Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
26101
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:33am
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) cinebklyn
hl666 writes:
> 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.
My favorite period of filmmaking is from about
1945/6 to 1953/4. It seemed that in the aftermath
of being victorious in WWII, America loosened
up just a bit (even as it was closing down).
Just like a filmmaker often makes his most interesting
films right after a great success, so Hollywood got
interesting:
Mankiewicz: six consecutive masterpieces in 4 years:
A Letter to Three Wives; House of Strangers (1949)
No Way Out; All About Eve (1950)
People Will Talk (1951): a direct attack on McCarthyism
5 Fingers (1952)
Wilder: A Foreign Affair (1948); Sunset Boulevard (1950);
Ace in the Hole (1951)
Early Kazan culminating in "A Streetcar Named Desire"
(1951)
The first 7 films of Nicholas Ray.
George Stevens: "I Remember Mama" (1948);
"A Place in the Sun" (1951)
John Huston: "The Treasure of the Sierra Madre"
(1948); "We Were Strangers" (1949)
William Wyler: "The Heiress" (1949); "Carrie" (1952)
Otto Preminger: "Daisy Kenyon" (1947) to "Angel
Face" (1952)
Siodmak in 1946 alone: "The Killers"; "The Spiral
Staircase"; "The Dark Mirror"
Hitchcock: "Notorious" (1946) to "I Confess" (1953)
And the roles for women were wonderful before they
started getting shut down.
JPC writes:
> A five-year "Golden Age" -- during which McCarthyism
ran amok
And was defeated. The one time when a reactionary force
was shut down. Unfortunately, that was the last battle the
left won. Consumerism and conformity became watchwords
and Hollywood embraced "On the Waterfront" (1954) and
"The Robe" (1953).
Kevin writes:
> Great films are being made today. Shitty films were made
yesterday.
Very true
Just for me it turned out that after nearly 30 years of intense
cinephilia, I discovered that a great many of my favorite films
came from this time frame. I do believe that a certain spirit
was in the air that even as it was being released was being
shut down.
Brian
26102
From: ptonguette@...
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:34am
Subject: Golden ages - as evoked by Orson Welles (Was: Serge Daney) peter_tonguette
Whenever the topic of "golden ages" is brought up, the following quote by
Orson Welles always springs to mind. He was speaking to Peter Bogdanovich. They
are both filmmakers who consciously, and often brilliantly, explore "the good
old days."
"Even if the good old days never existed, the fact that we can conceive of
such a world is, in fact, an affirmation of the human spirit. That the
imagination of man is capable of creating the myth of a more open, more generous time
is not a sign of our folly."
--OW to PB
Peter Tonguette
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26103
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:06am
Subject: Re: Golden ages - as evoked by Orson Welles (Was: Serge Daney) scil1973
In a message dated 4/28/05 12:36:11 AM, ptonguette@... writes:
> That the imagination of man is capable of creating the myth of a more open,
> more generous time
> is not a sign of our folly.
>
That's fine. But it's just as easy (or it should be) to create that same myth
in 2005 America.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26104
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:47am
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) kinoslang
> --- 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 how relative can it get! I prefer Eisenstein to Einstein,
relatively speaking. Relativity...? The entire earth is now
threatened by one hegemon, that's unprecedented. When the "bad" (in
quotes no less) threaten the existence of the human race (every
species) "relative" cannot enter into it.
And when so-called US "soft" imperialism (back to films) threatens
the existance of other ideas (see Ruiz), what is to be done? And
when that doesn't take hold in practice: coups, death squads,
puppets sent in (again to crush the existance of other ways of
living)? That vampire Condelezza Rice is in Latin America right now,
no doubt surveying the mass movements there.
Still however, I'm more inclined to agree with Sylvie's love of the
US based on the speculation that it's because of Hawks. In these
times it is perfectly understandable to be groping for fraternity--
in the US or France.
The US's golden age (not film wise, history wise) must be before the
thirties, when socialism was nearer: fraternity. But ask a black man
about that era or the Korean era. There has never been an american
golden age.
I don't yearn for the Korean War Era, I've seen Ford's THIS IS
KOREA! and that film doesn't just take in the war but culture as
well. Horrifying.
-andy
26105
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:55am
Subject: Re: Golden ages - as evoked by Orson Welles (Was: Serge Daney) kinoslang
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Whenever the topic of "golden ages" is brought up, the following
quote by
> Orson Welles always springs to mind. He was speaking to Peter
Bogdanovich. They
> are both filmmakers who consciously, and often brilliantly,
explore "the good
> old days."
>
> "Even if the good old days never existed, the fact that we can
conceive of
> such a world is, in fact, an affirmation of the human spirit.
That the
> imagination of man is capable of creating the myth of a more open,
more generous time
> is not a sign of our folly."
> --OW to PB
>
> Peter Tonguette
That is a beautiful quote. True indeed. The sign of our folly is our
lack of imagination about the present.
-andy
26106
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:01am
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Charles Dauth"
wrote:
>>
> My favorite period of filmmaking is from about
> 1945/6 to 1953/4. It seemed that in the aftermath
> of being victorious in WWII, America loosened
> up just a bit (even as it was closing down).
>
>
> The first 7 films of Nicholas Ray.
>
This means that "A Woman's Secret," "Knock on Any Door,"
"Born to Be Bad" and "Flying Leathernecks" are all better
than "The Lusty Men" (his eighth). Am I reading you right?
Just curious.
I recognize that your breaking off point is before his others
beginning with "Johnny Guitar" (late in 1954).
Speaking of Sterling Hayden, any reason Huston made it into this
group but "The Asphalt Jungle" did not get cited? Yes, I readily
acknowledge it's my favorite Huston--by far, though "Sierra Madre"
and much later "The Man Who Would Be King" are fine too. Obviously,
there's one theme here that he understands pretty well.
Blake
26107
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:24am
Subject: Re: Golden ages - as evoked by Orson Welles (Was: Serge Daney) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 4/28/05 12:36:11 AM, ptonguette@a... writes:
>
>
> > That the imagination of man is capable of creating the myth of a
more open,
> > more generous time
> > is not a sign of our folly.
> >
> That's fine. But it's just as easy (or it should be) to create that
same myth
> in 2005 America.
>
> Kevin John
>
This group... I make a passing allusion to the fact that the country
is becoming a fascist state, and sure enough someone is there
with "things are always bad, it's all relative." I mention gay,
socialist Gore Vidal's modest, even pessimistic, assertion that the
years immediately after the war (when we had licked fascism and had a
rational system of retirement benefits in place, which the current
unelected administration is trying to destroy) were about as long as
the Golden Age lasted, and I'm reminded of the beginnings of
McCarthyism and the attendant paranoia about gays in Washington. Then
I'm told that the very CONCEPT of a Golden Age... aw forget it. You
guys would argue with Jesus if he came back.
26108
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:30am
Subject: Re: Has Hollywood forgotten 11/9 lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> 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.
>
I don't think there is anything to be defensive about in the above or
other things Bill and some others have said on this subject.
The cinema has always followed two roads--one manipulative (which used
to be associated with montage) and the other more reflective (which we
used to associate with the long take). The aesthetic argument, I now
believe, was oversimplified. Editing is one of the most powerful
tools of every great filmmaker, including Murnau, Mizoguchi, Ophuls
and the Chantal Akerman of films like Jeanne Dielman... But the one
between manipulative and reflective should always have central and
especially now. It is the manipulative which now dominates
the "aesthetic" of almost all commercial filmmaking and against which
more thoughtful filmmakers fight.
Doesn't it make sense that in this kind of culture, politics and the
power structure would seize on the side of cinema which can serve its
purposes? Look at the sophistication with which this
dominant "aesthetic" has been used in recent political history,
especially the last election. The "Swift Boat Sleaze" ads so
brilliantly orchestrated by Rove (who isn't even a filmmaker)--could
a Spielberg have more effective? For that matter, could Eisenstein or
Riefenstahl?
It's just a thought, but in manipulating the sentiments of America in
the fallen state to which Bill has been referring, would those
invested in what it is becoming dare to linger on the image of the
tiring swimmer in "Tabu" as that boat carrying his lover and their
repressive destroyer move ever farther away, leaving him to drown?
Not only does the image ask and reward patience, but in perfect
simplicity and with aching beauty, it tells the truth.
Yes, paradoxically, there seemed to be one angle, Warhol-like, on the
explosions of the towers, but it has been manipulated and worked a
thousand different ways with purposes fully as insidious as terrorism
in their implications. Don't mistake it for a long-take aesthetic--it
is the opposite.
Blake Lucas
26109
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:43am
Subject: "Do Unto Others As You Would Have Others Do Unto You" hotlove666
OK, you disputatious loons - poke holes in THAT! Go ahead, don't let me
stop you! In fact, let me help!!!!
a. The very use of the word Other discredits the statement.
b. Who says we have to DO anything? Aren't all of humanity's problems
the result of ceaseless, Faustian doing, doing, doing?
c. How self-righteous can you get?
d. What if I'm a MASOCHIST? Huh?
e. The use of Shakespearean English betrays the author's insecurity
about the universal, eternal nature his statement would lay claim to.
f. This "rule," which is supposed to replace the Ten Commandments,
maintains the imperative form of those commandments, and with it, their
authoritarian underpinnings.
g. So it all comes back to self-interest in the end, does it?
Go ahead! I'm sure this group can think of a HUNDRED reasons to dump on
the Golden Rule. "Golden!" There you go! Mammon rears his head in the
very midst of preaching morality. Etcetera, etcetera....
26110
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:21am
Subject: Re: Golden ages - as evoked by Orson Welles (Was: Serge Daney) kinoslang
hotlove666 wrote:
>>Then
>> I'm told that the very CONCEPT of a Golden Age...
I didn't deny the concept of a golden age, I was trying to point out
the need for its conception in the US. If anything I'm trying to be
hopeful.
>>aw forget it. You
>>guys would argue with Jesus if he came back.
Especially Jesus. What have you done for us lately!?!
-andy
26111
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:42am
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) cinebklyn
Blake asks:
> This means that "A Woman's Secret," "Knock
on Any Door," "Born to Be Bad" and "Flying
Leathernecks" are all better than "The Lusty
Men" (his eighth). Am I reading you right?
No. It just means that I feel the first 7 Nicholas
Ray movis are very good. For me "In a Lonely
Place is his best movie. I adore it.
> I recognize that your breaking off point is before
his others beginning with "Johnny Guitar" (late in
1954).
It is an arbitrary line I draw to help me make sense of
movies that I love. Most of the directors I named
went on to make other good films; I am just fascinated
by the energy of that period.
> any reason Huston made it into this group but "The
Asphalt Jungle" did not get cited?
I love Huston and Huston movies. Not citing "The
Asphalt Jungle" was just an oversight (it was late when
I ws typing). I also enjoy his later films like "The Kremlin
Letter" and "The Dead." Along with Welles and
Hitchcock, he was one of the first directors I understood
as auteurs.
Brian
26112
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:18pm
Subject: Golden Age Misunderstood jpcoursodon
Kevin and Brian spoke in defense of the excellence of Hollywood film
in the post-war years, and that's what in French we call "enfoncer une
porte ouverte" -- no one would think of denying it. But Vidal, as
quoted by Bill, was referring to "America"'s "Golden Age" -- the
country in general, not its film industry (although I don't know the
context of his remark I assume he didn't mean "Hollywood" when
saying "America"). So that was the remark I was responding to.
And to Brian's remark that McCarthyism was defeated -- sure,
eventually; but not without having destroyed hundreds, if not
thousands, of careers and quite a few lives, not to mention making a
mockery of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Are we worst off
today?
JPC
26113
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:37pm
Subject: Re: Golden ages - as evoked by Orson Welles (Was: Serge Daney) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
Then
> I'm told that the very CONCEPT of a Golden Age... aw forget it. You
> guys would argue with Jesus if he came back.
That wouldn't be such a bad idea. I would have questions for him
(Him?)
Perhaps you should have made your "passing allusion" clearer. And
your Vidal quote was ambiguous without context (where is it from, by
the way? I haven't finished reading "Palimpsest").
I firmly believe in Golden Ages in the arts, but not in politics or
social matters. And I bet you would have been as critical of America
during Vidal's "Golden Age" as you are of present day America if you
had been an adult at the time.
JPC
26114
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:29pm
Subject: Re: Golden Age Misunderstood cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> But Vidal, as
> quoted by Bill, was referring to "America"'s "Golden
> Age" -- the
> country in general, not its film industry (although
> I don't know the
> context of his remark I assume he didn't mean
> "Hollywood" when
> saying "America").
No, he actually meant America. The context for this
can be found in his novel "The Golden Age" -- the last
of his historical cycle that includes "Burr,"
"Lincoln," "Hollywood" (which is about Hearst),
"1876," and "Washington D.C." It's the only one of the
series in which Vidal himself appears as a character.
Other "reality-based" characters include novelist Dawn
Powell (and when oh when are we going to see a film
adaptation of one of her great books?) and lyricist
John LaTouche whose masterpiece "The Golden Apple"
premiered at the very apex of this time frame.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26115
From: BklynMagus
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 2:44pm
Subject: Re: Golden Age Misunderstood cinebklyn
JPC writes:
> But Vidal, as quoted by Bill, was referring to
"America"'s "Golden Age" -- the country in
general, not its film industry (although I don't
know the context of his remark I assume he
didn't mean "Hollywood" when saying "America").
I am not sure of the conext either. What struck
me was that Vidal (whom I love) was identifying
an age that was my favorite in terms of movies.
As for Vidal and Hollywood, two books are
worthwhile (among many others): "Screening
History" and "Hollywood" (the second half of
a diptych with "Empire" as its 1st half. The two
were originally one novel that Vidal separated.
I highly recommend them as an introduction to
his art.).
> And to Brian's remark that McCarthyism was
defeated -- sure, eventually; but not without having
destroyed hundreds, if not thousands, of careers
and quite a few lives, not to mention making a
mockery of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights.
I was not as nuanced as I should have been. I
did not mean to make light of the destructiveness
of the era (as was also pointed out to me in an
offlist email that I appreciated). What I wanted to
emphasize was that the left actually came together
and fought a menance.
I wonder if they will be able to come together
today and fight the current menance we face in
America. Bush 43, Act II is displaying the same
overreaching that those flushed with success
often do. But where such overreaching in art can
be exciting, in the political arena it is frightening.
And to make sure I make this relevant to afb, I
want to expand on what I am responding to in
these particular films. For me there was an air
of confidence that allowed auteurs to dig more
deeply than ever before -- both in content and style.
"A Letter to Three Wives" -- as Levittown is being
built, Mankiewicz is satirizing it.
"I Was a Male War Bride" -- One of my favorite
Hawks, it is a gender comedy of graceful and
incisive wit. Plus Cary Grant as a WAC.
Hitchcock's experiments: After making what is one
of my favorite films (Notorious - daring enough in
itself), Hitchcock experiments with "Rope'" "Under
Capricorn," and "I Confess."
Huston's films about the corroded conduct codes
of the male heterosexual.
Wilder's satires of Hollywood and America:
"A Foreign Affair," "Sunset Blvd." and "Ace in
the Hole."
The sexuality of Kazan's "Streetcar."
As I posted earlier, this freedom began shutting
down as quickly as it opened. I think the
beginning of the end of the studio system also
helped foster this freedom. I do not think the
studios knew what movies would work in the
changed atmosphere after WWII ended, and
in this vaccuum many great movies got made.
Finally, we also see the rise of the writer-director
as auteur.
Brian
26116
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:01pm
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Charles Dauth"
wrote:
"My favorite period of filmmaking is from about 1945/6 to 1953/4. It
seemed that in the aftermath of being victorious in WWII, America
loosened up just a bit (even as it was closing down).
"Just like a filmmaker often makes his most interesting films right
after a great success, so Hollywood got interesting..."
Not just Hollywood. The defeat of facsism world wide was a great
success for the losers as well as the victors. I'll use Japan as an
example:
Mizoguchi: 1946-1956, 16 pictures 10 of which are masterpieces.
Ozu: 7 pictures during the same period, several masterpieces.
Narsue: 22 pictures! Many excellent, a few great.
Kinoshita: 20 pictures during this 10 year period, many of which are
outstanding.
Kurosawa: 12 pictures including "Donzoko"/"The Lower Depths"
and "Ikimono no Kiroku"/"Record of a Living Being" in addition to his
more well known ones.
And in defeated Italy Rossellini made 14 movies half of them
masterpieces.
"JPC writes:
"A five-year "Golden Age" -- during which McCarthyism
ran amok
"And was defeated. The one time when a reactionary force
was shut down. Unfortunately, that was the last battle the
left won..."
I wouldn't attribute victory to the left here. McCarthy got a free
ride when he was going after teachers, professors, writers, artists
and activists and even the State Dept., but when he turned his
attention to Eisenhower's beloved US Army he had to be stopped and he
was. Noe did Ike have any second thoughts about letting the
Rosenbergs die.
Richard
26117
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:23pm
Subject: Re: Golden ages - as evoked by Orson Welles (Was: Serge Daney) tharpa2002
LiLiPUT1@... wrote:
Peter T. quoting Orson Welles:
"That the imagination of man is capable of creating the myth of a more open, more generous time is not a sign of our folly."
Kevin John:
"That's fine. But it's just as easy (or it should be) to create that same myth in 2005 America."
Although it's not in the United States it's part of (North) America: there's Chiapas, Mexico which has been enjoying a Golden Age for the last 9 years (and I'd describe the first 3 years of the Nicauaguan Revolution as a Golden Age almost as Golden as the first 18 months of the Spanish Revolution.)
Richard
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26118
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 3:52pm
Subject: Maria Schell ist tot evillights
From Libération:
http://www.liberation.fr/page.php?Article=292759
"En 2002, son frère, Maximilian Schell, lui consacre un étrange
documentaire, My Sister Maria , qui la montre recluse dans la propriété
familiale nichée dans la campagne autrichienne. Maria Schell y apparaît
diminuée, souffrant de troubles maniaco-dépressifs, passant ses
journées au lit à regarder la télévision. La star semble enfermée dans
ses souvenirs de gloire, à la manière de la Gloria Swanson de Boulevard
du crépuscule."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26119
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:54pm
Subject: Re: Golden Age Misunderstood lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> Kevin and Brian spoke in defense of the excellence of Hollywood film
> in the post-war years, and that's what in French we call "enfoncer
une
> porte ouverte" -- no one would think of denying it. But Vidal, as
> quoted by Bill, was referring to "America"'s "Golden Age" -- the
> country in general, not its film industry (although I don't know the
> context of his remark I assume he didn't mean "Hollywood" when
> saying "America"). So that was the remark I was responding to.
>
> And to Brian's remark that McCarthyism was defeated -- sure,
> eventually; but not without having destroyed hundreds, if not
> thousands, of careers and quite a few lives, not to mention making a
> mockery of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Are we worst off
> today?
It is indeed interesting that artistic Golden Ages (for want of a
better term, though I find the concept very supportable) are not
necessarily reflected in the situation of a country or the greater
culture when they come along, in the political, social and moral
currents which run a parallel path. There has to be some relationship
between these things, of course, but it's plainly one that we cannot
be facile about. One wants to believe in America like one believes in
a dream, in the John Ford way--that "someday" it will be a fine place,
even though he finally seemed to gravely doubt this himself in his
last phase. To JPC's "Are we worse off today?" it does seem like the
lowest point is being reached at times, with Bush and Co.--an easy
target for people like me and many others in the group, including Jesus
(sorry I meant "Hot Love 666"). But isn't that a little too innocent?
Think back through American history and you'll find as much that is
unconscionable as any other nation could ever claim, beginning with
the obvious things I'm sure I don't even need to name. To its credit,
Hollywood has always dealt with these things, doing so in imaginative
ways when necessary, but the subtextual history and culture of a
nation comes over very well, immediate post-war, the years afterward
and earlier as well, back to the earliest movies.
In short, a Golden Age in Hollywood is something pretty easy to
believe in, as the art of so many of its movies just keeps on looking
better. To believe in America is so much tougher, and probably always
has been for too many Americans. One has to try though.
Just a word about the blacklist, since I'm sure no one in the group
meant to make light of it in any way. As someone who knew and still
knows some of the people directly affected (my childhood best friend's
father was blacklisted writer Fred Rinaldo, to name the one closest),
what happened is eloquently described in JPC's next post after this
one. But aren't the repercussions still being felt? I know at least
one person who thinks that period laid the seeds of the timidity,
mawkish gloss on social and historical issues, and finally, the
artistic bankruptcy of the Lucas/Spielberg era which finally blossomed
several decades later. It's an argument worth exploring.
Blake Lucas
26120
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:02pm
Subject: Re: Golden ages - as evoked by Orson Welles (Was: Serge Daney) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> your Vidal quote was ambiguous without context (where is it from, by
> the way?
Dreaming War.
26121
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:11pm
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
McCarthy got a free
> ride when he was going after teachers, professors, writers, artists
> and activists and even the State Dept., but when he turned his
> attention to Eisenhower's beloved US Army he had to be stopped and he
> was.
A European friend points out that Bush is being careful not to step on
the Army's toes the way he has the CIA. A US soldier would have to
murder the Pope on tv to be prosecuted at this point.
26122
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:11pm
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
McCarthy got a free
> ride when he was going after teachers, professors, writers, artists
> and activists and even the State Dept., but when he turned his
> attention to Eisenhower's beloved US Army he had to be stopped and he
> was.
A European friend points out that Bush is being careful not to step on
the Army's toes the way he has the CIA. A US soldier would have to
murder the Pope on tv to be prosecuted at this point.
26123
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) cellar47
McCarthy went after the Army SOLELY because of Roy
Cohn, whose boyfriend G. David Schine wasn't being
given what Roy felt was proper deference.
See "Point of Order" by Emile DeAntonio.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
>
> wrote:
>
> McCarthy got a free
> > ride when he was going after teachers, professors,
> writers, artists
> > and activists and even the State Dept., but when
> he turned his
> > attention to Eisenhower's beloved US Army he had
> to be stopped and he
> > was.
> A European friend points out that Bush is being
> careful not to step on
> the Army's toes the way he has the CIA. A US soldier
> would have to
> murder the Pope on tv to be prosecuted at this
> point.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26124
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:21pm
Subject: Re: Golden Age Misunderstood hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
I know at least
> one person who thinks that period laid the seeds of the timidity,
> mawkish gloss on social and historical issues, and finally, the
> artistic bankruptcy of the Lucas/Spielberg era which finally
blossomed
> several decades later. It's an argument worth exploring.
It helped cement the idea of bipartisan foreign policy, which has been
a disaster. The astonishing cowardice of the Democratic Party for the
last four years, and Kerry's catastrophic "me too" stance on Iraq, are
a consequence of McCarthyism.
I was interviewing a filmmaker about King Kong the other day, and in
the middle of it he launched into a jeremiad about how movies dealt
with contemporary reality when he was starting out, but wouldn't touch
it with a ten-foot pole these days. I think that's a result of
corporate ownership.
26125
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:35pm
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
"McCarthy went after the Army SOLELY because of Roy Cohn, whose
boyfriend G. David Schine wasn't being given what Roy felt was proper
deference."
That's an important point. Roy unwittingly did a good deed by
setting
McCarthy on the Army since it prompted Ike to personally intervene to
to bring the hearings to an end once they reached his old alma mater.
Richard
26126
From: MG4273@...
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 1:47pm
Subject: The Real World in contemporary films nzkpzq
The Real World puts in a starring appearance in these contemporary films.
How many are on YOUR radar screens?
Mike Grost
2000
Before Night Falls (Julian Schnabel)
The Big Animal (Jerzy Stuhr)
Billy Elliot (Stephen Daldry)
Cecil B. Demented (John Waters)
The Color of Friendship (Kevin Hooks)
The Day I Became a Woman (Marziyeh Meshkini)
Les Glaneurs et la glaneuse / The Gleaners and I (Agnès Varda)
Miss Congeniality (Donald Petrie)
Le Placard / The Closet (Francis Veber)
Samia (Philippe Faucon)
Shanghai Noon (Tom Dey)
The Skulls (Rob Cohen)
Suzhou River (Lou Ye)
A Time for Drunken Horses (Bahman Ghobadi)
Unbowed (Nanci Rossov)
La Veuve de St. Pierre / The Widow of St. Pierre (Patrice Leconte)
2001
All Over the Guy (Julie Davis)
Dark Blue World (Jan Sverák)
Elling (Petter Næss)
Kandahar (Mohsen Makhmalbaf)
Lagaan: Once Upon a Time in India (Ashutosh Gowariker)
Nirgendwo in Afrika / Nowhere in Africa (Caroline Link)
Le Pacte des loups / The Brotherhood of the Wolf (Christophe Gans)
Porto da Minha Infância / Oporto of My Childhood (Manoel de Oliveira)
Zoolander (Ben Stiller)
2002
Der er en yndig mand / This Charming Man (Martin Strange-Hansen)
Deux ans après / Two Year Later (Agnès Varda)
Être et avoir / To Be and To Have (Nicholas Philibert)
Far From Heaven (Todd Haynes)
Joe and Max (Steve James)
Maid in Manhattan (Wayne Wang)
Marooned in Iraq (Bahman Ghobadi)
Matir Moina / The Clay Bird (Tareque Masud)
Russian Ark (Alexander Sokurov)
Unconditional Love (P. J. Hogan)
Zhou Yu's Train (Sun Zhou)
2003
At Five in the Afternoon (Samira Makhmalbaf)
Daredevil (Mark Steven Johnson)
Gori vatra / Fuse (Pjer Zalica)
Love Actually (Richard Curtis)
Osama (Siddiq Barmak)
Rosenstrasse (Margarethe von Trotta)
Stuck On You (Bobby and Peter Farrelly)
2004
A Boyfriend for Christmas (Kevin Connor)
Bride and Prejudice (Gurinder Chadha)
Hotel Rwanda (Terry George)
I (Heart) Huckabees (David O. Russell)
Moolaadé (Ousmane Sembène)
Tanner on Tanner (Robert Altman)
A Touch of Pink (Ian Iqbal Rashid)
Turtles Can Fly (Bahman Ghobadi)
26127
From: Peter Henne
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 5:55pm
Subject: Re: Re: Golden Age Misunderstood peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
Part of the issue must be the blind faith nowadays in technological invention to yield an exciting new aesthetic, as though a new tool will necessarily "improve" art or at least lead it to fruitful territories. CGI has certainly helped lead to a withdrawal from contemporary reality. True, the people who wield CGI (I mean studio exec committees) have corporate interests, but the tool itself seems to have a slant away from engaging the real, and that has a political dimension. To make a lesser claim, I don't buy the line that all tools are politically and artistically neutral.
WWRRD (What would Roberto Rossellini do)? Such powerful contact with the pro-filmic, and he incorporated a good deal of "advanced" technology too (the special zoom technique he devised, video, the mirror thing going on in "Socrates" and other late works). What if anything might Rossellini have done with digital effects?
Peter
hotlove666 wrote:
I was interviewing a filmmaker about King Kong the other day, and in
the middle of it he launched into a jeremiad about how movies dealt
with contemporary reality when he was starting out, but wouldn't touch
it with a ten-foot pole these days. I think that's a result of
corporate ownership.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26128
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) cellar47
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
> That's an important point. Roy unwittingly did a
> good deed by
> setting
> McCarthy on the Army since it prompted Ike to
> personally intervene to
> to bring the hearings to an end once they reached
> his old alma mater.
>
Actually they were brought to an end by Joseph Welch.
No, not for his famous "Have you no sense of decency,
sir?" Rather for something that happened a bit
earlier.
McCarthy was trying to show how "important" Schine was
via a photo that showed him standing next to some
high-ranking military officers. The thing was the
photo was cropped. Welch produced the REAL photo in
which Schine's position was by no means important in
the overall context. McCarthy blustered an fulminated,
claiming not not know how the cropped photo claimed to
be or who was responsible for it.
"Then who did this?" Welch asked, "a pixie?"
Taken aback, McCarthy claimed not to know what a pixie
was.
"Well it's my understanding," Welch drolly replied,
"that a pixie is a very close relative of a FAIRY!"
Game, set and "match me, Sidney!"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26129
From: BklynMagus
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:12pm
Subject: Re: Golden Age Misunderstood cinebklyn
Blake writes:
> It is indeed interesting that artistic Golden
Ages (for want of a better term, though I
find the concept very supportable) are not
necessarily reflected in the situation of a
country or the greater culture when they
come along, in the political, social and
moral currents which run a parallel path.
I think that times of upheaval create the
opportunites to allow new art and new
iterations of "old art" to come to the
surface. When controls are loosened, art
seems to flourish, though daily life often
suffers.
I wrote earlier of "Notorious." One of my
favorite scenes is when Devlin comes to
rescue Ilsa. He climbs the staircase to her
bedroom and prepares to take her away.
But first we have his confession of being
thicked-headed because he loved her so.
Hitchcock stops the movie -- fissures it --
so Devlin can say what needs to be said
before he can go ahead and complete his
rescue. In the audience, I'm going: "C'mon
guys. There are Nazis in the house. Let's
get a move on."
For me, in times of social unrest, great
movies call a halt (like Addison freezing the
frame and announcing what the audience
does and does not need to know. He creates
a space where his voice, as well as Karen's
and Margo's, can be heard) and express the
ideas/critiques/notions that the auteur
believes people need to hear.
Brian
26130
From: Adam Lemke
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) moviemiser412
On 4/28/05 1:11 PM, "hotlove666" wrote:
> A US soldier would have to murder the Pope on tv to be prosecuted at this
> point.
>
Far from true actually... See link below.
http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1CFBCF39-566B-4CE8-8507-901FD03A04DA.
htm
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26131
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Golden Age Misunderstood tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne wrote:
"WWRRD (What would Roberto Rossellini do)? Such powerful contact with
the pro-filmic, and he incorporated a good deal of 'advanced'
technology too (the special zoom technique he devised, video, the
mirror thing going on in 'Socrates' and other late works). What if
anything might Rossellini have done with digital effects?"
Somewhat akin to Rossellini's use of the Schuften process (I think
that's what the mirror thing was) in "Socrates" was Shinoda's use of
CGI to re-create 1930s Japan in "Spy Sorge." He also incorporates
newsreel footage which he uses realistically and expressively. The
CGI is used in the same way, and I wonder if Shinoda would have taken
this route with "Double Suicide" (with its combination of real locations
and stylized sets) had he made it today.
Richard
26132
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 6:34pm
Subject: Re: The Real World in contemporary films jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> The Real World puts in a starring appearance in these contemporary
films.
> How many are on YOUR radar screens?
>
> Mike Grost
>
Before making a list, Mike, maybe we should define what is meant
by "real world" -- a concept that is not clear to me, especially in
relation to its filmic representation.
JPV
26133
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 7:14pm
Subject: Re: The Real World in contemporary films matt_c_armst...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> > The Real World puts in a starring appearance in these
contemporary
> films.
> > How many are on YOUR radar screens?
> >
> > Mike Grost
> >
>
> Before making a list, Mike, maybe we should define what is meant
> by "real world" -- a concept that is not clear to me, especially in
> relation to its filmic representation.
> JPV
You might just as well have erected a "DEAD END" sign JPC. It's very
unlikely we'll arrive at a consensus on what constitutes the real
world, either onscreen or offscreen. I understand Bill's frustration
expressed in the "golden rule" post. The wider the diversity of
opinion in a discussion, the less premises accepted as a given. Even
for a fairly homogenous group like AFB, there is some real
dissonance.
Folks can't seem to agree on the legitimacy of the US Presidential
election, much less on adopting Richard Linklater or Stanley Kubrick
into the film canon.
26134
From: MG4273@...
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 4:20pm
Subject: Re: The Real World in contemporary films nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-04-28 14:44:50 EDT, you write:
<< Before making a list, Mike, maybe we should define what is meant
by "real world" -- a concept that is not clear to me, especially in
relation to its filmic representation.
JPC >>
I did not mean anything deep by this - just old-fashioned "social
consciousness".
"Hotel Rwanda" depicts the genocide in Rwanda.
"Tanner on Tanner" deals with the 2004 Democratic Party Convention in the US.
"Zoolander" looks at the exploitation of child labor in third world clothing
industry etc.
Admittedly, some of the films are judgement calls.
Still, the discussion seemed to be based on the premise that "the
contemporary world was not reflected in modern films".
Was just trying to find some counterexamples - there are certainly many
others not on the list.
Also wanted to steer the political discussion back to a consideration of
actual movies...
Mike Grost
26135
From: Jesse Paddock
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 8:40pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Real World in contemporary films jesse_paddock
I don't know about The Real World™, but American Idol gave us From
Justin to Kelly.
har har.
On 4/28/05, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> > > The Real World puts in a starring appearance in these
> contemporary
> > films.
> > > How many are on YOUR radar screens?
> > >
> > > Mike Grost
> > >
> >
> > Before making a list, Mike, maybe we should define what is meant
> > by "real world" -- a concept that is not clear to me, especially in
> > relation to its filmic representation.
> > JPV
>
> You might just as well have erected a "DEAD END" sign JPC. It's very
> unlikely we'll arrive at a consensus on what constitutes the real
> world, either onscreen or offscreen. I understand Bill's frustration
> expressed in the "golden rule" post. The wider the diversity of
> opinion in a discussion, the less premises accepted as a given. Even
> for a fairly homogenous group like AFB, there is some real
> dissonance.
> Folks can't seem to agree on the legitimacy of the US Presidential
> election, much less on adopting Richard Linklater or Stanley Kubrick
> into the film canon.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> ________________________________
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
> To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
>
> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
26136
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:13pm
Subject: Re: The Real World in contemporary films hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> The Real World puts in a starring appearance in these contemporary
films.
> How many are on YOUR radar screens?
Joe was talking about H'wd. Most of these are foreign, and some (The
Skulls?) are a stretch. But there are a couple of counter-examples, no
doubt of that.
26137
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:23pm
Subject: Re: Golden Age Misunderstood hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> Blake writes:
> I wrote earlier of "Notorious." One of my
> favorite scenes is when Devlin comes to
> rescue Ilsa. > Hitchcock stops the movie -- fissures it --
> so Devlin can say what needs to be said
> before he can go ahead and complete his
> rescue. > For me, in times of social unrest, great
> movies call a halt (like Addison freezing the
> frame and announcing what the audience
> does and does not need to know. He creates
> a space where his voice, as well as Karen's
> and Margo's, can be heard) and express the
> ideas/critiques/notions that the auteur
> believes people need to hear.
>
> Brian
Hitchcock and Hecht included two references to the fact that Raines
works for I. G. Farbin, the manufacturer Hitler built Auschwitz for.
The references were inserted the week that an American court ruled
that Standard Oil couldn't shelter assets for Farbin, who had signed
some over in the event of Hitler losing. There was also a Nazi couple
just in from Spain, highlighting the role Franco was then playing in
pipelining Nazis to South America. The couple were cut after the
press screening - we just glimpse them and hear them talking a bit
v.o. - and never put back; the Farbin references were cut in the 50s,
and recently put back in Scott McQueen's restoration. Farbin and
Franco survived (Bayer Aspirin is a Farbin ofshoot's product) as
overseas bastions of America's new "national security state," and the
reel of the documentary Hitchcock supervised before shooting
Notorious, Memory of the Camps (not shown anywhere until 1984),
was "lost."
26138
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:24pm
Subject: Re: The Real World in contemporary films jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> > > The Real World puts in a starring appearance in these
> contemporary
> > films.
> > > How many are on YOUR radar screens?
> > >
> > > Mike Grost
> > >
> >
> > Before making a list, Mike, maybe we should define what is
meant
> > by "real world" -- a concept that is not clear to me, especially
in
> > relation to its filmic representation.
> > JPV
>
> You might just as well have erected a "DEAD END" sign JPC. It's
very
> unlikely we'll arrive at a consensus on what constitutes the real
> world, either onscreen or offscreen.
I love erecting "Dead End" signs. I think we have a duty to erect
them in order to prevent discussions from ending... in a dead end.
JPC
26139
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:26pm
Subject: Re: Serge Daney (Was: Fahrenheit 451) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adam Lemke wrote:
> On 4/28/05 1:11 PM, "hotlove666" wrote:
> > A US soldier would have to murder the Pope on tv to be prosecuted
at this
> > point.
> >
> Far from true actually... See link below.
> http://english.aljazeera.net/NR/exeres/1CFBCF39-566B-4CE8-8507-
901FD03A04DA.
> htm
>
>
He was found guilty and given no punishment, except to leave the Army.
26140
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:29pm
Subject: Re: The Real World in contemporary films hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> > > Before making a list, Mike, maybe we should define what is
> meant
> > > by "real world" -- a concept that is not clear to me, especially
> in
> > > relation to its filmic representation.
> > > JPV
Throw away the lights
Throw away the definitions
Speak of what you see in the dark
I said "contemporary," not "real."
26141
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 9:32pm
Subject: Re: Golden Age Misunderstood peckinpah200...
> And to Brian's remark that McCarthyism was defeated -- sure,
> eventually; but not without having destroyed hundreds, if not
> thousands, of careers and quite a few lives, not to mention making a
> mockery of the Constitution and the Bill of Rights. Are we worst off
> today?
>
> JPC
Actually McCarthyism has not been defeated but has returned in a
distorted version with right-wing university professors who have been
found out over removing anti-semitic Web links to material distributed
in class claiming "witch hunt" when eight female history professors
alerted the university community to this fact. The A.C.L.U. and
several "liberal" academics with interests of their own have claimed
that the protest is a violation of free speech. But the two black
graduate assistants who alerted the eight professors when they
recognized the source of the material and many in the black academic
community know that the real issue involves professional ethics over
distributing inaccurate, racially offensive material in the guise of
objective historical facts.
The offender is now claiming that he is the victim of a "witch hunt"
like that contemporary defender of civil rights David Horowitz. So,
like the religious right, the reactionaries claim to be the new
victims in 2005. We had better all beware.
Finally, Bill is right about the American "Golden Age". There was one
in England post-1945 until Thatcher and Blair appeared to destroy it.
Tony Williams
26142
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:37pm
Subject: Lotsa Good Stuff at the American Cinematheque cellar47
Things we've been talking about here including
"Hangover Square" May 13 at 9:30 PM with "The Lodger"
also by John Brahm with Laird Creagar
"Model Shop" and "Cisco Pike" on May 14 at 8:15 PM
and
"Je T'Aime, Moi Non Plus" June 15 at 7:30 PM
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26143
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 10:38pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "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.
I just watched DEMONLOVER, and have to say that I find the idea of
Assayas criticizing Hitchcock for creating an artificial world REALLY
funny. What next? Oliver Stone accusing Woody Allen of making too
many films about Vietnam?
26144
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu Apr 28, 2005 11:37pm
Subject: Re: The Real World in contemporary films jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > > > Before making a list, Mike, maybe we should define what is
> > meant
> > > > by "real world" -- a concept that is not clear to me,
especially
> > in
> > > > relation to its filmic representation.
> > > > JPV
>
> Throw away the lights
> Throw away the definitions
> Speak of what you see in the dark
>
> I said "contemporary," not "real."
I was responding to Mike, Bill, not to you.
Everything is "contemporary" (but not necessarily "real" -- whatever
that means.)
I'll throw away the lights when I want to walk (and perhaps
whistle?) in the dark.
"I'll walk alone/Because to tell you the truth I'll be lonely..."
JPC
26145
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 0:56am
Subject: Re: Ferrara and David O. Hassle-Hou (was Moratorium) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> I just watched DEMONLOVER, and have to say that I find the idea of
> Assayas criticizing Hitchcock for creating an artificial world REALLY
> funny. What next? Oliver Stone accusing Woody Allen of making too
> many films about Vietnam?
To be fair, that was about 7 years ago, when he was making a different
kind of film. Anyway, I've decided that all criticism of Hitchcock is
wrong by definition, so I retract Olivier's comment.
26146
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:39am
Subject: Happy Slapping evillights
Here's something a friend of mine just brought to my attention -- a
trend known as "happy slapping" has apparently been spreading
throughout the UK, wherein roving bands of little nihilistic shits are
picking people at random, including women and young kids, then
assaulting them while videotaping -- err, cellphone-video-recording --
the whole ordeal, which usually begins with an unexpected blow to the
head. The half-dollar-sized QuickTime vid linked below is a
compilation of several of the clips circulating the Internet. It's
essentially snuff, but some might find the video not without relevance
to some of the recent discussions that have taken place on the list,
especially with regard to the examination of the Spectacle and the
Towers, and Bill's thoughts on the 'dispositif' (or lack thereof) of
the Richard Speck tape.
Video --
http://cms.streamuk.com/import/alfie/happyslapping.mov
-- and a Wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping
craig.
26147
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:01am
Subject: Re: Happy Slapping hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
some might find the video not without relevance
> to some of the recent discussions that have taken place on the
list,
> especially with regard to the examination of the Spectacle and the
> Towers, and Bill's thoughts on the 'dispositif' (or lack thereof)
of
> the Richard Speck tape.
>
Oh, there's definitely a dispositif in the Speck tape, in the Abu
Ghraib photos (and videos, which I gather also exist) and even in the
Twin Towers footage, given that the people who organized and carried
out the attack were "Happy Slapping" on an epic scale, knowing that
the results would be filmed and broadcast. I'm surprised they didn't
have someone stationed strategically with a camera to capture the
whole thing.
Here the phone-camera supplies the framework for the assault. It has
to be filming first, either without the victim 's knowledge, or with
the victim's knowledge (some people appear to be posing before they
get hit. More disturbing is the kid in the hood who just keeps taking
it. Is he showing off, or is he tied up?) If the victim grabbed the
camera instead of hitting the assailant, and smashed it, it would be
striking back at the raison d'etre of the stunt. But it would
probably still escalate into a brawl - people don't like having their
digital toys ruined.
Susan Sontag's last book, as I recall, was about photographed
atrocities of various kinds. One really should take a look at it. The
Cahiers did a whole issue on atrocity photos in the 70s. Anyway, it's
a huge subject, and somewhere in almost every image of this kind,
going back to the photos of Communards in their coffins (included in
the Straubs' Music for a Silent Film Scene), you can find some traces
of mise en scene, of intentionality on the other side of the camera.
The latest bizarre example would be the photos the Army has just
reluctantly released of coffins that have come back from Iraq,
apparently with the faces of the honor guard or other soldiers
present in the image digitally erased. Why???
The atrocity image, still or moving, is part of the central nervous
system of the Society of the Spectacle (all those high-speed chases
that are duller in their minimalism than anything from the avant-
garde, which people watch hoping for a crash or a shootout), so it's
not surprising that adolescents, who can be pretty violent, are
concocting their own now.
I don't really know if it's applicable, but I hitchiked around
England in the "pre-60s" (1965), arriving in some village too late to
get a room one night, which I ended up spending with a group of drunk
Teddy Boys in tuxes, reeling about the darkened streets and, as I
recall, laughing at the very notion of Mick Jagger when I brought him
up. The word was that these guys would as soon shove a potato full of
razorblades in your face as look at you, but I found them to be
amiable working-class kids with nothing to do but get drunk and
fight. I came from a town like that, so it wasn't hard to relate. Too
bad The Kinks have shut down - they could've done a great song about
Happy Slapping, with the appropriate mixture of satire and compassion
for slappers and slappees alike.
26148
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:04am
Subject: Re: Maria Schell ist tot hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
I watched Gervaise with the sound off after reading this. She good in
that one, and actually rather odd-looking - something Clement was at no
pains to conceal, filming her in tight profiles hots that made her
large nose look a foot long and her slightly protuberant chin look like
a ski-jump.
It was interesting also to see her costar Jean Poirier, whom Truffaut
would have liked to have for Soft Skin - a matinee idol of the
Tradition of Quality. I expect he told Truffaut to go jump in a lake.
But it would have made for a very different film!
26149
From: "Saul"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:01am
Subject: More "Light Sleeper" asitdid
Online Now Send IM
Hey you yahoos, quick note re. "Light SLeeper". This mag has decided
to expand beyond the narrow bounds of the English-language and now
includes pieces in other language, without translation. French has
always been important the the development of film criticism, so what
film mag should be without it? What's more, film is an international
art form and to English-ize is as bad as to Americanize it.
The pieces are, to being with: from our very own JPC two
French-language pieces reprinted from POSITIF:
(1)De l'Homme sans Nom au Nom de l'Auteur: Les Westerns de Clint Eastwood
(2) Million Dollar Baby:A Cabin on Innisfree
In German, and from Oliver Baumgarten, editor-in-chief of SCHNITT
magazine, comes a piece looking at 70's disaster films:
(3) Katastrophe als Therapie: Der Katastrophenfilm der 70er Jahre und
die amerikanische Befindlichkeit
There's also one reprint. A mammoth exhilerating piece from Raymond
Durgnat, a reprint which wouldn't have been possible without the
generous help of a one David Ehrenstein. It's called:
(4) Standing Up For Jesus
and has an intro by film writer Brian McFarlane
That's all f-f-folks f-f-for now. Enjoy the pieces!!! I'll think I'll
take JPC's advice and go for a nap now. I think I need it....
-- Saul
26150
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:25am
Subject: Hey, If It's OTV (On TV), It Ain't OT hotlove666
Sent to me by Joe McBride, up in Berkeley -
C-span will broadcast "9/11 and
>> the American Empire: How Should Religious People Respond?"
>> on Book TV (C-Span 2) this Saturday, April 30th, at 10:30
>> a.m. Eastern time.
This is a balls-out declaration that the Bush Administration planned
9/11, with details. It was taped in Madison last week, with a large,
enthusiastic audience. The speaker is David Griffin, the author of the
book The New Pearl Harbor. I haven't read it, but I agree with Joe's
summary of what it contains. Should be interesting.
26152
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:11am
Subject: CATCH 22 directed by Richard Quine! thebradstevens
Just found this on the IMDB:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0357529/fullcredits
A 1973 adaptation of Joseph Heller's CATCH 22 starring Richard
Dreyfuss as Yossarian! Hilariously, this seems to be the pilot for a
TV series!!!! Anyone actually seen it?
Heller had already written the screenplay for Quine's SEX AND THE
SINGLE GIRL, but this is definitely a new one on me.
26153
From: MG4273@...
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 9:26am
Subject: Re: The Real World in contemporary films nzkpzq
Bill Krohn's point about most of these films being foreign is correct - very
few are actual Hollywood movies. Did not realize that was the scope of the
issue.
"The Skulls" (Rob Cohen) is a thriller with lots of savage satire of Ivy
League University Secret Societies (they are like college fraternities, sort of,
but the alumni all help each other with their business careers). George W. Bush
is a member of Yale University's "Skull and Bones", the most notorious of all
such rich man's elite groups, and this film deals with a fictitious group
called "The Skulls".
Just saw Cohen's "The Rat Pack" (1998), a biopic about Sinatra, Sammy Davis,
Dean Martin, etc. Somehow had the misleading impression before seeing it that
it was about the Pack's high life in Vegas, etc. There is some of that. But
"The Rat Pack" is mainly a look at Sinatra's involvement with John F. Kennedy's
succesful run for President in 1960. This is jet-propelled political cinema,
and full of juicy social commentary. Recommended.
I've seen all the political films on my recent list. Two Hollywood films I
have not seen are "The Day After Tomorrow" and "In Good Company". Reviews have
stated that they are about Global Warming and corporate downsizing,
respectively. Cannot comment on either without a viewing, of course, but they are
certainly Subjects For Further Investigation on the topic of "Contemporary Hollywood
and politics".
Mike Grost
26154
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:17pm
Subject: Godard the Grouch cellar47
http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,1472494,00.html
Frankly I've had it with this act. The new films
aren't very good, and his dismissal of both DVD and
Michael Moore is childish. He's right about Tarantino
of course, but that's practically a freebie. It's his
taking a pass on "The Dreamers" that really rilesme.
Time was "Fin du Cinema" once actually meant something
to him. Not anymore.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26155
From: Brandon
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 3:22pm
Subject: TCM / catch-up / Peckinpah bigdaycoming
Turner Classic is just showing a ton of interesting movies in May.
Includes 19 or 20 Orson Welles movies (half directed by him, the others
starring)... six rarities by Luis Bunuel... Sam Fuller's "Run of the
Arrow"... two by Gillo Pontecorvo... two Jules Dassin... three Fritz
Lang... and so on. On the 26th they are playing four obscure Mexican
musical comedies (and a Norman Foster fake-Mexican-musical-comedy,
connecting back to the Welles theme). Lots of other good stuff - full
schedule is here:
http://turnerclassicmovies.com/Schedule/Print/0,,05-2005|0|,00.html
Weird that they'd play "The Immortal Story" but not "Chimes at
Midnight". I've never seen either of 'em on television, but I thought
"Chimes" was the more popular/available of the two.
Always trying to catch up with you auteurist old-timers, I've lately
checked out "Eros", Antonioni's "L'Eclisse", "The Devil Probably", "Kiss Me
Deadly", "Persona", "The House Is Black", "Pas sur la bouche (Not on the
Lips)", Renoir's "The River", and two each by Fritz Lang, Sam Fuller and
Woody Allen. Some were on film, some were on DVD or tape... some I
enjoyed, some I didn't... some I thought were brilliant artistic
achievements, and some I completely didn't get. I'm not saying which is which.
I will say that I loved "Straw Dogs", seen for the first time this
week. The DVD commentary says that critics hated it on first release, but
I assume this has changed. I did a search for posts about Peckinpah on
this list, but mostly what I found were posts by (and replies to) Tony
Williams with his "peckinpah2001" email address, and one conversation about
whether Peckinpah was gay.
Brandon
26156
From: MG4273@...
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:29am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-04-29 11:20:53 EDT, David E writes:
<< Time was "Fin du Cinema" once actually meant something to him. Not
anymore. >>
I keep meaning to learn more about "the Death of Cinema", but have been
having trouble instead keeping up with all the high-quality new movies that keep
coming out... :)
Mike Grost
26157
From: "J. Mabe"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:39pm
Subject: Re: TCM / catch-up / Peckinpah brack_28
... and three Emilio Fernandez on 12th, and a whole
heap of Gabriel Figueroa shot films throughout the
month.
--- Brandon wrote:
>
> Turner Classic is just showing a ton of interesting
> movies in May.
>
> Includes 19 or 20 Orson Welles movies (half directed
> by him, the others
> starring)... six rarities by Luis Bunuel... Sam
> Fuller's "Run of the
> Arrow"... two by Gillo Pontecorvo... two Jules
> Dassin... three Fritz
> Lang... and so on.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26158
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:52pm
Subject: Re: TCM / catch-up / Peckinpah sallitt1
And a few nice Siegel films: his appealing noir comedy THE BIG STEAL, and
what I consider his best film, HELL IS FOR HEROES. - Dan
On Fri, 29 Apr 2005, J. Mabe wrote:
> ... and three Emilio Fernandez on 12th, and a whole
> heap of Gabriel Figueroa shot films throughout the
> month.
>
>
> --- Brandon wrote:
>>
>> Turner Classic is just showing a ton of interesting
>> movies in May.
>>
>> Includes 19 or 20 Orson Welles movies (half directed
>> by him, the others
>> starring)... six rarities by Luis Bunuel... Sam
>> Fuller's "Run of the
>> Arrow"... two by Gillo Pontecorvo... two Jules
>> Dassin... three Fritz
>> Lang... and so on.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
26159
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 4:54pm
Subject: Straw Dogs (Was: TCM / catch-up / Peckinpah) sallitt1
> I will say that I loved "Straw Dogs", seen for the first time this
> week. The DVD commentary says that critics hated it on first release, but
> I assume this has changed.
My recollection is that the film was controversial but not universally
hated. It had defenders. - Dan
26160
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 5:15pm
Subject: Re: Straw Dogs (Was: TCM / catch-up / Peckinpah) cellar47
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> My recollection is that the film was controversial
> but not universally
> hated. It had defenders.
Indeed it did. Pauline Kael loved it. In England there
was even a "Clockwork Orange" vs. "Straw Dogs"
standoff with critics lining up to defend one or the
other as BOTH had been cited for extreme violence.
I don't care all that much for either one.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26161
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:05pm
Subject: Re: Happy Slapping matt_c_armst...
> essentially snuff, but some might find the video not without
relevance
> to some of the recent discussions that have taken place on the
list,
> especially with regard to the examination of the Spectacle and the
> Towers, and Bill's thoughts on the 'dispositif' (or lack thereof)
of
> the Richard Speck tape.
>
> Video --
>
> http://cms.streamuk.com/import/alfie/happyslapping.mov
>
> -- and a Wikipedia entry:
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Happy_slapping
>
> craig.
Looks like one needs a password to watch the videos, but I can
pretty much guess what they look like. I imagine some of them are
staged, some are real, and some are probably hard to distinguish. It
sounds awfully close to Harmony Korine's alleged "fight" video where
he picks fights with random strangers on the street.
"Happy Slapping" and bumfight videos, and of course the footage from
Abu Ghraib and the beheading stuff are all pretty horrifying to wrap
your brain around. We look like a civilization documenting its own
collapse.
As for the aesthetics, I think of things like "Blair Witch" (and
mockumentaries generally) at one point on this continuum, and then
reality TV (especially "Cops"), "Jackass" and its legion of
imitators as another point. But clearly at the extreme end is this
stuff which takes cruelty and voyeurism to its logical end point.
26162
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:09pm
Subject: Re: Hey, If It's OTV (On TV), It Ain't OT matt_c_armst...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Sent to me by Joe McBride, up in Berkeley -
>
> C-span will broadcast "9/11 and
> >> the American Empire: How Should Religious People Respond?"
> >> on Book TV (C-Span 2) this Saturday, April 30th, at 10:30
> >> a.m. Eastern time.
>
> This is a balls-out declaration that the Bush Administration planned
> 9/11, with details. It was taped in Madison last week, with a large,
> enthusiastic audience. The speaker is David Griffin, the author of
the
> book The New Pearl Harbor. I haven't read it, but I agree with Joe's
> summary of what it contains. Should be interesting.
This kind of crap is one of the reasons I left Berkeley.
26163
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:22pm
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch kinoslang
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,1472494,00
.html
>
> Frankly I've had it with this act. The new films
> aren't very good, and his dismissal of both DVD and
> Michael Moore is childish. He's right about Tarantino
> of course, but that's practically a freebie. It's his
> taking a pass on "The Dreamers" that really rilesme.
>
> Time was "Fin du Cinema" once actually meant something
> to him. Not anymore.
This is a highly skeptical "interview".
The objection to Moore is right in line with his politics/image
thinking of the past 40 years. Probably even longer: NUIT ET
BROUILLARD is older than 40 years and you can't blame him for still
thinking about its lessons.
At one of Sadaam's palaces, a dvd of PULP FICTION was found.
His later films are much more invigorating as cinema than
Bertolucci's bland, safe little tribute to BANDE A PART-- with or
without fin du cinema platitudes, which B. also smells of.
-a
26164
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 6:55pm
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch jontakagi
On 4/29/05, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> Frankly I've had it with this act. The new films
> aren't very good, and his dismissal of both DVD and
> Michael Moore is childish.
Maybe the Moore dismissal was prescient, since those remarks were
first made at last year's Cannes festival. As for DVD, some people
have the luxury of seeing whatever they want in the theatre, most
of us do not. Though it doesn't seem like he's too interested
in going to the theatre either way (though he does seem to keep
abreast of current films).
> Time was "Fin du Cinema" once actually meant something
> to him. Not anymore.
But he's not really talking about the end of cinema, but only the
end of cinema as a force for change, isn't he? The article seems
a little sensational, especially the title.
Jonathan Takagi
26165
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:19pm
Subject: Re: TCM / catch-up / Peckinpah joka13us
>Weird that they'd play "The Immortal Story" but not "Chimes at
>Midnight". I've never seen either of 'em on television, but I thought
>"Chimes" was the more popular/available of the two.
>
> Brandon
At the moment CHIMES is only legal to be shown in Spain (where the
DVD comes from), but it looks good for it all to be untangled finally
for world-wide distribution sometime soon. Or so Bill and I were
told a while back.
--
- Joe Kaufman
26166
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Happy Slapping evillights
On Friday, April 29, 2005, at 04:01 AM, hotlove666 wrote:
> Here the phone-camera supplies the framework for the assault. It has
> to be filming first, either without the victim 's knowledge, or with
> the victim's knowledge (some people appear to be posing before they
> get hit. More disturbing is the kid in the hood who just keeps taking
> it. Is he showing off, or is he tied up?)
Perhaps the most striking aspect of that sequence lies in the fact
that, whether all-real, staged, or partially staged, the perpetrators
and the victim are (sub)consciously retreading the Abu Ghraib material.
Interestingly enough, the image I have in mind -- the black-hooded,
Klan-derived "living effigy" -- was not, as far as I'm aware,
videotaped -- it was posed for still cameras; which reinforces the fact
that 'Abu Ghraib' constitutes a whole, a mesh work understood as all
moving-images even when it's not -- a meta-video that can also be said
to incorporate Daniel Pearl and sundry ransom- and decapitation-videos;
the Ghraib sequence constituting a kind of reverse-shot.
> The latest bizarre example would be the photos the Army has just
> reluctantly released of coffins that have come back from Iraq,
> apparently with the faces of the honor guard or other soldiers
> present in the image digitally erased. Why???
Fascinating. The most obvious thought is it's another attempt on the
Army's part to control the event -- to show that, yes, they're
releasing images of the coffins, but, no, what you say is not
happening. Additionally, it's a way for the government, or the
military, to put forth the statement: "You see, responsibility here
lies in no individual, and no-one can be blamed. All of this is a
process in motion on its own accord."
> I don't really know if it's applicable, but I hitchiked around
> England in the "pre-60s" (1965), arriving in some village too late to
> get a room one night, which I ended up spending with a group of drunk
> Teddy Boys in tuxes, reeling about the darkened streets and, as I
> recall, laughing at the very notion of Mick Jagger when I brought him
> up. The word was that these guys would as soon shove a potato full of
> razorblades in your face as look at you, but I found them to be
> amiable working-class kids with nothing to do but get drunk and
> fight. I came from a town like that, so it wasn't hard to relate. Too
> bad The Kinks have shut down - they could've done a great song about
> Happy Slapping, with the appropriate mixture of satire and compassion
> for slappers and slappees alike.
"Tales from th Village Green Morgue."
craig.
26167
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:23pm
Subject: Re: The Real World in contemporary films hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> "The Rat Pack" is mainly a look at Sinatra's involvement with John
F. Kennedy's
> succesful run for President in 1960. This is jet-propelled
political cinema,
> and full of juicy social commentary. Recommended.
I don't have tv, so I missed it - will rent it if it's out on DVD.
> I've seen all the political films on my recent list. Two Hollywood
films I
> have not seen are "The Day After Tomorrow" and "In Good Company".
Reviews have
> stated that they are about Global Warming and corporate downsizing,
> respectively.
And ageism in the case of In Good Company. I missed it and Spanglish,
James L. Brooks' last, which is about illegal immigrants, so shame on
me. I did see Day After Tomorrow, a bland disaster picture that
nonetheless got the word about global warming to a large audience.
26168
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:30pm
Subject: Re: Re: Happy Slapping evillights
On Friday, April 29, 2005, at 02:05 PM, Matt Armstrong wrote:
> Looks like one needs a password to watch the videos, but I can
> pretty much guess what they look like. I imagine some of them are
> staged, some are real, and some are probably hard to distinguish. It
> sounds awfully close to Harmony Korine's alleged "fight" video where
> he picks fights with random strangers on the street.
Actually it's closer to 'A Clockwork Orange' -- not the
film-in-the-world itself, but what the film depicts. 'Fight Harm,' as
I understand it, is a direct challenge to authority and machismo in
which Korine directly puts his body on the line. The only rule of the
game was that everyone Harmony started fights with (men only) had to be
bigger than him, and more or less exhibiting a cocksure mien. In any
case, the fights didn't start out with a sudden attack, or a brick from
out of nowhere -- they began with Korine "annoying" Man X nonviolently,
until the guy brought things over on his own accord into the realm of a
physical brawl. HK, in turn, was crippled by the curbstomping he
received from a bouncer in one sequence, to the extent that he hasn't
been able to tap-dance since.
craig.
26169
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:30pm
Subject: Re: TCM / catch-up / Peckinpah hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Brandon wrote:
>
> I will say that I loved "Straw Dogs", seen for the first time this
> week. The DVD commentary says that critics hated it on first
release, but
> I assume this has changed. I did a search for posts about Peckinpah
on
> this list, but mostly what I found were posts by (and replies to)
Tony
> Williams with his "peckinpah2001" email address, and one conversation
about
> whether Peckinpah was gay.
When I met him Peckinpah said that at the time A Clockwork Orange was a
critic's darling and Straw Dogs was dumped on, but that in a recent
poll Straw Dogs had bested ACO. You should follow the "gay" thread,
because my comments on the film and some repsonses are there -
basically the idea that the accused rapist is Dustin's "inner child" -
leaving w. him instead of w. Susan George makes psychological sense,
and has nothing to do w. sex.
26170
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Happy Slapping evillights
On Friday, April 29, 2005, at 03:22 PM, Craig Keller wrote:
> yes, they're
> releasing images of the coffins, but, no, what you say is not
> happening.
This was a typo: should be "what you see is not happening."
26171
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:36pm
Subject: Re: TCM / catch-up / Peckinpah hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Brandon wrote:
>
> Turner Classic is just showing a ton of interesting movies in May.
>
> Includes 19 or 20 Orson Welles movies (half directed by him, the
others
> starring
Among the "starring": Man in the Shadow, directed by Jack Arnold, is
worth a look. It's an interesting companion piece to Touch of Evil.
26172
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:37pm
Subject: Re: Happy Slapping tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
"Interestingly enough, the image I have in mind -- the black-hooded,
Klan-derived 'living effigy' -- was not, as far as I'm aware,
videotaped -- it was posed for still cameras..."
The living effigy himself was interviewed by David Broncaccio for NOW
and the segment will be broadcast tonight on PBS.
Richard
26173
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:44pm
Subject: Re: Happy Slapping hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
> Perhaps the most striking aspect of that sequence lies in the fact
> that, whether all-real, staged, or partially staged, the perpetrators
> and the victim are (sub)consciously retreading the Abu Ghraib
material.
> Interestingly enough, the image I have in mind -- the black-hooded,
> Klan-derived "living effigy" -- was not, as far as I'm aware,
> videotaped -- it was posed for still cameras
That's the signature shot. The guy with the black hood who is being
repeatedly Happy Slapped also looks uncannilly like Anikin Skywalker in
Star Wars 3! Mark Seltzer's book on Wound Culture is an interesting
speculative take on the culture's fascination with violence, wounding,
murder - very Foucauldian, just out in paperback. The full title is
Serial Killers: Life and Death in America's Wound Culture.
26174
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:56pm
Subject: Re: Re: Happy Slapping evillights
On Friday, April 29, 2005, at 03:44 PM, hotlove666 wrote:
> That's the signature shot. The guy with the black hood who is being
> repeatedly Happy Slapped also looks uncannilly like Anikin Skywalker in
> Star Wars 3! Mark Seltzer's book on Wound Culture is an interesting
> speculative take on the culture's fascination with violence, wounding,
> murder - very Foucauldian, just out in paperback. The full title is
> Serial Killers: Life and Death in America's Wound Culture.
I knew Mark Seltzer when I was an undergraduate at Cornell.
Interesting guy. He's like a cross between Godard '65 and Richard
Belzer.
craig.
26175
From: "peckinpah20012000"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:01pm
Subject: Re: Straw Dogs (Was: TCM / catch-up / Peckinpah) peckinpah200...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> >
> > My recollection is that the film was controversial
> > but not universally
> > hated. It had defenders.
>
> Indeed it did. Pauline Kael loved it. In England there
> was even a "Clockwork Orange" vs. "Straw Dogs"
> standoff with critics lining up to defend one or the
> other as BOTH had been cited for extreme violence.
>
> Screen in the 70s published an article by Charles Barr on STRAW
DOGS vs the critics which is still worth reading.
Tony Williams
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
26176
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:04pm
Subject: Re: Happy Slapping hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
> wrote:
>
>
> "Interestingly enough, the image I have in mind -- the black-hooded,
> Klan-derived 'living effigy' -- was not, as far as I'm aware,
> videotaped -- it was posed for still cameras..."
>
> The living effigy himself was interviewed by David Broncaccio for NOW
> and the segment will be broadcast tonight on PBS.
>
Craig's phrase "living effigy" points up one of the things about the
photo: They unconsciously put him in a pose reminiscent of images of
Christ. They couldn't have created a more effective "branding" image
for torture in Iraq if they'd been trying. It's one of the greatest
historical photographs ever made, even if the photographer was a
torturer, which is something that happens, as Daney pointed out in the
Atrocity Exhibit issue of CdC: the human suffering communicates through
and in spite of the apparatus for photographing or filming it. But in
this case, it's the torturers' own Christian unconscious that sems to
be doing the communicating.
I really didn't think the Bushistas could survive that photo, and the
obscene ones of sexual torture - it's the kind of thing that soils the
people responsible in everyone's mind no matter how hard they try to
rub it off. But the firing of Tenet seems to have stopped leaks going
to Seymour Hersch, so the momentum was killed, and there doesn't seem
to be anything people aren't happy to forget these days. I don't think
it's a matter of "people really got of on the photos, so showing them
was playing into Bush's hands," either. People were genuinely
disgusted, but the Bushies managed to contain it.
Maybe the erased faces in the coffin shots coming out now are a similar
strategy - avoiding giving a human face to the carnage. The unwitting
analogy there is kiddy porn photos that are shown by the FBI on tv with
the victim, or the victim's face, erased to see if anyone recognizes
the furniture.
26177
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:05pm
Subject: Re: Happy Slapping hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
> I knew Mark Seltzer when I was an undergraduate at Cornell.
> Interesting guy. He's like a cross between Godard '65 and Richard
> Belzer.
>
> craig.
He teaches at UCLA now. I'm going to look him up one of these days,
definotely.
26178
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:11pm
Subject: Peckinpah's rep (Was: Straw Dogs) sallitt1
>> My recollection is that the film was controversial
>> but not universally
>> hated. It had defenders.
>
> Indeed it did. Pauline Kael loved it. In England there
> was even a "Clockwork Orange" vs. "Straw Dogs"
> standoff with critics lining up to defend one or the
> other as BOTH had been cited for extreme violence.
PAT GARRETT and ALFREDO GARCIA, on the other hand, were pretty much
overlooked at the time of their release, seems to me. PAT GARRETT
acquired a "mutilated masterpiece" aura after a few years, whereas
ALFREDO's rep gathered momentum more slowly. - Dan
26179
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 8:41pm
Subject: Re: TCM / catch-up / Peckinpah jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Brandon wrote:
> >
> > Turner Classic is just showing a ton of interesting movies in May.
> >
> > Includes 19 or 20 Orson Welles movies (half directed by him, the
> others
> > starring
>
> Among the "starring": Man in the Shadow, directed by Jack Arnold, is
> worth a look. It's an interesting companion piece to Touch of Evil.
I always felt Welles had influenced the direction more than in any
other film in which he just acted. Fine-looking black and white
CinemaScope (the same year Arnold's "The Tattered Dress" also in B&W
Scope, wasn't bad at all). JPC
26180
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 10:58pm
Subject: Re: Happy Slapping matt_c_armst...
> Perhaps the most striking aspect of that sequence lies in the fact
> that, whether all-real, staged, or partially staged, the
perpetrators
> and the victim are (sub)consciously retreading the Abu Ghraib
material.
Speaking of Abu Ghraib, I finally saw a bit of the Fox show "24" last
night. "24"s storyline incorporates torture and coercive
interrogation in a way that is both opportunistic and propagandistic.
In the scenes I saw, some characters raised objections to Kiefer
Sutherland's torture of a prisoner, but his methods are ultimately
vindicated. The ends, we're led to understand, justify the means.
What a bunch of crap!
The show's producer is quoted in a USA Today article that the
Sutherland character's methods are a "necessary evil." The folks I
was watching the show with seemed to agree. Effective propaganda
indeed.
26181
From: ptonguette@...
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:16pm
Subject: Re: CATCH 22 directed by Richard Quine! peter_tonguette
I've never seen it. Indeed, almost all of Quine's post-1970 work remains
something of a mystery to me. Most of it is unavailable on video and many of the
projects sound less than promising (with the notable exception of
"Catch-22.") But I am a tremendous fan of Quine's films from the '50s and '60s, having
just written an enthusiastic review of his masterful "Strangers When We Meet"
for The Film Journal, so I wouldn't doubt that his work in the '70s is just as
good as the earlier stuff.
Somewhat unfashionably, I am a fan of Mike Nichols' adaptation of Heller's
novel, made during the period when Nichols was very interesting formally. When
he left the movies after "The Fortune" (also very good), he seemed to lose the
visual sensibility which made him distinctive.
Peter Tonguette
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26182
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:28pm
Subject: Re: CATCH 22 directed by Richard Quine! tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
"Somewhat unfashionably, I am a fan of Mike Nichols' adaptation of
Heller's novel, made during the period when Nichols was very
interesting formally..."
In a 1970s interview published in "Audience" magazine Heller said
that
he received a letter from Orson Welles asking to direct and write any
film adaptation that might be made from the novel. Heller was
enthusiastic, and any time the story was optioned between 1962 and
the time it was finally made Heller always suggested Welles for
director and was always turned down. He was sorry that Welles ended
up playing just a bit part in the Nichols film.
Richard
26183
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 11:29pm
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Takagi wrote:
>
> But he's not really talking about the end of cinema, but only the
> end of cinema as a force for change, isn't he?
Personally, I don't agree with that, either.
26184
From: ptonguette@...
Date: Fri Apr 29, 2005 7:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: CATCH 22 directed by Richard Quine! peter_tonguette
Richard,
Of course, this is what hangs over the film: the prospect of Welles adapting
and directing it himself. There's no question that such a film, had it
happened, would have soared above what Nichols came up with. But what he did come
up with is still rather impressive when taken on its own merits. Nichols'
mise-en-scene was tops in "Catch-22," "Carnal Knowledge," "The Day of the
Dolphin," and "The Fortune." Subsequently, not so much, though a few of them have
sparks of the old Nichols.
Peter Tonguette
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26185
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 0:05am
Subject: Re: CATCH 22 directed by Richard Quine! cellar47
--- ptonguette@... wrote:
But I am a tremendous fan of Quine's
> films from the '50s and '60s, having
> just written an enthusiastic review of his masterful
> "Strangers When We Meet"
> for The Film Journal, so I wouldn't doubt that his
> work in the '70s is just as
> good as the earlier stuff.
>
Raymond Durgnat loved that one too.
> Somewhat unfashionably, I am a fan of Mike Nichols'
> adaptation of Heller's
> novel, made during the period when Nichols was very
> interesting formally. When
> he left the movies after "The Fortune" (also very
> good), he seemed to lose the
> visual sensibility which made him distinctive.
>
He really turned himself inside out to create
grandpscale visual complexity in "Cath-22" and "The
Day of the Dolphin." Neither paid off critically or at
the box office, so he retreated to a simpler style
that didn't call attention to itself as much (save for
the opening shot of "The Bird Cage.") He found his
"level," I feel in "Postcards From the Edge."
Thinking about it a lot lately re the dead Republican
in Carrie Fisher's bed -- the subject of my latest
FaBlog entry.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26186
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:40am
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch evillights
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Takagi wrote:
>>
>> But he's not really talking about the end of cinema, but only the
>> end of cinema as a force for change, isn't he?
>
> Personally, I don't agree with that, either.
I know there are a lot of defenders of 'Fahrenheit 9/11' on here, but
I'm not one of them. If we get anything out of the film, it's because
it exists primarily as a container for footage of Bush acting like a
crashed-computer. Formally, it's television. Or a website. Unless
the televisual-surf constitutes the new, challenging / dialectical
aesthetic of the cinema, I agree with Godard. There's very little in
the film that will change or challenge its audience's ideas about --
never mind politics -- cinema, the image, and morality. Whether he
decided not to show the towers or not is neither here nor there.
craig.
26187
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:27am
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> I know there are a lot of defenders of 'Fahrenheit
> 9/11' on here, but
> I'm not one of them. If we get anything out of the
> film, it's because
> it exists primarily as a container for footage of
> Bush acting like a
> crashed-computer.
Not at all. It's a sustained statemtn of opposition to
the war -- thankfully seen by a great many people.
Formally, it's television. Or a
> website. Unless
> the televisual-surf constitutes the new, challenging
> / dialectical
> aesthetic of the cinema, I agree with Godard.
The televisual-surf constitutes the new, challenging
/ dialectical aesthetic of the cinema
> There's very little in
> the film that will change or challenge its
> audience's ideas about --
> never mind politics -- cinema, the image, and
> morality.
Now what on earth does that mean? What film in the
history of the cinema ever changed its audiences mind?
"Battleship Potemkin"? "The Battle of Algiers" ?
"JFK"?
"Weekend"? "Forrest Gump"?
Whether he
> decided not to show the towers or not is neither
> here nor there.
>
No, it's HERE.
Besides, he showed the towers in "Bowling For
Columbine" -- with Louis Armstrong singing "What a
Wonderful World" in the background.
Again -- Michael Moore is our Sacha Guitry.
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26188
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:46am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Again -- Michael Moore is our Sacha Guitry.
Some might take this as a putdown of Moore, others as a putdown
of Guitry.
Maybe he is our (I mean your) Chris Marker?
26189
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:03am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Takagi wrote:
> On 4/29/05, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> > Time was "Fin du Cinema" once actually meant something
> > to him. Not anymore.
>
> But he's not really talking about the end of cinema, but only the
> end of cinema as a force for change, isn't he? The article seems
> a little sensational, especially the title.
>
> Jonathan Takagi
But since cinema has never been a force for change, he might as well
be saying that cinema has never really existed.
I like to picture JLG and others like him wearing a long robe and
sandals and walking around carrying a sign saying "THE END OF CINEMA
IS NEAR". They also told us about the end of history, and lo and
behold history is still marching on (perhaps under a different name
though).
Fashion is the one thing that will never really end.
JPC
26190
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch evillights
On Friday, April 29, 2005, at 10:27 PM, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> Not at all. It's a sustained statemtn of opposition to
> the war -- thankfully seen by a great many people.
But it packages opposition to the war in a 16x9 Happy Meal box, full of
quick cuts, dramatic arcs, and all the other junk that placates an
audience into thinking this is some kind of narrative that can be
described and conceived in discrete terms. There's a new trend in
20-/30-something pop-culture review/essay writing wherein the writer
starts to talk about "the narrative of teenage-year ritual of hanging
out at the mall and coming home dejected because the pretty girls
didn't make the right eye-contact," or "the narrative of the
couple-month-span between when Kurt Cobain performed on 'Unplugged' and
when he went AWOL in Rome then came back to Seattle and shot himself."
Pitchfork Media writers, big-city alternative-weekly-paper columnists,
and contributors to The Baffler do this all the time. Not everything
can be conceived of as "a narrative," as much as we'd like it to be.
The same applies to 'Fahrenheit 9/11.' Where there should be cinema,
there's a narrative. And the videography, or whatever it's called, is
nauseating.
> Formally, it's television. Or a
>> website. Unless
>> the televisual-surf constitutes the new, challenging
>> / dialectical
>> aesthetic of the cinema, I agree with Godard.
>
> The televisual-surf constitutes the new, challenging
> / dialectical aesthetic of the cinema
The new aesthetic will be the one shot on celluloid, where the auteur
doesn't have to adopt the humble-guy, I'm-not-an-intellectual approach
lest he come off looking as too elitist or un-American.
> Now what on earth does that mean? What film in the
> history of the cinema ever changed its audiences mind?
>
> "Battleship Potemkin"?
Yep.
> "The Battle of Algiers" ?
Nope.
> "JFK"?
Nope.
> "Weekend"?
Yep.
> "Forrest Gump"?
Nope.
> No, it's HERE.
>
> Besides, he showed the towers in "Bowling For
> Columbine" -- with Louis Armstrong singing "What a
> Wonderful World" in the background.
But David, you're too intelligent to read that as anything but stupid,
lazy irony. When I was a freshman in college ten years ago and having
my first "movie ideas," I conceived of this dorm-life dramedy that
hinged on heartache and yackety-schmackety. Starting from some point
after the emotional crisis of this ostensible couple, the opening
(Scope) shot, playing out in long-shot and slow-motion, was going to
have the female lover flinging a beer bottle across the space of this
dorm lounge, from the extreme left of the frame, hurtling in slow-mo,
and this spinning brown bottle was going to shatter, explode on the
wall next to the guilty and/or angsted male. I don't even remember
what was supposed to happen next. On the soundtrack: the opening notes
of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" as the bass-drum crashes and the verse comes
in. (It's probable that I had little concept of clearance fees at that
point.) Ten years later, this comes off as the work of an idiot.
First of all, because the irony of that track laid on top of whatever
blasé couple-fight scenario I'd dreamt up constitutes an incredibly
cliché and disingenuous maneuver; secondly, and more importantly,
because the power of Brian Wilson's recording completely consumes and
eclipses the scene -- the dramaturgy and the mise en scène -- as I'd
conceived it. It was very foolish, very juvenile.
Michael Moore is pushing 50, and he finds this same strategy appealing.
But in the face of Louis Armstrong, he is -nothing-.
He should watch the end of 'Taste of Cherry.'
> Again -- Michael Moore is our Sacha Guitry.
Sadly, he's our Michael Moore.
craig.
26191
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:21am
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Maybe he is our (I mean your) Chris Marker?
>
>
Close but no cigar. Cats play no role in Moore's
films, alas.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26192
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:30am
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- Craig Keller wrote:
Where there
> should be cinema,
> there's a narrative. And the videography, or
> whatever it's called, is
> nauseating.
>
It's not a narrative -- it's a RECIT.
Could you explain the difference to him, J-P, I'm very
tired.
>
> The new aesthetic will be the one shot on celluloid,
> where the auteur
> doesn't have to adopt the humble-guy,
> I'm-not-an-intellectual approach
> lest he come off looking as too elitist or
> un-American.
>
The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
You will not be able to stay home, brother.
You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and
skip,
Skip out for beer during commercials,
Because the revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by Xerox
In 4 parts without commercial interruptions.
The revolution will not show you pictures of Nixon
blowing a bugle and leading a charge by John
Mitchell, General Abrams and Spiro Agnew to eat
hog maws confiscated from a Harlem sanctuary.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be brought to you by the
Schaefer Award Theatre and will not star Natalie
Woods and Steve McQueen or Bullwinkle and Julia.
The revolution will not give your mouth sex appeal.
The revolution will not get rid of the nubs.
The revolution will not make you look five pounds
thinner, because the revolution will not be televised,
Brother.
There will be no pictures of you and Willie May
pushing that shopping cart down the block on the dead
run,
or trying to slide that color television into a stolen
ambulance.
NBC will not be able predict the winner at 8:32
or report from 29 districts.
The revolution will not be televised.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of pigs shooting down
brothers in the instant replay.
There will be no pictures of Whitney Young being
run out of Harlem on a rail with a brand new process.
There will be no slow motion or still life of Roy
Wilkens strolling through Watts in a Red, Black and
Green liberation jumpsuit that he had been saving
For just the proper occasion.
Green Acres, The Beverly Hillbillies, and Hooterville
Junction will no longer be so damned relevant, and
women will not care if Dick finally gets down with
Jane on Search for Tomorrow because Black people
will be in the street looking for a brighter day.
The revolution will not be televised.
There will be no highlights on the eleven o'clock
news and no pictures of hairy armed women
liberationists and Jackie Onassis blowing her nose.
The theme song will not be written by Jim Webb,
Francis Scott Key, nor sung by Glen Campbell, Tom
Jones, Johnny Cash, Englebert Humperdink, or the Rare
Earth.
The revolution will not be televised.
The revolution will not be right back after a message
bbout a white tornado, white lightning, or white
people.
You will not have to worry about a dove in your
bedroom, a tiger in your tank, or the giant in your
toilet bowl.
The revolution will not go better with Coke.
The revolution will not fight the germs that may cause
bad breath.
The revolution will put you in the driver's seat.
The revolution will not be televised, will not be
televised,
will not be televised, will not be televised.
The revolution will be no re-run brothers;
The revolution will be live.
(I love the Oldies -- don't you?)
>
> But David, you're too intelligent to read that as
> anything but stupid,
> lazy irony. When I was a freshman in college ten
> years ago and having
> my first "movie ideas," I conceived of this
> dorm-life dramedy that
> hinged on heartache and yackety-schmackety.
> Starting from some point
> after the emotional crisis of this ostensible
> couple, the opening
> (Scope) shot, playing out in long-shot and
> slow-motion, was going to
> have the female lover flinging a beer bottle across
> the space of this
> dorm lounge, from the extreme left of the frame,
> hurtling in slow-mo,
> and this spinning brown bottle was going to shatter,
> explode on the
> wall next to the guilty and/or angsted male. I
> don't even remember
> what was supposed to happen next. On the
> soundtrack: the opening notes
> of "Wouldn't It Be Nice" as the bass-drum crashes
> and the verse comes
> in. (It's probable that I had little concept of
> clearance fees at that
> point.) Ten years later, this comes off as the work
> of an idiot.
Abd you know why? Because Warren Beatty already used
"Wouldn't It be Nice?" in "Shampoo."
>
> Michael Moore is pushing 50, and he finds this same
> strategy appealing.
And I'm pushing 60 -- AND LOVING IT!!!!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26193
From: Leslie Weisman
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:44am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch allegra423
Interesting that the article (dated April 29, 2005) says "Notre musique" just received its world premiere. It was in Washington (DC) a few months ago, and in Munich last summer.
Leslie Weisman
David Ehrenstein wrote:
http://film.guardian.co.uk/interview/interviewpages/0,6737,1472494,00.html
Frankly I've had it with this act. The new films
aren't very good, and his dismissal of both DVD and
Michael Moore is childish. He's right about Tarantino
of course, but that's practically a freebie. It's his
taking a pass on "The Dreamers" that really rilesme.
Time was "Fin du Cinema" once actually meant something
to him. Not anymore.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26194
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:51am
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch evillights
On Friday, April 29, 2005, at 11:30 PM, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> The Revolution Will Not Be Televised
>
> You will not be able to stay home, brother.
> You will not be able to plug in, turn on and cop out.
> You will not be able to lose yourself on skag and
> skip.....
> (I love the Oldies -- don't you?)
I do -- but who'll pay reparations on Moore's soul?
> Abd you know why? Because Warren Beatty already used
> "Wouldn't It be Nice?" in "Shampoo."
And that's why it's never a good idea to fixate on including a famous
piece of pop-music in one's work -- because somebody, somewhere,
already has. But, I've been exposed -- I've never seen 'Shampoo.'
Which only proves I'm a lot closer to Jean-Pierre Léaud's father, who
one day, over his mashed potatoes, discovered that the earth revolves
around the sun.
craig.
26195
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:53am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch evillights
> Interesting that the article (dated April 29, 2005) says "Notre
> musique" just received its world premiere. It was in Washington (DC)
> a few months ago, and in Munich last summer.
The writer never clarifies that the interview was conducted at Cannes
2004. "The illusion of the junket" and whatnot.
craig.
26196
From: Leslie Weisman
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:59am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch allegra423
Ah! THAT makes sense. Thanks.
Leslie
Craig Keller wrote:
> Interesting that the article (dated April 29, 2005) says "Notre
> musique" just received its world premiere. It was in Washington (DC)
> a few months ago, and in Munich last summer.
The writer never clarifies that the interview was conducted at Cannes
2004. "The illusion of the junket" and whatnot.
craig.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26197
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:01am
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- Craig Keller wrote:
I've never
> seen 'Shampoo.'
>
> Which only proves I'm a lot closer to Jean-Pierre
> Léaud's father, who
> one day, over his mashed potatoes, discovered that
> the earth revolves
> around the sun.
>
And the cinema revolves around Warren Beatty.
It's the first panel of a political trilogy whose
other facets are "Reds" and "Bulworth."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26198
From: "Robert Keser"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:31am
Subject: Angelopoulos petition rfkeser
The Greek government has dismissed Theo Angelopoulos and Michel
Demopoulos from their respective positions as President and Director
of the International Thessaloniki Film Festival (Angelopoulos
apparently first learned of it by reading the newspaper). Any afb
members (or indeed anyone else) interested in registering a protest
against this action can sign the petition at:
http://www.angelopoulos-dismissed.fr.st/
--Robert Keser
26199
From: "Aaron Graham"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:53am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch machinegunmc...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> And the cinema revolves around Warren Beatty.
"Shampoo" has one of my favorite endings in all of cinema. And it
certainly uses "Wouldn't It Be Nice" to great effect. Beatty's never
been more charming.
> It's the first panel of a political trilogy whose
> other facets are "Reds" and "Bulworth."
Can't believe I haven't seen "Reds" yet! I've read quite a few times
that it's his masterpiece.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact