medical procedure (medical operation), one that had
> horrendous difficulties for its users. Its dangers were a principal
> reason that so many people wanted to legalize abortion.
> I hope no one will ever use the soap method seen in the film - it will
> KILL people! It is not a real abortion method. This film is as much a
> fantasy as "Alien Vs. Predator".
> My only point was that Mike Leigh's films seemed to reflect Communist
> ideas, at the expense of any sort of historical reality.
There are a bunch of medical articles on the Internet about soap-solution
abortions.
For what it's worth, Leigh doesn't consider the film a fantasy:
"Mike Leigh, who won an Oscar for Topsy-Turvy in 2000, defended the film
as a well-researched, accurate portrayal of a technique used by backstreet
abortionists in the 1950s. 'This is one of the more benign techniques used
by abortionists,' he said." (Quote from http://news.telegraph.co.uk,
article by Rajeev Syal titled "Mike Leigh film 'could trigger
abortions'" and filed on 9 Jan 2005.)
- Dan
25562
From: "Damien Bona"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:14am
Subject: Re: Soap-solution abortions (Was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) damienbona
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> For what it's worth, Leigh doesn't consider the film a fantasy:
>
> "Mike Leigh, who won an Oscar for Topsy-Turvy in 2000, defended the
film
> as a well-researched, accurate portrayal of a technique used by
backstreet
> abortionists in the 1950s. 'This is one of the more benign techniques
used
> by abortionists,' he said." (Quote from http://news.telegraph.co.uk,
> article by Rajeev Syal titled "Mike Leigh film 'could trigger
> abortions'" and filed on 9 Jan 2005.)
>
Mike Leigh did not win an Oscar for Topsy-Turvy (or for anything
else). So much for accuracy and proper research.
25563
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:16am
Subject: Re: Communist musicals jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> > Still, it's the most "communist" musical ever made.
> > (of course it's also the only one).
> > Sorry, Fred, I couldn't help it.
>
>
> Lots of communist musicals, actually. Grigori Aleksandrov (one of
> Eisenstein's colleagues) made a whole series of them -- including
> "Volga Volga" and "Spring" (which even starred Cherkasov). Even
> better is G. Rappaport's film of Shostakovich's "Cheryomushki".
(Sort
> of a communist reformer -- anti-corruption musical). In fact,
> Cheryomushki is possibly my favorite film musical of all -- and
> certainly my post Fred-and-Ginger favorite.
It should go without saying that I was talking about Hollywood
musicals -- but I should have said it anyway.
Of course Soviet musicals could only be communist musicals.
JPC
25564
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:22am
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) tharpa2002
"Here's a starter - I'm not a Communist, but I'd be a Communist if
there were a party promoting the abolition of classes and blood-
sucking capitalist leeches getting rich off working people that I
thought was actually working toward all those things and had some
chance of pulling it off. Sounds like a good idea to me. Anyone else?"
Of course it sounds like a good idea. But just about all Communist
Parties are Leninist, an elite group of apparatchiks. Anarchist
studies of the Russian Revolution demonstrated that beyond question.
Marx himself was not particularly democratic in his handling of the
First International; rather than allow an anarchist majority make
policy he expelled the dissidents and effectively destroyed the
International.
Having said that, I admit to having been a member of the New York
City Branch of the Industrial Workers of the World from 1974 to 1978
(this year is the 100th anniversary of the IWW.) The Living Theatre
was an IWW job collective in those days, and the New York City Branch
was insturmental in keeping open the neighnorhood public library on
Second Avenue when Beame was making budget cuts (remember "Ford to
City: Drop Dead"?)among other activities: "Organization, education,
emancipation."
I still subscribe to the IWW mottos "An injury to one is an injury to
all," "Labor is entitled to all it produces," and "Building the new
society within the shell of the old." Presently I belong to the
Socialist Party USA (the party of Eugene Debs) which is primarily
Marxist (but not Leninist)but since it's a multi-tendency party
there's a sizeable anarcho-syndicalist membership (the IWW was de-
facto anarcho-syndicalist though not officially so. It's sister union
is the Spanish CNT which is anarcho-syndicalist through and through.)
The late great Paul Goodman always like to claim that any advance
toward freedom was a movement toward anarchism. We've moved in that
direction socially and politically but not economically. (And yes, I
realize that the freedoms won in the social and political spheres are
currently under attack but the battle is far from lost. Beware
bourgeois defeatism!) The struggle continues.
Salud,
Richard
25565
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:24am
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> "Communism" has never meant "any sort of protest against the
excesses of the
> rich". It has always specifically referred to a form of government
advocated
> by Marx, and instituted by Lenin. It is very different from
Liberalism,
> Democratic Socialism, the various kinds of Anarchism, etc.
> It has been a long time since my single viewing. But "The Pajama
Game"
> (Donen) seems to endorse democratic labor unions. I cannot
remember the slightest
> trace of Communist ideas in it. Labor Unions have a long history
in democratic
> societies. They were always banned in Communist ones - see the
struggle of
> Solidarity VS the Polish Communists, etc.
> I never meant to hector the list with a purely politicadiscussion.
My only
> point was that Mike Leigh's films seemed to reflect Communist
ideas, at the
> expense of any sort of historical reality. I was trying to define
Leigh's
> concerns as a filmmaker. This is On Topic for this list, one hopes.
>
> Mike Grost
Mike, you're demonstrating again your disdain for irony or
ambiguity. Everybody knows that there is nothing communistic about
The Pajama Game and both David and I were being tongue-in-cheek.
I think it's a shame that you have seen the movie only once and so
long ago. it's one of my five or six favorite musicals (If they
asked me I could write a list...) JPC
25566
From: "Fernando Verissimo"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:50am
Subject: Favorite Musicals (was: Re: My Literal Mind) f_verissimo
>>it's one of my five or six favorite musicals (If they
> asked me I could write a list...) JPC
Well, I would love to see another list coming from you, JP. Specially a list
of your favorite musicals.
Of course, David has to come up with his list too.
fv
25567
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:39am
Subject: Kagemusha evillights
I don't mean to break the Leigh chain -- this is just another topic, by
all means the Leigh rage should keep on ragin' -- but just last night I
saw the new Criterion disc for Kurôsawa's 'Kagemusha' for the first
time -- the full 3 hour cut -- and was absolutely blown away.
Following a recent re-viewing of 'Ran' (which, incidentally, Criterion
has snagged the US rights for from Wellspring, and will be doing a
definitive edition of before year's end), I've come away thinking
'Kagemusha' is easily the superior film, not to mention one of the six
greatest Kurôsawas. (For me, the others would be: 'Stray Dog'; 'Seven
Samurai'; 'Spiderweb Castle' / 'Throne of Blood'; 'The Lower Depths';
'Heaven and Hell / High and Low.') I'm going to refrain from
cataloguing aesthetic goosebumps for the time being -- I'm just curious
whether anyone else has seen this new complete edition of the film, and
we'll take it from there.
craig.
25568
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:53am
Subject: Re: Sirk/Fassbinder cinebklyn
Fred writes:
> If I've learned anything from the past century of art making,
it is that "great art" has no definition.
And yet you challenge my claim that Fassbinder movies are great
art. If "great art" has no definition, then there is nothing to challenge.
> This film consists of only one element: the sound track. The screen
is black. The sound track seems to be a collage of western movie
sound tracks, but as a collage it's not a particularly distinguished piece
of sound art.
Sounds like a favorite film of mine, Derek Jarman's "Blue"
> I disagree 2,000 per cent. The found footage film offers one
counter-example. "East of Borneo" is dross; Cornell's "Rose
Hobart," edited from fragments of it, is pure gold.
I haven't seen either so I cannot comment.
> There is no such thing as good and bad craftsmanship when it
comes to modern art, because "good" craftsmanship can be
counterproductive in one context, while "bad" can be perfect in
another.
But craftmanship can only be defined contextually. There is no
universal definition of craftmanship against which to measure
acts of craft/art.
> I don't know how familiar you are with modern physics beginning
with quantum mechanics, but your view of the atom makes my point.
The truth is that the atom is hardly a stable accretion of elements, but
a cluster of "clouds" of probabilities that can do all sorts of completely
surprising things at any second.
But the things they can do are bound by the rules of quantum theory.
Though an electron can show up in more than one place, there are
certain places (quanta) where it definitely cannot be.
The larger question I was getting at, and which I may have obscured,
is what elements of an artist's work convey his vision.
> Nor does a work of art equal the sum of its parts in any sort of stable
way, as in well crafted script plus good acting and direction makes a
good movie.
I never said it did. What I asked was what elements of a film conveyed
an artist's vision since you maintained that the work of an auteur can
be identified by its vision. If this is so, an auteur's work must convey
her vision. If this is true, the question is what means does the auteur
use to convey her vision.
> There are no objective standards about any of those things, and the
elements-coming-together process in a great film is synergistic and
multiplicative rather than additive.
I am not talking about standards. I am merely asking you to elucidate
the specific elements that you believe are part of this coming-together
process, whether it be multiplicative or additive (I think questions
about the porcess can be addressed anon, once we have identified the
elements involved. To me it is premature to talk of process before the
elements have been named.).
> Because we can't create "standards for visual talent." Every attempt to
codify what makes good art has been met by an artist who violates the
previous "standards" and is good because of it. See Lemaitre, Isou.
Couldn't we say that a good visual talent is one that can create imagery
that successfully conveys the creator's/auteur's vision?
> A director's vision can transform "infelicities" into something else, or
use them as infelicities, or be so overwhelming that they don't matter
very much.
But isn't it up to each individual viewer to decide whether or not they
matter very much? Certainly I cannot decide for you nor you for me,
whether or not an infelicitiy matters.
> The viewer is transformed by a vision that is aesthetically ecstatic,
intellectually stimulating, and emotionally moving. This something I
have never gotten from Fassbinder.
Couldn't this be taken as Fred Camper's definition of great art?
> I appreciate that you appreciate Fuller, but what you are advocating
sounds anti-auteurism to me, more along the lines of defending
"quality" that comes from the accrued efforts of many craftspeople.
I do not think I used the word "quality" in my entire post, so I do not
quite understand how you make this leap. And unless a filmmaker does
everything herself, isn't she dependent upon the work of others?
> The same way: by looking for the filmmaker's vision, and sometimes by
discovering it through the way the filmmaker struggles against the
givens of his conditions of production.
Again the same question: what conveys the vision that you say we should
be looking for? You have stated one conduit: the struggle she has with the
conditions of production. Is this the only one? Are there others?
> I would never describe Sirk's dialogue as showing "sloppy
craftsmanship."
We disagree. I think Sirk sometimes eithers fails to or doesn't
even bother to try to have his dialogue (for me an element at
the disposal of an auteur of a conventional narrative film)
convey his vision. If he tried and failed, that is lack of talent.
If he didn't bother trying, that is sloppy craftsmanship.
> To see the script being transformed you have to see the film
in some reasonable facsimile of what the filmmaker intended, and
DVDs do not, in my view, fulfill that requirement.
Fortunately, I am a Nerw Yorker, and have been going to revival
houses since my teens. I have on many occasions had the
opportunity view Sirk's films on screen under very favorable
conditions.
> The fact that there are imperfections and rough edges do not
necessarily "enhance" them, and might even be said to detract,
but if enough of a genuinely expression vision comes through I
find myself not that bothered by the imperforations.
A personal choice, I agree. But it is equally valid to be bothered
by these imperfections, is it not?
> I don't want to be served up glitter for my viewing pleasure, I want
to have an aesthetic experience in time and space of another's mind.
The latter actually argues with the former.
Does it? The films of Joseph L. Mankiewicz are some of the most
glittery I know in terms of imagery and dialogue. They are also some of
the most intense aesthetic experiences a viewer can have of another's
mind.
Brian
25569
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 5:16am
Subject: Re: Re: Sirk/Fassbinder evillights
On Wednesday, April 13, 2005, at 12:53 AM, Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
>> This film consists of only one element: the sound track. The screen
> is black. The sound track seems to be a collage of western movie
> sound tracks, but as a collage it's not a particularly distinguished
> piece
> of sound art.
>
> Sounds like a favorite film of mine, Derek Jarman's "Blue"
Or, for that matter, João César Monteiro's 'Snow White.'
> I never said it did. What I asked was what elements of a film conveyed
> an artist's vision since you maintained that the work of an auteur can
> be identified by its vision. If this is so, an auteur's work must
> convey
> her vision. If this is true, the question is what means does the
> auteur
> use to convey her vision.
Not to be -too- facetious, but given the constraints of this discussion
as they've been set forth, and the fact that 91.3% of auteurs (and
99.3% of a_film_by members) are men, the abrupt shift to "her" comes
off to one reader at least among many as either disingenous, or weirdly
misinformed with regard to the notion of whether Douglas Sirk and/or
Rainer Werner Fassbinder developed vaginas. Isn't the three-time shift
to "her," apropos of nothing, just -so- 1997? Taking this into
consideration, I agree there should be a neuter possessive; maybe the
next a_f_b Style and Manners Guide should incorporate a decree on
appropriating "son"/"sa" into Englishspeak.
But that's all quite irrelevant; I concur with everything Brian's
written.
craig.
25570
From: MG4273@...
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:53am
Subject: Re: The Pajama Game (was: My Literal Mind) nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-04-12 23:25:03 EDT, JPC writes:
<< Everybody knows that there is nothing communistic about
The Pajama Game and both David and I were being tongue-in-cheek.
I think it's a shame that you have seen the movie only once and so long ago.
it's one of my five or six favorite musicals (If they asked me I could write
a list...) JPC >>
Am relieved to hear it is just a joke!
Agree: "The Pajama Game" is delightful. Would love to see it again.
"Hey There" is one of the most beautiful popular songs.
Bob Fosse's choreography for "The Hundred Year Day" and "Hernando's Hideaway"
is a delight.
By the way, coincidentally just re-read JPC's excellent article on Donen in
American Film Directors a week ago.
Mike Grost
25571
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:34am
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
Still, it's the most "communist" musical ever made.
> (of course it's also the only one).
You're forgeting Centinela, Alerta! (1936), co-directed by Gremillon
and Bunuel.
25572
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:36am
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
I suspect everybody always knew it, and that's why
> it is so amazing that so many people -- "thinkers", intellectuals" --
> of course they are often the most gullible -- managed to talk
> themselves into believing in that daydream in spite of overwhelming
> evidence to its fallacy.
After Godard made La Chinoise, and even as he was veering toward
Communist militancy himself, he told the Cahiers that a classless state
was probably 1000 years off.
25573
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 6:39am
Subject: Re: Communist musicals hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> Lots of communist musicals, actually.
Paradjanov did one that is mind-boggling - long before Shadows of Our
Forgotten Ancestors: a real, pastel-colored Sytalinist musical comedy
with singing and dancing a tractors: the whole shot. The LA
Cinematheque showed it several years ago.
25574
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 7:04am
Subject: 3d Iron hotlove666
Joseph K and I just caught Kim ki-Duk's last film at IFP - it won best
directing at Venice last year. It's quite nice - not ghastly like The
Isle or pornographic like Lies. Sweetly romantic, with obvious debts to
everything from Fallen Angels to Blow-Up, but tough and physical as all
KKDs I've seen are. I gather he's one of the rare filmmakers to come
from the working class, but that's based on very litle information.
I was shocked by Tony Raynes' funny but extremely vicious article on
KKD in the Cahiers hors-serie/catalogue of the Cinematheque's Korean
series. It reminded me of bad early writing on Fuller (he even uses
Sarris's infamous "primitive"), but it goes way beyond that - he calls
the European critics, programmers and juries that keep rewarding KKD
ignorant stooges and seems to wish they'd stop - the inevitable result
of which would be, by his own analysis, that this director would no
longer be able to make films. Bad form!
25575
From: Samuel Bréan
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 8:30am
Subject: Marx quimby_the_m...
No, not Karl this time, but his brothers :))
A small piece of news in today's "Libération." Serge Bromberg (Lobster
Films) has uncovered an as yet unknown snippet of the Marx Brothers' "Animal
Crackers" (1930). It's a rehearsal scene where Harpo is bald, without his
famous wig. And... the sequence is in color! It will be shown in Paris in
July at the next "Retour de flammes" manifestation, celebrating Lobster
Films' first 20 years.
Samuel
25576
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 11:33am
Subject: Re: Communist musicals michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> It should go without saying that I was talking about Hollywood
> musicals -- but I should have said it anyway.
>
> Of course Soviet musicals could only be communist musicals.
On the other hand, "Cheryomushki" was probably more subversive of the
system it was set in than Hollywood musicals were of capitalism.
This remained quite popular -- until the Brezhnev era had fully
established -- and questioning of special party leader privileges (and
graft) was no longer a permissible activity.
MEK
25577
From: "Robert Keser"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 0:25pm
Subject: Re: Marx rfkeser
Samuel Bréan wrote:
"A small piece of news in today's "Libération." Serge Bromberg
(Lobster Films) has uncovered an as yet unknown snippet of the Marx
Brothers' "Animal Crackers" (1930). It's a rehearsal scene where
Harpo is bald, without his famous wig. And... the sequence is in
color! It will be shown in Paris in July at the next "Retour de
flammes" manifestation, celebrating Lobster Films' first 20 years."
Samuel, you can see (and download) this footage here:
http://www.sabucat.com/?pg=samples
It's very short indeed, but fascinating!
--Robert Keser
25578
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) cellar47
--- MG4273@... wrote:
> It has been a long time since my single viewing. But
> "The Pajama Game"
> (Donen) seems to endorse democratic labor unions. I
> cannot remember the slightest
> trace of Communist ideas in it.
Then you don't understand the political history of
this country.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25579
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:40pm
Subject: Re: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> Mike, you're demonstrating again your disdain for
> irony or
> ambiguity. Everybody knows that there is nothing
> communistic about
> The Pajama Game and both David and I were being
> tongue-in-cheek.
> I think it's a shame that you have seen the movie
> only once and so
> long ago. it's one of my five or six favorite
> musicals (If they
> asked me I could write a list...) JPC
>
Not all the way in my cheek, J-P! In "American
Musical Theater: A Chronicle" a terribly useful book
written by a frequently hysterical reaction named
Gerald Boardman (who calls Marc Blitzstein's "No For
an Answer" -- the show thatgave the world Carol
Channing --a "hymn of hate") "The Pajama Game" is
described as "noisy, coarse-grained and leftish." He
goes on on to say "The book was obviously lopsided and
unfair to business, but its attitude could be
overlooked thanks to the sunny clowning of a topnotch
cast."
Obvioulsy he feels John Raitt should have ended up
with both the tops AND the bottoms -- leaving Doris
Day naked.
Remind me to sing you a chorus of "Doing the
Reactionary" from "Pins and Needles."
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25580
From: "Saul"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:52pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) asitdid
Online Now Send IM
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
it's one of my five or six favorite
> > musicals (If they
> > asked me I could write a list...) JPC
> >
As you've said this before on several ocassions, and as it's also one
of my all-time favourite musicals, I absolutely tingle with
anticipation at hearing the rest of the list......
(1)
(2)
(3)
(4)
(5)
(6)
25581
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:55pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> Not all the way in my cheek, J-P! In "American
> Musical Theater: A Chronicle" a terribly useful book
> written by a frequently hysterical reaction named
> Gerald Boardman (who calls Marc Blitzstein's "No For
> an Answer" -- the show thatgave the world Carol
> Channing --a "hymn of hate")
Have you ever seen/heard "No For An Answer"? Based on the tiny sliver
preserved on CD, this seems like a much more interesting show than
"Cradle Will Rock".
25582
From: MG4273@...
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 1:58pm
Subject: The medical background of Vera Drake nzkpzq
This article from Britain's The Guardian (a newspaper) is interesting:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/g2/story/0,,1384004,00.html
Some letter follow-ups:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1390961,00.html
One which flatly contradicts this writer:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1384919,00.html
And some mixed letters:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/letters/story/0,,1385694,00.html
Mike Grost
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25583
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:13pm
Subject: Re: Communist musicals bufordrat
_Heisser Sommer_, anyone?
-Matt
Michael E. Kerpan, Jr. wrote:
>Lots of communist musicals, actually.
>
25584
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:16pm
Subject: Re: Centinela, Alerta! bufordrat
Bill, is this film at all available?
-Matt
hotlove666 wrote:
>--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
>wrote:
>Still, it's the most "communist" musical ever made.
>
>
>>(of course it's also the only one).
>>
>>
>
>You're forgeting Centinela, Alerta! (1936), co-directed by Gremillon
>and Bunuel.
>
>
25585
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:20pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > Mike, you're demonstrating again your disdain for
> > irony or
> > ambiguity. Everybody knows that there is nothing
> > communistic about
> > The Pajama Game and both David and I were being
> > tongue-in-cheek.
> > I think it's a shame that you have seen the movie
> > only once and so
> > long ago. it's one of my five or six favorite
> > musicals (If they
> > asked me I could write a list...) JPC
> >
>
> Not all the way in my cheek, J-P! In "American
> Musical Theater: A Chronicle" a terribly useful book
> written by a frequently hysterical reaction named
> Gerald Boardman (who calls Marc Blitzstein's "No For
> an Answer" -- the show thatgave the world Carol
> Channing --a "hymn of hate") "The Pajama Game" is
> described as "noisy, coarse-grained and leftish." He
> goes on on to say "The book was obviously lopsided and
> unfair to business, but its attitude could be
> overlooked thanks to the sunny clowning of a topnotch
> cast."
>
"Come on, Union, get hot!"
... as they sing in "Steam Heat". But let's not forget
that the workers' victory in THE PAJAMA GAME is not brought about by
the rather ineffectual Union but by the superintendant's discovery
that the crooked boss has been doctoring the books -- which makes it
possible to blackmail him into agreeing to the 7 1/2 cents raise. By
the end labor and employer are a happy family again.
>
David, I don't suppose you agree with Boardman that the show
is "leftish" (whatever that means). It's in favor of fair wages and
against unfair, prevaricating employers ("And that's why and don't
give you a 'yes' and I don't give you a 'No'") Of course for some
people in this country that's leftish or even communistic. JPC
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
25586
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) cellar47
--- "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
> Have you ever seen/heard "No For An Answer"? Based
> on the tiny sliver
> preserved on CD, this seems like a much more
> interesting show than
> "Cradle Will Rock".
>
Never seen it but I've heard it. Carol stopped the
show with a number called "Fraught."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25587
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:33pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Saul" wrote:
>
>
> > --- jpcoursodon wrote:
> it's one of my five or six favorite
> > > musicals (If they
> > > asked me I could write a list...) JPC
> > >
>
> As you've said this before on several ocassions, and as it's also one
> of my all-time favourite musicals, I absolutely tingle with
> anticipation at hearing the rest of the list......
>
In chronological order:
> (1)Singin' in the Rain
> (2)I Love Melvin
> (3)The Band wagon
> (4)7 Brides for 7 Brothers
> (5)Funny Face
(2)The Pajama Game
Hardly original, I know. And all from the fifties. And four Donen
tititles out of six! Can't help it! JPC
> (6)
25588
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> David, I don't suppose you agree with Boardman
> that the show
> is "leftish" (whatever that means). It's in favor of
> fair wages and
> against unfair, prevaricating employers ("And that's
> why and don't
> give you a 'yes' and I don't give you a 'No'") Of
> course for some
> people in this country that's leftish or even
> communistic.
Indeed it is! "The Pajama Game" is an amazing show,
clearly derived from depression-era shows like "Pins
and Needles" and "The Cradle Will Rock" (very much
misrepresented in Tim Robbins' version of a project
that Welles should have made.)
The cleverest thing about it is that it's an ideal
show for amateur theatrical groups to put on -- and
has made a fortune in that context. Hal Prince, who
cut his theatrical teeth on it, hoped that Sondheim's
fabulous cult flop "Merrily We Roll Along" would have
such a future.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25589
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:42pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
I sort of goofed in the numbering. Here it is again:
> In chronological order:
>
> > (1)Singin' in the Rain
> > (2)I Love Melvin
> > (3)The Band wagon
> > (4)7 Brides for 7 Brothers
> > (5)Funny Face
> (6)The Pajama Game
>
> Hardly original, I know. And all from the fifties. And four
Donen
> titles out of six! Can't help it! JPC
>
>
25590
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> In chronological order:
>
> > (1)Singin' in the Rain
> > (2)I Love Melvin
> > (3)The Band wagon
> > (4)7 Brides for 7 Brothers
> > (5)Funny Face
> (2)The Pajama Game
>
> Hardly original, I know. And all from the
> fifties. And four Donen
> tititles out of six! Can't help it!
I don't know about ranking, but my list would include
"Good News"
"Singin' in the Rain"
"Funny Face"
"Seven Brides for Seven Brothers"
"Les Demoiselles de Rochefort"
and
"Pas Sur la Bouche"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25591
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:45pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > >
> > David, I don't suppose you agree with Boardman
> > that the show
> > is "leftish" (whatever that means). It's in favor of
> > fair wages and
> > against unfair, prevaricating employers ("And that's
> > why and don't
> > give you a 'yes' and I don't give you a 'No'") Of
> > course for some
> > people in this country that's leftish or even
> > communistic.
>
> Indeed it is! "The Pajama Game" is an amazing show,
> clearly derived from depression-era shows like "Pins
> and Needles" and "The Cradle Will Rock" (very much
> misrepresented in Tim Robbins' version of a project
> that Welles should have made.)
>
> The cleverest thing about it is that it's an ideal
> show for amateur theatrical groups to put on -- and
> has made a fortune in that context. Hal Prince, who
> cut his theatrical teeth on it, hoped that Sondheim's
> fabulous cult flop "Merrily We Roll Along" would have
> such a future.
>
> Have you seen the revival at Lincoln Center in the eighties? I
found it uselessly campy and was disappointed. Rushed back to to the
movie. JPC
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25592
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:51pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> I don't know about ranking, but my list would include
>
> "Good News"
>
> "Singin' in the Rain"
>
> "Funny Face"
>
> "Seven Brides for Seven Brothers"
>
> "Les Demoiselles de Rochefort"
>
> and
>
> "Pas Sur la Bouche"
...which I still haven't seen although it's out on DVD. I'm waiting
for it to become available at Netflix but they say "very long wait"
which is ominous (though it's nice to think that lots of people want
to rent it -- or perhaps Netflix only bought one or two copies!). I
hesitate to buy because after all I wasn't crazy about ON CONNAIT LA
CHANSON.
So three of your six are the same as mine!... I used to love
DEMOISELLES DE R. but was disappointed when I saw it again on DVD.
JPC
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
25593
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 2:52pm
Subject: Re: Kagemusha tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
"I'm going to refrain from cataloguing aesthetic goosebumps for the
time being -- I'm just curious whether anyone else has seen this new
complete edition of the film, and we'll take it from there."
I haven't seen it lately, but the Japanese version is much superior
to the export version so it's good that it's finally available in the
US if only on home video. Japanese cinephiles also found it to be a
much better picture than RAN in spite of the last minute casting
change. Shimura Takeshi makes his final appearence for Kurosawa (he
died shortly after the picture wrapped.)
The same subject was treated by Inagaki Hiroshi in similar epic
fashion in FURINKAZAN/UNDER THE BANNER OF THE SAMURAI (1969.) I look
forward to your comments.
Richard
25594
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> > Have you seen the revival at Lincoln Center in
> the eighties? I
> found it uselessly campy and was disappointed.
> Rushed back to to the
> movie.
Revivals like that are why I left New York.
However I'd like to alert the list to an excellent new
movie about New York called "Heights." Glenn Close
stars, and there's a very large supporting cast with
many surprises.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25595
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:18pm
Subject: Re: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> ...which I still haven't seen although it's out on
> DVD. I'm waiting
> for it to become available at Netflix but they say
> "very long wait"
> which is ominous (though it's nice to think that
> lots of people want
> to rent it -- or perhaps Netflix only bought one or
> two copies!).
I'd like to think it's because one of the stars is the
ever-yummy Lambert Wilson -- who because of "The
Matrix" seems to be cast in every third movie these
days as the villain.
I
> hesitate to buy because after all I wasn't crazy
> about ON CONNAIT LA
> CHANSON.
>
Ineed to look at that one again. Not being familair
with the French originals used for the most part takes
away a whole level of recognition and nostalgic
familiarity that French spectator wouldhave. I thought
it awfully witty that the one performer lip-synching
to herself was Jane Birkin.
> So three of your six are the same as mine!... I
> used to love
> DEMOISELLES DE R. but was disappointed when I saw it
> again on DVD.
>
Really? I just love it -- especially for the scene
with everyone speaking in Alexandrines.
And I'm crazy about Grover Dale. He performs
occasionally -- recently in a concert version of
"Follies" here in L.A. The rest of the time he's
taking care of the kids he had with the great Anita
Morris.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25596
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:25pm
Subject: Addition to my List jpcoursodon
I can't believe how I could have forgotten to include MY SISTER EILEEN
in my list of six favorite musicals! So, rather than bumping off one
of the six, it will have to be a List of seven, an appropriate enough
number.
"I wish I could dream and philosophize
With someone who knows what I mean..."
JPC
25597
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:42pm
Subject: Re: Centinela, Alerta! hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman wrote:
> Bill, is this film at all available?
>
> -Matt
Yes - I got an unsubtitled copy from dvdgo.com for $14 - good quality.
25598
From: "Fred Patton"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:42pm
Subject: Re: Centinela, Alerta! fred_patton
Technically, yes:
http://www.dvdgo.com/product.asp?
catgid=19&list=14&prodid=3803&typeproduct=1&dvd=¡Centinela,+alerta!
but apparently only Spanish language and no subtitles. I discovered it
just yesterday while cruising for Jean Gremillion titles.
Fred Patton
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman wrote:
> Bill, is this film at all available?
>
> -Matt
25599
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 3:56pm
Subject: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> However I'd like to alert the list to an excellent new
> movie about New York called "Heights." Glenn Close
> stars, and there's a very large supporting cast with
> many surprises.
>
> _____Could that be "Morningside Heights" my old neighborhood?
25600
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 13, 2005 4:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: My Literal Mind (was: The Public, Cinephilia and Mike Leigh) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> > _____Could that be "Morningside Heights" my old
> neighborhood?
>
>
>
>
>
No, the title is metaphoric.
Morningside Heights is MY old neighborhood in that The
High School of Music and Art was located there when I
attended, 1961-1964.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact