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.
25801
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:39pm
Subject: Re: Contempt hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> 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?
That's not what you asked - you asked if we consider Strangelove as
good as three films, the other of which was Letter to an Unknown Woman.
But to hone in on Renoir, few directors I can think of are as cruel to
their characters as Renoir in terms of the destinies he concocts for
them. Does that make him a sadist?
25802
From: BklynMagus
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:37pm
Subject: Re: Looking Down (Was: Sidney J. Furie) cinebklyn
hl666 writes:
> Altman is a prime example of a satirist being without
honor in auturville because of the sentimental dogma
about loving your characters.
As George S. Kaufman said: "Satire is what closes on
Saturday night." Satires has never been most people's
favorite genre -- too involved with morality.
Altman also has the disadvantage of not being inscribed
in his work the way literary satirists often were (as you
pointed out). The removal of the satirist changes the
nature of the satire. Mankiewicz can successful update
Restoration comedy since he inscribes the satririst/himself
in his films. In his final film "Sleuth," he is bold enough
to inscribe the entire audience!
There is also the question of autonomy which I raised in a
previous post. Does Altman believe that characters can
change or are they destined to always behave like fools?
Since he chooses not to inscribe himself as previous
satirists did, this is an open question. Pope, Swift, Voltaire
and the gang did believe in the capacity for human beings
to change, and this belief fueled their satire. Does Altman?
And if Altman does not believe in human autonomy, then
what is the exact nature of satire he is engaged in? To what
end does he engage in the creation of satire?
Brian
25803
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:45pm
Subject: Re: Kiss Me Deadly (was: Contempt) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> 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
25804
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Looking Down (Was: Sidney J. Furie) cellar47
--- BklynMagus wrote:
Does Altman believe that characters
> can
> change or are they destined to always behave like
> fools?
Oh think he definitely thinks theycan change. Barbara
Harris in "Nashville" is a perfect example. She starts
out the most hapless of the Country and western
aspirants and ends up saving the day in the finale.
> Since he chooses not to inscribe himself as previous
> satirists did, this is an open question.
I'm not quite sure what you mean by that. Altman's
style, which involves imporvisation and the active
contribution of his cast, is manifest in even his
least interesting movies (ie. "A Perfect Couple" and
"Health")
What Altman may "thinK" about his characters and the
situations they're involved in is a uch more complex
question. He has a disdain for the "heroic" and loves
"failures" like McCabe and Marlowe in "The Long
Goodbye."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25805
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:46pm
Subject: Re: Fleischer (Was: Sidney J. Furie) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
>
> 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
Far Side of Paradise, Blake?
25806
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:49pm
Subject: Re: Kiss Me Deadly (was: Contempt) lukethedealer12
Hit the send button before I wrote it--sorry!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> 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
This is very eloquently said, Mike--and absolutely apt in my view.
What you say is one of the things that draws me back to this film
over and over again. And you have also contributed to the "Contempt"
thread with this observation, which comes with the implication one
should not necessarily be too quick to throw a director into one
camp or the other, just as this goes for their individual movies.
25807
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 5:59pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"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."
And even lesser characters in popular fiction have their admirers.
There are "biographies" of Sherlock Holmes, Horatio Hornblower,Lord
Graystoke and James Bond for instance.
"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."
I don't know about anyone here, but there are fan articles on
Capt.Kirk, Mr.Spock, Luke Skywalker, Norman Bates, Indiana Jones,
Ethan Edwards (Debbie was his illegitimate daughter,)Zatoichi, the
Man With No Name, to mention only a few. So far as I know no one has
devoted a book to any of these fictional characters yet.
"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?"
Well, I read a paper (written for a NYU Renoir class) about the
Marquis that suggested that Rosenthal was his twin half-brother,
hence the speculation about the Marquis's possible Jewish antecedents
by one of the other characters in THE RULES OF THE GAME.
Richard
25808
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:02pm
Subject: Re: Jack Smight (Was: Sidney J. Furie) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> --- 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.
You must be thinking of THE TRAVELING EXECUTIONER, Bill. That
certainly describes it. A very impressive film in this respect.
25809
From: BklynMagus
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:02pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) cinebklyn
hl666 writes:
> But to be provocative, given that Rules of the Game is
the greatest film ever made
Pardon? But surely "All About Eve" is the greatest movie
ever made (to be more provacative).
> does anyone even remember the name of the Marquis
Isn't it very close to the name of our current vice-president?
> 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 he is forgotten. But I bet even average filmgoers
know the names Margo Channing and Eve Harrington. They
meet Margos and Eves everyday while running into a marquis
is a rare occurrence. It would be easy to write an article
about either Eve or Margo in my opinion.
Brian
PS. I am jealous that you will get to see the divine Sheryl Lee
Ralph as Margo in the revival of "Applause" playing at the Freud
next month. Maybe there are advantages to living in California.
LOL.
25810
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:10pm
Subject: Altman's Surrogates (Was: Looking Down) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> hl666 writes:
>
> Altman also has the disadvantage of not being inscribed
> in his work the way literary satirists often were (as you
> pointed out).
Let me back off a little from my own statement. There are two
director figures in Nashville - Opal and Triplett. Triplett is a
white elephant guy: He's trying to organize a big show that will
unite Nashville's greaytest female and male stars on sa stage with
the American flag flying over it. Opal is an insane termite whose
free associations aptly describe the montage structure of the film -
for edxample, the way that a chance association causes David
Carradine to pick up the phone and call Lily Tomlin for a one-off.
Triplett and Opal, who never meet, are the two sides of Altman, and
both are objects of the film's satire. It's a different approach from
having McFly - an absolutely traditional Reniassance malcontent - as
the director's onscreen surrogate.
If I had to say why I like Nashville and h dislike A Wedding, it
wouldn't be that RA showed contempt for his characters in the latter.
It would be that Tony Lombardo did a shitty job of editing it.
>
> And if Altman does not believe in human autonomy, then
> what is the exact nature of satire he is engaged in? To what
> end does he engage in the creation of satire?
>
In the mythos of satire, the characters are less free than the
spectators. It's a given of the genre. I would argue that most Lang
films occupy the darkest region of that mythos - a world of cruel
destiny, scapegoats and ritual sacrifices. The world of King Lear.
The curious status of the happy ending in his oeuvre is a function of
that.
25811
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) cellar47
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> Pardon? But surely "All About Eve" is the greatest
> movie
> ever made (to be more provacative).
But surely "Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train" is
the greatest movie ever made (to be more ME).
And inevitably Amy Taubin compared it to. . . ."Rules
of the Game."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25812
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:13pm
Subject: Re: Kiss Me Deadly (was: Contempt) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
>
> This is very eloquently said, Mike--and absolutely apt in my view.
> What you say is one of the things that draws me back to this film
> over and over again. And you have also contributed to the "Contempt"
> thread with this observation, which comes with the implication one
> should not necessarily be too quick to throw a director into one
> camp or the other, just as this goes for their individual movies.
Kiss Me Deadly is dark satuire - and quite exuberant, a quality that
much satire also has: energy, exuberance. It's a world so grotesque
that the only possible hero is Hammer. But the satiric exuberance makes
it an exhilarating experience.
25813
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:20pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> I don't know about anyone here, but there are fan articles on
> Capt.Kirk, Mr.Spock, Luke Skywalker, Norman Bates, Indiana Jones,
> Ethan Edwards (Debbie was his illegitimate daughter,)Zatoichi, the
> Man With No Name, to mention only a few. So far as I know no one has
> devoted a book to any of these fictional characters yet.
We'd be flogging a pretty sorry artform if that didn't happen from time
to time, but note the high proportion of fan writing about cult series
in that list. Ethan Edwards is the only "stand alone."
>
> Well, I read a paper (written for a NYU Renoir class) about the
> Marquis that suggested that Rosenthal was his twin half-brother,
> hence the speculation about the Marquis's possible Jewish antecedents
> by one of the other characters in THE RULES OF THE GAME.
Well, I take my hat off to you, Richard. I should also cite a coq a
l'an conversation I had with Blake once at The Apple Pan where, in the
uproar, he thought I had asked about something Ransom Stoddard might
have done after Liberty Valance was over and fell into a dreamlike
trance as he started to speculate on the question before I corrected
him. It's clearly a question he would be likelier to ask himself than I.
25814
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:32pm
Subject: Re: Contempt lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Life isn't as easy as Renoir would sometimes encouage
> us to believe.
>
The rest of your argument in this post is, well, an argument worth
engaging at the least. But the above is a very strange statement.
I'll go along with the consensus that Renoir loves his characters
if any director does, whether they are "real" or not (and it's kind
of absurd to say characters in fiction, cinema or otherwise,
are "real"--although that doesn't preclude a deep response to them,
almost as if they were). But loving characters does not equate to
seeing life as "easy." In Renoir, life "plays cruel" much of the
time, and certainly the world is unresponsive to what anyone wants
just because they want it (THE RIVER, THE SOUTHERNER, UNE PARTIE DE
CAMPAGNE, just for a few examples off the top of my head).
Moreover, Renoir's warmth and "humanism" (a word that can mean many
things) are nicely balanced by the absolute remorselessness with
which he treats everything that happens. He may have personal
affection for someone's feelings and desires, and some of his
characters share that generosity of feeling, but the world doesn't
care and he's very clear about this. A perfect example is the end
of LA BETE HUMAINE--actually the whole film but I just want to cite
one scene in the last few minutes. Gabin tells Carette about the
murder and all that's happened and Carette advises something like
"Go and tell them what happened the way you explained it to me.
They'll understand it--I know I do." Maybe he does--I don't doubt
it for a moment--but still the films ends as a complete tragedy with
four characters destroyed, and even the most pathetic among them
(Ledoux) has been given a human roundness and treated without
contempt. But that hasn't made Renoir want to save them. I have
always found him the most unsentimental of filmmakers.
Blake
25815
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:45pm
Subject: Re: Fleischer (Was: Sidney J. Furie) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
>
> Far Side of Paradise, Blake?
I think that case could be made. I'm not quite as comfortable with
those categories as you are, as you know. It's easy to throw some
people into one category or another but more difficult for others.
Nicholas Ray--and I do not put Fleischer on that level--saw his career
suddenly grind to a halt but was brilliant the whole time he was out
there (not in every film, but still from the THEY LIVE to his part of
55 DAYS--I don't really have an opinion about his attempts to do
things later, a few of which materialized, in a way). It happened to
a lot of American directors in the mid-60s. They seemed to hit a wall
and if they made more films (most made some), their work become more
uneven and problem-plagued. Fleischer is the opposite of Ray in that
he resumed in 1966 and went on at the same pace as before. And I
might be inclined to rate him higher if he hadn't, given all the
projects that just don't come up to GIRL IN THE RED VELVET SWING,
VIOLENT SATURDAY or THESE THOUSAND HILLS as stimulus to creativity.
But would that be fair?
25816
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:04pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> Well, I take my hat off to you, Richard. I should also cite a coq a
> l'an conversation I had with Blake once at The Apple Pan where, in
the
> uproar, he thought I had asked about something Ransom Stoddard might
> have done after Liberty Valance was over and fell into a dreamlike
> trance as he started to speculate on the question before I corrected
> him. It's clearly a question he would be likelier to ask himself
than I.
I don't remember this. For the record, I never speculate about what
happens after the fadeout, with regard to characters or any other
aspect of the narrative. That's all we know about it--what happens up
to that point. This has come up in the group from time to time and
there are different views of it but that's mine. The door closes on
Ethan as he walks away. That's it. I have ideas of what has happened
to him in the film, what is happening inside him at that moment, but
that's all. Do Mike Hammer and Velda survive? I don't know. In
"A Day in the Country" do the Sundays remain as sad as the Mondays?
In the last images Renoir gives us this sense for sure. But if it did
go on maybe Henriette would row back alone and say to Henri "This is
ridiculous. I don't want a bourgeois existence of spiritual and
sexual death. I'm turning my back on all that to be with you." And
of course, the formerly irresponsible and carefree Henri is right
there with her, so in love is he as well. Yes, it could have gone on
that way, but it didn't. And if it had, I wonder if we would care
about it as much as we do.
One amusing anecdote about LIBERTY VALANCE after the fadeout, though.
As we were on our way out of it one time, or maybe this was later, my
girlfriend of the time asked "Do you think Ranse and Hallie ever had
any children?" and another friend answered (somewhat contemptuously as
I recall) "He never had any children. He would have had to have Tom
Doniphon do it for him."
Blake
25817
From: "Sam Adams"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:05pm
Subject: Re: Contempt arglebargle31
I agree that this is a much more useful distinction, although I don't agree with the lists
that follow. (I'd put the Coens, at least some of the time, and Sirk in group one, and
Fassbinder often in group two.) Here again we're playing guessing games -- as David E.
has pointed out, many of the characters commonly assumed to be Scorsese doubles in his
films are nothing like the man himself -- but at least along a more productive (or honestly
subjective) angle. It has a lot less to do with "love" than understanding -- even Renoir sees
some of his characters as bad people, but he understands what makes them bad. That's
why the fact that "everyone has his reasons" is "terrible"; even the worst villan may believe
in his heart he is doing what is right, or at least necessary. Loving all characters equally is
the mark of an idiot, not an artist.
The only real contempt an author can show his characters is disinterest: Even if you hate
the Coens' characters, you have to admit they're more carefully wrought than the
cardboard cutouts in most mainstream product. That's what's so tedious about DOGVILLE:
Von Trier is more interested in slamming his one-note marionettes into each other than
developing them in the slightest. It's like DANCER IN THE DARK; all you have to do is think
of the worst thing a character could possibly do at a given moment and you know what
comes next.
Sam
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> Some random thoughts on the "contempt" thread:
> 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.
>
25818
From: "Sam Adams"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 7:22pm
Subject: Re: Altman arglebargle31
I don't know if Altman is really a satirist in the traditional sense; part of the lack of
inscription you describe is the fact that the films don't come to a tidy moral point. You ask
to what end" but I think the point is that there is no end; Altman celebrates humans in all
their nobility and self-interest because human nature is unlikely to change no matter what
he says about it. He's not sentimental enough to love his characters, although he obviously
loves his actors (too much sometimes), but he seems endlessly fascinated by them.
I don't think his reputation is helped either by the fact that the one Altman everyone is
encouraged to see is NASHVILLE, which I think is one of the few films of his that actually
shows contempt -- not for the people, but for the music: I've never heard such a load of
godawful junk in my life. Letting the actors write their own songs may have seemed like a
good acting-workshop exercise, but listening to them is pure torture, and an unfair
caricature of a city that has and continues to produce a lot of great music (as well as, okay,
tons of shite). I can forgive the Coens for slurring Clifford Odets' self-importance, but not
Nasvhille for its crude caricature of the black country star Charley Pride (there's really only
one) as the house negro of the Grand Old Opry. Compare the lovingly filmed jazz sessions
in KANSAS CITY (all played by real musicians) and it's crystal clear. I'd put people onto THE
LONG GOODBYE or even SECRET HONOR first.
Sam
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> hl666 writes:
>
> > Altman is a prime example of a satirist being without
> honor in auturville because of the sentimental dogma
> about loving your characters.
>
>> There is also the question of autonomy which I raised in a
> previous post. Does Altman believe that characters can
> change or are they destined to always behave like fools?
> Since he chooses not to inscribe himself as previous
> satirists did, this is an open question. Pope, Swift, Voltaire
> and the gang did believe in the capacity for human beings
> to change, and this belief fueled their satire. Does Altman?
>
> And if Altman does not believe in human autonomy, then
> what is the exact nature of satire he is engaged in? To what
> end does he engage in the creation of satire?
>
> Brian
25819
From: BklynMagus
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:16pm
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) cinebklyn
David E writes:
> She starts out the most hapless of the Country
and western aspirants and ends up saving the day
in the finale.
But does she save the day? Or is she the handy
entertainment balm Americans put on tragedy/trauma
in this country?
She is just like Phoebe at the end of Eve -- sees
her moment and grabs it. And cultural amnesiacs
that Americans are, she is embraced by the
audience in an act of mass forgetting. Until the
next trauma, of course.
> I'm not quite sure what you mean by that.
In traditional satire, the satirist is present
either as himself or through a surrogate. I do not
find Altman present in this way in his films.
As Alexander Pope wrote:
"Hear this, and tremble! you, who 'scape the Laws.
Yes, while I live, no rich or noble knave
Shall walk the World, in credit, to his grave.
TO VIRTUE ONLY and HER FRIENDS, A FRIEND
The World beside may murmur, or commend."
I do not find such an assertion/insertion of the
satirist in Altman's work.
> What Altman may "thinK" about his characters
and the situations they're involved in is a uch more
complex question.
But satire is a moral genre seeking a reformation
among its listeners/viewers/readers. Maybe Altman
represents a new iteration of satire, but I do not
sense the reformist impulse in Altman.
> He has a disdain for the "heroic" and loves "failures"
like McCabe and Marlowe in "The Long Goodbye."
I think that is true, but does he (like a satirist) believe
that these failures need to be reformed? Or does he
celebrate them as failures and see no need for
reformation? (These questions are nonsensical if you
do not share hl666's opinion of Altman as satirist).
Now turning to hl666:
> There are two director figures in Nashville - Opal and
Triplett.
But are they satirists? Are they seeking to reform/expose?
> He's trying to organize a big show that will unite Nashville's
greaytest female and male stars on sa stage with the
American flag flying over it. Opal is an insane termite whose
free associations aptly describe the montage structure of the
film
Agreed. But I do not think these roles makes them satiric
surrogates.
The best example of surrogate that I can think of is
Elliot Gould's Marlowe in "The Long Goodbye." In
murdering Terry Lennox, Gould fulfills the role of
the satiric reformer.
> Triplett and Opal, who never meet, are the two sides
of Altman, and both are objects of the film's satire. It's a
different approach from having McFly - an absolutely
traditional Reniassance malcontent - as the director's
onscreen surrogate.
But at least McFly exposes the hypocrisy and sham.
Opal and Triplette are complicit with it. He's a huckster
and she's an chroncler. They may well be Altman's
surrogates, but if they are, they lack the reformist
imperative, and my question then becomes: can you
strip satire of its reformist impulse and still have satire?
> In the mythos of satire, the characters are less free
than the spectators. It's a given of the genre.
But not in Mankiewiczean satire. The change Mankiewicz
rings on traditional satire may be the most impressive
artistic accomplishments among his numerous successes.
> I would argue that most Lang films occupy the darkest
region of that mythos - a world of cruel destiny, scapegoats
and ritual sacrifices. The world of King Lear.
But is Lang seeking to reform his viewers? Does he
believe them capable of reform? I have never looked at
his films from the point of view of satire, but I have to
admit my initial dubiousness at the concept.
Lear's world is not the world of satire. The world of
"All's Well That Ends Well" and "Measure for Measure"
are much more in the satirical mold.
Brian
25820
From: BklynMagus
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:30pm
Subject: Re: Altman cinebklyn
Sam writes:
> I don't know if Altman is really a satirist in the
traditional sense
Agreed. An Altman specialist should try to define
what is meant by Altmanesque satire.
> part of the lack of inscription you describe is the
fact that the films don't come to a tidy moral point.
Not so much a tidy moral point, as a clear delineation
between good and bad. Without that distinction, satire
cannot occur.
> Altman celebrates humans in all their nobility and
self-interest . . .
Agreed. But celebration does not preclude satire.
> . . . because human nature is unlikely to change no
matter what he says about it.
Being a determinist, however, does preclude satire. LOL.
If change is unlikely then reform cannot occur.
Brian
25821
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) cellar47
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> But does she save the day? Or is she the handy
> entertainment balm Americans put on tragedy/trauma
> in this country?
>
Maybe in the long run. But in the sort run she
prevents mass hysteria from overtaking the situation,
and this isn't to be sneezed at.
> She is just like Phoebe at the end of Eve -- sees
> her moment and grabs it. And cultural amnesiacs
> that Americans are, she is embraced by the
> audience in an act of mass forgetting. Until the
> next trauma, of course.
>
I can't agree, because she's in no way predatory. She
wants a chance to sing and she gets it. She can't be
accused of stepping on others or manipulating them to
get this chance. She's simply in the right place at
the right time.
(I love Barbara Harris.)
> In traditional satire, the satirist is present
> either as himself or through a surrogate. I do not
> find Altman present in this way in his films.
>
el then he's not a traditional satirist. But I'd say
he's a satisist nonetheless.
> But satire is a moral genre seeking a reformation
> among its listeners/viewers/readers. Maybe Altman
> represents a new iteration of satire, but I do not
> sense the reformist impulse in Altman.
Correct. He has no such impulse.
>
> I think that is true, but does he (like a satirist)
> believe
> that these failures need to be reformed? Or does he
> celebrate them as failures and see no need for
> reformation? (These questions are nonsensical if
> you
> do not share hl666's opinion of Altman as satirist).
>
Neither one. He referred to Gould's character in "The
Long Goodbye" as "Rip van Marlowe" to the degree that
he still has the old values in a context that's
indifferent to them.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25822
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:37pm
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (Was: Looking Down) thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> Let me back off a little from my own statement. There are two
> director figures in Nashville - Opal and Triplett.
But surely the real director figure in NASHVILLE is Jeff Goldblum's
motorcyclist - the guy who rides around observing everyone else with
amusement.
There are similar director figures in A WEDDING (the violinist),
HEALTH (the mime troup) and BUFFALO BILL AND THE INDIANS (Burt
Lancaster's character).
25823
From: BklynMagus
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:52pm
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) cinebklyn
David E writes:
> She wants a chance to sing and she gets it.
A chjance caused by an assassination. Phoebe
gets her chance because Eve is drunk and
manipulative.
> She can't be accused of stepping on others or
manipulating them to get this chance.
But she can be accused of amnesia considering
whatr has just occurred.
> She's simply in the right place at the right time.
And taking advantage of another's tragedy. So
American.
> (I love Barbara Harris.)
I do too, but I see her character for what she is.
> then he's not a traditional satirist. But I'd say
he's a satisist nonetheless.
How would you define Altmanesque satire then?
> He referred to Gould's character in "The Long
Goodbye" as "Rip van Marlowe" to the degree that
he still has the old values in a context that's
indifferent to them.
But does Altman beleive that these old values are
better than the new ones Marlowe is confronted with?
Brian
25824
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 9:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) cellar47
--- BklynMagus wrote:
> David E writes:
>
> > She wants a chance to sing and she gets it.
>
> A chjance caused by an assassination. Phoebe
> gets her chance because Eve is drunk and
> manipulative.
>
She didn't pull the triugger. Nor is she related in
any way to Ronnee Blakeley's tragic singer.
> > She can't be accused of stepping on others or
> manipulating them to get this chance.
>
> But she can be accused of amnesia considering
> whatr has just occurred.
>
What amnesia? She does the right thing. her singing
keeps the crowd from running riot.
> > She's simply in the right place at the right
> time.
>
> And taking advantage of another's tragedy. So
> American.
>
Nope. See above.
> > (I love Barbara Harris.)
>
> I do too, but I see her character for what she is.
>
I disagree.
Are you familiar with "Second-Hand Hearts"?
How about "Who is Harry Kellerman and Why is He saying
These Terrible Things About Me?" Her a capella
rendition of "I'm Painting the Clouds with Sunshine"
in the latter leaves me a sobbing wreck.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25825
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:18pm
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> As Alexander Pope wrote:
>
> "Hear this, and tremble! you, who 'scape the Laws.
> Yes, while I live, no rich or noble knave
> Shall walk the World, in credit, to his grave.
> TO VIRTUE ONLY and HER FRIENDS, A FRIEND
> The World beside may murmur, or commend."
My hero. No title, no patron, a Catholic in a country where Catholics
were the object of burdensome and often dangerous laws, a tiny
hunchback in an era that treated deformed people as freaks to be
gaped and and mocked... I could go on and on. Oh yeah, and one of the
greatest of all poets. Rape of the Lock, Eloise to Abelard, The
Dunciad, the Homer translations. There was nothing he couldn't do.
> But satire is a moral genre seeking a reformation
> among its listeners/viewers/readers. Maybe Altman
> represents a new iteration of satire, but I do not
> sense the reformist impulse in Altman.
Yes and no. Satire - and this is a very, very important point to
grasp - is an ESTHETIC form whose primary esthetic virtues are
exuberant invention, grotesque imagery, verbal wit and so on. It
always says it's aiming at moral reform, but to different degrees,
depending on the artist, that's just a pretext, and one that can be
openly dumped. Mad Magazine was brilliant satire back in the day - I
mean back in the days of Kurtzman and the comic strip format - but
it didn't seek to reform anything. Take Joe Dante's most satirical
film, the Second Civoil War: It's a fecund, exuberant satirical mind
at work, but not one seeking reform. It's rather like Mad, in fact -
explicitly: a Jack Davis page full of tiny cartoon figures come to
life.
There are two kinds of satirist figure inserted into literary satire:
the high-norm satirist, who appeals to some ideal, perhaps in the
past, and the low-norm satirist, who is just full of bile and having
a wonderful time venting it. Often the latter will portray himself as
a malcontent, someone railing at what he can't have. The Underground
Man is a version of that figure - he certainly isn't trying to reform
anything.
The other thing I have said before, always citing Frye, is that we
live in an epoch whose literary center of gravity is satire, which
has had inevitable effects on film, a nineteenth century invention
whose foremost practitioners are Romantics. (But Byron was a
Romantic, and his favorite poet - whom he emulates in Don Juan - was
Alexander Pope.) That's why it's so important to understand the
tradition!
25826
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:21pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> hl666 writes:
>
>> > does anyone even remember the name of the Marquis
I don't know about "anyone" but if you're a French (as opposed
to American) cinephile, chances are you remember his name: Robert de
La Chesnaye. Truffaut used variations on it (Lachenay)to sign some
articles and gave the name to the jean Desailly character in LA PEAU
DOUCE. JPC
>
> > 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 LA REGLE is about ensemble acting rather than star
actings. And anyway it's rather rare to see an article written about
one character. But I could write an article about Dalio and his
signature way of shrugging his shoulders. JPC
>
> Because he is forgotten.
By whom? Not by me. Not by lots of cinephiles I know.
But I bet even average filmgoers
> know the names Margo Channing and Eve Harrington.
What's an average filmgoer? I'm pretty sure the average French
filmgoer today has no idea who Margo Channing or Eve Harrington are.
They
> meet Margos and Eves everyday while running into a marquis
> is a rare occurrence.
Running into Margo Channing is an even rarer occurence, I would
think.
It would be easy to write an article
> about either Eve or Margo in my opinion.
But has such an article been written?
>
>
25827
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:23pm
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (Was: Looking Down) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
>
> > Let me back off a little from my own statement. There are two
> > director figures in Nashville - Opal and Triplett.
>
> But surely the real director figure in NASHVILLE is Jeff Goldblum's
> motorcyclist - the guy who rides around observing everyone else
with
> amusement.
>
> There are similar director figures in A WEDDING (the violinist),
> HEALTH (the mime troup) and BUFFALO BILL AND THE INDIANS (Burt
> Lancaster's character).
I agree that those are traditional artist figures, but they are also
not very interesting (except for Lancaster - I love that film, by the
way). Triplett and Opal are really the two formal principles that
define Altman's work: the urge for the big statement, the gibbering
termite. They reappear in Port a preter, but the Triplett dies
halfway through.
25828
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:23pm
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (Was: Looking Down) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
PRET A PORTER! (blush)
25829
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:24pm
Subject: Re: Kiss Me Deadly (was: Contempt) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> Kiss Me Deadly is dark satuire - and quite exuberant, a quality that
> much satire also has: energy, exuberance. It's a world so grotesque
> that the only possible hero is Hammer. But the satiric exuberance
makes
> it an exhilarating experience.
Bill, I must have a different definition of "satire" because I fail
to see how "KISS ME DEADLY" is a satire. Satire of what?
25830
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:27pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
I could write an article about Dalio and his
> signature way of shrugging his shoulders. JPC
Exactly, but not about the Marquis, who is swallowed up by the actor
playing him.
25831
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:29pm
Subject: Re: Kiss Me Deadly (was: Contempt) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
Bill, I must have a different definition of "satire" because I fail
> to see how "KISS ME DEADLY" is a satire. Satire of what?
Of America in the 50s. You seem to be using a definition of satire that
would apply to a broadside, but not to Petronius's Satyricon or to
Timon of Athens.
25832
From: MG4273@...
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:35pm
Subject: Re: Fleischer, Tora! Tora! Tora! and his film noir nzkpzq
Fleischer directed the American segments of Tora! Tora! Tora! (1970). This
film depicts the events leading up to Pearl Harbor, and is set in 1941. Elements
in the film recall Fleischer's early films of the 1940's. It is in
semi-documentary style, and focuses on members of government institutions, as in
Fleischer's film noir. Just as Follow Me Quietly showed police and press
headquarters, so is this film frequently set in offices. The furniture and decor resembles
that earlier film, with lots of long tables, old fashioned desks, wooden
seats, and other accouterments of 1940's style offices. The offices tend to have
long, horizontal windows made up of repeated square panes; these recall the
windows in the police and press rooms in that film. We also see the Operation
Magic code room and machinery: these recall the police lab in Armored Car
Robbery. Just as the finale of Robbery is set at an airport, with other scenes at the
docks, and The Narrow Margin is on a train, so are there many settings of
airfields and ships in Tora! Tora! Tora!. It is full of the location footage
found in Fleischer's film noir era crime films.
25833
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:40pm
Subject: Re: Kiss Me Deadly (was: Contempt) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> Bill, I must have a different definition of "satire" because I fail
> > to see how "KISS ME DEADLY" is a satire. Satire of what?
>
> Of America in the 50s. You seem to be using a definition of satire
that
> would apply to a broadside, but not to Petronius's Satyricon or to
> Timon of Athens.
I don't buy that. Or maybe every single American film made in the
fifties is a satire of America in the 50s. Guess I'll have to brush up
my Shakeaspeare and re-read "Timon of Athens" (I do remember it has
this great opening: "How goes the world?" -- "It wears as it grows...")
25834
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 10:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> It would be easy to write an article
> > about either Eve or Margo in my opinion.
>
> But has such an article been written?
> >
I'm planning an article about today's most significant
Eve-who-thinks-she's-a-Margot
Judy Miller
If she loses her case to the Supremes (it's very
likely they'll pass) then her lying, scuzzy ass is
headed for the slammer
at which point I'll survey the bloody steaming wreck
she's helped to engineer in the middle east.
And my mode for doing so will of course be with
dignity -- always dignity!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25835
From: MG4273@...
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 6:45pm
Subject: I (Heart) Fritz Lang nzkpzq
Can I offer a different point of view on Fritz Lang than the descriptions of
his films in today's posts?
Lang treated his characters with tremendous warmth. The people in "Ministry
of Fear" or "The Blue Gardenia" have his full sympathy and affection.
And these people do not stand idly by while "fate" runs roughshod over them.
Instead, they struggle and struggle to set things right. And often succeed in
the end.
The whole idea of "fate" in Lang has been oversold by critics.
Typically, what the characters are struggling against is not some impersonal,
mystical fate, but real social evils: lynch mobs, civic corruption, Nazis,
atomic weapons, war's effect on civilan populations, rape. Both the characters
in the films, and the audience, are urged by Lang to fight these evils with all
their heart.
Mike Grost
25836
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:04pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) noelbotevera
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> --- BklynMagus wrote:
> > Pardon? But surely "All About Eve" is the greatest
> > movie
> > ever made (to be more provacative).
>
> But surely "Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train" is
> the greatest movie ever made (to be more ME).
>
Y'both are wrong. It's Mario O'Hara's "Tatlong Taong Walang Diyos"
(Three Years Without God, 1976)--the rare film from a country that had
been occupied by the Japanese that actually sees wartime Japanese in a
human, if not actually sympathetic, light. Talking empathy as opposed
to contempt, it has that in spades.
25837
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:05pm
Subject: Re: Kiss Me Deadly (was: Contempt) thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>Guess I'll have to brush up
> my Shakeaspeare and re-read "Timon of Athens" (I do remember it has
> this great opening: "How goes the world?" -- "It wears as it
grows...")
Abel Ferrara wanted to stage an updated version of this one in
Central Park. Timon would have been a drug dealer, and the action
would have taken place in a crack house. Christopher Walken was going
to play Timon.
25838
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:17pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>> > >
>
> I'm planning an article about today's most significant
> Eve-who-thinks-she's-a-Margot
>
> Judy Miller
>
> If she loses her case to the Supremes (it's very
> likely they'll pass) then her lying, scuzzy ass is
> headed for the slammer
>
> at which point I'll survey the bloody steaming wreck
> she's helped to engineer in the middle east.
>
> And my mode for doing so will of course be with
> dignity -- always dignity!
>
> But who's Judy's Margo?
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
25839
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 11:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> > But who's Judy's Margo?
> >
Chalabi of course.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25840
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Thu Apr 21, 2005 8:20pm
Subject: Re: Altman/Thanx Brad scil1973
In a message dated 4/21/05 2:33:49 PM, samadams@... writes:
> NASHVILLE, which I think is one of the few films of his that actually
> shows contempt -- not for the people, but for the music: I've never heard
> such a load of
> godawful junk in my life.
>
Amen! I'm glad you've said this, Sam, because I've always felt a little
apprehensive sharing my distaste for NASHVILLE, it being so revered and all. It's
comforting to know that someone else finds the film significantly damaged by
the music. And it's what made the relatively recent A TRIBUTE TO NASHVILLE CD
such a downer. Only so much you can do with crappy music.
Lefty Frizzell died in Nashville in 1975. I think NASHVILLE had something to
do with it.
And thanx to my man Brad Stevens who unwittingly voiced my opinions re: the
contempt debate.
Kisses,
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25841
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 0:24am
Subject: Re: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) evillights
On Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 06:21 PM, jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> I don't know about "anyone" but if you're a French (as opposed
> to American) cinephile, chances are you remember his name: Robert de
> La Chesnaye. Truffaut used variations on it (Lachenay)to sign some
> articles and gave the name to the jean Desailly character in LA PEAU
> DOUCE. JPC
Truffaut was no doubt delighted by his auspicious fortune after finally
seeing 'La Règle du jeu' only to realize the Marquis's name homonymized
with that of his own best friend -- Robert Lachenay. I tend to think
Dalio's character's name was never far in the back of his mind when he
applied the pseudonym to some of his essays, or baptized Desailly's
role, but the super-rosa hommage was almost certainly to Lachenay his
childhood (and adult) friend.
Having grown up at the base of Montage Mountain, I remain as ever --
craig keller.
25842
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 0:34am
Subject: Re: I (Heart) Fritz Lang lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Can I offer a different point of view on Fritz Lang than the
descriptions of
> his films in today's posts?
> Lang treated his characters with tremendous warmth. The people
in "Ministry
> of Fear" or "The Blue Gardenia" have his full sympathy and affection.
> And these people do not stand idly by while "fate" runs roughshod
over them.
> Instead, they struggle and struggle to set things right. And often
succeed in
> the end.
> The whole idea of "fate" in Lang has been oversold by critics.
In his last years, I saw Lang in person with a screening of "Man Hunt."
He carefully articulated the view of "fate" which he had come to over
the years, and looked very thoughtful as he talked about it--it meant
a lot to him. He said that in his early German films and in his first
American films, he had believed in fate in the deterministic sense
that there was nothing we could do to overcome it, even as we
struggled against it. But he said that his view of it then evolved
during this period and he came to believe that character is fate, and
that this is reflected in all of the films to come later. Of course,
this question of whether we have control over fate goes back to the
Greeks and animated their works--did man have control, or was it the
Gods? As with Lang, one can study those works and argue either way.
It was interesting to hear how Lang's view changed, and I do believe
it shows in his films, fully evolved by "Rancho Notorious" and "Clash
by Night" and heading in that direction even before. The notion
of "fate" continues in his films to the end, but it is now a concept
used to counterpoint the actual will of the characters within Lang's
formal designs. All of this partly bares out what Mike says, and I
would add that approaching narratives in a dispassionate manner, as
Lang would continue to do, does not preclude a deeply compassionate
attitude to human beings--which in films means characters struggling
to deal with the challenges they face. The last Lang films I watched
were "The Big Heat" and "Human Desire" (on a double bill). You'll
never persuade me Lang is cold-hearted or just doesn't care.
Blake
25843
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 0:42am
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> If she loses her case to the Supremes (it's very
> likely they'll pass) then her lying, scuzzy ass is
> headed for the slammer
>
> at which point I'll survey the bloody steaming wreck
> she's helped to engineer in the middle east.
On the one hand, I don't want journalists in jail for not naming
sources. Bad practice or good, it's a question of journalistic ethics.
Judges shoudln't be able to do that.
On the other hand I'd love to see whoever blew Valerie Playme's cover
indicted. But will Miller help with that?
>
25844
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 0:46am
Subject: Re: Re: Altman evillights
On Thursday, April 21, 2005, at 08:20 PM, LiLiPUT1@... wrote:
>> NASHVILLE, which I think is one of the few films of his that actually
>> shows contempt -- not for the people, but for the music: I've never
>> heard
>> such a load of
>> godawful junk in my life.
>>
> Amen! I'm glad you've said this, Sam, because I've always felt a little
> apprehensive sharing my distaste for NASHVILLE, it being so revered
> and all. It's
> comforting to know that someone else finds the film significantly
> damaged by
> the music. And it's what made the relatively recent A TRIBUTE TO
> NASHVILLE CD
> such a downer. Only so much you can do with crappy music.
For the most part, I agree with the assessment of the music in the film
-- but I don't think the performances are at any point anything other
than documentary with regard to the selections one could hear spending
an evening at the Grand Ole Opry in the mid-'70s -- or, going back to
my own childhood recollections, the televised Barbara Mandrell variety
hour. Not to mention the various vaudevilles and dinner-theaters of
Branson, Missouri circa 2005.
But there is at least one genuinely tremendous performance in
'Nashville,' judged on any terms -- Christina Raines's song in the club
during her group's reunion, coming on the heels of the realization that
she's been thrown aside by Carradine. It's really quite moving.
craig.
25845
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 0:56am
Subject: Re: I (Heart) Fritz Lang hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
> The last Lang films I watched
> were "The Big Heat" and "Human Desire" (on a double bill). You'll
> never persuade me Lang is cold-hearted or just doesn't care.
>
> Blake
Not a problem. The issue is, what is his world-view, not does he like
his characters.
To sum up: Renoir is not an idiot for empathizing with his characters,
and neither are we. The one script I wrote, I fell in love w. all the
characters. (To my surprise, people who read it found them to be
monsters.) This is very natural. All writers do it, and I'm sure all
directors do too.
But these folks don't exist, so there's nothing wrong with a director
showing contempt for them, or subjecting them to all sorts of grim
experiences and outcomes. Unless someone can tell me an esthetic reason
for that being a bad thing, conducive to bad or third-rate art, or
whatever. Because every time I hear that judgment, I hear a moral
judgment, and that doesn't apply to how one treats beings made of light
and shadow.
By the way, Human Desire is one of my favorite Langs. But I like some
odd Langs: Beyond a Reasonable Doubt, While the City Sleeps, Secret
Beyond the Door, M and the Indian diptych would be my other five. The
degree of Lang's warmth toward the characters is not in play in those
choices. I'm sure he likes Dietrich and Kennedy more than all the
characters in those films put together, but that has little to do with
the price of eggs as far as I can see.
And I LIKE people. I'm what you might call a people MAN, Jack...
25846
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:04am
Subject: Re: Altman hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
>
> For the most part, I agree with the assessment of the music in the
film
> -- but I don't think the performances are at any point anything other
> than documentary with regard to the selections one could hear
spending
> an evening at the Grand Ole Opry in the mid-'70s
I'm not much of a country music fan, and I don't think Nashville is
about Nashville anyway - the referent (I'm trying to use that 70s term
precisely) is Hollywood, and more specifically the RFK assassination,
which H'wd cinema repressed or treated metaphorically, with one or two
notable exceptions. Anyway, Nashville has always had its detractors and
defenders and always will. I had an interesting experience seeing it
uptown and downtown, in the Village. The uptowners laughed
condescendingly; the downtowners - mostly stoned - laughed and had a
good time. I think it's a great film.
Watching The Long Goodbye again recently I found that its facile stance
as high-norm satire hasn't aged well. Altman's better just grooving on
human idiocy. But California Split will always have a special place in
my heart.
25847
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:20am
Subject: Re: Altman jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>
> I'm not much of a country music fan, and I don't think Nashville
is
> about Nashville anyway
I agree that it's not about Nashville and not about country
music. But as far as the musical contents I couldn't say, because I
can't tell the difference between good and bad country music. Even
if it's bad as Kevin claims, it doesn't really damage the film (then
Kevin could retort that I recently put down "Lady Sings the Blues"
for its distortion of Holiday's music. Oh well...) - the referent
(I'm trying to use that 70s term
> precisely) is Hollywood, and more specifically the RFK
assassination,
> which H'wd cinema repressed or treated metaphorically, with one or
two
> notable exceptions. Anyway, Nashville has always had its
detractors and
> defenders and always will. I had an interesting experience seeing
it
> uptown and downtown, in the Village. The uptowners laughed
> condescendingly; the downtowners - mostly stoned - laughed and had
a
> good time. I think it's a great film.
>
But what does that mean? I lived uptown (Bw & 116th) for twenty
years and I spent most of my time downtown (Village).
> Watching The Long Goodbye again recently I found that its facile
stance
> as high-norm satire hasn't aged well. Altman's better just
grooving on
> human idiocy. But California Split will always have a special
place in
> my heart.
There you go again with the "satire" thing, Bill. What's "high-norm
satire" anyway? I'm sorry if I keep asking for definitions but some
of the language here just baffles me. I just watched the film again
too (it was on Sundance Channel last week) and it's very funny and
visually gorgeous, although I would say that it really has to be
seen on a big screen to be appreciated. I think it has aged pretty
well, and I still love that opening sequence with the cat food. JPC
25848
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:16am
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera" wrote:
> Y'both are wrong. It's Mario O'Hara's "Tatlong Taong Walang Diyos"
> (Three Years Without God, 1976)--the rare film from a country that had
> been occupied by the Japanese that actually sees wartime Japanese in a
> human, if not actually sympathetic, light. Talking empathy as opposed
> to contempt, it has that in spades.
Unavailable in any home video format, I presume.
Hou Hsiao Hsien's handling of the Japanese in films set during the era
they occupied Japan is pretty balanced, too.
25849
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:28am
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"...Satire - and this is a very, very important point to
grasp - is an ESTHETIC form whose primary esthetic virtues are
exuberant invention, grotesque imagery, verbal wit and so on. It
always says it's aiming at moral reform, but to different degrees,
depending on the artist, that's just a pretext, and one that can be
openly dumped...
"The other thing I have said before, always citing Frye, is that we
live in an epoch whose literary center of gravity is satire, which
has had inevitable effects on film, a nineteenth century invention
whose foremost practitioners are Romantics. (But Byron was a
Romantic, and his favorite poet - whom he emulates in Don Juan - was
Alexander Pope.) That's why it's so important to understand the
tradition!"
The last and greatest of the Roman Satirists, Juvenal, tells us the
material of humor: "Whatever people do, their hopes, their fears,
their anger, their passions, their pleasures, and their
business—they
are the hotch-potch of my book." Dryden says that "Juvenal
always intends to move your indignation, and he always brings about
his purpose." But Juvenal's excessive declamation and
hyperbole
cause one to doubt first his facts and then his sincerity. Rather one
is moved, as with Milton and Dante, by his occasional touches of pity:
There is nothing more pitiful about unlucky poverty than this—
It makes people laughably contemptible
One more famous saying brings out the necessity for an unsentimental
pity even in satire:
He who secretly within himself meditates a crime
Has already the reproach of the deed
Chaucer was influenced by Juvenal through Boethius and Jean de Meung
and says toward the end of The Wife of Bath's Tale:
Juvenal sayeth of poverty merrily,
"The poor man he goeth by the way,
Before thieves he may sing and play."
Juvenal's "Satires" is one of those books Lamb called
"Great Nature's
Stereotypes." The usual distinction between satire and other
forms
of humor is that one laughs "at" in satire and "with" in comedy. You
find this in "The Canterbury Tales," "A Midsummer
Night's
Dream," "Tom Jones," "The Pickwick Papers."
Preston Sturges shares
this kind of humor. Here there's no scorn, malice, hatred, no
(pretended) desire to reform the world, no despair of human nature.
The danger of satire is that of falling into cruelty; humor, as
distinct from satire, tends to become sentimental. It's in the
balance between the two that the best Euro-American humor-satire
exists IMO.
Richard
25850
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:11am
Subject: Contempt rashomon82
I really like what Adrian posted earlier in defense of non-3D
characters. As far as that goes, I agree with and endorse his
post. We needn't have three-dimensional characters with distinct
and tenderly sculpted psyches every time out.
Still. One could argue--in various ways I think some people here
HAVE been arguing--that the issue vis-a-vis a filmmaker's contempt
for characters is really not about the characters at all, but about
the viewers. Are we meant to get pleasure from "looking down at"
or "laughing at" the bottom-feeding characters of Lang or Sirk? Are
the oddballs in THE PALM BEACH STORY there for our derisive pleasure
only? I think great narrative cinema tends to develop nuance in
relation to its characters--which doesn't always mean great
characterization like Adrian's 3-D "real person," but does usually
mean a sophisticated or interesting connection between the pathways
and intellectual/emotional ranges a filmmaker is 'guiding' a viewer
into. And that's what great filmmakers who do indeed look down at
characters or obviate their foibles, cruelty, or stupidity do (some
examples imo: Sirk, Sturges, Lang, Tati). This is to say, being
critical or looking down at characters is part of a larger and
complex system.
There are other filmmakers whose work doesn't seem to work along
these lines. In cases like these I think that we're being
encouraged to look down for the sake of corralling our reactions or
opinions into a single pre-formed sequence which is often just a
throwaway element (i.e., "look, these characters are stupid, now
let's move on") or a massively inflated message (i.e., "Dogville
rejected Grace!"). So the "moral" issue of contempt/compassion is
ultimately conflated with the issue of artistry. All this involves
one's subjective reactions, of course, but we're never reacting
to "nothing"--our goal as cinephiles, critics, and writers is to
latch on to the identifiable, the mutual, the quantifiable, the
visible--and to find a common ground in describing our differences
which are not so tangible and transparent. I'm sure many will
disagree, but for the sake of personal illustration, to me
filmmakers of this second and less complex kind include Lars Von
Trier, Sam Mendes, and Terry Gilliam.
Breillat (whom I like a lot) and Leigh (whom I like a little) fall
into the former category, to me, because their characters are part
of aesthetic/narrative/thematic systems which engender complexity.
But none of these are clear-cut issues, really. There's a certain
complexity to Terry Gilliam's work that one could conceivably argue,
contra me, extends to the realm of characterization. So, really, we
have to be willing to play loose with our opinions, to allow for new
reactions to replace older ones, to always abandon a quickly-formed
initial stance in favor of a more sophisticated (if not always
nicer!) one when it comes to the filmmakers we charge with that
word, contempt.
And so I don't think it's sufficient to say that the Coens make
films the way they do to be acceptably postmodernist, as Brad
asserts. (After all, what benefits do the Coens get for being in
this vaunted club? And who proved that care, compassion, and
emotion are alien things within postmodernist art?) And Bill is
onto something by insisting that the Coens are satirists--but the
question of 'cinema and the other (the world)' must be raised. What
things are they precisely satirizing, and WHY? Saying it's satire
doesn't--shouldn't--shield it from criticism, it only sets the
critical boundaries. No?
--Zach
25851
From: "Saul"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:52am
Subject: director's cuts........................................ asitdid
Online Now Send IM
the director's cut of "picnic at hanging rock" was on tv here last
nite -- a rather fascinating example of dir cut's, becuase it must be
one of the few dir cut's where the director has actually SHORTENED the
film, rather than lengething it, (if anyone here can think of other
eg's i'd love to hear them). i remember when dir cut's where all the
rage about 5-10 years ago -- some like that for "37°2 le matin" added
a lot to the movie, others where just a case of dir's not having any
self-control
one reason they're so fascinating is that they dispel the myth of any
possible DEFINITIVE version of a film -- rather many versions, all
with different meanings -- now director's don't even need to have shot
the footage when they made the original to make a director's cut, as
the various 'special editions' for the original STAR WARS trilogy have
proven: Lucas has used digital technologies to rape and pillage his
original vision, re-writing history as he goes, muc like the commies
did with photos -- e.g.:now that Jango Fett has a New Zealand accent
and Boba is a clone, Lucas re-dubbed all Boba's lines in Ep's4-6 with
the same actor as Jango -- now that Hayden Christensen is Anakin,
Sebastian Shaw has been removed from the final image of him returning
as an apparition in Ep6 and replaced with an image of H.C. as that
apparition -- basically making the later confere with the former and
ruining them in the process...
Which brings me to the real reason i wrote this post in the first
place: I wanted to know who out there, (in here i mean), has seen the
dir cut of "until the end of the world" (possibly Wenders' best
film)(why is it foreign dir's are so good at cinematically
representing the aussie landscape - herzog, wenders, kotcheff [NOT
roeg] - while homegrown ones often can't??). The dir cut is 4hr 40min
as oppposed to the 2hr 40min regular version. it is easily avaiable
(though I wouldn't take the ebay route) from an Italian distributor --
meaning that the non-english segments aren't subtitled -- so I wanted
to know what this was like, before getting it, or having it sent for
free, but committing myself to reviewing it??
25852
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:29am
Subject: Re: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> On the one hand, I don't want journalists in jail
> for not naming
> sources. Bad practice or good, it's a question of
> journalistic ethics.
> Judges shoudln't be able to do that.
>
I am entirely opposed to unnamed sourcing in
journalism WITHOUT EXCEPTION!
http://www.laweekly.com/ink/04/22/features-ehrenstein.php
Judy Miller is not a journalist. She's severa;l rungs
below Tony Curtis in "Sweet Smell of Success."
He, at least, was an honest whore.
> On the other hand I'd love to see whoever blew
> Valerie Playme's cover
> indicted. But will Miller help with that?
> >
The Plame case is the opener to a much larger can that
Fitzgerald has his eye on.
It's obvious that Novak has already "sung."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25853
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:34am
Subject: Re: Contempt cellar47
--- Zach Campbell wrote:
> There's a certain
> complexity to Terry Gilliam's work that one could
> conceivably argue,
> contra me, extends to the realm of characterization.
Definitely. Especially in "The Adventures of baron
Munchausen" -- a heartfelt plea for the primacy of the
imagination.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25854
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:02am
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) noelbotevera
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
> > Y'both are wrong. It's Mario O'Hara's "Tatlong Taong Walang
Diyos"
> > (Three Years Without God, 1976)--the rare film from a country
that had
> > been occupied by the Japanese that actually sees wartime
Japanese in a
> > human, if not actually sympathetic, light. Talking empathy as
opposed
> > to contempt, it has that in spades.
>
> Unavailable in any home video format, I presume.
>
> Hou Hsiao Hsien's handling of the Japanese in films set during the
era
> they occupied Japan is pretty balanced, too.
Taiwan's relationship with Japan is pretty complex, if I remember my
history right. It wasn't strictly 'occupier,' and 'occupied,' and
for a period of time Taiwan was a Japanese colony.
25855
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:45am
Subject: Re: Altman hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
You have to have grown up in the country to have as little interest
in country music as I have.
>
> There you go again with the "satire" thing, Bill. What's "high-
norm
> satire" anyway?
High-norm satire appeals to the good old days or some equivalent as a
standard to scourge the present - Horace, The Long Goodbye. Low-norm
is uttered by a malcontent who has no standard to appeal to - he may
even be railing at what he can't have.
Definition of "uptown" - a Rugoff theatre on Third Avenue with an
espresso machine in the lobby and an upper middle-class crowd that
came to laugh at the dumb Southerners.
Definition of "downtown" - the Bleecker Street on a Saturday night in
the Seventies, with a crowd of stoners grooving on the little fillips
and complexities of the soundtrack, editing, performances for their
own sake.
25856
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:49am
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> The danger of satire is that of falling into cruelty; humor, as
> distinct from satire, tends to become sentimental. It's in the
> balance between the two that the best Euro-American humor-satire
> exists IMO.
>
> Richard
Wow! But where's the balance between satire and humor in Fellini
Satyricon? To me that is the quintessence of the esthetic of satire. It
doesn't seek to correct - unless you're Stanley Kaufmann - and it is so
inhuman as to be completely strange to our eyes. But it's incredibly
beautiful.
25857
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:04am
Subject: Re: Contempt hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
>
> Bill is
> onto something by insisting that the Coens are satirists--but the
> question of 'cinema and the other (the world)' must be raised.
What
> things are they precisely satirizing, and WHY? Saying it's satire
> doesn't--shouldn't--shield it from criticism, it only sets the
> critical boundaries. No?
>
> --Zach
Yes! OK, in The Ladykillers they are satirizing the South - even Ms.
Munson gets her share of pie in the face for giving that money to Bob
Jones University. And the robbers are used to satirize outsiders who
are politically clueless about what's happening in the Red states.
In Intolerable Crulety, if that's the right title, they are
satirizing the divorce industry in Beverly Hills, the legal
profession and rich fools who marry young beauties who nail their
asses for big settlements. It's very Sturgesian, because for one
thing the two leads do eventually find love anyway - after the very
idea has been satirized twenty different ways. I don't think the
Coens in their own writing are usually that overt about the targets
of their satire, but they do it very well here.
And I would still hold out for the right of the Coens or Fellini or
anyone else to make satire out of sheer esthetic exuberance,
with "moral correction" a vestigial organ. For me that's what O
Brother where Art Thou is - I don't think they're going after the
South in that one. They're just using it for a satiric tapestry. The
Big Lebowski is another case of that.
The idea that characters (or bodies, or babies) are interchangeable
like money or goods runs through Blood Simple, Raising Arizona, The
Hudsucker Proxy, Miller's Crossing and Barton Fink, but it is pretty
much an enigmatic formal device until Fargo, when the satirical
meaning becomes quite clear.
25858
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:06am
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> The Plame case is the opener to a much larger can that
> Fitzgerald has his eye on.
>
> It's obvious that Novak has already "sung."
One does wonder why he's still walking around loose. But I've almost
lost the ability to hope.
25859
From: "Fred Patton"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:06am
Subject: Re: Remorques (Was: Centinela, Alerta!) fred_patton
Thanks for the heads up, Dan. Unfortunately, I live in San Jose. On a
positive note, I've been enjoying the DVD, and my raised expectations
didn't disappoint. A striking aspect of REMORQUES is that it coheres
without the intelligibility of its dialogue. Many films go for
minimal dialogue "these" days, but are much less clear than this
exuberant talkie would be without dialogue. This isn't a criticism--I
actually gravitate to a lot of those types of films. It's just an
added bonus that the dialogue here adds to all the layering.
RESMORQUES is high on visual expressiveness. It is something to watch
the all-around choreography—-so much human and inanimate motion
stitched by rhythmic edits typically at the point just before motion--
an innocuous turn, a reach, a drop—-but always so unobtrusively
natural. I find it to be visual music. All types of sound are
orchestrated in a musicality in concert with the visual rhythms.
It's so busy in its sound design and visual activity, but then there
are those tranquil moments that provide a premonitory edginess.
In light of the recent discussions of silent film and music, and
often being annoyed by the use of soundtrack in sound films, I found
the extensive use of soundtrack here, whether musicalized noise,
conventional score or both at the same time, to really inject an
added dimension, never redundant or ham-fisted, but always
harmonious. Occasionally it's ironical—-not by means of playing
something at odds with the moment, but evoking something latent, such
as the nuanced heaviness simmering within Catherine's depths as she
handles the starfish.
One could say, I guess, that the use of musical and thematic
foreshadowing conjures fatalism. And one could say that any piece of
soundtrack tells someone what to feel, no matter how aggressively or
neutral—-as if the visual didn't. What is interesting is how all
these elements are assembled, how they illuminate aspects of each
other. The very choices of what supporting cast appear in a
particular scene and the very instant that they are made visible,
speaks to the compositional ingenuity. A means of sparing the
supporting cast from device status is that there are typically two
contrary facets to their being working from different poles,
maintaining the provisional character of context. No more contrived
than creativity itself. If only I could get to New York for the
silver screening!
Fred Patton (writing dangerously out of the rapturous immediacy of a
third viewing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I can't remember where you live, but REMORQUES will be showing at
NYC's
> French Institute on May 31. - Dan
25860
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:16am
Subject: Re: Remorques (Was: Centinela, Alerta!) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Patton"
wrote:
>
> Fred Patton (writing dangerously out of the rapturous immediacy of a
> third viewing)
It has been said (by Bernard Bolan) that in Gremillon the image itself
becomes metaphorical. Who needs dialogue?
25861
From: samadams@...
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:51am
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1360 arglebargle31
I believe the reissued BLOOD SIMPLE is shorter
even after the addition of the into by a bogus
academic (whose Coen-scripted commentary is a
satirical masterstroke).
I believe an English-subtitled UNTIL THE END...
is available from www.diabolikdvd.com among other
places. Knock yourself out.
Sam
>
> Date: Fri, 22 Apr 2005 04:52:46 -0000
> From: "Saul"
>Subject: director's cuts........................................
>
>
>the director's cut of "picnic at hanging rock" was on tv here last
>nite -- a rather fascinating example of dir cut's, becuase it must be
>one of the few dir cut's where the director has actually SHORTENED the
>film, rather than lengething it, (if anyone here can think of other
>eg's i'd love to hear them). i remember when dir cut's where all the
>rage about 5-10 years ago -- some like that for "37°2 le matin" added
>a lot to the movie, others where just a case of dir's not having any
>self-control
25862
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:10am
Subject: Re: Sidney J. Furie joka13us
>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".
>JPC
THE HAPPY TIME (1953), with Charles Boyer, Louis Jourdan and Linda
Christian, is a wise and lovely film.
--
- Joe Kaufman
25863
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:11am
Subject: Re: I (Heart) Fritz Lang lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>>
> Not a problem. The issue is, what is his world-view, not does he
like
> his characters.
>
My post to which you responded was primarily concerned with his
world view, in relation to the fate v. free wall quandry which goes
back to the Greeks, and how Lang's attitude to it evolved in the way
I said. What I didn't say, and which is at least as interesting,
is that as Lang evolves more toward the "character is fate" belief
as opposed to the "trapped by fate" belief, his style becomes more
pared down, the expressionist trappings falling away so that the
form of the films is guided by a highly disciplined appreciation of
what will be most significant in the image, though these are as
formally organized as ever. I find this enticing and worth
exploring in Lang studies. I want to get back to it later, but the
previous was mainly information. As for Lang's affection for his
characters, Mike simply asserted this as contrary to the common
view, including what has been expressed here in a number of posts,
and I support that it is true, as surely as "fate" has been hung
around Lang's neck as a facile generalization. But it isn't a value
judgement to say he cares about his characters or has affection for
them, even if it does play into the ambiance and feeling of films
which are realized with a dispassionate formal intelligence. A good
way to look at mature Lang is to think of a chuck-a-luck wheel
as "fate"--and then to observe that in Rancho Notorious the wheel
does NOT determine the fate of the characters, because Frenchy
manipulates it in that key scene. And as for the characters and how
we or Lang feel about them, the same film has one of the most
beautiful images in cinema for me--the three principals together in
that room as Altar dies, having taken a bullet for Frenchy. All
three know that they themselves, each of them, and not "Fate" has
brought them to this moment. It's in their eyes, their looks, their
postures--none now blames the others, nor some abstract notion of
destiny. They understand that this is the real nature of things.
Lang certainly doesn't cry over them in this moment, but I do feel
he shows a lot of heart here in his way. And no moral judgement,
nor do I feel one nor should anyone. But more than that, the truth
Lang reveals in this sudden harmony is quite penetrating.
Blake Lucas
25864
From: "Saul"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:15am
Subject: Re: Digest Number 1360 asitdid
Online Now Send IM
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
> I believe an English-subtitled UNTIL THE END...
> is available from www.diabolikdvd.com among other
> places. Knock yourself out.
>
Thanks. I'll check it out! The version I saw was released by RHV in a
4-disc DVD set. Raro video is one company in Italy releasing many good
older films (almost all with the option of English subs) -- many many
previously unavailable giallo and Euro crime films, but they also
release art house stuff like "El Topo" and "Holy Mountain" of which
they have the Spanish language version of the former, and a widescreen
presentation of the latter, together in a box set. My fav of their
recent releases was "Live Like a Cop, Die Like a Man" - showing
Deodato does crime better than cannibal.
25865
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 0:27pm
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) cinebklyn
hl666 writes:
> My hero.
Mine too. But J. Swift deserves his props as well. He
became a national hero for a nation he despised. A
Protestant Dean who championed rights for Catholics.
> Yes and no. Satire - and this is a very, very important point to
grasp - is an ESTHETIC form whose primary esthetic virtues are
exuberant invention, grotesque imagery, verbal wit and so on.
That is how it has come to be seen in the post-Romantic era. As
Swift himself wrote of his desire for "Gulliver's Travels": it was
composed to "mend the world."
Romanticism put everything on an experiential basis. Experience,
regardless whether it was good or bad, was glorified.
> It always says it's aiming at moral reform, but to different degrees,
depending on the artist, that's just a pretext, and one that can be
openly dumped.
Such is the pernicious heritage of Romanticism. Satire was now
to be appreciated solely for its aesthtic effect on the viewer/reader.
> Take Joe Dante's most satirical film, the Second Civil War:
It's a fecund, exuberant satirical mind at work, but not one
seeking reform.
But there is a school of thought that maintains it is not satire
for precisely this reason.
> The other thing I have said before, always citing Frye, is that we
live in an epoch whose literary center of gravity is satire, which
has had inevitable effects on film, a nineteenth century invention
whose foremost practitioners are Romantics.
Agreed.
> That's why it's so important to understand the tradition!
Again agreed. But it is also important to fight its defilement by
Romantic posturing. The Divine Alexander once more:
The bliss of man (could pride that blessing find)
Is not to act or think beyond mankind;
No pow'rs of body or of soul to share,
But what his nature and his state can bear.
Richard writes:
> Preston Sturges shares this kind of humor. Here there's no
scorn, malice, hatred, no (pretended) desire to reform the world,
no despair of human nature.
And precious little of interest except to the sentimental mind that
appreciates the cinematic depiction of "harmless" eccentrics
offered up for its amusement. Of course, if one of these charming
eccentrics is an African-American porter who Sturges portrays
as obsequious, frightened, and bug-eyed -- no problem: just
another American eccentric. I, for one, see plenty of scorn and
malice in this depiction.
Sturges has nothing in common with great artists like Dickens
and Fielding who had a strong and abiding interest in social
critique. Sturges is a genial humorist (and often not so genial).
In the post-Romantic period, it is taken for granted that satire
must be humourous, that it must engender in its audience
laughter or some type of aesthetic pleasure. Such hogwash
is what had caused satire to devolve into mockery, often
well-crafted and laugh-inducing, but mockery nonetheless.
Brian
25866
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 0:38pm
Subject: Re: director's cuts... jess_l_amortell
> one of the few dir cut's where the director has actually SHORTENED the
> film, rather than lengething it, (if anyone here can think of other
> eg's i'd love to hear them).
Anthology in NY on May 29 is showing DARLING LILI in both the 136-minute original and what's billed as the 114-min. director's cut (I note that the imdb lists, instead, a 107-min. director's cut). I have no idea which version I saw back when (the credits in Stuart Byron's 1970 On Film article say 136 mins.) or, given this unusual opportunity, which screening to choose if only up for one (they're separate admissions from the looks of things)!
http://www.anthologyfilmarchives.org/schedule/?start=2005-5-22&end=2005-5-31&submit=Search
25867
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 0:47pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) michaelkerpan
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera" wrote:
> Taiwan's relationship with Japan is pretty complex, if I remember my
> history right. It wasn't strictly 'occupier,' and 'occupied,' and
> for a period of time Taiwan was a Japanese colony.
This is way too sticky a historical issue for a non-expert like me to
tangle with. My sense is that the Japan-Taiwan relationship was
rather similar to the US-Philippine one -- whatever that was
(comnplex and not entirely comfortable,among other things). ;~}
Supposedly Japan dealt far less harshly with Taiwan than they did with
other places they "occupied" -- and even offered full citizenship to
the Taiwanese (albeit not until the waning days of WW2).
I assume the answer as to the availability of the O'Hara was "no"?
25868
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sturges Defended (Was: Altman's Surrogates) cellar47
--- Brian Charles Dauth
wrote:
Of course, if one of
> these charming
> eccentrics is an African-American porter who Sturges
> portrays
> as obsequious, frightened, and bug-eyed -- no
> problem: just
> another American eccentric. I, for one, see plenty
> of scorn and
> malice in this depiction.
>
And I for one see no such thing. Speaking as an
African-American one of the my favorite moments in all
of cinema is in "The Palm Beach Story" when Joel
McCrea, trying to track down Claudette Colbert -- who
is now with Rudy Vallee -- questions a railroad porter
(black of course) as to whether she was alone or
travlling with somene. "Well you might say that. he
only tipped me a DIME! She's alone but she don't know
it!"
> Sturges has nothing in common with great artists
> like Dickens
> and Fielding who had a strong and abiding interest
> in social
> critique. Sturges is a genial humorist (and often
> not so genial).
And again I very stongly disagree. "Sullivan's
Travels," "Hail the Conquering hero," and "The Miracle
of Morgan's Creek" are stinging social critiques. The
problem is they don't produce the "moral" solution you
desire.
>
> In the post-Romantic period, it is taken for granted
> that satire
> must be humourous, that it must engender in its
> audience
> laughter or some type of aesthetic pleasure. Such
> hogwash
> is what had caused satire to devolve into mockery,
> often
> well-crafted and laugh-inducing, but mockery
> nonetheless.
>
And such mockery is the province of the Coens -- not
Sturges.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25869
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 1:31pm
Subject: These folks don't exist (Was: I (Heart) Fritz Lang) sallitt1
> But these folks don't exist, so there's nothing wrong with a director
> showing contempt for them, or subjecting them to all sorts of grim
> experiences and outcomes. Unless someone can tell me an esthetic reason
> for that being a bad thing, conducive to bad or third-rate art, or
> whatever. Because every time I hear that judgment, I hear a moral
> judgment, and that doesn't apply to how one treats beings made of light
> and shadow.
I'm still in the position of trying to interpret what you're saying here.
In particular, I'm not sure why it's important to you that these folks
don't exist.
Are you saying something like, "The feeling of contempt for a fictional
being is fundamentally different from the feeling of contempt for a real
person"?
Or are you saying, "It's basically the same feeling of contempt in both
cases, but no one gets hurt in the movie situation, so we get to exercise
these primal feelings and get pleasure from them in a safe arena"?
Or something else? In a way, this sounds like the kind of
pure-form-no-morality argument that Fred has made here before. But
my impression is that that's not really where your head is at. - Dan
25870
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 3:50pm
Subject: Re: director's cuts... lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
>
> > one of the few dir cut's where the director has actually SHORTENED
the
> > film, rather than lengething it, (if anyone here can think of other
> > eg's i'd love to hear them).
>
> Anthology in NY on May 29 is showing DARLING LILI in both the 136-
minute original and what's billed as the 114-min. director's cut (I
note that the imdb lists, instead, a 107-min. director's cut). I have
no idea which version I saw back when (the credits in Stuart Byron's
1970 On Film article say 136 mins.) or, given this unusual
opportunity, which screening to choose if only up for one (they're
separate admissions from the looks of things)!
> http://www.anthologyfilmarchives.org/schedule/?start=2005-5-
22&end=2005-5-31&submit=Search
I would encourage you to choose the 136 minute version, Jess.
I've seen this many times and felt it was Edwards' masterpiece
(or at least one of two with BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S). Finally,
I saw that 114 minute one--and it amazed me that the director himself
would cut so much charm out of the film, until I realized he did this
after he had fallen into his period of complete creative collapse (his
last eleven movies after VICTOR VICTORIA).
Also, the longer version should be original Technicolor, while I
believe that recut is probably not.
Blake
25871
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: director's cuts... cellar47
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
> I saw that 114 minute one--and it amazed me that the
> director himself
> would cut so much charm out of the film, until I
> realized he did this
> after he had fallen into his period of complete
> creative collapse (his
> last eleven movies after VICTOR VICTORIA).
>
I wouldn't write off "That's Life."
See the long cut of "Darling Lili." It's not the
masterpeice it wants to be but it's out there slugging
away and the musical numbers are great.
Then rent "S.O.B." for the story behind the story.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25872
From: BklynMagus
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:09pm
Subject: Re: Sturges Defended (Was: Altman's Surrogates) cinebklyn
David E writes:
> And I for one see no such thing (in Sturges).
As is your right. Different viewers will see different
things.
> And again I very stongly disagree. "Sullivan's
Travels," "Hail the Conquering hero," and "The
Miracle of Morgan's Creek" are stinging social
critiques.
I just don't see it. For me they are genteel comedies
that celebrate Americana while at the same time
poking some good-natured fun at it. Is there any
sustained (or even minor) analysis of chain gangs
and the social, class and ethnic relations that brought
them into existence in "Sullivan's Travels? For me
stinging social critique is the Dickens of "Bleak House"
or the Swift of "Gulliver's Travels."
When the convicts are led into the church-cum-movie
theatre, Sturges might be arguing that comedy has
replaced religion as the opiate of the masses.
Buy then how to read the ending? Is Sullivan a dupe
for believing that entertaining people is a beneficial
pursuit? Is Sullivan himself the object of satire?
Alternatively, is Sturges arguing that the problems are
intractable and the best we can do is try our damnedest
not to be a have-not? (Claudette Colbert in "The Palm
Beach Story"). And if we are lucky enough not to be a
have-not, the least we can do for the unfortunate ones
is entertain them.
This belief that the problems are intractable serves two
purposes: 1) it insulates the haves from any responsibility
for attempting to deal with the problems (and Preston
Sturges was a member of the haves); and 2) it whittles
the cause for poverty down to two: a) in a capitalist-
determined society they are always have-nots and that
is just the way it is; or b) poverty denotes character
defects that prevent those afflicted from partaking in
the prosperity that surrounds them. The concept that
poverty is a socially-engineered phenomenon that can
be ameliorated through social action is never put forward,
since the problem of poverty has been previously labelled
as "intractable."
"Sullivan's Travels" chronicles poverty, but never
analyzes the forces that create and maintain it. Without
the element of analysis, how can it be considered a
critique? If I submitted a review of a film that detailed
what occurred, but never dealt with the auteur's vision
or the way she used filmic elements to express it, would
I be engaging in critique? No. I would merely be
adumbrating what was on screen.
Sturges in "Sullivan's Travels" shows that there is poverty,
and his response is: make 'em laugh. That is not critique,
that is capitalism.
> The problem is they don't produce the "moral"
solution you desire.
The problem is that I do not even see Sturges making
a case that the behaviours he chronicles can or even
should be questioned, never mind changed.
> And such mockery is the province of the Coens -- not
Sturges.
Agreed. I do not think Sturges mocks. But I do think
that Sturges lit the path that leads to the Coens.
Chronicling the issue is enough; analysis and critique
can be safely jettisoned. An example: the Ale and
Quail Club in "The Palm Beach Story" is ripe for critique
of white male privilege. But what does Sturges do? He
has their private car cut loose and left on a sidetrack.
For me, that is emblematic of Sturges' approach: when
he reaches the moment where the next step is active
critique, he derails it.
Brian
25873
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:21pm
Subject: Suzuki trailer evillights
For those who care, here's the link for the trailer of Seijun Suzuki's
new film, 'Operetta Tanuki-goten.' The tagline for the film is:
"Raccoons and humans must not be permitted to fall in love."
http://www.tanuki-goten.com/rp_l.html
craig.
25874
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sturges Defended (Was: Altman's Surrogates) cellar47
--- BklynMagus wrote:
Is there any
> sustained (or even minor) analysis of chain gangs
> and the social, class and ethnic relations that
> brought
> them into existence in "Sullivan's Travels? For me
> stinging social critique is the Dickens of "Bleak
> House"
> or the Swift of "Gulliver's Travels."
>
So he's not Dickens or Swift -- do we shoot him?
He's not the kind of analytical artist you're looking
fro. I refer you to the speech by Sullivan's butler.
> When the convicts are led into the church-cum-movie
> theatre, Sturges might be arguing that comedy has
> replaced religion as the opiate of the masses.
>
But that's not what he's arguing.
> Buy then how to read the ending? Is Sullivan a dupe
> for believing that entertaining people is a
> beneficial
> pursuit?
No.
Is Sullivan himself the object of satire?
>
Yes.
> Alternatively, is Sturges arguing that the problems
> are
> intractable and the best we can do is try our
> damnedest
> not to be a have-not?
No. He's arguing that problems MAY be intractable but
we should do what we can to confront them and not lose
our sense of humor -- which is precisely what Sully
was doing by wanting to direct "O Brother Where Art
Thou?" instead of "Hey hey in the hayloft" and "Ants
in Their Plants of 1941"
And if we are lucky enough not to be
> a
> have-not, the least we can do for the unfortunate
> ones
> is entertain them.
>
Or give a destitute Veronica Lake a job.
>
> "Sullivan's Travels" chronicles poverty, but never
> analyzes the forces that create and maintain it.
> Without
> the element of analysis, how can it be considered a
> critique? If I submitted a review of a film that
> detailed
> what occurred, but never dealt with the auteur's
> vision
> or the way she used filmic elements to express it,
> would
> I be engaging in critique? No. I would merely be
> adumbrating what was on screen.
>
"Thjere's nothing like a deep-dish movie to drive you
out into the open."
An example: the Ale and
> Quail Club in "The Palm Beach Story" is ripe for
> critique
> of white male privilege. But what does Sturges do?
> He
> has their private car cut loose and left on a
> sidetrack.
> For me, that is emblematic of Sturges' approach:
> when
> he reaches the moment where the next step is active
> critique, he derails it.
>
Brian I don't think you quite understand the Ale and
Quail Club. You need some remedial marxism -- as in
Groucho, Harpo and Chico.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25875
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:53pm
Subject: Re: director's cuts... thebradstevens
> I would encourage you to choose the 136 minute version, Jess.
> I've seen this many times and felt it was Edwards' masterpiece
> (or at least one of two with BREAKFAST AT TIFFANY'S). Finally,
> I saw that 114 minute one--and it amazed me that the director
himself
> would cut so much charm out of the film, until I realized he did
this
> after he had fallen into his period of complete creative collapse
(his
> last eleven movies after VICTOR VICTORIA).
Edwards always used to complain that Paramount had ruined DARLING
LILY by cutting out important scenes. Then, when Edwards had the
opportunity to create his director's cut, all he did was remove an
additional 29 minutes!!!! I once compared the two versions side by
side, and was baffled by the reediting. Edwards cut out one musical
number (performed by a group of children) and a memorable seduction
scene (during which Julie Andrews observes that seduction is silly
when you think about it, and Rock Hudson tells her that "you're not
supposed to think about it"). The actual running time of the cut
version is 107 minutes. I believe it was first screened at Cannes in
1992 (Bertrand Tavernier mentions it in his diary for that year,
printed in PROJECTIONS).
25876
From: "Henrik Sylow"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:54pm
Subject: Shoah on TV5 France henrik_sylow
Monday the 25th to Thursday the 28th, French TV5 is showing Shoah,
because of its lenght divided into four segments of aprx 2½ hours
each. Each program begins at 22:30 and runs to 00:30 / 00:55 depending
on the lenght of the segment.
It will be shown in original language with French subtitles.
Henrik
25877
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 4:56pm
Subject: Re: director's cuts... thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> I wouldn't write off "That's Life."
I wouldn't write off any of the late Edwards films: even SON OF THE
PINK PANTHER has a few nice ideas (completely obscured, of course,
when one sees the film via a pan-and-scan video transfer, which is
how I first encountered it). SKIN DEEP, SWITCH, THE MAN WHO LOVED
WOMEN, BLIND DATE and THAT'S LIFE are all masterpieces.
25878
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:00pm
Subject: Re: Sturges Defended (Was: Altman's Surrogates) thebradstevens
Has anyone ever pointed out how much Fellini's 8 1/2 owes to
SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS? Aside from the obvious connections (two films
about 'blocked' filmmakers seeking inspiration for a new film), both
films begin with a 'fantasy' sequence that ends with somebody falling
into water from a great height.
25879
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sturges Defended (Was: Altman's Surrogates) cellar47
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> Has anyone ever pointed out how much Fellini's 8 1/2
> owes to
> SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS? Aside from the obvious
> connections (two films
> about 'blocked' filmmakers seeking inspiration for a
> new film), both
> films begin with a 'fantasy' sequence that ends with
> somebody falling
> into water from a great height.
>
>
Close but no cigar. The sequence in Sturges is from an
actual film that Sully has directed. We don't get
anything of Guido's until the screen test screen in
the third act.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25880
From: "Kristian Andersen"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:22pm
Subject: Leox Carax' Boy Meets Girl. monkchild2004
Hello everyone.
There’s a song played on the radio when the woman drives in the car towards
the river in the start of Boy Meets Girl. It’s a French song, and the woman
sings something like “I came to say I’m leaving you, your tears won’t change
my mind”. I love this song so much, does anyone know a title or a singer? I
want to buy it!
Thank you, boys and girls.
Sincerely,
Kristian
--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 - Release Date: 21/04/2005
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25881
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:40pm
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Charles Dauth"
wrote:
> hl666 writes:
>
Satire - and this is a very, very important point to
> grasp - is an ESTHETIC form whose primary esthetic virtues are
> exuberant invention, grotesque imagery, verbal wit and so on.
>
> That is how it has come to be seen in the post-Romantic era. As
> Swift himself wrote of his desire for "Gulliver's Travels": it was
> composed to "mend the world."
Good Lord - an unreconstructed Enlightenment man! No wonder you're so
heavy into Mankiewicz!
What you say is absolutely true. As a disciple of horrible Harold and
thru him of Frye, I do espouse a Romantic view of satire - the
Anatomy of Criticism, which I'm always citing, is based on Frye's
reading of Blake. But when I settled on a Ph. D. topic I chose Pope
in order to invent my own system, lest I be the slave of another
man's, and I'm still working on it.
Pope was also more congenial to Derrida and Barthes, my new
influences as I finished the academic phase of my life - they were
not yet ensconced in the academic pantheon then, of course, and Pope
was pretty much on the back burner, in the hands of specialists whose
clannish conservatism kept them from reading him a-right. Then to my
great surprise when I ran into Bloom years later I discovered he was
a total convert to Pope himself!
That said, here comes my touchstone again, Brian: What do you make of
Fellini Satyricon? It seems to me to be the estheticized satirical
Grotesque carried as far as it can go - no aim to correct or "mend"
in sight.
25882
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:50pm
Subject: Re: These folks don't exist (Was: I (Heart) Fritz Lang) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Or are you saying, "It's basically the same feeling of contempt in
both
> cases, but no one gets hurt in the movie situation, so we get to
exercise
> these primal feelings and get pleasure from them in a safe arena"?
The latter.
>
> Or something else? In a way, this sounds like the kind of
> pure-form-no-morality argument that Fred has made here before. But
> my impression is that that's not really where your head is at. - Dan
It isn't - very good point. But I see film as a material force that
can do harm or good. That is a political and - I have no problem with
the concept - a moral matter, one which has nothing to do with how
the director treats her/his characters, and everything to do with how
(s)he treats her/his actors...along with many, many other things that
we often discuss here.
To argue from states of mind - which seem to be on your mind - would
be to enter the religious realm, where looking lustfully at someone
is committing adultery, or where one seeks to purify oneself of base
attachments, negative feelings etc. to attain satori. Which is cool,
too, but I don't drag it into my film criticism.
Because of the facile and caricatural political film criticism now
practiced widely, I am more skeptical about a political approach than
I was in the high 70s - hence my jihad on gotchas - but I still don't
see any reason to renounce it in the name of pure form. It just needs
to get real.
25883
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:51pm
Subject: Re: Leox Carax' Boy Meets Girl. cellar47
C'est
"Je suis venu te dire que je m'en vais" de Serge
Gainsbourg.
--- Kristian Andersen wrote:
>
> Hello everyone.
>
>
>
> There’s a song played on the radio when the woman
> drives in the car towards
> the river in the start of Boy Meets Girl. It’s a
> French song, and the woman
> sings something like “I came to say I’m leaving you,
> your tears won’t change
> my mind”. I love this song so much, does anyone know
> a title or a singer? I
> want to buy it!
>
>
>
> Thank you, boys and girls.
>
>
> Sincerely,
>
> Kristian
>
>
> --
> No virus found in this outgoing message.
> Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
> Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.10.2 -
> Release Date: 21/04/2005
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> --------------------~-->
> What would our lives be like without music, dance,
> and theater?
> Donate or volunteer in the arts today at Network for
> Good!
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/pkgkPB/SOnJAA/Zx0JAA/b5IolB/TM
>
--------------------------------------------------------------------~->
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25884
From: BklynMagus
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 5:55pm
Subject: Re: Sturges Defended (Was: Altman's Surrogates) cinebklyn
David E. writes:
> So he's not Dickens or Swift -- do we shoot him?
No, but at the same time we shouldn't mislabel him
either. In the culturally degraded times in which we
live, there is a tendency to overpraise so we can keep
up with the new iterations of superstar, supermodel,
mucho grande latte etc. Another example from afb
itself is canon inflation (my pardon for not recalling
who first posted this idea).
For me, to lump Swift, Dickens and Sturges into the
category of "stinging social critique" makes nonsense
of the category. Sturges had his strengths, but
rigorous critique wasn't among them.
> He's not the kind of analytical artist you're looking
for.
That is no problem. My problem is with claims being
made that he is more analytical than he is.
> But that's not what he's arguing.
I will still maintain that it is a valid reading of the scene.
> He's arguing that problems MAY be intractable but we
should do what we can to confront them and not lose
our sense of humor -- which is precisely what Sully
was doing by wanting to direct "O Brother Where Art
Thou?" instead of "Hey hey in the hayloft" and "Ants
in Their Plants of 1941"
But for me that is begging the question since the first
thing that must be determined when confronting these
problems is what is their cause. The "may be
intractable" stance is untenable since it gives itself
over to: "Well, we don't know exactly what the causes
are or even if they can be determined. So let's do the
one thing we know is surefire: make 'em laugh."
In this way the privileged class manufactures balm for
their consciences, while the poor get entertainment (which
they are obliged to pay for).
> Or give a destitute Veronica Lake a job.
Ah, the private charity route so beloved of the Bushites
and their minions.
> You need some remedial marxism -- as in Groucho,
Harpo and Chico.
I was always a W.C. Fields/Abbott & Costello person
myself. In fact, it was A&C who got me into Arthur Lubin.
Brian
25885
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:01pm
Subject: Re: director's cuts... hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> >
>
> > I wouldn't write off "That's Life."
>
> I wouldn't write off any of the late Edwards films: even SON OF THE
> PINK PANTHER has a few nice ideas (completely obscured, of course,
> when one sees the film via a pan-and-scan video transfer, which is
> how I first encountered it). SKIN DEEP, SWITCH, THE MAN WHO LOVED
> WOMEN, BLIND DATE and THAT'S LIFE are all masterpieces.
Me three. Skin Deep especially. I mentioned it to Arnaud Desplechin
after a screening of Rois et reine (which plays Moon River at the end) -
he's a big fan, more than he may know. Look at the Mathieu Amalric half
of R&R with Edwards in mind - Skin Deep especially.
25886
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:23pm
Subject: Re: Sturges Defended (Was: Altman's Surrogates) thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- thebradstevens wrote:
> >
> > Has anyone ever pointed out how much Fellini's 8 1/2
> > owes to
> > SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS? Aside from the obvious
> > connections (two films
> > about 'blocked' filmmakers seeking inspiration for a
> > new film), both
> > films begin with a 'fantasy' sequence that ends with
> > somebody falling
> > into water from a great height.
> >
> >
>
> Close but no cigar. The sequence in Sturges is from an
> actual film that Sully has directed. We don't get
> anything of Guido's until the screen test screen in
> the third act.
>
But the opening of SULLIVAN'S is still a 'fantasy' (just like the
dream that opens 8 1/2), since it does not take place within the
film's 'reality'.
25887
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 6:23pm
Subject: NYC: last-minute J. M. Silver alert sallitt1
Joan Micklin Silver's 1979 CHILLY SCENES OF WINTER is having a rare
screening at Anthology in NYC tonight at 7 pm. If you've ever wanted to
check her out, this is the best film to do it with - I think it's
wonderful. - Dan
25888
From: BklynMagus
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:31pm
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) cinebklyn
hl666 wrote:
> Good Lord - an unreconstructed Enlightenment man!
Touche! You have outed me.
> No wonder you're so heavy into Mankiewicz!
As I was composing my reply to you and David, I
arrived at the same insight through a different route.
I realized that Mankiewicz is so underappreciated
since he is the least Romantic of all great auteurs,
and, thereby, denies many critics of their expected
access points.
> As a disciple of horrible Harold and thru him of Frye,
I do espouse a Romantic view of satire - the Anatomy
of Criticism, which I'm always citing, is based on Frye's
reading of Blake.
I had my Frye period. It was Wittgenstein and language
games that shook me loose.
> But when I settled on a Ph. D. topic I chose Pope in
order to invent my own system, lest I be the slave of
another man's, and I'm still working on it.
A most serendipitous choice. I believe we may finally
be entering a cultural moment when Pope and friends
can be re-appreciated and Romanticism seen in a new
light. (But then I am always hoping that LOL.)
> Pope was also more congenial to Derrida and Barthes,
my new influences as I finished the academic phase of
my life
Because Pope knew and had expounded on what they
thought they were discovering for the first time.
> Then to my great surprise when I ran into Bloom years
later I discovered he was a total convert to Pope himself!
Once you have run the gamut of Romantic aesthetics,
there is really no other place to go. What is amazing is
how long it takes some critics to run that particular gamut.
LOL.
> What do you make of Fellini Satyricon? It seems to me to
be the estheticized satirical Grotesque carried as far as it
can go - no aim to correct or "mend" in sight.
Off the top of my head I would agree with you, and also
assert that it is a dead end. To my mind, Fellini made a
partial escape from this cul-de-sac with "Orchestra
Rehearsal," "The Ship Sails On," and "Ginger and Fred,"
but then he sank into Romanticism again with "City of
Women" and "Fellini Casanova." At least he tried.
Brian
25889
From: BklynMagus
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:46pm
Subject: Ruth Hussey R.I.P. cinebklyn
It is with sadness I note the passing of Ruth Hussey.
She lost out on her only shot at the Oscar to Jane
Darwell. A classic case of the Mankiewiczean ("It's
so nice watching the privileged enjoy their privileges.")
being bested by the Romantic ("We are the people and
we have got to go on.") in Hollywood.
Plus ça change... plus c'est la même chose
Ruth Hussey, 93, an Actress in 'Philadelphia Story' Film, Dies
LOS ANGELES, April 21 (AP) - Ruth Hussey, an actress nominated for an Academy Award for her role as James Stewart's wise-cracking girlfriend in "The Philadelphia Story," died on Tuesday in Newbury Park, Calif., north of Los Angeles. She was 93.
The cause was complications of an appendectomy, said her son John Longnecker.
From the late 1930's until 1960 Ms. Hussey made dozens of films and appeared with leading men like Spencer Tracy, Melvyn Douglas and Robert Taylor.
She also was a stage actress, appearing on Broadway in 1945 in the hit "State of the Union" and in 1949 in the comedy "Goodbye, My Fancy."
Born Oct. 30, 1911, in Providence, R.I., Ms. Hussey graduated from Pembroke Women's College at Brown University and the drama school of the University of Michigan.
She began her show-business career as a local radio fashion commentator. Later, she moved to New York and became a model. She toured with stage companies and won an MGM contract when she was spotted by a talent agent during a road production in Los Angeles.
Her first movie, the 1937 Tracy film "Big City," was uncredited. Three years later, she was his leading lady in "Northwest Passage."
She received an Oscar nomination for best supporting actress for playing Elizabeth Imbrie, the sassy photographer who accompanies Stewart to cover a socialite's wedding in the 1940 film "The Philadelphia Story." She lost to Jane Darwell, who was Ma Joad in "The Grapes of Wrath."
Her last feature film role was in 1960, as Bob Hope's wife in "The Facts of Life."
Ms. Hussey also had a long career in television, including guest appearances in "The Magnificent Ambersons" and "Time Out for Ginger." In 1973 she played Robert Young's love interest in the television movie "My Darling Daughters' Anniversary."
Ms. Hussey is survived by two sons, John, of Beverly Hills, Calif., and Rob, of Houston; a daughter, Mary Hendrix of Oak Park, Calif.; four grandchildren; and a great-grandchild.
25890
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:52pm
Subject: Pope and Fellini (Was: Altman's Surrogates) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus
>
> > Pope was also more congenial to Derrida and Barthes,
> my new influences as I finished the academic phase of
> my life
>
> Because Pope knew and had expounded on what they
> thought they were discovering for the first time.
No foolin' - but what Pope put a negative spin on in The Dunciad
Derrida proclaimed as the way out of metaphysical closure. Now we're
living inside The Dunciad. All these "pert" Dunces holding sway in
academia, impressing each other with bad puns. I think that may have
something to do with Bloom's late-in-life conversion to Pope, too.
> > What do you make of Fellini Satyricon? It seems to me to
> be the estheticized satirical Grotesque carried as far as it
> can go - no aim to correct or "mend" in sight.
>
> Off the top of my head I would agree with you, and also
> assert that it is a dead end. To my mind, Fellini made a
> partial escape from this cul-de-sac with "Orchestra
> Rehearsal," "The Ship Sails On," and "Ginger and Fred,"
> but then he sank into Romanticism again with "City of
> Women" and "Fellini Casanova." At least he tried.
Interesting argument. Of course I vastly prefer Satyricon to
Orchestra Rehearsal and The Ship Sails On, but that's to be expected.
I don't know if you've seen Voice of the Moon - along with Fred and
Ginger, it is his most satirical film (in the usual sense). It's
pretty amazing.
As a Wittgenstein disciple, are you into Cavell?
25891
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 7:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sturges Defended (Was: Altman's Surrogates) cellar47
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> But the opening of SULLIVAN'S is still a 'fantasy'
> (just like the
> dream that opens 8 1/2), since it does not take
> place within the
> film's 'reality'.
>
>
>
>
Well now you're really stretching it. It's a prelude
to the main action but it proceeds from the real
backstory -- not a nightmare as in "8 1/2" -- which
has taken many years and over 50 viewings to properly
decipher.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25892
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:00pm
Subject: Re: NYC: last-minute J. M. Silver alert cellar47
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Joan Micklin Silver's 1979 CHILLY SCENES OF WINTER
> is having a rare
> screening at Anthology in NYC tonight at 7 pm. If
> you've ever wanted to
> check her out, this is the best film to do it with -
> I think it's
> wonderful.
Indeed it is -- and it's the swan song of the great
Gloria Grahame.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25893
From: BklynMagus
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 8:40pm
Subject: Re: Pope and Fellini (Was: Altman's Surrogates) cinebklyn
hl666 writes:
> Of course I vastly prefer Satyricon to Orchestra
Rehearsal and The Ship Sails On, but that's to be
expected.
In some ways it is the most enjoyable (experientially)
of the three films. My problem with it is that it is a
closed system. It needs the continued existence of
its object of satire in order to maintain its pleasure
factor. Hence, no reformation imperative.
> I don't know if you've seen Voice of the Moon - along
with Fred and Ginger, it is his most satirical film (in the
usual sense). It's pretty amazing.
I have only seen it once at the end of a complete
Fellini retrospective so I need more viewings. At the
point I saw it I was pretty Fellini'ed out.
> As a Wittgenstein disciple, are you into Cavell?
Yes. When I first read him, I felt he I had met a soulmate
in the way he wrote about movies where women insisted
on their equality with men.
Brian
25894
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pope and Fellini (Was: Altman's Surrogates) cellar47
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> > As a Wittgenstein disciple, are you into Cavell?
>
> Yes. When I first read him, I felt he I had met a
> soulmate
> in the way he wrote about movies where women
> insisted
> on their equality with men.
>
Do you know Derek Jarman's "Wittgenstein"?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25895
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:02pm
Subject: Re: Leox Carax' Boy Meets Girl apmartin90
Kristian, David beat me to identifying it, but "Je suis venu te dire
que je m'en vais" by Serge Gainsbourg is one of the six greatest songs
in the known universe ! In my not very humble opinion.
There is a good English-language version of it by Mick Harvey (of 'Bad
Seeds' fame, also a film composer for CHOPPER, and the curious
Australian VERTIGO-reworking TO HAVE AND TO HOLD, etc) on one of his
two Gainsbourg tribute albums.
Serge's original also makes a splendid appearance in Resnais' SAME OLD
SONG.
There was a great moment in my life in about 1990 when I happened to
watch a Brigitte Bardot documentary (called BB SINGS) on Australian TV,
which contained about 10 minutes on Serge Gainsbourg, and it was my
first concentrated 'hit' of him and his genius. Immediately one of my
best friends rang me, and said: 'Did you just see what I saw?' So we
resolved on the spot to buy every Serge Gainsbourg album as quickly as
we could! Oh happy day ... I agree with Carla Bruni: every song he
wrote is interesting in some way or another.
Now i just have to get to see all the feature films he directed ...
Maybe Carax will buy up all the rights and re-release them, the way
Depardieu did with the Cassavetes films. I live in hope.
Adrian
25896
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: Leox Carax' Boy Meets Girl cellar47
--- Adrian Martin wrote:
> Kristian, David beat me to identifying it, but "Je
> suis venu te dire
> que je m'en vais" by Serge Gainsbourg is one of the
> six greatest songs
> in the known universe ! In my not very humble
> opinion.
>
Mine too. Also my pal Tosh Berman
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g012/toshberman.html
Gainsbourg's film "Je T'Aime, Moi Non Plus" starring
Jane Birkin and Joe Dallesandro (!) is available on
video. But I long to see his TV special "Anna"
starring Anna Karina and co-starring Gainsbourg and
Jean-Claude Brialy.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25897
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:19pm
Subject: Re: Leox Carax' Boy Meets Girl hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Adrian Martin wrote:
> > Kristian, David beat me to identifying it, but "Je
> > suis venu te dire
> > que je m'en vais" by Serge Gainsbourg is one of the
> > six greatest songs
> > in the known universe ! In my not very humble
> > opinion.
My ex- worships Gainsbourg - the only book she had read until very
recently was a bigoraphy. She writes like him at times. But even she
admits that his film directing is awful.
I long to see his TV special "Anna"
> starring Anna Karina and co-starring Gainsbourg and
> Jean-Claude Brialy.
You can have my copy, David. I got it for peanuts at Amoeba.
25898
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:20pm
Subject: John Ford's Battle of Midway peckinpah200...
Many of you probably already know this. But a cheap DVD series of WW2
documentaries titled "Global Warfare" now includes Ford's 18 min.
color documentary with voices by Donald Crisp, Jane Darwell, and Henry
Fonda. It looks like it has just been saved from the beginnings of
notrate decomposition but not enough to affect a beautiful sunset shot
to the accompaniement " Red River Valley." Found it at Schnucks last
night in "Black Rock."
Tony Williams
25899
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:26pm
Subject: Re: Re: Leox Carax' Boy Meets Girl cellar47
WOW! Really?
FABULOUS!
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- Adrian Martin wrote:
> > > Kristian, David beat me to identifying it, but
> "Je
> > > suis venu te dire
> > > que je m'en vais" by Serge Gainsbourg is one of
> the
> > > six greatest songs
> > > in the known universe ! In my not very humble
> > > opinion.
>
> My ex- worships Gainsbourg - the only book she had
> read until very
> recently was a bigoraphy. She writes like him at
> times. But even she
> admits that his film directing is awful.
>
> I long to see his TV special "Anna"
> > starring Anna Karina and co-starring Gainsbourg
> and
> > Jean-Claude Brialy.
>
> You can have my copy, David. I got it for peanuts at
> Amoeba.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25900
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:28pm
Subject: Monte Hellman's LAST WOMAN ON EARTH (Was Re: John Ford's Battle of Midway thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>
> Many of you probably already know this. But a cheap DVD series of
WW2
> documentaries titled "Global Warfare" now includes Ford's 18 min.
> color documentary
On the subject of interesting DVDs, Castle Hill Entertainment's
recently released UK disc of Roger Corman's 1960 film LAST WOMAN ON
EARTH is actually taken from the expanded television version, which
includes 7 minutes of footage shot by Monte Hellman in 1963.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact