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.

26001 From: MG4273@...
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 5:10pm
Subject: Romanticism, Rancid and Reactionary (OT) nzkpzq

Do not understand at all the concept of Romanticism being reactionary. Lots
of the key English Romantics were liberal: Blake, Coleridge, Shelley, Keats,
the Brontes. And so were such famous composers of the Romantic era as Beethoven
and Rossini. Admittedly, Scott was conservative, and Wordsworth became so in
later years - but still, this whole concept of Romanticism seems alien to my
experience.
Also, people keep writing as if Romanticism were mainly a political or
philosophical doctrine. No one seems to mentions the awesome works of art it
generated: poetry, painting, music. This artistic achievement seems to be its core.
Finally, I'm not sure which criteria are used to identify filmmakers which
are heirs of Romanticism. Neil LaBute's "In the Company of Men" might be Rancid,
all right, but how can one tell if it is Romantic? What does this have to do
with "Lewti" or "Prometheus Unbound"?

Mike Grost
whose spirit is "footless and wild, like Birds of Paradise" - Coleridge
26002
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 9:20pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick peckinpah200...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne wrote:
>> 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
>
>
> The film is also explicit about the fact that the "best people" are
the dead people or those affluent human beings who have sacrificed
their identity for materialism as with those mechanical artistocrats
in BARRY LYNDON or those ghostly figures in THE SHINING. Hence, their
sexuality is totally dominated by a sterile death instinct.

BTW, Am I alone in my suspicion that when the camera zooms into two
masked figures on the balcony looking at Harford during the orgy that
they are actually Nicole Kidman and Syndney Pollack (or Sky Dumont)?

Tony Williams
26003
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 10:27pm
Subject: Re: response to Mathieu/Zach/etc jpcoursodon

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

Except that I for one don't really know what "classroom chic"
and "chatroom rapture" are. These are "rooms" I unfortunately do not
frequent.

Reading Mathieu's lengthy diatribe I kept wondering why he seems
to hate people with diplomas so much. I felt like asking
(paraphrasing Mike Hammer in KMD): "You have something against
education?" And why take Linklater to task for showing people who
think and speak the way people their age and with their background
are most likely to think and speak? And what's so wrong about making
a film that is not likely to turn its target audience off?

By the way (I may have already mentioned this in an earlier
post), as a French native I thought it was quite interesting that
the French actress Julie Delpy has become so americanized that she
has lost practically all of her Frenchness together with her accent.
This is something Mathieu could use against the film, I guess. The
film couldn't be what it is without the Americanization of
Julie/Celine.

JPC
26004
From: MG4273@...
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 6:49pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick nzkpzq

In a message dated 05-04-25 17:24:33 EDT, Tony Williams writes:

<< The film is also explicit about the fact that the "best people" are
the dead people or those affluent human beings who have sacrificed
their identity for materialism >>

I am not so sure. Certainly the film condemns the Big Rich who have joined
with Ziegler to stage the orgies. But the film also seems quite sympathetic to
Tom Cruise's wealthy doctor. His office scenes show a caring, conscientious
doctor, doing all the right things to treat his patients carefully. Cruise also
seems to be a faithful husband and devoted father. It is hard to see where the
film criticizes him, or shows his wealthy life-style as illgotten.
Similarly, the astronauts in 2001 seem terminally upper middle class, but
they are doing a useful job and it is hard to see that they are morally corrupt.
All of this does not add up to a coherent point of view. Ziegler is seen as
an expression of the corruption of the rich, but Cruise's doctor is not. A very
hard to interpret film.

Mike Grost
26005
From: MG4273@...
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 7:09pm
Subject: Re: Oporto of My Childhood (Manoel de Oliveira) nzkpzq

More thoughts on:
Porto da Minha Infância / Oporto of My Childhood (Manoel de Oliveira, 2001).

My knowledge of Oliveira is limited, but still can see parallels to other
works. This film especially resembles "Voyage to the Beginning of the World".
Both feature long, spectacular moving camera sequences, going straight down long
but curving and twisting roads - some of the visual highlights of both films.
Both are set in Portugal, and both try to show locales that are relevatory or
typical about that country.
"Voyage" has a director-figure embedded in the story, who offers much
commentary; "Porto" has the director commenting directly on the sound track as
narrator.
Both films have much about the dark fascist era of mid-Twentienth Century
history, and all the tragedy it caused. "Porto" seems far more hopeful about the
future, however.
There is also a scene from a play here, as in "I'm Going Home". The
play-within-the-play was the best part of "I'm Going Home", IMHO, although I did not
care for the rest of the film much - it seemed awfully thin.
"Porto da Minha Infância" also reminded me the the various memoirs of Jorge
Luis Borges, that are scattered through his works. Both create a rich depiction
of all the cultural life and ferment in their worlds in the 1920's-1940's - a
glimpse of a now vanished but fascinating world. And of the romantic life of
young men of the era.

Mike Grost
26006
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: Oporto of My Childhood (Manoel de Oliveira) cellar47

--- MG4273@... wrote:
The
> play-within-the-play was the best part of "I'm Going
> Home", IMHO, although I did not
> care for the rest of the film much - it seemed
> awfully thin.

I couldn't disagree more. I found it one of the most
moving films I've seen in recent years -- and
especially compelling in light of "Voyage," which is
Mastroianni's last film.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26007
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:35pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick and ratios... samfilms2003

> 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.

A problem being, however that the full 1.33 Academy extends above and below the
top and bottom line of 1.85. Unless you "pillarbox" the 1.33 inside the 1.85, it's not
just cropping but a different rectangle.

-Sam
26008
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: response to Mathieu/Zach/etc cellar47

--- jpcoursodon wrote:

>
> Reading Mathieu's lengthy diatribe I kept
> wondering why he seems
> to hate people with diplomas so much.

Because they're not indicative of actual intelligence
-- though they're invariably regarded that way.

I felt like
> asking
> (paraphrasing Mike Hammer in KMD): "You have
> something against
> education?" And why take Linklater to task for
> showing people who
> think and speak the way people their age and with
> their background
> are most likely to think and speak?

I prefer "Dude, Where's My Car?"

And what's so
> wrong about making
> a film that is not likely to turn its target
> audience off?
>

We're critics, not market researchers.

> By the way (I may have already mentioned this in
> an earlier
> post), as a French native I thought it was quite
> interesting that
> the French actress Julie Delpy has become so
> americanized that she
> has lost practically all of her Frenchness together
> with her accent.
> This is something Mathieu could use against the
> film, I guess. The
> film couldn't be what it is without the
> Americanization of
> Julie/Celine.
>

This is the most hilarious aspect of the movie.
Linklater's diptych are ideal "date movies" -- and
very clever male weepies. Just think of millions of
Ethan Hawke's out there making plans to go to europe
to meet Julie Delpy on a train.

And then think of the fact that they would have a much
better chance by coming to L.A. and running into her
at "Book Soup."

I say her career has been downhill all the way since
Godard's "King Lear"

Artistically bien sur.
>
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26009
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 11:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kubrick and ratios... evillights

On Monday, April 25, 2005, at 07:35 PM, samfilms2003 wrote:
>
>> 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.
>
> A problem being, however that the full 1.33 Academy extends above and
> below the
> top and bottom line of 1.85. Unless you "pillarbox" the 1.33 inside
> the 1.85, it's not
> just cropping but a different rectangle.

Right... but aren't we saying (at least, it's what I was saying) that
the top and bottom lines of 1.85 are essentially the borders of a matte
on a larger 1.33 Academy image? And that he composed for 1.85 and 1.66
mattes, while adhering to the opinion that the ideal presentation of
the film would have the matte removed, thus opening up the space above
and below the bottom-lines of 1.85/1.66? I didn't say nothin' about
cropping or culling the 1.33 image from inside the 1.85.

craig.
26010
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 0:07am
Subject: Re: Re: response to Mathieu/Zach/etc mathieu_ricordi

Quoting jpcoursodon :

> Reading Mathieu's lengthy diatribe I kept wondering why he seems
>
> to hate people with diplomas so much. I felt like asking
>
> (paraphrasing Mike Hammer in KMD): "You have something against
>
> education?" And why take Linklater to task for showing people who
>
> think and speak the way people their age and with their background
>
> are most likely to think and speak? And what's so wrong about making
>
> a film that is not likely to turn its target audience off?
> JPC

Actually, I just got my diploma, so I can't very well hate myself
or the education I feel I've amassed. It's precisely because of my
time getting it that I feel so angered at what Linklater does.
There is a massive hypocricy and knowledge confinement that is
exercised in universities to keep the "duscourse communities"
afloat and the different agendas controlled. In this sence, these
tactics operate somewhat like the American media in their seemingly
loaded yet intentionaly empty verbosity, with equal ramifications
and exile handed out to dissention. There is also a monsterously
glib satisfaction at quoting and amassing different safe research
points that operate in a confined and circular political correctness
always dissapointingly repeating itself. Recent studies and
fully apparent university architecture point towards a concerted
government and institutional effort to promote and boost the science
and technology faculties and keep the arts ones in perpetual
useless and self-satisfying limbo. Seems paranoid? It really isn't,
much more of a fully illuminated pathway that is baying laid out
complete with escpecially large funding doses from such places
as the military (the new breed of us grads must be helpers
in the technilogical races to come). With all this in mind, it
is more so disheartening that art-education diplomacy in its
"hyp" stoicness is being glamorized such. Such hypocricy and
empty self-satisfaction needs to be exposed, or else the place
of the educated person or artist in society needs to be outlined
in more radical and bold ways (Leos Carax's "Pola X" was more
on the right track). Wes Anderson (who many have been trying
to convince me falls into the "hyp" calculatedness I attribute
to Linklater) actually goes much further in displaying the
emotional wreckage of artistic or educated talent loose on its
heels without proper model kinship/patronage, or human responsibility.
Whether it be Max Fischer in his incredible "Rushmore", or the
grown-up children of "The Royal Tenenbaums", or the sea captain/filmmaker
and his crew in "The Life Aquatic", none of their talents or
education are ever glamorized without showing the ugliness of their
emotional driftness first; and most of all, their ambition always extends beyond
being satisfied and wanting to capture more. An
example of this would be Max Fisher in Rusmore wanting
to re-arrange all the broken relationships
around him while presenting his mamoth play. This is a lesson Linklater has
plainly not learned, and the contradictions of the critical body surrounding
his work have been massive. If films are made glamorizing the FBI, or
a certain corrupt government, or the media, they are condemned for such
practices, no one says "what's wrong with just simply showing these
things?" But Linklater glamorizes and panders to a certain group
and wanabees of this group who should be doused with cold water or
be inspired to reach for more (with at the very least a piece of art
that goes somewhat above just the same old conversational padlock); and
the result is instant praise. And I'm glad you brough up the Americanization
od Julie Deply, I felt I alluded to such a stratedgy in my evocation
of Linklater's uninspired visual rendering of Paris.

Mathieu Ricordi
26011
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:25pm
Subject: Great films about people with diplomas (was: response to Mathieu) scil1973

In a message dated 4/25/05 6:45:15 PM, cellar47@... writes:

>
> Because they're not indicative of actual intelligence
> -- though they're invariably regarded that way.
>
True. But so what? Film criticism/journalism isn't indicative of actual
intelligence either. And are we including high school diplomas here? I think JP's
critique of Mathieu's post (similar to his critique of Rosenbaum on Woody
Allen) is dead on. Do we need a new list? Great films about people with diplomas?

<< I prefer "Dude, Where's My Car?" >>

Underrated flick.

<>

Some of them are. Not me, though. Probably not you either. ;)

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26012
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Mon Apr 25, 2005 8:30pm
Subject: Great films about people with diplomas (was: response to Mathieu) scil1973

Cyberspace ate part of my post. The underrated flick was DUDE WHERE'S MY CAR?

Kevin John

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26013
From: "Maxime Renaudin"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 0:57am
Subject: Re: response to Mathieu/Zach/etc jaloysius56

A bit intrigued by this thread (by Mathieu's diatribes), I went to
see Aquatic Life yesterday and Before Sunset just tonight.

I would agree that most of the lines in Sunset are rather dull. And
so what? Mathieu kept arguing that "characters are calculated and
pandering to a certain demographic". I don't particularly expect or
long for non-identifiable outsiders or anti-heroes. I don't make any
distinction between the tears and the laughs based on the
social/integration/educational level of the characters. I love
common people with common feelings. Anyone in this damned world is a
pretty good demographic to me. This being said, the whole story
about character identification is a farce. I have never thought I
was Davy Crockett. Actually, Zissou's existential questions are
pretty common, aren't they? One could argue that Before Sunset
approaches the greatest subject ever. (Yes, I'm a 30 white male who
can't see where he fucked with his own life... Is that
identification?)

As for "aesthetic". I really can't see why Before Sunset should be
blamed for "a deliberate non-aesthetic cover", as natural result of
the so-called "character/story/subject rule". It seems to me that
there is here a definite and strong aesthetic choice: the close work
with the actors, the frontal gaze, the sense of length. As valuable
(I don't say successful) as the protean fantasia patchwork of
Anderson. It seems to me that both films are sapped by the
ambitions of their filmic system. Therefore a certain sense of
failure (I can't say I really liked any).
Linklater is apparently unable to push himself to the limits where
he should go, to this territory where actors and sentiments are at
risk, when the words, common or not (we don't care) burn the lips.
Something that, among others, Eustache or Vecchiali could have done.
I see no manipulation there, only impotence.
Anderson wears himself out trying to make a surprise from each
scene, from each single shot. One can go into ecstasies over the
invention (I had some fun), but one can get slightly tired of it.
His "conceptualizing" has soon drown his sincerity, if any. I can't
say I saw any pain.
26014
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:19am
Subject: Re: response to Mathieu/Zach/etc jpcoursodon

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

Maxime I think this is a great post and I agree with so much in it
that I have to delete the good stuff and retain just the stuff I
don't quite agree with.

>> Linklater is apparently unable to push himself to the limits
where
> he should go, to this territory where actors and sentiments are at
> risk, when the words, common or not (we don't care) burn the lips.

WHY should he go there? Let him go where he wants to go.

> Something that, among others, Eustache or Vecchiali could have
done.

Sure they could and they did. But Link is not Eustache and he's
not Vecchiali. And in a sense it's a good thing. Don't smother him
under prestigious references, the way Matthew did dragging in Welles
and I can't remember how many classics.

> I see no manipulation there, only impotence.

A strong word! And totally based on the premise that the artist
should have done what YOU think he should do.
26015
From: Jesse Paddock
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:21am
Subject: Re: Re: response to Mathieu/Zach/etc jesse_paddock

Sounds like you should be railing against something like The Barbarian
Invasions. I guess I can see your point, such as it is, about
Rushmore and maybe Tenenbaums, but I'm sorry, Life Aquatic was
possibly the most "self-satisfied" film I saw last year. It wasn't
bad, I suppose, just utterly shrug-inducing. Empty surfaces, if
harmless enough.
But don't try to tell me Anderson doesn't pander to a niche audience:
the types who love Nico or Henry Selick, for instance. His films are
strictly in-crowd experiences.
And let's not forget his formal education has led directly to a
stifling visual style that threatens to have exhausted itself after
only 4 films.

<"hyp" stoicness is being glamorized such

I agree, but I think Anderson is the example of that art-education
mentality, not LInklater.
26016
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:34am
Subject: Re: Re: response to Mathieu/Zach/etc cellar47

--- Jesse Paddock wrote:

> But don't try to tell me Anderson doesn't pander to
> a niche audience:
> the types who love Nico or Henry Selick, for
> instance.

(Gasp!) I resemble that remark!

His films are
> strictly in-crowd experiences.
> And let's not forget his formal education has led
> directly to a
> stifling visual style that threatens to have
> exhausted itself after
> only 4 films.
>

Sez you.

I found "The Life Acquatic" to be a real surprise
after "Royal Tenebaums" -- which captures a certain
sliver of upper west side New York life that I never
expected to see on screen.

Not that the cinema would have been any the less
richer for not including it.

Extra added attraction -- the face of the demon!

http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/g001/b_richardlinklater.html

Frankly I think he's cuter than Ethan Hawke. But
that's just me.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26017
From: "Maxime Renaudin"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:46am
Subject: Re: response to Mathieu/Zach/etc jaloysius56

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" >
>> Linklater is apparently unable to push himself to the limits
>> where he should go, to this territory where actors and
>> sentiments are at risk, when the words, common or not (we don't
>> care) burn the lips.
>
> WHY should he go there? Let him go where he wants to go.

Well, simply because I'd love to, because this territory is the one
I cherish (among others). He may go wherever he wants, I'm the only
judge of what I like or dislike. I'm not sure to understand your
point anyway : assuming that he is an artist, shall take his
work "as it is" without questionning it?

> Don't smother him under prestigious references

The references were only there to precise my idea of the territory.

> > I see no manipulation there, only impotence.
>
> A strong word! And totally based on the premise that the artist
> should have done what YOU think he should do.

Precisely. As far as I'm not satisfied by what he has done.
We only see what we want to see.
26018
From: "Saul"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:33am
Subject: Attention all afb’ers who are interested in SALO asitdid
Online Now Send IM

2005 marks SALO's 30th anniversary, and it seems that now is a good
time to re-assess the film and address some of the issues it has
raised since its release.

I am currently trying to get two roundtable discussions, on different
topics, off the ground. These follow the template laid out in "Obscure
Objects" (which I reprinted here:
http://www.lightsleepercinemag.com/reviews/obscureobjectsofdesire.php)

One of these will be a roundtable discussion on SALO. So far, me and
David E are in on the project, and we are currently looking someone
who has something very particular they would like to say about the
film that hasn't been said before, and who might be interested in
being the third participant in this jam session on SALO.

David wrote in an email re topics of discussion for the SALO
roundtable: "There's a lot to discuss in terms cinematic horror, the
fact that the film has been linked in the popular imagination to his
death, the fact that it's his last film, what Pasolini was actually
like, etc." Though this isn't a set list or anything, just to give
everyone an idea of the sort of thing we have in mind - we can,
however, look at, or raise, any number of topics on the film.

If anyone is interested in being in on this roundtable discussion (to
be conducted, I imagine, mostly through email), please email me or
David offline.

-- Saul.
26019
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:32am
Subject: Re: Character (Was: Contempt) noelbotevera

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
> 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)?

Yep. Accounts passed down by grandfolks, some using techniques far
more imaginative than what you see onscreen.
26020
From: "Henrik Sylow"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:49am
Subject: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 henrik_sylow

I've just seen "xXx 2: The State of the Union" and what surprised me
was that the story is about the minister of Defence, who plots to
assassinate both the president, the vice-president and the entire
cabinet and to take over the presidency of America.

Here we see an attack on the capitol and how his loyal soldiers kill
off all the ministers and the vice-president as entertainment, and its
curious in contrast to 11/9 and how Hollywood approached "sensibel"
material back then.

For instance "Collateral Damage" was postponed five months, because
one of its plotelements involved a bombing of civilians in the US, and
now three years later, a situation far worse and more obscene is used
as entertainment for kids.

Originally Cohen recieved two scripts for "xXx 2", one by Wilkes, who
also wrote "xXx", which takes place in Asia, and this by Kinberg. The
producers chose Kinberg and both Cohen and Diesel walked away from the
project, as rumours has it because they both found the script
inferior. But Cohen stayed on as co-producer and intends to use Wilkes
script for "xXx 3".

But my question is: Has Hollywood, or even the US, forgotten about
11/9? Is the horror of having two passengerjets torpeding WTC today
only "something that happend in the past"?

Henrik
26021
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:36am
Subject: Moratorium on 'hip' (please) apmartin90

Although I myself recycled the word in a recent post, I think we
sensible folks at AFB should call a moratorium on dismissing/damning
certain filmmakers as 'hip' (or even 'hyp'). Brad said it of the Coens,
Mathieu targeted Linklater for this, I turned it on Anderson, etc. But
it is a completely meaningless term of abuse, surely. It is below us!
It's like blasting someone for being short, bald, or a pinko. It's
always easy code for: 'I think this filmmaker is inauthentic, pandering
to an audience, emotionally manipulative, cashing in on fashion', etc
etc - and then invariably setting him or her up against some
'visionary', some 'true artist', some spectacularly true-to-themselves
human being, who is supposedly the opposite of all that. (And of
course, to accuse someone else of being hip means that you yourself are
'above and beyond hip'!) This is just ad hominem abuse. Who knows,
finally, whether Linklater (or Coens or Jarmusch or anyone) is busting
a gut to be 'hip'? Perhaps they are in fact serious and genuine about
what they do! Abd, by the same token, I bet if Blake Edwards (to cite a
director I love) COULD be hip, he would be, in a split second!
Filmmaking - and, er, life itself - is always a messy mixture of
authentic and inauthentic motives, 'maverick' gestures and compromises.

We have to say more than that someone is 'hip' to mount a intelligent
critique of their work. Otherwise, it's just schoolyard name-calling
(and perhaps a "studied balance of classroom chic and chatroom
rapture"!).

Adrian
26022
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:41am
Subject: Re: Moratorium on 'hip' (please) thebradstevens

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> Although I myself recycled the word in a recent post, I think we
> sensible folks at AFB should call a moratorium on
dismissing/damning
> certain filmmakers as 'hip' (or even 'hyp'). Brad said it of the
Coens,
> Mathieu targeted Linklater for this, I turned it on Anderson, etc.
But
> it is a completely meaningless term of abuse, surely. It is below
us!
> It's like blasting someone for being short, bald, or a pinko. It's
> always easy code for: 'I think this filmmaker is inauthentic,
pandering
> to an audience, emotionally manipulative, cashing in on fashion',
etc
> etc - and then invariably setting him or her up against some
> 'visionary', some 'true artist', some spectacularly true-to-
themselves
> human being, who is supposedly the opposite of all that

But what if one encounters a film made by someone who really does
seem to be inauthentic, pandering to an audience, emotionally
manipulative, cashing in on fashion? What is one supposed to do?
Pretend one really admires the film in question? Keep quiet?

The two films I admire most from the last decade are Abel Ferrara's
NEW ROSE HOTEL and Philippe Grandrieux's LA VIE NOUVELLE, both of
which were abused by the majority of critics - Ferrara's film in
particular was described as incompetent in most quarters. Why?
Because Ferrara and Grandrieux are not 'hip'. Because they refuse to
flatter the sensibilities of audiences. Because they don't construct
artistic 'worlds apart' into which viewers can escape (in this sense,
there is little difference between STAR WARS and BARTON FINK, or
between RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and LIVING IN OBLIVION). Because they
make films which are 'difficult' - difficult in the sense that one
must work to understand them, and the idea of working to understand
art is no longer 'fashionable', no longer 'hip'. How much simpler it
is to simply dismiss these masterpieces and watch something 'easy',
like FARGO or AMERICAN BEAUTY or MAGNOLIA - three widely admired
films that can be taken as representative of what is 'cool' in
today's American cinema.
26023
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:01am
Subject: re: moratorium on hip apmartin90

Brad 'Moral Vision' Stevens wrote:

"But what if one encounters a film made by someone who really does
seem to be inauthentic, pandering to an audience, emotionally
manipulative, cashing in on fashion? What is one supposed to do?
Pretend one really admires the film in question? Keep quiet?"

No, of course, no one should keep quiet if they want to criticise
something! My point is that simply branding someone or something 'hip'
or 'cool' is not enough to make that critical case. I am totally with
you on Ferrara and Grandrieux, but I have had people confront me
precisely with comments like "oh, that Grandrieux guy is so 'in' right
now with you cinephile intellectuals, he sure knows how to talk the
talk", blah blah. It's meaningless when these people say it, and it's
meaningless when we say it!

Adrian

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26024
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:22am
Subject: Hitchcock, Michael Bay and The Birds mclayf00

"'The Birds,' one of Alfred Hitchcock's most celebrated horror
thrillers, looks set to fly again as a remake..."

http://film.guardian.co.uk/news/story/0,12589,1470601,00.html
26025
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:29am
Subject: Re: moratorium on hip mclayf00

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

> My point is that simply branding someone or something 'hip'
> or 'cool' is not enough to make that critical case.

Adrian's right. It's not what's implicit in the word "hip" that's
problematic, just the blanket statement shorthand laziness of the
label itself.

I'm a film student and love to preach to my classmates (to their
chagrin) that "because it's cool" isn't a sufficient enough reason to
execute a bravura camera move (or whatever) in our films. Similarly,
"because it's cool" isn't a sufficient enough critical argument
against whatever one deems to be "hip" in pictures, despite what may
be implicitly suggested by such throwaway words.
26026
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 0:14pm
Subject: Re: moratorium on hip thebradstevens

> > My point is that simply branding someone or something 'hip'
> > or 'cool' is not enough to make that critical case.

But did anyone ever suggest otherwise? One can no more make a
critical case against FARGO by branding it 'hip' than one can make a
critical case for LA REGLE DU JEU by branding it 'sublime'.
Nevertheless, these forms of shorthand do have a certain use -
particularly since few of us (rightly or wrongly) have the stomach to
subject films towards which we have a strong negative response to
detailed textual analysis.
26027
From: Jesse Paddock
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 0:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Response to Mathieu/David/JP (was: Contempt) jesse_paddock

" wrote

They were actually supposed to be 32. We're told over and over again
that they were 23 in the summer of Before Sunrise, and Sunset is set
nine years later. Small point perhaps, but since you cite it with
such officiousness...
26028
From: Jesse Paddock
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 0:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: moratorium on hip jesse_paddock

> But did anyone ever suggest otherwise? One can no more make a
> critical case against FARGO by branding it 'hip' than one can make a
> critical case for LA REGLE DU JEU by branding it 'sublime'.
> Nevertheless, these forms of shorthand do have a certain use -
> particularly since few of us (rightly or wrongly) have the stomach to
> subject films towards which we have a strong negative response to
> detailed textual analysis.
>

You had me til "negative". I'm much more willing to churn films that
piss me off--Million Dollar Baby, say-- through the wringer than
movies that astound me on first watch. It's the ones that I love that
make me go "Oh, yeah, well there's that problem, but gee, just look at
this..." The fact that Fargo still stands as the testament for
knocking hipster filmmaking proves how stale this is (I'm not calling
you out for your example, but acknowledging the rote-ness of the
claim).

Both emanate from people who direly wish to be on the outside of
consensus--note how they always go hand-in-hand with claims of "all
the critics love it and I don't". As it happens, my personal laziness
kicks in more often with the films I'm positive about; I'm much more
apt to call something sublime and let it go at that than abuse
something for its "hipness" (why would that bother me?) Call it
fanboy over killjoy: I'd rather be hosed down than a perpetual wet
blanket.

Jesse
26029
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:22pm
Subject: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 cellar47

--- Henrik Sylow wrote:

>
> But my question is: Has Hollywood, or even the US,
> forgotten about
> 11/9? Is the horror of having two passengerjets
> torpeding WTC today
> only "something that happend in the past"?
>

Not exactly.9/11 was a spectacle against which
Hollywood can't really compete. The closest thing to
it is "The Towering Inferno."

Maybe someday somebody might be interested in making
smaller scale personal story about 9/11. Say film
about Berry Berenson.

Maybe her tiwns might give it a shot. But then they
may well might want to make a film about their Dad too
-- thus making the Perkins rivals to Cheevers.

I'm just sayin'...

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26030
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 1:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Moratorium on 'hip' (please) cellar47

--- thebradstevens wrote:

> Because Ferrara and Grandrieux are not 'hip'.
> Because they refuse to
> flatter the sensibilities of audiences. Because they
> don't construct
> artistic 'worlds apart' into which viewers can
> escape (in this sense,
> there is little difference between STAR WARS and
> BARTON FINK, or
> between RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and LIVING IN
> OBLIVION). Because they
> make films which are 'difficult' - difficult in the
> sense that one
> must work to understand them, and the idea of
> working to understand
> art is no longer 'fashionable', no longer 'hip'. How
> much simpler it
> is to simply dismiss these masterpieces and watch
> something 'easy',
> like FARGO or AMERICAN BEAUTY or MAGNOLIA - three
> widely admired
> films that can be taken as representative of what is
> 'cool' in
> today's American cinema.
>
I'm not familiar with Grandrieux , but in film
circles I can't imagine anyone more hip than Abel
Ferrara.

I think what you're getting is then notion of
Linklater and the Coens being pseudo-hip -- striking
non-conformist poses but not really following through.
nd that I thoroughly agree with."The Big Lebowski" is
practicallya Bible of pseudo-hipness -- "slacker"
cartoon characters who wouldn't know alienation if
Juliette Greco bit them in the ass.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26031
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:11pm
Subject: Re: Moratorium on 'hip' (please) thebradstevens

> >
> I'm not familiar with Grandrieux , but in film
> circles I can't imagine anyone more hip than Abel
> Ferrara.

In enlightened cinephile circles, sure. But in the world of
middlebrow critics, he's regarded as a talentless sleazebag - and
let's not forget, these people can make or break a film with a single
review. They even end up setting the agenda for the rest of us, one
way or another. There is a reason that you're not familiar with
Grandrieux, but have probably seen more than a few films by the
Coens, P. T. Anderson, etc. Or that (as a contributor to this group
whose name escapes me once pointed out) we have to explain who Hou
Hsiao-Hsien is to people who watch thirty films every week.
26032
From: "Zach Campbell"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:23pm
Subject: Response on BEFORE SUNSET rashomon82

Several times, Mathieu, you invoke an invisible weight behind your
pronouncements. You assure me that that you could write a "15 page
thesis" on what's wrong in BEFORE SUNSET … you "could" write it, but
of course you won't. So what does that mean? It gives the
impression that you're holding back for the sake of time,
a_film_by's interest, my fragile debating skills, or a combination
of the three. You have "proof" that BEFORE SUNSET was
manipulatively researched, though I (a "fan") would not recognize
because I (yes, a "fan") am apparently immune to proof. More than a
little insulting, and no, this isn't a description of the film, is
it?

When you write, "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?" you're approaching the film
from the presumption that Linklater is aiming all of his energies
toward the straightforward (in fact, with the so-called "non-
aesthetic cover," deceptively straightforward) narrative arc of two
nauseatingly identifiable characters.

You continue later, "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." Ah, so it bothers you that these CHARACTERS
are unaware of their own ignorance. You are disturbed by the
possibility that they (like most of us on this planet) are self-
absorbed, and hate the fact that their conversations follow "the
perfect balance of political bounderies, generation X angst, and
coles notes philosophy equally consumed," such as conversations
between young degree holders are prone to. One wonders if your
vociferous reaction against these characters, Mathieu, whom you take
such great care to describe (contemptuously), stems from a
repression of the fact that you yourself identify with them deeply?
Who knows … ?

But I don't think identification is at the root of BEFORE SUNSET or
Linklater's oeuvre, anyway. You're certain that ""shooting the
breeze" without sounding inteligent" is out of the question for
these characters. Well maybe that's part of the problem too: the
first half of the film is them shooting the breeze, without sounding
intelligent! I felt that the film was trying to impart a sense of
overwhelming awkwardness for a solid reel or two.

The ur-narrative that marks BEFORE SUNSET is one on the digression
of utopia from reality, OK? BEFORE SUNRISE, with its televisual
style, partook in a deliberately naďve romanticism, which is
essentially denied by the first shots of the sequel. BEFORE SUNSET
appropriates the cultural implications of real-time video, which are
foolish but exist nonetheless, to signify an engagement with reality
and immediacy. The attentive viewer will notice, however, that
BEFORE SUNSET's project involves the demolition of this very
assumption, because the film's running span is marked by a
continuous shift from the `realistic' presumption of romance's death
to the `impossible' resurrection and continuation of the characters'
chemistry (utopia). Chemistry is the thing at the heart of the
film; romance is the contingent arena for this chemistry. The film
is a celebration of chemistry, it is neutral toward romance.

The beginning of the film subjects us to an awkward reunion in which
all the narrative hopes of the first film have been acknowledged to
be the idle talk of young twentysomethings. (They exist only in
dreams: see the Jesse/Celine segment of WAKING LIFE.) The video is
harsh and clear (and Ethan Hawke hasn't aged very well)--through
these cues the film is foregrounding the difference of the nine
years between each narrative, and the failure of the first
narrative's naďve, youthful, romantic promise.

As the film continues, Jesse and Celine gradually rediscover their
chemistry. The "non-realistic" romantic charm of BEFORE SUNRISE now
becomes reinjected into this "realistic" narrative, precisely
because Jesse and Celine, as characters (not characters we have to
identify with: only give some credit to) share a chemistry, a deep
desire to do nothing but fuck and talk, over and over, the very
things they clearly do in their dreams (again, WAKING LIFE). Holes
slowly creep into the `realist' veneer: footage from BEFORE SUNRISE
marks a deliberate visual implantation of an earlier romantic
promise, and the fact that the film traverses an imaginary Paris
could be said to reinforce the notion of fantasy (utopia).

The climactic return of Jesse and Celine's comes on the boat ride on
the Seine, and one needn't dwell too long to see the symbolic (and
therefore "non-realistic," which is not to assume "anti-realistic")
importance of the figure of the river, which signifies time passing
(not to mention death). Floating on the metaphorical reminder of
their own impossible romance, Jesse and Celine continue to give sway
to their chemistry. But time is passing, literally and
figuratively. The real-time that marked the film's beginning
as "realistic" (anti-romantic) is also a device which intensifies
the pathos of the "romance" (anti-realism). The twin poles of the
film are now aligned in great tension, as the clock ticks.

The justly celebrated climax is an `impossible ending,' the
expiration of a game that can no longer be played. (To me one of
the few film moments of last year that brought a similar intensity
of emotion was the confrontation with the shark in THE LIFE AQUATIC,
actually.) Just as Linklater did with SLACKER, in which the
viewer/camera becomes implicated as a new camera in the diegesis
(and then destructs), BEFORE SUNSET follows the division until the
breaking point, when a fade to black is the only choice left because
the dual narrative (`realism'/`romance') simply cannot continue.

Can't you see that this premise is exactly the kind of narrative
that Borges would have written had he been a romantic? An
impossible story in which the fulfillment of romance defies logic or
reason, in which a chemistry between two people is so great that the
form of the story constantly wrestles with the referents of time,
obligation, practicality, that is, in a word: reality? And this is
the important thing about, the subject of, the film (in its breezy
way): the impossible precipices that chemistry brings us to, and the
way in which it structures desire (yearning), so that choosing
romance can tip us over the edge.

That's the film. Now I've got to call you on some other comments
you made:

> 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.

OK, so here's what I'd like to know. If this era treats high
aesthetics with contempt, and "rarely does anyone engage about the
image anymore," and aesthetics "aren't even well evaluated anymore,"
can you please point me to a time (let's stick with film history for
the sake of remaining on-topic) when high aesthetics were revered,
when people were articulately engaging the image this way and that,
when aesthetics were well-evaluated by masses of people!?

If you were to take your own advice and "look these things up,"
you'd see that the "Holy-Trinity" of character/story/subject (which
you must think appeared on the scene circa autumn 1988 or something)
has ruled the dominant discourse and commentary on film since as
long as character/story/subject have been major components of the
commercial (and non-commercial) cinema! Genuine and committed
engagements with aesthetic issues, with form and history, have
historically been a minoritarian pursuit, OK?

It's amusing that you've learned to affect a nostalgia for an era
and practices that never existed (and which, I gather, you wouldn't
be old enough to have experienced even if they did once exist). I
gather this is one of Armond White's influences on you. But if
you're going to project such dire assertions, you should acknowledge
that in film culture at large, things have always been more-or-less
this way, and in the pockets of hardcore cinephilia today, people
are hardly slaves to character/story/subject.

Brad makes a similar, more defensible comment when he writes: "the
idea of working to understand art is no longer 'fashionable', no
longer 'hip'" But I wonder when this idea WAS hip? And even if it
WAS hip, was it ever GENUINELY taken up!? Could it be the 1960s, at
a peak of arthouses in America and New Waves in Europe? And even
then, wasn't there a great domineering philistinism, as indicated by
the dismissals of GERTRUD, of 7 WOMEN, of RED LINE 7000; and
arguments in which Godard and Bergman and other serious artists were
attacked for their pretentiousness or their emptiness? (Nevermind
the fact that I kind of agree with this assertion vis-ŕ-vis
Bergman…) Certainly this seems to be the lay of the land I've
always encountered when I have bothered to "look these things up."

> 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 […]
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;

You're not even going to own up to the fact that you DID make a
distinction between the two and indicated that one was better when
you suggested that a "flawed ocean liner" (=big) is "more
worthwhile," "funner to talk about," and "more interesting to
contemplate" than a "finely chiseled row boat" (=small)? Jesus
christ …

> You can claim all you like that my analysis is not
> careful and considered by continuing to ignore and side-step it,

Originally, you didn't have an analysis to sidestep: only a tirade.
Now that you've given an appropriate response which does involve
some analysis, you and others can decide whether or not I've engaged
it appropriately.

--Zach
26033
From: "Brian Dauth"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:53pm
Subject: Re: Romanticism, Rancid and Reactionary (OT) cinebklyn

Mike writes:

> Do not understand at all the concept
of Romanticism being reactionary.

At the beginning it wasn't; it was
liberating. As one example: the idea
of the individual was very radical
when Romanticism started. Today, the
notion of the individual is a
conservative one, with the notion of
the collective or group being the
radical one.

> Also, people keep writing as if
Romanticism were mainly a political or
philosophical doctrine. No one seems to
mentions the awesome works of art it
generated: poetry, painting, music. This
artistic achievement seems to be its
core.

I think the political, philosophical and
artistic are its integrated core.

> Finally, I'm not sure which criteria are
used to identify filmmakers which are heirs
of Romanticism.

One of my criteria are those artists who
wish to engender various emotional states
in their audiences. I think Romanticism
went from the aesthetic depiction of
interior emotional states to the creation
of emotional reactions within audiences
through aesthetic means.

Such a development went hand-in-hand with the
rise of industrialization and capitalism.
A market was created for the work of art that
was able to engender emotions in the viewer/
purchaser. Hence, the rise of objets d'art
and artistes des objets.

People wanted to be able to say "I laughed!
I cried! I shat upon myself!" An offshoot
of Romanticism becomes concerned with the
commodification of art to produce emotional
effects. The production of emotional effect
then becomes a standard for evaluating art.
Did you cry? Did you laugh? Did you shat
upon yourself? In highbrow circles this
effect is labelled "transcendent" -- always
vaguely (and non-materialistically) defined.

For me, what has been jettisoned is the
belief that one of the functions of art is
to provoke and challenge the viewer through
the use of aethetic means. What has replaced
it is the evoking of emotions and the
manipulation of the audience (with their tacit
agreement, which means that the emotions
engendered are ones that they want to feel.
Hence my conclusion that Romanticism is
conservative in that it has limited itself to
the invocation of pre-approved emotional
states. Much of Romantic art now seeks to
please rather than provoke, abandoning its
earlier radical incarnation.)

Brian
26034
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 3:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Romanticism, Rancid and Reactionary (OT) tharpa2002

--- Brian Dauth wrote:

"For me, what has been jettisoned is the
belief that one of the functions of art is
to provoke and challenge the viewer through
the use of aethetic means. What has replaced
it is the evoking of emotions and the
manipulation of the audience (with their tacit
agreement, which means that the emotions
engendered are ones that they want to feel.
Hence my conclusion that Romanticism is
conservative in that it has limited itself to
the invocation of pre-approved emotional
states. Much of Romantic art now seeks to
please rather than provoke, abandoning its
earlier radical incarnation.")

This post and your previous one answering my queries
clarifies your position. Thanks.

I more or less agree with you. During the late 18th
to mid-19th centuries Romanticism was radical in the
way you describe, but by the end of the 19th century
it had become regressive, and in the WWI era when it
was wedded to nationalism it had become entirely
reactionary. But I think it can still be used
radically. For example, Brakhage is a Romantic in the
orthodox menaning of the word, and among poets Gregory
Corso is a Romantic and a radical. Of course such
practioners of radical Romanticism are few and far
between.

Richard

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26035
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:03pm
Subject: Re: Moratorium on 'hip' (please) lukethedealer12

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> But what if one encounters a film made by someone who really does
> seem to be inauthentic, pandering to an audience, emotionally
> manipulative, cashing in on fashion? What is one supposed to do?
> Pretend one really admires the film in question? Keep quiet?
>
> The two films I admire most from the last decade are Abel
Ferrara's
> NEW ROSE HOTEL and Philippe Grandrieux's LA VIE NOUVELLE, both of
> which were abused by the majority of critics - Ferrara's film in
> particular was described as incompetent in most quarters. Why?
> Because Ferrara and Grandrieux are not 'hip'. Because they refuse
to
> flatter the sensibilities of audiences. Because they don't
construct
> artistic 'worlds apart' into which viewers can escape (in this
sense,
> there is little difference between STAR WARS and BARTON FINK, or
> between RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK and LIVING IN OBLIVION). Because
they
> make films which are 'difficult' - difficult in the sense that one
> must work to understand them, and the idea of working to
understand
> art is no longer 'fashionable', no longer 'hip'. How much simpler
it
> is to simply dismiss these masterpieces and watch
something 'easy',
> like FARGO or AMERICAN BEAUTY or MAGNOLIA - three widely admired
> films that can be taken as representative of what is 'cool' in
> today's American cinema.

I guess if it's not "hip" it must be "cool."

Seriously, though, I find this response eloquent, especially because
of the films cited above. It's especially interesting--and astute--
to equate Lucas/Spielberg and Coen Brothers, Mendes, et al. The
same hollowness pervades, and that's what keeps me away from most
Hollywood movies these days though I used to see everything I could
as a matter of course. Though it wasn't always so, "difficult" may
really be the way to go in the present, and having already put
NEW ROSE HOTEL at the top of my list to see thanks to the Brad and
other a_f_b posters earlier, I'll now add LA VIE NOUVELLE and hope
for DVD availability on these titles or notice from another member
if there is an L.A. theatrical screening coming around.
26036
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:21pm
Subject: Re: moratorium on hip lukethedealer12

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jesse Paddock wrote:

> Both emanate from people who direly wish to be on the outside of
> consensus--note how they always go hand-in-hand with claims of "all
> the critics love it and I don't". >
>
Jesse

Which critics? The tastemakers who determine what films get awards
every year? The ones with really good taste like all those
contributing to this particular thread? "All the critics" really
covers a lot of camps, including camps within this group.

Personally I have no problem being part of the consensus which labels
LA REGLE DU JEU "sublime." That goes for a lot of other consensus
choices too. What really takes guts of course is to go against a
consensus among thoughtful critics whom one respects. For example,
if 95% of a_f_b members consider A CLOCKWORK ORANGE enthralling from
first frame to last and I happen to recoil from each of those frames
than I might even be branded as "unhip" or "uncool."

Blake Lucas
26037
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 4:59pm
Subject: LA VIE NOUVELLE (Was Re: Moratorium on 'hip' (please) thebradstevens

having already put
> NEW ROSE HOTEL at the top of my list to see thanks to the Brad and
> other a_f_b posters earlier, I'll now add LA VIE NOUVELLE and hope
> for DVD availability on these titles or notice from another member
> if there is an L.A. theatrical screening coming around.

The DVD of LA VIE NOUVELLE is available from France together with the
book LA VIE NOUVELLE: NOUVELLE VISION (Editions Leo Scheer - Nicole
Brenez was the editor, but her name doesn't appear on the cover). Not
sure where you can order this from, but Adrian Martin is among the
contributors, so I guess he could provide that information.
26038
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:38pm
Subject: Re: re: moratorium on hip fredcamper

A key portion of our Statement of Purpose reads

"...our main focus is not on naming moods or pleasures, nor on movie
gossip or trivia, though all these can be of interest, but in
experiencing, and discussing, films in terms of aesthetic merit and/or
the relationship of style to meaning."

As I see it, discussing how "hip" a film is an in what crowd is like
naming a "mood" of the film, or perhaps a form of gossip.

As all can see Peter and I haven't tried to stop discussions of moods or
gossip here, but as I see it the core mission of our group is for people
to discuss films as they seem them, in terms of "aesthetic merit."
Gossip can be useful too, and discussing a film's "reception" is fine,
but such matters, including how "hip" a film is and in what context has,
in my view, nothing to do with its aesthetic merit one way or the other.

Similarly, films that appeal to the lowest common denominator of an
audience can be as great (albeit arguably for different reasons than
those of their appeal) as a Brakhage or a Bresson film. "Hip" is a
similar aesthetically neutral category, in my view.

What is nice to see is that it doesn't seem very common here for members
to *defend* a film on the grounds that it's "hip" or "cool" or "smart"
or any of those other nearly-meaningless words.

Fred Camper
26039
From: "Fred Patton"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 5:52pm
Subject: LA VIE NOUVELLE (Was Re: Moratorium on 'hip' (please) fred_patton

I ordered my book from Amazon.fr. I already had the Studio Canal disc,
ordered as well from Amazon.fr. There are no subtitles, but one
doesn't need them. It's a silent movie semantically. Very, very, very
little dialog is spoken, and when it is, English is more prevalent
than French. The texture of the voice is more important the particular
words, in my opinion. Anyway, surely others can speak of this
intriguing film much more effectively, and in fact, work calls!

book & disc
http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/291528072X/171-5360822-6117012?%
5Fencoding=UTF8

disc only
http://www.amazon.fr/exec/obidos/ASIN/B00009MELD/qid=1114537901/sr=1-
1/ref=sr_1_10_1/171-5360822-6117012

Fred Patton
26040
From: "Frederick M. Veith"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:19pm
Subject: Re: LA VIE NOUVELLE fredveith

Brad,

This can be ordered from (among other places, no doubt) amazon.fr.

One question though. Perhaps you or someone else can shed some light on
this. I recall having read somewhere that the version of the film which
comes with the book is different from the previously released DVD. Is this
true? How does it differ?

Thanks,

Fred.

On Tue, 26 Apr 2005, thebradstevens wrote:

> The DVD of LA VIE NOUVELLE is available from France together with the
> book LA VIE NOUVELLE: NOUVELLE VISION (Editions Leo Scheer - Nicole
> Brenez was the editor, but her name doesn't appear on the cover). Not
> sure where you can order this from, but Adrian Martin is among the
> contributors, so I guess he could provide that information.
26041
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:24pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick and ratios... samfilms2003

:
> I didn't say nothin' about
> cropping or culling the 1.33 image from inside the 1.85.
>
> craig.

OK, I wasn't sure. I didn't mean NOT to give you the benefit of the doubt, but this
issue can be confusing (I myself look at charts before discussing it sometimes, even
the nomenclature that gets used in popular discussion ("widescreen") get used in a
variety of ways.

Worse, for instance some directors / dp's have operators frame for "common topline"
(this might not be uncommon on say a US made-for-TV expecting non-US theatrical
distribution) .

In some sense I think framing is a bit of a lost art in theatrical filmmaking. I mean
sometimes there isn't A frame to speak of.....

-Sam
26042
From: MG4273@...
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 2:39pm
Subject: Re: Romanticism, Rancid and Reactionary (OT) nzkpzq

Am still a bit confused.
Hardly any works of art, poetry, painting, music, made after 1880 have been
widely viewed as Romantic. Romanticism is largely viewed by art historians as a
movement that had come to an end by that time. In fact, most Romantic art is
pre-1860, even. There are a few exceptions - every so often there will be a
modern artist, such as Brakhage, who explicitly invoked the heritage of
Romanticism as part of their self-definition.
This is essentially the time that posters are proposing that Romantic Art
became reactionary and corrupt. But as far as I can tell, this is the time in
which Romantic Art largely ceased to exist!
Trying to link just about any filmmaker (good or bad) to Romanticism is a
tricky business. Film did not exist as a medium during the Romantic Era. And few
filmmakers self-identify themselves as Romantics. There are also few films
that link to the Romantic poets, painters or composers. One can think of "Clouds
of Glory" (Ken Russell), which is about Wordsworth and Coleridge, and a
handful of films about Beethoven. The subjects of Minnelli's films, such as Van Gogh
in "Lust for Life", are definitely NOT considered Romantic by art historians,
nor are the post-impressionists celebrated in "An American in Paris", nor are
the designers of the Ballets Russes, who influenced Minnelli's use of color
and form.
Consequently, I am afraid that we are in a circular logical loop here. If you
brand rotten filmmakers as Romantic (take Neil LaBute - please!), and then
use them as proof that Romanticism is bad, no outsider can prove or disprove
this assertion.
To sum up: posters are probably right to blast several rancid filmmakers as
artistically awful. Have no complaint about this at all. But cannot see how
these rotten apples link to Romanticism, which is a historical era that vanished
150 years ago.

Mike Grost
26043
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:40pm
Subject: Re: LA VIE NOUVELLE thebradstevens

> One question though. Perhaps you or someone else can shed some
light on
> this. I recall having read somewhere that the version of the film
which
> comes with the book is different from the previously released DVD.
Is this
> true? How does it differ?
>

I never heard this. The version that comes with the book is identical
to the one that was made available (with English subtitles) by the
international distributor soon after the film had been completed.
26044
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 7:05pm
Subject: Re: Romanticism, Rancid and Reactionary (OT) cinebklyn

Mike writes:

> Romanticism is largely viewed by art historians
as a movement that had come to an end by that
time. In fact, most Romantic art is pre-1860, even.

I do not put much faith in the artificial boundaries
imposed by art critics. Just as Enlightenment
thinking has continued to evolve and exist after the
"end" of the Enlightenment, so have the tenets of
Romanticism. Romanticism was too strong a
revolution just to stop.

> But as far as I can tell, this is the time in which
Romantic Art largely ceased to exist!

For me, Romanticism and its mutations exist up to
this very day in art, politics and philosophy.

> Trying to link just about any filmmaker (good or
bad) to Romanticism is a tricky business.

Not really.

> Film did not exist as a medium during the
Romantic Era.

But many filmmakers adopt take a Romantic outlook
in the way they fashion their art.

> And few filmmakers self-identify themselves as
Romantics.

Few filmmakers identify themselves as untalented
hacks either, but that shouldn't stop us from
labelling them as such.

> If you brand rotten filmmakers as Romantic (take
Neil LaBute - please!), and then use them as proof
that Romanticism is bad, no outsider can prove or
disprove this assertion.

I never did that. What I stated was that Neil LaBute was
a rotten filmmaker. He can also be viewed as as the
latest iteration of Romanticism which I then called
Rancid Romanticism. As Richard said: there are some
good iterations of contemporary Romanticism. LaBute
just isn't one of them in my opinion.

> But cannot see how these rotten apples link to
Romanticism, which is a historical era that vanished 150
years ago.

The era may have vanished, but the beliefs live on and
continue to produce new iterations of Romanticism that
influence the making of art.

Brian
26046
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 8:20pm
Subject: Bergman and sadism (Was: Contempt) sallitt1

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

It's interesting that a "nice humanist" filmmaker like Bergman has such an
intimate relationship with sadism.

One cannot fail to note the great number of times when sadism is depicted
in Bergman films. Characters speak to each other with unspeakable
brutality on a regular basis. Bergman doesn't reject or condemn
characters for this, nor does he whitewash the behavior.

In my opinion, the catch, the problem, is that these exacerbations are
timed to the rhythm of the drama, that they embody or create dramatic
peaks. Is there drama without unspeakable sadism in Bergman films?
Sometimes, but not often.

I find this confusing. Or rather, I feel that it confuses the effect that
the sadism is supposed to have on us.

As a counterexample, I think of the sadistic climax of Fassbinder's PETRA
VON KANT, where Petra lets loose on everyone around her, including mother
and daughter. Fassbinder times the sadism to the drama, but he seems to
know that drama is a pleasure delivery system, and cops to the pleasure of
seeing the sadism not only as a hurt, but also as a shocking liberation
from social restraints. One is welcome to reject the scene if one doesn't
like the feeling, but the cards are face up on the table.

(I am not dismissing Bergman by any means - I think he is a significant
filmmaker, despite my problems with him.) - Dan
26047
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:05pm
Subject: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) kinoslang

> In enlightened cinephile circles, sure. But in the world of
> middlebrow critics, he's regarded as a talentless sleazebag - and
> let's not forget, these people can make or break a film with a
single
> review. They even end up setting the agenda for the rest of us,
one
> way or another. There is a reason that you're not familiar with
> Grandrieux, but have probably seen more than a few films by the
> Coens, P. T. Anderson, etc. Or that (as a contributor to this
group
> whose name escapes me once pointed out) we have to explain who Hou
> Hsiao-Hsien is to people who watch thirty films every week.

That was me who said that about the "hassle" of Hou and I speak up
because I wholeheartedly agree with Brad's interpretation of the
situation in relation to Ferrara (could there have been a film more
perceived as "sleazebag" than LES CARABINIERS in its day?).
Unfortunately I haven't seen any Grandrieux.

I had a response to the "hip human moments" strain but deleted it
after reading Fred's "moritorium" and Brad's heartfelt indignation.
As a general tendency in american cinema however, its alarming that
soap opera sythesis and the ever present idea that a director
must "create" a world (to their taste accordingly; hip) has gained
so much currency. That is, rather than dealing with the world
outside the their frames. Less Scrosese, more Bazin is what I say.

Its a real problem, these filmmakers attitudes toward human
relationships; the Andersons, Fincher, David O. Russell (the O. is
for Selznick plus Richard Brooks), the Coens. All of the above seem
comfortable with what is already known about people. In my humble
opinion, they are harmful to the generation of filmmakers coming
after them, in part because of their hegemony over film school types
and
chats (lineage is crucial). They are without Rivette's danger factor
(in form and content), also mentioned long ago on AFB.

I agree with JPC (about Linklater) that representing contemporary
chat room types isn't an inherently bad thing and that we must be
careful not to look down our noses at the attempt. If there is a
lacking feeling (I haven't seen the Linklater) it likely comes from
somewhere else. Who knows how Lang's gum-chewing, thriller-novel
reading blondes went over at the time. But it was Lang who
constantly emphasized the importance of a film reflecting its time,
deliberately.

It's Ferrara in NEW ROSE HOTEL who hints at the true meaning of chat
rooms and high technology-- even the fate of thinking, memory, and
love. Its a document of our times.

(Thanx to Tag Gallagher and Bill Krohn who unwittingly came together
again to show me NEW ROSE HOTEL)

Swathingly,
andy
26048
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:39pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick peckinpah200...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> > >
> I am not so sure. Certainly the film condemns the Big Rich who
have joined
> with Ziegler to stage the orgies. But the film also seems quite
sympathetic to
> Tom Cruise's wealthy doctor. His office scenes show a caring,
conscientious
> doctor, doing all the right things to treat his patients
carefully. Cruise also
> seems to be a faithful husband and devoted father. It is hard to
see where the
> film criticizes him, or shows his wealthy life-style as illgotten.

Yes, the film is very hard to interpret and the weight of
condemnation lies on the Ziegler group. But neither young Fr.
Harford or his wife are free from temptation nor really sympathetic
people. They exist on the margins of that society and would like to
be part of it as young Dr. Tom's nightly frolic reveals. The film
does criticize his emotional immaturity and reversion to primal
atavism when he wishes to avenge himself over his emotional
cuckolding. There is an extreme difference between his affluent life-
style and that of the Zieglers although he is a "wannabee" on more
than one lvel.

> Similarly, the astronauts in 2001 seem terminally upper middle
class, but
> they are doing a useful job and it is hard to see that they are
morally corrupt.

They are not "morally corrupt" but actually emotionally dead until
HAL's attempt to be the next stage in evolution provokes Bowman into
some form of spontaneous action.
> All of this does not add up to a coherent point of view. Ziegler
is seen as
> an expression of the corruption of the rich, but Cruise's doctor
is not.

Mike Grost

No he is not but he does have his own emotional quirks. Does
Kubrick ever present a "sympathetic" character to us after PATHS OF
GLORY." Is he not moving in another direction but still warning
about the dangers of a corrupt affluent life style and emotional
sterility?

Tony Williams
26049
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 9:55pm
Subject: re: LA VIE NOUVELLE apmartin90

There is, as The Brad says, no difference between the theatrical
release-prints and the DVD of VIE NOUVELLE. However, Grandrieux did
indeed seize the opportunity to precisely 'grade' the image and re-mix
the sound components for the DVD format. (Of course, the re-mix has to
occur anyway for any DVD transfer, no matter who supervises it. And
sometimes rights issues intervene and certain music tracks get
replaced, as with Carpenter's THE THING among many others.) Grandrieux
is happier with the technical quality of the DVD of VIE NOUVELLE than
with the film prints. Actually, it is interesting to speculate whether
a 'director's grade and mix' - without chopping a frame - can be subtly
different enough to constitute (for nitpickers, aka specialists, aka
AFB members) a 'new version'. Malick also supervises the DVD transfers,
and there are re-mix effects in the soundtrack of DAYS OF HEAVEN that
are quite different to the original theatrical experience. Akerman's
forthcoming DVD supervisions will be interesting to study at this
minute level: she is technically extremely precise, especially with
sound mixing. What would the Bresson DVDs be like if he was around to
supervise the grading and remixing?

Adrian
26050
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:21pm
Subject: Hollywood and the state of the union (was 11/9) kinoslang

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Henrik Sylow wrote:
>
> >
> > But my question is: Has Hollywood, or even the US,
> > forgotten about
> > 11/9? Is the horror of having two passengerjets
> > torpeding WTC today
> > only "something that happend in the past"?

Right after 9-11 (2001) there was a massive propoganda campaign to
eliminate the questions that the masses of americans suddenly found
themselves asking in response to the horror. Namely, why would
people do such a thing; the answer being too plain and illuminating
of the brutal past of the United States.

The idea of consequences had to be wiped out in order to preserve
future US expediency. Subsequently those consequences have been the
number one north american export, producing, without irony, the
highest likelihood of many more chickens coming home to roost.

In the main, the feeling of horror at the images of 9-11 is but
another victim of collatoral damage, it is been murdered, and the
continuation of films like XXX STATE OF THE UNION proves it. (Who
needs film critics when films announce themselves as pornography in
their title?).

But one needn't go back that far to expalain XXX STATE OF THE UNION.
The war machine and national heroic fiction is in ever need of
greasing in the face of the war on Iraq. During war, and especially
for americans, the propogandistic need is to make war less
sensitive, not more. Hence the films we see.

And besides, you ask the question (how could this movie be made in
lieu of 9-11) as if the public, the spectators, had any say
whatsoever in the what gets made. That is false.

Of course the film may be a hit, so that means spectators are
choosing to see it (although Jonathan R. has studied the
way "choice" in these matters is ambiguous). But my own view of the
situation is that people are just looking for some sensations and
that they would happily do without the national fiction. Nothing
wrong with sensations provided there is some balance of reality. I
say with sincerity that if certain Michael Snow films, if hoisted up
in the same way and discounting the mania for the anncillary aspects
of commercial films (clothes, cars, fashion), would fare the same at
the level of sensations. But, needless to say, things are out of
balance!

yours,
andy
26051
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:33pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) cellar47

--- Andy Rector wrote:
(could there have
> been a film more
> perceived as "sleazebag" than LES CARABINIERS in its
> day?).
>
Oshima's "Night and Fog in Japan."

David O.
> Russell (the O. is
> for Selznick plus Richard Brooks)

No, it's after "Roger O. Thornhill."

All of
> the above seem
> comfortable with what is already known about people.

Not Russell. "Three Kings" is a radical rewrite of his
seemingly cozy "Flirting with Disaster" and "I heart
Huckabees" is the Jacques Derrida version of "Who's
Minding the Store?"

> In my humble
> opinion, they are harmful to the generation of
> filmmakers coming
> after them, in part because of their hegemony over
> film school types
> and
> chats (lineage is crucial). They are without
> Rivette's danger factor
> (in form and content), also mentioned long ago on
> AFB.
>

"Rivette's danger factor"?

>
> It's Ferrara in NEW ROSE HOTEL who hints at the true
> meaning of chat
> rooms and high technology-- even the fate of
> thinking, memory, and
> love. Its a document of our times.
>
>
Well so is "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle." But
Danny Leinar isn't a heroin addict.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26052
From: MG4273@...
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 6:37pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick nzkpzq

Tony, you make some good interpretations here - ones that seem well-supported
by the films.
Where can we read more of your ideas on Kubrick?

Mike Grost
26053
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:54pm
Subject: Re: LA VIE NOUVELLE thebradstevens

-Actually, it is interesting to speculate whether
> a 'director's grade and mix' - without chopping a frame - can be
subtly
> different enough to constitute (for nitpickers, aka specialists,
aka
> AFB members) a 'new version'. Malick also supervises the DVD
transfers,
> and there are re-mix effects in the soundtrack of DAYS OF HEAVEN
that
> are quite different to the original theatrical experience

The new stereo sound effects on the UK DVDs of Sergio Leone's Dollars
trilogy are really annoying. After watching the first 45 minutes of
THE GOOD THE BAD AND THE UGLY, I switched the setting to mono, and
the sound effects still managed to sound distractingly artificial!
26054
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 10:55pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) kinoslang

>>They are without
> > Rivette's danger factor
> > (in form and content), also mentioned long ago on
> > AFB.

> "Rivette's danger factor"?

"Further, any film deserving to be called with that name, should have
faced some danger – the risk being either in the subject (classic
cinema) or in the means of expression (modern cinema). "There is
maybe no great film, if there isn't the feeling that it could have
been a disaster". -Rivette

> > It's Ferrara in NEW ROSE HOTEL who hints at the true
> > meaning of chat
> > rooms and high technology-- even the fate of
> > thinking, memory, and
> > love. Its a document of our times.
> >
> >
> Well so is "Harold and Kumar Go to White Castle." But
> Danny Leinar isn't a heroin addict.

What the hell is that supposed to mean? If we're talking about films
in relation to heroin then I say go out now, get a sack and cook it.
Pedro Costa makes beautiful films too (where you at Gabe?). But
that's just a petty rumor about Costa anyway. Lewis's films while on
painkillers are nothing to sneeze at. I'm sure the other O.
(selznick), O. Stone, smokes a little pinner before shooting and
he's still pretty unfortunate.
I said deliberately, not exploitatively, which is something else,
and not always a bad thing of course. But as applicable to those
interested in people and things rather than capital. I havent seen
HKGTWC.

-a
26055
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) cellar47

--- Andy Rector wrote:

> "Further, any film deserving to be called with that
> name, should have
> faced some danger – the risk being either in the
> subject (classic
> cinema) or in the means of expression (modern
> cinema). "There is
> maybe no great film, if there isn't the feeling that
> it could have
> been a disaster". -Rivette
>

Well he's only right. Witness "1941" -- a great
disaster if there ever was one.

>
> What the hell is that supposed to mean? If we're
> talking about films
> in relation to heroin then I say go out now, get a
> sack and cook it.

We're not talking Phillipe Garrel, dear.

> Pedro Costa makes beautiful films too (where you at
> Gabe?). But
> that's just a petty rumor about Costa anyway.
> Lewis's films while on
> painkillers are nothing to sneeze at. I'm sure the
> other O.
> (selznick), O. Stone, smokes a little pinner before
> shooting and
> he's still pretty unfortunate.

I was talking about Abel Ferrara.

Those who love me can take my train of thought, cause
it's an express.

Others prefer the local.

> I said deliberately, not exploitatively, which is
> something else,
> and not always a bad thing of course. But as
> applicable to those
> interested in people and things rather than capital.
> I havent seen
> HKGTWC.
>

Don't miss it. The DVD is wilder than the theatrically
released version. Doogie is quite remarkable in it.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26056
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Tue Apr 26, 2005 11:56pm
Subject: EBERT FILM Festival eanmdphd

I now recognize that Ebertfest is a legitimate and loving celebration of
Ebert and Urbana and the Illini. It is terrific in that regard.
Still, as an 'outsider' / 'nobody but a film fan,' I had the best
experience possible, because I was able to join Jonathan Rosenbaum so
often
in watching and discussing the films and other things.

My favorites:
Tati's PLAYTIME -- the real highlight; I ordered it from FACET's,
regardless of what version they have, at least I'll get to enjoy some
of those remarkably delightful scenes again.
If any of you get an opportunity to see PLAYTIME, go and take your
cinema friends

Maddin's HEART of the WORLD -- someone needs to say it is a short movie
that
requires the same amount of time as a full feature but is much more
rewarding. Cinema at its essential best.

The INDIAN movie TAAL is fun entertainment of a simple story; I sent
Ghai (the director)
some information about a group that screens HINDI films in the Edwards
megaplex.

After Dark, My Sweet is certainly better than most 'noirs' we see
today... but Jason Patric is much too cinematically handsome for the
dark lead... one could guess he would be the redeeming character.

These were all new for me, as were YESTERDAY; and ME, YOU and EVERYBODY
WE KNOW. I was glad to see those. I don't know if I mentioned that in
M,Y,aEWK (will be shown at Cannes), the only people who engage in
any sexual interactions are the most immature people. The key couple
never engage in more than an attempt to get together verbally.
Certainly, the young man in the house and the woman in the museum are
not mature adults.

I was glad to see Secret of Roan Inish and Saddest Song again with the
directors; but my original choices to pass on San Diego screenings of
Murderball (actually, Austin FF), Primer, Map of the Heart of the
World, and Baadassss were confirmed, yet Ebert's presentation of the
associated guests elevated them, temporarily.

Elizabeth
26057
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 0:02am
Subject: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 jess_l_amortell

> > Has Hollywood, or even the US,
> > forgotten about
> > 11/9? Is the horror of having two passengerjets
> > torpeding WTC today
> > only "something that happend in the past"?

When I saw Jia Zhangke's THE WORLD at the New York Film Festival, when an amusement park worker humorously introduces its small-scale Twin Towers -- "Ours are still standing" -- the line brought the house down. I couldn't help thinking that that moment probably wouldn't even have been allowed on the screen in the pious atmosphere of three years before.

> Maybe someday somebody might be interested in making
> smaller scale personal story about 9/11.

Apparently there is one, by the director of Dude Where's My Car and Harold and Kumar no less.
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/04/20/movies/20atta.html
Its star is all over the news sites for her "controversial" remarks about America's responsibility for the catastrophe.
26058
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 0:10am
Subject: 9/11 was remarkable as cinema eanmdphd

> From: David Ehrenstein
> --- Henrik Sylow wrote:
>> But my question is: Has Hollywood, or even the US,
>> forgotten about
>> 11/9? Is the horror of having two passengerjets
>> torpeding WTC today
>> only "something that happend in the past"?
>>
>
> Not exactly.9/11 was a spectacle against which
> Hollywood can't really compete. The closest thing to
> it is "The Towering Inferno."

9/11 was remarkable as cinema in that:

it was shot in real time without editing,
only the 'extras' are the "victims," (interesting after watching
the extras in PLAYTIME)
and from the news I was watching, there was only one camera angle...
watching the real time collapse of the towers from a single long take
... well that is not how Hollywood would have done it ... at least that
is what I will admit to thinking at the time. (earlier, I had thought
that as an ER MD, I would not have allowed any rescue teams into the
area as I was expecting another hit.)

{apologies to anyone these comments might offend for personal or
whatever reasons}
26059
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 0:35am
Subject: Re: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
wrote:

> As a general tendency in american cinema however, its alarming that
> soap opera sythesis and the ever present idea that a director
> must "create" a world (to their taste accordingly; hip) has gained
> so much currency. > Its a real problem, these filmmakers attitudes
toward human
> relationships; the Andersons, Fincher, David O. Russell (the O. is
> for Selznick plus Richard Brooks), the Coens. All of the above seem
> comfortable with what is already known about people.

> (Thanx to Tag Gallagher and Bill Krohn who unwittingly came
together
> again to show me NEW ROSE HOTEL)

We did?

Olivier Assayas remarked once - in one of those Assayas asides that's
worth most people's books - that Hitchcock had hurt American cinema
by creating a world on a soundstage after exiling himself from a
country he knew well and not venturing out to learn about his asopted
country. I'm not sure the latter is true, but even in my revisionist
view of AH, the insight has a kernel of truth re: what you're saying,
Andy. I would just ask you, before lumping in David O. Russell, to
see Soldiers Pay - it's on the DVD of Uncovered, or I'd be happy to
give you my tape copy.
26060
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 0:36am
Subject: Re: 9/11 was remarkable as cinema cellar47

--- Elizabeth Nolan wrote:

> and from the news I was watching, there was only one
> camera angle...
> watching the real time collapse of the towers from a
> single long take
> ... well that is not how Hollywood would have done
> it ... at least that
> is what I will admit to thinking at the time.
> (earlier, I had thought
> that as an ER MD, I would not have allowed any
> rescue teams into the
> area as I was expecting another hit.)
>

Actually there was a second camera angle, and you can
see it in the 9/11 footage included in "The Barbarian Invasions."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26061
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 0:40am
Subject: Re: Re: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) cellar47

--- hotlove666 wrote:

>
> Olivier Assayas remarked once - in one of those
> Assayas asides that's
> worth most people's books - that Hitchcock had hurt
> American cinema
> by creating a world on a soundstage after exiling
> himself from a
> country he knew well and not venturing out to learn
> about his asopted
> country.

Oh that is such complete bullshit. "Psycho" alone
disproves it. It's one of the most incisive films
about the American Way of Life ever made.

"Rope" dissects New Yorks upper crust, and "Shadow of
a Doubt" draws a bead on small town America, while
"Strangers on a Train" has it's way with Washington
D.C.

And let's not forget the San Francisco of "Family Plot."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26062
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 0:46am
Subject: After Dark, My Sweet (Was: EBERT FILM Festival) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
>
> Maddin's HEART of the WORLD -- someone needs to say it is a short
movie
> that
> requires the same amount of time as a full feature but is much more
> rewarding. Cinema at its essential best.

Yup.

> After Dark, My Sweet is certainly better than most 'noirs' we see
> today... but Jason Patric is much too cinematically handsome for the
> dark lead... one could guess he would be the redeeming character.
>

I think it's better than that. James Foley had a n instinctive
affinity with noir that could have exfoliated into a great oeuvre
(check out Glengarry Glen Ross and At Close Range!) if he hadn't run
afoul of problems that have confined his talent to minor genre films
for the last ten years. ADMS is also, IMO, the best Jim Thompson
adaptation ever.
26063
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 0:48am
Subject: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 hotlove666

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

> Its star is all over the news sites for her "controversial" remarks
about America's responsibility for the catastrophe.

Who, Maggie Gyllenhaal? I love her even more now.

We still don't know what happened on 9/11 and may never know. Sad,
isn't it?
26064
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 0:51am
Subject: Re: 9/11 was remarkable as cinema hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
>
> 9/11 was remarkable as cinema in that:
>
> it was shot in real time without editing,
> only the 'extras' are the "victims," (interesting after watching
> the extras in PLAYTIME)
> and from the news I was watching, there was only one camera angle...
> {apologies to anyone these comments might offend for personal or
> whatever reasons}

Not at all - I have described it elsewhere as a remake of Andy Warhol's
Empire. But I didn't watch the whole thing - I usually don't watch tv
and turned it off as soon as I heard the first lie.
26065
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 0:53am
Subject: Re: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> Oh that is such complete bullshit. "Psycho" alone
> disproves it. It's one of the most incisive films
> about the American Way of Life ever made.
>
> "Rope" dissects New Yorks upper crust, and "Shadow of
> a Doubt" draws a bead on small town America, while
> "Strangers on a Train" has it's way with Washington
> D.C.
>
> And let's not forget the San Francisco of "Family Plot."

I'll never quarrel with someone defneding Hitchcock - I love him
dearly. But that's not San Francisco in Family Plot: It's San Frangeles.
26066
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:54am
Subject: Re: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) jpcoursodon

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

>
> Those who love me can take my train of thought, cause
> it's an express.
>
>
>
> Others prefer the local.

Maybe you should make an occasional local stop, David, for those
who get dizzy when that train rushes by.
26067
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 2:09am
Subject: Re: Re: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) cellar47

I stop only at La Souterraine.

--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> wrote:
>
> >
> > Those who love me can take my train of thought,
> cause
> > it's an express.
> >
> >
> >
> > Others prefer the local.
>
>
> Maybe you should make an occasional local stop,
> David, for those
> who get dizzy when that train rushes by.
>
>
>
>
>

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26068
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 4:26am
Subject: Re: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) kinoslang

> > (Thanx to Tag Gallagher and Bill Krohn who unwittingly came
> together
> > again to show me NEW ROSE HOTEL)
>
> We did?

Between Tag's urging and your concurrent but unaware lending of the
video, with Tag's handwriting all over it, I'd like to think that
for a moment you came together in this little act.

> Olivier Assayas remarked once - in one of those Assayas asides
that's
> worth most people's books - that Hitchcock had hurt American
cinema
> by creating a world on a soundstage after exiling himself from a
> country he knew well and not venturing out to learn about his
asopted
> country. I'm not sure the latter is true, but even in my
revisionist
> view of AH, the insight has a kernel of truth re: what you're
saying,
> Andy. I would just ask you, before lumping in David O. Russell, to
> see Soldiers Pay - it's on the DVD of Uncovered, or I'd be happy
to
> give you my tape copy.

I should say that my hostility toward David O. and his films is
colored by my
having met him. I was repelled by his manner and ignorance in
political matters.

I've had roughly the same reservation about Hitchcock (and Lang)
that Assayas had-- the closed world of their films where every
object will figure in the plot. But in AH all it takes to reconcile
me is to say that its his poetry, and its for everybody. Wes A. is
only for some and here we get into "hip" again. AH's method, in lore
at least, is still seen as a bit of a model for the film director,
which I find dangerous because of the incongruity of contemporary
production methods and relativity of means (not to mention ends!)
that contemporary filmmakers (bankrolled or not) have compared with
AH.

Yeah I'd like to see the Soldier's film...

-andy
26069
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:46am
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick noelbotevera

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000" >Does
> Kubrick ever present a "sympathetic" character to us after PATHS OF
> GLORY."

HAL 9000 comes to mind. And, arguably, Alex deLarge, who pretty much
dminates our sympathies in the film version of Clockwork.
26070
From: Samuel Bréan
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:02am
Subject: (Mostly) French Kubrick books quimby_the_m...

There's an article in "Le Monde" today which reviews four books on Kubrick.
The first is the mammoth "Stanley Kubrick Archives" (Taschen), the others
are in French:

- Michel Chion's "Stanley Kubrick, l'humain ni plus ni moins" (Cahiers du
cinéma) includes the material written for the BFI on "2001" and "Eyes Wide
Shut," as well as chapters on the other films.

- I noticed Jordi Saval's essay, "Traité du combat moderne, films et
fictions de Stanley Kubrick," a few days ago. It apparently asks the
question "Is Kubrick a Situationnist?". Puzzling... The publisher, Allia,
puts out very interesting books.

- I wasn't aware of Jacques Aumont's latest book, "Matičre d'images" (Images
modernes), before reading this article. It explores the relationship between
a few filmmakers (Hitchcock, Pasolini, Godard, SK) and painting. I'm not
sure if Kubrick is really central in the book. Aumont is interviewed in "Les
Inrockuptibles" this week.

In "Le Monde," there's also an interview with Alison Castle, who put
together the Taschen book.

http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3476,36-643127@51-629232,0.html
http://www.lemonde.fr/web/article/0,1-0@2-3476,36-643128@51-629232,0.html

Samuel
26071
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 1:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) cellar47

--- Andy Rector wrote:

>
> I should say that my hostility toward David O. and
> his films is
> colored by my
> having met him. I was repelled by his manner and
> ignorance in
> political matters.
>
Really? I'm surprised. Maybe you got him on a bad day.

I've met him and didn't take tha impression away at
all.

> I've had roughly the same reservation about
> Hitchcock (and Lang)
> that Assayas had-- the closed world of their films
> where every
> object will figure in the plot. But in AH all it
> takes to reconcile
> me is to say that its his poetry, and its for
> everybody. Wes A. is
> only for some and here we get into "hip" again. AH's
> method, in lore
> at least, is still seen as a bit of a model for the
> film director,
> which I find dangerous because of the incongruity of
> contemporary
> production methods and relativity of means (not to
> mention ends!)
> that contemporary filmmakers (bankrolled or not)
> have compared with
> AH.
>

Not sure what you're driving at here. Hitchcock's
production methods are means to an end.

My first thought, when I heard of plans to remake "The
Birds" was it's a shame Hitch isn't around to do it
himself, as he would have adored the CGI effects that
weren't possible back in 1963.

Tandy and Taylor are gone, but Tippi, happily, is
still with us -- most recently in "I Heart Huckabees"
by the "repellent" Mr. O

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26072
From: MG4273@...
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 5:59pm
Subject: Esther and the King (Raoul Walsh) nzkpzq

Cable TV (Fox Movie Chanel) has been showing a letterboxed print of Esther and the King (Raoul Walsh, 1960). This tells the Biblical story of Esther, and was shot in Italy in full cast-of-thousands mode. I was not sure what to expect. Admittedly, its recreation of Ancient Persia is more colorful than realistic, and there is plenty of glitzy entertainment mixed in with the story. But I wound up being greatly impressed by the film. It shows Walsh's great skills at storytelling, characterization, social commentary and visual style. It is the sort of Good Movie that most people on the list would enjoy seeing. More hopefully in a later post.
Our JPC has a good article on Walsh in American Film Directors, with interesting comments on the film (he likes it).

Mike Grost

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26073
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 6:19pm
Subject: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 matt_c_armst...

> But my question is: Has Hollywood, or even the US, forgotten about
> 11/9? Is the horror of having two passengerjets torpeding WTC today
> only "something that happend in the past"?
>
> Henrik

The most explicit references I've seen are in a movie that's neither
American nor Hollywood: Guy Maddin's "Saddest Music in the World."
Maddin basically recreates the falling of the Twin Towers in the
film's final scene. Isabella Rosselini, costumed as the Statue of
Liberty is felled when her beer-filled prosthetic legs shatter during
her big musical number. This shattering is caused by the high-pitched
assault of a string instrument played by one of the film's third
world "victims." Within the context of the movie, this is
Rosselini's/The West's comeuppance for its pattern of colonialist
exploitation. When I realized how audacious Maddin's movie was, I
found it liberating. I can't think of anyone else making comedy of
such loaded images.

That being said, here are a handful of post-9/11 moments in US
movies...

Raimi's "Spiderman 2" features an extraordinarily moving scene when
average New Yorkers band together to defend the unmasked Peter Parker
from tragic villain Doc Ock. It's a moment of popcorn optimism that's
so nicely drawn and deeply felt that I had to watch it again. You can
see similar scenes (with lesser impact) in "The Day After Tomorrow"
where large scale disasters terrorize New York, and average people
band together for survival.

Alleged genius M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" was either the most
progressive or reactionary 9/11 parable of last year, depending on
who
you ask.

David O' Russell's "I Heart Huckabees," for all its problems is very
much engaged with post 9/11 discontent. The film explicitly deals
with
our dependence on foreign oil and its consequences.

Sydney Pollack's latest film "The Interpreter" while hardly a success
is clearly an argument for diplomacy and against vengeance. Though
the
movie lacks any real political analysis, it is an attempt to address
our national bloodlust.

And let's not forget the most successful doc of all time, last
year's "Fahrenheit 9/11." For all his excesses, Moore had the good
sense not to show us the collapse of the towers (footage that most of
us are all too familiar with.)

With all due respect to others on this list, while I think it's the
place of artists to comment on 9/11, I'm not sure it's the place of
critics to evaluate the actual tragedy *as cinema.* Sure there are
propagandistic agendas to the act and to the way it was framed for
our
consumption on the news, but this is a far cry from evaluating the
tragedy on aesthetic grounds- a pursuit I find unseemly.
26074
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 7:40pm
Subject: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:
>
> Alleged genius M. Night Shyamalan's "The Village" was either the most
> progressive or reactionary 9/11 parable of last year, depending on
> who
> you ask.

Progressive.

And let's not forget Atack of the Clones: "I slaughtered them - all of
them - even the women and children! And Lucas's comment on the DVD that
PPalpatine wouldn't be the first politician who has started a war to
stay in office. In Revenge of the Sith we learn that he is manipulating
Dukoo and the Sewparatists to attack the Republic so he can spook the
cowardly, corrupt Senate into abolishing the Constitution and giving
him dictatorial war powers.

> With all due respect to others on this list, while I think it's the
> place of artists to comment on 9/11, I'm not sure it's the place of
> critics to evaluate the actual tragedy *as cinema.* Sure there are
> propagandistic agendas to the act and to the way it was framed for
> our
> consumption on the news, but this is a far cry from evaluating the
> tragedy on aesthetic grounds- a pursuit I find unseemly.

Fair comment, but because we live in the Society of the Spectacle, the
9/11 disaster has been totally specularized, merchandized and
amortized, so that a film critic commenting on it as spectacle is just
doing his job. I find what tv and the government and some survivors
have done much more disgusting than any satirical comment Mike or I
might make about it.

Maggie Gyllenhaal for President!
26075
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:11pm
Subject: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 matt_c_armst...

>
> Fair comment, but because we live in the Society of the Spectacle,
the
> 9/11 disaster has been totally specularized, merchandized and
> amortized, so that a film critic commenting on it as spectacle is
just
> doing his job.

I'll confess I've never read DeBord. I was mostly reacting to the
observations that the tragedy was done in "real time" with no edits,
and with "extras" as victims, when in fact it happened in the *real
world* with *people* as victims.

The remarks reminded me of Stockhausen's ludicrous comparison of
9/11 to a work of performance art.

It's not art. It's murder.

I find what tv and the government and some survivors
> have done much more disgusting than any satirical comment Mike or
I
> might make about it.

Fair enough. And I think this is what Maddin is satirizing in his
film. The commodification of national grief.
26076
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 cellar47

--- Matt Armstrong wrote:

>
> I'll confess I've never read DeBord.

Well you should.

I was mostly
> reacting to the
> observations that the tragedy was done in "real
> time" with no edits,
> and with "extras" as victims, when in fact it
> happened in the *real
> world* with *people* as victims.

The "virtual" as actual.

>
> The remarks reminded me of Stockhausen's ludicrous
> comparison of
> 9/11 to a work of performance art.
>
> It's not art. It's murder.
>

Donald Cammell wore a T-shirt that read "Murder is a
work of Art."

> I find what tv and the government and some
> survivors
> > have done much more disgusting than any satirical
> comment Mike or
> I
> > might make about it.
>
> Fair enough. And I think this is what Maddin is
> satirizing in his
> film. The commodification of national grief.
>

Bingo!

Justconsider the Pope-o-Rama we've just been through.
I kept expecting him to pop back up out of the coffin
-- like in the last reel of "Ordet."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26077
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:34pm
Subject: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 tharpa2002

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

"...because we live in the Society of the Spectacle, the
9/11 disaster has been totally specularized, merchandized and
mortized, so that a film critic commenting on it as spectacle is just
doing his job. I find what tv and the government and some survivors
have done much more disgusting than any satirical comment Mike or I
might make about it."

And then there's televised 9/11 hearings, the many interviews with
the 9/11 Widows who pressed for an investigation (and were disgusted
with the transparent white wash that followed,) the 40 or so segments
on "The O'Rielly Factor" including the notorious one where he
denounced the son of one the victims for opposing the Iraq war,
3 "Front Line" shows, not to mention the flood of books on the
subject coming from all points on the political spectrum. There have
also been mainstream tv series touching on 9/11 survivors or victims'
families("Law & Order" for example.) Except for "Fahrenheit 9/11" no
Hollywood movies. Not yet anyway.

Richard
26078
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 8:41pm
Subject: Fahrenheit 451 (Was: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> And then there's televised 9/11 hearings, the many interviews with
> the 9/11 Widows who pressed for an investigation (and were disgusted
> with the transparent white wash that followed,) the 40 or so segments
> on "The O'Rielly Factor" including the notorious one where he
> denounced the son of one the victims for opposing the Iraq war,
> 3 "Front Line" shows, not to mention the flood of books on the
> subject coming from all points on the political spectrum. There have
> also been mainstream tv series touching on 9/11 survivors or victims'
> families("Law & Order" for example.) Except for "Fahrenheit 9/11" no
> Hollywood movies. Not yet anyway.
>
I'm appalled by all of it, except the occasional book that tries to
figure out what actually happened. 9/11 confirmed what Joe Dante said
recently, that the invention of tv has turned out to be the most
important thing that happened in our lifetime - and, I would add, the
most evil and destructive. (I was born after the Holocaust.) Matt, if
you want to know what The Society of the Spectacle is about, just watch
Fahrenheit 451, one of my favorite Truffaut films, or easier still,
just turn on your wallscreen...er, tv set.
26079
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:03pm
Subject: Re: Fahrenheit 451 (Was: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9) matt_c_armst...

> most evil and destructive. (I was born after the Holocaust.) Matt,
if
> you want to know what The Society of the Spectacle is about, just
watch
> Fahrenheit 451, one of my favorite Truffaut films, or easier still,
> just turn on your wallscreen...er, tv set.

Haha! I'm not entirely illiterate. I've read Bradbury and Orwell and
seen the Truffaut film. You'll get no argument from me about the
evils
of television.

I have no problem viewing entertainments through a political lens.
Witness our disagreement about "Sin City." Still I think it's a moral
abstraction to equate mass murder with performance art or cinema.
26080
From: BklynMagus
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:03pm
Subject: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 cinebklyn

hl666:

> Fair comment, but because we live in the
Society of the Spectacle, the 9/11 disaster
has been totally specularized, merchandized
and amortized, so that a film critic commenting
on it as spectacle is just doing his job.

An honest question: is that a film critic's job?
To comment on spectacle that has not been
aesthetically fashioned with deliberation?

And to be the unreconstituted Enlightenment man
that I am, do people need critique or opposition?
Does treating events as spectacle capable/worthy
of critique, act as a societal pacifier/legitimizer?
Does the Society of Spectacle depend on critics to
reinforce this concept through critique in order to
maintain its viability and dominance?

Brian
26081
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 cellar47

--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> An honest question: is that a film critic's job?
> To comment on spectacle that has not been
> aesthetically fashioned with deliberation?
>

Yes.

> And to be the unreconstituted Enlightenment man
> that I am, do people need critique or opposition?

Yes.

> Does treating events as spectacle capable/worthy
> of critique, act as a societal pacifier/legitimizer?

No. See Baudrillard's "The Gulf War Did Not Take
Place."

> Does the Society of Spectacle depend on critics to
> reinforce this concept through critique in order to
> maintain its viability and dominance?
>

Not at all. That's why BushCo called the bombing of
Baghdad "Shock and Awe."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26082
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 9:35pm
Subject: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 matt_c_armst...

Re: Henrik's question about Hollywood and 9/11. Though it's not
directly applicable, there's a big connection between the business of
making movies and the unusually positive portrayal of the US military.
Check out this interview with David Robb:

http://www.motherjones.com/news/qa/2004/09/09_403.html
26083
From: BklynMagus
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:19pm
Subject: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 cinebklyn

David E. writes:

> No. See Baudrillard's "The Gulf War Did
Not Take Place."

I read some Baudrillard and was underwhelmed.
Just not my glass of tea.

> Not at all. That's why BushCo called the bombing
of Baghdad "Shock and Awe."

I disagree. I think a culture of critique induces a
laziness and apathy in people. They have been
persuaded that life is a spectacle, so now they
passively consume it and produce critiques as their
form of (in)action. (Those persons in deepest denial
produce critiques that they hope aspire to the level
of spectacle which, of course, they will then critique,
in an ever-expanding circle jerk of mental
masturbation.)

> I'll stick with old-fashioned Dean Swift and his
efforts to mend the world.

Brian
26084
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:57pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick peckinpah200...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000" >Does
> > Kubrick ever present a "sympathetic" character to us after PATHS
OF
> > GLORY."
>
> HAL 9000 comes to mind. And, arguably, Alex deLarge, who pretty much
> dminates our sympathies in the film version of Clockwork.

But these are much more complex characters who are certainly far
removed from Colonel Dax who forms the moral conscience of the film
and a character with whom audiences are supposed to identify with.
Kubrick attempted a more objective depiction of Alex but the problem
with this film lies in the fact that most audiences, male, of course,
relished, experiencing this fascinating character and lost sight of
the whole issue Kubrick attempted to present. As Thomas Allan Nelson
points out if we identify too much with young Alex, then the whole
film fails. in the mind of some viewers, it does.

Tony Williams

Tony Williams
26085
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 10:59pm
Subject: Re: Back to Kubrick peckinpah200...

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Tony, you make some good interpretations here - ones that seem well-
supported
> by the films.
> Where can we read more of your ideas on Kubrick?
>
> Mike Grost

Thank you Mike. I'm just working through them as I teach Kubrick on
Thursday and Welles on Tuesday so am already feeling overwhelmed by
such heavyweights. Most result from my thoughts about the films and a
very good class who engage in deep discussion after the film rather
than awed silence following a Welles film.

Tony Williams
26086
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:05pm
Subject: Re: Esther and the King (Raoul Walsh) jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Cable TV (Fox Movie Chanel) has been showing a letterboxed print of
Esther and the King (Raoul Walsh, 1960).

Our JPC has a good article on Walsh in American Film Directors, with
interesting comments on the film (he likes it).
>
> Mike Grost
>
> Thanks, Mike, and I could kick myself for missing it on FOX,
because it is very rarely seen and never in letterbox on TV. I saw it
once at MOMA in the late 70s or early 80s and that's it. Although it's
the kind of period spectacle that doesn't usually turn me on, I was
quite fascinated by it at the time. JPC
26087
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:16pm
Subject: Re: Fahrenheit 451 (Was: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9) jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:

>
> I have no problem viewing entertainments through a political lens.
> Witness our disagreement about "Sin City." Still I think it's a
moral
> abstraction to equate mass murder with performance art or cinema.

On this subject one of the best things I read was Sylvie Pierre's
piece in TRAFIC #40. Anybody who reads French should look it up. JPC
26088
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 0:00am
Subject: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
> wrote:
>
> >
> > I have no problem viewing entertainments through a political lens.
> > Witness our disagreement about "Sin City." Still I think it's a
> moral
> > abstraction to equate mass murder with performance art or cinema.
>
>
> On this subject one of the best things I read was Sylvie Pierre's
> piece in TRAFIC #40. Anybody who reads French should look it up. JPC

Sylvie's piece was written out of her love of America. She has trouble
believing America could be as bad as it's gotten. I talked to her a lot
about it - the "elections," the unanswered questions about 9/11 - when
I was last in France. But that's normal. She has spent relatively
little time here and loves a coluntry that's long gone, preserved as if
in amber in some of the best movies ever made. No one has any great
investment in the culture of Zimbabwe, so we can read about the tactics
used to subvert the last election there - exactly the same ones used
here, with no need for paramilitary groups this time - without feeling
the special pang we all feel when it's happening in a country that has
stood for democracy for so long.

Matt, the purpose of my observation - I can't speak for ER - was:
anything to poke a hole in the veil of fake piety that has been draped
over the event. In other words, it was a satirical joke, pointing a
finger at the spectacle. For what it's worth, I've watched almost none
of the 9/11 footage. I don't enjoy real snuff films. But the American
tv audience does, I fear.

Speaking of which, Brian, I can only refer you to Serge Daney's writing
about tv coverage of the first Gulf War, which is political, esthetic,
sociological and satirical. Serge, by the way, is a great unrecognized
satirist in the vein of Voltaire. His pseudonymous book on Haiti -
Proces a Baby Doc - is a small masterpiece of the genre and, curiously,
the only real book he ever wrote, as opposed to the essay collections.
It is very funny, and all the more effective as denunciation for that.
I understand from Jean Narboni that it has long been the bible of the
Haitian resistance.

But the point about criticism being a pacifier is one Serge would also
reagree with. Writing in the 70s about the fad for semiotic analysis of
commercials he observed: "How intelligent one feels in the presence of
a commercial!"
26089
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 0:16am
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> >
> > On this subject one of the best things I read was Sylvie
Pierre's
> > piece in TRAFIC #40. Anybody who reads French should look it up.
JPC
>
> Sylvie's piece was written out of her love of America. She has
trouble
> believing America could be as bad as it's gotten.

But, Bill, was there a time when America, or ANY country for that
matter, was not "bad" in some terrible way? Sylvie Pierre is too
intelligent to imagine otherwise. Things can get from bad to worse but
it's all relative. Basically, we have to agree with Uncle
Charlie: "The world is a foul sty." JPC
26090
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 0:59am
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
>
> But, Bill, was there a time when America, or ANY country for
that
> matter, was not "bad" in some terrible way? Sylvie Pierre is too
> intelligent to imagine otherwise. Things can get from bad to worse
but
> it's all relative.
But as Noam Chomsky recently acknowledged, even the 5% difference
between Bush and Kerry is a real 5% and can make a diference. By the
same token, I grew up in a country that was waging the korean War, but
it was a little beter than what it is now. I miss it.

Sylvie really loves us - search me for why. I think it has to do w.
Hawks, whose films, for her, express benevolence.
26091
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:03am
Subject: Road Rage hotlove666

After a cursory inspection, I'd recommend it to action fans. I can't be
sure Furie directed the action stuff - there's a lot of it - but the
film feels all of a piece. The novelty is "Duel"-style chases on a
crowded freeway, clever and well done on a made-for-video budget.
You'll see some Furie touches - the bad guys are hoods in letter
jackets, the head baddie wears more lipstick than Kim Basinger. On an
odd note: Casper van Dien's hair seems to have been set with superglue.
26092
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:15am
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > But, Bill, was there a time when America, or ANY country
for
> that
> > matter, was not "bad" in some terrible way? Sylvie Pierre is too
> > intelligent to imagine otherwise. Things can get from bad to
worse
> but
> > it's all relative.
> But as Noam Chomsky recently acknowledged, even the 5% difference
> between Bush and Kerry is a real 5% and can make a diference. By
the
> same token, I grew up in a country that was waging the korean War,
but
> it was a little beter than what it is now. I miss it.
>
> Sylvie really loves us - search me for why. I think it has to do
w.
> Hawks, whose films, for her, express benevolence.

I completely agree that 5% does make a difference, but I don't see
how you can wax nostalgic about the Korean War era. And I don't
really understand why anybody would "love America" because of
Hawks's movies, or anybody elses's. You do have to make a
distinction between the artistic products of a country/era and the
place itself and its politics. It's so obvious that I feel
embarrassed even making the point. JPC
26093
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:47am
Subject: Asphalt evillights

A while back, someone on the list had mentioned Joe May's 'Asphalt' --
as of a week or two ago, it's finally been made available on DVD from
Masters of Cinema in the UK, and seeing it for the first time, I find
myself mystified by May's omission from the majority of
survey-examinations of the pantheon of German silents. In 'Asphalt,'
the long-shot style of 'Das indische Grabmal' has been abandoned, along
with the potboiler pace, so that May can delve deep into poetic
undercurrents for what he must have consciously had to acknowledge
would be a final silent expression. So instead of extended cliffside
pursuit, we get the better-than-Louise-Brooks Betty Amann, victorious
in her seduction of Gustav Fröhlich, hanging off his torso and rubbing
her instep down the leather boot gripped around the "fallen" man's calf.

For the most part, the plot's all pretense -- vertiginous emotion
teased out in close-up, bird's-eye ruminations on city infrastructure;
the opening sequence of workers, vehicles, machinery, and passers-by,
juxtaposed and double-exposed, is a total tour de force, montage out
the wazoo -- a fully plastic precursor of the compositions in 'M'
wherein Peter Lorre salivates gazing in the mirror behind the
storefront window. Generally there's a kind of crazy swing to the
pacing -- following the opening fantasia, the plot-proper kicks into
gear (after taking a detour to detail a mad subterranean burglary that
again recalls 'M' -- and also Feuillade), but there's really only one
fulcrum -- the seduction -- and the proceedings receive a fairly
elongated treatment on both sides of this, before and after Fröhlich's
fall, with the assistance of sundry long and rapturous close-ups of
Betty Amann, who might be the most sizzling screen-dame in all silent
cinema -- in any case the most gorgeous flapper moll whose eyes ever
cried out orgiastic conceits. To say May's camera lingers on her face
would be an understatement -- May's camera malingers. (Ranciere's
'Sickness in the Aesthetic' is out now from Galilée; I can only assume
it includes a chapter on May and Amann.)

With regard to the plot, I said it's all pretense only "for the most
part" -- the quaint Weimar notion of duty (all notion!) exhibited by
Fröhlich's copper -- a traffic cop at that -- comes from the homestead,
where he resides like Antoine Doinel in a tiny room off from the
kitchen of Mutti and Vati, well in their dotage, who stir stew and
browse the broadsheets. Coupled with his angsty histrionics over just
-what- to do with less-than-savory Betty Amann (when the answer is
patently, blatantly obvious), May's interchange between wholesome and
sordid has set the stage for a whopper of a climax at the kitchen
table, which I won't spoil here -- even on the Internet, "Recht muß
Recht."

And when the melodrama has passed, we come back to that title,
'Asphalt' -- and marvel how it seems less a material description of the
metropolis than a grand and simple summary of all the human drama
chronicled by a certain kind of cinema, that of Lang, of Murnau, of May
(of Günther Rittau's, Karl Freund's, Fritz Arno Wagner's cameras fixed
on pylon-severed pools of light, or scared faces peaking out of alley
trash) -- "Asphalt" stands for the condition of city living.

The film's a huge treasure, and I'm glad it's finally out on disc --
along with a simultaneous release from Masters of Cinema of Lang's
'Spione,' which includes a really fantastic essay by Jonathan Rosenbaum
-- AND the original German intertitles, which are subtitled -- rather
than the U.S. Kino edition's replacement of the originals with English
cards. The MoC release is the definitive one.

craig.
26094
From: "J. Mabe"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:02am
Subject: Re: Asphalt brack_28

Argh! This film was playing tonight in town
(Columbia, SC) thanks to the Orphan film project of
USC. Dennis James was playing live organ with the
film in our beautiful school of music. I felt bad
that I had to miss it to catch my last Oral History
class meeting; but reading this, now I feel terrible
having missed it! I've skipped out on entire weeks of
science classes in my time as an undergraduate to stay
home and watch Shop Around the Corner on TV, but I
just couldn't drag myself out of that damned class
tonight. Dagnabit!

Josh M.

--- Craig Keller wrote:
> A while back, someone on the list had mentioned Joe
> May's 'Asphalt' --
> as of a week or two ago, it's finally been made
> available on DVD from
> Masters of Cinema in the UK, and seeing it for the
> first time, I find
> myself mystified by May's omission from the majority
> of
> survey-examinations of the pantheon of German
> silents.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26095
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:53am
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) hotlove666

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
I don't
> really understand why anybody would "love America" because of
> Hawks's movies, or anybody elses's. You do have to make a
> distinction between the artistic products of a country/era and the
> place itself and its politics. It's so obvious that I feel
> embarrassed even making the point. JPC

I fell hard for France after seeing the New Wave films and married a
French woman - not entirely an accident. But I take your point, and I
shouldn't attribute such a thing to Sylvie Pierre. She may have her own
reasons for thinking well of this burnt-out husk of a once great
country.

Gore Vidal says that America's Golden Age lasted from the end of WWII
to the start of the Korean War. I was too young to experience it.
26096
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:59am
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) cinebklyn

hl666 writes:

> Speaking of which, Brian, I can only refer you to Serge
Daney's writing about tv coverage of the first Gulf War,
which is political, esthetic, sociological and satirical.
Serge, by the way, is a great unrecognized satirist in the
vein of Voltaire.

Sounds like a 20th century Swift. After reading his article
about "Kapo" I tried to read everything in English I could
find, and felt that he was very close to my own ideas. I
totally agree that "returning to a certain politique des auteurs
should reintroduce morality."

There is something refreshingly fierce about the way he writes.
For me he writes as if movies mattered in the lives of those
who watch them and in the world they inhabit.

Brian

His pseudonymous book on Haiti -
> Proces a Baby Doc - is a small masterpiece of the genre and, curiously,
> the only real book he ever wrote, as opposed to the essay collections.
> It is very funny, and all the more effective as denunciation for that.
> I understand from Jean Narboni that it has long been the bible of the
> Haitian resistance.
>
> But the point about criticism being a pacifier is one Serge would also
> reagree with. Writing in the 70s about the fad for semiotic analysis of
> commercials he observed: "How intelligent one feels in the presence of
> a commercial!"
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
26097
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:33am
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) jpcoursodon

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
>
>
>
> Gore Vidal says that America's Golden Age lasted from the end of
WWII
> to the start of the Korean War. I was too young to experience it.

A five-year "Golden Age" -- during which McCarthyism ran amok. Some
Golden Age.
26098
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 0:15am
Subject: Golden ages (Was: Serge Daney) scil1973

In a message dated 4/27/05 10:35:47 PM, jpcoursodon@... writes:

> A five-year "Golden Age" -- during which McCarthyism ran amok. Some
> Golden Age.
>
>
Amen JP (although I hear ya, Bill)!! I really loathe golden periodization.
Great films are being made today. Shitty films were made yesterday. Similarly,
rock and roll (and the world) didn't die in fuckin' 1969. Nor did it die the
day the music died as per Don Maclean's analysis. And according to Lillian
Faderman's Odd Girls and Twilight Lovers, Vidal's "golden age" was one of the worst
for gays and lesbians in America. As always, golden for whom?

xo,

Kevin

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26099
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:03am
Subject: Re: What about the Pope? (Was: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9) lukethedealer12

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> Just consider the Pope-o-Rama we've just been through.
> I kept expecting him to pop back up out of the coffin
> -- like in the last reel of "Ordet."
>
But are we living in a world as redeemable as the one in "Ordet?"

"Pope-o-Rama" is a great phrase, David. I laughed heartily when
I read this, blasphemous though that may be.

If only Carl Dreyer were the new Pope, the intolerance of the Church
would at last have to come to an end.

> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
26100
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:20am
Subject: Re: Esther and the King (Raoul Walsh) lukethedealer12

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> > Cable TV (Fox Movie Chanel) has been showing a letterboxed print
of
> Esther and the King (Raoul Walsh, 1960).
>
> Our JPC has a good article on Walsh in American Film Directors,
with
> interesting comments on the film (he likes it).
> >
> > Mike Grost
> >
> > Thanks, Mike, and I could kick myself for missing it on FOX,
> because it is very rarely seen and never in letterbox on TV. I saw
it
> once at MOMA in the late 70s or early 80s and that's it. Although
it's
> the kind of period spectacle that doesn't usually turn me on, I
was
> quite fascinated by it at the time. JPC

Once Fox channel starts showing something letterboxed, it will
definitely turn up again, JPC, probably sooner rather than later.
I missed it so far as well, and have never seen it in 'Scope,
as TV used to do everything flat as everyone knows, and I missed it
in 1961. But based on my impression from unsatisfactory flat
viewing on TV sometime ago, I liked it too. It's pretty rare I
don't like a Walsh, to tell the truth. I'm looking forward to seeing
this one again with his compositions and decoupage.

Mike, thanks for that post, and evoking Raoul Walsh, who isn't
exactly au courant these days. I mean that he's about the furthest
thing from "hip" or "cool." He's no Anderson, Linklater or Coen,
the guys who seem to dominate the critical argument lately. Still,
he's eternal. Maybe that counts for something.

By the way, Fox movie channel also started showing letterboxed
version of The Revolt of Mamie Stover fairly recently. If you
haven't seen this one, Mike--or anyone else--keep an eye out for
it. It's one of the greatest of Walsh's later works.

Blake

a_film_by Main Page

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