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.


25701   From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:03am
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:

> I've simply been incredibly busy.
>
> Anyway, if I may mine the group's collective intelligence and
knowledge, I am
> curious if anyone is aware of worthwhile auteurist work on Sidney J.
Furie.


Nope. I remember Greg Ford advocating him a bit in the 70s, when he
probably did his most interesting work - certainly his most diverse
projects! I recently picked up Road Rage to check up on recent Furie.
Fond memories of films like Gable and Lombard - which should have been
a disaster, but wasn't - make him a subject for further research still,
after all these years.
25702  
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:59am
Subject: Re: Weis and Furie (was: Sidney Furie)  noelbotevera


 
Looked up Weis' filmography and for the life of me, I can't remember
the episodes of "Remington Steele" that he did--and I use to follow
that series, at least the early seasons.

Had some interesting people working on it, too. Glenn Gordon Caron
wrote one episode; Peter Medak directed another. Have to note that
they had regulars they depended on (not Weis) to do the season
starters and finales.

Furie, unfortunately, I probably haven't seen his best work. Didn't
think "Iron Eagle" measured up to "Top Gun" (quite a feat, that),
though in retrospect I did think Furie's movie did have more
characterization than Scott's (which it had to have in the place of a
budget). "The Entity" held a lurid fascination, was unsettling not
only for its violence and sensuality as for the sensuality found in
some of the assaults.
25703  
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:00am
Subject: re: Sidney Furie  apmartin90


 
Astonishing coincidence! Just recently, looking closely at Peter
Tscherkassky's monumental avant-garde 'found footage' films of 1999 &
2001, OUTER SPACE and DREAM WORK (for a season of films I curated on
the theme of 'Female Gothic'), I had the notion to look at the film PT
was reworking both times: Furie's THE ENTITY (1983). I actually think -
even though most articles on Tscherkassky implicitly dismiss it
(possibly sight unseen) as ordinary, banal, conventional, merely
generic, etc - that it is an extremely fascinating horror film. Apart
from anything else, whether he liked it or not, Tscherkassky obviously
knew THE ENTITY very well and memorised it down to the last frame - and
when you come back to the Tscherkassky's after looking sympathetically
at THE ENTITY, you see what a brilliant 'analysis' (in sound and image)
it is: really way beyond anything JLG does in the HISTOIRE(S)! I'm
writing an essay called "Tscherkassky's Entity" for a future ROUGE,
where I hope to 'demonstrate' this.

Bill is right: Furie remains a 'subject for future research'! Peter,
get cracking! Another special dossier in THE FILM JOURNAL, maybe?

Adrian
25704  
From: MG4273@...
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:07am
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  nzkpzq


 
But Peter, Furie is in Sarris' "The American Cinema" under Strained
Seriousness. Plus there is a long study in "Confessions of a Cultist" of "The Leather
Boys".
I have managed to wander into 7 of Furie's films, without really intending
to, or making a deliberate study of the director.
"The Leather Boys" (1964) Early example of openly gay cinema. Like lots of
Furie's work, this is a study in the macho, butch wing of gay life, with this
film looking at English bikers. The characters here are weak-willed, and fairly
passive, as in lots of Furie. They are into a languid eroticism, relaxing in
their time off and drifting into sexually gratifying fantasies - also a Furie
trademark. The point of view is protelarian, something that Furie seems to
understand instinctively - lots of his films have such a background.
"Lady Sings the Blues" (1972) Perhaps Furie's best work. Detailed look at the
life of black jazz singer Billie Holiday. Star making performances. An
unflinching look / wallow in the seamy side of life, also a Furie trait. Furie
understands working class life and how it feels in his bones.
"Gable and Lombard" (1976). I channel surfed into this one day, and got
unexpectedly interested. As Bill Krohn says, this is a much better than expected
piece of storytelling. For one thing, it shows its characters actually enjoying
themselves. Furie's fantasies about the fun side of Hollywood relate to the
other fantasy expressions in his films, which often tend to be
trashy-but-enjoyable daydreams.
Purple Hearts (1984) Awful Vietnam tale, relentlessly dull and depressing.
Furie has spent much of his career making military films, one of my un-favorite
genres.
Superman IV: The Quest For Peace (1987). Don't look now, but Gene Hackman's
creation of his own super-hero (played by macho man Mark Pillow) is a
homoerotic fantasy. Dull going aside from this subplot, although Furie gets brownie
points for advocating nuclear disarmament.
Iron Eagle II (1988) The early sections of this Top Gun inspired film are the
best. Furie hangs out in air pilots' barracks, glamorizing pretty-boy pilot
Mark Humphrey. More Furie fantasizing...
The Taking of Beverly Hills (1991). Not bad crime caper film. Not a
masterpiece, but like lots of Furie, more entertaining strorytelling than expected.

Mike Grost
25705  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:20am
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  thebradstevens


 
I have fairly fond memories of HIT and THE BOYS IN COMPANY C. In
general, Furie seems to be a good example of a director who seldom
found anything to engage him in his material, and fought off the
boredom by discovering 'interesting' camera angles (Soderbergh is
another example of this tendency, though he prefers running scenes in
the wrong order to seeking out bizarre camera positions).

Furie's best film is probably LITTLE FAUSS AND BIG HALSY, thanks to a
screenplay by the great Charles Eastman.
25706  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:01am
Subject: Another Don...Medford (Was Re: Weis and Furie)  thebradstevens


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
> Looked up Weis' filmography

I just did the same. I don't think I've ever actually seen a Don Weis
film. But that list of television credits is pretty discouraging. Do
MacMahonists scan TV listings hoping to catch Weis-directed episodes
of HAPPY DAYS and T. J HOOKER? I personally feel that I reached my
auteurist limit when I started watching Jack Arnold's episodes of THE
LOVE BOAT (a series to which Weis also contributed).


On the other hand, Don Medford is another director with a long and
apparently discouraging list of television credits (DAVID CASSIDY -
MAN UNDERCOVER, DYNASTY, AIRWOLF) whose work is worth more attention
than it has so far received (not difficult - I'm not aware of a
single article about him). The two films he directed - THE HUNTING
PARTY and THE ORGANIZATION (both 1971) - are quite remarkable for
their undisguised and uncompromised misanthropy. But this misanthropy
is given a specifically leftist slant. Medford demonstrates the need
for radical change in American society, and shows that change to be
an impossibility. THE HUNTING PARTY ends with a 'return to zero' as
bleak in its implications as anything in Godard. The Medford-directed
television segments I've managed to catch (particularly his TWILIGHT
ZONE episodes and the CITY OF ANGELS pilot, which was shown
theatrically in Europe under the title THE NOVEMBER PLAN) frequently
reveal the same world-view.

I seem to recall that Nicole Brenez is an admirer of THE HUNTING
PARTY.
25707  
From: MG4273@...
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:50am
Subject: Re: Another Don...Medford (Was Re: Weis and Furie)  nzkpzq


 
I liked a couple of Don Medford's TV movies:

2-28-71 INCIDENT IN SAN FRANCISCO (120)
Script: Robert Dozier based on "Incident at 125th Street" By J E Brown
Photography: William W. Spenser

9-13-78 CLONE MASTER
Writer: John D. F. Black

INCIDENT IN SAN FRANCISCO is especially good - although I have tended to view
its most creative force as being William Dozier and his script. This crime
drama has some interesting social commentary - in line with Brad Stevens' post.
Have not seen these for years. Wish they could be revived, so that all the
auteurists on a_film_by could take a fresh look.
Also enjoyed the "Triggers in Leash" episode of Alfred Hitchcok Presents.
Once again, the source story by Western & mystery writer Allan Vaughn Elston
might have been a plus here. Elston is today a slowly obscuring writer who
deserves revival.
"The American Vien" praises Medford's finale for The Fugitive. I enjoyed
seeing this as a kid.

Mike Grost
25708  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:04pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  cellar47


 
I recall that Luc Moullet put "The Ipcress File" on
his top ten for 1965.


--- ptonguette@... wrote:
I am
> curious if anyone is aware of worthwhile auteurist
> work on Sidney J. Furie.
> There aren't entries on him in the usual sources,
> like "American Directors"
> (which makes sense because Furie is Canadian, of
> course), and I've found
> virtually nothing on the Web. Thanks to Fred's
> incredible HTML efforts, I did
> perform a search of our own group and only came up
> with a few, albeit interesting,
> mentions. I'm particularly curious to find "career
> profiles" of Furie which
> tackle his body of work as a whole.
>


__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25709  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sidney J. Furie  cellar47


 
--- MG4273@... wrote:
> But Peter, Furie is in Sarris' "The American Cinema"
> under Strained
> Seriousness. Plus there is a long study in
> "Confessions of a Cultist" of "The Leather
> Boys".
> I have managed to wander into 7 of Furie's films,
> without really intending
> to, or making a deliberate study of the director.
> "The Leather Boys" (1964) Early example of openly
> gay cinema. Like lots of
> Furie's work, this is a study in the macho, butch
> wing of gay life, with this
> film looking at English bikers. The characters here
> are weak-willed, and fairly
> passive, as in lots of Furie. They are into a
> languid eroticism, relaxing in
> their time off and drifting into sexually gratifying
> fantasies - also a Furie
> trademark. The point of view is protelarian,
> something that Furie seems to
> understand instinctively - lots of his films have
> such a background.

Another vote for "The Leather Boys." Rita Tushingham
is especially interesting in that one as the neglected
wife. Great study of falling in love with the wrong
person, and very well observed vis-a-vis lower-middle
class British life. There's a particularly pointed
sequence in which the young married couple have a
hellish honeymoon at vacation camp -- of the sort Ken
Russell satirized in "Tommy."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25710  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:09pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:

>
> Anyway, if I may mine the group's collective intelligence and
knowledge, I am
> curious if anyone is aware of worthwhile auteurist work on Sidney
J. Furie.
> There aren't entries on him in the usual sources, like "American
Directors"
> (which makes sense because Furie is Canadian, of course), and I've
found
> virtually nothing on the Web. > Thanks!
>
> Peter
>
>
Peter, we (ie, Tavernier and I) had a Furie entry in "30 ans de
cinema americain" (1970) and we considerably enlarged and updated it
in "50 ans..." (1991). In the original entry I wrote that his style
(or "manner", rather) was "possibly the most recognizable in the
profession... with its... bizarre, comic strip-inspired framing,
every other shot featuring some huge object in the foreground with
the main action taking place far away in the background or in a
remote corner of the frame." This was mostly inspired by "The
Ipcress File", a big hit in 1965 that opened Hollywood's doors to
Furie (in the update we noted that his visual style had become much
more anonymous). I haven't seen any Furie lately and my only really
fond memory is "The Appaloosa," his first US film. In the updated
part of the entry we vigorously put down "Lady Sings the Blues" for
its travesty of Holiday's life and music, "The Naked
Runner", "Sheila Levine," "Superman IV" and "Iron Eeagle" which BT
called "reactionary and war-mongering". He also put down "Gable and
Lombard" ("If you put a little moustache on Pee Wee Herman he would
look almost as much like Gable as James Grodin does") which I
haven't seen and which seems to have defenders here; and he
disliked "The Entity"'s unsavory sadism. BT had praise for "The
Lawyer" and maybe "Little Fauss and Big Halsy" deserves a new
viewing if only for the Redford-Pollard-Hutton trio. JPC
25711  
From: "Saul"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:31pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  asitdid
Online Now Send IM

 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:

> more anonymous). I haven't seen any Furie lately and my only really
> fond memory is "The Appaloosa,"

You seem to go for all the Brando films JP: you also used "fond
memories" in relation to Queimada, if I remember correctly.

What do u think of Brando's other work: One-eyed Jacks, the
Nightcomers (now Winner - there's an underrated auteur), Guys and
Dolls, A countess from Hong Kong, in particular, (and the others in
general too, i guess)

If only Bronson wasn't dead, there might still be hope for another
great Winner film...though I'm not sure if Bronson could have
recovered from Death Wish V...
25712  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:34pm
Subject: THE AMERICAN VEIN (Was: Another Don...Medford)  thebradstevens


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:

> "The American Vein" praises Medford's finale for The Fugitive.

THE AMERICAN VEIN is a terrific book. Somebody should do an updated
edition. Are Christopher Wicking and Tise Vahimagi (the book's
authors) still around?
25713  
From: Craig M Keller
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:37pm
Subject: John Milius: "Learn a little something about WWII while you're at it"  evillights


 
Here's an interview from gamer-news-website IGN with John Milius -- who was recruited as head writer for the latest 'Medal of Honor' game from Electronic Arts, 'European Assault' --

http://cube.ign.com/articles/605/605438p1.html
25714  
From: "filipefurtado"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 3:10pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  filipefurtado


 
>
> I recall that Luc Moullet put "The Ipcress File" on
> his top ten for 1965.

If I'm not mistaken, he praises the film for Furie's use of zoom.

Filipe

>
>
> --- ptonguette@... wrote:
> I am
> > curious if anyone is aware of worthwhile auteurist
> > work on Sidney J. Furie.
> > There aren't entries on him in the usual sources,
> > like "American Directors"
> > (which makes sense because Furie is Canadian, of
> > course), and I've found
> > virtually nothing on the Web. Thanks to Fred's
> > incredible HTML efforts, I did
> > perform a search of our own group and only came up
> > with a few, albeit interesting,
> > mentions. I'm particularly curious to find "career
> > profiles" of Furie which
> > tackle his body of work as a whole.
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________________________________
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br/



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25715  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 3:38pm
Subject: Another Don...Medford (Was Re: Weis and Furie)  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
I personally feel that I reached my
> auteurist limit when I started watching Jack Arnold's episodes of THE
> LOVE BOAT (a series to which Weis also contributed).

One of them is good Arnold - a man gets trapped in the bathroom of his
cabin by a vicious looking dog that sits outside through the whole
cruise. It turns out that he's a very sweet dog - echoing Arnold's
sympathy for the Devil in IT CAME FROM OUTER SPACE, his two CREATURE
FILM and NO NAME ON THE BULLET, where gunfighter Audie Murphy's
terifying reputation alone sufices to wreak havoc when he rides into
town.
25716  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 3:46pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
Peter, we (ie, Tavernier and I) had a Furie entry in "30 ans de
> cinema americain" (1970) and we considerably enlarged and updated it
> in "50 ans..." (1991). In the original entry I wrote that his style
> (or "manner", rather) was "possibly the most recognizable in the
> profession... with its... bizarre, comic strip-inspired framing,
> every other shot featuring some huge object in the foreground with
> the main action taking place far away in the background or in a
> remote corner of the frame." This was mostly inspired by "The
> Ipcress File", a big hit in 1965 that opened Hollywood's doors to
> Furie (in the update we noted that his visual style had become much
> more anonymous).

Actually, my recollection is that he only became interesting after he
dropped the stylistic affectations - a case somewhat parallel to
Bogdanovich, although Peter is way beter than Furie in both his
mannered period and his post-mannered period.
25717  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  thebradstevens


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

> Actually, my recollection is that he only became interesting after
he
> dropped the stylistic affectations

I looked up Furie's filmography on the IMDB, and have to admit that
that list of films he's made during the last decade really threw me.
I thought Furie had been more or less in retirement since the early
90s. It's like discovering an alternate dimension which contains
hundreds of films that don't exist in our mundane reality.

Direct Action (2004)
Detention (2003)
Partners in Action (2002)
Global Heresy (2002)
The Circle (2001)
Donzi: The Legend (2001)
A Friday Night Date (2000)
My 5 Wives (2000)
Cord (2000)
The Collectors (1999)
In Her Defense (1998)
Married to a Stranger (1997)
The Rage (1997)
Top of the World (1997)
Word of Honor (1996)

And he's still at it, with The Controller in pre-production and
American Soldiers in post-production.

The real question is: Who puts up the money for this stuff? And why
won't they give some of it to Monte Hellman?
25718  
From: ptonguette@...
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 1:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sidney J. Furie  peter_tonguette


 
Thanks for all of the interesting discussions of Furie, gang. One of the
things I most enjoy about our group (almost from day one) are these reassessments
of filmmakers from Strained Seriousness or Expressive Esoterica.

I was aware, Mike, of Furie's placement in Strained Seriousness. (When I
submitted my "new" Sarris ballot to The Film Journal, I placed him in Lightly
Likable, but on further consideration perhaps he does belong in EE.) Sarris
actually makes some good points about Furie's work in that entry, but it's not
what I'd call a lengthy or particularly detailed examination of his work.

The Furies I've seen so far which impress me the most are: "The Ipcress
File," "The Appaloosa," "Gable and Lombard," and "The Entity." Brad is certainly
right in drawing attention to the plethora of work (almost all of it
straight-to-video) which Furie has been doing the past few years in Canada.
Fortunately, most of it is on DVD and Bill says he just picked up one of these "unknown"
Furies, "Road Rage." Be sure to let me, or us, know what you think, Bill.

Brad also wrote:

"In general, Furie seems to be a good example of a director who seldom found
anything to engage him in his material, and fought off the boredom by
discovering 'interesting' camera angles [...]"

I would actually agree with this, sort of, but I don't see it as a negative
per se - as long as the visuals are good, which I think they often are in the
Furie films I've seen. Like Richard Fleischer (whose work we are devoting the
next issue of The Film Journal to), it seems to me that very often Furie is
indeed unengaged with his material and so devotes himself exclusively to the
imagery, the compositions, the angles and lighting. A few of the '80s Furie
films are as full of bizarre, unique angles as his pictures from the '60s, but
there does seem to be a "post-mannered" period as well as he moves into the '90s.
I really need to see some of these recent films of his to check out just
what his films are like these days!

And, Adrian, don't count out a Film Journal symposium either!

Peter Tonguette


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25719  
From: MG4273@...
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:01pm
Subject: Commerical Film & TV (was: Sidney J. Furie)  nzkpzq


 
Brad Stevens writes:

I looked up Furie's filmography on the IMDB, and have to admit that
that list of films he's made during the last decade really threw me.
I thought Furie had been more or less in retirement since the early
90s. It's like discovering an alternate dimension which contains
hundreds of films that don't exist in our mundane reality.

Who puts up the money for this stuff? And why won't they give some of it to Monte Hellman?

Mike Grost here:
Lots of this cinema is "direct to video", and hence neither reviewed, nor the subject of big ad campaigns.
I have had this IMDB experience countless times. The truth is, much of post-1973 commercial film and TV has never been studied much by either auteurists, or reputable film historians of any stripe. It is not even mentioned in film histories.
Along with this, there is a much stated belief that post-1973 commercial film and TV is worthless. By any standards, of course, there is a LOT of junk in this branch of cinema. But are there any good films lurking within it? Good enough for us to pay attention?

One can see some huge, obvious gaps. "Star Trek" has been a massive cult item with the public since its broadcast (1966-1969). I have never seen an article by a serious cinephile or historian about it. This sort of thing seems amazing.

How good a film is "Bride and Prejudice" (Gurinder Chadha, 2004)? You will not find out from today's film historians.
I am not the Compleat Film Historian either. And like Saul said in a recent post, there is an awful lot for people to follow.

Still, we could all benefit from the realization that Brad is right: there is a whole "alternate dimension which contains hundreds of films that don't exist in our mundane reality".

Mike Grost








Yahoo! Groups Links






[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25720  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:03pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  thebradstevens


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> I would actually agree with this, sort of, but I don't see it as a
negative
> per se - as long as the visuals are good, which I think they often
are in the
> Furie films I've seen.

But I don't find the visuals to be 'good' - merely flashy.

Like Richard Fleischer (whose work we are devoting the
> next issue of The Film Journal to), it seems to me that very often
Furie is
> indeed unengaged with his material and so devotes himself
exclusively to the
> imagery, the compositions, the angles and lighting.

I really disagree with this. Fleischer alwys tried to engage himself
with his material - MANDINGO is the work of a man intensely involved
with what he is doing, and seemingly unaware that anyone might find
it beneath contempt. Admittedly, some of Fleischer's later films are
very bad, but even in TOUGH ENOUGH (which I happened to watch
recently after picking it up for £1 in a Blockbuster sale), Fleischer
tries to treat the material with as much respect as possible,
bringing sheer old-fashioned professionalism to every scene.
25721  
From: ptonguette@...
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 2:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sidney J. Furie  peter_tonguette


 
Brad Stevens wrote:

"But I don't find the visuals to be 'good' - merely flashy."

Understood - we can agree to disagree on this one.

"Fleischer alwys tried to engage himself with his material - MANDINGO is the
work of a man intensely involved with what he is doing, and seemingly unaware
that anyone might find
it beneath contempt."

I think it depends (and I grant you that my earlier statement seemingly
didn't leave any room for this.) Clearly, Fleischer is deeply involved with a
number of his films. In addition to "Mandingo" (which I think is his
masterpiece), "Compulsion" and "10 Rillington Place" also seem to fit what you're talking
about. And there are a lot of others. But I've often felt that many later
works, including "Tough Enough," but also "The Jazz Singer" (which Sidney J.
Furie was fired from!) and "Amityville 3-D" and "Red Sonja" are mainly made
memorable due to Fleischer's great visuals. He seems like a hired hand on these
films, but makes them good or even great due to his terrific eye. That's not to
say that Fleischer looks down on the material or characters, per se, which
seems to be what you're arguing against.

Peter


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25722  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:20pm
Subject: Re: Commerical Film & TV (was: Sidney J. Furie)  thebradstevens


 
> Mike Grost here:
> Lots of this cinema is "direct to video", and hence neither
reviewed, nor the subject of big ad campaigns.
> I have had this IMDB experience countless times. The truth is, much
of post-1973 commercial film and TV has never been studied much by
either auteurists, or reputable film historians of any stripe. It is
not even mentioned in film histories.
> Along with this, there is a much stated belief that post-1973
commercial film and TV is worthless. By any standards, of course,
there is a LOT of junk in this branch of cinema. But are there any
good films lurking within it? Good enough for us to pay attention?


I have to admit, it really bothers me. For all I know, Furie has
spent the last ten years making an unbroken series of masterpieces.
It hardly sems likely, but then many people scoff at my claim that
Zalman King's films of the 90s represent one of the most important
bodies of work from that decade - and most of these people turn out
to have never actually watched a Zalman King film!

So who knows? Perhaps A FRIDAY NIGHT DATE is as complex as LETTER
FROM AN UNKNOWN WOMNAN; maybe CORD will turn out to be the VERTIGO
for our generation, PARTNERS IN ACTION the contemporary equivalent
off KISS ME DEADLY. Is Raymond Bellour preparing a shot by shot
analysis of DONZI: THE LEGEND? Will Robin Wood write the BFI Modern
Classics volume on MY 5 WIVES? Does Michael Chion think that GLOBAL
HERESY is told through the eyes of an unborn child? The possibilities
seem limitless!
25723  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 6:57pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sidney J. Furie  cellar47


 
--- ptonguette@... wrote:

Clearly, Fleischer
> is deeply involved with a
> number of his films. In addition to "Mandingo"
> (which I think is his
> masterpiece), "Compulsion" and "10 Rillington Place"
> also seem to fit what you're talking
> about.

Don't forget "The Vikings"!


With "Mandingo" Fleischer clearly rose to the dual
challenge of Norman Wexler's excellent script and
Dino's complusive exploitativeness. Susan George is amazing.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25724  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:08pm
Subject: Fleischer  thebradstevens


 
> Don't forget "The Vikings"!

Another great one is BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL, a very important film
for an understanding of MANDINGO. Other good Fleischers are ARMORED
CAR ROBBERY, THE NARROW MARGIN, HIS KIND OF WOMAN (which Fleischer
ended up reshooting in pretty much its entirety), THE HAPPY TIME,
VIOLENT SATURDAY, BARABBAS, THE BOSTON STRANGLER, TEN RILLINGTON
PLACE, BLIND TERROR, THE LAST RUN, THE NEW CENTURIONS and SOYLENT
GREEN. TORA! TORA! TORA! has a few nice ideas. And there are many
Fleischers I haven't seen.
25725  
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:29pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  peckinpah200...


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Brad Stevens wrote:
>
I think THE BOYS (1961) is worthy of some interest. It is a court
room drama using detailed flashbacks featuring Richard Todd anbd
Robert Morley with young adults Tony Garnett, Ronald Lacey, and Jess
Conrad. It also features Patrick McGee as a weak father. Shot in black
and white in British "New Wave" style, it reveals Furie as somebody
who followed trends rather than set them himself.

THE BOYS IN COMPANY C is certainly an interesting radical Vietnam
Film but a decade later he makes IRON EAGLE. His lack of visual style
may derive from his early work on the dreary Canadian Hudson Bay TV
series?

Tony Williams
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25726  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:34pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:

> Don't forget "The Vikings"!
>
>
> With "Mandingo" Fleischer clearly rose to the dual
> challenge of Norman Wexler's excellent script and
> Dino's complusive exploitativeness. Susan George is amazing.
>
> __________________________________________________


Don't forget "Barabbas," his greatest film in my opinion, followed
closely by "The Vikings", "The Boston Strangler" and, yes, the much-
maligned "Mandingo". JPC
25727  
From: BklynMagus
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:42pm
Subject: Re: Commerical Film & TV (was: Sidney J. Furie)  cinebklyn


 
Mike asks:

> But are there any good films lurking within it? Good enough for us to pay attention?

I have been interested (on and off) in:

Danny DeVito
Warren Beatty
Nicholas Meyer
Jonathan Demme
Doug Liman
Christopher Nolan
Jonathan Glazer

All these filmmakers began directing movies after 1973.

I think there are interesting things going on in commercial cinema.

The exact iteration of auteurism needed to explore most fully these
films may not be quite as clear.

Brian
25728  
From: BklynMagus
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:51pm
Subject: Re: Fleischer  cinebklyn


 
"Barabbas" has always been at the top of my list of Biblical epics.
The compositions and the lighting are the perfect ground and
vcomplement for the argument of the film. I even like the script LOL.

Brian
25729  
From: Adam Lemke
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:03pm
Subject: Re: Fleischer  moviemiser412


 
I saw Fleischer at the Eastman House in Rochester not too long ago for a
discussion of Cinemascope filmmaking, where they screened his 20,000 Leagues
Under the Sea. He had many great anecdotes to share. Of main interest, I
found, his emphasis that when Scope filmmaking first broke out, and was the
case in 20,000 Leagues, they only had one lens to shoot the entire film
with. As opposed to nowadays where you essentially have a specific lens for
any shot you¹d want. That is truly remarkable if you think about... One
lens!

When asked what his favorite film he ever made was...
He replied simply, ³Compulsion... Because it¹s a damn fine film.²

-Adam



On 4/20/05 3:08 PM, "thebradstevens" wrote:

>
>
>> > Don't forget "The Vikings"!
>
> Another great one is BETWEEN HEAVEN AND HELL, a very important film
> for an understanding of MANDINGO. Other good Fleischers are ARMORED
> CAR ROBBERY, THE NARROW MARGIN, HIS KIND OF WOMAN (which Fleischer
> ended up reshooting in pretty much its entirety), THE HAPPY TIME,
> VIOLENT SATURDAY, BARABBAS, THE BOSTON STRANGLER, TEN RILLINGTON
> PLACE, BLIND TERROR, THE LAST RUN, THE NEW CENTURIONS and SOYLENT
> GREEN. TORA! TORA! TORA! has a few nice ideas. And there are many
> Fleischers I haven't seen.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25730  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Commerical Film & TV (was: Sidney J. Furie)  cellar47


 
--- BklynMagus wrote:

> I have been interested (on and off) in:
>
> Danny DeVito
> Warren Beatty
> Nicholas Meyer
> Jonathan Demme
> Doug Liman
> Christopher Nolan
> Jonathan Glazer
>
> All these filmmakers began directing movies after
> 1973.
>

True. But Warren Beatty (IMO the most important figure
on this list) began PRODUCING movies in 1967, and
"Shampoo" he not only produced and starred in but
co-scripted as well. In addition it's clear that such
films as "Mickey One" (Arthur Penn), "The Paralax
View" (Alan J.Pakula), "The Fortune" (Mike Nichols),
"Ishtar" (Elaine May) and "McCabe and Mrs.Miller"
(Robert Altman) were a lot more than mere acting gigs
for him.

Beatty has been a star since 1961 -- arguably longer
than anyone else in Hollywood. Obviously he learned
from the first-rate talents he worked with --
especially Elia Kazan and Elaine May. I find it
fascinating that his most important political films
are pitched so diffeently. "Shampoo" is a farce with
deadly serious underpinnings."Reds" is a historylesson
undertaken in an amazingly open and free-form style.
"Bulworth" is a cri de coeur about the death of
liberal politics.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25731  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:13pm
Subject: Re: Fleischer  cellar47


 
--- Adam Lemke wrote:

>
> When asked what his favorite film he ever made
> was...
> He replied simply, ³Compulsion... Because it¹s a
> damn fine film.²
>

Wow!

I'd love to know what he thought of "Rope" and
"Swoon."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25732  
From: BklynMagus
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 8:28pm
Subject: Re: Warren Beatty (was: Commerical Film & TV)  cinebklyn


 
David writes:

> True. But Warren Beatty (IMO the most important
figure on this list) began PRODUCING movies in
1967 . . .

Oh David, you are sooooo technical. LOL.

But you are right. I knew I was fudging with
Beatty, but I think he gets ignored far too often.

> In addition it's clear that such films as "Mickey One"
(Arthur Penn), "The Parallax View" (Alan J.Pakula),
"The Fortune" (Mike Nichols), "Ishtar" (Elaine May) and
"McCabe and Mrs.Miller" (Robert Altman) were a lot
more than mere acting gigs for him.

Agreed. Though I haven't done the research, I think
Warren Beatty has died in more of his films than any
other major star. He has only made 22 and he dies in
about 7 or 8 of them -- 33%. That is a lot. Add in the
films with downbeat endings and it comes close to 50%.
Only in "Dick Tracy" -- a cartoon -- does he play an
out-and-out hero.

> I find it fascinating that his most important political films
are pitched so diffeently.

I find it amazing that he was able to make these films at all.
And very grateful for them as well.

Brian
25733  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:12pm
Subject: Re: Fleischer  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adam Lemke wrote:
!
>
> When asked what his favorite film he ever made was...
> He replied simply, ³Compulsion... Because it¹s a damn fine film.²
>
> -Adam
>
>
This is typical of the reaction of many old directors to their own
work. No one in our group would have thought of citing "Compulsion"
among his best films... Did he discuss the ones WE think are best? And
I'd be curious to know his take on "Mandingo". JPC
25734  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Warren Beatty (was: Commerical Film & TV)  cellar47


 
--- BklynMagus wrote:

>
> I find it amazing that he was able to make these
> films at all.
> And very grateful for them as well.
>

He called me up personally to correct an error in the
first edition of my book "Open Secret" in which I
identified Doris Duke as a Cary Grant ex rather than
Barbara Hutton.

Me: Ooops!

Warren: Well it's perfectly understandable. He
probably dated Drois Duke.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25735  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:06pm
Subject: Re: Commerical Film & TV (was: Sidney J. Furie)  hotlove666


 
> Brad Stevens writes:
>
> I looked up Furie's filmography on the IMDB, and have to admit that
> that list of films he's made during the last decade really threw me.
> I thought Furie had been more or less in retirement since the early
> 90s. It's like discovering an alternate dimension which contains
> hundreds of films that don't exist in our mundane reality.
>
> Who puts up the money for this stuff? And why won't they give some of it to
Monte Hellman?

Ironically, Monte's last film was the direct-to-video Better Watch Out! (Silent
Night, Deadly Night 3). But I agree with the sentiment. I think his manager
Barry has big ideas that don't include direct to video. But I hear on the
grapevine that Monte will be contributing to a horror trilogy soon.

When you engage in exhaustive research on serial killer films (an
impossibility...they are as numberless as grains of sand) you start running into
a lot of direct-to-videos. I have championed some here: Ted Bundy, Jack Frost
and Jack Frost 2: Revenge of the Killer Mutant Snowman. There are more.

From Dusk Till Dawn 3: The Hangman's Daughter is a better film than From
Dusk Till Dawn, which had a theatrical release. As Peter Bogdanovich
idiomatically said when Joseph H. Lewis talked about Cornel Wilde throwing
Jean Wallace on the kitchen table "pulling down her little pink panties and
going down on her" in The Big Combo, "There's no rules." (First printed in
Movie Magazine, as I recall)

Shopping in Amoeba's marked-down video section is a good way to spot
these - that's where I found Furie's The Rage (correct title) for a dollar. It
appears to be a remake of Duel.
25736  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:10pm
Subject: Looking Down (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Brad Stevens wrote:
That's not to
> say that Fleischer looks down on the material or characters, per se, which
> seems to be what you're arguing against.
>
My dream : To find a great filmmaker who is always looking down at his
characters, who shows them utter contempt, with no exceptions. That would
take that cliche off the table once and for all. Peter, I know you're not using it -
just "quoting" it.
25737  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:27pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> ____________
>
>
> Don't forget "Barabbas," his greatest film in my opinion, followed
> closely by "The Vikings", "The Boston Strangler" and, yes, the much-
> maligned "Mandingo". JPC

I discovered Follow Me Quietly (story cowritten by Anthony Mann) at Torino -
it's quite surprising. See No Evil is also better than I used to give it credit for -
the beginning and end of the Fleisher SK series that includes the
masterpieces Strangler and Rillington.
25738  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:45pm
Subject: Re: Looking Down (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>

> >
> My dream : To find a great filmmaker who is always looking down at
his
> characters, who shows them utter contempt, with no exceptions. That
would
> take that cliche off the table once and for all. Peter, I know
you're not using it -
> just "quoting" it.

Lots of characters deserve to be looked down at, though. Also, the
filmmaker being in a God-like relationship to his material (including
characters)she can hardly help looking down (should the fimmaker look
up to the characters? or look them straight in the eyes?) Just
rambling... JPC
25739  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:53pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> > ____________
> >
> >
> > Don't forget "Barabbas," his greatest film in my opinion,
followed
> > closely by "The Vikings", "The Boston Strangler" and, yes, the
much-
> > maligned "Mandingo". JPC
>
> I discovered Follow Me Quietly (story cowritten by Anthony Mann) at
Torino -
> it's quite surprising. See No Evil is also better than I used to
give it credit for -
> the beginning and end of the Fleisher SK series that includes the
> masterpieces Strangler and Rillington.

Thinking of Fleischer one keeps coming up with fine
titles one had forgotten to mention. "Rillington," certainly. "Violent
Saturday" "The Last Run" "Girl in the Red Velvet Swing".

His first film, "Child of Divoorce" is very touching. "The Narrow
Margin" has always been a favorite of mine, with an early-Mann
(Anthony) feel about it. By the way didn't Mann co-direct "Follow Me
Quietly" uncredited? JPC
25740  
From: Adam Lemke
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 11:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: Fleischer  moviemiser412


 
There was no talk with Fleischer about any of the films discussed here (ie.
Mandingo). Unfortunately, once the discussion came to Tora! Tora! Tora! The
talk veered straight towards Kurosawa (the original Japanese director).
Flesicher told an interesting anecdote about Kurosawa showing up to shoot
one day and the walls to the ³military office² set were painted what he felt
to be the wrong color white. It immediately set production behind schedule,
and eventually Kurosawa dropped from the project due to personal issues
(attempted suicide?). ³He was a difficult man² Fleischer said of Kurosawa.

Another interesting Fleischer film is Mr. Majestyk ‹ a Bronson revenge
vehicle from the 70¹s, that actually manages to hold its own against similar
revenge themed works by Phil Karlson.

-Adam


On 4/20/05 5:12 PM, "jpcoursodon" wrote:

>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adam Lemke wrote:
> !
>> >
>> > When asked what his favorite film he ever made was...
>> > He replied simply, ³Compulsion... Because it¹s a damn fine film.²
>> >
>> > -Adam
>> >
>> >
> This is typical of the reaction of many old directors to their own
> work. No one in our group would have thought of citing "Compulsion"
> among his best films... Did he discuss the ones WE think are best? And
> I'd be curious to know his take on "Mandingo". JPC
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25741  
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 7:29pm
Subject: Re: Looking Down (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  scil1973


 
In a message dated 4/20/05 5:12:12 PM, hotlove666@... writes:


> My dream : To find a great filmmaker who is always looking down at his
> characters, who shows them utter contempt, with no exceptions. That would
> take that cliche off the table once and for all.
>

That krazy kat Krohn - already gunnin' for post of the year! Brilliant comme
d'habitude.

The debate does get dizzying which is why I am sorta not looking forward to
Camper's no doubt brilliant Sirk post. But this empathy/contempt divide is
central enough to at least my own preoccupations that it powers my two fave
narrative films. IMITATION OF LIFE (1959) and SOME CALL IT LOVING are such crucial
litmus tests here because they oscillate between the empathy/contempt poles.
But the more important question, for me lately, is if this "have it both ways"
quality renders them perfect films or merely perfect capitalist products.

We probably couldn't find a great filmmaker who has consistently treated
his/her characters with utter contempt (although I imagine Lars Von Trier and
Catherine Breillat would be in the running). But maybe we could start with a great
FILM which is always looking down at its characters, showing them utter
contempt, with no exceptions. Suggestions? (Remember - it has to be a GREAT film so
HEAVY METAL PARKING LOT doesn't count).

Much love,
Kevin John




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25742  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 0:07am
Subject: Re: Looking Down (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  cellar47


 
--- LiLiPUT1@... wrote:

>
> We probably couldn't find a great filmmaker who has
> consistently treated
> his/her characters with utter contempt (although I
> imagine Lars Von Trier and
> Catherine Breillat would be in the running).

Only for treating characters with conempt. Not as
great filmmakers.

But
> maybe we could start with a great
> FILM which is always looking down at its characters,
> showing them utter
> contempt, with no exceptions. Suggestions? (Remember
> - it has to be a GREAT film so
> HEAVY METAL PARKING LOT doesn't count).

How about "Play Dirty"? Andre DeToth's a big one for
contempt.

Altman veers between love and contempt -- often rather
alarmingly. I'm especially thinking of his ne plus
ultra film maudit "O.C. and Stiggs" which manages to
be homophobic and homoerotic at the same time.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25743  
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 0:09am
Subject: Re: Fleischer  tharpa2002


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adam Lemke wrote:

"Unfortunately, once the discussion came to Tora! Tora! Tora! The
talk veered straight towards Kurosawa (the original Japanese
director). Flesicher told an interesting anecdote about Kurosawa
showing up to shoot one day and the walls to the 'military office'
set were painted what he felt to be the wrong color white. It
immediately set production behind schedule, and eventually Kurosawa
dropped from the project due to personal issues (attempted
suicide?). 'He was a difficult man' Fleischer said of Kurosawa."

Very interesting, especially since Flesicher says in his
autobiography he never met Kurosawa and never went to Japan. He
claims that only one scene of Kurosawa's made it into the finished
film and was the "worst" one in the whole movie but otherwise dosen't
identify the scene. On the other hand, Fukusaku Kinji, one of the co-
directors of the Japanese sequences says none of Kurosawa's footage
was used.

Elmo Williams was the person who dealt with Kurosawa, though K met
with both Zanucks on a couple of occasions. In order to lure Kurosawa
onto the project Williams told him that John Ford would be his co-
director though in fact he had no intention of bringing in Ford even
though Ford wanted to do the picture (see Joseph McBride's Ford
biography.) After Kurosawa was signed, Williams told him that Ford
was unavailable and that they would try to get someone of equal
stature, "like David Lean," also a lie.

When Flesicher became director Kurosawa then regarded the American
scenes as nothing more than second unit work and co-wrote a
monumental screenplay detailing the rise of the Tojo faction and the
fall of the civilian-naval alliance with Yamamoto as a tragic figure
forced to act against his better judgement (some of this comes across
in the finished film though Kurosawa dosen't get any screen credit.)
Following discussion with Williams and the Zanucks he revised the
screenplay to manageable proportions, and this screenplay was finally
approved by all parties. (I saw an annotated copy of this screenplay
and the title page lists all the writers including Kurosawa and two
other Japanese writers who'd worked on other Kurosawa films.)

No doubt Flesicher was rankled by Kurosawa's disdain as related to
him by Williams. Everything that I've heard or read indicates that
Williams played a shabby role in the whole business, aided and
abetted by the younger Zanuck. For the record, Kurosawa didn't
attempt suicide until 1971, after the box office failure of
DODESKADEN produced in partnership with Kobayashi and Kinoshita who
also lost their shirts.

As to Flesicher's opinion of MANDINGO, he was defensive in the
autobiography but since it did well at the box office it must have
had something going for it, so he actually underestimates that film's
excellence. Concerning COMPULSION, he notes that Orson Welles was
jealous of him and wanted to take over direction but finally
contented himself with delivering an excellent performance.

Richard
25744  
From: "Saul"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 0:31am
Subject: Re: Looking Down (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  asitdid
Online Now Send IM

 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:

> My dream : To find a great filmmaker who is always looking down at his
> characters, who shows them utter contempt, with no exceptions. That
would
> take that cliche off the table once and for all. Peter, I know
you're not using it -
> just "quoting" it.

Bill, this describes SALO perfectly. Pasolini has contempt for the
victims and the tormentors -- as it would seem, for every character in
the film.
25745  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 0:57am
Subject: Re: Re: Looking Down (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  cellar47


 
--- Saul wrote:

>
> Bill, this describes SALO perfectly. Pasolini has
> contempt for the
> victims and the tormentors -- as it would seem, for
> every character in
> the film.
>
>
>
>

That's an interesting reading. And it would explain
Ninetto's absence from the film.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25746  
From: Adam Lemke
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:05am
Subject: Re: Re: Fleischer  moviemiser412


 
On 4/20/05 8:09 PM, "Richard Modiano" wrote:
> ³Very interesting, especially since Flesicher says in his
> autobiography he never met Kurosawa and never went to Japan. He
> claims that only one scene of Kurosawa's made it into the finished
> film and was the "worst" one in the whole movie but otherwise dosen't
> identify the scene. On the other hand, Fukusaku Kinji, one of the co-
> directors of the Japanese sequences says none of Kurosawa's footage
> was used.²
>
> That is interesting. Although I suppose Fleischer never directly stated that
> he had met Kurosawa, he sure spoke of him as if he had. I suppose whatever
> communication they did have, be it through producers or by phone, he felt like
> he knew enough about Kurosawa to speak about him candidly.
>
> The production of Tora! Tora! Tora! seems ripe with fascinating stories and
> and Hollywood lore. IS this one of the premier examples of a Hollywood film
> attempting to blend with Japanese cinema?
>
> -Adam
>



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25747  
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 9:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Looking Down (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  scil1973


 
In a message dated 4/20/05 7:39:49 PM, asitdid@... writes:


> Pasolini has contempt for the
> victims and the tormentors -- as it would seem, for every character in
> the film.
>

Even for the boys dancing together at the end?

Kevin John


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25748  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:19am
Subject: Contempt  jpcoursodon


 
What do we mean, exactly, when we say that a filmmaker has "contempt"
for his characters? Do we have any way to actually "prove" that he
does? And...

Assuming that it can be proved and that the question is not
meaningless -- what difference does it make?

I'm glad that Bill debunked the cliche but the discussion seems to
have immediately re-instated it. Which of course is in the nature of
cliches. They don't die or even fade away.

JPC
25749  
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:26am
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  sallitt1


 
> Anyway, if I may mine the group's collective intelligence and knowledge, I am
> curious if anyone is aware of worthwhile auteurist work on Sidney J. Furie.

Here are a few blurbs I wrote back in the day.

-----

The Entity. Though given to interludes of visual frenzy, Sidney J. Furie
is a dramatically competent director, and this disreputable film is more
interesting than I had expected. But the story, about a woman (Barbara
Hershey) who claims that she is repeatedly raped and beaten by a ghost,
doesn't lend itself very well to the straight scare treatment of Frank
DeFelitta's script. The first part of the film leaves open the
possibility that the attacks are a hysterical hallucination, providing
enough telling psychological clues that I, for one, was sold on the more
realistic interpretation. When the film eventually comes down foursquare
on the side of parapsychology, many of its elements, including the
skepticism of psychologist Ron Silver and the sadistic fascination of the
rape scenes, start to look like window dressing. Still, Hershey provides
an emotionally complex performance in the thin role of the victim, and
Furie's relentlessly sustained telephoto close-ups have a certain dramatic
integrity.

Purple Hearts. Sidney Furie's ability as a director far exceeds his
writing skills, and his interestingly intense camera style can't redeem
this embarrassing love story. Ken Wahl, serving as a medic in Vietnam,
falls hopelessly in love with a nurse in Da Nang (Cheryl Ladd, difficult
to recognize in short hair), despite her merciless insults about his
ambition to become a "million-dollar-a-year doctor." All the conflict in
the script turns quickly into heavy philosophizing, and dramatic twists
are imported in wholesale lots to punch up the love story until the film
starts to look like a twelve-hour miniseries cut down to feature length.
Astonishingly, Furie handles all this with a straight face; the bombastic
drama obviously comes from his heart. To give credit where it's due,
though, he's probably the last working film maker in America who refuses
to film action scenes in slow motion. Stephen Lee, Annie McEnroe, and
Paul McCrane co-star.

---------

I haven't seen a huge number of Furie films, but THE IPCRESS FILE would
probably be my favorite. Sarris wrote a very nice, though not that
favorable, review of it that was compiled in CONFESSIONS OF A CULTIST. -
Dan
25750  
From: ptonguette@...
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:33pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  peter_tonguette


 
Thank you, Dan - your writing always qualifies as "worthwhile auteurist
work," to say the least. Your blurb on "Purple Hearts" reminds me that Vietnam is
territory that Furie has returned to several times in his career, starting
with "The Boys in Company C," but most interestingly continuing with one of those
recent straight-to-videos, "Going Back." I haven't seen it yet.

Peter Tonguette


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25751  
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:42am
Subject: Re: Fleischer  tharpa2002


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adam Lemke wrote:

"...Although I suppose Fleischer never directly stated that he had
met Kurosawa, he sure spoke of him as if he had. I suppose whatever
communication they did have, be it through producers or by phone, he
felt like he knew enough about Kurosawa to speak about him candidly."

Whatever Fleischer knew about Kurosawa was probably filtered through
Elmo Williams who orchestrated the campaign to get Kurosawa fired
from the movie. Now Kurosawa was indeed a very imperious character
(the nickname given him by his crew was tenno, emporer) but he wasn't
the meglomaniac that Williams made him out to be. He inflated the
budget by insisting on Stroheim-like authenticity and the use
multiple cameras (which he'd used before) and dimmed the movie's
commercial prospects in Japan by refusing to use well-known Japanese
actors in the key roles (he hired non-actors for their resemblence to
the historical characters they'd be portraying) and he wanted final
cut of the whole movie, all of which disturbed Williams and Richard
Zanuck. He supposedly barred Williams from the Japanese set and that
was the last straw for Williams.


"...IS this one of the premier examples of a Hollywood film
attempting to blend with Japanese cinema?"

It's the first one to come to fruition, but as early as 1946 the
Civil Information and Education Section (CIE) of the US Occupation
proposed a US-Japan co-production. On the Hollywood side, only
Darryl Zanuck showed any interest in such a production. Kurosawa
submitted a treatment called TOWNSEND HARRIS AND LORD II about the
first US ambassador to Japan and his samurai counterpart. Kurosawa
wamted Spencer Tracy for Harris. The CIE vetoed the treatment
because the story also acknowledged Harris's Japanese mistress O-
Kichi, at which point Kurosawa bowed out since the Japanese public
knew all about O-Kichi and would be insulted by her omission from the
story. Although Fox later released THE BARBARIAN AND THE GEISHA that
picture had nothing to do with the 1946 project.

Richard
25752  
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Wed Apr 20, 2005 10:48pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  scil1973


 
In a message dated 4/20/05 8:22:53 PM, jpcoursodon@... writes:


>
> What do we mean, exactly, when we say that a filmmaker has "contempt"
> for his characters? Do we have any way to actually "prove" that he
> does? And...
>
> Assuming that it can be proved and that the question is not
> meaningless  -- what difference does it make?
>

Ugh, JP, you and your definitions and evidence.

No, of course there's no way to "prove" that, say, Sirk has contempt for his
characters. But there's no way to "prove" that KISS ME DEADLY is a great film
either.

Still, I would wager that one could demonstrate that Sirk, for example,
continually makes light or even fun of the plights of his characters. Take that
great shot in ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS of the (hot) son leaving the house after an
argument with Cary. Cary calls him back and says (not an exact quote) "Ned,
please don't let this come between us." And wedged in between them is this huge
room divider (is that what you call it?). So one could read this shot as Sirk
throwing in this odd, materialist joke to undercut the melodrama. Or he's
ignoring the gravity of the situation by shifting his attention to a rather
Derridean play on language (film and otherwise). Or he's showing us how the
characters are too stupid to see what's right in front of them. Does that "prove"
Sirk's contempt? For some people, sure. (NOTE: I don't NECESSARILY agree with the
reading above. I'm just laying it out as a possible argument. I KINDA agree
with it...)

Imagine you were Cary in that scenario, JP. Same house, some interiors. Only
I am there as a guest, witnessing the fight from the sidelines. You say to
your son "Ned, please don't let this come between us." And just before Ned storms
out, I say (no doubt out of some immature compensation for how uncomfortable
I'm feeling) "Whoa wait JP! Don't let WHAT come between you? Do you mean Ron
Kirby or do you mean this lovely room divider?" (And maybe a Barenaked
Ladies-esque snicker at the end there.) Ned would roll his eyes and leave. You would
turn to me and say "What the fuck, Kevin?!?! This is serious, fucker! Gee - I'm
soooooo glad to see you care about my problems. Get the fuck outta here!" So
Sirk could be a surrogate for this obnoxious guest and thus quite ripe for
critical reflection.

As for what difference it makes, well, what difference does it make to
"prove" that KISS ME DEADLY is a great film? But to indulge you, I'd say that it's
important to suss out this contempt because it may be unearned and/or
unwarranted. Who the fuck is Sirk to think his concerns are above or even as important
as Cary's? Is there not something sexist about working within a genre that has
been consumed largely by women and continually undercutting it? In short,
filmmakers who show contempt for their characters rarely, if ever, get the
cameras turned back on themselves to uncover their self-interest.

One thing I loathe about HEAVY METAL PARKING LOT (and all the other films in
that series) is that it never reflects on WHY we are watching Judas Priest
fans in a parking lot before a concert. Apparently, there's something inherent in
them that just begs for an "anthropology." And look at the other PARKING LOT
subjects: monster truck, Neil Diamond, Harry Potter, all phenomena consumed
largely by maligned social groups (working class males, middle-age women and
children, respectively). Why not a STROKES PARKING LOT? Or a MODEST MOUSE PARKING
LOT? Or an ANI DIFRANCO PARKING LOT? (Too bad Pavement broke up cuz PAVEMENT
PARKING LOT scans nicely.) Or how 'bout a BACH PARKING LOT? (Probably wouldn't
work since classical music patrons wouldn't park in a "lot" per se.)

So I think the study of filmmakers' possible contempt for their subjects is
important because it can reveal the particular methods uses to mask their
self-interest and/or transform it into "common sense."

Kiss,
Kevin (did you know I was gay?) John


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25753  
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:26am
Subject: Re: Looking Down (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  sallitt1


 
> We probably couldn't find a great filmmaker who has consistently treated
> his/her characters with utter contempt (although I imagine Lars Von Trier and
> Catherine Breillat would be in the running).

I think I will just keep on sticking up for Breillat every time she gets
grief. Here's my alternate take on her attitude toward her characters,
written for an American Museum of the Moving Image program a few years
ago:

"Her films are not comfortable for audiences seeking clean lines of
identification. Breillat loves and admires her sexual combatants, but also
shows their cruelty, their fraudulence, and their animosity toward the
opposite sex. This freedom of characterization combines with Breillat's
observational powers to create a remarkable sense of realism: No truth is
censored to preserve a character's dignity or stature.

Men and women in Breillat's films are tender enemies, equally powerful,
instinctively wary of one another. Their sex is full of hesitations,
frustrations, longeurs; Breillat likes to use jump cuts to increase the
sense of ennui rather than to remove the dull bits. Though she spares her
characters nothing, Breillat the director inhabits a separate metaphysical
plane, where she finds a kind of joy in a war fought well; at unexpected
moments, her charcters join her on that plane and the tone of her films
shifts from despair into exuberance."

- Dan
25754  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:33am
Subject: Re: Contempt  jpcoursodon


 
What is it you are on, Kevin, or are you like that every night?

I do think that you can prove the greatness of "Kiss Me Deadly" --
assuming you can prove the greatness of anything.

I was just questioning the attitude that consists in blaming a
filmmaker for supposedly having "contempt" for his characters. It's
a pretty meaningless concept to me. Bill pointed out that it is a
cliche, a taken-for-granted one, and I feel it's healthy to
challenge anything that's taken for granted (not just to challenge
it for the sake of challenging, but to examine what it actually
means and stands for). I would say the same applies to the concept
of having "respect" for one's characters.
I also pointed out that cliches, even once debunked, have a way of
reappearing Phoenix-like. Maybe it's just as well, we can't live
without them.

I rather agree with your readings of Sirk, by the way.

Something I was trying to say and didn't express clearly, I guess,
was that a creator somehow has to be "superior" to(in control of)
his material, and that takes precedence over whether he has contempt
or love or indifference or whatever for his characters.

JPC
25755  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:06am
Subject: Re: Contempt  cellar47


 
--- LiLiPUT1@... wrote:

> Kiss,
> Kevin (did you know I was gay?) John
>
>

Did we know the Pope was with Hitler Youth?

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25756  
From: "Henrik Sylow"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:10am
Subject: Re: Contempt for characters  henrik_sylow


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:

> We probably couldn't find a great filmmaker who has consistently
treated
> his/her characters with utter contempt (although I imagine Lars Von
Trier and
> Catherine Breillat would be in the running).

As Dan already has supported Breillat, I only want to say that I will
stand right behind him every time on this issue. And on von Trier as well.

Didn't Hitchcock make Novak a wheeping mess in "Vertigo"? Didn't
Carpenter indirectly quote Ford and Hawks when he said, that to be a
good director you had to be a sadist? Didn't Peckinpah abuse Susan
George during the rape scene and afterwards told her, "I can't wait to
show this to your mother"? And what about Kubricks attitude towards
Duvall in "The Shining"?

I strongly doubt that any auteur has contempt for his characters, but
that a director is abusing an actor or actress (most often the latter)
is not that uncommon. But our appreciation of their art is indifferent
to the actions of the director, and has to be, otherwise we might as
well condemn directors who smoke or who use foul language on the set.

Henrik
25757  
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:31am
Subject: Re: Sidney Furie  bufordrat


 
I was also turned on to _The Entity_ by the Tscherkassky pieces. An
intelligent and fascinating film, though rather disturbing (Hershey's
character is raped about every ten or fifteen minutes, in such a way as
to leave the impression that the filmic apparatus itself is the rapist;
the rapes become as inevitable as the reel changes).

Interesting that his other films were praised for their use of zooms;
this one is particularly noteworthy for its use of split-field diopters.

-Matt




Adrian Martin wrote:

>Astonishing coincidence! Just recently, looking closely at Peter
>Tscherkassky's monumental avant-garde 'found footage' films of 1999 &
>2001, OUTER SPACE and DREAM WORK (for a season of films I curated on
>the theme of 'Female Gothic'), I had the notion to look at the film PT
>was reworking both times: Furie's THE ENTITY (1983).
>
25758  
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:57am
Subject: re: Sidney Furie  apmartin90


 
"[THE ENTITY] is particularly noteworthy for its use of split-field
diopters."

You said it, Matt! Some of those wild split-field widescreen
compositions are positively Ruizian - which only makes me love them
more!

Adrian
25759  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:09am
Subject: Re: Fleischer  thebradstevens


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> Very interesting, especially since Flesicher says in his
> autobiography he never met Kurosawa and never went to Japan. He
> claims that only one scene of Kurosawa's made it into the finished
> film and was the "worst" one in the whole movie but otherwise
dosen't
> identify the scene

He identifies it during his excellent DVD commentary track for the
film.
25760  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:12am
Subject: Re: Fleischer  thebradstevens


 
of Tora! Tora! Tora! seems ripe with fascinating stories and
> > and Hollywood lore. IS this one of the premier examples of a
Hollywood film
> > attempting to blend with Japanese cinema?
> >


Also a fascinating example of a fiction film attempting to blend with
a documentary. I wonder if it might have inspired Scorsese's CASINO.
25761  
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:13am
Subject: re: Contempt  apmartin90


 
I join the skeptics re this commonplace film-crit duality between 'a
director with respect/sympathy/love for his characters' vs 'director
who has contempt for characters and looks down on them like rats in a
trap'.

Some films can be discussed (and appreciated) in these terms, of
course. But so much great cinema, for me, has little to do with these
polarised sympathy/contempt options. This 'system' of value excludes
(for starters) Godard, Fassbinder, Kubrick, Eustache, Ferrara,
Brisseau, Haneke ... and the supreme example, Fritz Lang. When I watch
(again and again) SCARLET STREET, I don't wonder whether Lang 'loves or
hates' his characters. And I don't care. They are characters in a
mechanism of destiny, Lang presents their various blind spots and
misunderstandings with delicious irony, you can see a whole social
system (of power relations, etc) sketched around them, etc. These
'frames' are to me what matter, not whether Lang 'loves/respects' (or
'hates/looks down on from great height') Joan Bennett's or Edward G.
Robinson's or Dan Duryea's character.

The basic problem (and Bill has said as much, repeatedly, in this
discussion) is that we are limiting ourselves to a very limited notion
of 'screen character' as 'three dimensional human being' - and then
raising that to the level of an 'ethical' issue (how to love, feel
compassion for, our fellow man or woman?). But this is often irrelevant
to art and fiction. Here is a 'theoretical' issue worth discussing.
Characters can be emblems, types, ciphers, allegories, 'figures' (once
again I recommend the work of N. Brenez on this point!) - many things
besides three-dimensional psychological folk. This is as true of much'
genre' cinema as of modernist-minimalist-avant-garde-etc cinema. The
example of Breillat has come up again, and I too defend her - because
in SOME of her films (especially ANATOMY OF HELL) it's impossible to
'get' the movie if you don't see the characters as allegorical figures
rather than 'people' (if you do take them that way, the movie is just
plain ridiculous).

Let's all get into this topic, it's a good one.

Adrian
25762  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:22am
Subject: Re: Contempt  thebradstevens


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> What do we mean, exactly, when we say that a filmmaker
has "contempt"
> for his characters?

If you really want to know the answer to this question, watch any
Jean Renoir film. Then watch any Coen brothers film. After that, you
should be able to answer the question yourself.

> Do we have any way to actually "prove" that he
> does?

Do we have any way to actually "prove" that VERTIGO is a better film
than POLICE ACADEMY 5?


> Assuming that it can be proved and that the question is not
> meaningless -- what difference does it make?

Well, it clearly made a difference to Renoir. He would never have
dreamed of making a film which showed nothing but contempt for its
characters. Assuming that you agree with this claim (it seems pretty
much unarguable to me), I'd be interested to know why you think
Renoir insisted on making films which showed love and respect for
their characters. Do you think he was some kind of idiot?


DR STRANGELOVE may be an example of a great film which shows nothing
but contempt for its characters. But that's as good as it gets. I
doubt that any of us would rate STRANGELOVE as highly as LETTER FROM
AN UNKNOWN WOMAN or LE REGLE DU JEU or TOKYO STORY.
25763  
From: MG4273@...
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:28am
Subject: Re: Sidney Furie  nzkpzq


 
JPC's comment on "Lady Sings the Blues" being a travesty of singer Billie
Holiday's life and music are interesting. I know little about jazz or Holiday,
and was not endorsing the film as realism. I do remember being impressed by the
performances - the picture made stars of Diana Ross, Billy Dee Williams and
Richard Pryor.
Similarly, am hardly claiming that "Gable and Lombard" is the True Story. It
was just an entertaining piece of storytelling.
In fact, none of my comments are meant to make people rush out and try to see
Furie films. The films seen here are more in the Lightly Likeable range, even
at their best. Was just trying to add some notes to the group's discussion of
this sometimes lively director.

Mike Grost
25764  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:47am
Subject: Re: Contempt  thebradstevens


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
>
> Some films can be discussed (and appreciated) in these terms, of
> course. But so much great cinema, for me, has little to do with
these
> polarised sympathy/contempt options.

Sure. Which doesn't mean that it isn't relevant to discuss, say,
Renoir, McCarey and Coen in precisely these terms.

, This 'system' of value excludes
> (for starters) Godard, Fassbinder, Kubrick

It might actually be very interesting to look at Kubrick's work in
terms of the tension between sympathy and contempt. Same thing with
Lang, Preminger, Sirk.

>
> The basic problem (and Bill has said as much, repeatedly, in this
> discussion) is that we are limiting ourselves to a very limited
notion
> of 'screen character' as 'three dimensional human being' - and then
> raising that to the level of an 'ethical' issue (how to love, feel
> compassion for, our fellow man or woman?). But this is often
irrelevant
> to art and fiction. Here is a 'theoretical' issue worth discussing.
> Characters can be emblems, types, ciphers, allegories, 'figures'
(once
> again I recommend the work of N. Brenez on this point!) - many
things
> besides three-dimensional psychological folk.

They can also be three-dimensional psychological folk. The contempt
Sam Mendes displays for Annette Benning's character in AMERICAN
BEAUTY is not contempt for an emblem, a type, a cipher or an
allegory - it's a contempt for women.

This is as true of much'
> genre' cinema as of modernist-minimalist-avant-garde-etc cinema.
The
> example of Breillat has come up again, and I too defend her -
because
> in SOME of her films (especially ANATOMY OF HELL) it's impossible
to
> 'get' the movie if you don't see the characters as allegorical
figures
> rather than 'people' (if you do take them that way, the movie is
just
> plain ridiculous).

Interestingly enough, I watched the film on DVD a couple of days ago,
and felt exactly the same way about the characters as you do. But the
DVD contains an absolutely terrific 65 minute interview with
Breillat, during which she argues that one can see the characters as
realistic, that one can relate to them on an emotional level. She
makes a very convincing case which made me eager to watch the film
again.
25765  
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:03am
Subject: re: Contempt  apmartin90


 
Interesting comments, Brad. I agree, Renoir and McCarey and some others
are useful emblems of 'directors loving their characters'-type cinema.
But I find it harder to get a good, useful, meaningful example of the
'director who shows utmost contempt for characters' option. (And thus I
doubt the value-laden dichotomy!)

I am not big fan of the Coens, but it's clear to me (Bill has made the
point many times here) that they are working in a mode that is
variously genre-pastiche, cartoonish, satirical, modernist, etc etc.
Accusing them of 'hating' their characters makes as little sense to me
(as a critical position) as saying that Tex Avery hates his characters,
or Len Lye, or Jerry Lewis, or Busby Berkeley. (Or indeed, Aldrich in
KISS ME DEADLY.) They are not 'people' like people I'm going to meet on
the street, they're something else. If they're not 'figures' in some
elevated intellectual sense in Coen (as in Fassbinder, Godard, etc),
they are mainly 'physical presences' - more the work of the actor being
exhibited (this is Lesley Stern's notion of 'histrionics' in her
Scorsese book, which bridges De Niro and Jerry Lewis and much else)
than the seamless illusion of a character being created. Here we must
take Mike G's assault on realism all the way!

In general (this is not a comment about your comments, Brad), I often
feel frustrated with film criticism that funnels all (or most) of its
energy into discussion of three-dimensional characters: liking them,
not liking them, does the director like them, is the movie
compassionate towards them, what did the characters have for breakfast
before the plot started, etc etc. The centre of a film is often
elsewhere. Characters (in the '3D' sense) are overrated!

Adrian
25766  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:46am
Subject: Re: Contempt  thebradstevens


 
> I am not big fan of the Coens, but it's clear to me (Bill has made
the
> point many times here) that they are working in a mode that is
> variously genre-pastiche, cartoonish, satirical, modernist, etc
etc.
> Accusing them of 'hating' their characters makes as little sense to
me
> (as a critical position) as saying that Tex Avery hates his
characters,
> or Len Lye, or Jerry Lewis, or Busby Berkeley. (Or indeed, Aldrich
in
> KISS ME DEADLY.)

Well, every film needs to be considered as an individual 'case'. I
think it's clear that Robert Aldrich feels superior to Mike Hammer,
and that the Coens feel superior to Barton Fink. But the reasons for
these feelings of superiority are quite different. Aldrich detests
Mike Hammer because he detests that ideal of brutal masculinity
Hammer represents. The Coens detest Barton Fink on general
principles - because they wouldn't be capable of making a film that
didn't show contempt for its protagonist. Because showing affection
for one's characters would not be considered 'hip'. One might not
have a trendy cult success. One might even end up having (shudder)
Zalman's King's career!

They are not 'people' like people I'm going to meet on
> the street, they're something else.
>
I often
> feel frustrated with film criticism that funnels all (or most) of
its
> energy into discussion of three-dimensional characters: liking
them,
> not liking them, does the director like them, is the movie
> compassionate towards them, what did the characters have for
breakfast
> before the plot started, etc etc. The centre of a film is often
> elsewhere. Characters (in the '3D' sense) are overrated!

So I guess you must disagree with Jonathan Rosenbaum's comments on
RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Jonathan claimed (MOVIES AND POLITICS p. 98)
that the scene in which Indiana Jones shoots an Arab implies that it
would be 'fun' to shoot an Arab. Clearly, the Arab is not a 'real'
person, not someone you might meet in the street. But it seems to me
that Jonathan is correct in labelling the scene racist. I'd be
interested to hear your thoughts.
>
> Adrian
25767  
From: samadams@...
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 0:36pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  arglebargle31


 
This violates Kevin's great films rule, but for me the all-time
demonstration of a filmmaker's contempt for characters/audience is
Ollie Stone's NATURAL BORN KILLERS (seconded in recent memory only by
Spike Lee's BAMBOOZLED). It's probably not a coincidence that both
are media satires, a genre which in callow hands generally involves
conjuring of an audience, both within the film and without, of
drooling, brain-dead consumers who will lap up anything no matter how
morally reprehensible -- e.g. the way Stone slaps a laugh track over
the scene depicting the molestation of Juliette Lewis' character by
her father, or the way Lee assumes that Americans would cotton to a
new-wave minstrel show simply *because* of its racism, where an
honest, soul-searching filmmaker would have created the best, most
tempting piece of racist entertainment he possibly could and trusted
the audience to puzzle it out.

That said, I do find the whole notion of "contempt" to be a not
particularly useful one, especially since there's essentially arguing
it. I'm not going to convince anyone who believes otherwise that the
Coen brothers' stylistic extravagances don't preclude deeply humanist
readings of their movies (not that I haven't tried), or, just at the
moment, that the knee-jerk criticism of Todd Solondz of, as he puts
it, "cynical, cruel, misanthropic, da da da da da" is reductive and
ignorant, and allows people who don't have a problem with the
anti-humanism in, say , Godard, to dismiss PALINDROMES rather than
recognizing it as the masterpiece I'm increasingly convinced that it
is.

Ultimately, it's probably a lot more useful/productive to talk about
the aspects which lead to the diagnosis of contempt than to simply
slap on a label which is obviously designed to end the discussion
full stop.

Sam
25768  
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 0:52pm
Subject: re: Histoire(s) du cinéma DVD  apmartin90


 
Hi Junji, thanks for joining in the discussion on the project for which
you did such great and groundbreaking work. Perhaps the question on
many minds here is: do you think there will ever be an English
translation made available of your invaluable documentation - and will
it be (my hands are joined in prayer now) in tandem with an
English-language DVD edition of the HISTOIRE(S)?

Adrian
25769  
From: Jesse Paddock
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:04pm
Subject: Re: Looking Down (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  jesse_paddock


 
On 4/20/05, Dan Sallitt wrote:

>
> I think I will just keep on sticking up for Breillat every time she gets
> grief.

Hear! Hear! If nothing else, I don't see contempt for the young boy
character in BRIEF CROSSING, a small miracle of a film (at least for
Breillat).

>My dream : To find a great filmmaker who is always looking down at his
>characters, who shows them utter contempt, with no exceptions. That would
>take that cliche off the table once and for all.

If you want 'cross-the-board contempt, there's always Palindromes.
'Course, you did say "great director", so maybe that's no help after
all. jp
25770  
From: "K. A. Westphal"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:13pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  chelovek_s_k...


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:

> I am not big fan of the Coens, but it's clear to me (Bill has made the
> point many times here) that they are working in a mode that is
> variously genre-pastiche, cartoonish, satirical, modernist, etc etc.
> Accusing them of 'hating' their characters makes as little sense to me
> (as a critical position) as saying that Tex Avery hates his characters,
> or Len Lye, or Jerry Lewis, or Busby Berkeley.

Or, for that matter, Anger is quite unkind to his "characters" in
SCORPIO RISING. But to me, that's an intellectual objection, aware of
their own limitations and willing to mock their delusions of grandeur.

On the other hand, I'm more offended by a parallel quality in
Bergman's work--the tendency to sadistically inflict the characters
(or more precisely, the actors) with scheduled emotional breakdown
cues in the space of a scene.

--Kyle
25771  
From: "Sam Adams"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:16pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  arglebargle31


 
Snore. That's what I'm talking about. Can you possibly have an interesting discussion (or
any kind of one) when you start with such reductive, inflexible terms? (Updating the anti-
Coen argument from 1991 might be a good place to start.) The trouble with the contempt
discussion is that it invariably veers into such grossly general, quasi-psychic terms. Isn't
your inability to find a point of indentification with the Coens' characters really the issue? If
I identify with Barton Fink, does that mean I have contempt for myself? (Okay, who
doesn't?) Does every filmmaker have to be a big sloppy humanist? So FINK isn't LA REGLE
DU JEU -- so what? Neither is THE GIRL CAN'T HELP IT. I'd argue that only filmmakers who
feel deeply condemned by their own self-importance could write a character like Barton
Fink with such sharpness. But I'm spouting off again.

Empathy requires understanding,

Sam

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens" wrote:
>
The Coens detest Barton Fink on general
> principles - because they wouldn't be capable of making a film that
> didn't show contempt for its protagonist. Because showing affection
> for one's characters would not be considered 'hip'. One might not
> have a trendy cult success. One might even end up having (shudder)
> Zalman's King's career!
>
25772  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 1:18pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  jpcoursodon


 
-

Adrian wrote:
>
>
> > I am not big fan of the Coens, but it's clear to me (Bill has
made
> the
> > point many times here) that they are working in a mode that is
> > variously genre-pastiche, cartoonish, satirical, modernist, etc
> etc.
> > Accusing them of 'hating' their characters makes as little sense
to
> me
> > (as a critical position) as saying that Tex Avery hates his
> characters,
> > or Len Lye, or Jerry Lewis, or Busby Berkeley. (Or indeed,
Aldrich
> in
> > KISS ME DEADLY.)
>

Brad responded:
> Well, every film needs to be considered as an individual 'case'. I
> think it's clear that Robert Aldrich feels superior to Mike
Hammer,
> and that the Coens feel superior to Barton Fink. But the reasons
for
> these feelings of superiority are quite different. Aldrich detests
> Mike Hammer because he detests that ideal of brutal masculinity
> Hammer represents.

This may be true, but what difference does it make, ultimately,
whether Aldrich (and don't forget Bezzerides)detests Mike or likes
him or is indifferent? Are the director's supposed feelings toward
his characters in any way relevant? Does it even make sense to
suppose the filmmaker has "feelings" toward his characters (as
though they were real, "three-dimensional" -- in Adrian's words --
people you can meet on the street?

In "Kiss Me Deadly" there are at least two characters who
thoroughly despise Mike: the Wesley Addy character (a decent guy
apparently, a "good" cop) and the escaped girl at the beginning who
gives a scathingly sarcastic portrait of him even though she has
just met him a few minutes before. Then there is his secretary who
loves him and would do anything for him but nevertheless sees
through him. And there is Va-va-voom, a simple soul, who simply
worships Mike. There is a range of feelings, coming from other
characters. That's what good fiction is all about. Why involve the
creator as though he were one of his creations? JPC



The Coens detest Barton Fink on general
> principles - because they wouldn't be capable of making a film
that
> didn't show contempt for its protagonist. Because showing
affection
> for one's characters would not be considered 'hip'. One might not
> have a trendy cult success. One might even end up having (shudder)
> Zalman's King's career!
>

Now, the above is dripping with contempt for the Coens. You have
a perfect right to dislike (detest) their films, but it doesn't make
much sense to say that they show contempt for their protagonists.
For one thing, showing contempt would be just as non-hip as showing
affection. And if they "showed affection" how would you determine it
and how would that change the film and your response to it? JPC
25773  
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:27pm
Subject: whoops  apmartin90


 
My mystery message to Junji Hori was destined for the Godard discussion
list, not A FILM BY! Sorry, all.

Adrian
25774  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 2:55pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  thebradstevens


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>

> This may be true, but what difference does it make,
ultimately,
> whether Aldrich (and don't forget Bezzerides)detests Mike or likes
> him or is indifferent? Are the director's supposed feelings toward
> his characters in any way relevant? Does it even make sense to
> suppose the filmmaker has "feelings" toward his characters (as
> though they were real, "three-dimensional" -- in Adrian's words --
> people you can meet on the street?

I return to my earlier question (which you didn't answer): If we
compare, say, LE REGLE DU JEU or TOKYO STORY with A CLOCKWORK ORANGE
or BARTON FINK, could we not agree that Renoir and Ozu treat their
characters affectionately, while Kubrick and the Coens do not? Why,
in your opinion, do Renoir and Ozu bother to show such affection for
their characters? Because, given that these characters are (according
to you) not real, not three dimensional, not people you can meet on
the street, must we not conclude that Renoir and Ozu are behaving
very stupidly when they display such obvious affection for them?


> >
>
> Now, the above is dripping with contempt for the Coens. You have
> a perfect right to dislike (detest) their films, but it doesn't
make
> much sense to say that they show contempt for their protagonists.
> For one thing, showing contempt would be just as non-hip as showing
> affection.


Not at all. Showing contempt is a way to prove that one is a fully
paid up postmodernist, above all that outdated humanist rubbish.
25775  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:03pm
Subject: Re: whoops  thebradstevens


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> My mystery message to Junji Hori was destined for the Godard
discussion
> list, not A FILM BY! Sorry, all.
>


Very Godardian!

It may interest you to know that English-subtitled versions of the
first two parts of HISTOIRE(S) have been screened by Channel 4. These
were Godard's earlier cuts, which didn't include the clips from SALO.
Interestingly, the soundtracks and running times of the two edits are
exactly the same - only the visuals were changed. I once compared the
two different cuts by running them side by side on two televisions,
and arrived at the conclusion that this split-screen viewing was
actually the most satisfying presentation of HISTOIRE(S) I had seen!
25776  
From: MG4273@...
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:04am
Subject: Re: whoops  nzkpzq


 
In the pilot episode of the TV show "The Nanny", the hero's three kids are
feeling neglected because their dad is spending all his time at work.
His little 5-year old daughter is worried about an even more frightening
possibility.
"Maybe he's seeing other kids behind our back!" she says.
This came to mind when you got the lists mixed up...

Mike Grost
25777  
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 3:06pm
Subject: Re: Fleischer  tharpa2002


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:


"He identifies it[Kurosawa's scene in TORA, TORA, TORA] during his
excellent DVD commentary track for the film."

I'm going to guess that it's the scene that begins with a close-up of
Prince Konoye during the conference with Tojo et al. The angle
seemed Kurosawa-like to me and he'd used that kind of close-up
before. Of course the rest of the scene was not representative of
Kurosawa since he didn't cut it.

Fukusaku made his claim that no Kurosawa footage was used when he was
at the American Cinematheque in 1996. I asked him about it myself.
On the other hand the final cut was made in Hollywood from the
Japanese rough cut so some Kurosawa material could have been re-
inserted there. Masuda Toshio the other Japanese director supervised
the Japanese cut according to Fukusaku.

Beside RUN AWAY TRAIN, Kurosawa's other American project was CUSTER
OF THE WEST with Charlton Heston as Custer and Nakadai Tatsuya as
Crazy Horse. He wanted to shoot the picture at the Custer
Battlefield National Park but the studio wanted him to make the movie
in Spain so Kurosawa withdrew from the project.

Richard
25778  
From: MG4273@...
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:11am
Subject: Re: Kiss Me Deadly (was: Contempt)  nzkpzq


 
I always "read" "Kiss Me Deadly" as, among other things, as a condemnation of
Mike Hammer's principles, and as a deconstruction of the private eye. Here is
a private eye motivated entirely by greed, who specializes in sleazy divorce
work, whose brutalities are more designed to make money than to punish the
guilty, etc.This reading of the film is now a critical cliche - but still a true
one, IMHO.
But Aldrich also has a lot of sympathy for Hammer, even if he condemns his
actions, and to a degree, his machismo. Hammer is a guy trying to make it in a
corrupt world, and a working class man with few advantages, to boot. I suspect
Aldrich likes Hammer's flair, his energy, his detective skills, and even some
of his macho exuberance. He wishes they were directed to a more constructive
end.
It's a complex portrait, filled with darkness and light. Not a simple
contempt/sympathy dichotomy.

Mike Grost
25779  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:11pm
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:

Thinking of Fleischer one keeps coming up with fine
> titles one had forgotten to mention. "Rillington,"
certainly. "Violent
> Saturday" "The Last Run" "Girl in the Red Velvet Swing".

I can't believe we're just getting to Girl in the Red Velvet Swing. I
think seeing it again at Torino for the first time in 30 years was
the height of Jean Douchet's visit. It certainly knocked me out - an
exceptionally downbeat, surprisingly feminist story with some of the
most beautiful visuals of any Fleischer. Clearly one he wasn't
disinterested in.
>
By the way didn't Mann co-direct "Follow Me
> Quietly" uncredited? JPC

Where'd you hear that, JP? I'm going to visit UCLA's RKO collection
to check out the production and script files to see where the eerie
scene where Lundigan talks to the dummy came from, and ythe whole
idea of the dummy, which is a strange example of the idea
of "profiling" years before the FBI developed it. It's key for my
serial killer book, and Fleuischer consider it his first real film.
25780  
From: BklynMagus
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:10pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  cinebklyn


 
Some random thoughts on the "contempt" thread:

1) Is contempt the only opposite available to "loving
one's characters"? Could indifference or impartiality
also be a possible opposite pole?

2) JPC writes:

> Does it even make sense to suppose the filmmaker
has "feelings" toward his characters (as though they
were real, "three-dimensional" -- in Adrian's words --
people you can meet on the street?

As a writer, I can attest from my own experience
that I do have feelings for my characters. I can also
attest to the fact that I have never felt contempt for any
of them. I have differing degrees of sympathy for
them and their actions, but I have never felt contempt.

3) Is it possible that a more useful division would be one
that identified those auteurs with contempt for their
viewers and those with love for them?

4) JPC also writes:

> Why involve the creator as though he were one of his
creations?

Using JPC's comment as a springboard, I want to suggest
a division that I often find useful -- directors who implicate
themselves in their art and those who do not.

In the first category I would place Renoir, Fassbinder, Wyler,
Mankiewicz, Huston, Imamura.

In the second category I would put Lang, Sirk, the Coens,
Stone.

From here I want to go one level deeper and posit that the
division underlying and supporting all of these other divisions
is the one between auteurs who believe in fate/destiny and
those who believe in human autonomy.

For me Lang is an example of a director who creates films
that delineate a deliberate mechanism of destiny. His
emphasis on architecture and framing is a reinforcement of
his fated world.

Mankiewicz on the other hand emphasizes autonomy. His
framing and design creates spaces in which characters make
decisions for themselves.

For Mankiewicz the creation of 3-D characters is essential since
he is presenting a world of autonomy. For Lang, characters
need be no more dimensional than the architecture since his
is a world of destiny, not choice.

5) JPC again:

> And if they "showed affection" how would you determine it
and how would that change the film and your response to it?

I don't think I determine an auteur's affection for her characters
as much as I experience it, much as I experience affection from
my husband and close friends. I do not seek to determine
whether or not they have affection for me; affection is something
I experience in the course of my relations with them. In the same
way, as I enter into a deeper and deeper relationship with an
auteur's work, knowledge of her attitude is transmitted to me as
a consequence of this relationship.

As to the question of whether my awareness of an auteur's
relationship to her characters affects my response to her work,
the answer is yes.

The work of Lang and other auteurs who posit a world of destiny
leaves me cold. I am reduced to looking at their films as merely
aesthetic accomplishments -- objects d'art to be consumed,
critiqued, and commented upon, but which never touch me since
the characters presented are not 3-D figures capabale of
autonomous choice. Lacking this ability, they bear only scant
resemblance to human beings as I experience them in my daily
life.

As I was typing the above, it occurred to me that one of my
problems with Sirk's dialogue may be that it strikes me as puppet
talk. If Fred is right and Sirk is making the point that people
cannot communicate, then his blooper dialogue might be justified.
But if people are not capable of communication and understanding,
why would Sirk bother to try to communicate in the first place? Of
course, Sirk may regard himself and others like him as a distinct
sect of cinematic ubermenschs who are not as blind as the majority
of humanity, but that then lead us back to the contempt question.

While regarding Sirk as privileged does explain much, I am still left
with the question of destiny. Is there more than one destiny possible
in the world? Are human beings fated to different degrees of blindness?
Is it possible to choose not to be blind? Is Sarah Jane's "I love you
mama" a renunciation of blindness?

Back to Lang: since his belief in destiny as expressed in his films leaves
me with few entry points into his work, my responses are similarly limited.
I have noticed that I find a belief in destiny more prominent in European
filmmakers (whether or not they worked in Hollywood) than in American
ones.

I will also note that directors who emphasize destiny will be best served by
an iteration of auteurism different from one developed to explore directors
who stress human autonomy.

Brian

P.S. My deliberate interchanging of "he," "she," "her," and "his" is my quiet
tribute to William J. Brennan, a distinguished jurist who sat on the U.S.
Supreme Court. He adopted the habit of alternating personal pronouns in
his opinions to emphasize the fact that law applied to all persons, and that
discrimination was unacceptable. I adopted the practice to remind both
myself and others that auteurs come in all sexes and genders.
25781  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:25pm
Subject: Re: Looking Down  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 4/20/05 5:12:12 PM, hotlove666@y... writes:
>
>
> > My dream : To find a great filmmaker who is always looking down
at his
> > characters

IMITATION OF LIFE (1959) and SOME CALL IT LOVING are such crucial
> litmus tests here because they oscillate between the
empathy/contempt poles.

IMITATION reveals Sirk's satirical side, which spares none of the
characters, but in a melodramatic context, whicgh generates a lot of
emotion - remember Serge Daney's definition of melodrama: "We
emotionally identify with the Symbolic network the characters are
caught in, not with any one character." Purely satirical Sirks
include No Room for the Groom and Has Anybody Seen My Gal? Only the
sappy auteurist belief in directorial empathy with characters as a
touchstone of the filmmaker's moral grandeur keeps us from seeing how
many of the greats are satirists...all the while lapping up the
satire as proof of a directorial pov.

> We probably couldn't find a great filmmaker who has consistently
treated
> his/her characters with utter contempt (although I imagine Lars Von
Trier and
> Catherine Breillat would be in the running).

Van Trier would be for me. What else is Dogville? And why else would
so many auteurists turn up their noses at Dogville? Because of the
sappy belief that etc. etc.

But maybe we could start with a great
> FILM which is always looking down at its characters, showing them
utter
> contempt, with no exceptions. Suggestions?

I'm all ears.
25782  
From: BklynMagus
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:24pm
Subject: Re: Fleischer  cinebklyn


 
hl666 writes:

> It certainly knocked me out - an exceptionally downbeat,
surprisingly feminist story with some of the most beautiful
visuals of any Fleischer.

The feminism shouldn't suprise you. It was written by
Charles Brackett. (Just look at the difference between women
in Wilder/Brackett and those in Wilder/Diamond).

Brian
25783  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:28pm
Subject: Re: Looking Down (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> How about "Play Dirty"? Andre DeToth's a big one for
> contempt.
>
> Altman veers between love and contempt -- often rather
> alarmingly. I'm especially thinking of his ne plus
> ultra film maudit "O.C. and Stiggs" which manages to
> be homophobic and homoerotic at the same time.

Or The Wedding? Altman is a prime example of a satirist being without
honor in auturville because of the sentimental dogma about loving your
characters. And Play Dirty, one of the great films, is essentially
satire, albeit in an action movie context.
25784  
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:34pm
Subject: Re: Fleischer (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  lukethedealer12


 
I consider his best film to be the 1959 Western THESE THOUSAND
HILLS, forever neglected but no less great because of that. It was
eclipsed at the time by his other film that year, COMPULSION, a
compelling, brilliantly realized movie but not the subtle
masterpiece that THESE THOUSAND HILLS is. I wrote just a little on
this in "Saloon Girls and Ranchers' Daughters..." while citing Lee
Remick's heroine as one of the genre's finest, but as I'm coming
back to it in more depth in THE FILM JOURNAL I'll weigh in there.
I just wanted to add this title to favorite Fleischers which have
been cited, which have included almost all of the others I really
like. VIOLENT SATURDAY, THE GIRL IN THE RED VELVET SWING, THE
NARROW MARGIN, BARABBAS, THE BOSTON STRANGLER, BETWEEN HEAVEN AND
HELL, COMPULSION, 10 RILLINGTON PLACE and (still the best Disney
live-action movie and a happy souvenir of matinee days) 20,000
LEAGUES UNDER THE SEA. That makes ten and doesn't preclude other
good ones.

Fleischer first came into the discussion recently in relation to
Furie, following Peter's call for some commentary on the latter.

> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:

> "In general, Furie seems to be a good example of a director who
seldom found
> anything to engage him in his material, and fought off the boredom
by
> discovering 'interesting' camera angles [...]"
>
> I would actually agree with this, sort of, but I don't see it as a
negative
> per se - as long as the visuals are good, which I think they often
are in the
> Furie films I've seen. Like Richard Fleischer (whose work we are
devoting the
> next issue of The Film Journal to), it seems to me that very often
Furie is
> indeed unengaged with his material and so devotes himself
exclusively to the
> imagery, the compositions, the angles and lighting. >
>

Others quickly pointed out that wasn't quite a fair statement, and I
agree. I've seen Fleischer speak about his work on four or five
occasions--he's very serious about it and I have the impression he
always tried to find some meaningful artistic relationship with the
material at hand, sometimes succeeding, sometime succeeding in some
ways and not in others, and sometimes failing, just like anyone.

What Peter says is not meaningless though, but it applies more to
the second half of his career, and I use "second half" very
advisedly. Anyone who likes Fleischer and has looked at his
filmography will note the four year gap between BARABBAS in 1962 and
FANTASTIC VOYAGE in 1966, the first a serious, beautifully-realized
drama and the second an effect and design oriented science-fiction
fantasy which looks forward to many later American films in mood and
tone--this was not one I responded to, though I have the impression
Fleischer was interested in it and did a very conscientious
job of realizing it visually. But the greater point is that those
four years in between were the transitional ones between the
older, more classical Hollywood in which Fleischer had made his
reputation and the later, changed Hollywood in which he continued to
work steadily.

As my list above shows (eight films from the earlier years as
opposed to two later on), I think that the earlier period was a lot
more suited to his sensibility and stylistic inclinations. For one
thing he is on record as liking Cinemascope from the time it was
introduced, and his pleasure in composing complex images in that
format and enjoying the reflective distance it provides are evident
and show it is well-suited to him. But even with the wide-screen
format, the later period is more "in-your-face" and aggressive and
this doesn't suit him as well. Whenever he returns to real-life
murder scenarios, he is always interesting (note four of the ten
titles above are in this category), for elaborate reasons I won't
get into here, though they are partly obvious (one, interestingly,
is that he doesn't have "contempt" for characters, even if they are
murderers), so THE BOSTON STRANGLER and 10 RILLINGTON PLACE still
rate with his best. Otherwise, I agree with Peter his talent is
still evident in other of his films I've seen (and have missed some
of these later ones)--SOYLENT GREEN and MR. MAJESTYK are done with
an artfulness and intelligence I don't think these projects
would have had in other hands. When I reviewed RED SONJA I could
only be playful with it, I must admit, yet it wasn't devoid of
style, at least visually, and maybe Fleischer didn't take it as
seriously as some of the others (I hope not!).

My single viewing of MANDINGO on first release was inconclusive. It
didn't move me, and the last reel especially seemed overheated in a
way I don't expect with Fleischer. But I'm ambivalent--it's one I'd
like to get back to sometime, knowing its reputation now. Laughter
and derision toward a film should always be taken as a sign that it
might have something. For example, the brilliant late Hawks
masterpiece RED LINE 7000 (1965) always seemed to get that kind of
reaction, even from many supposed film critics, nowhere more than in
Gail Hire's "Wildcat Jones" number, one of its high points. So
being considered trash by some is definitely a point in MANDINGO's
favor.

In the years in which he flowered, following those fine early noirs
capped by THE NARROW MARGIN and on to 1962 and BARABBAS, it could be
argued--and I believe should be argued--that Fleischer was one of
the finest American directors. He is certainly not alone in the
kinds of ups and downs he had later in a changed Hollywood. He
probably did better than many others.

Blake Lucas
25785  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:34pm
Subject: Jack Smight (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
Astonishingly, Furie handles all this with a straight face

Another director Greg Ford hailed for handling insane projects with a
straight face - a Sarris touchstone - was Jack Smight. I saw some of
the films, and Greg was right.
25786  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:41pm
Subject: Re: Jack Smight (Was: Sidney J. Furie)  cellar47


 
--- hotlove666 wrote:

>
> Another director Greg Ford hailed for handling
> insane projects with a
> straight face - a Sarris touchstone - was Jack
> Smight. I saw some of
> the films, and Greg was right.
>
>
>
>

"Harper," "Now Way to Treat a Lady" and "The
Travelling Executioner" are all excellent.For
television Smight also directed Christopher Isherwood
and Don Bachardy's "Frankenstein: The True Story."
Isherwood and Bachardy would have preferred John
Boorman -- who wanted to do it, but producer Hunt
Stromberg was against him. They would also have
preferred a cuter monster than Michael Sarrazin. Still
it's quite a teriffic piece of work on Smight's part,
with a great performance by James Mason as Dr.
Polidori.

Roger Tailleur wrote a lengthy review of "Harper" in
"Positif" that was much-praised by Godard.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25787  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:46pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 4/20/05 8:22:53 PM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
that
> great shot in ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS of the (hot) son leaving the
house after an
> argument with Cary. Cary calls him back and says (not an exact
quote) "Ned,
> please don't let this come between us." And wedged in between them
is this huge
> room divider

A perfect example of Sirkean satire - complete with the wink at the
audience

filmmakers who show contempt for their characters rarely, if ever,
get the
> cameras turned back on themselves to uncover their self-interest.

Satirists in literature often appear as characters - The Malcontent
in the play of that name, or Pope throughout his work - and in
keeping with the genre portray themselves as nasty, bitter or even
envious people. Hamlet is a mega-multi-dimensional exfoliation of one
of those traditional characters. It happens less often in film.

In fact I can't think of a single Sirk film which contains a
character I would identify with Sirk - with or without the satirist's
mask. And after meeting him, with his wife hovering watchfully over
the interview, I have no idea who the guy was, what what his feelings
about women were, or just about anything except his all-consuming
devotion to art. Of course we were limited to talking about Our
Hitler, but his stance was not exactly exhibitionistic even within
those limits!
25788  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:51pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> Something I was trying to say and didn't express clearly, I guess,
> was that a creator somehow has to be "superior" to(in control of)
> his material, and that takes precedence over whether he has contempt
> or love or indifference or whatever for his characters.
>
That plus the fact that the...characters...DON'T...EXIST!!!!

Was it Hitchcock who talked about Disney's great advantage being that
he could tear them up if he didn't like what they were doing? Or maybe
that was about actors...
25789  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:52pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> > Kiss,
> > Kevin (did you know I was gay?) John
> >
> >
>
> Did we know the Pope was with Hitler Youth?

I foresee a lot of new "Does the Pope" jokes.
25790  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:57pm
Subject: Re: Contempt for characters  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
wrote:
I strongly doubt that any auteur has contempt for his characters, but
> that a director is abusing an actor or actress (most often the latter)
> is not that uncommon. But our appreciation of their art is indifferent
> to the actions of the director, and has to be, otherwise we might as
> well condemn directors who smoke or who use foul language on the set.
>
> Henrik

That's blurring over into another issue, the treatment of actors, and
because actors do exist, that's a whole other question. I'm with Oudart
on that one: The director's situation with respect to his/her actors
and his/her treatment of them are part of the social relations that
make any film possible, and that aspect of the process of production
gets copied into any film. As a Communist, I have to at least see that
and ultimately critique it if I want to see a better world someday.
25791  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 4:59pm
Subject: Re: Sidney Furie  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman wrote:
> I was also turned on to _The Entity_ by the Tscherkassky pieces. An
> intelligent and fascinating film, though rather disturbing (Hershey's
> character is raped about every ten or fifteen minutes, in such a way
as
> to leave the impression that the filmic apparatus itself is the rapist

That's what's striking about the Furie film - watching a naked woman
being raped by an invisible man, whose invisible hands are mushing her
breasts, etc. But I wouldn't hypostasize that as "the filmic
apparatus" -- that's the director!
25792  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:

so much great cinema, for me, has little to do with these
> polarised sympathy/contempt options.

the supreme example, Fritz Lang.

we are limiting ourselves to a very limited notion
> of 'screen character' as 'three dimensional human being' - and then
> raising that to the level of an 'ethical' issue (how to love, feel
> compassion for, our fellow man or woman?).

I douldn't have said it better, Adrian - or even as well.
25793  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:09pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:

> DR STRANGELOVE may be an example of a great film which shows nothing
> but contempt for its characters. But that's as good as it gets. I
> doubt that any of us would rate STRANGELOVE as highly as LETTER FROM
> AN UNKNOWN WOMAN or LE REGLE DU JEU or TOKYO STORY.

I would, except for the Renoir, which is the best film ever made, IMO.
And I'm arguing against the Contempt Criterion because it would oblige
me to make exactly the distinction you're making, The Brad. And oblige
me to loathe those sometimes excellent satirists, the Coens. Satire is
not lesser art than melodrama, the genre of Letter to an Unknown Woman.
Maybe I should maybe remind everyone that outside of auteurist circles
MELODRAMA is considered an inferior genre -- a degraded version of
tragedy, which is automatically superior to it.
25794  
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Contempt  sallitt1


 
> That plus the fact that the...characters...DON'T...EXIST!!!!

This means something, but it doesn't mean everything. On the one hand,
you can kill a character in a movie without facing charges. On the other
hand, the effect that a character-based movie has on the viewer is going
to depend on the illusion of the real. If you create an illusion of
reality (and you can't avoid it with certain configurations of shadow and
light, as Sam likes to point out), then it's in poor form to dodge the
emotional consequences.

(By the way, does your observation above mean that fiction and documentary
divide sharply in your mind?)

I don't want to be facile about morality (especially as I'm currently
reading Nietzsche's ON THE GENEALOGY OF MORALS, which is a real kick in
the head), but most people value or devalue art on the basis of the states
of mind that it creates. One person might value a state of mind, another
might devalue it; but few people don't make the connection between
art-induced states of mind and life-induced ones. Whether one likes or
dislikes the feelings of contempt that some movies induce is certainly a
ball in play on most aesthetic fields.

This said, I agree that, in practice, it has proved almost worthless to
tag filmmakers with contempt for characters. If we can't get more nuanced
and precise about these valuations (and more humble while we're refining
our skills), then we're better off just giving them up. - Dan
25795  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:19pm
Subject: Character (Was: Contempt)  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> In general (this is not a comment about your comments, Brad), I often
> feel frustrated with film criticism that funnels all (or most) of its
> energy into discussion of three-dimensional characters: liking them,
> not liking them, does the director like them, is the movie
> compassionate towards them, what did the characters have for
breakfast
> before the plot started, etc etc. The centre of a film is often
> elsewhere. Characters (in the '3D' sense) are overrated!
>
> Adrian

Batty ole Bloom, of course, has recently come out foresquare for
Character as a value in literature, vs. the deconstructionist stance
that they're just "figures," and makes a convincing case for characters
like Hamlet, Cleopatra, Falstaff and many others - not limited to
Shakespeare - as being central to the creations of which they're apart.
But does film containg Great Characters like that? Would anyone here
want to write a book about one character in a film, or compile a list
of Great Film Characters? Open question.

But to be provocative, given that Rules of the Game is the greatest
film ever made, does anyone even remember the name of the Marquis, the
most fascinating character in that film? Would anyone want to write a
book about that character? Or even an article? If WE care so much about
the characters in films that we sneer at directors who don't, why has
no one ever written even an article about the Marquis of Whatsit?
25796  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:25pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  thebradstevens


 
> That plus the fact that the...characters...DON'T...EXIST!!!!

My question remains. Why, in your opinion, did Renoir frequently show
an obvious affection for characters who...DON'T...EXIST!!!! Was he
some kind of idiot?



>
> Was it Hitchcock who talked about Disney's great advantage being
that
> he could tear them up if he didn't like what they were doing? Or
maybe
> that was about actors...

Wasn't that John Landis?
25797  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:28pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> Well, every film needs to be considered as an individual 'case'. I
> think it's clear that Robert Aldrich feels superior to Mike Hammer,
> and that the Coens feel superior to Barton Fink. But the reasons
for
> these feelings of superiority are quite different. Aldrich detests
> Mike Hammer because he detests that ideal of brutal masculinity
> Hammer represents. The Coens detest Barton Fink on general
> principles - because they wouldn't be capable of making a film that
> didn't show contempt for its protagonist.

The Coens wrote Barton Fink hile they were blocked, unable to finish
the script for Miller's Crossing, where they obviously love the Irish
gangsters. If there was ever a Coen Bros. character who is THEM, it's
Barton Fink, but they treat him satirically.
>
> So I guess you must disagree with Jonathan Rosenbaum's comments on
> RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK. Jonathan claimed (MOVIES AND POLITICS p.
98)
> that the scene in which Indiana Jones shoots an Arab implies that
it
> would be 'fun' to shoot an Arab. Clearly, the Arab is not a 'real'
> person, not someone you might meet in the street. But it seems to
me
> that Jonathan is correct in labelling the scene racist.

I don't think it's that big a deal. An interesting parallel: George
Lucas digitally altered the scene in Star Wars where Han Solo shoots
a seated extraterestrial villain without giving him a chance to draw
after watching the scene with one of his children - now the other guy
draws first. And he has been vilified by fans for doing that.

In each case the original impulse was to make a joke at the expense
of the convention that the Hero (America, if you will) only attacks
when attacked and always fights fair. Not at the expense of Arabs, or
extraterrestrials.
25798  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:30pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt)  thebradstevens


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

> But to be provocative, given that Rules of the Game is the greatest
> film ever made, does anyone even remember the name of the Marquis,
the
> most fascinating character in that film? Would anyone want to write
a
> book about that character? Or even an article? If WE care so much
about
> the characters in films that we sneer at directors who don't, why
has
> no one ever written even an article about the Marquis of Whatsit?

Because the film is so full of fascinating charcters - why limit
ourselves to one? Especially since that one character spends much of
the film interacting with the other characters.
25799  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:35pm
Subject: Re: Contempt  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:

> In "Kiss Me Deadly" there are at least two characters who
> thoroughly despise Mike: the Wesley Addy character (a decent guy
> apparently, a "good" cop)
Who's a dead ringer for the former governor of California - I just
realized that I never see a picture of the aptly-named Gray Davis
without thinking of Wesley Addy!
25800  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Contempt  cellar47


 
--- hotlove666 wrote:

>
> I would, except for the Renoir, which is the best
> film ever made, IMO.

That's the general consensus -- and I of course do not
concur. Renoir's "love" for his actos and characters
is perpetually cited. But "the terrible thing is
everyone has his reasons," is a welcome mat for Evil,
quite frankly.

"La Regle" caused a scandal for many reasons, the most
important of which being Renoir's casting of "an
obviously Jewish actor" (the great Marcel Dalio) as a
French aristocrat. The film's politics are as a whole
rather mushy. This isn't the case with "Le Crime de
M.Lange" where Prevert pushes Renoir to take a stand.
This is the fascinating part. Batala is a
scoundral.Yet Renoir plays up Jules Berry's obvious
charm. And the goodbye at the train station scene with
Sylvia Bataille clearly indicates he's far from
negligle all told. Yet Batala must die so the others
may live. It's really quite something,and it's clear
that Renoir couldn't have done this on his own.

Not that Prevert evidences contempt in other contexts
(eg. "Les Enfants du paradis" and "Lumiere d'Ete") but
ife isn't as easy as Renoir would sometimes encouage
us to believe.

Satire is
> not lesser art than melodrama, the genre of Letter
> to an Unknown Woman.

True. But Preston Sturges is so superior to the Coens
it's scarcely worth talking about. The Coens demand
that the audience always be put in a place of
superiority to the characters. Sturges abhors this.
True there are any number of passing brief
caricatures, but the heart of "The Palm Beach Story"
is Rudy Vallee's absolute sincerity. Likewise Harold
Lloyd's big romantic declaration to the woman he loves
-- on the day he's being fired -- is hilarious and
deeply, DEEPLY moving.

> Maybe I should maybe remind everyone that outside of
> auteurist circles
> MELODRAMA is considered an inferior genre -- a
> degraded version of
> tragedy, which is automatically superior to it.
>
>

And COMEDY gets even less respect. I'm sure most
members of this list regard Mae West and W.C. Fields
as serious artists. Outside the list you would get
blank stares. It's taken years for Jerry Lewis to get
any props whatsoever -- while the Bergman-loving Woody
Allen was overrated to the skies.

a_film_by Main Page
Home    Film    Art     Other: (Rants, Obits)    Links    About    Contact