Posts from the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film

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

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.

25901 From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Fri Apr 22, 2005 9:31pm
Subject: Re: Leox Carax' Boy Meets Girl jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, 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 !

I just have to know what the other five are, Adrian!!!

I'm so glad that there are fans of Gainsbourg and his songs on
a_film_by! JPC
25902
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 0:11am
Subject: Re: Contempt mathieu_ricordi

This has been an interesting thread to read indeed; and
I'm kind of jealous that I came on to it too late to really
offer anything fresh or original. The query of character likability
in cinema has been a huge hurdle in film criticism for a long, long time,
and has denied entry into some of the most complex and sincere of works.
Basically, I think the problem lies in the constant need for
character identification, or, a reasuring figure to guide us through
the otherwise new or ambitious terrain of a world or dramatic view.
Just this year, this skewed system of viewership gave us vast overpraise
for the pandering "Before Sunset" and tragic under-appreciation of
"The Life Aquatic". The message was clear, Linklater's verbal spewing of
every dilemna and viewpoint late twenty-somethings agree upon was mistook
for real characterizations, and Anderson's poetic archetypes of innocence
consumed, artistry running into life responsibilties, and adventurers symbolizing
lost souls run amok was cast aside as a bunch of quirky nonsense lived
by characters reaching no farther than the filmmakers idiosyncratic
brain. But then again, Anderson has always been wrongly turned away
for seemingly offering up characters that are too clever, and not human
enough. That his themes couldn’t be more pressing or vital to our experiences
are seen as secondary because he presents them through the point of view of the
artist looking on, not the calculated “reality” that poses from surveyed and tested
respondent cues. This is the sham of most movie discussions, that people think
they’re speaking about the films themselves, but are actually reacting to how their
identification with the people up on screen were boosted or let down. Such a factor
brings somewhat of a doomsday predicament for any piece of art that tries to reach
for grand and moral societal themes, and more to the point, reach for them through
the kind of old artistic methods that favored the message before the personages.
Think of the “art of the grotesque”, or the “game of masks” in which a cultures
foibles are expressed through hyperbole and expressive ugliness in order to
fully cover the scope of its intent. “Eyes Wide Shut” delved into some of these
methods, and its dismissal (which has to be my pick for the greatest critical
mishap witnessed in my lifetime) proved just how little its nobel themes and
brilliant artistic rendering of them were payed attention to for the sake
of focusing on how little people “connected” with the central characters.
In this masterpiece , we see the full extent of Kubrick’s fascination with
“Pinnochio”, every inner mark of the soul is worn externally, and the result
makes us not only question our own desires and longings, but just how much
they are our own or belong to the society in which we live in. The fact that the
dream sequences were sometime indistinguishable from the real life ones
(although there was a visual logic to the dreaming that was very
subtle) furthers this palindrome of responsibility and sexual/ambitioned hubris.
Yet many haters of the film (and they heavily outnumber us lovers) were too
caught up in “I didn’t buy the characters” or “they were abandoned cruely by a
director too concentrated on making art” arguments. And I don’t even know
why I’m focusing on “Eyes Wide Shut” (maybe because at my young age it
was the only time I could experience a Kubrick lynch mobbing while the
film was new and had just opened), its director has been misunderstood for the very
reasons of non-pandering characters throughout his career. Whether it is
the “statue” of Ryan O’neal in Barry Lyndon (my all-time favourite), or the
“savage” of Alex in “A Clockwork Orange”, or even the “Kabuki monster”
of Jack Nicholson in “The Shining”, the ignorance of how those personages
pin down the universal themes of these movies in a much more profound way than
character identification would have is a cultural loss that can only be
overturned if
this way of watching movies is seriously abandoned. Else, the Syd Fields’ and
David Thomson’s of the world will take over and we’ll be left with nothing but
nursing mirror reflections of what gets us off about ourselves and our surroundings,
and nothing in the way of serious examinations that challenge us in artful ways
that inspire us.

Mathieu Ricordi
25903
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 0:42am
Subject: Re: Contempt hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:

I agree completely with everything you said, Mathieu, and I urge
people interested in the discussion the last few days to read your
post. It's scary to think that we could still be stuck at the point
where identifying with the characters trumps every other aspect of
film art, but I suppose that's some kind of backhanded tribute to the
enduring power of the medium to involve people on the most primitive
level.

I was watching The Soft Skin last night and had to turn it off
because the protagonist's anxiety was so painful to experience, and
of course brilliantly conveyed. I kept trying to refocus on the
image, and Truffaut kept pulling me into that character's world,
which is as grey and lifeless as it looks.

Great filmmaking - miles beyond anything Linklater, whom you cite,
could achieve - with, I'm sure, rewards for those who can get past
the Hitchcockian terror we inevitably feel on first contact with that
stunted destiny. It probably needs to be seen a few times running to
get past that point - like Psycho! - and I hadn't seen it in a maybe
thirty years, so it scared me off.

That identification mechanism is pretty basic to what narrative film
does - so much that Kubrick can at best pervert its effects by making
us identify with Alex or Barry or Jack or Bill. Of course, that
strategy opens the way to experiences of great beauty and depth too,
if we allow ourselves to be cast out of the cocoon of identification,
as he intends.

The Life Aquatic - followed closely by I Heart Huckabees - was my
favorite film of the year. A great deal of the moment in time we are
living through is there in a form so strange - Pater talked
about "adding strangeness to beauty" - that our involvement with the
characters is continually being referred to a symbolic, polysemic
level of reading that is one of the most pleasurable experiences
recent cinema offers.

Then there are the films of Hong sang-Soo, where we identify with the
male protagonists just as we do in Sideways (which I kind of like),
but not to the detriment of consciousness. I'd be curious to hear
what you make of that alternative, if you've had a chance to see it -
and pardon me if you've weighed in on HSS before.
25904
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 0:49am
Subject: Re: Contempt cellar47

--- Mathieu Ricordi wrote:

Well I for one very much appreciate your remakrs,
Mathieu -- especially as regards the way films can
flatter the class prejudices (never acknowledged) of
its viewers.

However as regards "EWS" --

The fact that the
> dream sequences were sometime indistinguishable from
> the real life ones
> (although there was a visual logic to the dreaming
> that was very
> subtle) furthers this palindrome of responsibility
> and sexual/ambitioned hubris.

I'm not sure what you mean by this. To me the entire
film unfolded in "dream logic" with no clearyl
delineated sense of "reality" (in the standard issue
"realistic movie" sense) whatsoever. This is what put
so many people off.

> Yet many haters of the film (and they heavily
> outnumber us lovers) were too
> caught up in “I didn’t buy the characters” or “they
> were abandoned cruely by a
> director too concentrated on making art” arguments.

Kubrick (as is his wont) makes no play for us to
"like" his characters.

For many this is unforgivable.

> And I don’t even know
> why I’m focusing on “Eyes Wide Shut” (maybe because
> at my young age it
> was the only time I could experience a Kubrick lynch
> mobbing while the
> film was new and had just opened), its director has
> been misunderstood for the very
> reasons of non-pandering characters throughout his
> career.

Yes, but the "lynch mob" you speak of has rarely had
any real power. Don't forget "Paths of Glory" was
critically lauded, and "Lolita" and "Dr. Strangelove"
were big critical and commercial hits. He didn't
become truly "controversial" until "2001" which was
rejected by critics but embraced by audiences -- so
much so that they re-reviewed it in a desperate
attempt at"catch up." But the zeitgeist had moved on
without them.

I understand that the non-censored version of "EWS"
may be shown in the U.S. shortly. If so it will
provide an opportunity to re-evalute this brilliant
dark comedy.

>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25905
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:01am
Subject: Lynch mobs??? jpcoursodon

I must be living in an alternate universe. One of the very few people
I met who didn't think Eyes Wide Shut was a masterpiece was Pierre
Rissient, who told me it was a piece of shit, or French words to that
effect. Michel Ciment obviously couldn't understand why I might not
think it was a great film -- although he knew I wasn't a great fan of
SK -- when he insisted that I review it for Positif (but he wisely had
a backup in the person of Michael Henry, who can do nothing but rave
about SK or whoever he writes about).

So, anyway, let's not pretend EWS is another misunderstood, underrated
masterpiece.

JPC
25906
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:17am
Subject: Re: Contempt jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
> wrote:
> I was watching The Soft Skin last night and had to turn it off
> because the protagonist's anxiety was so painful to experience, and
> of course brilliantly conveyed. I kept trying to refocus on the
> image, and Truffaut kept pulling me into that character's world,
> which is as grey and lifeless as it looks.

Wow! This is quite a statement. You are saying that you had to turn
off (in old-time parlance, "walk out on") a movie because you were
actually FEELING something? You couldn't accept your response to the
character's pain and predicament? You couldn't accept that his life
was "as grey and lifeless as it looks" -- presumably because it made
you think of your own? I have to fight hard to politely say that this
was an "interesting reaction."

Truffaut didn't want you to "focus on the image" (whatever that means)
n he wanted you to feel with this guy.

So are you making a case against "identification"? -- which as a
matter of principle I would endorse, but then there are principles and
there is reality. And reality checks.

JPC
25907
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:21am
Subject: Re: Contempt jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> I understand that the non-censored version of "EWS"
> may be shown in the U.S. shortly. If so it will
> provide an opportunity to re-evalute this brilliant
> dark comedy.
>
>
> There is hardly any difference between the "censored" and "non-
censored" versions. The latter is not likely to change anybody's
opinion.
25908
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:29am
Subject: Re: Lynch mobs??? mathieu_ricordi

Quoting jpcoursodon :

> I must be living in an alternate universe. One of the very few people
>
> I met who didn't think Eyes Wide Shut was a masterpiece was Pierre
>
> Rissient, who told me it was a piece of shit, or French words to that
>
> effect. Michel Ciment obviously couldn't understand why I might not
>
> think it was a great film -- although he knew I wasn't a great fan of
>
> SK -- when he insisted that I review it for Positif (but he wisely had
>
> a backup in the person of Michael Henry, who can do nothing but rave
>
> about SK or whoever he writes about).
>
>
>
> So, anyway, let's not pretend EWS is another misunderstood, underrated
>
> masterpiece.
>
>
>
> JPC

I don't know where you live (it certainly doesn't seem to be North
America, or even less Cananda) but if over there "Eyes Wide Shut"
is more loved I'm glad to hear it. The fact of the matter is,
the majority of North American publications panned it, and everywhere
I've run into a discussion about it over where I reside in Vancouver, Canada
(whether it be on Film sets, in Film Schools, or in festival
screenings) seems to have everyone agreed it is a boring, God awful
travesty. I was not at all "pretending" that this grand work
is very much hated and misunderstood, it's what my Continent has
deemed, and I've heard and witnessed the message loud and clear for over
6 years now in a repeated fashion. By the sounds of it you
live on a seperate continent (I'm guessing France... so Europe), and
if you don't like the film, you should really think about taking a trip
down here where not only will you feel right at home, but where
you'll also get most everybody to join your team.

Mathieu Ricordi
25909
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:41am
Subject: Re: Lynch mobs??? jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:

>
>
>
> I don't know where you live (it certainly doesn't seem to be North
> America, or even less Cananda) but if over there "Eyes Wide Shut"
> is more loved I'm glad to hear it. The fact of the matter is,
> the majority of North American publications panned it, and
everywhere
> I've run into a discussion about it over where I reside in
Vancouver, Canada
> (whether it be on Film sets, in Film Schools, or in festival
> screenings) seems to have everyone agreed it is a boring, God awful
> travesty. I was not at all "pretending" that this grand work
> is very much hated and misunderstood, it's what my Continent has
> deemed, and I've heard and witnessed the message loud and clear
for over
> 6 years now in a repeated fashion. By the sounds of it you
> live on a seperate continent (I'm guessing France... so Europe),
and
> if you don't like the film, you should really think about taking a
trip
> down here where not only will you feel right at home, but where
> you'll also get most everybody to join your team.
>
> Mathieu Ricordi

Dear Mathiew, I live in a state of irony.

Does it really matter where one lives geographically?

By the way, I don't dislike the film. You could check my review
of it, if you cared. Do you think POSITIF would publish a put-down
of a Kubrick film? But it seems you're only interested in
your "continent" and its reactions. And obviously we're not talking
to the same people. But then, most people on a_film_by live on this
continent of yours and most like or even love the film. So it's not
as bad as you claim it is...

JPC
25910
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:11am
Subject: Re: Sturges Defended tharpa2002

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Charles Dauth"
wrote:

"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)."

I don't expect to change your mind about Sturges, but to clarify:
I likened Sturges to Fielding, Dickens and Chaucer because his satire
shares the same temper as those masters. I would have compared him
to C. M. Kornbluth, Frederick Pohl and Horace Gold but these fine
American satirists are probably unknown to people who don't read
a lot of genre fiction (probably only Mystery Mike and Bill are
familiar with them.) As an artist, Sturges' accomplishment has
more in common with them then those names from the canon.

I can't add anything to David's defense, but I still claim
Sturges as a satirist of excellence in the tradition of the early
Roman satirists. The origins of satire in Italy were not so much
literary (though Aristophones was an important literary influence) as
social and communal, connected with country life and festivals,
"the herd of men feeding heartily on coarse and succulent
pleasures" that Thoreau loved to see. From the fragments of the
founder of Roman satire, Lucilus, one can see equestrian and plebian
life held to account. It may be no more than the Roman equivalent of
Americana but it still has sufficient bite to qualify it as satire.

Richard
25911
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:23am
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) tharpa2002

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

"...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."

The balance is found in the beauty. To paraphrase an old poet, "One
touch of beauty makes the whole world kin."

I remember an interview with Fellini at the time of SATYRICON's
release where he answered the interviewer's objections to its
weirdness by saying, "You don't understand, it's a charming
picture!" He also told about his ideal cast for the movie: Lennon
and Mcartney , Burton and Taylor, Groucho Marx, Boris Karloff; the
cultural icons of the century (up to 1970.)

Richard
25912
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:23am
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) tharpa2002

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

"...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."

The balance is found in the beauty. To paraphrase an old poet, "One
touch of beauty makes the whole world kin."

I remember an interview with Fellini at the time of SATYRICON's
release where he answered the interviewer's objections to its
weirdness by saying, "You don't understand, it's a charming
picture!" He also told about his ideal cast for the movie: Lennon
and Mcartney , Burton and Taylor, Groucho Marx, Boris Karloff; the
cultural icons of the century (up to 1970.)

Richard
25913
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:58am
Subject: Re: Sturges Defended nzkpzq

The economic point of view of "Sullivan's Travels" (Preston Sturges) seems to
be "Poverty in contemporary society is terrible. You the viewer should do
something about it!"
In addition, Sturges rejects Communism as a solution - instead implying that
capital and labor will have to work together to build a better society and
solve the problem.
Admittedly, this is neither an analysis of the causes of poverty, nor a
detailed political blueprint for a solution. It does perhaps suggest broad support
for Roosevelt's New Deal, and the work of other liberal political thinkers of
the era.
One suspects that there is an element of modesty here. Sturges is restricting
himself to what he knows as an artist: that people are suffering terribly in
the midst of the Depression, and that social change is needed (called forth
explicitly in the clip we see of McCrea's recent movie, and his comments on it
at the start.) Sturges is not claiming to be a great political thinker, or a
social scientist. He is leaving that up to society's leaders, such as Roosevelt,
union leaders, liberal thinkers, etc.
On the finale: I have always been a bit skeptical of McCrea's rejection of
social conciousness in films, and advocacy of pure comedy instead. Sturges
himself has just presented a film that contains BOTH social commentary, and great
comedy. This fusion seems more like Sturges' actual point of view.
The points the finale makes about the social value of comedy seem valid: it
shows comedy giving joy to the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, etc. But it is
not the full story, and it does not agree with Sturges' actual film practise.

Mike Grost
25914
From: LESLIE WEISMAN
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:08am
Subject: Back to Kubrick allegra423

Sorry to break into the Sturges thread, but if I may, I’d like to add a comment to the Kubrick posts. This afternoon I was surprised to find a photo of him staring out at me from a paper called The Atlantic Times (“A Monthly Newspaper from Germany”), adjacent to a photo of Volker Schlöndorff, whose tribute to Kubrick appears in the April edition. Calling Kubrick “The Leonardo da Vinci of film,” Schlöndorff, while proposing him as the new “absolute model of genius” of the 20th century (replacing Welles), nonetheless concedes that “‘Eyes Wide Shut’ was rather disappointing for all of us.” He quickly backs off that judgment, however, with “I think this film will be re-evaluated in time,” then suggests that the disappointing “complete emptiness” into which the film “flows” may be intentional: “... is that not perhaps the statement?”

Thoughts...?

Leslie Weisman

MG4273@... wrote:
The economic point of view of "Sullivan's Travels" (Preston Sturges) seems to
be "Poverty in contemporary society is terrible. You the viewer should do
something about it!"
In addition, Sturges rejects Communism as a solution - instead implying that
capital and labor will have to work together to build a better society and
solve the problem.
Admittedly, this is neither an analysis of the causes of poverty, nor a
detailed political blueprint for a solution. It does perhaps suggest broad support
for Roosevelt's New Deal, and the work of other liberal political thinkers of
the era.
One suspects that there is an element of modesty here. Sturges is restricting
himself to what he knows as an artist: that people are suffering terribly in
the midst of the Depression, and that social change is needed (called forth
explicitly in the clip we see of McCrea's recent movie, and his comments on it
at the start.) Sturges is not claiming to be a great political thinker, or a
social scientist. He is leaving that up to society's leaders, such as Roosevelt,
union leaders, liberal thinkers, etc.
On the finale: I have always been a bit skeptical of McCrea's rejection of
social conciousness in films, and advocacy of pure comedy instead. Sturges
himself has just presented a film that contains BOTH social commentary, and great
comedy. This fusion seems more like Sturges' actual point of view.
The points the finale makes about the social value of comedy seem valid: it
shows comedy giving joy to the poor, the sick, the imprisoned, etc. But it is
not the full story, and it does not agree with Sturges' actual film practise.

Mike Grost

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25915
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:09am
Subject: Re: Sturges Defended hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> I likened Sturges to Fielding, Dickens and Chaucer because his satire
> shares the same temper as those masters. I would have compared him
> to C. M. Kornbluth, Frederick Pohl and Horace Gold but these fine
> American satirists are probably unknown to people who don't read
> a lot of genre fiction (probably only Mystery Mike and Bill are
> familiar with them.)

Indeed I am, Richard. Jonathan Rosenbaum would know them too - he was
published in his youth in The Magazine of Fantasy and Science Fiction,
a little before my debut in Ellery Queen's Mystery Magazine.

But I'm not sure what you're getting at with the comparison, except
that Pohl and Kornbluth (and their editor, Gold, who was also a
terrific storyteller when he had time), being close in time to Sturges,
hit some of the same targets - advertising, for example. Certainly
looking back at my almost complete collection of Galaxy Magazine (until
I stopped) I can see that satire was the artery of that publication,
which did as much as Mad to introduce me to the genre. But there has
never been a filmmaker who could stand up to comparison with Robert
Sheckley.
25916
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:25am
Subject: The Soft Skin (Was: Contempt) hotlove666

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

> Truffaut didn't want you to "focus on the image" (whatever that
means)
> n he wanted you to feel with this guy.
>
> So are you making a case against "identification"?

Not at all. I was putting identification back on the table as a
central element in narrative film, while raising some questions about
it. I'd say The Soft Skin fights in its own way against
identification by making it so painful. It's like The Wrong Man! It's
really tough on an audience.

Perhaps I do feel Lachenay's pain a bit more now than when I was 23,
but the identification has little to do with who's looking - it is
systematically produced by the way the film is written, shot, acted,
edited. Truffaut had just spent some months with Hitchcock, and he
was seeing if he could apply the lessons he learned. He succeeded so
well that the film, if I'm not mistaken, was a commercial failure -
certainly it disapointed people hoping for another Jules et Jim.

We don't think of Truffaut as an "anti-identification" director, like
Godard, who made A Married Woman just before. But A Married Woman is
a pleasure to watch next to The Soft Skin, so who is more radical?
Too much identification with an unpleasant character - not unlike
what Kubrick does when he makes us identify with Barry Lyndon - can
be "Brechtian" too. In this case, Truffaut and the actor hated each
other, so that adds a layer of revulsion to the effect.

If I didn't make it clear, this is one of my favorite Truffaut films.
25917
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:26am
Subject: Re: Contempt hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> > I understand that the non-censored version of "EWS"
> > may be shown in the U.S. shortly. If so it will
> > provide an opportunity to re-evalute this brilliant
> > dark comedy.
> >
> >
> > There is hardly any difference between the "censored" and "non-
> censored" versions. The latter is not likely to change anybody's
> opinion.

It shows penetration, or what looks like penetration, in a couple of
long shots of the orgy.
25918
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:37am
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LESLIE WEISMAN wrote:

"I think this film will be re-evaluated in time," then suggests that
the disappointing "complete emptiness" into which the film "flows"
may be intentional: "... is that not perhaps the statement?"
>
> Thoughts...?
>
> Leslie Weisman

It almost always takes time. I'm still catching up with Eyes Wide
Shut. I think that everyone tried to like it, but people were
disappointed. I had dinner with a very good director, his producer
and his assistant a few weeks ago, and all of them HATED the film.
But I'd see it again in a minute, and will keep going back to it.
It's a bit like hearing your first twelve-tone composition - you're
not going to walk out snapping your fingers, but you trust the
artist, so you go back.

One way to get into it is to write about it. When I wrote an article
for a forthcoming collection on the City in Kubrick, I found when I
came to Eyes Wide Shut that it was the summation of everything I had
been digging out of the films going all the way back to Day of the
Fight. That's auteurism, which is one way in. Another is to focus on
the character bits (which some people hate anyway). Jean Douchet says
it's a film about the power of money - his reading of the lights at
the Christmas party is that they symbolize wealth. Etc.

I can appreciate Perre Rissient saying that it's a piece of shit -
and I can hear him saying it - but I don't think that reaction is all
there is to say about it.
25919
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:40am
Subject: Re: Altman's Surrogates (was: Looking Down) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
He also told about his ideal cast for the movie: Lennon
> and Mcartney , Burton and Taylor, Groucho Marx, Boris Karloff; the
> cultural icons of the century (up to 1970.)
>
Let's see, Paul and John are the two guys, Groucho is Trimalchio...
25920
From: LESLIE WEISMAN
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:34am
Subject: Re: The Soft Skin (Was: Contempt) allegra423

In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, hotlove666 wrote:

--Truffaut had just spent some months with Hitchcock, and he
was seeing if he could apply the lessons he learned. He succeeded so well that the film, if I'm not mistaken, was a commercial failure -
certainly it disapointed people hoping for another Jules et Jim.

According to de Baecque and Toubiana’s arguably definitive biography, the film seems to have flopped from the get-go, from the morning press screening in Cannes through subsequent screenings and press conferences.

--We don't think of Truffaut as an "anti-identification" director, like Godard, who made A Married Woman just before. But A Married Woman is a pleasure to watch next to The Soft Skin, so who is more radical?

Too much identification with an unpleasant character - not unlike
what Kubrick does when he makes us identify with Barry Lyndon - can
be "Brechtian" too. In this case, Truffaut and the actor hated each
other, so that adds a layer of revulsion to the effect.

De B and T also hypothesize that Truffaut may have been more deeply hurt than he let on, because he identified with Lachenay: "...there is no doubt that the character of Pierre resembles Truffaut himself, with his obsession for detail, his timidity and awkwardness, his need for social recognition and material comfort, and, somewhat paradoxically, his lack of adjustment to bourgeois routine and married life."

The rejection must have cut even deeper, considering Truffaut, "for budgetary and practical reasons, used his own apartment... as the Lachenay apartment" and the film "is studded with intimate details related to his love life, with his expressions and fantasies" (Truffaut, A Biography, p. 202). These would include his relationship with Françoise Dorléac, sister of Catherine Deneuve, which progressed from what de De B and T call "a certain reticence" (but which she was to recall as "an inexplicable prejudice") to a romantic relationship that was to inspire the film — which furthers the identification hypothesis.

Leslie Weisman

hotlove666 wrote:

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

> Truffaut didn't want you to "focus on the image" (whatever that
means)
> n he wanted you to feel with this guy.
>
> So are you making a case against "identification"?

Not at all. I was putting identification back on the table as a
central element in narrative film, while raising some questions about
it. I'd say The Soft Skin fights in its own way against
identification by making it so painful. It's like The Wrong Man! It's
really tough on an audience.

Perhaps I do feel Lachenay's pain a bit more now than when I was 23,
but the identification has little to do with who's looking - it is
systematically produced by the way the film is written, shot, acted,
edited. Truffaut had just spent some months with Hitchcock, and he
was seeing if he could apply the lessons he learned. He succeeded so
well that the film, if I'm not mistaken, was a commercial failure -
certainly it disapointed people hoping for another Jules et Jim.

We don't think of Truffaut as an "anti-identification" director, like
Godard, who made A Married Woman just before. But A Married Woman is
a pleasure to watch next to The Soft Skin, so who is more radical?
Too much identification with an unpleasant character - not unlike
what Kubrick does when he makes us identify with Barry Lyndon - can
be "Brechtian" too. In this case, Truffaut and the actor hated each
other, so that adds a layer of revulsion to the effect.

If I didn't make it clear, this is one of my favorite Truffaut films.

---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25921
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:54am
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:
>
> > 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). ;~}
>

Something like that. You see aspects of this relationship in
Hou's "City of Sadness."

> I assume the answer as to the availability of the O'Hara was "no"?

Sorry I didn't answer immediately--jesus, don't you guys ever sleep?-
-it's shown occasionally on The Filipino Channel's movie venue,
Cinema One. No subs. If you know some Filipino subscriber, perhaps
he or she can tape it for you.
25922
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:24am
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick nzkpzq

In a message dated 05-04-23 03:09:47 EDT, you write:

<< Volker Schlöndorff, whose tribute to Kubrick appears in the April edition.
Calling Kubrick “The Leonardo da Vinci of film,” Schlöndorff, while
proposing him as the new “absolute model of genius” of the 20th century (replacing
Welles) >>

Orson Welles was a hugely prolific actor-writer-director who led three
different media: the stage, radio and film. This is much more of a model of a
"genius" than was Kubrick, who directed a handful of films.
On identification: Do not see what is so hard with identification in "Eyes
Wide Shut". Its hero is a glamorous doctor, played by an ultra-popular movie
star, Tom Cruise. What is difficult about identifying with him? Furthermore, the
doctor's adventures deal with an ever-popular subject, s-e-x. This is not a
huge stretch for most audiences.
My problem with "Eyes Wide Shut" was different, as I've written before. What
significance do the doctor's adventures have? Everything seems trivial and
pointless. The film is always interesting, but never seems to rise to real
heights.

Mike Grost
25923
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 0:52pm
Subject: Re: Contempt jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
>.
>
> It shows penetration, or what looks like penetration, in a couple of
> long shots of the orgy.

So, penetration makes a difference?
25924
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:19pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> It almost always takes time.

Yes, comparatively few great works of art (and films, certainly)
have been fully appreciated when they first appeared, and many were
sorely underrated and misunderstood. Actually auteurism sprang
largely from a firm belief that this was too often the case in
cinema appreciation, and from a passionate commitment to change the
situation. On the other hand the fact that EWS is disliked by so
many people doesn't automatically make it a deathless masterpiece.

I'm still catching up with Eyes Wide
> Shut.

Going back to a "difficult-to-like" work is certainly the way to
go. But it would be interesting to analyze the reasons so many
people apparently dislike the film so intensely. On the other hand,
as I said in another post, most of the people I know do love EWS.
25925
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: Back to Kubrick sallitt1

> It's a bit like hearing your first twelve-tone composition - you're
> not going to walk out snapping your fingers, but you trust the
> artist, so you go back.

I've thrown this out before, but I'll try again. My (almost unendurable)
experience of EYES WIDE SHUT didn't feel at all like listening to
difficult music. It felt something like listening to really simple music
being given a grand treatment.

The acting style in this film just blocks me, as it does in some other
Kubrick films, and I'd like to hear someone talk about it as a central
element of Kubrick's style, because it's super-distinctive and, for some
of us, impassible. A friend who is a person of the theater said something
about the film which I've cited before, probably sometimes without credit:
"It's as if he told the actors to find the one central emotion behind the
character, to play only that emotion and to throw out everything else--and
then to do it twice as slow as they ordinarily would." I started the film
hopeful, but I lost my stamina early, during that dancing scene between
Kidman and the seducer guy.

I'm at the point in my life where I'm tired of being a Kubrick detractor
and want to make my peace with the man. A few years ago I made a serious,
partly successful effort to engage with 2001, the notes from which I
believe I posted here for comments. If I could find a way to deal with
this behavior issue, maybe I could make some progress. But it doesn't
seem to trouble many people, judging from what is written about Kubrick,
pro and con.

- Dan
25926
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Contempt cellar47

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

> >
> > There is hardly any difference between the
> "censored" and "non-
> censored" versions. The latter is not likely to
> change anybody's
> opinion.
>
>
Maybe not, but it should re-start discussion of the
film.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25927
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:31pm
Subject: Re: The Soft Skin (Was: Contempt) jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> So are you making a case against "identification"?
>
> Not at all. I was putting identification back on the table as a
> central element in narrative film, while raising some questions
about
> it. I'd say The Soft Skin fights in its own way against
> identification by making it so painful. It's like The Wrong Man!
It's
> really tough on an audience.

Isn't it a paradoxical way of fighting it?

Interestingly (to me at least, and in retrospect) I happened to
be in a situation quite similar to Lachenay's when I first saw the
film soon after its release. And I saw it with one of the two women
involved. "Identification" was painful indeed. In such cases it
could be argued that identification is aesthetically unhealthy -- I
sort of understand your turning off the film!

JPC
,.
25928
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Back to Kubrick cellar47

--- hotlove666 wrote:

> It almost always takes time. I'm still catching up
> with Eyes Wide
> Shut. I think that everyone tried to like it, but
> people were
> disappointed. I had dinner with a very good
> director, his producer
> and his assistant a few weeks ago, and all of them
> HATED the film.
> But I'd see it again in a minute, and will keep
> going back to it.
> It's a bit like hearing your first twelve-tone
> composition - you're
> not going to walk out snapping your fingers, but you
> trust the
> artist, so you go back.
>

What happened with "EWS" is very similar to what
happneed with "The Shining."People were expecting "The
Shining" to be some sort of "ultimate horror film"-- a
notion the great trailer, with the blood pouring out
of the elevator, encouraged. It took awhile for people
to except that it more along the lines of the
"ultimate psychological thriller" taking up where
films as diverse as "The beast with Five Fingers" and
"Repulsion" left off.

Interesting too that Kubrick claimed to have been
inspired by Clouzot's "Diabolique" as "The Shining" is
nothing like it.
With "EWS" everybody was expecting HOT SEX!!!

Why they would expect that from Mr. and Mrs.Low Body
temperature I have no way of knowing. But the climatic
orgy scene annoyed great numbers of people.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25929
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 1:54pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick mclayf00

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> With "EWS" everybody was expecting HOT SEX!!!
>
> Why they would expect that from Mr. and Mrs.Low Body
> temperature I have no way of knowing.

I would assume that it was, like with "The Shining," partly due to the
film's misleading trailer, which aimed to sell the film as, to quote
the song, "a bad, bad thing".
25930
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:03pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>> Interesting too that Kubrick claimed to have been
> inspired by Clouzot's "Diabolique" as "The Shining" is
> nothing like it.

LES DIABOLIQUES: THAT was a piece of shit! But I don't see what
could have "inspired" Kubrick..

> With "EWS" everybody was expecting HOT SEX!!!
>
> Why they would expect that from Mr. and Mrs.Low Body
> temperature I have no way of knowing. But the climatic
> orgy scene annoyed great numbers of people.

I think most people are uncomfortable with the representation of
an orgy. Actually there is something intrinsically silly in the very
concept of "orgy" (large numbers of people gathering in one place to
have sex) and showing it on screen is bound to look messy and
unsavory. Kubrick opted for the only sensible approach: to play down
the sex proper (even in the non-censored version) and focus on the
orgy-as-ritual: a ceremony, a kind of mass, something that evokes
religious rites (most of the guests are mere spectators and seem to
have no sexual activity at all). It's all absurd but beautifully
choreographed. It's unclear to me why people were "annoyed" (not
enough sex? Too much? Not "realistic"?) JPC
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
25931
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 2:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: Back to Kubrick cellar47

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

>
>
> I think most people are uncomfortable with the
> representation of
> an orgy.

Nowadays it would seem that they are. Porno has
becomean indoor sport. The makers of "Inside Deep
Throat" discovered this the hard way when their film
died the death at the box office -- even while Jenna
Jameison is making better money thant Julia Roberts.

In brief: the 70's are over.

Actually there is something intrinsically
> silly in the very
> concept of "orgy" (large numbers of people gathering
> in one place to
> have sex) and showing it on screen is bound to look
> messy and
> unsavory.

Not if they're doing it right! Once of my very
favorite porno's is "Closed Set" by the Gage Brothers.
Nothin' but orgy.

Kubrick opted for the only sensible
> approach: to play down
> the sex proper (even in the non-censored version)
> and focus on the
> orgy-as-ritual: a ceremony, a kind of mass,
> something that evokes
> religious rites (most of the guests are mere
> spectators and seem to
> have no sexual activity at all). It's all absurd but
> beautifully
> choreographed. It's unclear to me why people were
> "annoyed" (not
> enough sex? Too much? Not "realistic"?)

Not "realistic" in that the masks were off-putting.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25932
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:33am
Subject: Re: Appreciation (was: Back to Kubrick) nzkpzq

In a message dated 05-04-23 09:21:34 EDT, JPC writes:

<< Yes, comparatively few great works of art (and films, certainly) have been
fully appreciated when they first appeared, and many were sorely underrated
and misunderstood. Actually auteurism sprang largely from a firm belief that
this was too often the case in cinema appreciation, and from a passionate
commitment to change the situation. >>

There are two different kinds of under-appreciation. One is where a specific
film or other artwork is intensively studied by critics, but rejected. The
other is where a whole artform is blithely dismissed.
I think film in the 1950's and 60's fell into the second camp. Most educated
people in English-speaking countries, at least, thought that film as a whole
was largely worthless. It was a complete, automatic dismissal. This attitude
was widely expressed in writing by literary authorities such as F. R. Leavis,
taught in universities, etc. I never met any educated person in the US before
1970 who regarded film as an art. Such people existed, but they were a tiny
group.
This was what French film scholars in the 1950's changed. Their ideas, such
as auteurism, had a huge impact on people when first exported to the US by
Andrew Sarris in the 1960's.
The same idea still holds true for comic books today. Most educated people
"know", with unshakeable conviction, that comic books are worthless trash. The
possibility that many comic books might be major works of art just seems
unthinkable to them. This idea is not based on any sort of study of actual comic
books. If a person, for example, read the science fiction comic book "Mystery in
Psace" for its peak years (1956-1964) and concluded that it was worthless, it
would be legitimate critical opinion. I would repectfully disagree, but I
would respect their right to have such a valuation. Instead, we have millions of
people who have not read this comic, but who will tell you as a fact that it is
worthless.
This is where film stood in English language countries in 1965.
The case of Kubrick is different. No one has dismissed him on vague, general
terms. He has been regarded as a Major Director for decades. His detractors
could well be wrong. But this is a whole other kettle of fish from the
traditional auteurist struggle to have film regarded as an art.

Mike Grost
25933
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 3:06pm
Subject: Re. Kubrick: This photo was recently discovered in the Overlook Hotel cellar47

http://www.laweekly.com/ink/05/22/a-ehrenstein.php

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25934
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 4:13pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) michaelkerpan

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera" :

in response to my:

> > I assume the answer as to the availability of the O'Hara was "no"?

you wrote

> Sorry I didn't answer immediately--jesus, don't you guys ever sleep?-
> -it's shown occasionally on The Filipino Channel's movie venue,
> Cinema One. No subs. If you know some Filipino subscriber, perhaps
> he or she can tape it for you.

Alas, while we had a next door neighbor who had a dish and hasd this
channel, they have moved -- and so my only possible link has been broken.

;~{

MEK
25935
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 0:14pm
Subject: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) scil1973

Postmodernists of the world unite (and take over)! We have a menace in our
midst - Grand and moral and noble societal themes!!! Ugh!

As always, how grand can these themes possibly be? Grand FOR WHOM? WHOSE
morality? As for nobility, allow me to quote my man Ali G: "Peeeeeace. Yo!
Nobility! Check it! Cuz Jeeeeesus. Is commiiiiiiitment. Yo peace."

Needless to say, I disagree with most of what Mathieu said.

Look, I know the pitfalls of cinema that works as a mirror for the spectator.
Most of what passes for gay and lesbian cinema serves this function and it is
to vomit. Nevertheless, a movie is often a drop of water on the desert (to
quote that consummate character identifier Eve Harrington) for someone who finds
nothing but shame and anxiety in their mirror. Or is ENCOURAGED to find shame
and anxiety in the mirror. That's why there's a gay and lesbian cinema in the
first place, FOR EXAMPLE. So those of you who are ripping on character
identification need to examine the position from which thou rippest, comme
d'habitude.

I much prefer BEFORE SUNSET to both THE LIFE AQUATIC and EYES WIDE SHUT
(though not I [HEART] HUCKABEES). But for whatever it's worth, I don't really
identify with the characters or their plights (they're thirtysomethings, though,
right?). I have no book published. I'm not as pretty as Ethan Hawke. I've never
even been to Europe (nor a rave although I have been in a riot but I won't
mention where or especially when for fear Ehrenstein will turn up his nose). But
I did love the film's lazy sway, the fact that it kinda was about nothing
really. It reminded me of my beloved AUTUMN TALE by Rohmer. I identified with the
characters even less in that one. A waste of time, to quote one of the
characters. But what an exquisite one!

And then EYES WIDE SHIT. I love looking at it. I've seen it many times. I own
it on DVD. I derive undeniable pleasure from it. I adore every frame of the
orgy sequence (JP, you're dead on about the silliness of orgies and Kubrick
caught it perfectly but probably unwittingly). But the last half hour or so -
allow me to dispatch it with one word: HETERONORMATIVE. Which is why I'd rather
not hear Mathieu elaborate on his rather confusing evocation of
responsibility. (Shudders)

And besides, the whole EYES WIDE SHUT thang is moot because, HELLO!!!!!!, one
film that just so happens to be the greatest ever made did an infinitely
better job tackling the same "themes" 25 years before: SOME CALL IT LOVING,
y'all!! Cheap copies can be had on ebay. Stop bullshitting yourselves today.

To David, I've read Mathieu's post twice now and saw no mention of class.

To JP, there's gotta be much better things to spend your time on than
"getting" Kubrick, esp. after so many years of trying (like maybe, hello!, listening
to one millisecond of current popular music). :)

xo,

Kevin

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25936
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 4:59pm
Subject: Re: Daney on melodrama (was: Looking Down) bufordrat

hotlove666 wrote:

>...remember Serge Daney's definition of melodrama: "We
>emotionally identify with the Symbolic network the characters are
>caught in, not with any one character."
>
Bill: which Daney text is this from?

-Matt
25937
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:25pm
Subject: Re: Daney on melodrama (was: Looking Down) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman
wrote:
> hotlove666 wrote:
>
> >...remember Serge Daney's definition of melodrama: "We
> >emotionally identify with the Symbolic network the characters are
> >caught in, not with any one character."
> >
> Bill: which Daney text is this from?
>
> -Matt

A short unpublished text, mimeographed and handed out by Paolo Branco
when he was running the Action-Republique, where a melodrama series
was going on. I have it somewhere - if I find it I'll let you know.
(I'll let you know too, Saul.) It's something Patrice Rollet missed
in his mammoth collected writings.

Apart from the remark about identification, all of Serge's theory of
melodrama's assumption of the Symbolic is in his review of Herbert
Ross's The Turning Point, CdC May 1978 (the first issue I was was
published in, with Oshima's melodrama The Empire of Passion on the
cover), reprinted in La maison du cinema et le monde vol. I. The
Cahiers had already launched its Return to Melodrama (post-Marxist)
phase by interviewing Jean-Claude Biette.

Let me know if you need Serge's article sent to you. I'll see if I
can scan it.
25938
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:30pm
Subject: Re: The Soft Skin (Was: Contempt) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LESLIE WEISMAN wrote:
> In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, hotlove666 wrote:
."
>
> The rejection must have cut even deeper, considering Truffaut, "for
budgetary and practical reasons, used his own apartment... as the
Lachenay apartment" and the film "is studded with intimate details
related to his love life, with his expressions and fantasies"
(Truffaut, A Biography, p. 202).

Carole Le Berre says in Truffaut au travail that one of the many
personal touches is Lachenay's explanation to Nicole of the occult
meaning of her room number, 813 - a private joke that appears in other
films: It's an Arsene Lupin novel that Truffaut (like Lachenay) was
particularly attached to.
25939
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:33pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 05-04-23 03:09:47 EDT, you write:

Its hero is a glamorous doctor, played by an ultra-popular movie
> star, Tom Cruise. What is difficult about identifying with him?

He's also a bit of a twerp who spends the movie agonizing about his
wife's imaginary infidelity while trying to commit same himself, almost
getting AIDS (among other things) in the process.
25940
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:34pm
Subject: Re: Contempt hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> >
> >.
> >
> > It shows penetration, or what looks like penetration, in a couple
of
> > long shots of the orgy.
>
> So, penetration makes a difference?

Well at least we won't have to strain our eyes trying to see it.
25941
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:36pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick hotlove666

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

it would be interesting to analyze the reasons so many
> people apparently dislike the film so intensely.

Let's start with the wonderful score: "Plink-plink-plink.
Plinkplinkplinkplinkplink!"

On the other hand,
> as I said in another post, most of the people I know do love EWS.

Or say they do.
25942
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:41pm
Subject: Re: The Soft Skin (Was: Contempt) hotlove666

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

I happened to
> be in a situation quite similar to Lachenay's when I first saw the
> film soon after its release. And I saw it with one of the two women
> involved.

Your cheatin' heart will make you weep,
You'll cry and cry and try to sleep.
But sleep won't come the whole night through,
Your cheatin' heart will tell on you.
25943
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 5:47pm
Subject: Re: Appreciation (was: Back to Kubrick) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> In a message dated 05-04-23 09:21:34 EDT, JPC writes:

> The case of Kubrick is different. No one has dismissed him on vague,
general
> terms. He has been regarded as a Major Director for decades. His
detractors
> could well be wrong. But this is a whole other kettle of fish from
the
> traditional auteurist struggle to have film regarded as an art.

There was also each major director's latest film to defend, often
against people who recognized the oeuvre but not where it was going.
You mentioned Model Shop a few weeks back and were surprised to learn
that many here love it, because of its poor mainstream reputation.
Hitchcock's greatness was pretty widely recogmnized when Marnie came
out, but the film needed defending - big time!
25944
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:04pm
Subject: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Postmodernists of the world unite (and take over)! We have a menace
in our
> midst - Grand and moral and noble societal themes!!! Ugh!

Well, I'm not a postmodernist, and the point was made well before by
Chabrol in an article on why little themes make better films than big
themes. The Soft Skin is a good example of that; Chabrol's oeuvre is a
bad one. Shame and anxiety are a great thing for a film to provoke -
witness The Soft Skin. In defense of Mathieu, I don't think he said
that identification was always bad, just that it wasn't the whole story.

You know, I haul out EWS and look at it from time to time too. It is
quite lovely. Coming after Full Metal Jacket, which was about the
Vietnam War, and made instead of a film about the Holocaust, it's a
film with a little theme: marriage. The same theme as The Soft Skin -
or more to the point, Oliveira's La lettre and Zulawski's (sp?)
Fidelite, two versions of La Princesse de Cleves that were out at
around the same time, but which hard to see here. Fidelity: a strange
subject for filmmakers like that to be obsessing about at the end of a
century that had supposedly put paid to the very concept.

And yet here we are in 2005 with a nutbar minority of evenagelical
freaks who helped the Republican crypto-fascists steal the latest
election, now trying to use their non-existent mandate - and their very
real power - to protect the sanctity of marriage by denying you the
right to refer to the guy you are with as your husband. So what's a
small theme?

I think Chabrol meant that small themes can make movies that are more
meaningful than the other kind because the other kind tends to promote
hollow high-minded cliches, which is often true. But that doesn't make
The Birds a lesser film than North by Northwest. Unfortunately, it also
didn't suffice to make Chabrol a very interesting filmmaker, despite
his obvious skills.
25945
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 6:56pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick thebradstevens

>
> Interesting too that Kubrick claimed to have been
> inspired by Clouzot's "Diabolique" as "The Shining" is
> nothing like it.

The scene in which the woman sits up in the bathtub is a direct quote.
25946
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:04pm
Subject: Re: Sturges Defended tharpa2002

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

"...I'm not sure what you're getting at with the comparison, except
that Pohl and Kornbluth (and their editor, Gold, who was also a
terrific storyteller when he had time), being close in time to
Sturges, hit some of the same targets - advertising, for example."

The tone was similiar; satire that was biting and not mean-
spirted and nicely balanced the humor with the invective.

"But there has never been a filmmaker who could stand up to
comparison with Robert Sheckley."

He was tops alright. Wasn't THE 10TH VICTIM the only film ever made
from one of his books?

Richard
25947
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) mathieu_ricordi

As is usually the case, I seemed to have logged on a bit late
to really get at the iron while it's hot, but in any case
I'll try to weigh in where I can, after a good defence by Mr. Krohn
(I haven't even gotten to respond to your original response yet, sorry
about that). In short, I'm not at all surprised that my post has caused
some massive disagreements, because character idendification being as
prominent as it is in film watching, if you attack it or the films that
pander to it, many feel spurned on a personal level. This is inevitable,
and as I was saying, gets in the way of discussing the films or their
accomplishments on their own terms. "Before Sunset", which I thought
was absolute trash, was not a casual film about "nothing" (and by the
way it was late twenty-somethings, not thirty-smomethings), but
an excessively studied and manipulatively researched eye-wink to
post garduates in limbo everywhere. It's "casualness" was spawned from
a deliberate non-aesthetic cover that fit perfectly with our new era's
feeling of smug superiority over supposed "pretentious" art and
aesthetics. It's subject was character identification, and its various
personage traits covered ranged from politics, to sex, to pathos, but
always within the bounderies of its pander. It reminded me very much
of Jonathan Rosenbaum's review of "Pulp Fiction" where he said that
it made it possible for everyone to hang out in the same tent (and
please spare me the irony that he loved "Before Sunset",
his Linklater love is well known). "The Life Aquatic" was the opposite
spectrum entirely because it covered a wide range of themes (have
I lost some readers already?) in such a wonderfully artistic way
that it had to sidestep the whole mirror image entirely. Anderson's
characters are non-identifiable because he beleives the artist still
has the power to change things, and fable still can inspire as well
as teach. The poetry of his latest masterpiece started with a grand
yet very responsible mise en scene that utilized hand-held for
societal confinement, steady-cam for artistic pursuit and trancendental
liberation, and still stop-motion photography for a lost sense
of awe. All the personages were presented in a constant state of evolution
because the ambition of displaying innocence lost clashing with
unfulfilled adulthood, artistic confinement, and a wordly ingnorance
of the quiet thrill of imagination and wide-eyed impressiveness needed
them to forever mutate this way. The film's burden, like that
of "I Heart Huckabees" (which I liked less but still counted among
the year's finest films) was that it tackled a cornicopia of world issues
on a scale that only fantasy and storybook jesting could aptly cover
(and you'd have to hark back to Demy's rousing masterpiece "Lola"
for a similair acceptance of pain and happiness occupying the same
space so freely and fancifully- high praise indeed). A Film like
"Before Sunset" is bound to be percieved more "mature" and "hyp"
because it's very small scale nature allows a more flattered
veiwership and a more grounded feeling of time and space (for as
well as identifying with characters critics and buffs love to
see their age and/or class bracket represented as well as the
age and/or class bracker they'd like to belong to or re-live once
again). "The Life Aqautic" and "I Heart Huckabees" simoultaneuos
and sporadic showings of adults acting like children and real
life enterprises having an air of fairytale settings never
allows a solid footing into a desired or finger-pointed bracket
of any source, and the abitious feelings evoked are deemed
to large to fit into cinema. That's the whole problem isn't it?
Maybe the medium (I prefer to call it the art but many don't) has
not many beleiving it should strive for much. "Just tell me a good
story with a chracter I can feel speaks to me" my film professor
told me (a philosophy I all together ignored in a 16 minute
damning portrait of University hypocrisy that had her, and many
others turning away for want of "more likable characters").
I'm not entirely sure this great art was expected to carry the
entensity and scope that some of its greatest masters brought to it,
and those who carry suite are constantly being shown it may be more
usefull to "turn it down a notch". This is why grand societal and moral
themes are treated with a response of "Ugh" (this was predicted by
Fritz Lang actually who in one of his interviews said that he was
dismayed at not being able to show the decaying of old moral values
any more being they were seen as old hat and "preachy"). This is also
why films who strive for more are torn apart more easily (the bigger
the enterprise, the more magnified the mistakes naturally), but isn't
a flawed ocean liner more worthwile, funner to talk about, more
interesting to contemplate, than a finely chisseled little row boat?
I think film lovers everywhere (and critics escpecially who have it
as their job to not be so lazy) should seriously have a different mind
set as to the possibilities of film, that it not be bound by genre, by
character identification, by narrative structure, by singularly
commited emotions, by "compitent style", by "latest hot subject";
art needs to carry with it all the contradictions, pains, and joys of
history, in all the forms that can involve us in constantly
challenging ways. Film's promise was that it could achieve this
in a more far-reaching manner than ever before, so why denegrate
it to a bite-size we can easily chew on?

Mathieu Ricordi
25948
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick peckinpah200...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Interesting too that Kubrick claimed to have been
> > inspired by Clouzot's "Diabolique" as "The Shining" is
> > nothing like it.
>
> The scene in which the woman sits up in the bathtub is a direct
quote.

Of course, it is a quotation but one which has been creatively
transformed unlike the type of mechanical reproduction employed by
Quentin Tarantino. Instead of Paul Meurisse emerging fully-clothed
from the bath, Jack encounters the Laura Mulvey nude female object
of the male gaze. He obtains a brief sense of visual pleasure which
is abruptly reversed when he sees the image of a decaying hag
through the mirror representing the ultimate fate of the human body.
He retreats in terror into the Golden Room.

In the Michel Ciment interview book, Shelley Duvall mentions that
Kubrick was crazy abouut Hitchcock. The toilet bowl and knife figure
in serveral scenes. But instead of employing a reductive FRIDAY THE
13TH derivative pastiche, Kubrick creatively employs the references
into other directions.

For the record, I love EYES WIDE SHUT and am currently teaching a
course on Kubrick. I believe his final film will receive better
appreciation in years to come in much the same way as BARRY LYNDON
and THE SHINING. These films were also misunderstood on initial
release.

Finally, Bill, when will these Kubrick essays be available and who
is the publisher?

Tony Williams
25949
From: Peter Henne
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Back to Kubrick peterhenne
Online Now Send IM

That's just my issue, JP! The orgy scene seems to have a sacrireligious intention, parodying a Mass, but I'll wager very few people who will go see a Kubrick film feel provoked by this. The symbols are not their own. You and David are right that most viewers wanted sex on the juicy side and lots of it--hardly the audience which could be scandalized by the allusion of sex to religious ritual. Lately I've been wondering if the film is deliberately archaic, addressing itself not to contemporary audiences but to an imaginary, earlier era which Kubrick felt more interesting to engage: one that's more sexually repressed and routinely religious. To my way of thinking, the setting (evoking a basilica plan), high rites and antiquarian conceits of the orgy taken together implicate Catholic traditions. But the symbolism is general enough to get non-Catholic faithful (and I don't mean only Christians) hot under the collar. Put another way, if you're not a devout worshipper in church, temple, or
mosque, you'll be pissed by Kubrick's anti-spectacle but the religious tie-in probably won't bite.

Peter Henne

jpcoursodon wrote:
Kubrick opted for the only sensible approach: to play down
the sex proper (even in the non-censored version) and focus on the
orgy-as-ritual: a ceremony, a kind of mass, something that evokes
religious rites (most of the guests are mere spectators and seem to
have no sexual activity at all). JPC

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25950
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 4:55pm
Subject: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) nzkpzq

In a message dated 05-04-23 15:48:46 EDT, Mathieu Ricordi writes:

<< "Before Sunset", which I thought was absolute trash, ...
It's "casualness" was spawned from a deliberate non-aesthetic cover that fit
perfectly with our new era's feeling of smug superiority over supposed
"pretentious" art and aesthetics. ...
"The Life Aquatic" was the opposite spectrum entirely because it covered a
wide range of themes...
A Film like "Before Sunset" is bound to be percieved more "mature" and "hip"
because it's very small scale nature allows a more flattered viewership and a
more grounded feeling of time and space >>

Perhaps this is close to my opposition to "minimalism" in some current films.
Almost nothing happens in "Before Sunset".
"Before Sunset" is not quite as minimalist as other contemporary movies such
as "What Time Is It There?", because at least "Before Sunset" has strong
characterization. But still, we are close to the edge of nothingness here.

I tend to think of art in terms of "creativity" and "imagination". The more
imagination, the greater the work of art. So I admire films with complex plots
and rich characters and in-depth social commentary and elaborate visual style.
These minimalist films are the exact opposite. As Getrude Stein said about
Kansas, "there's no there there."

Mike Grost
25951
From: Peter Henne
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) peterhenne
Online Now Send IM

Mathieu, I agree with everything you said about the dangers of identification, but still, I want BOTH, movies like Wes Anderson's, anti-sentimental and tough on fiction, and movies like Richard Linklater's, frankly emotional and full of character nuance. Here we are at classicism vs. romanticism again. The two sides fight but they thrive with each other.

Peter Henne

Mathieu Ricordi wrote:

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25952
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 9:45pm
Subject: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) tharpa2002

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

"I tend to think of art in terms of "creativity" and "imagination".
The more imagination, the greater the work of art. So I admire films
with complex plots and rich characters and in-depth social
commentary and elaborate visual style. These minimalist films are
the exact opposite. As Getrude Stein said about Kansas, 'there's no
there there.'"

There's a good case to be made for the East Asian aesthetic which is
minimalist to its core. Noh theatre is made of tiny gesture that
resonate emotionally in the receptive viewer; haiku has been compared
to a pebble thrown into the pool of the mind that creates ripples of
association (but the pebble will bounce off a frozen mind,) suiboku
painting consists of a few brush strokes on a large empty ground;
many excellent avant-garde films are minimalist. Nothingness is also
the fertile void. All of this demands as much of from the creative
imagination of the viewer as from the artist who fashioned the work.
Myself, I like both without privleging one above the other.

By the way, Gretrude Stein was talking about Oakland, California
after the city burned to the ground during the 1906 earthquake.

Richard
25953
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:01pm
Subject: Re: Appreciation (was: Back to Kubrick) jpcoursodon

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

> The case of Kubrick is different. No one has dismissed him on
vague, general
> terms. He has been regarded as a Major Director for decades. His
detractors
> could well be wrong. But this is a whole other kettle of fish from
the
> traditional auteurist struggle to have film regarded as an art.
>
> Mike Grost

I agree, Mike. But a couple of points.

1. Film was regarded as art in Europe, especially France, since
around 1914 at least -- and there was an old tradition of film
criticism (and even film theory): Canudo in Italy, and in France
Delluc, Epstein, L'Herbier. Delluc was as important a critic as
Bazin thirty years later.

2. The "traditional auteurist struggle" in France was not at all to
have film (as a medium) regarded as art -- film was already regarded
as art and had been so for decades. The purpose was to have certain
films, certain directors, a certain kind of cinema, regarded as art -
- that is, largely, American films that were generally
considered "mere" entertainment. Everybody respected films by
Bresson or Dreyer or Bergman as art, but not Hitchcock or Hawks (or
Tashlin or Lewis!)-- and even Bazin resisted their inclusion into
the Pantheon by the Young Turks.

JPC
25954
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:12pm
Subject: Re: Sturges Defended hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
there has never been a filmmaker who could stand up to
> comparison with Robert Sheckley."
>
> He was tops alright. Wasn't THE 10TH VICTIM the only film ever made
> from one of his books?
>
FREEJACK is an adaptation of Immortality, Inc. I've never dared to
watch - even though it's by a pretty good action director, Geoff Murphy.
25955
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:16pm
Subject: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) rashomon82

Mathieu wrote:
> In short, I'm not at all surprised that my post has caused
> some massive disagreements, because character idendification being
> as prominent as it is in film watching, if you attack it or the
> films that pander to it, many feel spurned on a personal level.

Maybe you caused massive disagreements because you made sweeping and
unsupported announcements left and right while affecting a tone that
said you were simply "telling it like it is."

> "Before Sunset", which I thought was absolute trash, was not a
> casual film about "nothing"

Wait, who claimed this? I must have missed it.

> but an excessively studied and manipulatively researched eye-wink
> to post garduates in limbo everywhere.

What does "manipulatively researched" mean? And can you prove this
film does this? And anyway, surely you are aware that VERY similar
charges are often levelled against Wes Anderson--some think his
films are mere calculated appeals to sensitive hipsters. What's the
point of this name-calling dismissiveness, which is itself quite
lazy and always unconstructive?

> It's "casualness" was spawned from
> a deliberate non-aesthetic cover that fit perfectly with our new
> era's feeling of smug superiority over supposed "pretentious" art
> and aesthetics.

BEFORE SUNSET doesn't feel casual to me. It's a meticulously
constructed film in which Linklater, Delpy, and Hawke must contrive
to present the evolution (and rebirth) of a chemistry between two
actors and two characters. Everything in it is dependent on the
sense of temporality. It fits perfectly with Linklater's aesthetic,
which is one in which a repertoire of diverse facades serve as a
entryways into idle wanderings (=the action taking place) about the
irreconcilible passing of time (=his Great Theme). I don't know
what a "non-aesthetic cover" is, and I was unaware that only in
our "new era" did "we" decide to have a vendetta
against "pretentious art and aesthetics."

> It's subject was character identification,

No, it's subject was regret.

> and its various personage traits covered ranged from politics, to
> sex, to pathos,

Three things that the characters would have very likely talked about
had they been real people. Why in the world do so many people
misconstrue the dialogue in Linklater's films to be the undiluted
expression of his entire aesthetic? Jesus. I swear, Linklater's
detractors have an incredibly unsophisticated (and to my eyes
opportunistic) penchant for making claims like, "Oh, these whining
characters aren't profound! But the film presents them, so it just
HAS to mean that the film itself is pretentious drivel. Right?"

> very responsible mise en scene

What does this mean?

> but isn't a flawed ocean liner more worthwile, funner to talk
> about, more interesting to contemplate, than a finely chisseled
> little row boat?

It sounds to me like you're saying bigger is necessarily better.
The answer is 'no.' Period.

> I think film lovers everywhere (and critics escpecially who have it
> as their job to not be so lazy) should seriously have a different
> mind set [... I've cut the rest of the graf to save space ...]

Clearly, you're conflating your distaste for BEFORE SUNSET (which
you have every right to dislike) and your distaste for certain
critical discourse on it. (Not to mention you're playing the
underdog-martyr card shamelessly here: 'Anderson's film was so
neglected because it was great and ambitious, Linklaters film was so
praised because it was pandering and small.' Sorry, no dice. You
need to present careful and considered analysis, not rhetoric and
exaggeration.) And for the sake of intellectual clarity and rigor,
please don't presume that all those who like BEFORE SUNSET like it
for the oversimplified reasons you assert. (And please don't
presume that those who dislike THE LIFE AQUATIC dislike it for the
reasons you assert.)

By the way, I adore Wes Anderson and THE LIFE AQUATIC.

--Zach
25956
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:26pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:

>
> Finally, Bill, when will these Kubrick essays be available and who
> is the publisher?
>
> Tony Williams

The book isn't on Kubrick. It's going to be French, from CdC, on
Cinema and the City - a topic I usually would shy away from because
it smells of grant-hungry academics trying to rake in money from the
City Planning department where funds have dried up for Film Studies.
But I was surprised how interesting the topic was when I got down to
it. I'll send you my pieces (there's only one on Kubrick) - I haven't
seen the others.

Scores of people are contributing on topics ranging from directors to
cities to themes in relation to the title topic. It seems a natural
for translation, given the modishness of the topic in the ivory
tower - it remains to be seen how good the overall quality is. But I
am now convinced that the City is a topic that unlocks a lot of
mysteries in film criticism, provided it is approached empirically,
and not "theoretically."

Douchet's piece on EWS was on the CdC website and has been taken
down. I'll see if I saved it. Michel Chion has also written a whole
book on Kubrick that CdC is bringing out - all the films.
25957
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:33pm
Subject: Re: The Soft Skin (Was: Contempt) jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
>.
>
> Your cheatin' heart will make you weep,
> You'll cry and cry and try to sleep.
> But sleep won't come the whole night through,
> Your cheatin' heart will tell on you.

"No tears can ever mend a broken heart."

("I Won't Cry Anymore")
25958
From: "K. A. Westphal"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:38pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick chelovek_s_k...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LESLIE WEISMAN wrote:
Calling Kubrick "The Leonardo da Vinci of film," Schlöndorff, while
proposing him as the new "absolute model of genius" of the 20th
century (replacing Welles), nonetheless concedes that "`Eyes Wide
Shut' was rather disappointing for all of us."
>

Re: Kubrick as the New Welles

I don't agree with such an assertion at all, but while we're comparing
the two, does anyone else think that the orgy scene in EWS is an
homage to the first reel of MR. ARKARDIN?

--Kyle
25959
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) mathieu_ricordi

Quoting Peter Henne :

> Mathieu, I agree with everything you said about the dangers of
> identification, but still, I want BOTH, movies like Wes Anderson's,
> anti-sentimental and tough on fiction, and movies like Richard Linklater's,
> frankly emotional and full of character nuance. Here we are at classicism vs.
> romanticism again. The two sides fight but they thrive with each other.

But that's just it Peter, Anderson's and Kubrick's films contain
both the classicism and romanticism aspects you describe, but their
frank emotions and character nuances are not calculated to be
easily identified with, but rather to keep the ever evolving themes
in a state of layered conceince bending progression (whose awarness
cannot always be counted on during the moment of witness, but rather
makes the reviewing more rewarding and more revealing).

Linklater's straight and talky approach shouldn't be confused with
frankness and evolution of personage. His characters are too calculated
and pandering to a certain demographic to offer anything in the way
of revelation or raw emotions. His "drama" doesn't evolve, but rather
devolves by law that his surveyed pathos gallery must naturally
connect due to their (as well as our own) co-appreciation
for what "truths" they are apart of and struggling with. Linklater
uses trite philosophies which seem educated only because of their
quotation induced underlining, and because the sole emphasis
of the conception is on the words (the equivelant in mise-en-scene
would be being fooled into thinking a director's got more to show just
because he uses exceptionally long take- unlike Bela Tarr who knows
why he's doing it). If Linklater were even commited to saying anything
with his character's constant babble, he would use the mode of
Maurice Pialat's hyper-realism. But he's much too scared into using
his actors as puppets that spew lines that'll imediately endear, and
pretend to enlighten by going full circle into what we aleady know and
are flattered to see repeated in a mainstream product (that it gets
backed up by virtually every critic must only enflate the flattery).
Pialat's cinema could be described as minimalist as well, but his
situations always budded with truth and emotional progression because
the characters would face the themes in a matter that reflected the
ambition and scope of happiness, sadness, class, dreams, acceptance,
and denial. Nothing in Pialat's oevre strives for "pat on the back"
common education, the intent is always to display the thwarted extremes
of community and anti-personages reactions as outsiders (in other words,
our non-identification brings about new understandings of situations
we thought we knew, hense the "hyper" realism). Compare
the dire "Before Sunset" to "A Nos Amours" and see the possibilities
of young anxiety grow instead of re-affirm. Sandrine Bonnair's character
faces teenage tribalism, emtional longing, and fear of dis-approval
with a quiet activeness that makes every decision seem maddening, and
at the same time true to her surroundings. Nothing in her character is
meant to involve us with her, but rather to make us think about how we
deal in similair societal confinements. In other words, her repugnance
reflects her struggle (much more powerful than her struggle being
calculated to reflect our own, which once again would make society
get off the hook). If Anderson's cinema is too daring in its conceptualizing
for viewers more intent on having it 'served straight', than
Pialat is you man, Linklater just panders and calculates to get you
to beleive that your own identification is the only way to go.

Mathieu Ricordi
25960
From: "K. A. Westphal"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 10:51pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick chelovek_s_k...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne wrote:
> That's just my issue, JP! The orgy scene seems to have a
sacrireligious intention, parodying a Mass, but I'll wager very few
people who will go see a Kubrick film feel provoked by this.

This isn't entirely true. If I remember one of JR's pieces on EWS
correctly, the soundtrack for the orgy was re-edited in the UK as not
to annoy local Hindus.
25961
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:00pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "K. A. Westphal" wrote:
does anyone else think that the orgy scene in EWS is an
> homage to the first reel of MR. ARKARDIN?
>
Haven't seen it recently enough to know, buit Welles is Kubrick's main
influence - Ophuls is a talisman against him. Just look at all the fish-
eye shots. The monolith is Kane's sled - two symbols of the mystery of
origins.
25962
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 7:13pm
Subject: City/Film Studies (Was: Back to Kubrick) scil1973

< mysteries in film criticism, provided it is approached empirically, and not
"theoretically.">>

Not sure if it'll be empirical enough for ya, Bill (or anyone), but CINEMA
AND THE INVENTION OF MODERN LIFE is one of the best film anthologies I've ever
read. Consistently brilliant stuff on the relationship between cinema and the
city in the late nineteenth, early twentieth century. Edited by Leo Charney and
Vanessa Schwartz.

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25963
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:20pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne
wrote:
> That's just my issue, JP! The orgy scene seems to have a
sacrireligious intention, parodying a Mass, but I'll wager very few
people who will go see a Kubrick film feel provoked by this.

I didn't see the ritualistic mise en scene as
intentionally "sacrireligious" (was this a typo or your own clever
coinage? I like it anyway). I saw it as a strategy to get around
what threatened to be an unseemly spectacle. There is a strong sado-
masochistic undertone to the whole sequence (and of course
Catholicism is the most sado-masochistic of all religions) and sado-
masochistic practices are notoriously ritualistic so it all makes
sense (and it's dreamlike sense anyway!). I agree that few viewers
were likely to be shocked by it, because devout Catholics, by and
large, are not likely to go to a movie like EWS and even if they did
they might not see the ritual as a "parody" of the mass, which I
don't think it was anyway... As for the others, well, maybe they
were disappointed because the sequence didn't satisfy their idea of
an orgy. I thought its very silliness was wonderful (I titled my
review: "Fear and desire: La Nuit des masques".

JPC

> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25964
From: Peter Henne
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:30pm
Subject: Re: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) peterhenne
Online Now Send IM

Thanks for your response. First of all, I'm not sure if there's much romanticism in the mature Kubrick (which I define as "Strangelove" onward); Wes Anderson does keep some balance between the two tendencies, such as in "Rushmore"'s dance after the stage performance, a little peek into his aesthetically romantic side. But consider that scene between the lead and the girl (can't remember their names): it's in close-up, and we can sure feel their breath, heart palpitations, anxieties and hopes. Right there, we identify with one or both, and Anderson leads us to that point by selecting the camera distance and lingering on the couple. Why is that so bad? Identification in this case means you are led to ask yourself moral questions, just as the characters are asking about their lives and each other: you put yourself in their shoes. If you do not make the identification with one or both, you are not grasping what the scene conveys. Identification need not be mushy or manipulative.

Love Pialat's "A Nos Amours." I think what you bring up are stylistic differences between Pialat and Linklater. Pailat has different themes, different approach to actors (e.g., the repeated use of Bonnaire), and a different visual style. Plus I think at some level we do identify with Bonnaire's character, the victim of family violence and social injustice that we can see ourselves in. The identification is less emphatic than in conventional films, but there are enough shots of Bonnaire distressed or displeased (or hearing her scream) to bring us to feel for her. Sure, she's an unlikable character, but I don't think that prevents us from identification, the heart of the audience reaching out to her and seeing life through her eyes. It's a dare that I want to take, and that's part of what I get from the film. Bresson's "Mouchette" does a better job of blocking identification.

Speak for yourself when you say Linklater's films pander and are full of pat dialogue. When Ethan Hawke says he would rather invent something great than get the woman of his dreams (or words to that effect) in the first "Before," from the WAY he said it, its context in the dialogue, and the fact that it was scrupulously not judged by the direction, I felt a little personal revelation and I've always appreciated that moment. I just don't think Linklater foists "correct" feelings on the audience; often, I'm fumbling to know what to feel because the life situations depicted are complex, which is how Linklater arranges them.

I do agree with you up to a point about Linklater's penchant for quoting the styles of the masters. A lot of the time it looks intellectually cute and I wish he would stop it and just be his own man.

Peter

Mathieu Ricordi wrote:

Nothing in Pialat's oevre strives for "pat on the back"
common education, the intent is always to display the thwarted extremes
of community and anti-personages reactions as outsiders (in other words,
our non-identification brings about new understandings of situations
we thought we knew, hense the "hyper" realism). Compare
the dire "Before Sunset" to "A Nos Amours" and see the possibilities
of young anxiety grow instead of re-affirm. Sandrine Bonnair's character
faces teenage tribalism, emtional longing, and fear of dis-approval
with a quiet activeness that makes every decision seem maddening, and
at the same time true to her surroundings. Nothing in her character is
meant to involve us with her, but rather to make us think about how we
deal in similair societal confinements. In other words, her repugnance
reflects her struggle (much more powerful than her struggle being
calculated to reflect our own, which once again would make society
get off the hook). If Anderson's cinema is too daring in its conceptualizing
for viewers more intent on having it 'served straight', than
Pialat is you man, Linklater just panders and calculates to get you
to beleive that your own identification is the only way to go.

Mathieu Ricordi

---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25965
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 11:49pm
Subject: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Perhaps this is close to my opposition to "minimalism" in some
current films.
> Almost nothing happens in "Before Sunset".
> "Before Sunset" is not quite as minimalist as other contemporary
movies such
> as "What Time Is It There?", because at least "Before Sunset" has
strong
> characterization. But still, we are close to the edge of
nothingness here.

What do you mean, "almost nothing happens"? An enormous amount
of things happen within the running time which is more or less "real
time", remember. How many times in your own life did so many things
happen in less than two hours? It's a romance, a thriller, a
melodrama. I kept asking myself "How can he be so casual and walk
around Paris with this girl when he has a flight to make in an hour
or so?" It's pure fantasy, of course. it's "cinema." You should
enjoy it instead of speaking of "nothingness." JPC

>
25966
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:11pm
Subject: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) nzkpzq

In a message dated 05-04-23 17:46:50 EDT, Richard Modiano writes:

<< There's a good case to be made for the East Asian aesthetic which is
minimalist to its core. >>

All of the minimalist art forms mentioned in your post are ones in which I
have never fully been able to enter. This is partly pure ignorance - have never
seen a Noh drama, except for the glimpse at the start of Part II of "The 47
Ronin" (Mizoguchi).
The favorite Japanese litearture here involves much larger groupings. Have
read such large poetry collections as the Kokinwakashu and big sections of the
Manyoshu. All time favorite: the poetic diaries, such as The Pillow Book of Sei
Shonagon, The Tosa Niki of Ki no Tsurayuki, and The Narrow Road to the Deep
North, by Matsuo Basho. (By the way, if Basho took his poetry name from the
Japanese banana plant, my chosen art name, Forsythia, comes from the yellow
flowers still in bloom this Spring.) Haiku and Tanka work best for me when they are
part of a larger poetic context, either a diary or a poetry collection.

Will keep trying to learn more - thank you for a fascinating post!

Mike Grost
25967
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat Apr 23, 2005 8:18pm
Subject: Re: Before Sunset (was: Response to Mathieu/David/JP) nzkpzq

After blasting "Before Sunset" for not having much plot, in fairness should
praise two of this film's virtues, neither of which has been mentioned in
recent posts. The poltical discussion at the beginning is very trenchant. Only
agree with it in part - the environment is in as bad shape as Linklater says, but
the world economy is doing much better than he depicts (huge progress was made
in the Clinton 1990's, especially in formerly poor parts of Asia). Still, I
admire his guts for this frank discussion. We need a LOT more of this in our
films and in our public discourse. The timidity of many filmmakers is just
appalling.
Secondly, the camnera movements through Paris gardens in the first half are
beautiful. If all of the film had been at this level visually, it would have
been a gem.

Mike Grost
25968
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:06am
Subject: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) tharpa2002

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

"...The favorite Japanese litearture here involves much larger
groupings. Have read such large poetry collections as the Kokinwakashu
and big sections of the Manyoshu. All time favorite: the poetic
diaries, such as The Pillow Book of Sei Shonagon, The Tosa Niki of Ki
no Tsurayuki, and The Narrow Road to the Deep North, by Matsuo Basho.
(By the way, if Basho took his poetry name from the Japanese banana
plant, my chosen art name, Forsythia, comes from the yellow flowers
still in bloom this Spring.) Haiku and Tanka work best for me when they
are part of a larger poetic context, either a diary or a poetry
collection."

All of the above to various degrees embodies the minimalism or refined
simplicity that I was trying to get at. So my hat is off to you Mike.
Ganbattekudasai! (Keep at it and thank you!)

Richard
25969
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:16am
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick peckinpah200...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne
wrote:
> . Lately I've been wondering if the film is deliberately archaic,
addressing itself not to contemporary audiences but to an imaginary,
earlier era which Kubrick felt more interesting to engage: one
that's more sexually repressed and routinely religious. To my way of
thinking, the setting (evoking a basilica plan), high rites and
antiquarian conceits of the orgy taken together implicate Catholic
traditions. But the symbolism is general enough to get non-Catholic
faithful (and I don't mean only Christians) hot under the collar.
Put another way, if you're not a devout worshipper in church,
temple, or
> mosque, you'll be pissed by Kubrick's anti-spectacle but the
religious tie-in probably won't bite.
>
> But is our age not also "archaic" with all the American Press
drooling over the last days of Pope John and "God's rottweiler" Pope
Benedict making the front page of most newspapers in the U.S.A. Gone
are the days when another antiquarian, The Rev. Ian Paisley, would
foam at the mouth concerning the "antichrist" feared in the Bible
Belt as well as Ulster. Also the "back to the future" world of the
White House and the Republican Houses may make us think twice before
we dismiss Kubrick's warnings about the return of the archaic
repressed since every era believes itself more advanced than its
predecessor. This is part of the "romantic fallacy" described by
Robert Ardrey in AFRICAN GENESIS (1961) another key influence on
Kubrick.

Tony Williams
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25970
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:29am
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>
,.
> >
> > But is our age not also "archaic" with all the American Press
> drooling over the last days of Pope John and "God's rottweiler" Pope
> Benedict making the front page of most newspapers in the U.S.A. > [

A very clear sign that we still live, to a large extent, in the
Middle Ages -- or even worse, because we should know better. JPC
25971
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 1:40am
Subject: KUNG FU HUSTLE peckinpah200...

I've just seen Stephen Chow's S.E. Asian blockbuster which has,
fortunately, been released in its original sub-titled form, uncut, and
no rap music score added.

Again, it is another Hong Kong version of the comedian wishing to play
Hamlet or in this case Bruce Lee, a persona Chow has flirted with as
far back as LEGEND OF THE DRAGON and KING OF COMEDY (2000).

Hopefully, the American distributor learned from the disastrous way
Miramax handled SHAOLIN SOCCER?

Tony Williams
25972
From: Peter Henne
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 3:05am
Subject: Re: Re: Back to Kubrick peterhenne
Online Now Send IM

Tony,

Well, yes and no. Every age considers itself more advanced than it is--and just as surely, every age has detractors insisting it is in fact a backward, archaic epoch in denial of its true failings. But no argument from me about your thoughts on the Blight House.

Against my own point about EWS addressing an imaginary, long-ago audience is the fact that Kubrick updated Schnitzler to contemporary times. Nonetheless, I can't get away from the impression that Kubrick's audiences will not--and need not--see themselves in the specifically religious trappings of the orgy, because they belong to cultural spheres outside of mainstream religions. It's as though there's a whole layer of meaning, provocative in design, which is nonetheless superfluous to the viewers--not necessarily lost on them, just not challenging their outlooks because it agrees with them. It's my hunch that most of Kubrick's audience, and especially the audience for this film which was billed as sexually shocking, will find organized religion and its rituals stifling to begin with. On these points, Kubrick won't be telling them much they didn't already believe.

By the way, none of this is a criticism. I think it would be quite a trick to get two of the biggest stars in the world to star in a film that is pitched for dead people.

Peter

peckinpah20012000 wrote:

the "back to the future" world of the
White House and the Republican Houses may make us think twice before
we dismiss Kubrick's warnings about the return of the archaic
repressed since every era believes itself more advanced than its
predecessor. This is part of the "romantic fallacy" described by
Robert Ardrey in AFRICAN GENESIS (1961) another key influence on
Kubrick.

Tony Williams

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25973
From: "Saul"
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 4:26am
Subject: Re: The Soft Skin (Was: Contempt) asitdid
Online Now Send IM

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> Too much identification with an unpleasant character - not unlike
> what Kubrick does when he makes us identify with Barry Lyndon -
>
not unlike what SK does with almost every one of his ch's, from
Humbert Humbert onwards. he causes us to be in a position where we
come to feel something for, and even identify with, people whom in
other circumstances some people might want to steer clear of. but it
is through this identification, (and the circular structure almost
every one of his films follows, bringing us back to the point we
started at[character-wise]), that he brings us to a deepened
understanding, or revelation of, society - or to be more precise, SK's
bleak biting view of society.

i'd rather a slightly unpleasant, morally-opaque ch to a clear-cut
goodie. 'noodles' aaronson is a fascinating ch for precisely those
reasons. the closer a director can push a ch to the limits, and still
make us identify with him, the more he/she causes us to look into
ourselves - if we feel uncomfortable watching those ch's it's because
we feel uncomfortable with human nature, and by implication, with
ourselves - i'm not bothered by the fact that there's a side to me and
most people which is capapble of all sorts of unpleasantries, nor am i
worried by the fact that we live in a amoral world (i accept it as
with all things). what i despise about hollywood cinema (when i
despise it that is) (or any cinema for that matter) is the moral world
it paints - one reason i liked 'man on fire' so much. we should be
less worried about whether dir's show their ch's contempt or love or
anything in between, and more concerned with how they judge their ch's.
25974
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:16am
Subject: Re: Satirists (was: Sturges Defended) noelbotevera

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

> wrote:
> > I likened Sturges to Fielding, Dickens and Chaucer because his
satire
> > shares the same temper as those masters. I would have compared
him
> > to C. M. Kornbluth, Frederick Pohl and Horace Gold but these
fine
> > American satirists are probably unknown to people who don't read
> > a lot of genre fiction (probably only Mystery Mike and Bill are
> > familiar with them.)
z>
> Indeed I am, Richard.
> But I'm not sure what you're getting at with the comparison,
except
> that Pohl and Kornbluth (and their editor, Gold, who was also a
> terrific storyteller when he had time), being close in time to
Sturges,
> hit some of the same targets - advertising, for example.

I don't know. Sturges' satire was more genial, overall. Kornbluth
had the stink (heady aroma for me) of geniune misanthropy. Always
thought Pohl kind of balanced him out. My favorite of their
collaborations was "Gladiator at Law"

>But there has
> never been a filmmaker who could stand up to comparison with
Robert
> Sheckley.

Hm? Not Sladek. He's been on my mind ever since all the hoopla about
the "Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy" movie came out.
25975
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 6:25am
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) noelbotevera

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
> you wrote
>
> > Sorry I didn't answer immediately--jesus, don't you guys ever
sleep?-
> > -it's shown occasionally on The Filipino Channel's movie venue,
> > Cinema One. No subs. If you know some Filipino subscriber, perhaps
> > he or she can tape it for you.
>
> Alas, while we had a next door neighbor who had a dish and hasd this
> channel, they have moved -- and so my only possible link has been
broken.

You got to make a new Filipino friend as soon as possible.

Don't know if you read my post re: Filipino films, but O'Hara does
have a recent film ("Babae sa Breakwater" (Woman of the Breakwater,
2004)) that actually made it to Cannes' Directors' Fortnight--first
Filipino film since 1989 to do so. Hopefully that'll be out in some
kind of DVD.

And regarding Taiwan and its friendly or at least ambivalent attitude
towards wartime Japanese, for the conventional Chinese attitude you
only have to watch "Red Sorghum" or "Farewell to My Concubine" or the
horrific "Man Behind the Sun" to see what they thought (Jiang Wen's
Devils on the Doorstep is a recent softening). The Philippines has
long had similar feelings, and "Tatlong Taong" actually came under
attack for not showing them as fire-breathing monsters. But O'Hara was
never one to go for the fashion of the moment.
25976
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 7:41am
Subject: Re: Daney on melodrama (was: Looking Down) bufordrat

hotlove666 wrote:

>A short unpublished text, mimeographed and handed out by Paolo Branco
>when he was running the Action-Republique, where a melodrama series
>was going on. I have it somewhere - if I find it I'll let you know.
>(I'll let you know too, Saul.) It's something Patrice Rollet missed
>in his mammoth collected writings.
>
>Let me know if you need Serge's article sent to you. I'll see if I
>can scan it.
>
>
Why, that's quite a generous offer. I'd be happy to send you something
in return, though I don't know whether I've got anything that might
interest you (the out-of-print collected writings of Jean Epstein,
perhaps?). I should be able to find the CdC article in the library, but
I'd certainly like to see the mimeograph if it turns up.

-Matt
25977
From: "Saul"
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 2:56pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) asitdid
Online Now Send IM

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera" wrote:

> Sorry I didn't answer immediately--jesus, don't you guys ever sleep?-

I thought we went over this one already.... I think some film critics
survive on micro-sleeps: their brain constantly shuts on and off for
1/48th of a second while frames change during the screening of films -
this all adds up to a lot of snooze time actually and staves off
further visits to the land of nod.
25978
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) michaelkerpan

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera" wrote:

> You got to make a new Filipino friend as soon as possible.

Easier said than done -- at least ones that have satellite TV links. ;~}

> Don't know if you read my post re: Filipino films, but O'Hara does
> have a recent film ("Babae sa Breakwater" (Woman of the Breakwater,
> 2004)) that actually made it to Cannes' Directors' Fortnight--first
> Filipino film since 1989 to do so. Hopefully that'll be out in some
> kind of DVD.

I always read your posts on Filipino films -- as these are just about
my only source of info on this topic.

> And regarding Taiwan and its friendly or at least ambivalent attitude
> towards wartime Japanese, for the conventional Chinese attitude you
> only have to watch "Red Sorghum" or "Farewell to My Concubine" or the
> horrific "Man Behind the Sun" to see what they thought (Jiang Wen's
> Devils on the Doorstep is a recent softening).

Just saw "Red Sorghum". Gorgeous cinematography -- but not a
particularly convincing script (even before the Japanese entered the
picture). I wonder did Japanese actually flay people alive with any
regularity (as the film would have one believe)?

MEK
25979
From: Jesse Paddock
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 8:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: Lynch mobs??? jesse_paddock

i see nothing extraordinary in it. To me, Kubrick must have been
living in Dullsburg when he made it. jp

On 4/22/05, jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
> wrote:
>
> >
> >
> >
> > I don't know where you live (it certainly doesn't seem to be North
> > America, or even less Cananda) but if over there "Eyes Wide Shut"
> > is more loved I'm glad to hear it. The fact of the matter is,
> > the majority of North American publications panned it, and
> everywhere
> > I've run into a discussion about it over where I reside in
> Vancouver, Canada
> > (whether it be on Film sets, in Film Schools, or in festival
> > screenings) seems to have everyone agreed it is a boring, God awful
> > travesty. I was not at all "pretending" that this grand work
> > is very much hated and misunderstood, it's what my Continent has
> > deemed, and I've heard and witnessed the message loud and clear
> for over
> > 6 years now in a repeated fashion. By the sounds of it you
> > live on a seperate continent (I'm guessing France... so Europe),
> and
> > if you don't like the film, you should really think about taking a
> trip
> > down here where not only will you feel right at home, but where
> > you'll also get most everybody to join your team.
> >
> > Mathieu Ricordi
>
>
> Dear Mathiew, I live in a state of irony.
>
> Does it really matter where one lives geographically?
>
> By the way, I don't dislike the film. You could check my review
> of it, if you cared. Do you think POSITIF would publish a put-down
> of a Kubrick film? But it seems you're only interested in
> your "continent" and its reactions. And obviously we're not talking
> to the same people. But then, most people on a_film_by live on this
> continent of yours and most like or even love the film. So it's not
> as bad as you claim it is...
>
> JPC
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
25980
From: Gary Tooze
Date: Sun Apr 24, 2005 11:52pm
Subject: Kubrick and ratios... garytooze

Some may be interested in this. In the new Kubrick Archived Book by
Taschen, it is littered with valuable information and Kubrick's own
handwritten notes:

I've added some new photos of this large book here:
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/kubrick-archives.htm

From HTF one chap wrote:

The archives book also once and for clears up the big aspect ratio
confusion in Mr. Kubrick´s own words and writing.

There is a photo of a SK drawing of potential shots for The Shining - he
made it for his DPs second unit crew for outdoor shots.
Now... lo and behold, as opposed to what Warner driven by Kubricks´s
assistant Leon Vitali want us to believe, it clearly states there in SKs
handwritten note that all shots should be COMPOSED for 1.85:1, but
PROTECTED for 1:33:1. Vitali and Warner for years have claimed that Kubrick
composed Shining, FMJ & Eyes Wide Shut for 1:33:1 and thus they should be
presented that way going forward.

Please, anybody from Warners, Mr. Vitali, or anybody else involved in the
re-transfers for the Special Editions, please read Mr. Kubrick´s own
writing and frame those movies the way he intended them - in 1:85 : 1 or at
least 16x9, it being close enough. The academy ratio transfers can continue
to exist as Pan & Scan alternatives with disclaimers, but certainly we
finally HAVE proof of what was aesthetically clear anyway when you watched
these three movies: They were NOT composed by Mr. Kubrick for 1:33 : 1 and
the current representations are not what the director intended.

Interesting stuff...

Best,
Gary
25981
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 0:38am
Subject: Re: Eternal Love (Lubitsch) sallitt1

> "Eternal Love" (Ernst Lubitsch, 1929) showed up unexpectedly on DVD at
> the local video store. This was the director's last silent film, and
> apparently was long considered lost.

I saw this on 16mm in film school back in the late 70s. So prints have
been kicking around. If you run across DVDs of KISS ME AGAIN or THE
PATRIOT, though, please alert us.... - Dan
25982
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:31am
Subject: Re: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) tharpa2002

"Michael E. Kerpan, Jr." wrote:

Noel:

"...regarding Taiwan and its friendly or at least ambivalent attitude
towards wartime Japanese, for the conventional Chinese attitude you
only have to watch 'Red Sorghum' or 'Farewell to My Concubine' or the horrific "Man Behind the Sun" to see what they thought (Jiang Wen's Devils on the Doorstep is a recent softening)."

The colonization of Taiwan and the invasion and occupation of China were two different experiences, so naturally attitudes will differ between the ROC and the PRC. Taiwan was relatively peacefully occupied for about the first 20 years. Successful exploitation depended on maintaining a modicum of goodwill on the part of the subject population; only the small minority who resisted was dealt with harshly. When the colonizers became more rapacious at the start of the Pacific War resistance increased proportionately but it never reached the levels it did in China.

On the mainland, Manchuria was occupied relatively peacefully at first. But here resistance was much more pronounced at the out set and grew rapidly (largely under the influence of the Chinese Communist Party) so repression was more severe. With the full-scale invasion of China proper the Kwangtung Army (Japan’s principle force in China) applied the principle of "The Three Alls:" Kill all, steal all, burn all. (and this was official policy.)

Michael:
"Just saw 'Red Sorghum'. Gorgeous cinematography -- but not a
particularly convincing script (even before the Japanese entered the
picture). I wonder did Japanese actually flay people alive with any
regularity (as the film would have one believe)?"

Yes. The more the Chinese resisted the more brutal the repression. And let us not forget the Nanjing Massacre, the slave labor camps (depicted in Kobayashi’s NINGEN NO JOKEN/THE HUMAN CONDITION,) chemical and biological warfare experiments on POWs, summary execution of Chinese communists, the comfort women, etc. About 9 million Chinese died at the hands of the Imperial Army. The current diplomatic crisis between China and Japan stems in part from of Japan’s refusal to officially acknowledge its wartime atrocities. Check out the on-line edition of Asia Times for background.

Richard

---------------------------------

Yahoo! Groups Links

To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25983
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 1:27am
Subject: Re: Kubrick and ratios... evillights

On Sunday, April 24, 2005, at 07:52 PM, Gary Tooze wrote:
> Please, anybody from Warners, Mr. Vitali, or anybody else involved in
> the
> re-transfers for the Special Editions, please read Mr. Kubrick´s own
> writing and frame those movies the way he intended them - in 1:85 : 1
> or at
> least 16x9, it being close enough. The academy ratio transfers can
> continue
> to exist as Pan & Scan alternatives with disclaimers, but certainly we
> finally HAVE proof of what was aesthetically clear anyway when you
> watched
> these three movies: They were NOT composed by Mr. Kubrick for 1:33 : 1
> and
> the current representations are not what the director intended.

Except that Kubrick was still alive when video editions of his films
were released (not to mention involved in the planning of the
pre-Digitally Remastered editions) -- and signed off on the fact that
'The Shining' and 'Full Metal Jacket' be released in 1.33:1. With that
kept in mind, this case seems kind of open and shut. It should also be
noted that video editions of the aforementioned, in addition to 'Eyes
Wide Shut,' are -not- "Pan and Scan." They're 1.33, with no
panning-scanning (the post-production video transfer techinque that
resembles a faux-dolly wherein perspective remains consistent). I'd
also object to the fact that the 1.85'ness of it all is "aesthetically
clear." It's perfectly reasonable and conceivable that he composed for
1.85, and then decided to "open up the composition" afterward to
present the film in the more rigorous 4:3 framing. To my mind, 1.33
seems the perfect ratio for 'The Shining' -- Kubrick, as
business-shrewd (or one might say as common-sensical) as Hitchcock, was
not going to compose for a format that for all intents and purposes no
longer exists theatrically.

I'd also like to register my displeasure about a THIRD release of the
Kubrick films on DVD. "Still better transfers" aren't reason enough
(the ones currently available are fine), and I highly doubt Warner
Bros. is going to decide to take the highbrow treatment to the
supplements -- I predict more random university professors chiming in
on crappily edited video featurettes, and Sydney Pollack giving twenty
minutes' worth of awed anecdote. Another release of the films is just
consumerist nonsense.

craig.
25984
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 2:27am
Subject: Jarman (was Pope and Fellini) cinebklyn

David E. asks:

> Do you know Derek Jarman's "Wittgenstein"?

Yes. I have always regarded it as Jarman coming
to grips not only with Wittgenstein's life, but
with his later philosophy, especially about
ordinary language.

I feel that "Blue" represents Jarman's attempt
to make a film in the fashion of Wittgenstein
rather than in the Romantic fashion. Sadly
for all cineastes we do not know how much
further he would have taken it.

Jarman's work is one of the reasons that I
speak of a new iteration of auterism: one that
abandons Romanticism (a reactionary world view)
and replaces it with an ordinary language one
(a progressive approach). I think Jarman would
have helped cinema get there.

Brian
25985
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:18am
Subject: Re: Jarman (was Pope and Fellini) tharpa2002

Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
"Jarman's work is one of the reasons that I
speak of a new iteration of auterism: one that
abandons Romanticism (a reactionary world view)
and replaces it with an ordinary language one
(a progressive approach). I think Jarman would
have helped cinema get there."

Romanticism always seemed to me a fairly elastic concept. It seems to vary from nation to nation and from era to era. Is there one Romanticism? Was Romanticism always reactionary or did it become reactionary? What are some representative works from various media? What about post-Romanticism? If ordinary language is a progressive approach what would be a revolutionary approach? (I know there's only one self-identified Communist and one self-identified Socialist on the list but the revolutionary possibilities may interest others as well.)

Richard

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25986
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:24am
Subject: Re: Kubrick and ratios... jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
>

To my mind, 1.33
> seems the perfect ratio for 'The Shining' -- Kubrick, as
> business-shrewd (or one might say as common-sensical) as Hitchcock,
was
> not going to compose for a format that for all intents and purposes
no
> longer exists theatrically.
>

Could you clarify the above? 1.33 IS the format that no longer
exists theatrically. This is very confusing.
25987
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:27am
Subject: Re: Jarman (was Pope and Fellini) cellar47

--- Brian Charles Dauth
wrote:
> I have always regarded it as Jarman coming
> to grips not only with Wittgenstein's life, but
> with his later philosophy, especially about
> ordinary language.
>

Ah, but Derek was a romantic nontheless.

Sadly
> for all cineastes we do not know how much
> further he would have taken it.
>

Truse as far as we're concerned. But the important
thing to remmeber about Derek is the fact that he
completely accepted his death, and was quite frank
about saying so. He felt that he'd accomplished all
that he was meant to have accomplished at the end of
his life -- even to the point of making a film though
blind (ie. "Blue")

> Jarman's work is one of the reasons that I
> speak of a new iteration of auterism: one that
> abandons Romanticism (a reactionary world view)
> and replaces it with an ordinary language one
> (a progressive approach). I think Jarman would
> have helped cinema get there.
>

I don't go along with your view of romanticism as
reactionary. It CAN be reactionary. But then so can
post-modernism. In fact as incarnated in Quentin
Tarantino, post-modernism is PURELY reactionary.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
25988
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:58am
Subject: Re: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) mathieu_ricordi

Quoting Zach Campbell :

> Maybe you caused massive disagreements because you made sweeping and
>
> unsupported announcements left and right while affecting a tone that
>
> said you were simply "telling it like it is."

Zach, I can't really see how my "announcements" were unsupported, but
if I am to clarify anything (at least try to) I can hardly see what tone
to use that wouldn't seem like I was "telling like it is". We're on the
internet here! We list off our point of view in word form where people
cannot see our facial expressions or witness if we would be gracious
if the debate were in person. Arrogance or humility
cannot be properly judged in cyber space, unless of course one always starts
his or her sentences with "in my humble opinion", or "It may be just
my impression". I haven't seen much of that so far, and I've been
told contrary opinions pretty straight up, so I don't see why I can't.

> > "Before Sunset", which I thought was absolute trash, was not a
>
> > casual film about "nothing"
>
>
>
> Wait, who claimed this? I must have missed it.

That would be Kevin.

> What does "manipulatively researched" mean? And can you prove this
>
> film does this? And anyway, surely you are aware that VERY similar
>
> charges are often levelled against Wes Anderson--some think his
>
> films are mere calculated appeals to sensitive hipsters. What's the
>
> point of this name-calling dismissiveness, which is itself quite
>
> lazy and always unconstructive?

I'm afraid I could give you a 15 page thesis on the film with every
point researched to the enth degree and you'd still find it lazy
and unconstructive. The fact of the matter is, I was not at all
engaging in "name-calling dismissiveness" but describing what Linklater
does as a filmmaker in his latest work. That the words I used verged
on insulting (which of course is unforgivable for a fan) does not
detract from their clear intent, or their description of the film at hand.
Perhaps I could have referenced the film a little bit more, although
both times I saw it were in the summer and my memory isn't locked on all
its details. But still, my words were not strictly bashing ones, they
spoke of "Before Sunset" in an overall manner, surely their seemingly hollow
nature spawns from your liking of the film. Do I have any proof that the movie
is "manipulatively researched" you ask? None that could convince you I'm sure,
but as a matter of fact I do. From the onset, the political/environmental
conversation the two talk about is standard copy University debate,
the exact oposition to the others' point of view is cardboard exercise
banter. Each knows exactly where to weigh in on what the other has forgoten,
or oppose the other to get that right balance of political correctness
or seeming flirtation with the taboo. From this first discussion, as in
the original time these 2 met 10 years ago, Linklater has made it clear
he has no point of view to give, or any desire to invest in a revealing
character that pins down a particular purpose. His two vessels are there
to offer the right balance to please all and seem to offer a contradiction
where as the exactitude of their opposition provides just the right
mob reach. When they move into Ethan Hawke's sexual anxt portrait through
jokes, and Delpy's strong resistance yet quiet and soon to be
revealed vulnerability, Linklater is again playing up to every inch
of his demographic with the right cycle of hypster attitude, educated
gender progression, and emotionaly wrought encountering. It's the
studied balance of classroom chic and chatroom rapture. Sure the positions
and clarity of the characters disentigrate from there but do they
offer anything in the way of evolution or freedom from manipulation?
Not really, Delpy's breakdown is an Arts school male fantasy (the
educated prude finally lightening up and investing herself emotionaly
into his advances) and Hawke's "breaking" news that he is married and has
a son is standard climactic narrative wheel turning made even more
projected by its obvious implications and dreams of the post-grad
European vacation plans. Linklater has done his research well, but that
is what makes the film so disgusting, that he invests himself no more
than what he is sure will click. If I seem insulting at this or any other
point, it is because I am weary and tired of this exercise in
flattey and non-peircing, non-curious, re-staging of hyp
degree holders who feel their perfectly cliqued and calculatingly
cocooned discussions are the entry into important states of affairs
and ways of living. That Wes Anderson has been accused of this is
something I cannot really answer to or elaborate on; the fact
is, nothing could be farther from the truth. This master's insistence
in fairy tale, and children's playground activity to reflect adult
and society disaster stands directly in opposition to the hypster
mentality of quotation crazy adult "coolness". His sincere and
gallows slapstick humour which easily slides into frank sadness and
back again is a back-turn to "hyp" reference humour and
tears through coffee table debates gone sour. Finally, his art
evokes enchantment and uplift through color, movement, and song;
qualities considered "excessive" and "flamboyant" to calm
and meditative hypsters who let their mellow and "thought-provoking"
words carry the classic set-ups and non-obtrusive techniques or scores
along. Anderson does not calculate in the least bit possible, he seeks
his world view and he sticks to it trechantly, and then dices it up
with his own feelings wrought with his own influences. To deny him
this is off the rocker. Linklater doesn't have a world view, he
just like to tell his audience there's is the right one no matter what.

> BEFORE SUNSET doesn't feel casual to me. It's a meticulously
>
> constructed film in which Linklater, Delpy, and Hawke must contrive
>
> to present the evolution (and rebirth) of a chemistry between two
>
> actors and two characters. Everything in it is dependent on the
>
> sense of temporality. It fits perfectly with Linklater's aesthetic,
>
> which is one in which a repertoire of diverse facades serve as a
>
> entryways into idle wanderings (=the action taking place) about the
>
> irreconcilible passing of time (=his Great Theme). I don't know
>
> what a "non-aesthetic cover" is, and I was unaware that only in
>
> our "new era" did "we" decide to have a vendetta
>
> against "pretentious art and aesthetics."

The film is meticulous all right, but not for the reasons you describe.
And the only "chemisty" felt between the two center-piece players
is the one we are supposed to feel right along side what they're evoking.
Delpy and Hawke's encounter in the first film, like their reuninon
in this one, is always predicated on the perfect balance of political
bounderies, generation X angst, and coles notes philosophy
equally consumed. Nothing between them ever risks falling into
frank emotionaly distressed admissions, or periods of regular
dramaticly progressive dialogue (and of course normally "shooting
the breeze" without sounding inteligent would be out of the question).
Whenever such a slip does occur, it is always brought back to the
studied "educated" notion of that remark, and put into another
discoursed quotation. Needless to say the characters themselves become
put into quotes, like the violent "heros" in Tarantino films
("Jackie Brown" not withstanding). When you add that all of this
is placed under the theme umbrella of the great theme of the
"irreconcilable passage of time", I wonder if you've seen the film
or just read the press release. Making such a statement not only
totaly misrepresents the film and generously crowns it a worthy
purpose it hasn't earned, it makes a sham out of the brilliant
examples of this powerful theme such as "The Magnificent Ambersons",
"Once Upon A TIme In America", "Barry Lyndon", "Providence",
"Last Year at Marienbad", and the recent "Time Regained". In those
films, the pain of memories lost and the exhuberance of those memories
were given visual and poetic reverie that made the loss and un-changable
quaility of time palpable, acid, momentous, and always at the
edge of reachability. Specific mementos and their significance
were emphasized to make the beast of the clock seem crueler, and the
need for memory more vital. The scene in the Leone work where
David as an old man props himself back up on the same tiolet seat
he used to always get up on to watch his beloved dance and the slit
where his eyes become illuminated (turning him back literally to a young
man doing the same thing) is alone such a single rebuke to anything
of that theme "Before Sunset" lovers will try to pin on that film.
And I could list off a whole lot from the films above mentioned
had I all day, but they share the same sence of artistic and dramatic
intent when dealing with time. "Before Sunset" can only be brought
into such a category if one considers every reunion film to be
about the passage of time. If upon their meeting for the first time
after ten years the two character hadn't jumped right back into the
pandering dialogue that marked their identifiability before, I might
have been somewhat convinced of some concious Linklater effort to
display their pain of seperation. But from Delpy's line "I knew
the book sounded familiar" onwards, any longing or regret the two
might have about having been kept apart all this time is buried
under their familiarity to us. As for you not knowing that we are
in the midst of an era that treats high aesthetics with contempt
and labels of "emptiness" and "immature" I can only ask that you
pay a little more attention to the film discussions and film reviews
you come upon. Rarely does anyone engage about the image anymore,
or the what a director is doing with the camera; the
"Holy-Trinity" of Character/story/subject rule with an iron
fist. And aesthetics aren't even well evaluated anymore
(that's why films like Mouline Rouge get away with being called
a musical, and well edited). I know you don't want me to sound off
like my word is law, but please look these things up.

> Why in the world do so many people
>
> misconstrue the dialogue in Linklater's films to be the undiluted
>
> expression of his entire aesthetic? Jesus. I swear, Linklater's
>
> detractors have an incredibly unsophisticated (and to my eyes
>
> opportunistic) penchant for making claims like, "Oh, these whining
>
> characters aren't profound! But the film presents them, so it just
>
> HAS to mean that the film itself is pretentious drivel. Right?"

I'm not sure what exactly what you're stating here, but claiming
that Linklater simply "presents" his characters and their talk
is way off base. You talk as if these personages were occupying a
space or situation that they had to deal with and that their creator
was stressing their diffirence to others around them. The entirety
of the project/work is based aroung them and their pandering!!!!
There's even an effort to go so far as to de-romanticize Paris
and strip the film of any nice location photography. Your distress
is unfounded because any Linklater ditractor worth his weight
won't attack the films for being pretentious, their sights are set
too low to achieve even that unwanted (but sometimes interesting)stature.
The all around effort is to make the character occupy a realm of
perfect sychronization with all sides and politics of the dialoguing
that occurs between people of that age and who'd like to remember being that
age. Pretentiousness comes from striving for some grand or poetic
evocation of a theme that falls flat and appears to heavy handed and
preachy. The unsophisticatedness you speak of come from trying to
make it seem like Linklater simply writes in these different characters
as part of a bigger purpose that is exteriour to them; when clearly
the aesthetic and the universe are built squarly aroung our
connection to them.

> > very responsible mise en scene
>
>
>
> What does this mean?

Once more, a question that seems to be just for argument's sake.
Having a responsible mise-en-sene is to have it follow the evolving
nature of the themes, environment, and personages of the piece. Many
directors lose their creativity with composition, movement, and
conceptualization just when the situations they present need it most.
When I spoke of Anderson having a responsible Mise-en-scene, I described
what he did to acheive a relay between his thought display and his
aesthetic display.

> > but isn't a flawed ocean liner more worthwile, funner to talk
>
> > about, more interesting to contemplate, than a finely chisseled
>
> > little row boat?
>
>
>
> It sounds to me like you're saying bigger is necessarily better.
>
> The answer is 'no.' Period.

I actually never came even close to saying that. Nor did I ever determine
even what a "small" or "big" film is; the fact is I don't know (one
of last year's better films, "The Return" only had three characters throughout
and was mostly set in nature, and felt quite monumental). All I said
was that smaller films are almost always less taken apart because
there are less things to pick at, and that bigger films who have
more easy targets to shoot at in terms of flaws should be granted
some leway because they strived for so much. Never once though did I
make a distinction between the 2 or what was better; the fact is I take
each film as it comes. It sounds to me like your trying to pin this
thought process on me as proof of my shaky dislike for "Before Sunset".
That isn't at all what it's based on.

> Clearly, you're conflating your distaste for BEFORE SUNSET (which
>
> you have every right to dislike) and your distaste for certain
>
> critical discourse on it. (Not to mention you're playing the
>
> underdog-martyr card shamelessly here: 'Anderson's film was so
>
> neglected because it was great and ambitious, Linklaters film was so
>
> praised because it was pandering and small.' Sorry, no dice. You
>
> need to present careful and considered analysis, not rhetoric and
>
> exaggeration.) And for the sake of intellectual clarity and rigor,
>
> please don't presume that all those who like BEFORE SUNSET like it
>
> for the oversimplified reasons you assert. (And please don't
>
> presume that those who dislike THE LIFE AQUATIC dislike it for the
>
> reasons you assert.)

No dice? What are we gambling here? Although I should point the same
assertion towards you. You can claim all you like that my analysis is not
careful and considered by continuing to ignore and side-step it, but
I'd watch the "exageration" accusations when you in turn chose
to presume I'm using the critical discourse around "Before Sunset"
to boost my argument against it. Any of us who think a film is terrible
will site its praise in a discussion if we think it is unfounded, same
with a film we love who not many other critics loved. This doesn't
equal playing the "under-dog martyr" game! Have you been in any
film conversation where the movie's success or critical concencus wasn't
brought up? It doesn't happen! You should pay more attention to what
people are saying then to what your trying to purporte they're saying.
As for presuming why people like or dislike or a film, same thing,
nobody has the slightest idea what will tick for one person and flop
for another, we can only assume based on our own disection of what
the film is doing; no I don't have God-like powers and with this in
mind there is no wind to your assertions. Let's keep in mind what
we are involved in here, film discussions! They are based on what we
see and how we react to what other see, stating these observations doesn't mean
leaning on them at all times. I hope you've had fun playing the
devil's advocate though.

> By the way, I adore Wes Anderson and THE LIFE AQUATIC.

Glad to hear it.

Mathieu Ricordi
25989
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:21am
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick and ratios... evillights

On Sunday, April 24, 2005, at 11:24 PM, jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
>>
>
> To my mind, 1.33
>> seems the perfect ratio for 'The Shining' -- Kubrick, as
>> business-shrewd (or one might say as common-sensical) as Hitchcock,
> was
>> not going to compose for a format that for all intents and purposes
> no
>> longer exists theatrically.
>>
>
>
> Could you clarify the above? 1.33 IS the format that no longer
> exists theatrically. This is very confusing.

The Home Theater Forum writer mentioned that the new 'Archives' book
(which I haven't seen yet -- I guess it's shipping in the U.S. this
week or next?) shows that Kubrick clearly and consciously composed his
shots on 'The Shining' for the 1.85 theatrical format -- my remark
above referred to the fact that he couldn't be framing exclusively for
1.33, as (like you say) that format no longer exists theatrically, and
such a thing -- the realities of distribution, etc. -- -did- matter to
SK. However, I do believe that one can frame for 1.85 and 1.33 at the
same time -- say, framing a 1.85 composition such that it retains, or
even gains, compositional power when the matting is removed / opened up.

cmk.
25990
From: Peter Henne
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 4:27am
Subject: Re: Jarman (was Pope and Fellini) peterhenne
Online Now Send IM

Oh please. I've read a good portion of the late Wittgenstein over and over, in college seminars decades ago and many times after, and a good chunk of the secondary literature. That doesn't make me a Wittgenstein expert--nobody is a Wittgenstein expert--but I do know that calling "Blue" Wittgensteinian because it is somehow anti-romantic is unsupported and vague. What about Wittgenstein's professed love for reading Tolstoy, most certainly a romantic author? And I go along with David on this one that a strain of romanticism runs through Jarman's own work. It was a great honor to meet Derek Jarman back when he did press in Los Angeles for "Edward II," and I will forever remember his logical mind, command of film history--and his didactic manner too, God rest his soul. As for Jarman's "Wittgenstein," I think he does a good enough job clearly presenting the basics of Wittgenstein's philosophical strands, how they changed, and some of the reasons why--which is enough for one film! But the
film is clearly more concerned with Wittgenstein the man, and how his intellectual development runs parallel to his life experiences.

Peter Henne

Brian Charles Dauth wrote:

I feel that "Blue" represents Jarman's attempt
to make a film in the fashion of Wittgenstein
rather than in the Romantic fashion. Sadly
for all cineastes we do not know how much
further he would have taken it.

Brian

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25991
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:26am
Subject: Re: Jarman (was Pope and Fellini) cinebklyn

Richard writes:

> Romanticism always seemed to me a fairly elastic
concept.

There are several iterations of Romanticism:
Early/High Romanticism, Critical Romanticism,
Negative Romanticism and Rancid Romanticism.

> Was Romanticism always reactionary or did it
become reactionary?

I agree with Cavell that it began as a response to
skepticism, but the problems set in when it loosed
itself from any concepts of moral perfectionism.
Thus unmoored, it drifted into into a de facto
reactionary posture.

> What are some representative works from various
media?

For Rancid Romanticism you have Neil LaBute and
Martin McDonough to start. Critical Romanticism is
well-represented by Patrick White. Tennessee
Williams and Minnelli are good places to begin an
investigation of Negative Romanticism.

> What about post-Romanticism?

Mankiewicz , Huston and Frankenheimer come to
mind.

> If ordinary language is a progressive approach what
would be a revolutionary approach?

Ordinary language is a revolutionary approach as far
as I am concerned -- revolutionary in a progressive
sense.

David E. writes:

> Ah, but Derek was a romantic nontheless.

Which I sense he was beginning to link with ordinary
language, especially with "Blue."

> But the important thing to remmeber about Derek
is the fact that he completely accepted his death,
and was quite frank about saying so.

Agreed. That is why I felt that he moved toward
Wittgenstein and away from Romanticism.

> I don't go along with your view of romanticism as
reactionary. It CAN be reactionary.

True, but most examples of non-reactionary
Romanticism are the earliest iterations, before it
it broke loose from a moral paradigm. As practiced
today it is mainly reactionary (which is Cavell's aim:
to re-unite Romanticism with a moral paradigm
through its association with ordinary language and
rule-making.

> But then so can post-modernism. In fact as
incarnated in Quentin Tarantino, post-modernism is
PURELY reactionary.

I am not smart enough for postmodernism. LOL. As
soon as I finish with Wittgenstein and Cavell,
postmodernism is my next stop.

Brian
25992
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:42am
Subject: Re: Daney on melodrama (was: Looking Down) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman wrote:

> I'd certainly like to see the mimeograph if it turns up.
>
It's here somewhere - so's Epstein, whom I'm dying to read after
reading the quote that begins Ranciere's La fable cinematographique.
It's staggering!
25993
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:45am
Subject: Re: Eternal Love (Lubitsch) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > "Eternal Love" (Ernst Lubitsch, 1929) showed up unexpectedly on DVD
at
> > the local video store. This was the director's last silent film,
and
> > apparently was long considered lost.
>
> I saw this on 16mm in film school back in the late 70s. So prints
have
> been kicking around. If you run across DVDs of KISS ME AGAIN or THE
> PATRIOT, though, please alert us.... - Dan

The Munich Film Archive just finished restoring Das Weib der Pharao -
sounds tasty.
25994
From: MG4273@...
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:10am
Subject: Oporto of My Childhood (Manoel de Oliveira) nzkpzq

Porto da Minha Infância / Oporto of My Childhood (Manoel de Oliveira, 2001)
will be shown today at 3:30 PM EST on Sundance East cable TV chanel (and at
6:30 PM om Sundance West). It is 61 minutes long.
This is a sort of mixture of documentary and some simple drama, recreating
the city of Oporto in the earlier 20th Century. It shows striking imagery and
visual style. It is sweet, and just plain gorgeous to look at.
This film was lised by Fred Camper as one of his favorite Oliveira films, in
an earlier post.

Mike Grost
25995
From: Gary Tooze
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 3:04pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick and ratios garytooze

At 10:23 AM 4/25/2005 +0000, you wrote:
>Except that Kubrick was still alive when video editions of his films
>were released (not to mention involved in the planning of the
>pre-Digitally Remastered editions) -- and signed off on the fact that
>'The Shining' and 'Full Metal Jacket' be released in 1.33:1. With that
>kept in mind, this case seems kind of open and shut. It should also be
>noted that video editions of the aforementioned, in addition to 'Eyes
>Wide Shut,' are -not- "Pan and Scan." They're 1.33, with no
>panning-scanning (the post-production video transfer techinque that
>resembles a faux-dolly wherein perspective remains consistent). I'd
>also object to the fact that the 1.85'ness of it all is "aesthetically
>clear." It's perfectly reasonable and conceivable that he composed for
>1.85, and then decided to "open up the composition" afterward to
>present the film in the more rigorous 4:3 framing. To my mind, 1.33
>seems the perfect ratio for 'The Shining' -- Kubrick, as
>business-shrewd (or one might say as common-sensical) as Hitchcock, was
>not going to compose for a format that for all intents and purposes no
>longer exists theatrically.

Good point Craig, but (From our ListServ - thanks Eric) thinking back to
what I know on the topic, Kubrick really framed those later movies
open-matte because he hated how films like 2001 were cropped for BBC
television (I saw it recently shown on TV in a TERRIBLE print, cropped to
1:33....just horrible...). In a sense, I think if he was still making
films today, he would have liked the Super 35 format or something of the
sort (or maybe not). Kubrick just saw an issue with the fact that films
had to be shown so differently in theatres and on television, and
certainly, when he made alot of those decisions, the home video market
wasn't what it is today. Seeing the growing popularity of 16:9 TV sets, I
imagine it's possible he would have changed his mind.

There's still a lot of confusion in this regards, even with something like
Dr. Strangelove. I had always wondered why he wanted these varying aspect
ratios, and even continued to approve film and home video transfers in this
format up until his death

Best,
Gary
25996
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:02pm
Subject: re: response to Mathieu/Zach/etc apmartin90

"the studied balance of classroom chic and chatroom rapture"

Mathieu, I like BEFORE SUNSET a little better than you do, but your
above sentence quoted above is an absolute gem of critical description.
Bravo! Zach, I know you can give it as good as you're getting it here -
let loose!

I't's curious - this is just an idle comment, not a proper argument or
analysis - but what you, Mathieu, say so damningly of Linklater (with
some justification, I feel), I would tend to say of Wes Anderson! There
was something very 'hip' (in your terms) and calculated about LIFE
AQUATIC to me - I admire his formal tactics (some aspects of the film
are almost avant--garde) but the recourse to 'poignant human moments',
always as the film is winding up, always feels a bit hollow, even a bit
grotesque, to me. Here is a director who should cultivate a little more
black-comedy 'contempt' for his characters !

Adrian
25997
From: Peter Henne
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jarman (was Pope and Fellini) peterhenne
Online Now Send IM

Brian, your words runneth over! All this terminology is NOT ordinary language and is exactly what Wittgenstein critiqued.

Peter Henne

Brian Charles Dauth wrote:

There are several iterations of Romanticism:
Early/High Romanticism, Critical Romanticism,
Negative Romanticism and Rancid Romanticism.

For Rancid Romanticism you have Neil LaBute and
Martin McDonough to start. Critical Romanticism is
well-represented by Patrick White. Tennessee
Williams and Minnelli are good places to begin an
investigation of Negative Romanticism.

most examples of non-reactionary
Romanticism are the earliest iterations, before it
it broke loose from a moral paradigm. As practiced
today it is mainly reactionary (which is Cavell's aim:
to re-unite Romanticism with a moral paradigm
through its association with ordinary language and
rule-making.

Brian

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
25998
From: BklynMagus
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:24pm
Subject: Re: Jarman (was Pope and Fellini) cinebklyn

Peter writes:

> Brian, your words runneth over!

A do tend to be prolix sometimes.

> All this terminology is NOT ordinary language
and is exactly what Wittgenstein critiqued.

Huh? Richard raised a question and I answered
him by listing the ways I had refined the term
"Romanticism" by adding words.

If the conversation between us continues, he
might see how he uses words like "negative,"
"rancid" etc. and how they might change the term
"Romanticism" when attached to it.

For me, this is the process of ordinary language
theory. I do not think Richard and I are engaged
in anything more than casual conversation, which
is exactly the arena where ordinary language
philosophy tells us to be.

Terms like "rancid," "negative," etc are not
symbolic terms. They are everyday words that
are probably used by most, if not all, members of
afb.

Brian
25999
From: Peter Henne
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jarman (was Pope and Fellini) peterhenne
Online Now Send IM

"Ordinary language" as Wittgenstein used the term is not a theory, he was contra all philosophical theorizing as you know from reading "Philosophical Investigations," "On Certainty," etc. Remember "the solution is seen in the vanishing of the problem" (actually, that's from the "Tractatus," but essentially the same applies to the concept of rules in the "Investigations"). Once you make a heading for a conceptual category, the term inevitably becomes symbolic, even if it does not start out as such.

Myself, I'm not lining up with Wittgenstein. My own opinion is that I don't think anyone can, he makes a radical critique of philosophy which philosophers have been trying to pin down and answer for more than 50 years.

Peter

BklynMagus wrote:

the process of ordinary language
theory.

Terms like "rancid," "negative," etc are not
symbolic terms. They are everyday words that
are probably used by most, if not all, members of
afb.

Brian

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26000
From: "Fernando Verissimo"
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick and ratios f_verissimo

> Good point Craig, but (From our ListServ - thanks Eric) thinking back to
> what I know on the topic, Kubrick really framed those later movies
> open-matte because he hated how films like 2001 were cropped for BBC
> television

Gary,

it could be the opposite, actually. Kubrick, a former still photographer,
may have showed a preference for the academic aspect ratio in his late
films. The standards for theatrical
exhibition, however, are either 1:66 or 1:85, depending on the country you
live in; EYES WIDE SHUT was shown in 1:66 here in Brazil, for instance. SK
knew the films would be cropped everywhere, so he had to let some free space
on the bottom and/or top of the frame, to avoid serious problems with
theatrical exhibition.

I don't know if SK would change his mind with the rising popularity of
widescreen television. I do think the films were primarily composed for
1:33; they look better that way.

Now, to make things a little more complicated, Columbia released a new
special edition of DR. STRANGELOVE which is framed at 1:78! I wonder what
Jan Harlan has to say about that.

fv

a_film_by Main Page

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