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.
26201
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:07am
Subject: Re: CATCH 22 directed by Richard Quine! tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
"...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."
I wasn't dismissing the movie by citing the Heller story about Welles.
Parts of "Catch 22" were quite remarkable. It certainly went
beyond "Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?" and "The Graduate,"
and "Carnal Knowledge," "The Day of the Dolphin," and "The Fortune"
were worthy efforts. But with "Catch 22" it seemed that the parts were
greater than the whole, and I think it was because he was forced to cut
the picture for length (or did some else cut it? I don't remember now.)
Richard
26202
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:09am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch matt_c_armst...
> 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.
It's pointless to attack Moore for not being
academic/intellectual/sophisticated enough. His film is playing dirty.
It's full of low comedy and pop culture, playing to the bleachers.
Believe me, he reached a lot more fence-straddling Americans with his
message than "Notre Musique" ever will.
I find most of the attacks on Moore classist, not to mention fixated on
his obesity. Moore's appeal is that he is NOT a stodgy, high-minded
leftist who plays fair. He's taken leftist politics out of the
coffeehouse. Some of us have been waiting for the anti-war
Happy Meal!
26203
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:34am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
>
> 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.
Oh, I agree with you on 'Fahrenheit'. I wasn't talking about or
bringing up 'Fahrenheit'. I'm just saying that I still believe cinema
has the ability to change and challenge its audience's ideas about
cinema, the image and morality. I don't believe Michael Moore's cinema
has the ability to challenge the audience's ideas about cinema, the
image and morality, mind you (though when it comes to politics, I
think there might actually be something to his populsist, televisual
approach), but, then, Michael Moore isn't all there is to cinema, is he?
By the way, I think you're underestimating the Internet.
26204
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:07am
Subject: Filipino films available online noelbotevera
Just got an ad for their latest offerings, and happily, quite a few
are worth looking at at this site:
http://shop.regalfilms.com/shop/customer/home.php
Some titles worth getting:
Pangarap ng Puso (Demons, 2000): one of O'Hara's best, and arguably
the best Filipino film to come out in years--a horror movie, war
picture, love story, and tribute to Filipino poetry, all rolled into
one.
Burlesk Queen: Celso Ad. Castillo's paean to burlesque theater, and
perhaps one of the most lyrical Filipino films ever made.
Sisa (1998): O'Hara's insanely inventive take on the life of Filipino
historical figure Jose Rizal
Scorpio Nights: Peque Gallaga's takeoff on In the Realm of the Senses--
not as explicit, but in my opinion, better.
Babae sa Bubungang Lata (Woman on a Tin Roof, 1998) O'Hara's elegy to
Filipino cinema.
Babae sa Breakwater (Woman of the Breakwater, 2004): Mario O'Hara's
latest, and the first Filipino feature to go to Cannes since 1989.
Hesus Rebolusyonaryo: Lav Diaz's science-fiction film, set 11 years
into the future, where the Philippines is ruled by a miliatry junta,
and the only hope is Hesus Mariano--punk, poet, philosopher, warrior.
Pila Balde: director Jeffrey Jeturian and writer Armando Lao doing
Lino Brocka lite, but with attendant virtues--unlike Brocka Lao has a
sense of play, and a sense of humor.
Laman: one of the better Filipino erotic films in recent years,
directed by Maryo J. delos Reyes
Tuhog: Jeturian and Lao's stylish satire on sex flicks
26205
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 7:11am
Subject: Re: Filipino films available online noelbotevera
Forgot to add that the films are available on DVD, VCD and VHS (not
in ALL the formats; you have to check). All unsubtitled,
unfortunately.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
> Just got an ad for their latest offerings, and happily, quite a
few
> are worth looking at at this site:
>
http://shop.regalfilms.com/shop/customer/home.php
>
> Some titles worth getting:
>
> Pangarap ng Puso (Demons, 2000): one of O'Hara's best, and
arguably
> the best Filipino film to come out in years--a horror movie, war
> picture, love story, and tribute to Filipino poetry, all rolled
into
> one.
>
> Burlesk Queen: Celso Ad. Castillo's paean to burlesque theater,
and
> perhaps one of the most lyrical Filipino films ever made.
>
> Sisa (1998): O'Hara's insanely inventive take on the life of
Filipino
> historical figure Jose Rizal
>
> Scorpio Nights: Peque Gallaga's takeoff on In the Realm of the
Senses--
> not as explicit, but in my opinion, better.
>
> Babae sa Bubungang Lata (Woman on a Tin Roof, 1998) O'Hara's elegy
to
> Filipino cinema.
>
> Babae sa Breakwater (Woman of the Breakwater, 2004): Mario
O'Hara's
> latest, and the first Filipino feature to go to Cannes since 1989.
>
> Hesus Rebolusyonaryo: Lav Diaz's science-fiction film, set 11
years
> into the future, where the Philippines is ruled by a miliatry
junta,
> and the only hope is Hesus Mariano--punk, poet, philosopher,
warrior.
>
> Pila Balde: director Jeffrey Jeturian and writer Armando Lao doing
> Lino Brocka lite, but with attendant virtues--unlike Brocka Lao
has a
> sense of play, and a sense of humor.
>
> Laman: one of the better Filipino erotic films in recent years,
> directed by Maryo J. delos Reyes
>
> Tuhog: Jeturian and Lao's stylish satire on sex flicks
26206
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:12am
Subject: Re: CATCH 22 directed by Richard Quine! thebradstevens
>
> 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.
>
One could argue that Welles did direct a film of CATCH 22 - under the
title THE TRIAL. The latter film has a lot more in common with Joseph
Heller's novel than it does with Kafka's (even though it was made
prior to CATCH 22's publication) - "There is an ovular shape on the
floor", "Don't write that down. Ovular isn't even a word", "I can't
not write it down just because you say...Do you deny there's an
ovular shape on the floor?" - it's pure Heller.
Heller, incidentally, was enthusiastic about the Nichols adaptation.
In an essay included in CATCH AS CATCH CAN, he points out something
about the film that I'd never noticed before - during a scene in
Major Major's office (which is shot in a single take) the painting in
the background keeps changing: first it's Roosevelt, then Churchill,
finally Stalin.
26207
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:13am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch kinoslang
Matt wrote:
>> F9-11's full of low comedy and pop culture, playing to the
>bleachers.
Whose comedy, whose culture? Its a romp for americans. There is no
compassion for Iraqis in the film and that's what mobilized the real
antiwar movement, a sense of moral outrage.
Sarcasm and irony are not effective political tools. At least not
today. Moore is so titilated by them, as if he never tires of it. He
has no dimensions at all in that regard.
> It's pointless to attack Moore for not being
> academic/intellectual/sophisticated enough. His film is playing
>dirty.
Playing dirty is exactly what Moore failed to do. The rhythm of his
film is identical to tv, in other words, he failed to break the hum.
> I find most of the attacks on Moore classist, not to mention
>fixated on
> his obesity.
I find most adoration of Moore classist. Moore is a member of the
elite and has been for some time. He speaks like an elitist,
thundering down quaintness from above, tailoring himself to an idea
of populism which has shown itself to be completely false and
disrespectful (here and elsewhere). But this posture is safe for a
certain class. "I am not 'lorical' said the folk".
Moore spends images. He uses the mother who lost her son exactly as
one would establish credit. Its the only shot he holds on for very
long, when she breaks down, and its not because he wants to analyze,
explore, inform, or even emote about the situation.
Moore gets a lot of kicks out of a white supremacist position in F9-
11, albiet while providing a little information on the side. A few
shards of information do shine through all the slovenly spending. I
think the footage of the victims in Iraq is important, because of
the scarcity of these images, but it would've been better if he'd
just funneled his massive budget into making images from the other
side available, end to end. The folk would've understood that.
"You can never make films intelligent enough. People have enough
stupidity to deal with in their everyday lives."
Pauvre Marker.
peace,
andy
26208
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:24am
Subject: Re: Jack Smight (Was: Sidney J. Furie) sallitt1
> "Harper," "Now Way to Treat a Lady" and "The
> Travelling Executioner" are all excellent.For
> television Smight also directed Christopher Isherwood
> and Don Bachardy's "Frankenstein: The True Story."
Anyone else a fan of Smight's basketball film FAST BREAK? I think it
could be his best (and I like him in general). - Dan
26209
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:59am
Subject: Re: Re: These folks don't exist (Was: I (Heart) Fritz Lang) sallitt1
> To argue from states of mind - which seem to be on your mind - would
> be to enter the religious realm, where looking lustfully at someone
> is committing adultery, or where one seeks to purify oneself of base
> attachments, negative feelings etc. to attain satori. Which is cool,
> too, but I don't drag it into my film criticism.
I cop to the fact that I accept or reject art on the basis of the states
of mind that it induces. Maybe that's a hangover from my more moralistic
days, when my attitudes toward art were formed. Hopefully I'm not too
simple about it, but I always think about whether I want to go to the
place where a film is taking me.
I don't necessarily feel that others should follow my lead. For instance,
the hypothetical position that I asked you to confirm or deny ("I get
pleasure out of this, and no one gets hurt when I experience it in a
fictional context") seems to me consistent and defensible. - Dan
26210
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- Aaron Graham wrote:
>
> Can't believe I haven't seen "Reds" yet! I've read
> quite a few times
> that it's his masterpiece.
>
Arguably -- though I'd give the edge to "Bulworth."
Warren was in the news just last night as everyone is
crediting him with starting the anti-Ahnuld pile-on in
a stemwinder of a speech he gave a few weeks back.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26211
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: CATCH 22 directed by Richard Quine! cellar47
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
But with "Catch 22" it seemed
> that the parts were
> greater than the whole, and I think it was because
> he was forced to cut
> the picture for length (or did some else cut it? I
> don't remember now.)
>
I'm sure he cut it himself. Nichols is nothing if not
"practical," and more than willing to say goodbye to
something that "doesn't work."
The most intersting sequences of "Catch-22" are less
like Heller than they are Malaparte. nichols was
undoubtredly thinking of "The Skin." Liliana Cavani's
adaptation of it wasn't bad at all. In fact it's her
best film. Little seen, alas. Columbia had a sneak
preview and when the audience freaked out (people ran
screaming up the ailes) over a scene where a tanks
runs a man over -- crashing him like a melon -- they
took a pass on releasing it.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26212
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 1:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- Andy Rector wrote:
. There is no
> compassion for Iraqis in the film and that's what
> mobilized the real
> antiwar movement, a sense of moral outrage.
>
Did you see a different cut than the rest of us? "No
compassion" for the scene where the woman is screaming
about family members being taken away by the
Americans? Come on!
> Sarcasm and irony are not effective political tools.
Guess Mark Twain was wasing his time.
> At least not
> today.
Guess Jon Stewart has been wasiting his time.
>
> Moore spends images. He uses the mother who lost her
> son exactly as
> one would establish credit. Its the only shot he
> holds on for very
> long, when she breaks down, and its not because he
> wants to analyze,
> explore, inform, or even emote about the situation.
>
Oh bull! You would have him ignore her because it's
too "emnotional"?
> Moore gets a lot of kicks out of a white supremacist
> position in F9-
> 11, albiet while providing a little information on
> the side. A few
> shards of information do shine through all the
> slovenly spending. I
> think the footage of the victims in Iraq is
> important, because of
> the scarcity of these images, but it would've been
> better if he'd
> just funneled his massive budget into making images
> from the other
> side available, end to end. The folk would've
> understood that.
>
No they wouldn't.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26213
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:37pm
Subject: Twentynine palms too many jpcoursodon
To change the subject... I don't think (or rather, don't remember
if) Bruno Dumont's "Twentynine Palms" has been discussed on
a_film_by (haven't done a Google search though). I belatedly caught
up with it on DVD (and let me say emphatically that this is one film
that absolutely should be seen on the big screen -- like his
previous one, the stunning though perplexing "L'Humanite"). My
response to "Palms" was thoroughly negative (although the film is in
many ways very much in the spirit of his first two efforts) but
everything that i disliked about it is thoroughly intentional and
Dumont has been very eloquent about it in his interviews (by the way
the DVD has an interview with him, but he speaks French with a
voiceover English translation, a device I just can't stomach). I
thought his intentions were totally wrong-headed and the result a
sorry mess, but I gather the film has many or at the very least some
admirers. I wonder how people in our group have reacted to it.
Dumont calls it an experimental film. It can be seen as a mood piece
in which the only actual character is the scenery. On the surface it
is a two-character road movie in which a guy and his girlfriend
aimlessly drive around the desert.Nothing happens for the first 90
minutes or so ("I was bored by the idea of having to tell a story,
to have characters," Dumont said in one interview -- Mike Grost must
have loved this film!) Sometimes they stop and walk around a bit or
eat something or lie in the sun; and every 15 minutes or so they
fuck -- this is their only mode of communication since she doesn't
speak English and he doesn't speak whatever her native language is
(the actress is Russian). They only exchange a very few words in
garbled, barely intelligible (but subtitled, although what they say
is of no consequence) French. This inability to communicate verbally
is a great ploy to get rid of this vulgar middlebrow
concern: "psychology". The fucking is always weird (underwater
fellatio, anyone?) and accompanied with ear-piercing screams that
could be produced by people being tortured to death. Eros and
Thanatos... Which leads us to a climactic rape scene (finally
something does happen).
This highly ambiguous climax (reminiscent of "L'Humanite"'s ending)
is done in a series of three scenes (including the stunning extreme
long shot/long take which closes the film) that perversely
contradict each other, turning the entire film into a self-
destructing contraption. Dumont hasn't provided any explanation in
interviews, since interviewers (those I have read) didn't ask for
one. This ending is at least as teasingly puzzling as the last shot
of "The Shining". Any comment?
26214
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:53pm
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many evillights
On Saturday, April 30, 2005, at 10:37 AM, jpcoursodon wrote:
> This highly ambiguous climax (reminiscent of "L'Humanite"'s ending)
> is done in a series of three scenes (including the stunning extreme
> long shot/long take which closes the film) that perversely
> contradict each other, turning the entire film into a self-
> destructing contraption. Dumont hasn't provided any explanation in
> interviews, since interviewers (those I have read) didn't ask for
> one. This ending is at least as teasingly puzzling as the last shot
> of "The Shining". Any comment?
I'm a huge admirer of the film. I wrote on a_f_b, many a moon ago, in
response to Ruy --
===
Some reasons I liked 'Twentynine Palms': in one sense, as much as
Dumont's cinema is concerned with the body (by showing it in work [in
the scientific sense], or by filming the sheer mechanics of physicality
and "renewing" [undistanciating?] / re-investing routine behaviors with
a kind of beautiful earthiness), 'Twentynine Palms' seems to me to show
a widening of concern from the body-as-foundation, to "the natural
chain" of human phenomena -- a reacquaintance with the earth, but also
species (human) interaction with the earth, and with each other -- such
that when 'things happen' in the film, and when things happen badly,
what occurs seems less an event than a phenomenon. Having said that, I
thought the "wild West" setting was probably as apt a locale as any for
the equation/reduction of the human against the earth -- with much of
the vast expanse of America born from westward pioneering and
start-from-zero civilizationeering, if I can neologize for a beat. Of
course, the irony is that somewhere along the way this re-investment
(in both meanings of the term) in naturalism became modern America --
supermasculinized, xenophobic -- a reduction or regression to
aggression and basest, even chaotic impulses. So the pair of lovers
(the turn-on-a-dime, almost reasonless Sturm-und-Drang of their
repartée struck me as more 'natural' and real than I've seen in a lot
of recent films -- but eclipsed for all time, in my opinion, by 'Scenes
from a Marriage,' wherein the beats of the couple's rapport are far
less arbitrary... but, I digress; completely different film) howl and
let out the most earth-shaking orgasms I've ever seen on film -- almost
"tall-tale" orgasms. And, in the end, their problems and tumult morph
into something like little fish being gnashed by the beak of a giant
squid in a cartoon diagram ('Finding Hemo'?) -- horrifying,
unnatural-naturalism, brought on in the corollary of "nature" or "the
wild" by something like pheromones but at this human-eye-level by
something closer probably to "the vibes they were emitting." In a
blatant danger-zone of this West-as-America.
One can say that the phenomena that occur to the couple, the
manifestation of the brutality, comes in the form of the new "American
mythos" -- a phantom materialization of the Jerry Springer bile, of the
surveillance-voyeur images and serial-killer hunting grounds (note the
"art film" they watch in the motel room, the shadows and the fence, the
stalking tracking shot -- oracular vision)*, of the tangible dread on
the inskirts and the outskirts of American life (inskirts and
outskirts, because the two zones have gone inside-out in our culture).
When all hell befalls them, [SORTA-SPOILER] it befalls them with the
vengeance that is unspoken but feared behind every American discourse
on violence (or, on the flip-side, security) -- the
real-worst-possible-thing -- prison-tale sodomy by The Stranger --
and, with the aggressor as "Stranger," the specter of HIV or another
deathly transmission must will overtake the thoughts of the victim, and
effectively castrate him in the span of the initial trauma, if not for
good. From god's/gaia's-eye-view -- phenomena; at the human level -- a
culture of self-perpetuating violence and fear, a black-hole and a
danger-zone, utterly corrupting, that would swallow whole any being
wandering into its territory. Looked at from one angle, the last
"shock" of the film is over-the-top; but from another angle, a
quasi-allegorical corruption (as in, "passed on from one to another"),
a terrible vision of the End Result of "all this" -- it disturbed the
living shit out of me and, to my soul, played like genuine tragedy.
The last shot -- [EXPLICIT SPOILER] -- the high-angle wide shot, gives
us man (the body and the cop) recontextualized against the earth
(literal desert ground), and another sign, at the human-level, of the
civilization falling apart: the cop's pleas for three or four moments
over the walkie-talkie trying to convince his co-worker about the
priority of what he's just turned up out in the desert. Cut to
silence, black, credits.
This film haunted me for days after seeing it; the only film that has
had any comparable effect on me in the last three months has been 'Late
Spring,' which I'd just seen for the first time.
-Completely different movies-, as it turns out.
* = The name of this film, of which only an excerpt appears in
'Twentynine Palms,' is given in the end credits, but it escapes me
right now. P.S., for any who didn't watch to the end: The final name
appearing in the Special Thanks? Kirsten Dunst.
26215
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 2:56pm
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many sallitt1
> To change the subject... I don't think (or rather, don't remember
> if) Bruno Dumont's "Twentynine Palms" has been discussed on
> a_film_by (haven't done a Google search though).
Jean-Pierre - I discussed it in post #9857. - Dan
26216
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:13am
Subject: Re: Happy Days (was: Twentynine palms too many) nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-04-30 10:37:26 EDT, JPC writes:
<< "I was bored by the idea of having to tell a story, to have characters,"
Dumont said in one interview -- Mike Grost must have loved this film! >>
Have never seen any Dumont. At least Dumont is being straightforward about
his goals - this attitude is a common one today, but frequently not admitted.
My favorite plotless mood piece movie is "Nostalghia" (Tarkovsky) - an hour
and a half of meditations on wetlands, pools and marshes. It has remarkable
mise-en-scene and atmosphere - plus lots to say about religion, war, and other
serious topics.
Have been watching "Beckett on Film" (2000), a DVD set of the complete
theater pieces of Samuel Beckett, done as movies. "Happy Days" is the latest work so
far of Patricia Rozema, the talented Canadian director ("I've Heard the
Mermaids Singing", "Mansfield Park"). Although Beckett has a reputation as a
minimalist, this film is actually filled with incident. For one thing, it is a
complete science fiction scenario. Something has happened to both human life, and
the normal progression of time. The two main characters are living in holes in
a desert landscape (shot in Tenerife in the Canary Islands) - a conceit that
recalls life in the big cylinder with holes of "The Lost Ones". This
nightmarish concept effortly evokes what we were all so terrified of in the 1960's:
nuclear annihilation. And the thought there might be a nasty, brutish and short
after-existance for a few survivors. On another level, it serves as a parody of
meaningless middle class existance. The song sung by the heroine is "The Merry
Widow Waltz", leaving one to wonder if Beckett knew that other devasting
parody of middle-class death-in-life, "Shadow of a Doubt".
Mike Grost
26217
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 3:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Happy Days (was: Twentynine palms too many) sallitt1
> Have been watching "Beckett on Film" (2000), a DVD set of the complete
> theater pieces of Samuel Beckett, done as movies.
I'm very fond of the David Mamet film CATASTROPHE from that series. And
I'm not usually a Mamet fan. - Dan
26218
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:00pm
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > To change the subject... I don't think (or rather, don't remember
> > if) Bruno Dumont's "Twentynine Palms" has been discussed on
> > a_film_by (haven't done a Google search though).
>
> Jean-Pierre - I discussed it in post #9857. - Dan
Thanks for reminding me, Dan. Now I remember the sadism
discussion but I think I had skipped all discussions of "Twentynine
Palms" because I try to avoid reading about a film I haven't seen.
Just read your post and we more agree than disagree about the film --
you even call it self-destructive (because of the ending) just as I
did myself. And there's no doubt that the sense of composition is
admirable, just as it was in "L'Humanite".
On a very simplistic level, one of my (many) problems with the
film was that I couldn't stand the girl (and I didn't care much for
the guy either). These things shouldn't influence a serious viewer,
I guess, but they do influence me sometimes. She's obviously
neurotic, but that's no excuse (in French, since that's her language
of choice, I'd say she is "une emmerdeuse" with her totally
unexpected, unmotivated and unexplained violent reactions --
rejecting 'traditional' psychology can be a cop out too...)
I still don't understand what actually happens in the end --
after the rape. They find themselves back in the motel room even
though he was beaten almost to death in the desert. How did they get
back? In the last scene their truck is still out there in the
desert; and who is the body that the cop finds there? ( That last
scene is titled "Who's to Blame?" in the DVD menu. Strange.) I don't
think it is naive or irrelevant to ask such questions, but
apparently no one thinks or dares to ask them.
Craig's lyrical praise of the film sounds very much like what
Dumont says he wanted to achieve. But to me it deals more with what
the film 'stands for" than with what it actually is/does. Or is
that a meaningless distinction. JPC
26219
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 4:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: Twentynine palms too many (BIG SPOILERS) sallitt1
> She's obviously
> neurotic, but that's no excuse (in French, since that's her language
> of choice, I'd say she is "une emmerdeuse" with her totally
> unexpected, unmotivated and unexplained violent reactions --
Dumont seems aware of her mental instability: it's mentioned in the
script, and what little story there is seems to incorporate her craziness.
Which doesn't mean you have to like her, of course.
> I still don't understand what actually happens in the end --
> after the rape. They find themselves back in the motel room even
> though he was beaten almost to death in the desert. How did they get
> back? In the last scene their truck is still out there in the
> desert; and who is the body that the cop finds there?
Big SPOILERS coming....
I didn't really get the ending, but talking to others and seeing it a
second time yielded the following:
After the rape, the couple eventually recover enough to make their way
back to the hotel room.
The boyfriend, with his head shaved, is the one who emerges from the
bathroom and kills the girlfriend.
Then the boyfriend drives the truck out to that scenic spot and kills
himself.
- Dan
26220
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 5:48pm
Subject: The Loves of Pharoah (Was: Eternal Love) sallitt1
> The Munich Film Archive just finished restoring Das Weib der Pharao -
> sounds tasty.
I can't say I'm wild about that film, though. - Dan
26221
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 6:22pm
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many (BIG SPOILERS) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > She's obviously
> > neurotic, but that's no excuse (in French, since that's her
language
> > of choice, I'd say she is "une emmerdeuse" with her totally
> > unexpected, unmotivated and unexplained violent reactions --
>
> Dumont seems aware of her mental instability: it's mentioned in
the
> script, and what little story there is seems to incorporate her
craziness.
> Which doesn't mean you have to like her, of course.
>
Of course Dumont is aware of it (he's aware of everything).
Without her periodical outbursts nothing at all would happen.
> > I still don't understand what actually happens in the end --
> > after the rape. They find themselves back in the motel room even
> > though he was beaten almost to death in the desert. How did they
get
> > back? In the last scene their truck is still out there in the
> > desert; and who is the body that the cop finds there?
>
> Big SPOILERS coming....
>
> Your spoiler does make sense. Except that it's so incredibly far-
fetched that this guy whose head has been violently bashed several
times with a baseball bat and who seemed near death had the energy
to get back on his feet, drive his car all the way back to the
motel, shave his head, stab his girlfriend to death "Psycho"-style,
get back into his car and drive back to the desert there to kill
himself (we won't know how). My disbelief has a hard time staying
suspended...But the real question is: why be so mysterious about the
whole thing, why keep the viewer guessing? Doesn't this verge on
directorial coyness?
Of course Dumont already played this hide-and-seek kind of game
in "L'Humanite", especially the end with that glimpse of the
handcuffs.
> JPC
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> I didn't really get the ending, but talking to others and seeing
it a
> second time yielded the following:
>
> After the rape, the couple eventually recover enough to make their
way
> back to the hotel room.
>
> The boyfriend, with his head shaved, is the one who emerges from
the
> bathroom and kills the girlfriend.
>
> Then the boyfriend drives the truck out to that scenic spot and
kills
> himself.
>
> - Dan
26222
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Golden Age Misunderstood sallitt1
> 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.
There's definitely some kind of suspension going on there in NOTORIOUS,
but I wonder if the motivation is to tell the audience something that
needs to be told. The message, such as it is, is pretty clear from the
beginning.
Maybe it's a question of emphasis. Hitchcock slows down the movie so the
evolution of the love story can get as much time and importance as the
evolution of the suspense story. - Dan
26223
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:13pm
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
Michael Moore is our Sacha Guitry.
I'm a fan, although he has made better films than F911. Roger and Me
is brilliant, and so is Bowling for Columbine, although Chuck the
Axiom scores a TKO at the end, which was MM''s unwise attempt to
duplicate some things in Roger and Me. F911 is so ambitious that it
it's all over the place at times, but I love (off the top of my head)
the clip from Dragnet, the bearding of the Congressmen about sending
THEIR kids, watching Bush staring into space while the attack is
underway, intercut w. shots of him w. Saudi buds, the simple fact of
showing all those Democratic Senators turning their back on the black
caucus when they're opposing the election results for 2000... I've
only seen it once (and suspect Godard hasn't seen it at all), but I
would definitely defend it as a great American doc in the tradition
of Capra's Hemo the Magnificent. I think the religious attitude the
French have toward The Real has its up-side (in fiction film for the
most part) and its down-side. The downside until recently has been
that a surprising number of French documentaries are worthless. I
suspect we make lots more good ones here, which are often
unappreciated by critics because the French wrote the playbook for
judging the genre. No one here has ever sat with three CdC critics
and Raymond Depardon watching a print of Arruza while Depardon
explained to his friends that Boetticher didn't know how to film
bullfights. I have, and it has no doubt colored my attitude toward
the French school, including films like Shoah that I know in my heart
are good.
26224
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: Twentynine palms too many (BIG SPOILERS) sallitt1
> But the real question is: why be so mysterious about the
> whole thing, why keep the viewer guessing? Doesn't this verge on
> directorial coyness?
I don't know exactly why, but he chooses not to give us all sorts of
conventional narrative pleasures, so I guess straightforward resolutions
don't appeal to him either. - Dan
26225
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:17pm
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> > Maybe he is our (I mean your) Chris Marker?
> >
> >
>
> Close but no cigar. Cats play no role in Moore's
> films, alas.
Roger and Me is better than anything Marker ever did. I should add that
I haven't een EVERYTHING.
26226
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:22pm
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, 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.
>
In that case, he hadn't seen F911. He told CdC that he hadn't, and it's
always beasier to criticize films you haven't seen.
Criag raises a fascinating subject. We used to have an alternate
paper, Entertainment Weekly, that actually reported on junket
roundtables, making no attempt to create the illusion that the writer
had an exclusive interview. EW has been revamped to eliminate that very
worthwhile feature where I, who have never attended a junket, learned
how these things look, sound, feel.
26227
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:38pm
Subject: Filming Against the Script: Notorious (Was: Golden Age Misunderstood) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
Hitchcock slows down the movie so the
> evolution of the love story can get as much time and importance as
the
> evolution of the suspense story. - Dan
A key moment in film history is the scene in the FBI office that he
chose to play almost entirely on closeups of Bergman and Grant's
reactions to what's being said rather than on the content of the
discussion, which is kept out of focus in the background. It impressed
Rohmer and became a touchstone for many formal developments in film and
for critical ideas as well (filming against the script - although in
this case of course AH had cowritten the script).
Actually, you can see that AH was playing with the idea as early as the
silent version of Blackmail; paradoxically, he doesn't repeat the shot
I'm thinking of - medium closeup of Annie Ondra while gesticulating
hands represent the conversation going on behind her - in the sound
version! I wonder if there are other pre-Notorious scenes like this in
other people's films.
26228
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 9:53pm
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch kinoslang
> > Sarcasm and irony are not effective political tools.
>
> Guess Mark Twain was wasing his time.
>
> > At least not
> > today.
>
>
> Guess Jon Stewart has been wasiting his time.
>
>
Exactly. TODAY Jon Stewart and similar sarcasms do more harm than
good. Obviously! People know more than usual now but feel as
powerless as ever!
> > Moore spends images. He uses the mother who lost her
> > son exactly as
> > one would establish credit. Its the only shot he
> > holds on for very
> > long, when she breaks down, and its not because he
> > wants to analyze,
> > explore, inform, or even emote about the situation.
> >
>
> Oh bull! You would have him ignore her because it's
> too "emnotional"?
"the same image brought in by ten different routes will be a
different image ten times" -bresson
-a
26229
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:15pm
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch kinoslang
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Roger and Me is better than anything Marker ever did.
Thats a shocker Bill. Have you seen le fond de l'air est rouge?
To try to meet you on what you've said about moore, I have to add my
little opinion that in MY heart, I know his film on 9-11 and Columbine
is bad. I agree, the black caucus part is the strongest, it makes the
oppression of US/Bush suddenly larger, deeper, historical. It spells
out a futility that suggests trying a different method of changing
things. But music rushes in over certain images, like the saudi-US
hoedown or the soldiers in Iraq with the rap-rock "burn motherfucker
burn" over it, and your mind just turns off. What does Mike want us to
do with this? I think laying in Iraqi music would have been more
telling after we find out some of the US soldiers are having fun with
the killing set to rock. As it stands, the images of the soldiers with
that music condemns nothing, and in fact bears strong resemblence to
the army/navy/marines recruitment ads.
For me it comes down to rhythm. The rhythm of an argument can
determine what the argument is about. Like Santiago Alvarez, moore is
editing other people's images a lot. On the surface they are similar
in varying their material, pace and irreverence but it would be
interesting to compare the results.
20 films could've been made about 40 other subjects regarding the war
and US imperialism using the excessive budget moore used. And one of
them was bound to include the crucial Israel in its analysis- which
moore was not balls enough to include.
Politically I don't think moore was very strategic, aesthetics aside.
He's careful not to divide people out of saftey (like Kerry, who
lost), but he has no interest in unity either.
It is a matter of the heart, isn't it? Moore's film lacks romance,
which, as Gramsci and Che said, is indispensible to revolutionary
change (which, we know now is the only way out of this state).
cordially,
andy
26230
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
I have, and it has no doubt colored my
> attitude toward
> the French school, including films like Shoah that I
> know in my heart
> are good.
>
And I would say that "Shoah" is no good at all. With
all it's manifest limitations I greatly appreciate
"Schindler's List" for being the "Anti-Shoah."
Lanzmann decreed that the Holocaust cannot be
represented on screen. And Spielberg, quite innocently
I must note, gave him the biggest audio-visual "Fuck
You!" of all time.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26231
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Roger and Me is better than anything Marker ever
> did. I should add that
> I haven't een EVERYTHING.
>
>
>
>
Well what can I say but YOU'RE WRONG.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26232
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- Andy Rector wrote:
>
> Exactly. TODAY Jon Stewart and similar sarcasms do
> more harm than
> good.
Jon Stewart isn't being sarcastic. Ever.
Obviously! People know more than usual now but
> feel as
> powerless as ever!
>
>
How do you feel about Peter Watkins?
>
> "the same image brought in by ten different routes
> will be a
> different image ten times" -bresson
>
>
"You CAN step in the same river twice if you move
DOWNSTREAM." -- Severn Darden.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26233
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 10:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- Andy Rector wrote:
Moore's film
> lacks romance,
> which, as Gramsci and Che said, is indispensible to
> revolutionary
> change (which, we know now is the only way out of
> this state).
>
We can't all be Warren Beatty, Andy.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26234
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:04pm
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> > Roger and Me is better than anything Marker ever did.
>
> Thats a shocker Bill. Have you seen le fond de l'air est rouge?
I skipped it because the Cahiers had denounced it as a reactionary
appropriation of revolutionary images. But that was during the Mao
period.
I think laying in Iraqi music would have been more
> telling after we find out some of the US soldiers are having fun
with
> the killing set to rock.
As Truffaut well understood, good films are made against others that
don't do it the way we would. So I look forward to seeing a
documentary made by you in reaction against f911, or Colombine, or
anything else you consider specious, because I'm sure it will deploy
innovative ideas.
>
> It is a matter of the heart, isn't it? Moore's film lacks romance,
> which, as Gramsci and Che said, is indispensible to revolutionary
> change (which, we know now is the only way out of this state).
That's for sure!
26235
From: "Tony Ervolino"
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 11:41pm
Subject: Eros alceides
I'm curious if anyone has seen Eros yet. I have thought about both
the Soderbergh and Wong Kar Wai piece enough for the moment but feel
that I am not satisfied in my overall view of Antonioni's piece. I
thought Wong Kar-Wai had the strongest and most "proper" film of the
three (seeing that the film is called Eros and should probably deal
with different facets of love, it was the only film that actually made
me feel anything at all- that on top of the amazing cinematography and
gripping story). I didn't care of the Soderbergh piece at all.
The Antonioni piece was very different. It seemed to be much more
of a medaphor than the other two, and I really want to believe that it
was not meant to be literal. I'd like to first acknowledge that the
framing and composition was not at all Antonioni. He seems to have
lost his great gift and it is sad to see its absense in this film.
But overall I am left with the film stuck in my head, which always
causes me to think about it more and more. As painful as the movie
was to watch, I think there is something there and I wanted to know
what others thought.
I thought Sam Engel's review on the Pivotal Film mailing list was
insightful.
The Dangerous Thread of Things (Antonioni): easily the most intriguing
of the trio, and despite some unfortunate choices in the soundtrack,
my favorite; it amounts to a vision of paradise, like a spiritual
travel film that instills a deep desire - euphoric in itself - to
simply be in the places shown (I wish I knew where!); sure, there were
beautiful naked people, but it was as if they were another aspect of
the total sense of place; like Kitano above, he's interested in our
relationship to the mythology of civilizations past, here providing a
glimpse of people whose wealth gives them access to untold splendors
while distracting them from it at the same time; thus, of course these
people are physically perfect, like gods (this being the
Mediterranean, the gods are of the playful, desirous, envious, and
occasionally annoying or despicable sort found in ancient Greece and
Rome) enacting myths they're only vaguely aware of participating in;
in one of many enigmatic touches, the only truly real people seemed to
be the older diners at a small restaurant, seen only for a moment,
laughing (one of them being Antonioni's daughter); they, not the three
main characters, were the ones we can and should identify with; this
was key for me, a sign that there are still corners of the world where
one can spend a perfect afternoon as the ancient spirits frolic
carelessly through the ruins.
A final note about it: I may be the only person who actually liked
Antonioni's segment. Many people, including some in the theater with
me, found it laughable. As I noted before, I think the cheesy
eroti-pop soundtrack was very bad for the film, and different music
might have helped a lot. I'm reminded of the last great film I saw
that people around me laughed at, Garrel's "La Cicatrice interieur";
incidentally, that featured brilliant music by Nico. Anyway, there's
an essay to be written on art movies that tend to draw derisive
laughter. Perhaps it has something to do with these characters who
totally resist identification for one reason or another.
He later added:
After typing my response I went back and read John Berger's fantastic
essay on Antonioni's first film, "Gente del Po" (which I haven't
seen). I hadn't remembered the following quote when I was writing, but
in hindsight it seems to apply:
"... as though the focus of his interest is always /beside /the event
shown, and the protagonist is never centred, because the centre is a
destiny we do not understand and whose outline is not yet clear."
I'd also like to add that it was very reminiscent of Maya Deren,
particularly "Meshes". Wasn't it? The curved staircase, the dancing on
the beach, the enigmatic shot of placing the wine glass on the floor....
It seems that Engel picked up on a sense of mythology which I found
inescapable as well. The two women at the pond at the beginning of
the film were singing, which paralleled the myth of the sirens. There
is also a line at that part which is something to the effect of: "Why
haven't we ever been here before?" It's possible that this is really
what the film is about ... the desire of the unknown? I also agree
with Engel in the fact that we are to relate to the old people in the
cafe and not really anyone else. Their Dionysion displays seem over
the top and melo-dramatic.
Maybe the piece is simply lost and Antonioni just wasn't able to
have his vision come through (such a sad state of affairs), but I
wondered what others thought of the film or if they had any insight
beyond what I've been able to find.
- A R Ervolino
26236
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 0:08am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> I skipped it because the Cahiers had denounced it as a reactionary
> appropriation of revolutionary images. But that was during the Mao
> period.
>
Such a wonderfully candid statement, Bill! Who would "skip" a film
because Maoists had put it down? But I guess some bright people did,
and it's nice that you're acknowledging it (still you're not showing
any remorse -- which is what people marvel and puzzle at about serial
killers)... JPC
26237
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat Apr 30, 2005 8:33pm
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many nzkpzq
I confess, JPC, that it is hard to understand your interest in "Twentynine
Palms". You say you thoroughly disliked it, and yet you want to study it in
depth. Plus you say it has no story, no characterization, bad acting, etc.
I do not mean this personally. Instead, am groping towards a general question:
Some films just seem "important" to many a_film_by-ers, and others don't. And
it seems to have nothing to do with quality, per se.
Example: "Bride and Prejudice" (Gurinder Chada, 2004) is an enjoyable musical
film, with a lively sense of color in its visual style. But no one on
a_film_by seems to have the slightest interest in actually seeing it. Why? What does
it lack that "Twentynine Palms" seems to posses, rotten as you say it is?
(I have not seen "Twentynine Palms", and have no opinions on it.)
Another orphan film: Gori Vatra / Fuse, which is on Sundance Chanel tonight
(Early Sunday) at 3 AM. This is a lively satire from Bosnia. I am the only
a_film_by-er who has actually seen this, despite its TV showings, awards, being a
famous film in Bosnia, etc. Why?
Mike Grost
26238
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 1:34am
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I confess, JPC, that it is hard to understand your interest
in "Twentynine
> Palms". You say you thoroughly disliked it, and yet you want to
study it in
> depth.
Not really "in depth" but I was probing my reasons for disliking
it so thoroughly when the director is such an obviously very
talented and original one. And I was interested in hearing about
others who might like it and why.
Plus you say it has no story, no characterization, bad acting, etc.
Actually I didn't say that it has no characterization or that the
acting is bad. I passed no judgement on the acting (which actually
is not bad at all). I said that I didn't like the characters, which
is quite different.
The film has striking qualities that in my opinion were put to
questionable use, but it's only my own feeling. And also I liked
Dumont's first two films very much -- especially L'Humanite -- and I
was interested in the reasons why I liked them so much then disliked
the third one so much while it is in so many ways so very much like
the other two.
Instead, am groping towards a general question:
> Some films just seem "important" to many a_film_by-ers, and others
don't. And
> it seems to have nothing to do with quality, per se.
> Example: "Bride and Prejudice" (Gurinder Chada, 2004) is an
enjoyable musical
> film, with a lively sense of color in its visual style. But no one
on
> a_film_by seems to have the slightest interest in actually seeing
it. Why? What does
> it lack that "Twentynine Palms" seems to posses, rotten as you say
it is?
I didn't say it was "rotten". See above. I just happened to catch
up with it on DVD, because for a variety of reasons I no longer see
most of the movies being released the way I used to when I was
younger, and the film disturbed me enough to urge me to post about
it (when i could have spent the time doing more entertaining
things).
It is true that some films seem to be very important to people
in this group and others don't and it's often hard to tell why. And
just as you haven't seen "twentynine Palms" I haven't seen "Bride
and Prejudice" and will probably catch up with it on DVD some time
in the near future if I'm still around. And I invite you to watch
Dumont's three films.
And I love "Nostalghia" too.
> Another orphan film: Gori Vatra / Fuse, which is on Sundance
Chanel tonight
> (Early Sunday) at 3 AM. This is a lively satire from Bosnia. I am
the only
> a_film_by-er who has actually seen this, despite its TV showings,
awards, being a
> famous film in Bosnia, etc. Why?
>
Why indeed? I don't know. Too many films, so little time, maybe...
JPC
> Mike Grost
26239
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 2:33am
Subject: Re: Re: Twentynine palms too many peerpee
Like JPC and Craig, I too am quite fascinated by Bruno Dumont -- his
glorious first two, and his beautiful carwreck third. The whys and
wherefores affect me like few other filmmakers do today, and I tried to
capture the polarizing effect of Dumont a year ago in this article:
http://www.mastersofcinema.org/reviews/dumont.htm
I'm just reading the Dis Voir book about Dumont at the moment, written
(and printed) as he was prepping TWENTYNINE PALMS, featuring his
photography, writing, and critical writing from others too (all in
English).
I am looking forward to his new film FLANDERS very much indeed (halfway
through filming at the moment).
-Nick>-
26240
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 2:35am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> >
> > I skipped it because the Cahiers had denounced it as a reactionary
> > appropriation of revolutionary images. But that was during the Mao
> > period.
> >
> Such a wonderfully candid statement, Bill! Who would "skip" a film
> because Maoists had put it down? But I guess some bright people did,
> and it's nice that you're acknowledging it (still you're not showing
> any remorse -- which is what people marvel and puzzle at about serial
> killers)... JPC
I skipped the whole beginning of Scorsese's career, Coppola's career,
De Palma's career and Friedkin's career because the CdC were ignoring
American cinema at that point. I'm just a "serial skipper."
26241
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 2:54am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> > >
> > > I skipped it because the Cahiers had denounced it as a
reactionary
> > > appropriation of revolutionary images. But that was during the
Mao
> > > period.
> > >
> > Such a wonderfully candid statement, Bill! Who would "skip" a
film
> > because Maoists had put it down? But I guess some bright people
did,
> > and it's nice that you're acknowledging it (still you're not
showing
> > any remorse -- which is what people marvel and puzzle at about
serial
> > killers)... JPC
>
> I skipped the whole beginning of Scorsese's career, Coppola's
career,
> De Palma's career and Friedkin's career because the CdC were
ignoring
> American cinema at that point. I'm just a "serial skipper."
That's what ideology does to you, Bill. CdC skipped fifteen years
or so of great cinema because they had their ideological blinders
on, then they had to catch up and all starry eyed they discovered
what a lot of other people had discovered long before. No matter.
You for one seem to have caught up fairly well.
JPC
26242
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 2:59am
Subject: F 9/11 (was re: Godard the Grouch) matt_c_armst...
> Whose comedy, whose culture? Its a romp for americans.
Right, it's made for an American audience, not for an Iraqi one.
>There is no
> compassion for Iraqis in the film
How does this perceived lack of compassion reveal itself in the film?
Or better: how could Moore have shown the compassion you feel his
film lacks?
>and that's what mobilized the real antiwar movement, a sense of
moral outrage.
Compassion for Iraqis is just one of them. Some folks didn't want to
see Americans die in a senseless war. Others didn't like seeing their
tax dollars support the war machine. Still others were worried that
war would lead to more terrorism. Most of us opposed the war for any
and all of these reasons, and of course, Moore touches on all of
them.
> Sarcasm and irony are not effective political tools.
Somebody better tell that Limbaugh, Coulter and the other right wing
smartasses who shape the terms of the national debate. Seems to be
working for them.
But, I'll concede your point that they are not effective by
themselves. Moore's film is also angry, shrewdly-marketed and
tactically-minded: three very effective political tools. He doesn't
just grind away at us with sarcasm. The movie is a call to action: to
oppose the war and to vote Bush out.
> Playing dirty is exactly what Moore failed to do. The rhythm of
his
> film is identical to tv, in other words, he failed to break the hum.
Not sure what this statement means in terms of Moore's political
effectiveness. And for that matter, not sure what you have against TV
in this regard.
Did you go to the same theater I did? Did you read the same news
accounts of post-screening debates that I read? Didn't you see the
media racing to catch up with the issues Moore raised in his film?
The film had a remarkable effect on political dialogue in this
country. It was the most financially successful documentary of all
time, for crying out loud.
> I find most adoration of Moore classist. Moore is a member of the
> elite and has been for some time. He speaks like an elitist,
> thundering down quaintness from above, tailoring himself to an idea
> of populism which has shown itself to be completely false and
> disrespectful (here and elsewhere). But this posture is safe for a
> certain class. "I am not 'lorical' said the folk".
I'm not sure how you can make the claim that Moore is "elitist." Is
it because he's made money from his movies? Moore's perspective has
always been working class. Whether you consider it a pose doesn't
negate the fact that Moore's working class roots make his films
unique. And I'm sure you know that class is not just defined by one's
income.
>
> Moore spends images. He uses the mother who lost her son exactly as
> one would establish credit. Its the only shot he holds on for very
> long, when she breaks down, and its not because he wants to
analyze,
> explore, inform, or even emote about the situation.
Are you analyzing his technique here or are you psychologizing the
director's intent? Is it ever OK to film a mother's grief? And for
how long? If he had cut away sooner (or later) would it seem any less
opportunistic?
> Moore gets a lot of kicks out of a white supremacist position in F9-
> 11, albiet while providing a little information on the side.
Uh, white supremacist? You've lost me there. Perhaps you're
overspending your rhetoric!
> shards of information do shine through all the slovenly spending. I
> think the footage of the victims in Iraq is important, because of
> the scarcity of these images, but it would've been better if he'd
> just funneled his massive budget into making images from the other
> side available, end to end. The folk would've understood that.
I managed to see "Gunner Palace" before it disappeared, and
also "Control Room." Both great films that fit this description, but
they never came close to a multiplex. In other words, the "folk"
didn't go see them.
You seem to be attacking Moore for the movie he didn't make, not the
movie he made. When did he ever claim his film was definitive?
>
> "You can never make films intelligent enough. People have enough
> stupidity to deal with in their everyday lives."
I totally agree with this quote. The intelligence in Moore's film was
to know his audience-- in this case that audience is larger than
Godard's and larger than the handful of folks who are already active
against the war. Perhaps it's fair to say that you didn't *need*
Moore's film, since you're already politically-engaged, but I know
many politically-disengaged people who were sparked by it.
26243
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 3:01am
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I confess, JPC, that it is hard to understand your interest
in "Twentynine
> Palms". You say you thoroughly disliked it, and yet you want to study
it in
> depth. Plus you say it has no story, no characterization, bad acting,
etc.
> I do not mean this personally. Instead, am groping towards a general
question:
> Some films just seem "important" to many a_film_by-ers, and others
don't. And
> it seems to have nothing to do with quality, per se.
> Example: "Bride and Prejudice" (Gurinder Chada, 2004) is an enjoyable
musical
> film, with a lively sense of color in its visual style. But no one on
> a_film_by seems to have the slightest interest in actually seeing it.
Why?
Let me take a crack at this. There is no good reason for no one but
you having seen Bride and Prejudice (although I should add I haven't
see 29 Palms either), but if you want to understand the bias many of us
share: We're interested in films that push the envelope formally and
raise basic questions about film and what you can do with it.
So a film that's enjoyable and has a lively sense of color is less
likely to be a priority than a film like Virgin Stripped Bare By Her
Bachelors by Hong Sang-soo, which is funny, moving, beautifully shot in
black and white AND pushes the envelope by having the same series of
events repeated with variants and scenes being shown in version b that
we missed in a, or diferent scenes, so that we're no longer watching
the same characters, but another set very much like the first. In this
case the formal experimentation supports the emotional impact of the
film, which for the few who've seen it in this group is comparable to
seeing (the equally innovative) Jules and Jim for the first time.
Truffaut is another good example. He's not Godard - experimental, anti
narrative, politically provocative - but he also isn't like a lot of
perfectly good filmmakers working in France, like say his former
assistant Claude Miller. (As opposed to another former Truffaut
assistant, Jean-Francois Stevenin, who is a major filmmaker in my eyes,
even though he only get to make a film every ten years.) Why? Because
each new Truffaut film was an event, large or small, in the history of
the art form, often enraging people who loved the last one because he
would often set out to do just that. Or perhaps, having fallen under
Hitchcock's influence, and being in love with Jeanne Moreau, he would
make a totally oddball film like The Bride Wore Black, insisting every
step of the way that he had the right to do just what he wanted because
he was an auteur de cinema. Which he was, and is.
And today The Bride Wore Black, when you see it again, makes you wonder
why you ever took Brian De Palma's Hitchcock pastiches seriously - it's
at once an extended homage to the Master and a very original film that
keeps getting better every time you revisit it. I'm using Truffaut as
an example because his films do seek to please, even as they challenge,
and generally do please audiences, but there's Something Else which
separates the films I get excited about, like his, from the many
excellent films that don't have it.
From my earliest days on a_film_by I have been encouraging those who
feel as I do about this - like Dan or Fred - to define that Something
Else. I'm still trying to do it myself. One gesture in that direction
would be to point to Gilles Deleuze and Stanley Cavell, two
professional philosophers who have writen about films - but not ALL
films, or all good ones, by any means - as a form of thought, or even
philosophical thought.
SAt the end of the day, I may be pushed to see 29 Palms because I see
that JPC is intrigued by the Something Else it has that isn't in, say,
a good film by Ron Howard. (Although I wasn't as impressed as he with
L'Humanite.) And if I have a chance I'll see Bride and Prejudice and
tell you what I thought, if only because it's one way of trying to
answer these questions, not only for you, but for myself.
26244
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 3:03am
Subject: Re: Re: Twentynine palms too many sallitt1
> Example: "Bride and Prejudice" (Gurinder Chada, 2004) is an enjoyable
> musical film, with a lively sense of color in its visual style. But no
> one on a_film_by seems to have the slightest interest in actually seeing
> it. Why?
> Another orphan film: Gori Vatra / Fuse, which is on Sundance Chanel
> tonight (Early Sunday) at 3 AM. This is a lively satire from Bosnia. I
> am the only a_film_by-er who has actually seen this, despite its TV
> showings, awards, being a famous film in Bosnia, etc. Why?
Mike: I don't always pipe up about films I don't enjoy, but I saw a bit of
FUSE at Toronto in 2003 (I think) and left after a few minutes.
Admittedly a Toronto walkout isn't the same as a regular walkout, because
you are usually trading one film in for another. But there was something
about Zalika's sensibility that struck me as coarse.
By the way, his new film DAYS AND HOURS just played at Tribeca and will
probably make the festival rounds.
I didn't see BRIDE AND PREJUDICE, but the trailer didn't appeal to me at
all. The acting style was not up my alley.
I always enjoy your posts, but I think you are not allowing enough for
differing tastes on this point. It's not pure prejudice that makes
listers avoid BRIDE AND PREJUDICE: surely a lot of them won't like it. If
there's one thing I've learned from my years on this list, it's that
auteurists are far from a unified critical team: we're really a
rag-tag bunch, and require each other's indulgence. - Dan
26245
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 3:11am
Subject: Re: F 9/11 (was re: Godard the Grouch) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:
The rhythm of
> his
> > film is identical to tv, in other words, he failed to break the hum.
>
> Not sure what you have against TV
> in this regard.
I consider Moore's documentaries to be Alternative Television. F911
especially is showing things "real television" hasn't, doesn't, won't
show. So it's not inappropriate that his film should feel like tv in
places, although that's not true across the board - just the use of his
first-person narrative to structure it and comment is contrary to tv
practice. For me, since the mainstream tv news outlets decided to
totally boycott the truth about Iraq, Moore or someone like Robert
Greenwald (a tv producer who made 3 anti-Bush docs) is just running
another channel where we can see some of this stuff, kind of like Radio
Free Europe used to do. If Moore had a weekly program on one of the
networks, it would be a very good thing. And it's never going to happen.
Let me again urge you, if you want to see something that is doing what
Moore does but much beter, rent Uncovered (the new edition) just to see
Savid O. Russell's Soldiers Pay. I cannot recommend it too highly to
everyone here, as political counter-propaganda and as a piece of
filmmaking.
26246
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 4:14am
Subject: Re: Re: Twentynine palms too many cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
As opposed to another
> former Truffaut
> assistant, Jean-Francois Stevenin, who is a major
> filmmaker in my eyes,
> even though he only get to make a film every ten
> years.
And that's a real shame. His "Double Messieurs" is
right up there with "Adieu Phillipine" and "Those Who
Love Me Can Take the Train" for sheer originality and
conveying in an almost tactile sense of what a film
can do. He has quite an extensive filmography as an
actor (everything from "Out One" to "Dogs of War"),
and his son Robinson Stevenin is on the fast-track to
stardom.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26247
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 4:37am
Subject: Re: Re: Twentynine palms too many evillights
On Saturday, April 30, 2005, at 12:00 PM, jpcoursodon wrote:
> On a very simplistic level, one of my (many) problems with the
> film was that I couldn't stand the girl (and I didn't care much for
> the guy either).
I'm not really debating a point here, but I just wanted to say: I
haven't seen a performance quite like "the guy's" -- okay, IMDB time --
David Wissak's in recent memory. Separately, it's the kind of
performance where the actor probably thought he was bringing all the
goods to the table -- but whether he knew it or not was being heavily
directed.
I take it that above, btw, (and keeping in mind something you wrote in
an email sent later than the one I'm replying to) you mean you didn't
care much for David or Katia the characters, though you didn't have a
problem with the performances..?
> These things shouldn't influence a serious viewer,
> I guess, but they do influence me sometimes. She's obviously
> neurotic, but that's no excuse (in French, since that's her language
> of choice, I'd say she is "une emmerdeuse" with her totally
> unexpected, unmotivated and unexplained violent reactions --
> rejecting 'traditional' psychology can be a cop out too...)
True... And I wonder if there exists any objective way (that is,
outside of one's personal aesthetic tastes) of being able to tell where
the line has been drawn, re: cop-out / non-cop-out, with regard to the
presentation of a character conceived out of the rejection of
'traditional psychology'. I guess just the "emotional verity" of the
film around them...
> I still don't understand what actually happens in the end --
> after the rape. They find themselves back in the motel room even
> though he was beaten almost to death in the desert. How did they get
> back? In the last scene their truck is still out there in the
> desert; and who is the body that the cop finds there? ( That last
> scene is titled "Who's to Blame?" in the DVD menu. Strange.) I don't
> think it is naive or irrelevant to ask such questions, but
> apparently no one thinks or dares to ask them.
Did you think the film was playing out in too realist a mode for the
final act to come off as anything but a contrived dismissal of The
Realist Mode? Just curious. It felt all right to me. Katia ended up
driving them back, I figured; they couldn't very well lay in the desert
forever. But beyond any real-world logic of the situation, I thought
it was a rather daring movement, with regard to narrative pacing --
nothing less banal than: "going back to the hotel room." Then sitting
on the bed for a while. Then he goes into the bathroom. Never even
mind what happens next.
Another question, that I guess follows the train of thought put forth
by your inquiry into rejecting traditional psychology, might be... What
conditions differentiate a genuine and disingenous, successful and
unsuccessful, resculpting of narrative flow/pacing/convention? It
might be too subjective a question to put forward...
> Craig's lyrical praise of the film sounds very much like what
> Dumont says he wanted to achieve. But to me it deals more with what
> the film 'stands for" than with what it actually is/does. Or is
> that a meaningless distinction. JPC
It's not necessarily meaningless, but what -is- the distinction, in
this case? I don't think I was applying my own tissue-text to the
artwork, just reading the desert-spawn / desert-wrack of eluctable
things... at least: what I wrote was how I was perceiving in real-time,
even if partially subconsciously, what I was watching. Which is all to
say, I thought that what this particular film stood for, and what it
was doing / how it did it, were going hand-in-hand throughout its
duration -- which is why I guess I found it so successful, and
admirable... and never really got the impression that what it was doing
was just narrativizing a thesis. I did find Pleasure in the artwork.
(I'm on Nabokov's side that the determinedly thesis'd artwork, wrought
from pesky Ideas, is inconsequential, and most times antithetical to
pleasurable.)
craig.
26248
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 4:59am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch noelbotevera
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> >
> > Roger and Me is better than anything Marker ever
> > did. I should add that
> > I haven't een EVERYTHING.
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
> Well what can I say but YOU'RE WRONG.
I got to agree. Roger and Me over uh La Jetee? I think not.
My two centavos over Moore: I've got serious problems with his
filmmaking, but as the only, how do we say it, figure out there on
the cultural landscape that the right considers a serious threat (as
opposed to, say Eastwood's latest, which I'd categorize more as a
scapegoat), I can't dismiss him out of hand. He gets under their
skin; more, he gets a response out of the public like no other
liberal can. End justifies the means? Seems like it, but American
politics seems to have been devolving to this all this time.
26249
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 5:54am
Subject: Re: F 9/11 (was re: Godard the Grouch) kinoslang
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong"
wrote:
> Right, it's made for an American audience, not for an Iraqi one.
>
> >There is no
> > compassion for Iraqis in the film
>
> How does this perceived lack of compassion reveal itself in the
film?
> Or better: how could Moore have shown the compassion you feel his
> film lacks?
Perhaps compassion was the wrong word (tough word). He considers the
iraqis with some powerful footage, true.
The lack is a lack solidarity. Solidarity in the right place is
crucial to an opposition. The closest he comes to solidarity is with
the US soldiers. In doing so he hints at class, one of the better
points of the film. But I think it ends up in a support-our-troops
type of thing (possibly a result of the dumbing down and safe
playing). I don't support the troops so long as they're occupying,
murdering, raping, and destroying infastructure anywhere. Of course
you've got to spread compassion for the US troops situation, but his
is too one sided in my opinion.
Moore's film was very widely seen, thats a fact. And you're right to
introduce the word 'market'. I would add consumption. Gorging on
images and amusing (from here) connections.
Moore has made a film that multipies irony, and multiplies jokes
(which is a sure sign of illness amidst the carnage of this war--
see Jon Stewart again). It multiplies a little information that was
already spreading (lest we forget that his film was made months into
a war that had an opposition months before the war started) -- but
its a film that, so far as I have observed, has not multiplied any
CONSTRUCTIVE thinking in opposition to US dominance. And certainly
the film doesn't encourage oppositional action.
> When did he ever claim his film was definitive?
By nature of its presentation it doesn't leave the viewer much
sympathy to anything outside its own discourse. I think he isolated
many more intelligent and active antiwar activists by monopolizing
discourse, leaving them to be eaten alive (which is why I say 20
films should've been made with moores fat budget). At best, the
fence stradling americans you mentioned got down off the fence and
stood behind (and demanded nothing of!) a pro-war canidate in
november.
> Compassion for Iraqis is just one of them. Some folks didn't want
to
> see Americans die in a senseless war. Others didn't like seeing
their
> tax dollars support the war machine. Still others were worried
that
> war would lead to more terrorism. Most of us opposed the war for
any
> and all of these reasons, and of course, Moore touches on all of
> them.
But all those tax dollars to the military, and supporting terrorists
has been going on for decades with a much smaller outcry. I don't
deny these things played a part, but I think the world realized that
the aggression against Afghanistan was nothing but rabid revenge for
9-11. Any humane rhetoric resembling the rally against Afghanistan
(believed even by people like David Corn in the Nation) was now
bankrupt in the majority's mind. The US murdered over a million
people in Iraq over the last decade and people knew it would be
Guernica every day if the US started again. Clinton bombed the place
for so long that in 1998, I believe, the military had to announce
that it had run out of targets! Its the unprecedented opposition
BEFORE THE WAR STARTED that I wish Moore would have seized upon and
solidified with. That's what I meant by his poor strategy. He
could've guided people in a more radical direction, while they were
sympathatic to it.
> > Sarcasm and irony are not effective political tools.
>
> Somebody better tell that Limbaugh, Coulter and the other right
wing
> smartasses who shape the terms of the national debate. Seems to be
> working for them.
Coulter is totally sincere when she says we should turn "the arabs"
into a bunch of quivering lambs, as was done to the Japanese with
the a-bomb.
>The movie is a call to action: to
> oppose the war and to vote Bush out.
To oppose the war is not action. To stop the supply of war (wepons,
soldiers) for instance, would be action. Bush won, and even if he
didn't we all know the Iraq war would still be going on. But let me
stop acting as though ANY SINGLE film could've possibly stopped
imperialist war. (20 films as opposed to 1!)
>Whether you consider it a pose doesn't
> negate the fact that Moore's working class roots make his films
> unique. And I'm sure you know that class is not just defined by
one's
> income.
I do think its a pose and I don't consider his perspective working
class.
I don't think his films have a unique perspective, ergo I don't
think he's working class (because a real working class perspective
would be unique in todays culture).
I consider him a bourgeois liberal.
> >
> > Moore spends images. He uses the mother who lost her son exactly
as
> > one would establish credit. Its the only shot he holds on for
very
> > long, when she breaks down, and its not because he wants to
> analyze,
> > explore, inform, or even emote about the situation.
>
> >Is it ever OK to film a mother's grief? And for
> how long? If he had cut away sooner (or later) would it seem any
less
> opportunistic?
We'll never know, and we'll rarely consider any of this the way he
films and edits. Thats the point. I don't think one can consider
this shot alone in answer to those questions. It's also all the
other images around that particular shot. I doubt his sincerity in
showing it, which is what I meant when I said it was more for credit
than interest.
> I totally agree with this quote. The intelligence in Moore's film
was
> to know his audience--
I'm glad we agree about the quote. But Moore knew his audience so
well he neglected to respect them, like when you neglect to
ask your best friend "hello, how are you?" .
>Perhaps it's fair to say that you didn't *need*
> Moore's film, since you're already politically-engaged, but I know
> many politically-disengaged people who were sparked by it.
I wouldn't be writing if I felt that I was okay-- I need a better
film to make sense of the situation myself. While there's some
useful information there, deep down I think the film did
more harm than good.
cordially,
andy
26250
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 5:55am
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many noelbotevera
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> We're interested in films that push the envelope formally and
> raise basic questions about film and what you can do with it.
I can't say I had as laudable a reason for skipping Bride--simply that
I saw his Bend it like Beckham, and wasn't impressed enough to want to
see his next film so bad I'd drive thirty minutes to the nearest
arthouse theater (already regretted doing that for Melinda and
Melinda). Plus I'll admit I have a prejudice towards '50s and '60s
Indian musicals and to Ghatak, Roy, Kapoor, Dutt and Mehboob over
recent people like Mani Ratnam, and whoever it was who directed
Lagaan.
Terrible, I know. I will try to see it on cable, or DVD if it comes
out; seems the easier way to go.
26252
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 6:05am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch kinoslang
David E. wrote:
> >
>
> How do you feel about Peter Watkins?
Never had the pleasure. Besides his film on Munch I haven't found
anything on video.
We can't all be Warren Beatty? Not even Warren Beatty! What a world!
yours,
andy
26254
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 2:30am
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many nzkpzq
Thanks, everybody!
I was especially glad Nick Wrigley, Bill Krohn and Dan Sallitt contibuted -
was trying to raise a general aesthetic question - NOT trying to put JPC to a
personal query. Although JPC's post was very informative, too!
I certainly do not see all the films that come out either - and am very
vulnerable on this point, too. I need to see a lot more!
I will try to see "L'Humanite" as soon as possible. Certainly, the interest
of auteurists in Bruno Dumont is purely positive - that is what we are all
trying to do - study film.
On Pjer Zalica (The director of Gori Vatra / Fuse). He IS vulgar and coarse.
And his film has an unfortunate bummer of an ending. Despite all this, he is
on to something original. He has made a movie about peace. Fuse is a film that
could open possiblities to a whole new subject matter for films. And maybe a
little bit in real life, too. We need to get people excited about peace, and
what it can do.
On Gurinder Chada: I love musicals. Cannot imagine not going to see any new
musical that comes out. "Bride and Prejudice" is just plain joyous. We all need
some "cakes and ale" in life. Dan Sallitt's point is a good one: everyone has
different tastes, and may like different things. Still, sound films were born
to sing and dance.
On Truffaut: I have really missed the boat on him. Need to see "The Bride
Wore Black" and "The Soft Skin" ASAP. Always loved "Fahrenheit 451" and "Day for
Night".
On Hong Sang-soo: Keep waiting for his films to show up at the local video
stores (have not seen anything by him yet). Perhaps this is too lazy an
approach. People on the list think he is great, great, great - maybe I should take
emergency auteurist action and send away through the mail!
Mike Grost
26255
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 6:32am
Subject: Re: F 9/11 (was re: Godard the Grouch) kinoslang
By the way Bill I have a tape of Marker's Le fond... (and anyone
else interested) (thanks JT).
About that 'skipping', this is different but, I personally felt that
I had no right NOT to see F9-11. But like Godard I had no interest
in seeing it. What kind of culture is that! With a Marker film at
least you have a choice!
>>As Truffaut well understood, good films are made against others
>that
>don't do it the way we would. So I look forward to seeing a
>documentary made by you in reaction against f911, or Colombine, or
>anything else you consider specious, because I'm sure it will deploy
>innovative ideas.
Bill, you are the nicest human I know. Only a friend could be so
challanging. I hope my film would have the honor of being
slaughtered on a_film_by.
> I consider Moore's documentaries to be Alternative Television.
F911
> especially is showing things "real television" hasn't, doesn't,
won't
> show. So it's not inappropriate that his film should feel like tv
in
> places, although that's not true across the board - just the use
of his
> first-person narrative to structure it and comment is contrary to
tv
> practice. For me, since the mainstream tv news outlets decided to
> totally boycott the truth about Iraq, Moore or someone like Robert
> Greenwald (a tv producer who made 3 anti-Bush docs) is just
running
> another channel where we can see some of this stuff, kind of like
Radio
> Free Europe used to do. If Moore had a weekly program on one of
the
> networks, it would be a very good thing. And it's never going to
happen.
>
> Let me again urge you, if you want to see something that is doing
what
> Moore does but much beter, rent Uncovered (the new edition) just
to see
> Savid O. Russell's Soldiers Pay. I cannot recommend it too highly
to
> everyone here, as political counter-propaganda and as a piece of
> filmmaking.
I see what you mean Bill. Moore is on KPFK Pacifica Radio all the
time. Check it out (90.7 fm).
yours
andy
26256
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 6:35am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> >
> > --- hotlove666 wrote:
> >
> > >
> > > Roger and Me is better than anything Marker ever
> > > did. I should add that
> > > I haven't een EVERYTHING.
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> > Well what can I say but YOU'RE WRONG.
>
> I got to agree. Roger and Me over uh La Jetee? I think not.
OK, La jetee's probably better, but it's also not a documentary or an
essay film, so it's kind of hard to compare. (La jette is also rather
ponderous and pretentious, IMO.) I have real problems w. Marker's essay
films. But essay films are hard to do. Welles blew it in F for Fake (a
failure, despite brilliant passages), succeeding finally w. Filming
Othello, a great film. Budd Boetticher pulled it off w. My Kingdom For;
Resnais with Night and Fog. But there are very few essay films that
succeed on that level. People give a free pass to mediocre essay films
because they're cheap, so it's theoretically ok for them to look blah-
to-awful and to make up for it with fake literature on the soundtrack
(a favorite French technique), but the narration of Level 5 belongs in
a college literary magazine.
26257
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 6:44am
Subject: Re: F 9/11 (was re: Godard the Grouch) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
wrote:
>
> Perhaps compassion was the wrong word (tough word). He considers
the
> iraqis with some powerful footage, true.
> The lack is a lack solidarity.
You may feel this about Soldiers Pay, too - I think it's a very
unorthodox film that looks "normal." Do try to see it.
> Moore's film was very widely seen, thats a fact. And you're right
Any humane rhetoric resembling the rally against Afghanistan
> (believed even by people like David Corn in the Nation) was now
> bankrupt in the majority's mind.
Corn is a CIA asset. But we had a reason for invading Afghanistan -
the Unocal pipeline.
But let me
> stop acting as though ANY SINGLE film could've possibly stopped
> imperialist war. (20 films as opposed to 1!)
That's a big failure in the thinking behind many miltant films - the
idea that one film has to do it all, or can. And F911 succumbs to
that thinking, for sure.
> I consider him a bourgeois liberal.
>
That's what he is.
deep down I think the film did
> more harm than good.
That's a stretch.
26258
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 6:46am
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
I'll admit I have a prejudice towards '50s and '60s
> Indian musicals and to Ghatak, Roy, Kapoor, Dutt and Mehboob over
> recent people like Mani Ratnam, and whoever it was who directed
> Lagaan.
>
> Terrible, I know. I will try to see it on cable, or DVD if it comes
> out
It'll be on faster than anything by Ghatak or Dutt!
26259
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 6:47am
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector" wrote:
> David E. wrote:
> > >
> >
> > How do you feel about Peter Watkins?
>
> Never had the pleasure. Besides his film on Munch I haven't found
> anything on video.
It's kind of ugly, isn't it? I need to see it again - Oudart thought it
hung the moon.
26260
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 6:54am
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I will try to see "L'Humanite" as soon as possible.
DON'T!!!!!!!!!!!
>
> On Gurinder Chada: I love musicals.
Hope you get to see some Guru Dutt. Imagine von Sternberg with songs
and dances, starring von Sternberg. If there's an Indian videotheque
within reach, they might have some old films - even subtitled.
> On Truffaut: I have really missed the boat on him. Need to see "The
Bride
> Wore Black" and "The Soft Skin" ASAP. Always loved "Fahrenheit 451"
and "Day for
> Night".
You have one treat in store for you. If you love Fahrenheit 451,
you'll love The Bride Wore Black. (Has anyone noticed that it has the
same plot as Kill Bill?) You may not enjoy The Soft Skin - it falls
in that grim realism slot, although it is highly stylized. But bleak.
26261
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 6:56am
Subject: Re: F 9/11 (was re: Godard the Grouch) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector" wrote:
> I see what you mean Bill. Moore is on KPFK Pacifica Radio all the
> time. Check it out (90.7 fm).
Regular time? I devote mys Sundays (after Harry) to KPFK - Ian, Barbara
and Howard, Counterspin, Africa and that crazy physicist - great radio
all day!
26262
From: "Aaron Graham"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 7:44am
Subject: Re: The Bride Wore Black machinegunmc...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> You have one treat in store for you. If you love Fahrenheit 451,
> you'll love The Bride Wore Black. (Has anyone noticed that it has the
> same plot as Kill Bill?)
I read an interview with Tarantino where this film was brought up. He
claimed to not have seen it, stating he's more of a "Godard man". But,
the similarities sure are striking. I love the scenes where Moreau
finally gets Michel Lonsdale.
26263
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 7:44am
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> Has anyone noticed that it has the same plot as Kill Bill?
Everyone except Tarantino, who stills claims to have never seen it,
citing the fact that he's more of a 'Godard man' than a 'Truffaut man'
or some such nonsense...
26264
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 7:53am
Subject: Re: The Bride Wore Black mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
wrote:
>
> I read an interview with Tarantino where this film was brought up. He
> claimed to not have seen it, stating he's more of a "Godard man". But,
> the similarities sure are striking. I love the scenes where Moreau
> finally gets Michel Lonsdale.
Wow. Talk about synchronicity.
26265
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 0:54pm
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch noelbotevera
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> OK, La jetee's probably better, but it's also not a documentary
or an
> essay film, so it's kind of hard to compare.
Granted.
> (La jette is also rather
> ponderous and pretentious, IMO.)
Okay, but it's a lovely piece of celluloid, isn't it? Maybe one of
the loveliest ever made.
> But essay films are hard to do. Welles blew it in F for Fake (a
> failure, despite brilliant passages)
Some incredible tricks in there, tho.
26266
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 1:09pm
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many noelbotevera
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> > On Gurinder Chada: I love musicals.
>
> Hope you get to see some Guru Dutt. Imagine von Sternberg with
songs
> and dances, starring von Sternberg. If there's an Indian
videotheque
> within reach, they might have some old films - even subtitled.
Von Sternberg's a good call; throw in Spielberg doing black and
white and to music (tho I much prefer Dutt). His Kaagaz Ke Phool
(I'd say the first five minutes reprises Citizen Kane) and Pyaasa
(among many others) are available on Netflix.
Dutt and company's one drawback is they spoil you for recent
musicals. I thought Mira Nair's Monsoon Wedding lacked bite; thought
Deepa Mehta's Bollywood Hollywood flubbed the dance numbers. After
the way Dutt 'pictorializes' his numbers you tend to think anything
after is just too damned flashy.
> You have one treat in store for you. If you love Fahrenheit 451,
> you'll love The Bride Wore Black. (Has anyone noticed that it has
the
> same plot as Kill Bill?)
The Bride Wore Black, incidentally, was remade by Lino Brocka as
Angela Markado, a nice little noir number most notable for the
psychological intensity and for the late, great Conrado Baltazar's
moody cinematography. Brocka's not a great practitioner of film noir
(okay, Maynila sa Mga Kuko ng Liwanag is arguably noirish--but Mario
O'Hara's Condemned and Bagong Hari even more so), but Angela
Markado's an interesting addition.
26267
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 1:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- Andy Rector wrote:
> David E. wrote:
> > >
> >
> > How do you feel about Peter Watkins?
>
> Never had the pleasure. Besides his film on Munch I
> haven't found
> anything on video.
>
His Munch film is atypical. What he's been trying to
do in recent years with "The Journey" and more
recently "The Commune" is make films that aren't
passive "consumption" experieces ut sites of activism.
Not surprised he's not on video. Not surprised he ha't
been successful in this anarcho-syndicalist quest
either, as he (like Moore) just ne man and the system
he's fighting against is vast and all-encompassing.
You have the soul of a hall monitor!
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26268
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 1:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> OK, La jetee's probably better, but it's also not a
> documentary or an
> essay film, so it's kind of hard to compare.
Which is why it's so great.
(La
> jette is also rather
> ponderous and pretentious, IMO.)
No it isn't.
I have real
> problems w. Marker's essay
> films. But essay films are hard to do. Welles blew
> it in F for Fake (a
> failure, despite brilliant passages), succeeding
> finally w. Filming
> Othello, a great film.
Oh boy, now you're really ripped it! "F For Fake" is
Welles' greatest achievement. It is the supreme
film-essay, exloding the entire notion of personality
(Hughes, Irving, Welles, Reichenbach, Picasso, Elmyr,
even Oja) In the process it also explodes the "real."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26269
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 1:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: F 9/11 (was re: Godard the Grouch) cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Corn is a CIA asset.
Do tell!!
I've had my suspicions about him for some time, due to
personal contact over several stories I was writing.
He proved consistently unhelpful. Willfully "blind"
when it came to the crunch on unnamed sourcing and
male prostitution.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26270
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 1:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Bride Wore Black cellar47
--- Aaron Graham wrote:
>
> I read an interview with Tarantino where this film
> was brought up. He
> claimed to not have seen it,
I have no doubt that he was lying.
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26271
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 1:58pm
Subject: Thanks for that image (Was: Twentynine palms too many) sallitt1
> Hope you get to see some Guru Dutt. Imagine von Sternberg with songs
> and dances, starring von Sternberg.
You know, Bill, that doesn't sound good at all.... - Dan
26272
From: "Matthew Clayfield"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 2:22pm
Subject: Re: The Bride Wore Black mclayf00
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> I have no doubt that he was lying.
Well, yeah, exactly.
26273
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 2:41pm
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> On Saturday, April 30, 2005, at 12:00 PM, jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > On a very simplistic level, one of my (many) problems with the
> > film was that I couldn't stand the girl (and I didn't care much
for
> > the guy either).
>
> I'm not really debating a point here, but I just wanted to say: I
> haven't seen a performance quite like "the guy's" -- okay, IMDB
time --
> David Wissak's in recent memory. Separately, it's the kind of
> performance where the actor probably thought he was bringing all
the
> goods to the table -- but whether he knew it or not was being
heavily
> directed.
>
> I take it that above, btw, (and keeping in mind something you
wrote in
> an email sent later than the one I'm replying to) you mean you
didn't
> care much for David or Katia the characters, though you didn't
have a
> problem with the performances..?
>
Correct, I didn't care much for the characters, but it is
sometimes difficult separating a dislike for a character from a
response to the performance.
>rejecting 'traditional' psychology can be a cop out too...)
>
> True... And I wonder if there exists any objective way (that is,
> outside of one's personal aesthetic tastes) of being able to tell
where
> the line has been drawn, re: cop-out / non-cop-out, with regard to
the
> presentation of a character conceived out of the rejection of
> 'traditional psychology'. I guess just the "emotional verity" of
the
> film around them...
I agree. But one might also argue that the rejection of
traditional psychology is more apparent than real in many cases, and
in this case particularly. What Dumont is doing is witholding
information, depriving us of background, backstory. Fine. But it's
still "psychology" by the mere fact that we have two characters
alone together who "relate" constantly, although not primarily in a
verbal manner (this is definitely not "Before Sunset"!) One example:
she asks "What are you thinking about?" (a typically annoying
question). He answers nicely: "Nothing." She insists. She
says: "It's not true." He continues saying he isn't thinking about
anything, still nice and very patient. Then he adds, with an almost
imperceptible hint of annoyance, "I'm driving." And she bursts into
tears. Isn't that all traditional "psychology", seizing on a tiny,
insignificant exchange to reveal the tension between the two, the
girl's rather unstable state of mind? Because the characters don't
conduct a Proustian analysis of their emotions and feelings doesn't
mean that this is not, among other things, a "psychological study"
of an insecure, somewhat neurotic young woman. Thanks to the
providential language barrier, the psychology has to remain
expressed in mostly behavioral terms (of course an actual language
barrier is not indispensible -- we have all experienced moments of
tension with another person when verbal communication became
impossible although we "spoke the same language" -- but in this case
it helps the director's strategy).
Dumont has said that he chose the two actors because they were close
to the characters, especially Katia ("I felt she was very close to
the character: a very complex, troubled being. She had shared with
me her immense difficulty of existing.") He said that when she
starts crying in the scene I mentioned above it wasn't in the
script.
>
> > I still don't understand what actually happens in the end --
> > after the rape. They find themselves back in the motel room even
> > though he was beaten almost to death in the desert. How did they
get
> > back? In the last scene their truck is still out there in the
> > desert; and who is the body that the cop finds there? ( That last
> > scene is titled "Who's to Blame?" in the DVD menu. Strange.) I
don't
> > think it is naive or irrelevant to ask such questions, but
> > apparently no one thinks or dares to ask them.
>
> Did you think the film was playing out in too realist a mode for
the
> final act to come off as anything but a contrived dismissal of The
> Realist Mode? Just curious. It felt all right to me. Katia
ended up
> driving them back, I figured; they couldn't very well lay in the
desert
> forever. But beyond any real-world logic of the situation, I
thought
> it was a rather daring movement, with regard to narrative pacing --
> nothing less banal than: "going back to the hotel room." Then
sitting
> on the bed for a while. Then he goes into the bathroom. Never
even
> mind what happens next.
>
My problem is that I DO mind. And that it doesn't feel all right
to me. There is no "real-world logic" of the situation. The ending
is daring allright (and I quite admire the concept of that final
long take) but is daring a sufficient excuse for throwing all
narrative coherence overboard? I envy your lack of curiosity when
saying: "Never even mind what happens next." I for one would like to
know, and no explanation makes any sense "in real world logic." This
is why I said that the film deliberately self-destructs in the end.
This ending is like the mysterious opening of the pantry door
in "The Shining" but although Dumont wanted to inject a "fantastic"
feeling in his movie, we don't seem to be in the right genre for
this kind of thing (OK, mixing genres can be fun, but here the mix
doesn't take). After all, if we are to accept the fact that we have
entered the realm of the irrational, the entire attack/rape episode
can be seen as belonging to the same realm: a dream, a fantasy, a
metaphor, whatever -- except something "real".
> > Craig's lyrical praise of the film sounds very much like what
> > Dumont says he wanted to achieve. But to me it deals more with
what
> > the film 'stands for" than with what it actually is/does. Or is
> > that a meaningless distinction. JPC
>
> It's not necessarily meaningless, but what -is- the distinction,
in
> this case? I don't think I was applying my own tissue-text to the
> artwork, just reading the desert-spawn / desert-wrack of eluctable
> things... at least: what I wrote was how I was perceiving in real-
time,
> even if partially subconsciously, what I was watching. Which is
all to
> say, I thought that what this particular film stood for, and what
it
> was doing / how it did it, were going hand-in-hand throughout its
> duration -- which is why I guess I found it so successful, and
> admirable... and never really got the impression that what it was
doing
> was just narrativizing a thesis. I did find Pleasure in the
artwork.
> (I'm on Nabokov's side that the determinedly thesis'd artwork,
wrought
> from pesky Ideas, is inconsequential, and most times antithetical
to
> pleasurable.)
>
I completely agree with both Nabokov and you, but I consider
29 Palms a very theoretical kind of "experiment" (Dumont's word)and
I received it, unlike you, as a case of "narrativizing a thesis"
(although "thesis" might be the improper term) -- which accounts for
my limited Pleasure in viewing it. JPC
26274
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 3:39pm
Subject: Re: Golden Age Misunderstood cinebklyn
Dan writes:
> There's definitely some kind of suspension going
on there in NOTORIOUS, but I wonder if the motivation
is to tell the audience something that needs to be told.
For me, Hitchcock engineers the rupture because he is
going against filmic conventions and audience
expectations. Films that center on heterosexual men are
most often concerned with the laying out of a task and the
pursuit of its accomplishment. Such men are normally not
given space or time to express their emotions. As
Mankeiwicz said, a movie called "All About Steve" would
be, at best, a short. Hitchcock ruptures the conventional
narrative to grant Devlin the emotional complexity usually
accorded only to women.
Brian
26275
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 3:42pm
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many jess_l_amortell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Example: "Bride and Prejudice" (Gurinder Chada, 2004) is an enjoyable musical
> film, with a lively sense of color in its visual style. But no one on
> a_film_by seems to have the slightest interest in actually seeing it. Why?
Responding only as one who gets to see far too little (a subject in itself -- it almost *is* my subject at this point) and so must rely, for better or worse, on what might optimistically be called a critical consensus, I trust you'll appreciate that such reviews as the following (one of them even evokes the specter of the dread My Big Fat Greek Wedding) have not sent me waltzing off to the theater:
http://radio.villagevoice.com/film/0506,winter,60858,20.html
http://spacefinder.chicagoreader.com/movies/briefs/27387_BRIDE_AND_PREJUDICE.html
http://www.citypages.com/movies/detail.asp?MID=6434
http://movies2.nytimes.com/mem/movies/review.html?title1=Bride%20and%20Prejudice%20%28Movie%29&title2=Bride%20and%20Prejudice%20%28Movie%29&reviewer=Manohla%20Dargis&pdate=20050211&v_id=306118
If you're going to make a case for the film, I would hope you'd at least marginally acknowledge reviews like these and take issue with them -- I'm certainly not saying it can't be done -- or counter them with others I might have missed.
Following your similar endorsement, I watched Win a Date with Tad Hamilton. I would say that, while surprisingly sweet in nature (as the reviews I checked all seem to agree) -- something no one, surely, will ever say about 29 Palms -- it was strictly sitcom in style (as the reviews don't seem to bother to mention). Since I admire your insights into classic film, I naturally always wonder if you're making greater claims for films like these.
26276
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 4:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch evillights
On Sunday, May 1, 2005, at 09:27 AM, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> His Munch film is atypical. What he's been trying to
> do in recent years with "The Journey" and more
> recently "The Commune" is make films that aren't
> passive "consumption" experieces ut sites of activism.
> Not surprised he's not on video.
Oh, but he is. 'The War Game' is out on DVD from the BFI. 'La Commune
(Paris, 1871)' is out on DVD in France (two-disc, complete 5h 45m
version), with English subtitles. Soon to come from Masters of Cinema:
'Punishment Park.' Additionally, a few of the previous Watkins films
are currently being prepared for DVD from other publishers -- 'Edvard
Munch' and a handful of others.
craig.
26277
From: "J. Mabe"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 4:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch brack_28
--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> On Sunday, May 1, 2005, at 09:27 AM, David
> Ehrenstein wrote:
> >
> > His Munch film is atypical. What he's been trying
> to
> > do in recent years with "The Journey" and more
> > recently "The Commune" is make films that aren't
> > passive "consumption" experieces ut sites of
> activism.
> > Not surprised he's not on video.
>
> Oh, but he is. 'The War Game' is out on DVD from
> the BFI. 'La Commune
> (Paris, 1871)' is out on DVD in France (two-disc,
> complete 5h 45m
> version), with English subtitles. Soon to come from
> Masters of Cinema:
> 'Punishment Park.' Additionally, a few of the
> previous Watkins films
> are currently being prepared for DVD from other
> publishers -- 'Edvard
> Munch' and a handful of others.
>
> craig.
a dvd of Punishment Park plus some short films is
already available from canyon cinema... and you can
get La Commune on vhs... but it's pretty expensive.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26278
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 4:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
--- Craig Keller wrote:
.
>
> Oh, but he is. 'The War Game' is out on DVD from
> the BFI. 'La Commune
> (Paris, 1871)' is out on DVD in France (two-disc,
> complete 5h 45m
> version), with English subtitles. Soon to come from
> Masters of Cinema:
> 'Punishment Park.' Additionally, a few of the
> previous Watkins films
> are currently being prepared for DVD from other
> publishers -- 'Edvard
> Munch' and a handful of others.
>
Well that's good to know. The one I long for on DVD is
"Privilege."
Timlier than ever.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26279
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 5:00pm
Subject: TAAL eanmdphd
Has anyone see TAAL by S. GHAI?
I have only seen about 10 Bollywood films; I thought TAAL one of the
most entertaining, perhaps because it is modern in its story content /
place / time. The opening scene of dancers in contemporary black
leotards with white dots made me wonder if the rhythmic charm of the
song and dance would be sacrificed... but it wasn't, though a
COKE-a-COLA commercialism is so bad, it gets funny.
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
> wrote:
>> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> I'll admit I have a prejudice towards '50s and '60s
>> Indian musicals and to Ghatak, Roy, Kapoor, Dutt and Mehboob over
>> recent people like Mani Ratnam, and whoever it was who directed
>> Lagaan.
> It'll be on faster than anything by Ghatak or Dutt!
26280
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 5:40pm
Subject: Re: Pesky Ideas (was: Twentynine palms too many) cinebklyn
Craig writes:
> I'm on Nabokov's side that the determinedly
thesis'd artwork, wrought from pesky Ideas, is
inconsequential, and most times antithetical to
pleasurable.
Why is it inconsequential (beyond your saying
it is without any evidentiary support)?
Also, why is it antithetical to pleasure? It seems
to me that someone who receives no pleasure
from ideas is merely limited in the range of where
she finds pleasure.
John Huston:
"Directing is simply an extension of the process of writing. The most
important element to me is always the idea that I'm trying to express. The
audience should not be aware of what the camera is doing. They should be
following the action and the road of the idea. I don't believe in
overdressing anything. No extra words, no extra images, no extra music. But
it seems to me that this is the universal principle of art."
And Nabakov's novels seem full of ideas to me
(in addition to their cluttered syntax and elitist
word play. May a thousand Ph.D.'s bloom I
guess).
Brian
26281
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 5:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pesky Ideas (was: Twentynine palms too many) cellar47
--- Brian Charles Dauth
wrote:
>
> John Huston:
>
> "Directing is simply an extension of the process
> of writing. The most
> important element to me is always the idea that I'm
> trying to express. The
> audience should not be aware of what the camera is
> doing. They should be
> following the action and the road of the idea. I
> don't believe in
> overdressing anything. No extra words, no extra
> images, no extra music. But
> it seems to me that this is the universal principle
> of art."
>
WellI agree with the first part of what Huston says,
but not the second. Awareness is inseparable from
pleasure for me. And I'm not at all sure what he means
by "overdressing."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26282
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 7:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pesky Ideas (was: Twentynine palms too many) evillights
On Sunday, May 1, 2005, at 01:40 PM, Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
> Craig writes:
>
>> I'm on Nabokov's side that the determinedly
> thesis'd artwork, wrought from pesky Ideas, is
> inconsequential, and most times antithetical to
> pleasurable.
>
> Why is it inconsequential (beyond your saying
> it is without any evidentiary support)?
Because it doesn't please me.
> Also, why is it antithetical to pleasure?
To me, you mean? Because it doesn't constitute the sublimation of an
idea, the blossoming from one thesis into manifold theses/impressions,
nor the magical creation of a world incidental to all great art. The
drama becomes the playing out of the expected cause-and-effect in line
with The Idea, or in opposition to The Idea -- easy satire by
presenting The Idea (and so "the ideal"'s) inverse -- what we have then
is the creation of a tract. And just like such artwork can seldom be
interesting, so too are prolonged debates based on such abstractions as
I've laid out above.
The point remains though: If one wants to hammer home a thesis, why
frame it in an artwork to begin with?
> It seems
> to me that someone who receives no pleasure
> from ideas is merely limited in the range of where
> she finds pleasure.
Well poo-poo on he (me), I guess.
But, look -- whoever doesn't receive "pleasure from ideas" resides in a
persistent vegatative state. I was arguing against the narrativization
of a thesis with little of the surrounding ecstatic magic or joie de
vivre or general -embrace- of good art. But these things are
subjective! If someone likes Soviet party-line Futurism, or
Chernyshevsky's 'What Is to Be Done?', he can have it!
> And Nabakov's novels seem full of ideas to me
> (in addition to their cluttered syntax and elitist
> word play. May a thousand Ph.D.'s bloom I
> guess).
Nabokov's disliking for "ideas" is in line with what I describe in the
paragraph above beginning "But, look -- ." Also, what is non-elitist
wordplay? Does confrontation with unfamiliar or obscure words send a
shiver up your spine? If you say "lemniscate" is an elitist word (agh,
what does that even MEAN? like he's robbing the proletariat of their
vocabulary?!), I say: it's the efficient one-word distillation of an
"idea"/concept/thing I hadn't even been aware could be described in any
less than fifteen -- not to mention that when pronounced, it sounds
beautiful. "May a thousand Ph.D.'s bloom" -- how snotty. You don't
see me shitting all over Mankiewicz.
Of course, I love his work.
craig.
26283
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 8:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pesky Ideas (was: Twentynine palms too many) cellar47
--- Craig Keller wrote:
If you say "lemniscate" is an
> elitist word (agh,
> what does that even MEAN? like he's robbing the
> proletariat of their
> vocabulary?!), I say: it's the efficient one-word
> distillation of an
> "idea"/concept/thing I hadn't even been aware could
> be described in any
> less than fifteen -- not to mention that when
> pronounced, it sounds
> beautiful. "May a thousand Ph.D.'s bloom" -- how
> snotty. You don't
> see me shitting all over Mankiewicz.
>
"You have a point, me dear. An idiotic one, but a
point nonetheless."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26284
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 8:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Twentynine palms too many evillights
On Sunday, May 1, 2005, at 10:41 AM, jpcoursodon wrote:
> I agree. But one might also argue that the rejection of
> traditional psychology is more apparent than real in many cases, and
> in this case particularly. What Dumont is doing is witholding
> information, depriving us of background, backstory. Fine. But it's
> still "psychology" by the mere fact that we have two characters
> alone together who "relate" constantly, although not primarily in a
> verbal manner (this is definitely not "Before Sunset"!) One example:
> she asks "What are you thinking about?" (a typically annoying
> question). He answers nicely: "Nothing." She insists. She
> says: "It's not true." He continues saying he isn't thinking about
> anything, still nice and very patient. Then he adds, with an almost
> imperceptible hint of annoyance, "I'm driving." And she bursts into
> tears.
> Isn't that all traditional "psychology", seizing on a tiny,
> insignificant exchange to reveal the tension between the two, the
> girl's rather unstable state of mind?
This scene was superb, a rhythm of relation that we don't see much in
the movies, but quite plausible and spot-on. Although it's not exactly
similar, these interchanges between the couple (not to mention her fit
in the diner, their conversation over ice cream) are what made me think
of 'Scenes from a Marriage.'
> Because the characters don't
> conduct a Proustian analysis of their emotions and feelings doesn't
> mean that this is not, among other things, a "psychological study"
> of an insecure, somewhat neurotic young woman. Thanks to the
> providential language barrier, the psychology has to remain
> expressed in mostly behavioral terms (of course an actual language
> barrier is not indispensible -- we have all experienced moments of
> tension with another person when verbal communication became
> impossible although we "spoke the same language" -- but in this case
> it helps the director's strategy).
>
> Dumont has said that he chose the two actors because they were close
> to the characters, especially Katia ("I felt she was very close to
> the character: a very complex, troubled being. She had shared with
> me her immense difficulty of existing.") He said that when she
> starts crying in the scene I mentioned above it wasn't in the
> script.
I'd also heard or read (maybe on the DVD?) that she was very defiant
on-set, and toward Dumont. It sounds like the character and the
actress herself weren't too divergent from one another, emotionally.
> My problem is that I DO mind. And that it doesn't feel all right
> to me. There is no "real-world logic" of the situation. The ending
> is daring allright (and I quite admire the concept of that final
> long take) but is daring a sufficient excuse for throwing all
> narrative coherence overboard? I envy your lack of curiosity when
> saying: "Never even mind what happens next."
I should really clarify here: I didn't mean "never even mind what
happens next" in the sense that it was inconsequential to the film or
an understanding of the film. (Far from it!) I only meant to isolate
in my example the scenes that come before the "what happens next," to
point out that even if we didn't take into account the explosion of the
bathroom door and everything that follows, that the way the narrative
plays out and gets paced-out directly following the rape is itself
quite radical... if not quite logical.
> I for one would like to
> know, and no explanation makes any sense "in real world logic." This
> is why I said that the film deliberately self-destructs in the end.
> This ending is like the mysterious opening of the pantry door
> in "The Shining" but although Dumont wanted to inject a "fantastic"
> feeling in his movie, we don't seem to be in the right genre for
> this kind of thing (OK, mixing genres can be fun, but here the mix
> doesn't take). After all, if we are to accept the fact that we have
> entered the realm of the irrational, the entire attack/rape episode
> can be seen as belonging to the same realm: a dream, a fantasy, a
> metaphor, whatever -- except something "real".
I have to spend some time reflecting a little more upon your impression
that what happens embodies a conscious "self-destruction" (and maybe
not only on the part of the film itself, but David too). [An
interesting formal aspect of the endgame: we move from close-up (the
burst-out), to long-shot (the murder), to extreme long-shot (the body
in the desert).] Although I'm not quite sure I see the ending as a
sudden "fantastic" opening-up (or going off the rails, as some might
say), I did have the sense that there was something "magickal"
happening all throughout -- the surveillance art-film the couple watch
on the television, the headlights of the car that pass by after Katia
storms out of the motel room -- these scenes struck me as foreshadowing
the climax (possibly explicitly so, with regard to the speeding car and
its headlights: they may very well belong -- or just as well may not
belong -- to the same marauders of the rape) -- not only because these
scenes and their surrounding atmosphere built up some kind of chilly
tone, but because they exemplified a "feeling" around the western
expanses and desert towns of the United States -- un milieu maudit --
and the way this particular atmosphere of dread figures into (one can
say makes up a large portion of) the modern American mythscape. The
mythscape of 'America's Most Wanted,' gang murders, people missing in
the desert, drifters on bordertowns and killings in their wake, pet
mutilations, fluorescent-lit convenient store massacres caught on
blurry monochrome video shot from a high fixed angle -- and the
fear-mongering that the media perpetrates as it presents -- and creates
-- this myth. The characters' entrance into this world, their
conscious need to explore/create it, is, I believe, in some part what
"creates" their bloody end -- they are responsible for their own tragic
conclusion -- such an impression probably wouldn't make it into a
critical anthology, but I'll say it anyway: There's bad mojo around
these myths, around this milieu, and if you believe in it, and set out
to play with it, it will surround you and it will kill you. I'm not
doing a good job of articulating it -- to make a movie about this
feeling would be better (it's probably too messy to be called an Idea),
and I think that's what Dumont has done. It reminds me of what Stewart
does in 'Rear Window' -- creating the murder by "willing it" into
existence.
> I completely agree with both Nabokov and you, but I consider
> 29 Palms a very theoretical kind of "experiment" (Dumont's word)and
> I received it, unlike you, as a case of "narrativizing a thesis"
> (although "thesis" might be the improper term) -- which accounts for
> my limited Pleasure in viewing it. JPC
I can dig it.
craig.
26285
From: "Robert Keser"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 9:40pm
Subject: Re: Twentynine palms too many rfkeser
If you'll allow me to drag the discussion down a few notches, it
seems to me that all these arguments (including Dumont's own
interviews) pivot on each person's reaction to Katia Golubeva. To
me, "Twentynine Palms" reveals her hitherto hidden star
presence(Carax cast her as a kind of mystical freak in "Pola
X").
No doubt the actress presents difficulties as a person, but onscreen
here she has a mercurial quality, an unpredictable volatility where
each reaction seems unusually deeply felt and expressed directly.
It's almost impossible to take one's eyes off her – what
will she do next?! – a characteristic of all the great stars,
whether Louise Brooks or, yes, Betty Annam in "Asphalt". As
for her relation to the grunting male at the wheel, it seemed to me
he was another unworthy and disposable consort to the female
principle, the Eddie Fisher to her Elizabeth Taylor, the Laurence
Harvey to her Simone Signoret, the David Brian to her Joan Crawford.
You might call this the diva reading, but the ending made some kind
of sense to me: the male, after being beaten into realizing his
abject inadequacy as protector, wreaks his vengeance on the woman,
the visible proof of his failure, the walking rebuke to his
masculinity. Whether or not this was Dumont's intent, the film
plays out satisyingly at that level, though nothing will adequately
prepare the sensitive for the despair of the final scene.
--Robert Keser
26286
From: "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 9:58pm
Subject: Re: Godard the Grouch dreyertati
You can get a pretty good bootleg of it for $20 from
www.5minutestolive.com.
The one I long for on DVD is
> "Privilege."
>
> Timlier than ever.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
26287
From: lance petzoldt
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 10:09pm
Subject: Can anyone identify this film? jlpetzoldt
I wonder if anyone can help me identify the following
film. Russian, made in the 80's but set in 20's
Central Asia, it deals with the attempt by Mislo, a
simple hunter to transport prisioner Sultan Nazar and
daughter accross the mountains to the Red Army.
Chasing him is the power hungry Fettobah. Antoly
Solonitsin, Alexander Kaidanovsky, G. Tashbayeva and
Abdusalamov appear as actors but I have no other
credits.
This is a cracking adventure film, it has it all:
faces, landscape, costume, action, heart and soul.
Thanks for your attention,
Best regards,
Lance Petzoldt
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26288
From: "Robert Keser"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 10:29pm
Subject: Re: Can anyone identify this film? rfkeser
lance petzoldt wrote:
> I wonder if anyone can help me identify the following
> film. Russian, made in the 80's but set in 20's
> Central Asia, it deals with the attempt by Mislo, a
> simple hunter to transport prisioner Sultan Nazar and
> daughter accross the mountains to the Red Army...This is a
> cracking adventure film, it has it all faces, landscape, costume,
action, heart and soul.
Sounds like "Telokhranitel" aka The Bodyguard (1979), directed by
Ali Khamrayev. Not that I've seen it, but you make it sound tempting.
--Robert Keser
26289
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 10:31pm
Subject: Re: Pesky Ideas (was: Twentynine palms too many) cinebklyn
Craig writes:
> Because it doesn't constitute the sublimation
of an idea, the blossoming from one thesis into
manifold theses/impressions, nor the magical
creation of a world incidental to all great art.
But where does such a notion of "great art" come
from? You seem to keep asserting as "fact"
concepts that arise from the intersection of
particular class, ethnic, race and gender ideas.
> And just like such artwork can seldom be interesting,
so too are prolonged debates based on such abstractions
as I've laid out above.
But again, that depends on the concept of pleasure that
you have adopted based on your position within class,
gender, ethnic, and race matrices. What is interesting to
you may merely be what you have been taught to find
interesting. Nothing is inherently interesting or
uninteresting.
> The point remains though: If one wants to hammer home
a thesis, why frame it in an artwork to begin with?
Why not? I know this goes against the dominant middle
class notion of "art for art's sake"and the objet d'art
consumerist impulse, but certainly Swift wrote "Gulliver's
Travels" to hammer home a thesis (in fact several theses).
To my eye, his framing his theses in a work of art was the
most effective way to get his points across to as wide an
audience as possible. Don't Kurosawa's "I Live in Fear"
and Sembene's "Moolaade" also contain theses?
> Well poo-poo on he (me), I guess.
Not at all. But it seems silly to argue that one cannot
receive pleasure from ideas. I receive no pleasure from
skateboarding, but that shouldn't negate the fact that there
are people who do.
> I was arguing against the narrativization of a thesis with
little of the surrounding ecstatic magic or joie de vivre or
general -embrace- of good art. But these things are
subjective!
Agreed. Your argument is based on your class/race/ethnic/
gender-bound perception that good art is surrounded by
ecstatic magic.
> Also, what is non-elitist wordplay?
Wordplay not designed to reinforce the sense of class
and educational privilege of its readers. Much verbal
wordplay consists of the elite educated class constructing
verbal games that, when recognized by readers, reinforce the
sense of class belonging of these readers: "I get it," so I must
be a member of the elite.
Nabakov himself was a professor of Cornell, so he was
very involved in this class-educational complex. He laced
his novels with this wordplay so that the readers who
"got it" would be reinforced in their notion of intellectual
privilege.
> Does confrontation with unfamiliar or obscure words
send a shiver up your spine?
No.
> "May a thousand Ph.D.'s bloom" -- how snotty.
Not snotty, just observant. The PhD mills of this country's
educational edifice need artists to produce self-referential works
of art in need of explication so that critique may flourish. How
can PhDs be written if there is nothing to write about?
> You don't see me shitting all over Mankiewicz.
Go right ahead. Most people do.
Brian
26290
From: "Fred Patton"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 10:35pm
Subject: Re: Can anyone identify this film? fred_patton
voila...
Telokhranitel (The Bodyguard) directed by Ali Khamraev
http://www.leedsfilm.com/archive/filmpage.asp-filmId=201.htm
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telokhranitel
What do I win?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, lance petzoldt
wrote:
>
> I wonder if anyone can help me identify the following
> film. Russian, made in the 80's but set in 20's
> Central Asia, it deals with the attempt by Mislo, a
> simple hunter to transport prisioner Sultan Nazar and
> daughter accross the mountains to the Red Army.
> Chasing him is the power hungry Fettobah. Antoly
> Solonitsin, Alexander Kaidanovsky, G. Tashbayeva and
> Abdusalamov appear as actors but I have no other
> credits.
>
> This is a cracking adventure film, it has it all:
> faces, landscape, costume, action, heart and soul.
>
> Thanks for your attention,
>
> Best regards,
>
> Lance Petzoldt
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
26291
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 10:46pm
Subject: Re: Pesky Ideas (was: Twentynine palms too many) cinebklyn
David E. writes:
> Awareness is inseparable from pleasure for me.
I think what Huston is referring to is filmic
ostentation. Moving the camera for the sake of
making the audience aware that the director fellow
is there and not for any other reason.
> And I'm not at all sure what he means by
"overdressing."
The tendency of filmmakers to throw some more
decor on the barbie just because they can. It is like
driving a Hummer or building one of those McMansions
that are sprouting up all over suburbia. Or the woman
who wears a fur coat to a summer pool party just to
show that she has one.
"Women with furs like that where it never even gets cold."
Brian
26292
From: lance petzoldt
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 10:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: Can anyone identify this film? jlpetzoldt
Thanks Robert and Fred, spot on, I'm impressed.
You both win, if you want it, a DVD-R of my VHS
recording of the 1980's UK TV broadcast. N.B. front
credits are missing hence the question. Just privately
email me you postal address.
Best regards,
Lance
--- Fred Patton wrote:
> voila...
>
> Telokhranitel (The Bodyguard) directed by Ali
> Khamraev
>
http://www.leedsfilm.com/archive/filmpage.asp-filmId=201.htm
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Telokhranitel
>
> What do I win?
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, lance petzoldt
>
> wrote:
> >
> > I wonder if anyone can help me identify the
> following
> > film. Russian, made in the 80's but set in 20's
> > Central Asia, it deals with the attempt by Mislo,
> a
> > simple hunter to transport prisioner Sultan Nazar
> and
> > daughter accross the mountains to the Red Army.
> > Chasing him is the power hungry Fettobah. Antoly
> > Solonitsin, Alexander Kaidanovsky, G. Tashbayeva
> and
> > Abdusalamov appear as actors but I have no other
> > credits.
> >
> > This is a cracking adventure film, it has it all:
> > faces, landscape, costume, action, heart and soul.
> >
> > Thanks for your attention,
> >
> > Best regards,
> >
> > Lance Petzoldt
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26293
From: "Aaron Graham"
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 10:54pm
Subject: Re: Pesky Ideas (was: Twentynine palms too many) machinegunmc...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Charles Dauth"
wrote:
> I think what Huston is referring to is filmic
> ostentation. Moving the camera for the sake of
> making the audience aware that the director fellow
> is there and not for any other reason.
Your comments here reminds me of what Robert Wise has to say on his
recent commentary track for "The Set-Up". Filmmakers today "move the
camera for the sake of moving it".
26294
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 11:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pesky Ideas (was: Twentynine palms too many) cellar47
--- Brian Charles Dauth
wrote:
> I think what Huston is referring to is filmic
> ostentation. Moving the camera for the sake of
> making the audience aware that the director fellow
> is there and not for any other reason.
>
Well that's just what Manny Farber criticized in
Huston.
I think he was wrong.
>
> The tendency of filmmakers to throw some more
> decor on the barbie just because they can. It is
> like
> driving a Hummer or building one of those McMansions
> that are sprouting up all over suburbia. Or the
> woman
> who wears a fur coat to a summer pool party just to
> show that she has one.
>
Or dipping the entire finished Technicolor print of
"Reflections in a Golden Eye" in gold dye.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26295
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 11:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: Godard the Grouch cellar47
Wow, that site has quite a lot of interesting stuff:
"Mister Freedom"
"Qui Etes-Vous Polly Magoo?"
"Anna"
"(These Are) The Damend"
"The Trial of Joan of Arc"
"Donald Cammell: The Ultimate Performance"
What say you as to quality overall?
And Bill, did your copy of "Anna" come from this
place?
--- Jonathan Rosenbaum
wrote:
> You can get a pretty good bootleg of it for $20 from
>
> www.5minutestolive.com.
>
> The one I long for on DVD is
> > "Privilege."
> >
> > Timlier than ever.
> >
> > __________________________________________________
> > Do You Yahoo!?
> > Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam
> protection around
> > http://mail.yahoo.com
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26296
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Mon May 2, 2005 0:17am
Subject: Re: Pesky Ideas (was: Twentynine palms too many) cinebklyn
David E writes:
> Or dipping the entire finished Technicolor print
of "Reflections in a Golden Eye" in gold dye.
Is that how he was going to achieve the desaturation
effect? I never knew that. It is a shame that the film
was never distributed the way Huston intended.
So much of what he was trying to convey was lost.
Brian
26297
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 8:26pm
Subject: Re: Pesky Ideas (was: Twentynine palms too many) nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-05-01 18:32:10 EDT, Brian Charles Dauth writes:
<< But again, that depends on the concept of pleasure that
you have adopted based on your position within class,
gender, ethnic, and race matrices. What is interesting to
you may merely be what you have been taught to find
interesting. Nothing is inherently interesting or uninteresting. >>
At the video store today there were some new releases.
The Commish, Season 1.(TV series about a suburban police commisioner, dull as
dishwater)
Punky Brewster, Season 1 (TV series about a spunky orphan girl who warms the
heart of a grumpy old man) (Best moment: when Punky shows the grouch the
bright rainbow colors she has painted her room, he tells her "This room would gag a
Smurf!")
A documentary about William Wyler.
And the high point of screen eroticism:
Playboy's Women of Wal-Mart!
As a card-carrying bourgeois liberal (gasp!), I have been trained to find
these not too interesting...
Mike Grost
26298
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon May 2, 2005 0:35am
Subject: Re: Re: Pesky Ideas (was: Twentynine palms too many) cellar47
--- Brian Charles Dauth
wrote:
>
> Is that how he was going to achieve the desaturation
> effect? I never knew that. It is a shame that the
> film
> was never distributed the way Huston intended.
> So much of what he was trying to convey was lost.
>
It was seen that way only in its initial run. Those
prints haven't been shown publically, as far as I
know, since 1967 -- adn I have no idea if they exist
any longer.
A new independent film, "Fighting Tommy Riley"
achieves much of the same effect by other means. It
was shot on video and transferred to film in a process
that creates a desaturated sense of color that's quite
expressive.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26299
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon May 2, 2005 0:57am
Subject: Re: Re: Pesky Ideas (was: Twentynine palms too many) evillights
On Sunday, May 1, 2005, at 06:31 PM, Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
>
> But where does such a notion of "great art" come
> from? You seem to keep asserting as "fact"
> concepts that arise from the intersection of
> particular class, ethnic, race and gender ideas.
> But again, that depends on the concept of pleasure that
> you have adopted based on your position within class,
> gender, ethnic, and race matrices.
> Agreed. Your argument is based on your class/race/ethnic/
> gender-bound perception that good art is surrounded by
> ecstatic magic.
> Much verbal
> wordplay consists of the elite educated class constructing
> verbal games that, when recognized by readers, reinforce the
> sense of class belonging of these readers: "I get it," so I must
> be a member of the elite.
> Nabakov himself was a professor of Cornell, so he was
> very involved in this class-educational complex. He laced
> his novels with this wordplay so that the readers who
> "got it" would be reinforced in their notion of intellectual
> privilege.
This is quite a class/ethnic/race/gender-based cross you're bearing!
But don't hoist it on my shoulders, Jack -- I ain't carryin'. The
vague, stock-phrased, robotic ideology you're erecting against my small
attempt at articulating A Certain Aesthetic is the same stuff that has
turned the Cornell English Department, in the last decade, into a
moribund institution within an institution. Cornell being, by the by,
my alma mater (as you no doubt read in a post I made yesterday or the
day before, hence your singling out of Nabokov's professorship and
involvement in a "class-educational complex," as a further little snip
at my liver), but hardly a foundation of any indoctrination -- despite
the suggestion in your email that my outlook's been injected into my
soul by some shadow hegemonizer.
If you have any thoughts on 'Twentynine Palms,' I, and I'm sure
everyone else too, would be happy to hear them.
craig.
26300
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sun May 1, 2005 9:08pm
Subject: Re: Win a Date with Tad Hamilton (was: Twentynine palms too many) nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-05-01 11:44:34 EDT, you write:
<< Following your similar endorsement, I watched Win a Date with Tad
Hamilton. I would say that, while surprisingly sweet in nature (as the reviews I
checked all seem to agree) -- something no one, surely, will ever say about 29
Palms -- it was strictly sitcom in style (as the reviews don't seem to bother to
mention). Since I admire your insights into classic film, I naturally always
wonder if you're making greater claims for films like these. >>
I enjoyed this film's love story, liked the characters, and laughed at the
jokes. It caught me up in the storytelling. The film did convey a sense of joy,
and seemed pleasurable to watch, at a narrative level. In fact, I enjoyed
watching it twice. All of this seemed like a good enough reason to recommend it. I
was making no claim for the film having visual style.
I am not trying to waste your (or anybody else's) time. Your note has
definitely given me pause.
If you are looking for great visual style, you maybe should be watching "Bay
of Angels" (Demy) or "The Golden Coach" (Renoir) or "I Fidanzati" (Olmi), all
recent DVD releases from the Criterion Collection.
I have only seen "Bride and Prejudice" once. I left the theater in a state of
delight. It sounds like the reviewers felt pain, pain, pain (have not traced
down the links you sent). I have no idea what this means.
We are clearly at a cross roads with the whole idea of "entertainment".
Gurinder Chada is clearly trying to entertain people, in the old fashioned sense of
the word. There is a love story, narrative twists and turns, comedy, lots of
singing and dancing. All the things that used to give people pleasure at the
movies circa 1950 Instead of pleasing people, many cinephiles act as if this
sort of thing were a trip to the dentist.
If "Bride and Prejudice" sounds awful to you, please do not force yourself to
see it. The film only makes sense as entertainment - something intended to
give viewing pleasure. It was clearly intended to please musical fans.
I will keep thinking about these issues...
Mike Grost
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact