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.


26601   From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 2:04am
Subject: Burnan and montage  jpcoursodon


 
In an unpublished essay on Maurice Burnan, George Sadoul, who was a
close friend of MB (and also, much later, had a crush on my wife),
described a 10-minute take Burnan had made for one of his sadly lost
films. Then Burnan broke up the take into 73 shots in the cutting
room. According to George this had to do with Maurice's embracing of
communism and Eisenstein's early work. Of course Sadoul was a highly
unreliable film historian, but I give the anecdote for what it's worth.

JPC
26602  
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 2:37am
Subject: Re: Advise and Consent  lukethedealer12


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:

> Last night I watched Otto Preminger's "Advise and Consent."
>
> Preminger's frame is vibrantly
> alive. I felt as if each camera move and each cut were
> organically connected to each other. Not only were the
> characters talking to each other, but the shots were as well.
>
> The way that Preminger captures the various voices and
> philosophies of the characters -- how they play off, conflict,
> and build on -- each other is amazing. There is so much
> energy within Preminger's classical frame.
>
Preminger, on
> the other hand, feels as if the shooting was where it all came
> together, and the editing was more of a refinement.
>
To me the above by Brian evokes very well the visual style and
connecting of relationships and differing points of view in
Preminger and specifically in this film.. I couldn't tell from this
post for sure, but it sounds like you were watching "Advise and
Consent" for the first time. If so, this sense of the film
registers as all the more astute. It was a pleasure to read.

I know Preminger well and not Denis so can't comment on the specific
comparison, but in general, I am more attracted to the idea
that "the shooting was where it all came together" in almost any
director, and I believe most people's hierarchies of the greats
would bear it out. But editing as a "refinement" is one of cinema's
most powerful tools, and can be the ultimate telling touch. Make the
film in the editing room though, and the idea of refinement is gone.

David elaborated in post 26502:

Preminger's autuerist fans -- particularly the group
at "Movie." it was seen as a direct rebuke to
Eisenstein's monatage theory -- which was accepted as
gospel by the critical academy at that time.>

That's historically accurate and was important in developing film
theory. It should still be true. And personally, I don't reject
Eisenstein but will embrace him more readily when I can be convinced
that the montage is more a matter of emphasis, and that there is
innate expressiveness in the individual images, so that we can enjoy
them reflectively, and not just be forced to respond by the editing.

Bill responded to Brian with post 26595:

another list was ragging on Preminger in a very dismissive way. The
film was Rosebud, but the principle is what matters. I think you'll
find, Brian, that this group is very enamored of Preminger, whose
critical reputation in France has sadly fallen in recent years
(except among the Macmahnians, who always saw him as a giant and
still do).>

I didn't know OP's critical reputation has "sadly fallen" away in
France--that's really crushing news and very hard to understand!
Not only is "mise-en-scene" his middle name, but he is so
unassailable politically (however dispassionate he may seem).
But it's nice to hear consensus about him is warm in this group. It
happens I became a member one day after Brian so I guess that makes
two more of us. I mentioned him in passing in my first post
(positively), just for the sake of aesthetic principle.

I would heartily recommend Senses of Cinema director profile on
Preminger by a_f_b's own Chris Fujiwara. I found this really
excellent and full of insights, and I think most OP fans would
agree. The last paragraph especially beautifully captures what he
stands for these days.

Mike chimed in with post 26597:

passionately enthused about Preminger (myself included).
Have only seen "Advise and Consent" once, and that in pan-and-scan.
Am looking forward to the DVD!
Cable TV has been showing a letterboxed "Court-Martial of Billy
Mitchell". This is unexpectedly riveting.>

Like Mike, I first saw "Advise and Consent" pan-and-scan too but by
now have seen it many times in full Panavision. Somehow, one could
get a sense of it as a rich, special film even pan-and-scan. I
remember how mysterious and compelling that shot of Don Murray
stripped to the waist in front of the mirror was, with wife Inga
Swenson near him, which Brian alluded to. I didn't know where
Preminger was going with this the first time though it's even more
interesting in context when one knows the film. Of course, like
the rest of the film, it gains when one has the full image to absorb.

When one is trying to catch up with films, one will do a lot of
things and take viewing opportunities as they come, and I'm no
exception. But I'm now at the point in my life I would never watch
a Preminger film if it were not in the proper ratio.

***
A lot of consensus in above posts, and I also have a feeling
that "Advise and Consent" would get a lot of votes as one of
Preminger's masterpieces. I consider it in that group, and I know
at least one other member who definitely does (or did the last time
the subject came up--so won't speak for him). And it sounds like
Brian might consider it that way, too.

But is there a lot of consensus on his best work? He made a lot of
interesting films, none that I see dominating all discussion the way
a Vertigo or La Regle du Jeu tend to do. So would anyone like to
share favorite Premingers? Any number that feels right.

I don't mind starting it out: (in preferential order):

The Cardinal
Fallen Angel
Bonjour Tristesse
Carmen Jones
Advise and Consent
Laura

That's my for sure masterpieces, and I'm guessing a few others I
especially like will surely get votes.

Blake Lucas
26603  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 2:57am
Subject: Re: Montage or not Montage  cellar47


 
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> I am perplexed about recent posts. Where are we, in
> some kind of 101
> Film Course? Comparing Preminger and Denis (!) and
> Eisenstein;
> and "taking sides"? Isn't it all a bit silly? Of
> course, if I really
> knew what you guys are talking about I might feel
> differently.

Oh come on, J-P. You know perfectly well. It's
"Montage vs. mise en scene" 2005.



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26604  
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 3:13am
Subject: Re: Re: Truffaut  evillights


 
On Friday, May 6, 2005, at 10:49 AM, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> Well to get the ball rolling they figure quite
> prominently in "Vivre sa Vie." Belmondo turns himself
> into a human pinball at one point in "A Woman is a
> Woman."

Ditto Lemmy Caution in 'Alphaville' -- when he's getting roughed up in
the elevator.

craig.
26605  
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 3:23am
Subject: Re: Re: Advise and Consent  sallitt1


 
> A lot of consensus in above posts, and I also have a feeling
> that "Advise and Consent" would get a lot of votes as one of
> Preminger's masterpieces. I consider it in that group, and I know
> at least one other member who definitely does (or did the last time
> the subject came up--so won't speak for him).

Talkin' 'bout me? Yeah, it's still a favorite.

> So would anyone like to
> share favorite Premingers? Any number that feels right.

My picks these days would be:

DAISY KENYON
ANATOMY OF A MURDER
ADVISE AND CONSENT

Coming up behind: IN HARM'S WAY and ANGEL FACE. Then maybe FALLEN ANGEL,
which used to be up at the top for me, but which has come down a bit in
recent years. - Dan
26606  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 2:55am
Subject: Re: Advise and Consent  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
.
>
> But is there a lot of consensus on his best work? He made a lot
of
> interesting films, none that I see dominating all discussion the
way
> a Vertigo or La Regle du Jeu tend to do. So would anyone like to
> share favorite Premingers? Any number that feels right.
>
> I don't mind starting it out: (in preferential order):
>
> The Cardinal
> Fallen Angel
> Bonjour Tristesse
> Carmen Jones
> Advise and Consent
> Laura
>
> That's my for sure masterpieces, and I'm guessing a few others I
> especially like will surely get votes.
>
> Blake Lucas

To me "Anatomy of a Murder" does dominate, and then "Advise"
and "Laura" but it's hard to distinguish between the early Fox
stuff -- Whirpool, Fallen Angel, Daisy Kenyon, Where the Sidewalk
Ends -- all major pieces. Then, in spite of everything, "Bunny Lake"
and "Human Factor". I disliked all the rest of the late stuff, which
probably disqualifies me as a true auteurist. JPC
26607  
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 3:59am
Subject: Re: Re: Hill and Milius-Now Not So Old (Was:Old, Old Milius Post)  mathieu_ricordi


 
Quoting Blake Lucas :
Hill brought Ry Cooder into
>
> the cinema, a real gift in my opinion--scores for "Long Riders" and
>
> "Southern Comfort" (the Cajun music in the aforementioned climactic
>
> scene) are among their standout elements, beautifully used in the
>
> films. At the discussion, Hill said he felt Cooder surpassed
>
> himself in the "Geronimo" score and talked about exactly what he did
>
> and what the compositional elements were (opposing ones, but I don't
>
> want to try to characterize it if I don't remember exactly what he
>
> said). And I kind of agree. I love the score--it suits the film.




I disagree with you completely on the merits of Ry Cooder and Hill's use
of him. Though I haven't seen "Long Riders", or "Southern Comfort",
the colaborations between the two I have seen have been disaterous
in the soundtrack department. "Geronimo", whose music you speak fondly
of, is a terribly literal rendition of the actions and motifs up on
screen. The cliched Indian and officer reprises are recycled here
for even more minimal effect, given Cooder's inexperience with
orchestral accompaniment (his fair is usually guitar/electrical
pieces). Music, which in my opinion remains the most neglected
piece of most filmmaker's puzzles, is often not thought of in terms
of an art within itself in movies, and is often sprayed all over the place
as filler, or booster to certain effects. The literal backing of what
we see and hear from the characters is often nothing more than
an instrumental exlamation point; loudening and hammering the
reaching of the same senses. This practice is not only a hugely
neglectful one, it is a misunderstanding of what film is when
it strives to be the "all encompassing art form". Yes the medium
can balance and include image, speech, music, and a whole other
array of forms (a short list: dance, pantomime, comedia dela arte),
but if they're used just for the sake of being used, their own purpose
and inclusion is meaningless, and negates/downgrades their merit on
their own terms. Music has to be used/understood as an essential
but fragile (if used improperly) individual work that can serve as
a seperate character to add to our emotional and analytical involvment
into the themes and other personages on view and on the auditory.
Leone understood this, Kubrick understood this, Demme understood this,
and of course Hitchcock and Hermann showed us (most brilliantly in
"Vertigo") the neccesity of this; Jimmy Stewart's journey into
projection and involment in his mind's creation of his beloved
female character is aroused/heightened by the various musical
peices that exist seperately from Kim Novack and his sustanance of
vested interest/passion is a lesson to all of music's true calling
in the pictures. Back to Cooder and Hill, it is plain that the former
funtions primarily to add an extra coating to what the latter
displays visually. Problem is, the extra accompanyment usually
borrows heavily from past genre muscial motifs and renders them
in horrible thumpathons of the instruments at hand. "Trespass"
(quite a good Walter Hill picture actually) is a particularly
spot -on example of this. Throughout the movie, the dreary settings
and claustraphobic tension-leading-to violence are backed with uniform
conformity by grungy, provoking, guitar strums (instantly forgetable
on their own these pieces are also become indistinguishable from
the visual action and auditory screaming at hand-- why not forget
the whole thing and have no music like the street shoot out in
Mann's "Heat"?). Though you Blake, and from your words Hill himself
speak of Cooder's "Geronimo" as being a superior score I can't really
see a different practice at hand (just perhaps a better movie
and a more confident directorial conception). As I was saying
before, many of the reprises are standard "Indian entrance"
pieces, which are switched up to even more standard "chavalry
office entrances". Problematicaly, Cooder can not only fail
to transcend the material (or avoid ripping off the majority
of the music we've come to associate with the material), he has
done so with an astonishing ignorance of the symphonic pleasure at
hand in such a task. Too much effort is wasted on the intstrumentalization
of western genre reminder, and none is passed on to providing resonant
distinct pathways to new emotional or narrative-expanding
wieght. Lennie Niehaus's simple themes from "Unforgiven" did
much better (I won't evoke Morricone and Leone; that would be
setting the bar to high), the ponderous/nostalgic guitar melodies
which roused to orchestral heights in the later stages of the movie
acted as a constant reminder of the failed enterprise of William
Mummy the farmer and peaceful family man. When first played on
the beautiful mat-painting like opening image its power was so distinct
that Eastwood could have displayed his epilogue on black with it playing
and the effect would have still been impactful. The sense of utopic
loss in the prefered domesticized Mummy giving way to the violent
catharsis of collective town/civilization evil needed such a beautiful
musical work to make the pain more aching, and the need to return to
the womb (the opening) more resiliant (and its unfullfilment more
painful). Malick had a similairly brilliant trope in "The Thin
Red Line" with his contrast of the Island life and the war.
This is what Cooder and Hill don't give us, or seem to understand.
Music in movies is the contrast, the evocation without relaince on
anything else, and the power and emotional tone to stand on its own
without a role as wallpaper. The mise-en-scene, the editing, the acting,
they are all to be concentrated on fully on their own terms for their
mixing to be given full fruition, and the same goes for the music.
Having said this I realize the that many of todays respected
movies (mainly from Taiwan and Iran) operate mainly without music,
and I by no means wish to chastize them for this, music is not
a necessity (although I prefer it), want I clearly want to portray is that
when it is, it should be given more thought (in both its composing, and
usage in cinema). I'm sorry Blake, I don't think Ry Cooder or
Walter Hill do very good work on that end at all; maybe the former
was good before he went into movies (I don't know), I remember
Jonathan Rosenbaum saying he had a similair problem with Philip Glass
(very good before, no good in the cinema). And I think Milius, who
probably would have gone with Poledouris (who gave us great work
in both "Conan the Barbarian", and Verhoeven's underrated "Starship
Troopers") would have done better on the musical end of
"Geronimo" ; that was, of course, one of the reasons I regretted him not helming
the project, and what kick started at least this topic.





>Obviously I
> like it better than either of those, though wouldn't mind seeing
> "Mohicans" one more time ("Dances" did not stand up well at all
> on second viewing--its portentuousness began to become overwhelming).


I agree with you on "Dance with Wolves", but you should definetly
give "The Last of The Mohicans" another look. Here is undoubtably one of
the most underrated films of the 90s, one the most expressive
evocations of silent cinema of that decade, and probably THE clearest
and most heartening Leone torch-bearer since that master's death.
As far as Michael Mann goes, it's either that or "Heat" as the best.

Mathieu Ricordi
26608  
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 4:09am
Subject: Re: Laughton the actor (Was: Advise and Consent)  lukethedealer12


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> Likewise his casting of
> Laughton, in his very last role. He's having a roaring
> good time and you can sense Preminger enjoying him.
>
Yes, and I'd add that we are all enjoying him, too. He's so flavorful
that you almost feel sorry for the other actors at times, but in fact
they all have their share of nuance and register well. Preminger
really makes this particular ensemble sing, cinematically speaking.

This is really just an aside, but you reminded me of how really
wonderful an actor Laughton was, somewhat obscured now because as
things turned out we kind of all wish he'd been a director based on
his realization of "The Night of the Hunter," which showed he not only
had ideas about cinema and cinematic style--really good ones--but
could understand the "inside" of a story, at least that one, in a very
affecting way.

But his acting range was just so remarkable. It's easy to think of
him as flamboyant (as in "Advise") but some who are can't do anything
else and he could. He's not the first man you'd think of as a McCarey
actor but it's hard to imagine "Ruggles of Red Gap"--one of the
greatest McCareys--without him in the lead. Then there's a special
favorite of mine--"The Suspect" (Siodmak). He's just wonderful in that
--subtle and incredibly sympathetic. One night, looking for something
to watch I pulled out a tape of this, and my wife hadn't seen it, so
I told her just a little including that Laughton played the romantic
lead opposite Ella Raines and added "He sells it." She didn't
disagree and I don't think anyone would.



>
> Yahoo! Mail
> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
> http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
26609  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 2:59am
Subject: Re: Montage or not Montage  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > I am perplexed about recent posts. Where are we, in
> > some kind of 101
> > Film Course? Comparing Preminger and Denis (!) and
> > Eisenstein;
> > and "taking sides"? Isn't it all a bit silly? Of
> > course, if I really
> > knew what you guys are talking about I might feel
> > differently.
>
> Oh come on, J-P. You know perfectly well. It's
> "Montage vs. mise en scene" 2005.
>
> And this is serious discussion in 2005???
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26610  
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 4:15am
Subject: Re: Advise and Consent  cinebklyn


 
hl666 writes:

> And yes, as David says, you are reinventing
the Movie rationale for piting Preminger against
Eisenstein.

Well, I am not trying to start a fight. Having just
watched it again, I am even more impressed.
Preminger's approach drew me into the film
very deeply.

> Time for some retrospectives!

Well, next year is his centenary.

> On the other hand, the vibrant, organic
complexity you are talking about is not what one
can expect from a montage director...unless you
consider, say, Jules and Jim to be an example.

I would have to see it again.

Mike writes:

> Cable TV has been showing a letterboxed
"Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell". This is
unexpectedly riveting.

I felt the same way.

JPC writes:

> Comparing Preminger and Denis (!) and
Eisenstein; and "taking sides"? Isn't it all a
bit silly?

I am not trying to take sides or be silly.
I was merely tryng to share my experience
of "Advise and Consent." And also write
of my continuing puzzlement over Denis. I
am looking forward to Gabe's defense of
her.

Blake writes:

> I couldn't tell from this post for sure, but it
sounds like you were watching "Advise and
Consent" for the first time.

Thanks for the compliment. I had seen it
once before, but I felt like it was the first time.
My brief time on a_f_b has heightened my
awareness and attention to the formal
elements of cinema (and the need to watch
carefully if I am going to post intelligently).

> But editing as a "refinement" is one of
cinema's most powerful tools, and can be the
ultimate telling touch.

In this viewing I focused on Preminger's
ability to know when to begin one of his long
takes, when to move the camera within it,
when to break into it, and when to end it.
For me, editing is the process where the
meaning(s) harvested during shooting is
refined and heightened.

> I remember how mysterious and compelling that
shot of Don Murray stripped to the waist in front
of the mirror was, with wife Inga Swenson near him,
which Brian alluded to.

For me, if that scene had been broken up into
individual shots, the same connections/questions
would (might) have been presented, but what Blake
identifies as "mysterious and compelling" would have
been dissipated. It is as if the formalism of the long
take allows for the meanings Preminger is aware of,
plus those that occur spontaneously simply because
of all that is contained in the shot. My response
arises because of the complexities presented to me.

With montage, the number of meanings is reduced since
montage focuses my attention and emphasizes certain
aspects in a particular order. I feel more directed by the
director (if that makes sense).

> So would anyone like to share favorite Premingers?

Happy to do so (alpha order).

Advise and Consent
Bonjour Tristesse
Bunny Lake is Missing
Daisy Kenyon
Laura
The Cardinal

Brian
26611  
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 4:28am
Subject: Re: Re: Hill and Milius-Now Not So Old (Was:Old, Old Milius Post)  mathieu_ricordi


 
Quoting Blake Lucas :
Hill brought Ry Cooder into
>
> the cinema, a real gift in my opinion--scores for "Long Riders" and
>
> "Southern Comfort" (the Cajun music in the aforementioned climactic
>
> scene) are among their standout elements, beautifully used in the
>
> films. At the discussion, Hill said he felt Cooder surpassed
>
> himself in the "Geronimo" score and talked about exactly what he did
>
> and what the compositional elements were (opposing ones, but I don't
>
> want to try to characterize it if I don't remember exactly what he
>
> said). And I kind of agree. I love the score--it suits the film.




I disagree with you completely on the merits of Ry Cooder and Hill's use
of him. Though I haven't seen "Long Riders", or "Southern Comfort",
the colaborations between the two I have seen have been disaterous
in the soundtrack department. "Geronimo", whose music you speak fondly
of, is a terribly literal rendition of the actions and motifs up on
screen. The cliched Indian and officer reprises are recycled here
for even more minimal effect, given Cooder's inexperience with
orchestral accompaniment (his fair is usually guitar/electrical
pieces). Music, which in my opinion remains the most neglected
piece of most filmmaker's puzzles, is often not thought of in terms
of an art within itself in movies, and is often sprayed all over the place
as filler, or booster to certain effects. The literal backing of what
we see and hear from the characters is often nothing more than
an instrumental exlamation point; loudening and hammering the
reaching of the same senses. This practice is not only a hugely
neglectful one, it is a misunderstanding of what film is when
it strives to be the "all encompassing art form". Yes the medium
can balance and include image, speech, music, and a whole other
array of forms (a short list: dance, pantomime, comedia dela arte),
but if they're used just for the sake of being used, their own purpose
and inclusion is meaningless, and negates/downgrades their merit on
their own terms. Music has to be used/understood as an essential
but fragile (if used improperly) individual work that can serve as
a seperate character to add to our emotional and analytical involvment
into the themes and other personages on view and on the auditory.
Leone understood this, Kubrick understood this, Demme understood this,
and of course Hitchcock and Hermann showed us (most brilliantly in
"Vertigo") the neccesity of this; Jimmy Stewart's journey into
projection and involment in his mind's creation of his beloved
female character is aroused/heightened by the various musical
peices that exist seperately from Kim Novack and his sustanance of
vested interest/passion is a lesson to all of music's true calling
in the pictures. Back to Cooder and Hill, it is plain that the former
funtions primarily to add an extra coating to what the latter
displays visually. Problem is, the extra accompanyment usually
borrows heavily from past genre muscial motifs and renders them
in horrible thumpathons of the instruments at hand. "Trespass"
(quite a good Walter Hill picture actually) is a particularly
spot -on example of this. Throughout the movie, the dreary settings
and claustraphobic tension-leading-to violence are backed with uniform
conformity by grungy, provoking, guitar strums (instantly forgetable
on their own these pieces are also become indistinguishable from
the visual action and auditory screaming at hand-- why not forget
the whole thing and have no music like the street shoot out in
Mann's "Heat"?). Though you Blake, and from your words Hill himself
speak of Cooder's "Geronimo" as being a superior score I can't really
see a different practice at hand (just perhaps a better movie
and a more confident directorial conception). As I was saying
before, many of the reprises are standard "Indian entrance"
pieces, which are switched up to even more standard "chavalry
office entrances". Problematicaly, Cooder can not only fail
to transcend the material (or avoid ripping off the majority
of the music we've come to associate with the material), he has
done so with an astonishing ignorance of the symphonic pleasure at
hand in such a task. Too much effort is wasted on the intstrumentalization
of western genre reminder, and none is passed on to providing resonant
distinct pathways to new emotional or narrative-expanding
wieght. Lennie Niehaus's simple themes from "Unforgiven" did
much better (I won't evoke Morricone and Leone; that would be
setting the bar to high), the ponderous/nostalgic guitar melodies
which roused to orchestral heights in the later stages of the movie
acted as a constant reminder of the failed enterprise of William
Mummy the farmer and peaceful family man. When first played on
the beautiful mat-painting like opening image its power was so distinct
that Eastwood could have displayed his epilogue on black with it playing
and the effect would have still been impactful. The sense of utopic
loss in the prefered domesticized Mummy giving way to the violent
catharsis of collective town/civilization evil needed such a beautiful
musical work to make the pain more aching, and the need to return to
the womb (the opening) more resiliant (and its unfullfilment more
painful). Malick had a similairly brilliant trope in "The Thin
Red Line" with his contrast of the Island life and the war.
This is what Cooder and Hill don't give us, or seem to understand.
Music in movies is the contrast, the evocation without relaince on
anything else, and the power and emotional tone to stand on its own
without a role as wallpaper. The mise-en-scene, the editing, the acting,
they are all to be concentrated on fully on their own terms for their
mixing to be given full fruition, and the same goes for the music.
Having said this I realize the that many of todays respected
movies (mainly from Taiwan and Iran) operate mainly without music,
and I by no means wish to chastize them for this, music is not
a necessity (although I prefer it), want I clearly want to portray is that
when it is, it should be given more thought (in both its composing, and
usage in cinema). I'm sorry Blake, I don't think Ry Cooder or
Walter Hill do very good work on that end at all; maybe the former
was good before he went into movies (I don't know), I remember
Jonathan Rosenbaum saying he had a similair problem with Philip Glass
(very good before, no good in the cinema). And I think Milius, who
probably would have gone with Poledouris (who gave us great work
in both "Conan the Barbarian", and Verhoeven's underrated "Starship
Troopers") would have done better on the musical end of
"Geronimo" ; that was, of course, one of the reasons I regretted him not helming
the project, and what kick started at least this topic.





>Obviously I
> like it better than either of those, though wouldn't mind seeing
> "Mohicans" one more time ("Dances" did not stand up well at all
> on second viewing--its portentuousness began to become overwhelming).


I agree with you on "Dance with Wolves", but you should definetly
give "The Last of The Mohicans" another look. Here is undoubtably one of
the most underrated films of the 90s, one the most expressive
evocations of silent cinema of that decade, and probably THE clearest
and most heartening Leone torch-bearer since that master's death.
As far as Michael Mann goes, it's either that or "Heat" as the best.

Mathieu Ricordi
26612  
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 5:10am
Subject: Re: Montage or not Montage  lukethedealer12


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > I am perplexed about recent posts. Where are we, in
> > some kind of 101
> > Film Course? Comparing Preminger and Denis (!) and
> > Eisenstein;
> > and "taking sides"? Isn't it all a bit silly? Of
> > course, if I really
> > knew what you guys are talking about I might feel
> > differently.
>
> Oh come on, J-P. You know perfectly well. It's
> "Montage vs. mise en scene" 2005.
>
I hope you are kind of kidding on the square, David, because to me
that's apt.

J-P, you're right about comparing those directors and "taking sides"
of course. They all arguably have a place along with countless
other filmmakers. But otherwise, what you say is just a little
blase. This montage/mise-en-scene argument is at the heart of any
discussion of cinema and always will be, for any number of
reasons, and I'll just briefly allude to at least one.

What people are often attracted to in someone like Preminger (and
other long take directors) is that he respects them. He trusts that
they can determine how to invest their minds, emotions, and aesthetic
responses without being manipulated (even whipped into a frenzy, as
some directorial stylists like to do). That doesn't mean he's cold,
and I feel a lot of emotion and drama in the Preminger films I cited
and the ones you cited and Dan as well. But I like his trusting my
response and my discernment.

Where some long take aficionados made a mistake (maybe including me,
at least briefly) is in scorning editing and those fluent with it as
always lesser. For one thing, some great directors have wrestled
theoretically with this question in their bodies of work, moving
from one idea to another, or have been able to embrace different
points of view non-exclusively at different times. So Hitchcock
made "Rope" and "Under Capricorn"--but I don't think he was
rejecting all he had learned about editing and "montage" in films
he'd made before, characteristically masterful films at that, just
expanding his aesthetic consciousness to learn to more deeply enrich
individual shots, no matter how short or long, and this is felt at
times when he returns to a more familiar style, but one now
inflected differently. And a really dramatic example occurs with
Alain Resnais, who no long take enthusiast should dream of
rejecting, though "Muriel" has no long takes at all--the shots are
all very short but very rich--and "Je t'aime, je t'aime" is similar
except that there is moment when the protagonist's whole experience
comes together for him and there is a long sustained close shot of
Claude Rich which is incredibly moving. The work of a director who
is a master cutter, yet these two Resnais movies are my favorites,
especially "Je t'aime..." The twist is that this auteur, renowned
for editing and editing rhythms, wound up being the only guy around
in "Pas sur la bouche" who can still do long takes with an easy
grace and no self-consciousness.

I do think we will always have lessons to learn from this dialectic,
and shouldn't be blase about them. The right edit is the ultimate
touch, I'm now convinced. I was watching a Mizoguchi once--it was
"My Love Lies Burning." A great long take guy, right, and there was
a very dramatic long scene, all one take with two women and many
subtle, graceful little camera moves, but at a certain point in
their interaction, when they were very near each other, he cut, and
the effect was very powerful. There was an emotional shift one
could feel. This in fact happens in the moments I love most in
movies--Hallie and Linc at the burnt-out home in "The Man Who Shot
Liberty Valance" where Ford cuts to a lower angle of the same shot
at a certain moment in the dialogue as the "Ann Rutledge" theme
begins to play, or (because I don't just like old masters--this is
another director's first film), the moment when Bowie gives Keechie
the watch in "They Live by Night" (Nicholas Ray)--Ray cuts just as
Harline's score (absent for the first third of the film after the
opening) begins to take melodic hold, finding an image of a Keechie,
formerly so guarded and reserved, suddenly glowing. Again, the
perfectly placed cut, combined with the acting, the camera angle and
the music. It's just ineffable. It will make you love the cinema
all over again.

Editing is like camera movement (and enough other members have
observed lately that so many young directors move the camera just
because they can--you can hear them thinking "I'm doing a tracking
shot, just like Max Ophuls"--only it's not), lighting, choreographic
staging (well, don't look for much of that these days). They're
tools, part of the language that was always there. And tools can
be abused. To me, they tend to be abused when someone wants to beat
you over the head, rather than treat you as a responsive viewer who
doesn't need to have his or her emotions cheaply manipulated.

In my college days, JPC, a friend of mine and I went out one day to
buy some jazz records and came home with an Art Farmer, with Jim
Hall on guitar (it was "Interaction"}, and as we listened to this
group's beautiful rendition of "Embraceable You," my friend said
something I'll never forget. He said "Farmer kind of makes you come
to him."

I think of that sometimes when I see a movie, a Jacques Tourneur,
for example. It could be said of Naruse, too. It might be said of
Becker. And certainly of Preminger.

Blake




>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26613  
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 5:30am
Subject: Re: Advise and Consent  tharpa2002


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

wrote:


"With montage, the number of meanings is reduced since montage
focuses my attention and emphasizes certain aspects in a particular
order. I feel more directed by the director (if that makes sense)."

In his description of "Genroku Chushingura" Noel Burch makes a
convincing case for Mizoguchi's long takes as making a ceremonial
commentary on the principles of montage. In "Oyu sama"/"Miss Oyu" he
substitutes re-framing for cutting wherever the story allows for it.
By contrast Preminger dosen't move his camera very much and gets the
same effect through his compositions; it's especially impressive in
his 'scope films.

Richard
26614  
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 4:13am
Subject: Favorite Preminger films  nzkpzq


 
My favorite Preminger films, so far:

Laura
A Royal Scandal
Fallen Angel
Daisy Kenyon
Whirlpool
Where the Sidewalk Ends
River of No Return
The Court-Martial of Billy Mitchell
The Man With the Golden Arm
The Cardinal
Bunny Lake is Missing
Such Good Friends

Have to hold my fire on "Advise and Consent" and "Bonjour Tristesse" which
have only seen in pan-and-scan on TV and a long time ago.

Mike Grost
26615  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 8:28am
Subject: Re: Laughton the actor (Was: Advise and Consent)  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:

> I told her just a little including that Laughton played the romantic
> lead opposite Ella Raines and added "He sells it." She didn't
> disagree and I don't think anyone would.

I'm a terrible actor, but I could play the romantic lead opposite Ella
Raines and make you buy it. The question is, would she?
26616  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 8:37am
Subject: Re: Montage or not Montage  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:

The right edit is the ultimate
> touch, I'm now convinced. I was watching a Mizoguchi once--

Tag's piece on Mizoguchi at Senses (hope I got that right this time)
is very good on his editing. Ford certainly used all the tools,
including editing - he was self-conscious enough about it to "jump
the line" when it felt right for the scene.

so many young directors move the camera just
> because they can--you can hear them thinking "I'm doing a tracking
> shot, just like Max Ophuls"--only it's not

Sadly, they're thinking of Spielberg. They never heard of Ophuls.
That's why the moves don't mean anything.

A great cut in Beau Travail is the last one, from Lavant to his
credit.
26617  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 8:46am
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> My favorite Preminger films, so far:
>
> Laura
> A Royal Scandal

A Royal Scandal? I prefer Centennial Summer, but it's not on my
favorites list.

OK,

Daisy Kenyon
Angel Face
Advise and Consent
The Cardinal
Bunny Lake Is Missing
Such Good Friends

...and pretty much in that order, strangely enough. A word on behalf
of Mike Schlesinger, who isn't with us: Advise and Consent is his
favorite film of all time.
26618  
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 7:13am
Subject: Preminger and Narration; Resnais, Denis  nzkpzq


 
At the risk of stating the obvious:
Many of Preminger's personal projects have scripts constructed on sustained,
deeply explored ambiguities.
Fallen Angel: Is Dana Andrews a no good crook - or is he a rather decent man
who has fallen into bad ways? Is Andrews in love with Linda Darnell, or Alice
Faye?
Daisy Kenyon: Will Joan Crawford wind up with Henry Fonda or Dana Andrews? Is
Andrews a bad person (manipulative with women adulterer, arrogant rich man?)
Or a good one (good father, works to help Nisei uprooted during World War II)?
Whirlpool: The heroine's complex relations with both the hypnotist and her
hisbamd.
Anatomy of a Murder: Was the heroine raped - or did she lie to cover up sex?
Is the killer a cold blooded murderer - or the defender of his wife's honor?

One could site many other examples. Preminger goes after all of these points
with enermous complexity. It affects his deep characterization: we see these
characters' complex inner lives, and the way they are torn in two directions.
It affects their relationships, such as the ever depening tangle of relations
among the trio in Daisy Kenyon. And it certainly has to do with the plots of
the movies, which can be dazzlingly complex (see Fallen Angel, or Where the
Sidewalk Ends).
All of these factors, plot, characterization, character relationships, can be
considered part of Narration. Narration is terribly important to Preminger.
Narration is not Preminger's only interest. He has astonishing visual style.
Fallen Angel has some of the most complex and imaginative camera movements in
the history of the cinema. These movements are deeply interwoven into the
structure of Fallen Angel, including all the narrative elements. I wish I could
offer a deeper analysis, but have not done the hard work here...
Still, the above point of view on Preminger's films sees narration as a key
portion of Preminger's art.
It is in oppoistion, to a much expressed viewpoint on a_film_by: that
narration in cinema is unimportant, a mere peg on which the director hangs
mise-en-scene. This is a poor desription, IMHO, of Preminger or Hitchcock or Lang, or
most of the filmmakers in Sarris' "The American Cinema".
A couple of other points. In Claire Denis' recent work, narration is much
less significant. We learn little about the individual soldiers in "Beau
Travail", for instance. Their collective experience of military discipline is
important, but this is more "content" than story, characterization or relationships.
The film is also full of beautiful and well composed imagery - visual style.
Similarly in "Vendredi soir", we learn vastly less about the characters than we
do in "Daisy Kenyon", for example. The two lovers seem almost like anonymous
beings. Once again, there is some beautiful photography of Paris in the evening.
This is not because Denis is a montage director. Counterexample: Resnais is a
montage director, but his films are full of the most complex narrative
elements.

Mike Grost
26619  
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 7:19am
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  nzkpzq


 
In a message dated 05-05-07 04:47:25 EDT, Bill Krohn writes:

<< A Royal Scandal? I prefer Centennial Summer, but it's not on my favorites
list.
>>

Have never had a chance to see Centennial Summer. (:
Admittedly, A Royal Scandal is not a film at the very high level of Fallen
Angel or Bunny Lake. But was surprised when seeing it in TV recently how much
fun it was, and how well crafted.
It's like in Cukor: "Tarnished Lady" and "Our Betters" are both terrific
viewing experiences, even though no one ever seems to talk about them...

Mike Grost
26620  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 0:26pm
Subject: ROSEBUD (was Re: Advise and Consent)  thebradstevens


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

> An historic reminder: this group was formed because someone on
> another list was ragging on Preminger in a very dismissive way. The
> film was Rosebud, but the principle is what matters.

The specific example matters as well. Although it has its problems
(the treatment of the Palestinians is straight out of DRUMS ALONG THE
MOHAWK, with Richard Attenborough in the John Carradine role),
ROSEBUD remains one of my favorite Premingers - though I should add
that the film doesn't work at all when seen via panned-and-scanned
television transfers. When viewed in its full Panavision ratio, it
becomes clear just how brilliantly Preminger was using the widescreen
frame as a democratic space, allowing both sides of the argument
equal space within the composition.
26621  
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 0:25pm
Subject: Olaf Moeller  noelbotevera


 
Anyone know his latest email? He doesn't seem to be answering his
previous one (if it's his previous one).

Email me at noelbotevera@... if you can, thanks.
26622  
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 1:04pm
Subject: Muriel (Was: Montage or not Montage)  sallitt1


 
> And a really dramatic example occurs with
> Alain Resnais, who no long take enthusiast should dream of
> rejecting, though "Muriel" has no long takes at all--the shots are
> all very short but very rich

MURIEL ends, memorably, with a shot that's all about not breaking up the
space: the track through the empty house. - Dan
26623  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 1:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: Advise and Consent  cellar47


 
--- jpcoursodon wrote:

>
> To me "Anatomy of a Murder" does dominate, and
> then "Advise"
> and "Laura" but it's hard to distinguish between the
> early Fox
> stuff -- Whirpool, Fallen Angel, Daisy Kenyon, Where
> the Sidewalk
> Ends -- all major pieces. Then, in spite of
> everything, "Bunny Lake"
> and "Human Factor". I disliked all the rest of the
> late stuff, which
> probably disqualifies me as a true auteurist.

Well I'm sure you're not as disqualified as I am. I
agree that "Anatomy of a Murder" is on top, closely
followed by "Carmen Jones," "Bonjour Tristesse,"
"Laura," "Daisy Kenyon," and "Where the Sidewalk
Ends." Then "Advise and Consent," "Bunny Lake is
Missing" and (brace yourselves, folks) "Skidoo."




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
26624  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 1:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: Montage or not Montage  cellar47


 
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
And a really dramatic
> example occurs with
> Alain Resnais, who no long take enthusiast should
> dream of
> rejecting, though "Muriel" has no long takes at
> all--the shots are
> all very short but very rich--and "Je t'aime, je
> t'aime" is similar
> except that there is moment when the protagonist's
> whole experience
> comes together for him and there is a long sustained
> close shot of
> Claude Rich which is incredibly moving. The work of
> a director who
> is a master cutter, yet these two Resnais movies are
> my favorites,
> especially "Je t'aime..." The twist is that this
> auteur, renowned
> for editing and editing rhythms, wound up being the
> only guy around
> in "Pas sur la bouche" who can still do long takes
> with an easy
> grace and no self-consciousness.
>

Oh it was before that. Resnias gets into the long take
bigtime with "Melo" and "Smoking/No Smoking." But
having acquired a DVD of "Muriel" I suggest you take a
look again. The opening is one of the most devestating
in all of cinema in that it's composed of an
incredible number of short close-ups while a seemingly
straightforward dialogue between two characters takes
place. It so keys viewers up that they expectmore of
the same throughout the film. Yet there are a number
of somewhat lengthy takes in "Muriel" and at the end a
real marathon last shot that's right out of Hitchcock.



Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
26625  
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 1:30pm
Subject: Cukor (Was: Favorite Preminger films)  sallitt1


 
> It's like in Cukor: "Tarnished Lady" and "Our Betters" are both terrific
> viewing experiences, even though no one ever seems to talk about them...

I'm with you on TARNISHED LADY - quite a nice film. From that period, THE
ROYAL FAMILY OF BROADWAY is even better, I think. - Dan
26626  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 2:18pm
Subject: Re: Cukor (Was: Favorite Preminger films)  cellar47


 
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:

>
> I'm with you on TARNISHED LADY - quite a nice film.
> From that period, THE
> ROYAL FAMILY OF BROADWAY is even better, I think. -
>

And I quite like "Rockabye" and "Girls About Town" --
which Howard and Roger screened as a double feature in
their apartment in New York a goodly number of years
ago.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26627  
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 11:00am
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  scil1973


 
Fave Premingers (in preferential order):

ANGEL FACE
THE HUMAN FACTOR
BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING
DAISY KENYON
FALLEN ANGEL
SKIDOO! (I thought this had an exclamation point...wrong?)
SUCH GOOD FRIENDS

Worst:
HURRY SUNDOWN

Admire but have never really warmed to:
ANATOMY OF A MURDER

Kevin John
26628  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 5:45pm
Subject: ROSEBUD (was Re: Advise and Consent)  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> ROSEBUD remains one of my favorite Premingers - though I should add
> that the film doesn't work at all when seen via panned-and-scanned
> television transfers. When viewed in its full Panavision ratio, it
> becomes clear just how brilliantly Preminger was using the widescreen
> frame as a democratic space, allowing both sides of the argument
> equal space within the composition.

Good point - I loved it when it was released. The use of screens within
the screen is part of what you see as the democratic use of space. I
see it another way, as the dissolution of the classic Preminger frame
by the chaos it had always contained, but secretly yearned to succumb
to. I think late Preminger is about that temptation - the temptation to
simply show the incompatable, contradictory elements that the classical
Preminger film contained and mastered, or seemed to.

That's why my list of faves is broken down by periods - he had three
distinct ones, and the last one is as important as the first two. For a
long time the middle period was disdained by people who thought he
should have gone on making programmers. The period that begins, really,
with In Harm's Way, a kind of transitional film, has yet to get its
due, and probably never will.
26629  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 5:48pm
Subject: Re: Cukor (Was: Favorite Preminger films)  hotlove666


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

> And I quite like "Rockabye" and "Girls About Town" --
> which Howard and Roger screened as a double feature in
> their apartment in New York a goodly number of years
> ago.

I was there, and I thought back to it when I was walking out of Secret
Things in the middle.
26630  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 5:48pm
Subject: Re: Cukor (Was: Favorite Preminger films)  hotlove666


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

> And I quite like "Rockabye" and "Girls About Town" --
> which Howard and Roger screened as a double feature in
> their apartment in New York a goodly number of years
> ago.

I was there, and I thought back to it when I was walking out of Secret
Things in the middle.
26631  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 5:51pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Fave Premingers (in preferential order):
>

> SKIDOO!

Skidoo! has a small, not very vocal cult - not very vocal because most
of the people in it have severe brain damage. I'm one of the lucky ones
who can still form sentences - I love it.

And I loathe Anatomy of a Murder.
26632  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 6:00pm
Subject: Re: Preminger and Narration; Resnais, Denis  hotlove666


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

> All of these factors, plot, characterization, character
relationships, can be
> considered part of Narration. Narration is terribly important to
Preminger.
> Narration is not Preminger's only interest. He has astonishing visual
style.

Jim McBride, who is a big Preminger fan - I last saw him in Eddie
Brandt's looking for a tape of Such Good Friends - taught me that
Preminger's visual style is a storytelling technique, not a
philosphical statement about the nature of the universe. The camera
movement, the long takes, the constant reframing that goes on during
one of those shots all serve the narrative, unlike the meaningless
camera movement that's common today. He should really be shown in film
schools as an example of how to use camera movement to tell a
story...unobtrusively. Because while we admire the long takes in In
Harm's Way as art objects in their own right, a lot of people just
follow the tale, which he is a master at unfolding.
26633  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 6:18pm
Subject: Re: Re: Favorite Preminger films  cellar47


 
--- hotlove666 wrote:

>
> Skidoo! has a small, not very vocal cult - not very
> vocal because most
> of the people in it have severe brain damage. I'm
> one of the lucky ones
> who can still form sentences - I love it.
>

A rather important passage of my boyfriend Bil''s
memoir "Early Plastic" (available on e-bay)concerns
"Skidoo," as he was living in John Phillip Law's
basement during its shooting. It was there he had the
Ultimate 60's Experience, as Barbara Parkins (who was
Law's girlfriend at the time) talked Bill down from a
bad acid trip.


> And I loathe Anatomy of a Murder.
>

Now THAT I don't understand.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
26634  
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 6:24pm
Subject: Preminger and Editing  joe_mcelhaney


 
The montage/mise-en-scŤne distinctions being set up here over the
last few posts strike me as being, if not false, at least
exaggerated. I would, in fact, go even further than Bill and argue
that MOST directors we discuss primarily in terms of mise-en-scŤne
(Preminger, Ophuls, Mizoguchi, Sternberg, Sirk, Minnelli, etc., etc.)
need to be much more fully assessed in relation to their editing
procedures. How does the cutting we find in their films determine
the meanings which seemingly arise out of the mise-en-scŤne? I am
not entirely certain that Blake's ideal of editing as something which
refines what was already present at the shooting stage takes us far
enough since that may still leave us locked within a Bazinian/MOVIE
ideal of the indexical power of the pro-filmic, obscuring the reality
of how such moments are being more controlled through cutting than we
may be willing to admit.

I'll confine my example to Preminger since his name is the one that
has recently been brought up. Like virtually all of you, I am
dazzled by his long take staging ideas, the elaborate blocking of
action, and his fluid camera movements. However, editing remains
absolutely central to the ways in which we respond to the individual
shots, however long and elaborate certain takes may be. (Although we
should also remember that a number of major Preminger films Ė Angel
Face, Bonjour Tristesse, Anatomy of a Murder, etc. Ė do not rely
primarily upon long takes or even especially elaborate camera
movements.) Carmen Jones has some of the most impressive widescreen
and long take staging ideas of any Preminger film. But the film
strikes me as being almost as impressive through the ways in which
Preminger cuts. The song on the jeep, for example, has already been
analyzed by David Bordwell (in Velvet Light Trap) in terms of the
editing and how Preminger bases virtually all of his cuts in this
song on some kind of strong graphic contrast from one shot to
another, the CinemaScope frame repeatedly closing down and opening up
through a combination of the cuts and the movement within the frame.
Another musical number is equally impressive, even though it has only
one cut: Whizzin' Away Along the Track. Preminger's camera for the
first half of the number is largely immobile, as it films Dandridge
and company at the bar, the bulk of the movement within the frame
occurring through the supporting players moving around a static
Dandridge and in a composition which spreads all of the players
horizontally across the `Scope image. But halfway through the number
a cut occurs as Dandridge gets up from the bar. Rather than a
reverse angle cut, we get a medium long shot taken from the middle of
the floor of the cafť which unexpectedly pushes the performers at the
bar to the far right of the frame, the bar now moving deeply within
the frame rather than horizontally spread across it. It is as at once
a continuity cut in that Dandridge's actions "match" from one shot to
another; but it is also boldly disjunctive in the sense of graphic
contrast. We feel the weight of this single, dynamic cut very
strongly in a sequence otherwise marked by long takes and complex
staging.

Referring to a cut like this or the ones on the jeep as a refinement
of what was taking place during the shooting feels inadequate to me
since such cuts clearly depend upon a strong degree of pre-
conception. Editing of the so-called continuity style remains
seriously underappreciated and under-analyzed, too often treated as
something self-explanatory and transparent; or as a supplement, at
best, to the act of filming. I think we need to get much closer to
the editing within these films, to become more precise in our
vocabulary and our descriptions of how such films join one shot with
another.
26635  
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 6:52pm
Subject: Re: Montage or not Montage  lukethedealer12


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
> wrote:
>
>
> so many young directors move the camera just
> > because they can--you can hear them thinking "I'm doing a tracking
> > shot, just like Max Ophuls"--only it's not
>
> Sadly, they're thinking of Spielberg. They never heard of Ophuls.
> That's why the moves don't mean anything.
>
Reading your response and thinking about it, you are plainly right,
at least in most cases. Why would I think they were thinking of
Ophuls? I don't know. Maybe because I think of him as a master
of the moving camera and so do most of the people I talk to about
movies.

The real question is, who is Spielberg thinking of with all his own
meaningless camera moves? Or is just his "no one commands the cinema
like I do" attitude?
26636  
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 7:14pm
Subject: Re: Montage or not Montage  lukethedealer12


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Oh it was before that. Resnias gets into the long take
> bigtime with "Melo" and "Smoking/No Smoking." But
> having acquired a DVD of "Muriel" I suggest you take a
> look again. The opening is one of the most devestating
> in all of cinema in that it's composed of an
> incredible number of short close-ups while a seemingly
> straightforward dialogue between two characters takes
> place. It so keys viewers up that they expectmore of
> the same throughout the film. Yet there are a number
> of somewhat lengthy takes in "Muriel" and at the end a
> real marathon last shot that's right out of Hitchcock.
>
Dan also mentioned the last shot of "Muriel." I don't know how I
could have forgotten it except it's been awhile--it came back the
minute he recalled it. But this actually does support what I was
saying, as with the Claude Rich shot in "Je t'aime...", of availaing
oneself of one cinematic strategy in counterpoint to another--
something Resnais and other great filmmakers understand very well.
The guiding aesthetic of "Muriel" is those brief shots, which makes
the ending more effective, just as by contrast, an effective cut in
a long take, as in the Mizoguchi scene I described before.

With "Pas sur la bouche" I was just cutting to the chase, so to
speak. I am aware of his style evolving in that direction bigtime
long before, having been quite entranced by "Melo." But woe is me,
I did not get to "Smoking/No Smoking" and haven't seen that yet,
so something to look forward.
>

> Yahoo! Mail
> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
> http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
26637  
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 7:16pm
Subject: Re: Cukor (Was: Favorite Preminger films)  lukethedealer12


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > It's like in Cukor: "Tarnished Lady" and "Our Betters" are both
terrific
> > viewing experiences, even though no one ever seems to talk about
them...
>
> I'm with you on TARNISHED LADY - quite a nice film. From that
period, THE
> ROYAL FAMILY OF BROADWAY is even better, I think. - Dan

The one I've always wanted to see that has so far eluded me is GIRLS
ABOUT TOWN. Anyone know of its availability? Any opinions about it?
26638  
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 7:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cukor (Was: Favorite Preminger films)  sallitt1


 
> The one I've always wanted to see that has so far eluded me is GIRLS
> ABOUT TOWN. Anyone know of its availability? Any opinions about it?

It's playing here in NYC on June 26. I remember thinking it was nice, not
as good as the two I mentioned earlier, but definitely better than GRUMPY
and VIRTUOUS SIN. There's a 35mm print at the UCLA Archives. - Dan
26639  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 9:22pm
Subject: Spike Lee and Preminger (Was Re: Preminger and Narration; Resnais, Denis  thebradstevens


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

> Jim McBride, who is a big Preminger fan - I last saw him in Eddie
> Brandt's looking for a tape of Such Good Friends

Did he find it?

- taught me that
> Preminger's visual style is a storytelling technique, not a
> philosphical statement about the nature of the universe. The camera
> movement, the long takes, the constant reframing that goes on
during
> one of those shots all serve the narrative, unlike the meaningless
> camera movement that's common today. He should really be shown in
film
> schools as an example of how to use camera movement to tell a
> story...unobtrusively. Because while we admire the long takes in In
> Harm's Way as art objects in their own right, a lot of people just
> follow the tale, which he is a master at unfolding.

But I think it's worth noting that the closest thing we have to a
contemporary Otto Preminger is Spike Lee, whose camera technique is
seldom invisible. Neverthless, his best films (DO THE RIGHT THING,
JUNGLE FEVER, SUMMER OF SAM, THE 25TH HOUR) clearly derive from
Preminger's own experiments in multi-character narrative and
democratic mise en scene.
26640  
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 9:27pm
Subject: Re: Preminger and Editing  lukethedealer12


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
>
>
> Referring to a cut like this or the ones on the jeep as a
refinement
> of what was taking place during the shooting feels inadequate to
me
> since such cuts clearly depend upon a strong degree of pre-
> conception. Editing of the so-called continuity style remains
> seriously underappreciated and under-analyzed, too often treated
as
> something self-explanatory and transparent; or as a supplement, at
> best, to the act of filming. I think we need to get much closer
to
> the editing within these films, to become more precise in our
> vocabulary and our descriptions of how such films join one shot
with
> another.

First, thanks for being one of the ones to take this discussion in
the direction I wanted to see it go through all of this absorbing
post. My name was mentioned in passing (editing as the
ultimate "refinement" of mise-en-scene) so I just want to add I hope
you don't think I am on the opposite side of what you're saying.
Part of my purpose in my post 26612 was to reclaim "montage"
for "mise-en-scene" directors, to suggest that though the argument
about these concepts is real, the oppositions are false and have in
the past been subject to too much of the kind of simplification you
suggest. My Mizoguchi example was meant to make the same point as
your "Carmen Jones" one, though I acknowledge that you did it
better, with all the specifics at hand (I based mine on memory of a
Mizoguchi I haven't seen for maybe 25 years, but remembered the
importance of the sequence, the two women, the long take, and very
beautifully considered placement of the cut, but kind of wish I had
all the details of the sequence to deepen the argument). However, I
was more specific about the Ford and Ray examples and I thought it
was clear I didn't consider any of these cuts to be "refinements" in
the editing, just because I cited them as an ultimate touch in the
mise-en-scene. To me, it's clear that the sequences were planned
and filmed with these precise cuts in mind. I especially have no
doubt of this in the case of Ford (actually, I don't with Ray
either, as the watch sequence is one of the most beautifully thought
out ever and plainly meant to be central, as confirmed by a
conscious decision to start bringing back Harline's tender score
within it). Ford cut in the camera and is famous for this, and to
me, of course, he is the ideal director. The fact that he cut in
the camera shows me this element is as important to him as any
other, but we don't think of him as a montage director--even if
someone may have once upon a time. And I brought in Resnais and
Hitchcock specifically because they have shown at different times
mastery of both long takes and "montage." It does not seem possible
to me to effectively discuss either of those directors, for example,
in either/or terms. But more importantly, it is a mistake to
generalize too much about any director's aesthetic, as it may (and
in fact will) keep us from addressing what may at times be most
important in a given film.

Like you, I'd like to just get more specific with Preminger, partly
because as you say, he's getting some attention here right now and
everyone likes him, but also because it he is the one who
specifically did the most to free my thinking on the whole issue.
It was in writing a long piece on "The Cardinal" which on repeated
viewings I had come to take deeply to heart (in Magill's 1987,
Retrospectives). First, remember that Sarris encouraged the cliche
with this line in THE AMERICAN CINEMA--"a director who sees all
problems and issues as a single take two-shot, the stylistic
expression of the eternal conflict..." (the rest of his sentence is
consistent.).

In studying "The Cardinal" I found the deepest progression and
meaning of the whole film to be in two sequences involving Stephen
(Tom Tryon) with two different women, his sister Mona (Carol Lynley)
in an early sequence of her coming to Confession to tell him she has
slept with Benny (John Saxon), and one just before the end of the
film, when he has reencountered Anne Marie (Romy Schneider) at a
time of deepest crisis in her life. In the first, he is severe,
judgemental, heartless (and tragedy ultimately results because he is
of no real help to this sister he loves). But in the second, a
mature Stephen (who has learned something about life though it is
has taken the death of his sister to set into the motion that
painful process of maturation) redeems himself in his compassionate,
loving, non-judgemental attitude to Annemarie, which includes
acknowledgement of his own part in her life. These two sequenes are
done in large, alternating closeups (the opposite of the so-called
Preminger aesthetic), effectively linking them (the resonance is
underlined by both visual and dramatic resonances of "Confession" in
the second sequence) and giving them their imposing dramatic quality
in the context of a movie which, in a general way, mostly follows
our expectations of his style. But these sequences are the key, and
if he hadn't broken the "Preminger rule" and done them this way, I
believe understanding of the whole movie would be far more elusive,
because it certainly isn't spelled out in any way. And it is still
possible to see accounts of the film which emphasize its criticisms
of the Catholic Church and do not acknowledge its protagonist's
spiritual journey as the actual subject.

In any event, in more elaborate analysis of the sequence, I found I
had to add this parenthesis "(In theory, Preminger never treats a
sequence this way, though stylistic theory about directors always
breaks down when individual films are analyzed)." And I've always
tried to remember this observation ever since.

Blake
26641  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 10:54pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> > Fave Premingers (in preferential order):
> >
>
> > SKIDOO!
>
> Skidoo! has a small, not very vocal cult - not very vocal because
most
> of the people in it have severe brain damage. I'm one of the lucky
ones
> who can still form sentences - I love it.
>
> And I loathe Anatomy of a Murder.

Could we know why? Was it Daney who loathed it or some other CdC
guru? Or Biette? Not that I'm suggesting you could be influenced.

I saw SKIDOO! only once and hated it. I should watch it again, I
guess, but I'm almost certain nothing you could say about it could
change my mind (I'm pretty sure you love it for the very reasons I
hate it; that's the way these things usually work, isn't it?)

JPC
26642  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 11:01pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> >
> > Skidoo! has a small, not very vocal cult - not very
> > vocal because most
> > of the people in it have severe brain damage. I'm
> > one of the lucky ones
> > who can still form sentences - I love it.
> >
>
> A rather important passage of my boyfriend Bil''s
> memoir "Early Plastic" (available on e-bay)concerns
> "Skidoo," as he was living in John Phillip Law's
> basement during its shooting. It was there he had the
> Ultimate 60's Experience, as Barbara Parkins (who was
> Law's girlfriend at the time) talked Bill down from a
> bad acid trip.


Oh, Bill meant that SKIDOO! should be watched on acid? Hence the
severe brain damage? Maybe it looks hilarious on a double-bill with
INDIA SONG... JPC
>
>
> > And I loathe Anatomy of a Murder.
> >
>
> Now THAT I don't understand.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
26643  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 11:03pm
Subject: Re: Re: Cukor (Was: Favorite Preminger films)  cellar47


 
--- Blake Lucas wrote:

> The one I've always wanted to see that has so far
> eluded me is GIRLS
> ABOUT TOWN. Anyone know of its availability? Any
> opinions about it?
>
>
>

Don't know of its availability but don't miss it. It's
to "The Greeks Had a Word for Them" as "Chicago" is
the "The Front Page."

Charming "racy" 30's stuff with Kay Francis and Lilyan
Tashman out for fun and fortune. In the process the
immortal Eugene Pallette gets his closest crack at a
leading role. His is, needless to say, magnificent.

As is Joel McCrea, as usual.

later derivations of the same basic story include "How
to Marry a Milionaire" and "Sex and the City."



Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
26644  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 11:05pm
Subject: Re: Spike Lee and Preminger (Was Re: Preminger and Narration; Resnais, Denis  cellar47


 
--- thebradstevens wrote:

>
> But I think it's worth noting that the closest thing
> we have to a
> contemporary Otto Preminger is Spike Lee, whose
> camera technique is
> seldom invisible. Neverthless, his best films (DO
> THE RIGHT THING,
> JUNGLE FEVER, SUMMER OF SAM, THE 25TH HOUR) clearly
> derive from
> Preminger's own experiments in multi-character
> narrative and
> democratic mise en scene.
>
>
Speaking of Spike, I've always been fond of "School
Daze." The musical numbers -- particularly "Straight
and Nappy" -- are nothing short of sensational.

Instead of all this ideological heavy lifting what he
SHOULD be doing is an African-American "Give a Girl a Break."



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26645  
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 11:06pm
Subject: Re: Preminger and Narration; Resnais, Denis  cinebklyn


 
hl666 writes:

> Jim McBride, who is a big Preminger fan - I last
saw him in Eddie Brandt's looking for a tape of
Such Good Friends - taught me that Preminger's
visual style is a storytelling technique, not a
philosphical statement about the nature of the
universe.

Two questions:

a) why can't it be both?

b) how did he prove this negative? From my
viewpoint, the evidence is against him. What
is significant is not only the technique, but
the content contained within the technique
and how the technique reinforces the content.

Brian
26646  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 11:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: Favorite Preminger films  cellar47


 
--- jpcoursodon wrote:

>
> I saw SKIDOO! only once and hated it. I should
> watch it again, I
> guess, but I'm almost certain nothing you could say
> about it could
> change my mind (I'm pretty sure you love it for the
> very reasons I
> hate it; that's the way these things usually work,
> isn't it?)
>
When one speaks of "film maudit" they don't come any
more "maudit" than "Skidoo." An attraction to the pure
unadulterated surrealism of a film starring Jackie
Gleason and Carol Channing is a prerequisirte. A love
of Harry Nillsson's songs also helps. After that
there's such delightful pieces of casting as Frankie
Avalon, Cesar Romero, John Philip Law, Groucho Marx
and Donayle Luna.

In his memoir, Bill (Reed) recalls Nico (who was
around at the time) dropping by the house (up on
Miller drive just above Sunset) and chatting with
Donayle "in their mittel-Martian accents."



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26647  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 11:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Favorite Preminger films  cellar47


 
--- jpcoursodon wrote:

Maybe it looks hilarious on a
> double-bill with
> INDIA SONG

Now THERE'S an inspiring notion!



Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
26648  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 11:35pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >
> > I saw SKIDOO! only once and hated it. I should
> > watch it again, I
> > guess, but I'm almost certain nothing you could say
> > about it could
> > change my mind (I'm pretty sure you love it for the
> > very reasons I
> > hate it; that's the way these things usually work,
> > isn't it?)
> >
> When one speaks of "film maudit" they don't come any
> more "maudit" than "Skidoo." An attraction to the pure
> unadulterated surrealism of a film starring Jackie
> Gleason and Carol Channing is a prerequisirte. A love
> of Harry Nillsson's songs also helps. After that
> there's such delightful pieces of casting as Frankie
> Avalon, Cesar Romero, John Philip Law, Groucho Marx
> and Donayle Luna.
>
> In his memoir, Bill (Reed) recalls Nico (who was
> around at the time) dropping by the house (up on
> Miller drive just above Sunset) and chatting with
> Donayle "in their mittel-Martian accents."
>
> Movies that everyone involved had great fun making often turn
out to be real duds. From what you're saying, i guess I forgot to
bring my quote marks with me when I watched that awful mess (at MOMA
no less) so long ago. Maybe at the time I hadn't yet acquired the
sense of "irony' that somehow turns misbegotten trash into pure
delight. JPC
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26649  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 11:46pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Maybe it looks hilarious on a
> > double-bill with
> > INDIA SONG
>
> Now THERE'S an inspiring notion!
>
> What this group needs (beside a good five-cent cigar) is a little
bit more silly fun. But of course that's not proper auteurist
etiquette. JPC
>
>
26650  
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 7:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Favorite Preminger films  scil1973


 
In a message dated 5/7/05 12:52:15 PM, hotlove666@... writes:


>
> Skidoo! has a small, not very vocal cult - not very vocal because most
> of the people in it have severe brain damage. I'm one of the lucky ones
> who can still form sentences - I love it.
>
I find it strikingly representative of his oeuvre and would actually feel
comfortable showing it to a Preminger virgin. I mean, who better than Preminger
to face the counterculture and give it a mise-en-scene of respect? It's really
the lighter side of BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING. And no, you don't have to be on
acid or anything to appreciate it. I myself find most illegal drugs
excruciatingly boring.

Kevin John the Silly


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26651  
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sat May 7, 2005 8:55pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  nzkpzq


 
In a message dated 05-05-07 19:13:46 EDT, David E writes:

<< When one speaks of "film maudit" they don't come any
more "maudit" than "Skidoo." An attraction to the pure
unadulterated surrealism of a film starring Jackie
Gleason and Carol Channing is a prerequisite. >>

Jackie Gleason and Carol Channing were two of my favorite comedians while
growing up. Gleason is still The Great One. The comedy sketches from his American
Scene Magazine TV show should be put out on DVD, so everyone could see them.
Including Crazy Guggenheim and his tales about the S.S.O.T.F.S. and its
numerous subcommittees. Now there's silliness!
Carol Channing was good in Danny Thomas' series of specials paying tribute to
burlesque. At the end of one, she sings "He's Got the Whole World in His
Hands".
Have never had a chance to see "Skidoo!"
How sweet it is!
Mike Grost
26652  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 1:21am
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
>> I find it strikingly representative of his oeuvre and would
actually feel
> comfortable showing it to a Preminger virgin. I mean, who better
than Preminger
> to face the counterculture and give it a mise-en-scene of respect?
It's really
> the lighter side of BUNNY LAKE IS MISSING. And no, you don't have
to be on
> acid or anything to appreciate it. I myself find most illegal
drugs
> excruciatingly boring.
>
> Kevin John the Silly
>

"Two different worlds/We live in two different worlds..."

David will know the tune...

I am really glad I didn't lose my Preminger virginity watching
SKIDOO.

JPC
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26653  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 1:33am
Subject: Re: Re: Favorite Preminger films  cellar47


 
--- jpcoursodon wrote:

>
> "Two different worlds/We live in two different
> worlds..."
>
> David will know the tune...
>


Two different words
We live in two different worlds
For we've been told
That a love like ours
Could never be

So far apart
They say we're so far apart
And that we haven't the right
To change our destiny

When will they learn
That a heart doesn't draw a line
Nothing matters if I am yours
And you are mine

Two different worlds
We live in two different worlds
But we will show them
As we walk together in the sun
That our two different worlds are one

When will they learn
That a heart doesn't draw a line
Nothing matters if I am yours
And you are mine

Two different worlds
We live in two different worlds
But we will show them
As we walk together in the sun
That our two different worlds are one



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26654  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 1:43am
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >
> > "Two different worlds/We live in two different
> > worlds..."
> >
> > David will know the tune...
> >
>
>
> Two different words
> We live in two different worlds
> For we've been told
> That a love like ours
> Could never be
>

David, we really should find two other guys and set up a
barbershop quartet. We'd do "Mr Sandman", of course (the gay version
if you like) or things like: "So this is that kingdom of heaven/So
this is that sweet wonderland..." (to avoid being totally OT, this
has a Tashlin connection). JPC
26655  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 1:45am
Subject: Re: Re: Favorite Preminger films  cellar47


 
--- jpcoursodon wrote:

> >
>
> David, we really should find two other guys and
> set up a
> barbershop quartet. We'd do "Mr Sandman", of course
> (the gay version
> if you like) or things like: "So this is that
> kingdom of heaven/So
> this is that sweet wonderland..." (to avoid being
> totally OT, this
> has a Tashlin connection).

Even more of a Tashlin connection is the fact that my
boyfriend is listening to Julie London even as I post!



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26656  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 1:46am
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  thebradstevens


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

or things like: "So this is that kingdom of heaven/So
> this is that sweet wonderland..." (to avoid being totally OT, this
> has a Tashlin connection).

SUSAN SLEPT HERE, right?
26657  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 2:41am
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > >
> >
> > David, we really should find two other guys and
> > set up a
> > barbershop quartet. We'd do "Mr Sandman", of course
> > (the gay version
> > if you like) or things like: "So this is that
> > kingdom of heaven/So
> > this is that sweet wonderland..." (to avoid being
> > totally OT, this
> > has a Tashlin connection).
>
> Even more of a Tashlin connection is the fact that my
> boyfriend is listening to Julie London even as I post!
>

"You drove me, nearly drove me out of my head
While you never shed a tear.
Remember, I remember all that you said:
Told me love was too plebeian, told me you were through with me!
And now you say you're sorry, well just to prove you do
Go on and cry me a river, just cry me a river
I cried a river over you."

>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26658  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 2:47am
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>
> or things like: "So this is that kingdom of heaven/So
> > this is that sweet wonderland..." (to avoid being totally OT, this
> > has a Tashlin connection).
>
> SUSAN SLEPT HERE, right?

Another cigar!

Actually I think it is "So this is that sweet promised land."

"This is the meaning of what bliss is
For bliss is what your kiss is
At last I understand.
So this is that kingdom of heaven
And here on the threshold we stand
While angles tell of love
Don't break the spell of love
Hold my hand."

Haven't seen the movie or heard the song in at least thirty years
though so correct me if I'm wrong.
26659  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 3:22am
Subject: Spike Lee and Preminger (Was Re: Preminger and Narration; Resnais, Denis  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>
> > Jim McBride, who is a big Preminger fan - I last saw him in Eddie
> > Brandt's looking for a tape of Such Good Friends
>
> Did he find it?

You can find anything there. Yes he did.

> But I think it's worth noting that the closest thing we have to a
> contemporary Otto Preminger is Spike Lee, whose camera technique is
> seldom invisible. Neverthless, his best films (DO THE RIGHT THING,
> JUNGLE FEVER, SUMMER OF SAM, THE 25TH HOUR) clearly derive from
> Preminger's own experiments in multi-character narrative and
> democratic mise en scene.

If we take Preminger's mise en scene as democratic. Lee is
carnavalesque - he likes to see multiple discourses butting heads -
it's a formal thing with political implications. And there may have
been a carnivalist lurking under Otto's dome. Skidoo would certainly
suggest that. I think Lee's influence in this this regard is Godard,
as described by Daney in The T(h)errorized. But you're right that SL
is the only one doing what OP did today in terms of tackling those
big subjects. And perhaps for SL - definitely for OP - the big
subject is just the circus tent. You thinking of doing a Lee book,
The Brad?
26660  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 3:26am
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> > Could we know why? Was it Daney who loathed it or some other CdC
> guru? Or Biette? Not that I'm suggesting you could be influenced.
>
No - Anatomy was one of Daney's favorite films. He identified strongly
with the Stewart character. Actually, it was Michel Mourlet.
26661  
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 3:31am
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jess_l_amortell


 
> SKIDOO! (I thought this had an exclamation point...wrong?)

It's not in the print sources I'm looking at, including the filmography in OP's autobiography (I don't think he mentions the film in the text). Maybe Nilsson sang one in the credits, though?


> An attraction to the pure
> unadulterated surrealism of a film starring Jackie
> Gleason and Carol Channing is a prerequisirte. A love
> of Harry Nillsson's songs also helps. After that
> there's such delightful pieces of casting as Frankie
> Avalon, Cesar Romero, John Philip Law, Groucho Marx
> and Donayle Luna.

I always felt the soul of SKIDOO was Austin Pendleton's sweetheart of a '60s draft resister, arriving in prison with his personal supply of blotter acid (which of course Jackie Gleason unwittingly samples while licking a stamp).


> severe brain damage? Maybe it looks hilarious on a double-bill with
> INDIA SONG...

A sublime double bill would be SKIDOO and THE MODEL SHOP. Both reflected the counterculture, the war and the draft (and both featured Alexandra Hay).


> Preminger's visual style is a storytelling technique, not a > philosphical statement about the nature of the
> universe.

Could it be a philosophical statement about the nature of cinema?
26662  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 3:33am
Subject: Re: Preminger and Narration; Resnais, Denis  hotlove666


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Charles Dauth"
wrote:
> hl666 writes:
>
> > Jim McBride, who is a big Preminger fan - I last
> saw him in Eddie Brandt's looking for a tape of
> Such Good Friends - taught me that Preminger's
> visual style is a storytelling technique, not a
> philosphical statement about the nature of the
> universe.
>
> Two questions:
>
> a) why can't it be both?

It is both - I'm probably putting wors in Jim's mouth, but
metaphysical, moral and political readings of Preminger's long takes
have had so much influence that you'll hear perfectly sane people
saying that he never has villains, etc. Jim's a filmmaker, and what
he admired when we saw In Harm's Way together was the storytelling
technique. But his own films - particularly The Informer - are
Premingerian in the style=meaning way, too.

I think it's best to start from the storytelling technique, because
it will ground what you do when you start making style=meaning
interpretations, and keep you from going off the deep end. By "you" I
mean "one."
26663  
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 3:35am
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  hotlove666


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

> > What this group needs (beside a good five-cent cigar) is a little
> bit more silly fun.

But Skidoo IS silly fun! It's a comedy!
26664  
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 6:18am
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  lukethedealer12


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

> "Two different worlds/We live in two different worlds..."
>
> David will know the tune...

Just a reminder that this is another one Sonny played--it's on his
TOUR DE FORCE with Earl Coleman doing a vocal of the song. Actually,
there are two Coleman vocals (the other is "My Ideal") and according
to the liner notes, drummer Max Roach exclaimed "Sonny's in love."

> I am really glad I didn't lose my Preminger virginity watching
> SKIDOO.
>
> JPC
> >
It's not my favorite of his either, but should we be so dismissive
of a movie that has obviously given so many others so much pleasure?
26665  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 10:41am
Subject: Spike Lee and Preminger (Was Re: Preminger and Narration; Resnais, Denis  thebradstevens


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

> If we take Preminger's mise en scene as democratic. Lee is
> carnavalesque - he likes to see multiple discourses butting heads -
> it's a formal thing with political implications. And there may have
> been a carnivalist lurking under Otto's dome. Skidoo would
certainly
> suggest that. I think Lee's influence in this this regard is
Godard,
> as described by Daney in The T(h)errorized.


Perhaps Preminger influenced this aspect of Godard.

>perhaps for SL - definitely for OP - the big
> subject is just the circus tent.

I recently picked up the UK DVD of ANATOMY OF A MURDER, which
contains a terrific trailer showing Preminger standing in a courtroom
swearing in the cast, and explaining the absence of a jury by
claiming that the film's audience will play the jury. I wonder if
this isn't closer to the truth...and not just for this film.
26666  
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 8:30am
Subject: Anatomy of a Murder  nzkpzq


 
In a message dated 05-05-08 06:41:42 EDT, Brad Stevens writes:

<< a terrific trailer showing Preminger standing in a courtroom swearing in
the cast >>
George C. Scott's clever, articulate prosecutor recalls Rod Steiger's tour de
force as the sinister, brainy government prosecutor in "The Court Martial of
Billy Mitchell".
Even more notable is the way Scott has been sent in from Lansing, the capitol
of the State of Michigan - and my home town. Not Lansing! everyone in the
courtroom mutters.
As one can tell from my posts, all of us Lansing people have razor sharp
analytical skills.
(Lansing really is an intellectual area, and one of the major book buying
regions of the US, according to statistics.)

Mike Grost
26667  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 0:40pm
Subject: Re: Anatomy of a Murder  thebradstevens


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

> As one can tell from my posts, all of us Lansing people have razor
sharp
> analytical skills.

Wahhhllllll ah wouldn't know nothin' 'bout that. Ahm jus' a simple
country film critic.
26668  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 0:57pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > > Could we know why? Was it Daney who loathed it or some other
CdC
> > guru? Or Biette? Not that I'm suggesting you could be influenced.
> >
> No - Anatomy was one of Daney's favorite films. He identified
strongly
> with the Stewart character. Actually, it was Michel Mourlet.

OK, so I got my gurus mixed up, but you still haven't told us why
you loathe the film.
26669  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 1:08pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>
> > > What this group needs (beside a good five-cent cigar) is a
little
> > bit more silly fun.
>
> But Skidoo IS silly fun! It's a comedy!

It's sure silly and it certainly works hard at being a comedy, but
what it isn't is funny. Allow me to quote myself: "Skidoo aimlessly
poked fun at everything and everybody in sight, from gangsters to
hippies and from matrons to playboys, with none of the frantic action
ever seeming to make any point, and the scale of the production only
emphasizing the mirthlessness of the proceedings."What I found so sad
about it was the sorry sight of a great classic director desperately
trying to make a fashionably late-sixties "outrageous " free-wheeling
farce.

The one great thing about Skidoo was the sung end credits. THAT was
silly AND fun!

JPC
26670  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 1:17pm
Subject: Re: Austin Pendleton (Was: Favorite Preminger films)  cellar47


 
--- jess_l_amortell wrote:

>
> I always felt the soul of SKIDOO was Austin
> Pendleton's sweetheart of a '60s draft resister,
> arriving in prison with his personal supply of
> blotter acid (which of course Jackie Gleason
> unwittingly samples while licking a stamp).
>

Austin Pendleton is not only a superb comic character
actor, he's a playwright as well. "Orson's Shadow,"
his play about Welles directing Olivier in a
production of Ionesco's "Rhinocerous" has been very
well recieved. I believe our Jonathan Rosenbaum has
seen it, and knows a lot about Pendleton's work.



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26671  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 1:28pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>
> > "Two different worlds/We live in two different worlds..."
> >
> > David will know the tune...
>
> Just a reminder that this is another one Sonny played--it's on his
> TOUR DE FORCE with Earl Coleman doing a vocal of the song.
Actually,
> there are two Coleman vocals (the other is "My Ideal") and
according
> to the liner notes, drummer Max Roach exclaimed "Sonny's in love."
>


Blake, I don't have that record at this time, but jazz lore
usually attributes this remark to Charlie Parker at the February 19,
1947 session where Coleman sang "This Is Always" (a great song, by
the way). It's the session with Errol Garner that produced the
fantastic "Bird's Nest" and "Cool Blues" -- and Harold Doc West, not
Max Roach, was on drums. There is a fine photograph of Coleman
(reading sheet music) with Bird, West and Dial Records producer Ross
Russell reproduced in Garry Giddins's "Celebrating Bird". JPC

> > I am really glad I didn't lose my Preminger virginity
watching
> > SKIDOO.
> >
> > JPC
> > >
> It's not my favorite of his either, but should we be so dismissive
> of a movie that has obviously given so many others so much
pleasure?

Maybe not. But lots of atrociously bad movies have given countless
millions enormous pleasure. JPC
26672  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 1:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: Favorite Preminger films  cellar47


 
--- jpcoursodon wrote:

>
> The one great thing about Skidoo was the sung end
> credits. THAT was
> silly AND fun!

Harry Nilsson was an incredible talent. He never
performed publically. Ever. Stagefright was crippling
for him. But his songs, and his voice, rang over such
diverse filsm as "Midnight Cowboy"and "Popeye."
There's a Marianne Faithfull concert you can get on
DVD (and each and every last one of you should) in
which she talks about her friendship with Harry
Nilsson and the huge amount ofdrugs they enjoyed
taking together. "Not any of this airy-fairy stuff --
real drugs." Finally she decided to quit, or as she
put it "begin to think about a life without drugs."
Her success inspired Harry who decided to quit only to
discover that his ltestmanager had run off with his
money, and that his teeth had gone bad. He died in a
dentist's office from improperly administered
anaesthetic. And then to top things off his body
vanished -- presumably into the earth -- during the
last big California quake, decimating the Funeral home
where it had been placed.

A sad, bit rather spectacular end to the life of the
man responsible for the immortal refrain

"You're breaking my heart,
I'm falling apart,
So Fuck You!"






__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26673  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 1:40pm
Subject: OT correction  jpcoursodon


 
Giving it a second thought, I think Blake was right RE: Earl Coleman.
I miss-attributed the remark and mixed up my recording sessions.
26674  
From: "Kristian Andersen"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 2:11pm
Subject: Henry Jaglom! and a little Caveh Zahedi!  monkchild2004


 
Wow, guys, so I check this Jaglom fella out. Saw this BBC doc where he was
real annoying, kept stressing out in Woody-esque compulsion, that he was
anti-establishment, and he was looking for truth and all, felt like he was
preaching more than practising, and damn, I was right, just saw Always and
Venice/Venice and dude canít act! Well, the only emotional truth that
motherfucker captures is of course his own inability to be convincing, be
charming, be whatever he fancies himself, and sure enough, thatís adequate I
think heíd say! Because he fucking uses cinema as a personal investigation,
right? Itís like home videos distributed through Wellspring. Damn, so yeah,
I really get a sense of his being just watching two of his films, his
reality/cinema binary and all that he seems to have made his life struggle
(although a good dose of Zen lately seem to have released him from that and
now maybe he makes film about other things than himself?). Wow, so yeah,
that dude really has a fucked up sound engineer. I think his zoomy-shots are
really wack, too. Iím not too smart on the director angle, but is that some
Welles tribute or something? Ah, all these cuts to close-ups as well, really
annoying. So yeah, I mean, I think heís itís true that heís a very personal
film-maker and I do think there are elements of good shit in there, right. I
mean, itís funny that all the critics hate on his self-indulgence when they
love Before Sunset, and to me, they seem to chart the same emotional
territory, middle-class, middle-age, slight alienation for the world, and
hyperawareness of death casuing inability to live in moment, but constantly
attempting to by using the WORD-VIRUS! Ya know what Iím getting at here
guys???? At times in Always he felt like Woody Ė at others a lilí like Cass.
Apparently he hung out with Cass, huh? Canít belive Cass would have dug a
guy like that, he too boring, man!!! Ya know, why he wear that stupid hat
all the time? I think he really looks up to Welles and fashions himself a
maverick and tries to get that image across by a recognizable piece of
clothing (Karl Lagerfeld, Orson Welles, Woody Allen, Anna Wintour, they all
trademarks, well arenít they!). So yeah, I think he should, let go, ya know,
find out how exciting other modes of being can be (ahh, the phenomenological
approach, guys!), I think Woody should keep in his ďstruggleĒ (ahh, all the
struggles that compel us to not just sit in the corner of our St. Petersburg
apparto and be acutely aware of our own degeneration, like old Dusty-boy).
So yeah, man, like Woodyís struggle really produces some funny lines. Oh,
yeah, Iím really interested in having a dialogue with all the guys who use
the word pseudo-intellectual about Jaglom and other stuff. I really donít
understand them enough. They really fascinate me. Itís like, I wanna know
what their concept of REAL intellect is (I donít think Jaglom is
pseudo-intellect, I really donít know what it means, we just ARE, right?
Trying to deal with our lives, it seems a funny word to use!). So yeah, Iíd
love to talk to some of these anti pseudo-intellect guys (if for nothing
else to be able to denounce them in youthful banter like Neal Cassady ďYOU
PRIESTS OF HIGH MODERNITY, I WILL THROW YOU IN THE GRAVE AND SPIT ON YOU
LIKE AN ARSENAL SUPPORTERĒ). Wow, Jaglom, real annoying, real lecturing,
real conceited, yet so in touch with emotional reality, huh. What really
bothered me in Venice/Venice (what bothered me was the thing I found most
interesting too!) is how he was saying that actors (himself included) felt
more AUTHENTIC when they knew the camera was rolling. Because then you know
that itís recorded, itís there, and all. But I think thatís mad
selfconscious and I donít beliveve it can lead to good acting. I think he
just fancies himself a big personality (he loves Picasso, Welles, Pollock,
Cass, donít he?) ego artist who therefore has this obsession about the
CAMERA (the realm of art). But I really think you gotta be able to feel
authentic, feel itís worth your time, feel you can grow as a human being,
and effect the universe with what you do, by just being ALONE. By being with
another person!!! I mean, we all have motives,right! We feel purporse,
compelled to do shit for love, for friendship, for money, for art. But
thatís why LORCA is so grteat, I reamember he wrote this letter back to his
fam in Spain and he was saying how a little kid he met had drowned in a
well. And he said ďbut to write about my grief and sorrow would be
dishonest, to the trees and sky who were witness to it that dayĒÖÖah, so
yeah, I always thought that was a real big person who could have the
capacity of just beign so spiritual and not have to speak about it to others
(cos all speak means u WANT something, isnít that what LACAN says). But
right now when I typed this I felt a great unease, becos he made us AWARE
that he experienced grief, right??? He wrote a META setnenec about his
grief, and for the people like me we feel the grief thru the signifying meta
sentence, and the grief which is denotates is so much stronger, so yeah, its
just hocus pocus again, huh! The real banal, simple, fundamental struggle of
the artist, the leech a nd shit, lets not talk about it . aynwyaways guys,
there this interview on GREENCINE with CAVEH ZAHEDI AND JAGLOM and its
awful, really two stupid nasty people talking. Especially ZAHEDI. Real nasty
fellla who subjects us other to his own personal problems, but ya seeeeeee
thatís great, I donít get why I LOVE CASSAVETES so much, cos he mad personal
too, hes mad into using film as an investigation of his life and all, but
itís so GREAT, and Jaglom isnít, but they seem to come from similar grounds,
I really donít get it, I guess that nigga Jaglom donít know when to stop,
huh, always bang on forever bout the same thing, and I guess some niggas
feel Cass do that (some girl said he dwell too much on the subject!!!!! What
ya think! Timothy carey in MINNIE AND MOSKOVITS at the restarautna: I KNOW
WHERE MY WIFE IS BURIED, how can u say that!!!!! I smack anyone who say
that, no feeling, or as BEN (Oooooooh old Benny boy), would say WHERE IS THE
WARMTH? WHERE IS THE WARMTH? (IN HUSBANDS, ))))))))

Bye guys.


--
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.308 / Virus Database: 266.11.6 - Release Date: 06/05/2005



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26675  
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 10:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Favorite Preminger films  scil1973


 
In a message dated 5/8/05 8:09:14 AM, jpcoursodon@... writes:


> Skidoo aimlessly poked fun at everything and everybody in sight
>
I see only a great deal of affection.

And I'm mildly surprised Ehrenstein digs Nilsson. But my surprise has little
to do with Nilsson (he WAS fantastic!). Rather, it now places the "all popular
music sucks after this point" line a little past December 31, 1969.*
Coursodon, I imagine, jumped ship around the time of Coleman's FREE JAZZ.

Kevin John

* Linda Eder, Audra McDonald and that ilk don't count.




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26676  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 2:26pm
Subject: Henry (Jaglom) and June (Was Re: Henry Jaglom! and a little Caveh Zahedi!  thebradstevens


 
Recently picked up IN FAVOUR OF THE SENSITIVE MAN, a collection of
essays by Anais Nin, and was rather shocked to find a chapter
entitled "Henry Jaglom: Magician of the Film". It's a 1972 review of
A SAFE PLACE, originally published in the Los Angeles Free Press.

A SAFE PLACE actually stands up very well, being entirely free of
that misogyny which I now find so problematic in many BBS films. And
I can't bring myself to entirely dislike Jaglom's later films
(they're so entirely without built-in defences), or to find them
unambiguously narcissistic - Jaglom actually presents himself in a
fairly negative light in some of these films (see especially his
scenes with David Duchovny in VENICE/VENICE).

TRACKS is great fun. Dennis Hopper has flashbacks to Vietnam...on a
moving train...in the nude. What's not to like?
26677  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 2:42pm
Subject: Re: Henry (Jaglom) and June (Was Re: Henry Jaglom! and a little Caveh Zahedi!  cellar47


 
--- thebradstevens wrote:

>
> A SAFE PLACE actually stands up very well, being
> entirely free of
> that misogyny which I now find so problematic in
> many BBS films.

Well it DOES star Tuesday Weld and Orson Welles you
know.

And
> I can't bring myself to entirely dislike Jaglom's
> later films
> (they're so entirely without built-in defences), or
> to find them
> unambiguously narcissistic - Jaglom actually
> presents himself in a
> fairly negative light in some of these films (see
> especially his
> scenes with David Duchovny in VENICE/VENICE).
>

A "negativity" replete with narcissism. A number of
years back I earned the eternal respect and admiration
of screenwriter Yale Yudoff ("Bad Timing: A Sensual
Obsession") for ripping Jaglom to shreds in my review
of "Someone to Love."

He was Trust Fund baby who managed to manufacture one
vanity production a year for years. Apparently he's
run out.

He had Welles on a string for years, promising to
finance his films and NEVER coming through.

There is a very special place in Hell for the likes of
Henry Jaglom.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26678  
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 4:05pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  tharpa2002


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

"I always felt the soul of SKIDOO was Austin Pendleton's sweetheart of
a '60s draft resister, arriving in prison with his personal supply of
blotter acid (which of course Jackie Gleason unwittingly samples while
licking a stamp)."

Dennis McNally describes Preminger visiting the Grateful Dead at their
collective house on Ashbury to gather information for "Skidoo!" He
toured the Haight from the back seat of his limo and made a donation to
the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic. I can't remember where I heard it but
Otto suposedly had a "supervised" acid trip too.

Richard
26679  
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 4:06pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  tharpa2002


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

"I always felt the soul of SKIDOO was Austin Pendleton's sweetheart of
a '60s draft resister, arriving in prison with his personal supply of
blotter acid (which of course Jackie Gleason unwittingly samples while
licking a stamp)."

Dennis McNally describes Preminger visiting the Grateful Dead at their
collective house on Ashbury to gather information for "Skidoo!" He
toured the Haight from the back seat of his limo and made a donation to
the Haight-Ashbury Free Clinic. I can't remember where I heard it but
Otto suposedly had a "supervised" acid trip too.

Richard
26680  
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 4:07pm
Subject: Preminger and Editing  joe_mcelhaney


 
I have to confess, Blake, that I had inadvertently overlooked your
26612 post. I seldom check the room every single day and invariably
when I do return to the room a seemingly endless string of posts on
any given topic will be up over the course of roughly 48 hours. Many
of these will often run no longer than a sentence as members trade
quips, gossip and insults. However entertaining this may all be, if
you've fallen behind in reading posts, as I so often do, it can be
exhausting to open every single one only to discover that it consists
of just a few snappy words. So I tend to go through the subject
headings very quickly, in this case far TOO quickly since I didn't
see your name there the second time. At any rate, I have read your
very detailed post now and see that, in fact, you and I are pretty
much in agreement here, as we often are. My reservations about your
notion of editing as a type of refinement of the shooting process
were related to the previous entry. I get a much clearer idea now of
what you're getting at from this quite articulate post.

I do have a question, though. You refer to Ford as a director we do
not traditionally regard as being a montage filmmaker. How are you
using the term montage here? As an all-purpose term for editing? Or
are you thinking of something like Astruc's distinction between
montage and decoupage? Or in terms of Soviet definitions of montage,
such as the montage of attractions? Or montage as it was used in
relation to the political modernism of the sixties and early
seventies where, for example, someone like Lang could be embraced for
his practice of montage in his Weimar films and condemned for his use
of decoupage in his Hollywood films? I'm not asking these questions
to be difficult or pin you to a wall, so to speak. I'm just
wondering if, as I argued in my earlier post, the standard mise-en-
scene/montage distinctions in filmmakers need to be interrogated, the
same questioning of distinctions in terms of montage and decoupage
also need to be interrogated. Ford may not practice montage as, say,
Eisenstein defined it in relation to the montage of attractions. But
as you undoubtedly would agree, the cutting in a Ford film is
extremely precise and emotional. If he's not a montage filmmaker in
the ways that fit with any textbook definition, then perhaps he is
still a filmmaker of the cut as much as other directors we might
traditionally think of in relation to montage: Eisenstein, Resnais,
etc. The same goes for N. Ray, in a very different manner. This
requires more thought than an exhausted individual such as yours
truly can offer on a Sunday morning.

Have you read, by the way, Eisenstein's essay on Young Mr. Lincoln?
He writes that of all the American films he has seen up to this time,
it is the one he most wished he had made. He refers to
an "astonishing harmony of all its component parts, a really amazing
harmony as a whole."
26681  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 4:15pm
Subject: Henry (Jaglom) and June (Was Re: Henry Jaglom! and a little Caveh Zahedi!  thebradstevens


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


> A "negativity" replete with narcissism.

I just feel that the films are to a large degree about narcissism,
rather than being simply the products of narcissism.

A number of
> years back I earned the eternal respect and admiration
> of screenwriter Yale Yudoff ("Bad Timing: A Sensual
> Obsession") for ripping Jaglom to shreds in my review
> of "Someone to Love."
>
> He was Trust Fund baby who managed to manufacture one
> vanity production a year for years.

Is that such a bad thing?


>
> He had Welles on a string for years, promising to
> finance his films and NEVER coming through.
>
> There is a very special place in Hell for the likes of
> Henry Jaglom.

He'll be sharing it with Stephen Spielberg... and all the A-list
actors who refused to appear in a Welles film. Why single out Jaglom
for special criticism?

By the way, I'd love to know more about the mysterioue Yale Udoff.
26682  
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 4:26pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films (and This Is Always query)  lukethedealer12


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
Giving it a second thought, I think Blake was right RE: Earl Coleman.
I miss-attributed the remark and mixed up my recording sessions.

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

> > wrote:

> Blake, I don't have that record at this time, but jazz lore
> usually attributes this remark to Charlie Parker at the February
19,
> 1947 session where Coleman sang "This Is Always" (a great song, by
> the way). It's the session with Errol Garner that produced the
> fantastic "Bird's Nest" and "Cool Blues" -- and Harold Doc West,
not
> Max Roach, was on drums. There is a fine photograph of Coleman
> (reading sheet music) with Bird, West and Dial Records producer
Ross
> Russell reproduced in Garry Giddins's "Celebrating Bird". JPC

Which prompts me to ask two OT questions. Is the session with
Parker, Garner and West available (I know "Bird's Nest" and "Cool
Blues" from compilations but not the Coleman vocal?). I wouldn't
mind looking for it if it is. Second, what are the lyrics to "This
Is Always" (between you and David I'm guessing it's out there). I
have a beautiful instrumental performance of this (Shelly Manne at
the Blackhawk, with Victor Feldman, Joe Gordon, Richie Kamuca, Monte
Budwig--an amazing three nights of Manne that finally turned out
5 volumes on CD), and sometimes I sit there wondering what the
lyrics are. I sing "La, la, la, la...this is always..." trying to
make it up.

TOUR DE FORCE is worth picking up by the way. Coleman's vocals on
those two numbers are very appealing, and the instrumental tracks
include one cut from the original record--"Sonny Boy." Rollilns
loved those Jolson songs--he also recorded "Toot Toot Tootsie" and
best of all, "Rockabye Your Baby with a Dixie Melody."


> > > I am really glad I didn't lose my Preminger virginity
> watching
> > > SKIDOO.
> > >
> > > JPC
> > > >
> > It's not my favorite of his either, but should we be so
dismissive
> > of a movie that has obviously given so many others so much
> pleasure?
>
> Maybe not. But lots of atrociously bad movies have given
countless
> millions enormous pleasure. JPC

But are they made by a director of this pleasing an individual
talent? Truly, I don't think Preminger has much flair for comedy,
unlike so many other things he does well, but still SKIDOO is not
like any other bad comedy. And it does have those sung credits,
which had me walking out with some good will.
26683  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 4:38pm
Subject: Re: Henry (Jaglom) and June (Was Re: Henry Jaglom! and a little Caveh Zahedi!  cellar47


 
--- thebradstevens wrote:

> >
> > He was Trust Fund baby who managed to manufacture
> one
> > vanity production a year for years.
>
> Is that such a bad thing?
>
>
Not when you turn out crap!


>
> He'll be sharing it with Stephen Spielberg... and
> all the A-list
> actors who refused to appear in a Welles film. Why
> single out Jaglom
> for special criticism?
>

Because he feebed off Welles for years, turning up at
lunch at Ma maison (never picking up the tab) and
working real hard to create the impression that he was
orson's chosen successor. Spielbergmay be conisdered
to have something to answer for re Welles -- ie.
buying the "Rosebud" sled, but not helping him get
"The Big Brass Ring" financed. However "that's
business." Jaglom was after something more -- a place
of honor in film history.

> By the way, I'd love to know more about the
> mysterioue Yale Udoff.
>
>

Well here he is --

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

Yale's a fascinating guy. He recently had a play
produced at a small theater in town. Unfortunately I
wasn't able to get to see it.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26684  
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 5:10pm
Subject: Re: Henry (Jaglom) and June (Was Re: Henry Jaglom! and a little Caveh Zahedi!  sallitt1


 
>
> A SAFE PLACE actually stands up very well, being entirely free of
> that misogyny which I now find so problematic in many BBS films. And
> I can't bring myself to entirely dislike Jaglom's later films
> (they're so entirely without built-in defences), or to find them
> unambiguously narcissistic - Jaglom actually presents himself in a
> fairly negative light in some of these films (see especially his
> scenes with David Duchovny in VENICE/VENICE).

Jaglom had an interesting comedy period before the philosophizin' films
that made him notorious: SITTING DUCKS and CAN SHE BAKE A CHERRY PIE? are
odd, intriguing films that draw on the actors' personalities for material,
and aren't always comfortable.

Of the later films, I rather like NEW YEAR'S DAY. I lost track of Jaglom
after EATING, and at that point I wasn't sure that he was heading in the
best direction. But I think he's worth consideration. - Dan
26685  
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 5:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Favorite Preminger films  fredcamper


 
Richard Modiano wrote:

> .... I can't remember where I heard it but
> Otto suposedly had a "supervised" acid trip too.....

I read an interview with Preminger at the time of the film's making in
which he talked about having taken acid as part of his "research," and
(I believe) being fascinated by its effects -- I can't remember, though,
he migtht have described a "bad trip." I believe he said things about
his own trip inspired the trip the Gleason character takes in in
"Skidoo" (and I know I've seen it written "Skidoo!" too). I think it was
in the same interview that Preminger bragged about "Skidoo" having his
first male nude scene (a scene in prison).

Groucho Marx also took acid in prepration for his role in "Skidoo"; see
http://www.miqel.com/text/groucho-marx-on-lsd.html (And by the way, when
searching for info on Preminger's acid trip I came across a good short
review of "Skidoo!" as a part of a site with a number of excellent
capsule reviews of "auteurist" classics, co-authored by Chris Fujiwara
and accessible from http://www.hermenaut.com/a87.shtml )

I like "Skidoo" a lot, and I've never taken acid, nor, shocking
confession for a 60s kid, any other hallucinogenic or recreational drug
either. "Skidoo" certainly isn't funny, and "fails" in conventional
terms as a comedy or as an entertainment film, perhaps not for the
famously eclectic tastes of David E. but certainly for most -- that's
why it was a monumental flop commercially. But great cinema is littered
with masterpieces which fail outrageously in various "conventional" ways
-- would anyone care to defend "Shock Corridor" as a serious exploration
of the problems of the mentally ill, or of, say, "nymphomania"? In
"Skidoo," it's the insane fragmentation, the absurd distancing that goes
beyond his simply "not getting the 60s," the multiple kinds of failed
comedy (kin to the multiple perspectives in Preminger's more "serious"
films) that help make it great.

I think most of Preminger's films are great. It would be easier for me
to list the non-great ones, and there aren't many: the pre-"Laura"
films, perhaps "A Royal Scandal," perhaps "Hurry Sundown" (need to see
this again), perhaps "Rosebud" (ditto). Keeping my favorites list short,
there are at least four that have the feel of a filmmaker pushing the
limits of his own style, extending it, pushing against the limits of
greatness: "Angel Face" (the best and most extreme of the early noirs,
with surely the greatest cut to a close-up of a car engine in film
history -- and that is incredibly important as a cut); "Bonjour
Tristesse" (perhaps the most psychologically obsessive, and subtlest);
"In Harm's Way" (my own favorite, for the way its multiple stories are
inseparable from its incredibly complex space) and "Such Good Friends."

As for whether Preminger's visual style is a storytelling technique or a
statement on the nature of the universe (
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/26662 ), in my
view it most certainly is the latter as well as the former. And I have
what I think is a great 60s anecdote relevant to this, though it's
rather long.

During the years I lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964-71, I had a
half-dozen close friends clustered around the film society I co-ran at
MIT and the two at Harvard. We all had a reasonably compatible outlook;
I'd like to think my own views were an influence on some of the others.
One of us, David, owned a car, and would sometimes drive several of us
to film viewing sites, once to Dartmouth (where we saw a great German
Sirk, "Zu Neuen Ufern," courtesy of Bob Gitt, who was there at the
time), and many times to New York City, when a weekend with multiple
rarities beckoned. On one such trip, circa 1969, the car carried David,
myself, and two mutual friends of all of ours, both named Mike, one from
MIT (though dropped out by then), the other at Harvard. You would likely
have never heard of one of the Mikes and David, but the other was Mike
Prokosch, who ran Harvard Film Studies, one of the two film societies,
was a Harvard undergrad (I've always thought my degree in physics from
MIT was pretty "cool," but Mike's was even "cooler," in Medieval
History), and published some pieces in "Film Quarterly" and "Film
Comment" back then.

Anyway, during the ride, David and I got into an argument about, I kid
you not, the nature of Premingerean space. My position was that what was
amazing was the kind of continuities that Preminger created; using
examples such as the opening long take of "In Harms Way." David said
that space in Preminger was fundamentally broken, fractured. The
discussion became rather abstract, centering around what it would mean
to call a space "continuous" or "broken," and references to specific
films or even the medium of film dropped away. Fortunately no record of
this conversation survives; if it did, I think it would reveal
undergraduate-level palaver rather than deeply insightful (we were all
around 20 or 21). Anyway, in the middle of this most abstract phase,
David stopped to pick up two hitchhikers. (Note to young 'uns:
hitchhiking was really common then; everyone did it; it was fairly safe
for a male to do, and fairly safe to pick up most hitchhikers too.)
These were young men around our age or a bit older. One sat in the
front, the other in the back. And instead of a the usual greeting a
hitchhiker might expect back then ("hey, man, wanna hit of this good
stuff"?), they were immersed in this ongoing discussion about the
natures of broken versus continuous spaces between David and myself, and
seemed particularly unsettled when one of the two Mikes would add a
comment indicating they understood and were interested in what was being
discussed. You have to also put this in the context of 60s nuttiness:
"What kind of crazy trip are these guys on," is presumably what they
were thinking. Anyway, at a certain point the discussion naturally
turned back to specific films, and as we started again mentioning film
titles the two hitchhikers showed both surprise and relief, relief
presumably that at least they knew we weren't mental hospital escapees,
surprise that talking this way about film doubtless did seem somewhat
insane to them: "You're taking about *movies*," one of them said in
astonishment.

Meanwhile it turned out that David was thinking mostly of "Skidoo,"
about which he is no doubt right. But even that long take that opens "In
Harm's Way," with its diversions to a variety of different scenes, is
arguably disconnected in subtle ways, and there are strange and very
great camera movements in "Fallen Angel" whose greatness comes not
perhaps from the sense they are broken but certainly not from seeming
seamlessly smooth. And the great cut I mentioned in "Angel Face" is
great because it is a break.

I later recounted this story to other film friends5, as an amusing
anecdote of both how serious we were and how nutty we probably seemed to
most of the rest of the world. One of the people I recounted it to was
John Belton, who later wrote an article that concluded that Preminger's
space was both continuous and broken.

Anyway, once again my difference with many others is revealed here. I
never want to see style first as a storytelling technique, nor editing
as only revealing what's already within the footage, nor do I see all
that great a split between Preminger and Eisenstein: both are presenting
synthetic and transformed worlds, worlds utterly reshaped by their
visions. Eisenstein and Vertov "respect" their viewers every bit much as
Preminger, arguably even more, by making films which are intellectually
demanding, and which require the viewer's thoughts and interpretations
to complete them even on the most basic narrative level, not just on a
stylistic level.

Fred Camper
(who still has a long Sirk post in progress)
26686  
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 5:53pm
Subject: Re: Montage/Decoupage (Was: Preminger and Editing)  lukethedealer12


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> I do have a question, though. You refer to Ford as a director we
do
> not traditionally regard as being a montage filmmaker. How are
you
> using the term montage here? As an all-purpose term for editing?
Or
> are you thinking of something like Astruc's distinction between
> montage and decoupage? Or in terms of Soviet definitions of
montage,
> such as the montage of attractions? Or montage as it was used in
> relation to the political modernism of the sixties and early
> seventies where, for example, someone like Lang could be embraced
for
> his practice of montage in his Weimar films and condemned for his
use
> of decoupage in his Hollywood films? I'm not asking these
questions
> to be difficult or pin you to a wall, so to speak. I'm just
> wondering if, as I argued in my earlier post, the standard mise-en-
> scene/montage distinctions in filmmakers need to be interrogated,
the
> same questioning of distinctions in terms of montage and decoupage
> also need to be interrogated. Ford may not practice montage as,
say,
> Eisenstein defined it in relation to the montage of attractions.
But
> as you undoubtedly would agree, the cutting in a Ford film is
> extremely precise and emotional. If he's not a montage filmmaker
in
> the ways that fit with any textbook definition, then perhaps he is
> still a filmmaker of the cut as much as other directors we might
> traditionally think of in relation to montage: Eisenstein,
Resnais,
> etc. The same goes for N. Ray, in a very different manner. This
> requires more thought than an exhausted individual such as yours
> truly can offer on a Sunday morning.
>
> Have you read, by the way, Eisenstein's essay on Young Mr.
Lincoln?
> He writes that of all the American films he has seen up to this
time,
> it is the one he most wished he had made. He refers to
> an "astonishing harmony of all its component parts, a really
amazing
> harmony as a whole."

I tried to cut down your post more than what has remained above but
would have spent more time than I really have to even write this. I
hope I'd never be glib about Ford's filmmaking. "Montage" applies,
but "Decoupage" also applies much of the time--same with N. Ray (and
arguably on some level in each of the different contexts you
provide). Remember that your earlier post said that we need to do
much more to interrogate how the celebrated "long take" directors
(you mentioned six unassailable names, including Preminger) use
editing. Well, conversely, directors associated with editing should
be interrogated for how much they are able to do within shots, as
well as for what is happening within their editing. After I wrote
before, I remembered that when Bazin first championed deep focus, he
tied Ford (and others) to a notion of "invisible editing." Is there
anything invisible about it though? And is there no "deep focus" in
Ford, in "How Green Was My Valley," "The Long Voyage Home" and
others (and not to be tied to a period--look at the last shot
of "The Last Hurrah" for example)? In his book on Ford, Tag
Gallagher takes the position that Ford commonly breaks up a sequence
into a lot of shots and gives editing great importance, but he is
fair enough to observe that "The Long Gray Line" is more of a long
take movie (though I think he unfairly underestimates it for just
that reason--I consider it one of JF's greatest movies)

"The cutting in a Ford film is extremely precise and emotional."
Yes, Joe, I absolutely agree. But weren't you arguing that this is
also true, though too often overlooked, of Preminger, Mizoguchi,
Ophuls, Sternberg, Sirk, Minnelli? And I do believe in Ford, as much
as the others, the viewer has the opportunity to appreciate this
emotion on his or her own, rather than be mindlessly manipulated into
it. But I acknowledge there may be a counter-argument to this. And
I hope I'm not so naive to believe there is not some manipulation on
the part of any filmmaker, even if they disdain it in theory.

Your reference to Eisenstein's essay on "Young Mr. Lincoln" gives me
the perfect thing to wrap this up with. First, because it's
Eisenstein, and second, because it's "Young Mr. Lincoln." I do know
that essay, read it with interest (though it was a long time ago),
and have always had it in mind with SE (there is obviously a lot more
to him and his view of cinema than I sometimes think there is
looking at his films, and he too, has been simplified in theory).
I don't remember his saying he was the same kind of filmmaker as
Ford and don't believe he did. The part you quote above is still as
good a description of a sublime film as there is, perhaps (and one
of these days I'll get back to that "sacred text" of CdC article on
the same film, which is not exactly an article of faith with
everyone out here). But here's where the whole question of typing
directors gets really interesting--because "Lincoln" has one of the
most beautiful sequences in any Ford (or anyone else), the "Ann
Rutledge" sequence, conspicuously built around a long, exquisite
tracking shot as Abe and Ann walk between the river and a fence.
Ford is not only supposed to be "a filmmaker of the cut" but you
also still hear "he never moves the camera" (I heard Scorsese
actually say this somewhere once). Yet this always seemed more like
an Ophuls shot. I think he would have been glad to claim it. And I
believe much of the emotion Ford manages to earn so early in the
film (yes, one of these characters is dead within a few minutes of
this--and that's the payoff) came from doing it just this way.

But as you so eloquently said:
This
> requires more thought than an exhausted individual such as yours
> truly can offer on a Sunday morning.

That goes double here, and this is the best I can do for now.

Blake
26687  
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 6:38pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films (and Cambridge anecdote)  lukethedealer12


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:

> I like "Skidoo" a lot, and I've never taken acid, nor, shocking
> confession for a 60s kid, any other hallucinogenic or recreational
drug
> either. "Skidoo" certainly isn't funny, and "fails" in
conventional
> terms as a comedy or as an entertainment film, perhaps not for the
> famously eclectic tastes of David E. but certainly for most --
that's
> why it was a monumental flop commercially. But great cinema is
littered
> with masterpieces which fail outrageously in
various "conventional" ways
> -- would anyone care to defend "Shock Corridor" as a serious
exploration
> of the problems of the mentally ill, or of, say, "nymphomania"? In
> "Skidoo," it's the insane fragmentation, the absurd distancing
that goes
> beyond his simply "not getting the 60s," the multiple kinds of
failed
> comedy (kin to the multiple perspectives in Preminger's
more "serious"
> films) that help make it great.

This was an excellent defense. You made me want to see "Skidoo"
again. (Anyway, like JPC I saw it only once and that is really
not enough for a Preminger, I know, as some I rate especially high
now earned it over repeated viewings). What really sold me even
beyond comments about the film--something to take to it on that
repeat viewing--were your comments about "Shock Corridor," which
I've always championed as a singular masterpiece. It was the film
that "locked me in" as a Fuller fan. After all, "Mark Twain didn't
try to analyze Huck Finn." And that line didn't stop me from loving
the film more by the second! "Failing outrageously in various
conventional ways" was surely directly related to everything that
made it great. When Johnny walks into that room and says "Nymphos.."
you just know it's true...

>
>
> During the years I lived in Cambridge, Massachusetts, 1964-71, I
had a
> half-dozen close friends clustered around the film society I co-
ran at
> MIT and the two at Harvard. We all had a reasonably compatible
outlook;
> I'd like to think my own views were an influence on some of the
others.
> One of us, David, owned a car

I know you like us to cut down the previous posts, Fred, so left
just this much as a reference point, though would also like to say
that was a very interesting anecdote, and fun to read.

Are you referring to David Grosz? I got to know him pretty well,
because at one point in my life I desperately needed a job and got
one in the law office where he worked, as a receptionist. This was
for a pretty short time, but I already knew David as someone into
cinema from a piece he wrote on "The First Legion" (which I read in
same issue that had one you wrote on "The Tarnished Angels). So the
perk of the job was when the day wound down and I could go into his
office and we'd talk about films. He said a lot of very interesting
things, including ideas I'm certain were influenced by you or by
discussions the two of you had, based on things you've said here more
recently. I'll get back to some of those in another context.
26688  
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 7:11pm
Subject: Henry (Jaglom) and June (Was Re: Henry Jaglom! and a little Caveh Zahedi!  tharpa2002


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

"...he feebed off Welles for years, turning up at lunch at Ma maison
(never picking up the tab) and working real hard to create the
impression that he was orson's chosen successor. Spielbergmay be
conisdered> to have something to answer for re Welles -- ie. buying
the 'Rosebud' sled, but not helping him get 'The Big Brass Ring'
financed. However 'that's business.' Jaglom was after something more --
a place of honor in film history."

I heard that Jaglom secretly recorded Welles at the Ma Maison lunches
until he got found out and had to yield the tapes. If true, it's
reprehensible.

Richard
26689  
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 7:21pm
Subject: Re: Porgy and Bess  cinebklyn


 
Preminger's "Porgy and Bess" will be playing
at the American Museum of the Moving Image
in one week.

SPECIAL OPENING EVENT
Saturday, May 14 +
Sunday, May 15
3:00 + 6:30 p.m.
PORGY AND BESS
1959, 136 mins. Directed by Otto Preminger
26690  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 7:30pm
Subject: Re: Re: Porgy and Bess  cellar47


 
Do not under any circumstances miss it!

It's rarely shown as the Gershwin estate dislikes it.
A few years back they tried to "replace" it with an
"official" film version shot with a european opera
company -- that sank without a trace. Goldwyn's
production, directed by Preminger is "impure" in a
literal sense, but Sammy Davis Jr. was BORN to play
"Sportin' Life" and his "There's a Boat That's Leavin'
Soon For New York" is a movie musical high point as is
his "It Ain't Necessarily So." Dandrige is lovely,
Poitier is heartbreaking, and Pearl Bailey is Pearl
Bailey.

This was a Preminger that ranked very high among the
"Movie" group.

No idea as to the state of the print.

Just GO!

--- Brian Charles Dauth
wrote:
> Preminger's "Porgy and Bess" will be playing
> at the American Museum of the Moving Image
> in one week.
>
> SPECIAL OPENING EVENT
> Saturday, May 14 +
> Sunday, May 15
> 3:00 + 6:30 p.m.
> PORGY AND BESS
> 1959, 136 mins. Directed by Otto Preminger
>
>



__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26691  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 7:31pm
Subject: Re: Henry (Jaglom) and June (Was Re: Henry Jaglom! and a little Caveh Zahedi!  cellar47


 
--- Richard Modiano wrote:

>
> I heard that Jaglom secretly recorded Welles at the
> Ma Maison lunches
> until he got found out and had to yield the tapes.
> If true, it's
> reprehensible.
>

It's true.



Discover Yahoo!
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html
26692  
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 7:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Favorite Preminger films (and Cambridge anecdote)  fredcamper


 
Blake, I'm glad that my post interested you.

Blake Lucas wrote:

> Are you referring to...

Keep in mind that our posts are archived (including by me) on the 'Net.
I was pleased to name Mike Prokosch, who I felt wouldn't mind being
named, and whose 'Net presence is mostly or entirely about his
subsequent political work. I didn't name the other two people because I
wasn't sure they wanted to be named, so please, to Blake and others,
show some sensitivity about guessing the names of people a poster
chooses not to name. And I should have indicated that I wasn't sure they
wanted to me named. Anyway, I won't answer this one; aside from the fact
that I'd have to check first, it's not important.

About "Hurry Sundown," that's one of the rare Premingers I've seen only
once. I didn't have a great viewing of it then, and don't really have a
strong opinion of it one way or the other.

Fred Camper
26693  
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 8:11pm
Subject: Preminger's television trial drama  thebradstevens


 
In an article in the Spring 1975 SIGHT AND SOUND entitled "Movies for
a Small Screen", John Russell Taylor notes that "Otto Preminger and
Stanley Kramer have made heavyweight trial dramas for television".
Does anyone know if this is true?
26694  
From: MG4273@...
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 5:00pm
Subject: Re: Preminger's television trial drama  nzkpzq


 
Stanley Kramer made three TV films that recreated famous real-life trials.
One was about Julius & Ethel Rosenberg:
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0391258/

My vague memory is that there was much talk before this film was made of Otto
Preminger being involved potentially in the Rosenberg episode - but that it
somehow did not pan out.
Julius & Ethel Rosenberg were convicted and executed by the US government in
the 1950's, charged with being Soviet spies passing atomic secrets to the
Soviets. For the next 30 years, there was endless assertions by many Marxists that
the Rosenbergs were innocent, that they were martyrs to anti-Communism and/or
American anti-Semitism. It was a huge cause celebre.
Finally, when the Soviet Union fell, Soviet records were released. And guess
what: Julius Rosenberg was indeed a Soviet spy. The record is less clear about
his wife Ethel.
Have a vague recollection that the proposed Preminger Rosenberg film was to
be called "Open Question" treating the Rosenberg case as an example of
Preminger-style ambiguity: were they spies or not?. Today, with we we know know about
history, such an interpretation would be ridiculous.

Mike Grost
26695  
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 9:30pm
Subject: Re: Re: Preminger's television trial drama  cellar47


 
--- MG4273@... wrote:

>
> Finally, when the Soviet Union fell, Soviet records
> were released. And guess
> what: Julius Rosenberg was indeed a Soviet spy. The
> record is less clear about
> his wife Ethel.

But if you'll kindly consult the hisotry you'll note
that prosecutor Roy Cohn -- the very embodiment of
moral rectitude -- was quite insistent about Ethel's
importance, more so than her husband's.

> Have a vague recollection that the proposed
> Preminger Rosenberg film was to
> be called "Open Question" treating the Rosenberg
> case as an example of
> Preminger-style ambiguity: were they spies or not?.
> Today, with we we know know about
> history, such an interpretation would be ridiculous.
>
>

Not at all. Precisely what the Rosenberg's may have
passed on and how important it was remains an
unanswered question. The reason for the execution was
quite clear : "You Jews better watch your asses!" That
plus an insistence on rewriting the history of the
Great Depression.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26696  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 10:20pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 5/8/05 8:09:14 AM, jpcoursodon@y... writes:
>
>
> > Skidoo aimlessly poked fun at everything and everybody in sight
> >
> I see only a great deal of affection.
>
> And I'm mildly surprised Ehrenstein digs Nilsson. But my surprise
has little
> to do with Nilsson (he WAS fantastic!). Rather, it now places
the "all popular
> music sucks after this point" line a little past December 31,
1969.*
> Coursodon, I imagine, jumped ship around the time of Coleman's
FREE JAZZ.
>
> Kevin John

Oh, Kevin, Coleman (I assume you mean Ornette)'s music was
never "popular" by any definition of the word or any stretch of the
imagination.

I didn't "jump ship" but I like to recognize the chords.

I never said that 'all popular music sucks after this point." I
don't use the verb 'to suck" anyway.

When I was a kid and I got turned on by Charlie Parker and the be-
bop crowd, there was a whole generation of jazz fans twenty or
thirty years older than I who hated bop and said it was not jazz,
just noise. Perhaps when you're 64 (look, I can quote the Beatles!)
or really really old like me you'll reminisce nostagically about all
that great pop music of the turn of the century and will find the
music of 2030 or whatever just unbearable.

JPC
>
> * Linda Eder, Audra McDonald and that ilk don't count.
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26697  
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 11:35pm
Subject: Re: Favorite Preminger films (and This Is Always query)  jpcoursodon


 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
>> >
> Which prompts me to ask two OT questions. Is the session with
> Parker, Garner and West available (I know "Bird's Nest" and "Cool
> Blues" from compilations but not the Coleman vocal?). I wouldn't
> mind looking for it if it is. Second, what are the lyrics
to "This
> Is Always" (between you and David I'm guessing it's out there). I
> have a beautiful instrumental performance of this (Shelly Manne at
> the Blackhawk, with Victor Feldman, Joe Gordon, Richie Kamuca,
Monte
> Budwig--an amazing three nights of Manne that finally turned out
> 5 volumes on CD), and sometimes I sit there wondering what the
> lyrics are. I sing "La, la, la, la...this is always..." trying to
> make it up.

Well, there are any number of CD reissues of Parker's Dial and
Savoy and Verve sessions. The complete sessions of all three are
indispensible for completists, but you'd do fine with only the
master takes. There's also a 4-CD Parker compilation by Proper
Records which has most of those recordings (85 takes I think) and
their box sets sell for under 20 dollars! I'm not absolutely sure
the two earl Coleman songs are included but you can check it out on
their website, www.propermusic.com.

As for the lyrics, well, you can start replacing "la la la la"
with: "This isn't sometime this is always" and "This is not just
midsummer madness/ Darling this is love."


>
> TOUR DE FORCE is worth picking up by the way. Coleman's vocals on
> those two numbers are very appealing, and the instrumental tracks
> include one cut from the original record--"Sonny Boy." Rollilns
> loved those Jolson songs--he also recorded "Toot Toot Tootsie" and
> best of all, "Rockabye Your Baby with a Dixie Melody."
>
> I have it on tape, but not the LP or CD.
> > > > I am really glad I didn't lose my Preminger virginity
> > watching
> > > > SKIDOO.
> > > >
> > > > JPC
> > > > >
> > > It's not my favorite of his either, but should we be so
> dismissive
> > > of a movie that has obviously given so many others so much
> > pleasure?
> >
> > Maybe not. But lots of atrociously bad movies have given
> countless
> > millions enormous pleasure. JPC
>
> But are they made by a director of this pleasing an individual
> talent? Truly, I don't think Preminger has much flair for comedy,
> unlike so many other things he does well, but still SKIDOO is not
> like any other bad comedy. And it does have those sung credits,
> which had me walking out with some good will.

Well, you guys may be right, what do I know. I saw the damn thing
25 years ago or more. Maybe I'd like it today. I'll give it a try if
I can. JPC
26698  
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 11:47pm
Subject: Re: Preminger's television trial drama ($ the Rosenbergs)  tharpa2002


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

"...Precisely what the Rosenberg's may have passed on and how
important it was remains an unanswered question. The reason for the
execution was quite clear : 'You Jews better watch your asses!' That
plus an insistence on rewriting the history of the Great Depression."

David is right about the reason for the executions, and Preminger was
intuitvely right in treating the Roseneberg case with ambiguity.
Consider the fllowing:

Julius and Ethel Rosenberg, who were executed at New York's Sing Sing
Prison on June 19, 1953, were the only persons put to death for
espionage in the U.S. during the Cold War. They were Jewish.

In a December 5th, 2001, Associated Press story, David Greenglass
admitted he lied under oath about his sister Ethel's involvement in
espionage to reduce his own sentence and keep his wife Ruth out of
prison.

The Soviet archives cited by Mike revealed the identity of the
real "atom spy," Ted Hall, who worked on the Manhattan Project, and
was a physics prodigy who attended Columbia University at age 14 and
graduated from Harvard at age 18.

The KGB gave Hall the cover name "Youngster," because when he first
passed secrets to the Soviets about the atomic bomb, he was only 19
years old.

Hall told his wife Joan that he gave the U.S.S.R. secrets of the atom
bomb because he was afraid the U.S. might become a very reactionary
power after World War II, and that the Soviet Union was the only
country capable of standing up to it.

After the war, Hall earned a doctorate at the University of Chicago
and eventually moved to England. Neither he nor his principal courier
Saville Sax was ever prosecuted.

Klaus Fuchs, perhaps the most damaging spy within the Manhattan
Project, made a full confession in 1950, served nine years in prison,
and then moved to Communist East Germany, where he died in 1988.
Note his senetence: 9 years.

Within months of Fuchs' confession, which led to several arrests, the
spies Joel Barr and Alfred Sarant disappeared. Nothing more was heard
from them until 1983, when a Harvard researcher identified them as
the leading Soviet scientists Joseph Berg and Philip Georgievich
Staros.

So Julius was a spy but he didn't hand over the "secret of the atom
bomb." He was so low level that he had nothing to plea bargain with,
unlike Fuchs. Ethel was not a spy but knew what Julius was up to,
making her a material witness at the least or an accessory at the
worst. She was convicted on the perjured testimony of her brother.
Ted Hall got away scott free. Had Preminger made a movie suggesting
the Rosenbergs were something less than guilty he would have been
vindicated.

The pertainent Soviet records can be found here:

NSA Web site, "Introductory History of VENONA and Guide to the
Translations, www.nsa.gov/docs/venona/monographs/monograph-1.html.

Richard
26699  
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Sun May 8, 2005 7:51pm
Subject: OT: Popular music sucking Was: Favorite Preminger films  scil1973


 
< never "popular" by any definition of the word or any stretch of the
imagination.>>

It was popular insofar as jazz always is in relation to the classical music
which still receives more institutional support. And tons of popular music
isn't exactly popular by most definitions of the word.

<< I never said that 'all popular music sucks after this point." I
don't use the verb 'to suck" anyway.>>

Not in so many words.

< bop crowd, there was a whole generation of jazz fans twenty or
thirty years older than I who hated bop and said it was not jazz,
just noise. Perhaps when you're 64 (look, I can quote the Beatles!)
or really really old like me you'll reminisce nostagically about all
that great pop music of the turn of the century and will find the
music of 2030 or whatever just unbearable.>>

Ah yes, the mouldy figs. But you knew they were full of shit even when Bird
(or someone close to his camp) was putting up "No Dancing" signs at his gigs.
So it would logically follow that...

For what it's worth, I'll be 35 in a few weeks so I'm long past the "I hate
all popular music after I lost my virginity" mark. And I'm doing all I can now
to actively work against winding up condemning the music of 2030 when I'm 64.
We tend to forget that one of the disenfranchised groups in American society
is youth.

Also in the for what it's worth category, be-bop is still a deaf spot for me.
So I much prefer Louis Armstrong (not to mention 1970s Miles) to Charlie
Parker. But I fell in love with Monk last year (does he count as be-bop?).

The musical in more ways the one Kevin John



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26700  
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon May 9, 2005 0:29am
Subject: re: Tashlin  apmartin90


 
Jean-Pierre quoted:

""So this is that kingdom of heaven/So
this is that sweet wonderland..." (to avoid being totally OT, this
has a Tashlin connection). "

"Straight through the portal now / We'll be immortal now ..." - one of
my favourite zany couplets in all American cinema !!!!!!

'Adrian Slept Here'

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