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.
26901
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 2:04pm
Subject: Re: Jean Renoir - Pantheon or Fringe Benefit? jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> > Was Europa English? It's been ages since I've seen
> > it. If so, that
> > makes 3 at the time Sarris wrote the book (all
> > great, one among the
> > very greatest ever), and 3 since - weren't the three
> > Medici films in
> > English? It may be time for a promotion, unless my
> > memory is
> > malfunctioning again.
> >
> The primary language of all Rossellini's films with
> Bergman was English. In "Europe '51" this resulted in
> some very weird dubbing for Giulietta Masina. But the
> main roles are Bergman and Alexander Knox -- likewise
> Bergman and Sanders in "Voyage to Italy."
>
> It's almost impossible to establish what the "primary" language of
the RR-Bergman films was. First, no direct sound was ever used, so
whatever language may have been used while shooting, it was only a
scratch track and the actors had to post-synch everything later in
the recording studio. Second, RR seemed to have a deaf ear to
dialog and sound in general and paid very little attention to it.
(Tag wrote of EUROPE '51: "None of Rossellini's pictures is executed
with more care visually and less care aurally.") EUROPE '51 was
first shown in Italian at the Venice Festival then released in
Italian in Italy, then later released in the States in a badly
dubbed English version (actually even that very bad dubbing was a re-
dubbing of an even worse one that had been shown in a disastrous
preview). So it's rather difficult to argue that English was the
film's primary language.
JPC
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26902
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 2:11pm
Subject: Re: re: defenestration (Eustache) cellar47
--- Adrian Martin wrote:
>
> It's odd that we haven't seen yet some faintly
> concealed
> 'fictionalisation' of Eustache's life or character
> in French cinema yet
> (maybe there has been?). Perhaps Garrel will do it
> some day ...
>
I recall Garrel speaking of Eustache's suicide as a
"warning." In a great many ways "The Mother and the
Whore" made a greater impact on French film culture,
and french culture in general, than anything by
Godard, Rivette or Truffaut -- and it's the film for
which Leaud will be most remembered. To me it's a sad
echo of Malle's great "Le Feu Follet." Eustache was a
neo-fascist without an occupation to support him. The
zeitgeist of "The Mother and the Whore" has been
superceded by that Carax in "Les Amants du Pont-Neuf"
and Chereau in "Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train."
Leau belongs to the world. Francois Lebrun became a
creature of Duras (she's one of the voices in "India
Song.") And Bernadette Laffont will always be the
cinema's greatest pirate queen in Rivette's "Noroit."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26903
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 2:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jean Renoir - Pantheon or Fringe Benefit? cellar47
I'm saying that it was in that it's Bergman's voice
and she's post-synching dialogue that was quite
obviously enunciated in English. But it's true that
Rossellini's indifference to language makes these
films supremely weird.
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > It's almost impossible to establish what the
> "primary" language of
> the RR-Bergman films was. First, no direct sound was
> ever used, so
> whatever language may have been used while shooting,
> it was only a
> scratch track and the actors had to post-synch
> everything later in
> the recording studio. Second, RR seemed to have a
> deaf ear to
> dialog and sound in general and paid very little
> attention to it.
> (Tag wrote of EUROPE '51: "None of Rossellini's
> pictures is executed
> with more care visually and less care aurally.")
> EUROPE '51 was
> first shown in Italian at the Venice Festival then
> released in
> Italian in Italy, then later released in the States
> in a badly
> dubbed English version (actually even that very bad
> dubbing was a re-
> dubbing of an even worse one that had been shown in
> a disastrous
> preview). So it's rather difficult to argue that
> English was the
> film's primary language.
>
> JPC
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> > Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your
> mobile phone.
> > http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
26904
From: "Brian Dauth"
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 3:28pm
Subject: Re: Curtiz (was. Mitchell Leisen) cinebklyn
Joe writes:
> I was merely pointing out that there has been
a certain amount of feminist work on "Mildred
Pierce" which was more complex and nuanced
than what you were offering here.
I am sure it is. I was not attempting to be
definitive. I was just posting my own impressions
of a late night viewing of the film. I would also
like to point out that sometimes your "merely
pointing out" has a very professorial ring to it,
as if I were a backward student in a class being
taught by you. For me, a professorial tone is far
worse than the strongest of opinions (see below
for more about strong opinions).
> Linda Williams's piece is, at the very least, as
concerned with ethics as you seem to be.
Is her piece available on line?
> I never said that we should necessarily suspend
judgment at all times. I simply argued that the
meaning of the last shot of that film is ambiguous
and that to walk away with one single,
bombastic reading of it is very problematic.
It may be ambiguous, but for me one meaning
is more powerful than the others (I am a pluralist,
not a relativist). I do not find it problematic to
argue for the reading that is most powerful to me.
> Beyond this, there is a lot to gain, IMO, from not
reading films (or any other texts) in a consistently
forceful and aggressive manner . . .
What is to be gained specifically?
> . . . imposing strong opinions on everyone.
No one can be imposed upon unless they allow it.
> The reluctance to impose srong judgment in writing
ALSO involves a certain ethics in that it does not use
the act of criticism and commentary as a form of
power over the reader.
No one can have any power over a reader or a viewer
unless that reader or viewer cedes it to them. Just as
I dislike wishy-washy people, I dislike wishy-washy
critiques: "on the one hand . . . on the other hand."
Can you imagine James Baldwin or Gore Vidal (two of
the 20th centuries greatest essayists and critics) not
writing with strong judgments?
I prefer to read someone who makes a strong, powerful
argument for what they believe in -- even if it is for
ambiguity. I am perfectly capable of deciding for myself
whether or not to agree with what I read. The last thing
the world needs is a NetNanny for criticism.
> (For a fuller understanding of the political implications
of suspended judgment read Barthes's essay on Antonioni.)
Is it available on line?
> But he's widely admired by many in this room, including
me.
One of the reasons I like this list. First time I have
encountered genuine, informed enthusiasm for Mankiewicz.
(Though there are isolated apostates LOL).
Brian
26905
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 3:36pm
Subject: Re: Jean Renoir - Pantheon or Fringe Benefit? jess_l_amortell
> I guess what I'm wondering is why Sarris felt compelled to create the Fringe
> Benefits category.
[. . .]
> > Fringe Benefits isn't a value niche; it's a grab-bag
> [But] placing them in Fringe Benefits is not shorthand for
> saying they are crappy or even lesser directors.
For what it's worth, the "Fringe Benefits" category started out, in the Film Culture issue, as "Beyond
the Fringe," which does seem to suggest more of a grab-bag -- something a little more outré or at least more unclassifiable. It seems unlikely that he could have placed Ophuls and Renoir, who did make major films in Hollywood, in a category called "Beyond the Fringe."
26906
From: "Brian Dauth"
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 4:01pm
Subject: Re: Billy Wilder (was: Haunted Heart) cinebklyn
David E. writes:
> Autonomy is an illusion. Like
everything else in the cinema.
It may be an illusion just like
fate. But it is possible to
analyze a director's from the
perspective of how he addresses
the issue of autonomy/fate within
his work.
> It would be TRULY limiting for
Fran to walk away from Bud. He
loves her. And unlike Sheldrake
that's ALL he has. No job, no
"prospects," no more "going up."
Just love.
That is your doxology. Another
person may believe that love alone
is not enough.
> And I find the notion that she
ought to throw Bud over untenable.
Again, different people, different
philosophies, different responses.
Where you would find any other
ending untenable, I find the one
Wilder provides mawkish and
sentimental.
> But he's NOT his father. That's
made quite clear. And she's not her
mother either.
As you would say: maybe. I feel
more possibility in the ending of
"Avanti!" than in other Wilder
films. Maybe it is why I like it
so much. Choice feels more
palpable in this film that others.
When I was responding to the earlier
post I recognized that my two
favorite Wilders are about Americans
in Europe. Maybe I find those
two films so amenable to my taste
because Wilder was working on his
home turf.
Brian
26907
From: "Brian Dauth"
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 4:27pm
Subject: Re: Mitchell Leisen (was: "Haunted Heart") cinebklyn
David C writes:
> I see the same rigor in the early work - there
isn't a single element of DOUBLE INDEMNITY or
even THE MAJOR AND THE MINOR that isn't exploued
to the max - he squeezes all the value he can from
each character and prop, using and re-using them
for different purposes.
I agree. Maybe the best way to express what I feel
is to note that I experience the Brackett/Wilder
films as more "realistic" and the Wilder/Diamond
movies as more "fabulist."
I put both in quotation marks, since I want to use
them in the most expansive, vulgar way. My liking
for "Avanti!" comes from the fact that I feel it
edges back to the Wilder's "realistic" period.
> But I can interpret this positively - in the days
where women were type as "good" or "bad", Wilder is
more interested in the bad, and he LIKES them.
Your reading works: badness/evil is usually more
multidimensional and interesting. But I do pause
over the notion that whore = bad girl = more
interesting film character = no derogatory intent
on Wilder's part. I wonder how desirous Wilder
would be to see his daughter turning tricks on
Sunset Blvd.
Brian
26908
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 4:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Billy Wilder (was: Haunted Heart) cellar47
--- Brian Dauth wrote:
>
> That is your doxology. Another
> person may believe that love alone
> is not enough.
>
Well if "Love is Not Enough" (very Jacqueline Suzanne)
then not only Wilder but upwards of 93% of the cinema
just ain't for you.
>
> Again, different people, different
> philosophies, different responses.
> Where you would find any other
> ending untenable, I find the one
> Wilder provides mawkish and
> sentimental.
>
I don't find true love to be mawkish or sentimental.
Utopian perhaps, but not mawkish or sentimental. Love
is hard work -- see also Lubitsch, Carax, Demy,
Rohmer, Rivette, Cassavetes and Chereau.
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
26909
From: BklynMagus
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 5:27pm
Subject: Re: Billy Wilder (was: Haunted Heart) cinebklyn
David E. writes:
> Well if "Love is Not Enough" (very
Jacqueline Suzanne) then not only
Wilder but upwards of 93% of the
cinema just ain't for you.
I think great directors know and
acknowledge that love is not enough.
You listed many yourself in your own
post.
> I don't find true love to be mawkish
or sentimental.
Neither do I. But then again I do not
view Bud and Fran's coming together
as an instance of true love.
> Love is hard work -- see also Lubitsch,
Carax, Demy, Rohmer, Rivette,
Cassavetes and Chereau.
I would add Leisen, Mankiewicz,
Hitchcock, Imamura, Naruse, Fassbinder.
Brian
26910
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 5:42pm
Subject: Re: defenestration (Eustache) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
Eustache was a
> neo-fascist
Why do you say he was a neo-fascist? I know there's a dandy who affects
fascism in one scene of The Mother, but nothing about Eustache's own
work suggests to me that that character was anything but a character,
and a minor one at that.
26911
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 5:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: defenestration (Eustache) cellar47
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Why do you say he was a neo-fascist? I know there's
> a dandy who affects
> fascism in one scene of The Mother, but nothing
> about Eustache's own
> work suggests to me that that character was anything
> but a character,
> and a minor one at that.
>
EVERYTHING in his world view is redolent with it. I'm
talking about a manic depressive mise en scene
stretching from "Le Pere Noel a les yeux bleu" to "mes
Petits Amoureuses" and "Un Sale Historie" and the two
"Pessac" films. All the work of a disappointed
romantic crawling into the margins of culture for
safety and lashing out in sundryways. In "The Mother
and the Whore," the right-wing "dandy" character is
the match to spark the Leaud character's reactionary
sexuality. I recall a female acquaintance likening
"The Mother and the Whore" to a "snuff" film.
I don't think she was far off.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26912
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 5:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: Billy Wilder (was: Haunted Heart) cellar47
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> I think great directors know and
> acknowledge that love is not enough.
> You listed many yourself in your own
> post.
>
I think we're talking atcross-purposes he. You appear
to reagrd love as a dramtic resolution. It's not. To
me the greatest moment of love in all cinema is in the
last moments of "Those Who Love Me" when Francois
(Pascale Greggory) looks up at the hotel room window
where Louis (Bruno Todeschini) and Bruno (Sylvain
Jacques) are embracing. He has "lost" them to each
other, but at the same time he has them forever in
his heart. And THEN he goes to the cemetery to be
alone at the grave of the man he truly loved the most,
Jean-Baptiste. In other words there's no resolution.
In a far less complex way there's no resolution to
"The Apartment" either.
As Fran says "Shut up and deal."
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26913
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 6:35pm
Subject: Eustache and fascism (Was: defenestration) sallitt1
> In "The Mother
> and the Whore," the right-wing "dandy" character is
> the match to spark the Leaud character's reactionary
> sexuality.
And you think the film portrays his sexuality as an ideal to emulate? I
mean, it's a film that encourages more than one kind of audience response,
and those guys certainly have their allure - but I can't imagine how you
can see endorsement there.
> I recall a female acquaintance likening
> "The Mother and the Whore" to a "snuff" film.
>
> I don't think she was far off.
I presume she's referring to the real-life suicide that followed the film.
If she was talking about the world of the film itself - who gets snuffed?
I don't usually pursue such arguments, but I'd like to point out for the
public record that you have produced zero evidence that Eustache was a
neofascist. - Dan
26914
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 6:44pm
Subject: Re: defenestration (Eustache) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
>
> Eustache was a
> > neo-fascist
>
> Why do you say he was a neo-fascist? I know there's a dandy who
affects
> fascism in one scene of The Mother, but nothing about Eustache's own
> work suggests to me that that character was anything but a
character,
> and a minor one at that.
I'm not going to challenge David on Eustache's alleged neo-fascism,
but I would like to know how Bill reached the conclusion that
Alexandre's friend (his name is never mentioned) "affects fascism". In
one of the scenes where he appears, which takes place in the friend's
apartment, Alexandre says: "You still have your book on the S.S," and
proceeds to read the caption to one picture from the book. The friend
doesn't comment and changes the subject to the game of "the frog on
the ceiling." Is that an affectation of fascism? Or perhaps his claim
that he has stolen a wheelchair is? I am perplexed.
JPC
26915
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 6:46pm
Subject: Re: re: defenestration (Eustache) fredcamper
David Ehrenstein wrote:
> Eustache was a
> neo-fascist without an occupation to support him.
You can say that his films make you think he was a neo-fascist, I
suppose, or better, that his films express or advocate neo-fascism, but
please remember that "Personal insults against anyone, members of our
group or others, are banned." I don't like the idea of restrictions on
speech, but they're necessary in a group like this, and there's been a
lot of unnecessarily strong and personal language here of late. I think
it's also good practice to learn to write about what one has actually
experienced, rather than making dubious inferences, if the latter is
what you're doing -- Dan's suggestion that you've provided no evidence
about Eustache himself is the point. Saying his film is "redolent" of
something is fine; saying what he *was* is not, without photocopies of
membership cards in French neo-fascist parties or essays by him
advocating neo-fascism. I've found it useful as a writer on film and art
to try to avoid making assumptions about the artist.
I'm posting this without waiting to consult with Peter because I feel
sure he'll agree. If he doesn't, we'll post a correction.
Fred Camper
26916
From: BklynMagus
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 7:07pm
Subject: Re: Moments of Love (was: Billy Wilder) cinebklyn
David E. writes:
> You appear to reagrd love as a dramtic
resolution. It's not.
I don't understand what you mean by this.
> To me the greatest moment of love in all
cinema is in the last moments of "Those
Who Love Me" when Francois (Pascale
Greggory) looks up at the hotel room
window where Louis (Bruno Todeschini) and
Bruno (Sylvain Jacques) are embracing.
My favorite is at the end of "Ugestu
Monogatari" when the potter is back at his
wheel. Mizoguchi uses the same camera
set-up as before, but now the potter's wife
is gone. On the soundtrack we hear her
say: "You have become the man I thought
you would. I cannot be there since I am
dead now, but that is the way of the world."
> In other words there's no resolution.
I do not believe that there is ever resolution
to love. For me, love is simply the ground
of action.
Brian
26917
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 7:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Moments of Love (was: Billy Wilder) cellar47
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> I do not believe that there is ever resolution
> to love. For me, love is simply the ground
> of action.
>
Well then we're agreed.
But I still can'tunderstand your objection to "The Apartment."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26918
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 7:26pm
Subject: Re: re: defenestration (Eustache) cellar47
One cannot libel the dead.
--- Fred Camper wrote:
> David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> > Eustache was a
> > neo-fascist without an occupation to support him.
>
> You can say that his films make you think he was a
> neo-fascist, I
> suppose, or better, that his films express or
> advocate neo-fascism, but
> please remember that "Personal insults against
> anyone, members of our
> group or others, are banned." I don't like the idea
> of restrictions on
> speech, but they're necessary in a group like this,
> and there's been a
> lot of unnecessarily strong and personal language
> here of late. I think
> it's also good practice to learn to write about what
> one has actually
> experienced, rather than making dubious inferences,
> if the latter is
> what you're doing -- Dan's suggestion that you've
> provided no evidence
> about Eustache himself is the point. Saying his film
> is "redolent" of
> something is fine; saying what he *was* is not,
> without photocopies of
> membership cards in French neo-fascist parties or
> essays by him
> advocating neo-fascism. I've found it useful as a
> writer on film and art
> to try to avoid making assumptions about the artist.
>
> I'm posting this without waiting to consult with
> Peter because I feel
> sure he'll agree. If he doesn't, we'll post a
> correction.
>
> Fred Camper
>
>
>
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26919
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 7:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: defenestration (Eustache) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> I'm not going to challenge David on Eustache's
> alleged neo-fascism,
> but I would like to know how Bill reached the
> conclusion that
> Alexandre's friend (his name is never mentioned)
> "affects fascism". In
> one of the scenes where he appears, which takes
> place in the friend's
> apartment, Alexandre says: "You still have your book
> on the S.S," and
> proceeds to read the caption to one picture from the
> book. The friend
> doesn't comment and changes the subject to the game
> of "the frog on
> the ceiling." Is that an affectation of fascism? Or
> perhaps his claim
> that he has stolen a wheelchair is? I am perplexed.
>
It's an affectation of right-wing dandyism. I find it
everywhere these days.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26920
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 7:29pm
Subject: Re: Eustache and fascism (Was: defenestration) cellar47
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> And you think the film portrays his sexuality as an
> ideal to emulate?
Yes. He becomes what's known these days as"a
responsible father."
>
> I presume she's referring to the real-life suicide
> that followed the film.
> If she was talking about the world of the film
> itself - who gets snuffed?
>
Lebrun, metaphorically.
> I don't usually pursue such arguments, but I'd like
> to point out for the
> public record that you have produced zero evidence
> that Eustache was a
> neofascist.
The films are my "evidence."
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
26921
From: Peter Henne
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 7:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jean Renoir - Pantheon or Fringe Benefit? peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
Sarris wanted to rope in as many good films as possible into the American corral. He was stretching things by placing British productions in the Directorial Chronology at the back of the book. His approach was to situate world cinema in an American context when the opportunity and his own passion arose. Seemingly, he was willing to bend the rules more for Enghish-language films and bleed them into American cinema. (None of the Fringe directors are from English-language cultures, all the better to merge the English-language ones into that vague looming concept "America.") Needless to say, I hope, Sarris was sensitive enough to national cinemas to work with some limits while using this approach. Thus in Ophuls' entry he writes that he "happened to pass in our midst" (a statement which after the passing of four decades we can dispute, but it shows he could clamp some bounds on his colonizing heart).
Another reason he put Renoir and Ophuls in the Pantheon and not Fringe Benefits is probably that he wanted to write more about them, and felt they deserved it. The longest entries are in the first section of the book. "Fringe" has a double meaning, implying foreign but also outside the center of his most fundamental values.
Peter Henne
jess_l_amortell wrote:
For what it's worth, the "Fringe Benefits" category started out, in the Film Culture issue, as "Beyond
the Fringe," which does seem to suggest more of a grab-bag -- something a little more outré or at least more unclassifiable. It seems unlikely that he could have placed Ophuls and Renoir, who did make major films in Hollywood, in a category called "Beyond the Fringe."
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26922
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 7:44pm
Subject: Re: re: defenestration (Eustache) fredcamper
David Ehrenstein wrote:
> One cannot libel the dead.
David, this is not a legal question. Peter and I are the moderators of
this group, and we can insist that people adhere to our statement of
purpose, which includes the statement that "Personal insults....are even
banned against people who are deceased." You can write that his films
make you think he was a neo-fascist; you cannot write that he *was* a
neo-fascist. Period. You can start your own "insults to dead film
people" group if you want to. Yahoo groups are easy to start.
After all my pleas that people not quote entire posts, in part because
it takes up bandwidth on my own site where I'm archiving things, I
didn't appreciate your large quotation of mine in your reply, nor the
earlier endless exchanges of song lyrics, a discussion which no one ever
did take to the OT board.
Peter and I are not the only members of this group who feel this way.
There have been other recent questionable posts by others; we just don't
want to single out every one. The point of keeping things civil here is
to keep the discussions focused on substance. Your experience of the
films is one thing. That is yours, however brilliant or eccentric it is.
Your assumptions about the person of the maker is quite another.
Eustache's life is not your property.
Fred Camper
26923
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 8:38pm
Subject: Re: re: defenestration (Eustache) cellar47
--- Fred Camper wrote:
> Eustache's life is not your property.
>
That's a very odd way of putting it. But make no
mistake, I understand your concerns.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26924
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 8:57pm
Subject: Re: re: defenestration (Eustache) fredcamper
David Ehrenstein wrote:
> That's a very odd way of putting it. But make no
> mistake, I understand your concerns.
David, I'm not trying to start a philosophical debate, just asking that
you stick to the rules of our group. "Eustache's films made me think he
might have been a neo fascist for the following reasons, even though I
have no evidence from his life" is within the rules; "Eustache was a
neo-fascist" asserted without factual evidence is not. This may seem
like a picky linguistic point, but I know from more than one other
Internet discussion group that the route from "Eustache was a
neo-fascist" to "Nyaaaah, yer grandmudda wears army boots" is a rather
short one.
By the way, I'm no fan of "The Mother and the Whore."
Fred Camper
26925
From: "second_aq"
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 8:44pm
Subject: Re: defenestration (Eustache) second_aq
Adrian, I stand corrected. My confusion must come from the fact I saw
an Eustache short at the Montreal film festival in 1982 where it won a
prize in which somebody falls of a windowsill and somebody said to me
Eustache died that way . At the prize ceremony, somebody from
Montreal came onstage to get the prize and to forward it and the
announcer only said "due to unfortunate circumstances, Mr Eustache
won't accept his prize so Mr So and so ...". They never said Eustache
had died which I still find strange. Is there something about that
short in the book you quote? Luc
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> Luc wrote:
>
> "if I remember correctly, director Jean Eustache killed himself
> that way : the act of throwing oneself through the window."
>
> You do not remember correctly, Luc! Or rather, you have conflated two
> incidents in Eustache's life. He crippled himself in a bungled suicide
> attempt, which was the defenestration part; and he ended his life by
> shooting himself. The Evane Hanska book MES ANNEES EUSTACHE (a
> compelling if sometimes rather trashy read) has all the gory details.
>
>
26926
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 9:29pm
Subject: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) jpcoursodon
I wrote a response to David's post 26919 and sent it but Yahoo told me
that the post couldn't be retrieved and apparently my answer was lost.
Re: the (nameless) character of Leaud's friend in LA MAMAN ET LA
PUTAIN David wrote of "an affectation of right wing dandyism." I was
asking: why "right wing?" What is right wing about the character's
attitude? Or Do you think that Dandyism is by nature and
definition "right wing"? (in which case the statement would be
tautological).
Since the discussion started with a qualification of the character
(by Bill) as "fascist" I find myself wondering if we don't need at
least three definitions here: for "fascist", "right wing"
and "dandyism". Both Bill and David have been throwing those words
around with reckless abandon, and if I am to make any sense of what
they're saying I am in dire need of their personal view of what the
words in question signify.
JPC
26927
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 9:35pm
Subject: Re: Curtiz (was. Mitchell Leisen) joe_mcelhaney
I would also
> like to point out that sometimes your "merely
> pointing out" has a very professorial ring to it,
> as if I were a backward student in a class being
> taught by you.
Well, technically I AM a professor so sometimes these reflexes kick
in.
Neither the Williams nor the Barthes are available online, so far as
I know. Books only. The Barthes essay is in two books
on "L'Avventura," one by Geoffrey Nowell-Smith and the other by
Seymour Chatman. But the basic arguments Barthes makes about the
political value of writing which doesn't overtly impose meaning on
the reader runs throughout his work and interview statements. (It was
also key to Barthes's enthusiasm for "The Exterminating Angel.")
Linda W's piece is in a book called "Cinematic Pleasure and the
Female Spectator." Happy reading.
As for your statements on what you prefer in criticism, I don't have
a response to speak of. You like strong, foreful writing. Fine. In
general, that sort of writing makes me uneasy although I can
certainly be entertained by its audacity at times, as in Vidal. For
me, however, it is not an ideal.
26928
From: MG4273@...
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 5:53pm
Subject: Re: Jean Renoir - Pantheon or Fringe Benefit? nzkpzq
Sarris did include a number of British filmmakers into "The American Cinema",
if they went through a period where they worked in the United States
(Alexander Mackendrick, Clive Donner, Jack Clayton). And in "Fringe Benefits", he
included a talented group of world filmmakers who made an occasional English
language production.
I think Sarris was simply trying to cover as much artistically worthwhile
cinema as possible. As Bill Krohn pointed out, this book was an incredible
eye-opener for most English-speaking readers. I remember buying it at age 17 in
1971, and finding it totally revelatory. Filmmakers such as Antonioni, Rossellini
and Clair became part of my world view because Sarris discussed them there.
There was no internet back then, no imdb, no easy source of info on films.
Sarris' book gave everybody the world of cinema for $1.95.
The name "Fringe Benefits" seems to mean two things, IMHO. These filmmakers
are Benefits, beacuse they are all good artists who made contributions to
cinema. And they are Fringe within the context of American Cinema, because they are
on the far outskirts of that field.
Mike Grost
26929
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 10:14pm
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Re: the (nameless) character of Leaud's friend in
> LA MAMAN ET LA
> PUTAIN David wrote of "an affectation of right wing
> dandyism." I was
> asking: why "right wing?" What is right wing about
> the character's
> attitude? Or Do you think that Dandyism is by nature
> and
> definition "right wing"? (in which case the
> statement would be
> tautological).
Dandyism isn't by nature or definition right-wing. The
currently popular "Metrosexual" would have been called
a "Dandy" in a previous era.
There's a specific right-wing brand, however,
exemplified by this character's attitudes and poses.
The Zarah Leander records for instance are a dead
giveaway.
But over and above all else right-wing attitudes,
poses and actions must be seen in context. The
character in Eustache isn't Drieu La Rochelle, but he
clearly longs for that status. Today's U.S.
manifestations include P.J. O'Rourke whose predecessor
William F. Buckley has always beeb a right-wing dandy
to the manner born (remember his proposal that all
HIV+ gay men be tattooed?), as is my arch-enemy Joseph
Epstein. Others include the late and by me unlamented
Allan Bloom whose right-wing dandyism was celebrated
by anti-dandy Saul Bellow in his last
novel,"Ravelstein."
Am I making myself clear, J-P?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26930
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 10:34pm
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Dandyism isn't by nature or definition right-wing. The
> currently popular "Metrosexual" would have been called
> a "Dandy" in a previous era.
>
I still have to understand what is meant by "metrosexual." I live
a very sheltered life these days. But it's neither here nor there.
We're not discussing metrosexuality, whatever that may be.
> There's a specific right-wing brand, however,
> exemplified by this character's attitudes and poses.
> The Zarah Leander records for instance are a dead
> giveaway.
>
He makes the point that she was an imitator of Dietrich and better
than her in the way that all imitators are better than their model.
A dandyfied paradox, but how is it "right wing"?
> But over and above all else right-wing attitudes,
> poses and actions must be seen in context. The
> character in Eustache isn't Drieu La Rochelle, but he
> clearly longs for that status.
I'm sorry but it is not at all clear to me. I think it's all in
your head.
Today's U.S.
> manifestations include P.J. O'Rourke whose predecessor
> William F. Buckley has always beeb a right-wing dandy
> to the manner born (remember his proposal that all
> HIV+ gay men be tattooed?), as is my arch-enemy Joseph
> Epstein. Others include the late and by me unlamented
> Allan Bloom whose right-wing dandyism was celebrated
> by anti-dandy Saul Bellow in his last
> novel,"Ravelstein."
>
> Am I making myself clear, J-P?
>
Not at all. I don't see the relationship of all this stuff with
the character in Eustache's film or the film itself. I know it's
all so clear and obvious to you that you can't be bothered to give
explanations, but you must realize that us simple folks don't live
in your head.
JPC
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
26931
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 10:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> I still have to understand what is meant by
> "metrosexual." I live
> a very sheltered life these days. But it's neither
> here nor there.
> We're not discussing metrosexuality, whatever that
> may be.
>
In a nutshell: Jude Law.
> >
> He makes the point that she was an imitator of
> Dietrich and better
> than her in the way that all imitators are better
> than their model.
> A dandyfied paradox, but how is it "right wing"?
She was most famous for getting the career the Third
Reich offered to Marlene. See "Heimat" (quite an
excellent mini-series.)
> I'm sorry but it is not at all clear to me. I
> think it's all in
> your head.
>
Nope, it's on screen in "Le Feu Follet" and in a some
what different context,"Muriel" ( the guy Bernard
shoots.)
I don't see the relationship of all
> this stuff with
> the character in Eustache's film or the film
> itself. I know it's
> all so clear and obvious to you that you can't be
> bothered to give
> explanations, but you must realize that us simple
> folks don't live
> in your head.
>
Look, J-P. It's a complex and multi-faceted issue, and
this is a chat-list. I was just throwing out what I
hoped would be touchstones for further discussion.
Evidently I've failed.
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
26932
From: MG4273@...
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 7:08pm
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) nzkpzq
Zarah Leander was the highest paid film star in Nazi Germany, where she
worked throughout World War II. She was often known as "the Nazi Garbo". This is
indeed an odd choice of performer for a Frenchman to idolize. Admittedly, she
claimed to be apolitical, and there are reports that she even spied for Soviet
intelligence.
I saw "The Mother and the Whore" when it came out in the 70's, and found its
downbeat talkfest just about unendurable.
But I don't even remember the character of the friend. The postings suggest
he is a French guy who has a book on the Nazi SS and who worships Zarah
Leander. Hmm...
By the way, a "metrosexual" is supposed to be a straight guy who has the chic
lifestyle associated with stereotypical urban gay men who are super-stylish -
a man who is always dressed in the latest high fashion, who has an au courant
apartment, who knows all the latest hip restauarants and dishes, and in
general is just too hip for words. In truth, I've never met any examples of
metrosexuals in the real world, but then I live a sheltered life.
Mike Grost
26933
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Wed May 11, 2005 11:40pm
Subject: Re: defenestration (Eustache) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> but I would like to know how Bill reached the conclusion that
> Alexandre's friend (his name is never mentioned) "affects fascism".
Correction accepted - he doesn't even go as far as I remembered. I do
recall a big deal being made out of it at the time, though.
26934
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 0:00am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I saw "The Mother and the Whore" when it came out in the 70's, and
found its
> downbeat talkfest just about unendurable.
> But I don't even remember the character of the friend. The
postings suggest
> he is a French guy who has a book on the Nazi SS and who worships
Zarah
> Leander. Hmm...
It's too bad that you don't remember, but understandable if you
saw the film only once 35 years ago! Actually the guy
doesn't "worship" Zarah (he's too cool to be a "fan"); he just
states matter-of-factly that she's an imitator and better than the
person she imitates, because that's the case for all imitators. A
facile paradox, of course. And of course his "dandy" attitude is to
take the exact opposite attitude to everything that was politically
correct (althought the expression did not exist, perhaps
fortunately, at the time Eustache made the film). But does owning a
book on the Nazis make a person a fascist? Come on...
I can understand too that you found the "talkfest" unendurable. I
don't think I could stand the film if I were not fluent in the
language, being French (but neither right wing or a fascist although
perhaps at times a dandy, at least when I was younger). JPC
PS: based on your description of what a metrosexual is, I wonder why
they needed a new word at all. The type has existed for as long as
memory can stretch back. JPC
PPS: Quel est l'arrondissement le plus sale de Paris? -- Le 16eme,
parce qu'on y enleve la Mere Dasseau.
26935
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 0:09am
Subject: Re: defenestration (Eustache) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > but I would like to know how Bill reached the conclusion that
> > Alexandre's friend (his name is never mentioned) "affects
fascism".
> Correction accepted - he doesn't even go as far as I remembered. I
do
> recall a big deal being made out of it at the time, though.
Well, Bill, you could look it up. If you don't have a print at hand
there's always the complete scenario published by your Cahiers friends
in "Petite bibliotheque des Cahiers du Cinema." I checked it out
before I responded because I have seen the film only five or six times
and the last was four years ago in Paris. By the way I really liked
this right wing fascist dandy (the actor's name is Jacques Renard).
The frog thing is a delight. When I was young I was a bit like that
and most of my friends were too. And still we were as far as right
wing as you can imagine.
JPC
26936
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 0:11am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) matt_c_armst...
>
> PS: based on your description of what a metrosexual is, I wonder
why
> they needed a new word at all. The type has existed for as long as
> memory can stretch back. JPC
Whenever I encounter a word or concept I'm unfamiliar with, I find
Wikipedia an excellent resource. Here's the wiki entry
on "metrosexual":
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metrosexual
Here we learn that a metrosexual is...
"an urban male of any sexual orientation who has a strong aesthetic
sense."
and also one who...
"goes to independent movies"
Sounds like a lot of people on this list.
26937
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 0:27am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
Actually the guy
> doesn't "worship" Zarah (he's too cool to be a "fan"); he just
> states matter-of-factly that she's an imitator and better than the
> person she imitates. But does owning a
> book on the Nazis make a person a fascist? Come on...
Well, as the poster who blasphemed against this character, I'm glad
to hear about the records. The SS book and the records by someone who
sang Dietrich imitations for the Nazis connote but do not denote neo-
fascism, or some kind of nostalgia for fascism. But we're talking
about a film that plays with the spectator's head. For some, at the
time, the connotations of fascism in this scene were infuriating,
even proof that the director was on the right - of that I'm pretty
sure. An interesting cross-reference today would be the Nazi
documentary on tv and the kiss in the shower in Elephant.
But that doesn't make this a "denotative film" either -s something
that would be very hard to profduce, IMO. Some of the things that
Leaud says, or LeBrun's big speech at the end, mean one thing if
taken literally and something else if you take them in context: who's
talking, who's (s)he talking to, what is the situation, how are the
words being said, where is the camera. The apparent simplicity of
Eustache's style can fool you: These are not simple films, and a guy
who (says he) stole a wheelchair or a girl who (says she) wants a
baby don't mean what they might in a film that actually uses signals
like that to convey a message.
The title of the film translates roughly as The Mother and the Whore.
But Lafont isn't a mother and Lebrun isn't a prostitute. Take it from
there. And I am a big fan of LMELP and all the Eustache films I've
seen, for the record.
26938
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 0:29am
Subject: Re: defenestration (Eustache) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> Well, Bill, you could look it up. If you don't have a print at hand
> there's always the complete scenario published by your Cahiers
friends
> in "Petite bibliotheque des Cahiers du Cinema."
Uh, ok. Actually I did go looking for that little book, and I guess
it's in storage.
26939
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 0:36am
Subject: Re: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) cellar47
--- Matt Armstrong wrote:
>
> Here we learn that a metrosexual is...
>
> "an urban male of any sexual orientation who has a
> strong aesthetic
> sense."
>
> and also one who...
>
> "goes to independent movies"
>
And here's the independent movie in question:
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0212216/
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26940
From: "Fred Patton"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 0:41am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) fred_patton
My reading of it was that Lebrun was both the mother and the whore.
But of course, I am no stranger to miscalculation. There was the
abortion subtext, given the situation with the ex-girlfriend, and
cashed in with the final moments of the film. And as for the
term "whore", it needn't be limited to the professional denotation. I
think the title may function as a conceit of sorts. Just throwing this
out.
Fred Patton
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> The title of the film translates roughly as The Mother and the
Whore.
> But Lafont isn't a mother and Lebrun isn't a prostitute. Take it
from
> there. And I am a big fan of LMELP and all the Eustache films I've
> seen, for the record.
26941
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 0:45am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Patton"
wrote:
> My reading of it was that Lebrun was both the mother and the whore.
And as for the
> term "whore", it needn't be limited to the professional denotation.
Right. But I think in that Lafont is the "mother" because she takes
care of Leaud and Lebrun is the "whore" because she sleeps around.
Neither is meant literally, although I understand the film was once
referred to on French tv as "The Mother and the Prostitute."
26942
From: "Fred Patton"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 1:32am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) fred_patton
Yes, and a perfect incestuous mother at that! I agree, kidding aside.
La Font was the nurturing, mother figure, and I certainly made the
figurative leap to identify her as such. My recall isn't so good, just
seeing it once a while ago. I found it to be an odd, discourse-laden
film, but with never a dull moment. Leaud was the whore in practice
since he slept around and lacked other financial support.
Fred Patton
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Patton"
> wrote:
> > My reading of it was that Lebrun was both the mother and the whore.
> And as for the
> > term "whore", it needn't be limited to the professional denotation.
>
> Right. But I think in that Lafont is the "mother" because she takes
> care of Leaud and Lebrun is the "whore" because she sleeps around.
> Neither is meant literally, although I understand the film was once
> referred to on French tv as "The Mother and the Prostitute."
26943
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 1:44am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
Well then, Bill, since you're making such a case for the film's
subtlety and complexity, why did you embrace the most simple-
minded "interpretation" possible by calling this guy a fascist?
26944
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 1:46am
Subject: Re: defenestration (Eustache) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>
> > Well, Bill, you could look it up. If you don't have a print at
hand
> > there's always the complete scenario published by your Cahiers
> friends
> > in "Petite bibliotheque des Cahiers du Cinema."
>
> Uh, ok. Actually I did go looking for that little book, and I guess
> it's in storage.
It seems that every cinephile I know has his/her books in storage.
26945
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 1:49am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Patton"
> wrote:
> > My reading of it was that Lebrun was both the mother and the
whore.
> And as for the
> > term "whore", it needn't be limited to the professional
denotation.
>
> Right. But I think in that Lafont is the "mother" because she takes
> care of Leaud and Lebrun is the "whore" because she sleeps around.
> Neither is meant literally, although I understand the film was once
> referred to on French tv as "The Mother and the Prostitute."
For the record, the original title Eustache intended was "Du pain et
des Rolls." Don't ask me why. Of course Mother and Whore are
interchangeable. JPC
26946
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 2:27am
Subject: Re: Rameau's Nephew bufordrat
Now there's a great one. Any other fans of this film on the list?
-Matt
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>So good, I'm surprised that Michael Snow didn't use it
>in "Rameanu's Nephew by Diderot (Thanx to Denis Young)
>by Wilma Schoen."
>
>
26947
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 2:52am
Subject: Re: Re: Rameau's Nephew tharpa2002
Matt Teichman wrote:
Now there's a great one ['Rameanu's Nephew by Diderot (Thanx to Denis Young)by Wilma Schoen.']. Any other fans of this film on the list?
I saw it once at NYU in 1975 I think. Snow was there and still editing the movie (it timed out at about 7 hours at that point.) This version was titled "Rameau's Nephew by Denis Diderot based on the Bhagavad Gita and the Decameron by Boccaccio from an idea by Wilma Schoen." I remember that it seemed to be structured around language and speech disorders or used them as metaphors (or this suggestion was made in a discussion after the film that Snow didn't stay for.) At the time I found it alternately tedious or dazzling and I never really understood it. But I'd like to see it again in its present state.
Richard
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search. Learn more.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26948
From: "second_aq"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 3:06am
Subject: Re: defenestration (Eustache)- Jacques Renard second_aq
Jacques Renard as a director made a good movie about Resistance
"Blanche et Marie" and mostly tv movies. L
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> By the way I really liked > this right wing fascist dandy (the
actor's name is Jacques Renard).
> The frog thing is a delight. When I was young I was a bit like that
> and most of my friends were too. And still we were as far as right
> wing as you can imagine.
>
> JPC
26949
From: Peter Henne
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 4:03am
Subject: Re: Re: Jean Renoir - Pantheon or Fringe Benefit? peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
Mike,
I had much the same experience with TAC as you did, but at a much later time and somewhat older age. I was not interested in attending film school and discovered the book by chance. Stumbing on it at a used bookstore in my early 20s, during the mid-'80s, I was amazed by its comprehensive statement of taste. Even 20 years ago it was a guide to and defense of American cinema like no other. As I've said elsewhwere on afb, Sarris became my principal role model for film writing. Over the years, I found contradictions, dismissiveness, lots of miscalls and downright obstruction, but so what? The book remains a hell of an ambitious attempt at systematizing the best decades of Hollywood, and I think many of us here would not have the stomach for evaluating careers if Sarris hadn't done it ahead of us.
Peter Henne
MG4273@... wrote:
As Bill Krohn pointed out, this book was an incredible
eye-opener for most English-speaking readers. I remember buying it at age 17 in
1971, and finding it totally revelatory. Filmmakers such as Antonioni, Rossellini
and Clair became part of my world view because Sarris discussed them there.
There was no internet back then, no imdb, no easy source of info on films.
Sarris' book gave everybody the world of cinema for $1.95.
Mike Grost
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new resources site!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26950
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 6:45am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> Well then, Bill, since you're making such a case for the film's
> subtlety and complexity, why did you embrace the most simple-
> minded "interpretation" possible by calling this guy a fascist?
I didn't. In the course of the first response by anyone to David
calling Eustache a neo-fascist, I said that there was a dandy in the
film who affected neo-fascism, but that that didn't make Eustache a
neo-fascist. "Affected" is the operative term, even if I was
imprecise about what the character was affecting - nostalgia for
fascism might be more like it, although his affectations are open to
interpretation. The point is precisely that you can't take anything
anyone says at face value in the film, and that extends to Eustache's
own provocations, like having that guy in there in the first place.
And I repeat: At the time the film was released, some people bit, at
least in France. And here too apparently!
Incidentally, I do agree that what he says about the singer is an
esthetic statement - imitation is better than the real thing - but
his choice of example is still a provocation by Eustache. Leaud says
the same thing about a Belmondo imitator he met, but it doesn't have
the same effect as the scene with the friend who collects records by
a singer who imitated Dietrich for the delectation of the Nazis AND
has a picture book about Nazism.
I'm also sure there were people around affecting all sorts of
unpopular attitudes after May 68 - it sounds like you did something
similar, but way pre-May, if I've understood correctly, and I know
that there's a great tradition of that: Baudelaire's The Wicked Glass-
Seller is very funny in a way that only a French dandy who likes to
piss people off can be. Something I at least am inclined to take with
a smile, rather than with a frown, by the way.
In any event, the film is certainly a document of the period, but it
is also, like all Eustache, a film about simulacra, as these two
examples pertinently suggest. In this case - and it's all I ever
said - simulation of political attitudes intended (by the character
and the filmmaker) to get a rise out of people who aren't
sufficiently alert. I think it's a legitimate procedure, given the
way that (to quote Bonitzer in CdC, even though they couldn't defend
the film at the time) what a character says at one moment may
systematically be erased by what he/she says at another moment.
That's the way the film works, and the slipperiness of the result
encompasses Lebrun's final monologue as well, although I'm not going
to dump on someone, like David's friend, who thought it was an anti-
feminist polemic by Eustache. Despite its apparent simplicity, The
Mother and the Whore is a very subtle, tricky film by a very subtle,
tricky filmmaker, and discussions of it over the last three decades
are littered with the bones of the unawary.
26951
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 6:51am
Subject: Re: Jean Renoir - Pantheon or Fringe Benefit? hotlove666
So do we promote Rossellini to the Pantheon? Three (sort of) English-
language melodramas that stack up nicely with Ophuls': Fear/Reckless
Moment; Europa 51/Caught; Strangers/Letter from an Unknown Woman. And
one (three, depending on how you count) costumer, The Age of the
Medici, that beats the socks off The Exile!
26952
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 7:55am
Subject: Re: Rameau's Nephew kinoslang
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman wrote:
> Now there's a great one. Any other fans of this film on the list?
>
> -Matt
I've just seen this as part of UCLA/Getty's Snow retrospective here in
Los Angeles.
It's an immense accomplishment. I agree with J. Rosenbaum (my only
previous reference point for the film) that one needn't go from a to z
with an encyclopedia. Though, there are some exciting points of
contact and friction between sequences when seeing the film as a whole
(4.5 hours). For instance, between the first long sequence in the
airplane and the last long sequence about the table (which P. Adams
Sitney referred to at the screening as a great send up of Plato's
table).
The film was screened with an intermission. I'm not sure if that is
standard with screenings of the film but it made comparison of the two
halfs somewhat inevitable and interesting.
My favourite sequences:
--the word play, sound cut up, and arching pans of the airplane
sequence.
--the "sink" sound drumming
--the dziga vertov group like scene in the bus about western
communication
--the "turban" section consisting of a group facing the camera, then
shot individually, while a conversation is heard on the soundtrack and
the people repeat what looks to be vowels only, or some such system,
out of proper synch. Eventually the scene gets really exhilarating
when the picture of the group becomes more and more abstracted and
fragmented into shards of light while a radio performance on the
soundtrack is being manipulated so that the dialogue of it is warped
to a sound smear and the spaces inbetween words are left untouched--
so you get this pure sound.
--the closeup bodily sounds sequence inside of the opulent house (with
Annette Michelson). This one reminded me of a Jerry Lewis film- I am
very fond of it.
--the guitar strums and musical interventions in language throughout.
--the discussion of pornography in the last and longest sequence while
one of the characters is pure ghost.
--the specificity of place that Snow is never afraid of (ie. the very
specific decors and materials of hotels, apartments, airplanes, etc.)
The most overwrought and annoying sequence, in my humble opinion, is
the one where the young people are hanging about in the apartment,
next to the speakers and table, playing Rameau and repeating lines
circularly, trading roles, seemingly recording themselves until all
becomes a garble. This sequence belabors its variations for at least
20 minutes, discovering what Godard discovered in 20 seconds worth of
film (8 or 9 years earlier) about direct sound, phonographs and texts
interacting. Snow himself did it much better in about a minute with
his magnificent film PRELUDE, made for the Toronto film festival and
viewable here: http://www.filmreferencelibrary.ca/index.asp?
navid=92&layid=82&csid2=64&csid=299
This recent retrospective of Snow's work seems to suggest that he is
almost too ripe for an auteurist interpretation. A film-by-film study
would indeed suggest an encyclopedia of film technique.
His work with digital is frightening and, I'd say, quite melancholy.
-andy
26953
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 8:14am
Subject: Re:Rosselini/Ophuls Costume ( Was:Jean Renoir - Pantheon or Fringe Benefit?) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> So do we promote Rossellini to the Pantheon? Three (sort of) English-
> language melodramas that stack up nicely with Ophuls': Fear/Reckless
> Moment; Europa 51/Caught; Strangers/Letter from an Unknown Woman.
And
> one (three, depending on how you count) costumer, The Age of the
> Medici, that beats the socks off The Exile!
Please correct me, anyone, if I am wrong. I am not going to reference
books for this, just experience. There was a belated wave of
Rosselini's historical films (here in L.A. anyway, in late 70s, early
80s), and (God help me this is true) they actually drew audiences
in one West L.A. theatre (during very brief runs). It was my
understanding at the time that they were all made for Italian
Television and most (like Augustine of Hippo, Blaise Pascal) were
in Italian with English subtitles, but the three part Age of the
Medici was dubbed into English as we saw it. I don't know why it
was dubbed and the others were not, but the production circumstances
of the original were the same so by what stretch of the imagination is
this an English-language film in the same way as the other Rosselinis
(always intended in different language versions) as well as several
of the Renoirs that came into the discussion already, let alone a work
that could reasonably be considered part of "The American Cinema"
You can see dubbed movies from anywhere in the world.
As for "beating the socks off The Exile" (may I timidly suggest that
this is an invidious comparison, Bill), there was no doubt in my mind
when Hot Love 666 first did his Renoir/Ophuls American films comparison
that the Ophuls "turkey" he referred to was The Exile and not one of
the other three, and I doubt anyone else was confused either, even if
he's been known, like the rest of us, to have opinions that are all
his own. Well, I don't buy that blithe kiss off at all. And I can't
help wondering if everyone else does or it that just came along when,
like me, they couldn't spend a few thoughtful minutes in response.
It's now late at night but I will put in a few words for The Exile,
perhaps in the original context of Ophuls/Renoir American movies
and how they rate, and how the two directors should be considered
in the whole of American cinema. As soon as I can get back to this,
tomorrow if possible.
Blake
26954
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 9:09am
Subject: Re:Rosselini/Ophuls Costume ( Was:Jean Renoir - Pantheon or Fringe Benefit?) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
the three part Age of the
> Medici was dubbed into English as we saw it. I don't know why it
> was dubbed and the others were not, but the production circumstances
> of the original were the same
Tag lists it as an English-language film, with another version dubbed
in Italian, but the English is all looped too. The reason: The producer
convinced RR to shoot it in English for sale to English-language tv
(which passed on it), but RR, "who had learned nothing from the
Europa '51 debacle," cut corners by shooting without any direct sound
recording and hiring an American dubbing director to overseee the
dubbing. Unfortunately, he had let the actors on the set, who were
speaking English, speak too slowly, so the looped English dialogue was
too slow; in addition, "two or there stupid-sounding voices compounded
the slow pace of the dialogue, and, last but not least, a lack of
ambient sound...made the picture SOUND dubbed."
I haven't seen The Exile for a long, long time, but I was let down the
only time I did see it. I'd be thrilled to learn that it's not a
turkey, a snap judgement I own up to, but you'd have to do some fancy
talking to convince me that Age of the Medici doesn't beat the socks of
it.
26955
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 10:29am
Subject: Re: Eustache and fascism (Was: defenestration) sallitt1
>> And you think the film portrays his sexuality as an
>> ideal to emulate?
>
> Yes. He becomes what's known these days as"a
> responsible father."
Please don't read this post if you don't want the ending of THE MOTHER AND
THE WHORE spoiled....
In the last scenes of the film, Leaud seems to be breaking down. He is
inert for most of the three-way scene that includes Lebrun's long "Il n'y
a pas des puttes" monologue, seemingly too depressed to respond to the
women's sometimes aggressive comments. At the end, he comes up with
enough energy to make the most unpromising marriage proposal of all time
to Lebrun, who treats him with open contempt before and after the
proposal. We last see him twitching and shivering in a corner of Lebrun's
tiny living quarters, while Lebrun is vomiting into a container that she
rudely ordered him to fetch for her.
I do not see the "responsible father" stuff. If you follow the dramatic
line of the ending, Leaud seems headed for a nervous breakdown. Mind you,
the film does not give us much precedent for extrapolating Leaud's
behavior, but his trajectory is definitely downward.
>> If she was talking about the world of the film
>> itself - who gets snuffed?
>
> Lebrun, metaphorically.
Lebrun is in the same place at film's end as in the beginning: a bit of a
lost soul, maybe; definitely spinning her wheels and dispersing her
precious bodily fluids; but not lacking a certain strength, or acceptance,
or maybe just animal endurance. Not an optimistic prognosis for her
future, exactly, but she maintains, whereas Leaud degenerates. - Dan
26956
From: MG4273@...
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 7:26am
Subject: Re: Rosselini/Ophuls Costume ( Was:Jean Renoir - Pantheon or ... nzkpzq
"The Exile" is almost impossible to see. I loved it on my only viewing circa
1973 - it seemed beautiful, graceful and joyous. Have never had a chance to
see "The Reckless Moment" at all.
As for Rossellini, his films are distributed almost not at all. Where could
we all see "The Age of the Medici" or "Blaise Pascal" or "The Messiah"? Have
never seen any of these...
Mike Grost
26957
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 0:21pm
Subject: Re:Rosselini/Ophuls Costume ( Was:Jean Renoir - Pantheon or Fringe Benefit?) joe_mcelhaney
Like Blake, I take umbrage at this notion that "The Exile" is a
turkey. What sad, harsh times we live in when auteurists as brilliant
as Bill Krohn are using such language to talk about Ophuls! I've only
seen the film twice in the last 20 years and have no particular insight
into it. But the last time I saw the film, about three years ago at an
Ophuls conference where it was screened in a beautiful 35mm. print
(from Library of Congress) I thought it was pretty stunning. The Maria
Montez sequences alone are a treat. And it was especially interesting
as a film ABOUT exile from a filmmaker who was living in precisely that
state at the time.
As for whether "Age of the Medici" would "beat the stocks off of it" I
can't say. They're such different types of historical films it never
occurred to me to discuss them in the same breath.
26958
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 1:04pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rameau's Nephew cellar47
--- Andy Rector wrote:
>
> The film was screened with an intermission. I'm not
> sure if that is
> standard with screenings of the film but it made
> comparison of the two
> halfs somewhat inevitable and interesting.
>
I've see it four times and never with an intermission.
I've always felt the film breaks down into sections
and sub-sets anyway you slice it.
>
> The most overwrought and annoying sequence, in my
> humble opinion, is
> the one where the young people are hanging about in
> the apartment,
> next to the speakers and table, playing Rameau and
> repeating lines
> circularly, trading roles, seemingly recording
> themselves until all
> becomes a garble. This sequence belabors its
> variations for at least
> 20 minutes, discovering what Godard discovered in 20
> seconds worth of
> film (8 or 9 years earlier) about direct sound,
> phonographs and texts
> interacting.
Funny, but I don'trecall this sequence as being any
more annoying than the others. An "annoyance
factor"seems built into the film as one's interst
varies afteryou "get" how each section "works."
Sometimes one finds onself sitting there staring. This
is similar in effect to Warhol's "****(Four Stars)"
>
> His work with digital is frightening and, I'd say,
> quite melancholy.
>
Really? Why? I've never found Snow melancholy. And
"Corpus Collosum" is very very funny.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26959
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 1:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rosselini/Ophuls Costume ( Was:Jean Renoir - Pantheon or ... cellar47
--- MG4273@... wrote:
> "The Exile" is almost impossible to see. I loved it
> on my only viewing circa
> 1973 - it seemed beautiful, graceful and joyous.
To me it's a light-hearted jape. Not intended as a
"major" statement at all. And Maria Montez is most
amusing in it -- in a different comic mode than the
one she displays in her other films. And that's
because she has to share autuership with Ophuls and
Doug Jr.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
26960
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 1:11pm
Subject: Re:Rosselini/Ophuls Costume ( Was:Jean Renoir - Pantheon or Fringe Benefit?) jess_l_amortell
> > So do we promote Rossellini to the Pantheon?
Even though (unlike Ophuls and Renoir) he didn't make any films in America?
Just realized that a possibly provocative Sarris omission is Powell. (Seth Holt and Clive Donner are in Expressive Esoterica.)
> the Ophuls "turkey" he referred to was The Exile and not one of
> the other three, and I doubt anyone else was confused either
I was going to write: "What -- you mean you don't like Caught?"
26961
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 1:58pm
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> wrote:
?
>
> I didn't.
Bill, as per instructions I'm deleting all of your long post, but I
just wanted to say that I agree 200% with it. Not a film for the
unwary and literal-minded. Eustache must have chuckled at those people
interpreting it as fascistic or whatever (of course at the time -- and
it's still the case to a degree -- "fascist" was a convenient, generic
label for anything or anybody you didn't approve of.)
JPC
26962
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 2:16pm
Subject: Re:Rosselini/Ophuls Costume ( Was:Jean Renoir - Pantheon or Fringe Benefit?) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> Like Blake, I take umbrage at this notion that "The Exile" is a
> turkey.
Me too! I saw it only once, at MOMA, a long time ago, and thought
it was wonderful.
I also agree that comparing two works as totally different as "The
Exile" and "The Medicis" and putting one above the other is pretty
meaningless.
26963
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 2:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
Not a
> film for the
> unwary and literal-minded.
And I've always thought of myself asthe wariest of the
wary-- devoted to metaphot and analogy! I hang my
cyberhead in shame.
Eustache must have
> chuckled at those people
> interpreting it as fascistic or whatever
Is there laughter after death? What then of my
favorite auteur-suicide, Donald Cammell?
(of course
> at the time -- and
> it's still the case to a degree -- "fascist" was a
> convenient, generic
> label for anything or anybody you didn't approve
> of.)
>
There's disapproval and there's disapproval. What has
always rankled me about Eustache is his obvious
talent. And I'm not talking about in Leni Riefenstahl
terms either. (I trust calling Leni Riefenstahl a
fascist won't prove a point of controversy -- but who
knows these days. It's The Forbidden Word. )
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
26964
From: MG4273@...
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 11:00am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) nzkpzq
In a message dated 05-05-12 10:00:07 EDT, you write:
<< Eustache must have chuckled at those people
interpreting it as fascistic or whatever (of course at the time -- and
it's still the case to a degree -- "fascist" was a convenient, generic
label for anything or anybody you didn't approve of. >>
Actually "fascist" is an accurate label for the Nazi SS and the Nazi
propoganda cinema churned out by Goebbels, including Zarah Leander - the material
Eustache references in the movie.
Mike Grost
26965
From: "second_aq"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 4:01pm
Subject: Re: Definitions, please "Du pain et des Rolls" second_aq
I think "Du pain et des Rolls" is an ironic take on "Du pain et des
roses" which is a french version of " Bread and roses" The title of
the Ken Loach film comes from the claim by female textile factory
workers Massachusetts in 1912 who wanted "bread and roses". It's also
now the name of a international feminist movement for ex.:
www.ffq.qc.ca/actions/pain-roses.html
Luc
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote: ---
>
> For the record, the original title Eustache intended was "Du pain et
> des Rolls." Don't ask me why. Of course Mother and Whore are
> interchangeable. JPC
26966
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 4:54pm
Subject: Re: Mizoguchi on DVD -- in Japan -- at last sallitt1
> It looks like the first Mizoguchi DVD from Japan is finally being
> released -- and the pick is a rare one -- The Straits of Love and Hate:
If I'm not mistaken, Tony Rayns has been putting this on his all-time top
ten in the last few Sight and Sound polls. I imagine English subtitles
are unlikely? - Dan
26967
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 6:14pm
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
What has
> always rankled me about Eustache is his obvious
> talent.
Was there a typo in this sentence? Specifically did you mean to
say "his obvious talent" or "his obvious lack of talent."
Big difference. And I hope you appreciate I'm simply asking for
this clarification because I think my question is a good one,
giving the many posts on this, your involvement throughout, and
your deep dislike of the film.
I appreciate that "obvious talent" might rankle in view of the
alleged "neo-fascism" you have attributed to him. Reference to
Riefenstahl seems to support the sentence as typed (I guess I'd say
she has obvious talent, but honestly, I'd almost rather be consigned
to a lifetime of Paul Schrader/Henry Jaglom double features than
see "Triumph of the Will" again).
On the other hand, if you acknowledged Eustache as displaying any
talent in any of your previous posts, I missed it. One criteria for
making a "snuff" film that is probably not required is talent.
>
>
> Yahoo! Mail
> Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
> http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
26968
From: "Fred Patton"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 6:28pm
Subject: Subtitleless ventures (Was Re: Mizoguchi on DVD -- in Japan -- at last) fred_patton
I remember one long-ago post by Gabe Klinger's about such clear mise-
en-scene that one could follow the film without understanding the
dialogue, and which also led me to discover Abdel Kechiche, and most
especially Pedro Costa, who seems especially typify that. I still need
to watch Kechiche's L'Esquive. Though I could follow the dialogue in
REMORQUES fairly well, I still thought I could have followed the film
with zero French. Maybe if THE STRAITS OF LOVE operates with similar
visual clarity, I'll give it a go.
It seems that some (probably many) are accustomed to taking the plunge
and watching films without needed subs, and I'm just now seeing the
virtues of this half-full glass approach. I always try to watch a
subtitled film with no subs by the third viewing if I connect with it
enough, and for me it makes a world of difference, especially for
keeping up with the rhythmic life of the film.
Having gone back to see CASA DE LAVA the fourth time and returning to
subs (because the French translations seemed better in some trouble
spots I wanted to clarify), the film felt still-born, I thought maybe
I'd worn it out. But a fifth run, just a couple hours later with no
distracting subtitles, restored all the former ecstasy and then some.
And speaking of Costa, maybe I like OSSOS even more.
I also want to clarify that I don't think that the volume of dialogue
is the issue, even if typical talk-fests lack visual emphasis.
Fred Patton
26969
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 6:34pm
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
>>
> Actually "fascist" is an accurate label for the Nazi SS and the Nazi
> propoganda cinema churned out by Goebbels, including Zarah Leander -
the material
> Eustache references in the movie.
>
> Mike Grost
But, Mike, we were talking about whether Eustache was a fascist
(actually "neo-fascist")and whether a minor character in his film
(whom, by the way, you said you had forgotten) was himself a fascist.
The fact that Eustache "references" Nazi SS -- the character has a
book (unidentified except by the photo caption Leaud reads)-- about
Nazi Germany does not make either the character or the filmmaker a
nazi or a SS or a fascist. I own numerous books about nazi Germany,
Hitler, WWII, the Holocaust etc. Does that make me a fascist?
Moreover the entire episode occupies perhaps less than half a minute
of screen time.
The film does not "reference" the "propaganda cinema churned out by
Goebbels." Nothing of the sort is mentioned. Actually Leaud's friend
doesn't say one word about this book.
As for Leander, the friend's interest in her has nothing to do with
her being a fascist or nazi propagandist. It is of a
purely "aesthetic" nature (as Bill has pointed out): she is an
imitator whom he finds better than the singer she imitates (according
to him imitators are always better than the imitated).
I don't know what Eustache thought of Leander, if anything. He
obviously had a taste for campy/kitschy old songs (at least his
characters do. See the Edith Piaf song we hear in its entirety while
Leaud just listens in the penultimate sequence). But it is patently
absurd to read anything more into the Leander thing.
Incidentally (and on a personal note) Dietrich is such a bad singer
and her songs most of the time so crappy that the notion of a Dietrich-
imitator-who's better-than-Dietrich seems delightfully campy/kitschy
itself.
PS: anybody wants the lyrics to the Piaf song ("Les Amants de
Paris")? That would have to be OT of course.
JPC
26970
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) cellar47
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
me about Eustache is his obvious
> > talent.
>
> Was there a typo in this sentence? Specifically did
> you mean to
> say "his obvious talent" or "his obvious lack of
> talent."
The former, of course.
> Big difference. And I hope you appreciate I'm
> simply asking for
> this clarification because I think my question is a
> good one,
> giving the many posts on this, your involvement
> throughout, and
> your deep dislike of the film.
>
I wonder about that. I have a deep dislike of Oliver
Stone's "JFK." My dislike of "The Mother and the
Whore" is a lot more nuanced.
> I appreciate that "obvious talent" might rankle in
> view of the
> alleged "neo-fascism" you have attributed to him.
> Reference to
> Riefenstahl seems to support the sentence as typed
> (I guess I'd say
> she has obvious talent, but honestly, I'd almost
> rather be consigned
> to a lifetime of Paul Schrader/Henry Jaglom double
> features than
> see "Triumph of the Will" again).
>
Well this is where it gets interesting. Schrader isn't
without interesy, unlike Jaglom.
As for Riefenstahl she's the bestdemonstration I can
think of next to Griffith that artistic talent isn't
inherently moral.
For years critics have tried to dismiss her as a hack
because she was a Nazi. Likewise claims were made that
Griffith wasn't "really"a racist, but just "a
southerner of his time."
Neither washes.
> On the other hand, if you acknowledged Eustache as
> displaying any
> talent in any of your previous posts, I missed it.
> One criteria for
> making a "snuff" film that is probably not required
> is talent.
>
Au contraire. Consider "Salo."
Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/
26971
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 6:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Incidentally (and on a personal note) Dietrich is
> such a bad singer
> and her songs most of the time so crappy that the
> notion of a Dietrich-
> imitator-who's better-than-Dietrich seems
> delightfully campy/kitschy
> itself.
>
>
I beg to differ. I saw Dietrich live at the
Lunt-Fontaine theater back in '68 with Burt Bachrach
conducting the orchestraand it's one of the greatest
pieces of theater I've ever seen -- right up there
with "Marat/Sade," "Deafman Glance," and Chereau's
production of Genet's "The Screens."
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26972
From: "Brian Dauth"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 6:55pm
Subject: Auteurs, Canon, Pleasure and Change cinebklyn
Following hl666's suggestion, I picked up Frank Kermode's book on the
canon and pleasure and change. As hl666 noted, the work Kermode has
done with regard to the literary canon can be usefully applied to
the cinematic canon as well. With regard to some recent (and not-so-
recent posts), I want to offer the following for consideration and
discussion:
When I said that I found Sirk's dialogue poorly crafted, I was saying
(in a larger sense) that I take no pleasure in watching Sirk movies.
I have read the critiques and possess a more than adequate
understanding of what Sirk is up to, but the issue comes down to the
fact that I find little pleasure in most of his films.
Unlike some a_f_b members, I am not swept up in Sirk's visuals nor do
his films engender strong emotional states in me. (Side note: while
I realize that for some viewers, great value is seen in those
films that cause them to react emotionally -- they laugh; they cry;
etc., etc. -- I am not convinced that such reactions are indicators
of great art, nor indeed, markers of anything other than the fact
that the film has resonated on an emotional level with a particular
viewer – often for private, non-aesthetic reasons.)
David E. expressed puzzlement over my difficulty with "The
Apartment, and here I must say that while at one time "The
Apartment" gave me pleasure, now it does not. In fact, isn't it when
pleasure evaporates that the "plumbing" is most obvious?
As our dialogue progressed, David E. looked for an intellectual
disagreement between us that would explain our variance. When it
turned out that we had the same conceptual framework regarding love,
he wondered why I didn't like it. What was I missing? What didn't I
get? Simply stated, the thing I didn't get was pleasure, even though
at one time I did. Something changed.
Change seems to be part of existence, a fact that some people face
with more ease and comfort than others. To remain the same seems not
to be considered a good, since we have such expressions as "stuck in
a rut" or the pejorative term "stagnation" to indicate situations
where change is not occurring.
But what about change within the canon? Are canons allowed to
change? It seems inarguable that canons are allowed to expand, but
what mechanism exists for reducing the canon? Can (or should)
pleasure be taken into account in canon formation?
Today, Joe posted his despair over an eminent auteurist like hl666
finding a film by a canon-enshrined filmmaker to be a turkey. Well,
why can't a master make a turkey? There are films by Billy Wilder
(whom I consider to be a master) that give me absolutely no pleasure
(even though at one time I think almost all of Wilder's work did
so). Once a filmmaker has been admitted to the canon, must her every
film be regarded as a trove of pleasure? Since the viewer is both
the manufacturer and experiencer of pleasure, it seems obvious that
masters can make turkeys. Unless . . .
The argument might be made that a master filmmaker never makes a
turkey, and that a failure to experience pleasure with regard to a
particular film demonstrates a failure of perception or
sophistication on the part of a viewer. I think JPC alludes to this
approach when he writes that it would never have occurred to him to
write a book such as "The American Cinema" since such rankings were
assumed to be obvious. The unaddressed aspect of this comment is
what generates the quality of "obviousness" -- the works themselves
or the unarticulated, shared cultural perspective of those asserting
obviousness.
As for Joe's statement that my view of "Mildred Pierce" was bombastic
(talk about a strong opinion LOL. Also, the definition I found for
bombastic is "ostentatiously lofty in style" -- I don't feel my post
was lofty, but maybe I am wrong and apologize for coming across as
lofty), I will admit I just explored one aspect of the film -- the
one that I had experienced as most powerful during that particular
viewing. Must every viewing focus on every nuance of a film?
Also, must all nuances be viewed as equally important and
significant? Isn't it up to each and every viewer to determine which
aspects are most powerful for her? In my view, many film analyses
are so nuanced as to go from aesthetic critique to scientific
treatise, as if every aspect of film could be pigeon-holed in some
pre-set matrix. In this approach, an auteur is someone with a
visible style, but whether a filmmaker's work gives pleasure is
considered unessential. (I often wonder if aesthetic criticism tries
too hard to emulate the definitiveness and certainty of scientific
investigation).
This is the "eat-your-peas" approach to cinema: you watch Sirk since
he is a master, and it is good to watch the films of masters. If you
do not enjoy his work, well then something must be wrong with you
(film criticism should try to be on the lookout for the insidious,
creeping advance of such elitist thinking). The implication is that
if you can formally identify all the elements of a film, then you
should be able to appreciate it. What is left out of the equation,
of course, is the issue of pleasure. But since pleasure is produced
in and by the viewer, formalists can ignore the question of pleasure
since to address it would require them to go beyond the formal
elements of film.
So should pleasure considerations be exiled? Is the identification
of a signature style enough to confer auteurhood?
Brian
P.S. My apologies to those who found this post filled with too many
strong opinions. I tried to be as temperate as possible.
26973
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 7:20pm
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >
> > Incidentally (and on a personal note) Dietrich is
> > such a bad singer
> > and her songs most of the time so crappy that the
> > notion of a Dietrich-
> > imitator-who's better-than-Dietrich seems
> > delightfully campy/kitschy
> > itself.
> >
> >
>
> I beg to differ. I saw Dietrich live at the
> Lunt-Fontaine theater back in '68 with Burt Bachrach
> conducting the orchestraand it's one of the greatest
> pieces of theater I've ever seen -- right up there
> with "Marat/Sade," "Deafman Glance," and Chereau's
> production of Genet's "The Screens."
>
>
Oh, come on, David!
On the other hand I'm not surprised.... I'm not going to
discuss Dietrich's singing talent and her songs with you -- they're
just not my cup of tea. I said this was a "personal note" and it was
thoroughly marginal to my Eustache post anyway.
>
>
> __________________________________
> Yahoo! Mail Mobile
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/learn/mail
26974
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 7:22pm
Subject: Mothers, Whores (Was: Definitions, please) sallitt1
> I don't know what Eustache thought of Leander, if anything. He
> obviously had a taste for campy/kitschy old songs (at least his
> characters do. See the Edith Piaf song we hear in its entirety while
> Leaud just listens in the penultimate sequence).
Isn't that Lafont listening to the Piaf song in that sequence, after the
rest of the triangle has left the apt.?
Earlier in the film, I believe Leaud plays most or all of a song for
Lebrun, but I can't recall what the song was. - Dan
26975
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 7:39pm
Subject: Re: Auteurs, Canon, Pleasure and Change jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Dauth"
wrote:
>
> This is the "eat-your-peas" approach to cinema: you watch Sirk
since
> he is a master, and it is good to watch the films of masters. If
you
> do not enjoy his work, well then something must be wrong with you
> (film criticism should try to be on the lookout for the insidious,
> creeping advance of such elitist thinking). The implication is
that
> if you can formally identify all the elements of a film, then you
> should be able to appreciate it. What is left out of the
equation,
> of course, is the issue of pleasure. But since pleasure is
produced
> in and by the viewer, formalists can ignore the question of
pleasure
> since to address it would require them to go beyond the formal
> elements of film.
>
> So should pleasure considerations be exiled? Is the
identification
> of a signature style enough to confer auteurhood?
>
> Brian>
You have raised a major important, even essential point. I for
one believe in the pleasure principle. Every aesthetic experience
begins with pleasure and is evaluated in terms of the pleasure felt.
But because pleasure is "subjective" there is a strong, even
irresistible tendency for "serious" critics to disregard the very
notion. Metz has written interesting things on that topic (he who
could easily be considered a contemptor of pleasure!)
Of course there are difficult works that at first may fail to
give you pleasure but eventually will as you get more familiar with
them. But while you can force yourself to eat your peas you cannot
force yourself to enjoy them, and I don't think that a better
understanding of what peas are should induce you to praise them. So
your expressing your dislike of (or like of pleasure at) the films
of Sirk is commendable.
Your closing question, however, goes off on a tangent, leaving the
pleasure issue behind. It actually asks: "What constitutes
auteurhood?" A bit heavy for an afterthought. Maybe some other time.
JPC
26976
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 7:46pm
Subject: Re: Mothers, Whores (Was: Definitions, please) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > I don't know what Eustache thought of Leander, if anything. He
> > obviously had a taste for campy/kitschy old songs (at least his
> > characters do. See the Edith Piaf song we hear in its entirety
while
> > Leaud just listens in the penultimate sequence).
>
> Isn't that Lafont listening to the Piaf song in that sequence, after
the
> rest of the triangle has left the apt.?
>
> Earlier in the film, I believe Leaud plays most or all of a song for
> Lebrun, but I can't recall what the song was. - Dan
Actually the three of them are in the room and Lafont puts on the
record. Leaud is sitting at a desk and writing. You're right that he
plays another song earlier for Lebrun, and like you I can't remember
the song except that it's one I know very well. Then SHE sings a
little song to him (a very old one, called "Tout simplement").
JPC
26977
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 7:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> Oh, come on, David!
>
> On the other hand I'm not surprised.... I'm
> not going to
> discuss Dietrich's singing talent and her songs with
> you -- they're
> just not my cup of tea. I said this was a "personal
> note" and it was
> thoroughly marginal to my Eustache post anyway.
>
>
Understood. I just felt like throwing that in cause
Marlene was more than a singer,and more than an
actress.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
26978
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 8:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Mothers, Whores (Was: Definitions, please) sallitt1
>> Isn't that Lafont listening to the Piaf song in that sequence, after
>> the rest of the triangle has left the apt.?
>
> Actually the three of them are in the room and Lafont puts on the
> record. Leaud is sitting at a desk and writing.
Really? We're talking about the very end of the penultimate scene, right?
I have a strong memory that Lafont has been left alone and listens to the
song in misery, and that Leaud has gone in pursuit of Lebrun. What am I
getting wrong? Does the song play earlier in the scene, or do we never
see Leaud and Lebrun leave? - Dan
26979
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 8:47pm
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Blake Lucas wrote:
>> >
> > Was there a typo in this sentence? Specifically did
> > you mean to
> > say "his obvious talent" or "his obvious lack of
> > talent."
>
> The former, of course.
>
You answered my question. It was the answer I expected. The rest
of what I wrote was probably just because I'm notorious for not
being able to let it go at a one sentence question.
26980
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 8:51pm
Subject: Re: Mothers, Whores (Was: Definitions, please) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >> Isn't that Lafont listening to the Piaf song in that sequence,
after
> >> the rest of the triangle has left the apt.?
> >
> > Actually the three of them are in the room and Lafont puts on the
> > record. Leaud is sitting at a desk and writing.
>
> Really? We're talking about the very end of the penultimate scene,
right?
> I have a strong memory that Lafont has been left alone and listens
to the
> song in misery, and that Leaud has gone in pursuit of Lebrun. What
am I
> getting wrong? Does the song play earlier in the scene, or do we
never
> see Leaud and Lebrun leave? - Dan
You're right, Lafont puts on the record as the other two are
leaving (He asks her if she's putting on "Don Juan"). Then she listens
alone, playing the entire song -- which by the way is better material
than standard Piaf. I actually like the song.
26981
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Thu May 12, 2005 9:46pm
Subject: Re: Subtitleless ventures (Was Re: Mizoguchi on DVD -- in Japan -- at last) tharpa2002
Fred Patton wrote:
"...Maybe if THE STRAITS OF LOVE operates with similar
visual clarity, I'll give it a go.
"It seems that some (probably many) are accustomed to taking the plunge and watching films without needed subs, and I'm just now seeing the virtues of this half-full glass approach. I always try to watch a subtitled film with no subs by the third viewing if I connect with it enough, and for me it makes a world of difference, especially for keeping up with the rhythmic life of the film."
There are no sub-titles on the DVD for "Aien Kyo"/"The Straights of Love and Hate." The plot may be hard to follow but there's a synopsis in the Andrews brother's "Kenji Mizoguchi: A Guide to References and Resources." I suggest that you watch it once before reading the synopsis and then again after reading it. "Aien Kyo"/"The Straights of Love and Hate" is a key Mizoguchi movie and I don't think it's been shown in the US. I saw it in Japan several years ago and the print came from the Film Dept. of the Tokyo Museum of Modern Art; it was a passably good print and the DVD is probably mastered from that print.
Richard
---------------------------------
Discover Yahoo!
Get on-the-go sports scores, stock quotes, news & more. Check it out!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26982
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 0:05am
Subject: Re: Rameau's Nephew kinoslang
> I've see it four times and never with an intermission.
> I've always felt the film breaks down into sections
> and sub-sets anyway you slice it.
You can probably guess where they put the intermission:
right after the short shot of the man and woman pissing into the
buckets.
> Funny, but I don'trecall this sequence as being any
> more annoying than the others. An "annoyance
> factor"seems built into the film as one's interst
> varies afteryou "get" how each section "works."
> Sometimes one finds onself sitting there staring. This
> is similar in effect to Warhol's "****(Four Stars)"
I speak personally; I found little to redeem that sequence whereas
the rest are charged with something in some way or another.
I didn't see CORPUS but I saw LIVING ROOM which is apparently a part
of CORPUS. In LIVING ROOM, among the hilarious gags, I find some
sadness, even cruelty, and constant loss, so to speak. I would
consider WVLNT digital, and its like an "in memorium", besides being
a totally new work.
-andy
26983
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 0:20am
Subject: Re: Re: Rameau's Nephew cellar47
--- Andy Rector wrote:
>
> I didn't see CORPUS but I saw LIVING ROOM which is
> apparently a part
> of CORPUS. In LIVING ROOM, among the hilarious gags,
> I find some
> sadness, even cruelty, and constant loss, so to
> speak. I would
> consider WVLNT digital, and its like an "in
> memorium", besides being
> a totally new work.
>
Well there's always been cruelty in Snow. In
"Wavelength" Hollis Frampton enters the room, drops
dead and Amy Taubin finds the body. She then calls
Richard Foreman about it. Creepy.
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
26984
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 0:35am
Subject: Subtitleless ventures (Was Re: Mizoguchi on DVD -- in Japan -- at last) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Patton"
wrote:
>
> It seems that some (probably many) are accustomed to taking the
plunge
> and watching films without needed subs, and I'm just now seeing
the
> virtues of this half-full glass approach. I always try to watch a
> subtitled film with no subs by the third viewing if I connect with
it
> enough, and for me it makes a world of difference, especially for
> keeping up with the rhythmic life of the film.
>
This was a very interesting, thought-provoking post to me. I'm not
writing with a particular point of view on the subject, just to share
my own experience and some thoughts I've had. I've watched movies
unsubtitled when motivated (being a completist with a favorite
director is obviously a big incentive). My guess is that most
members of this group have done so. It's not my first choice but
I've definitely had some good experiences with it, and been grateful
for the opportunities in certain cases.
I've also regretted it when timid programmers wouldn't go the
distance with a retrospective because of lack of subtitles. A few
years ago here in Los Angeles, a "complete" Max Ophuls retrospective
arrived that many people had waited years for. This had been
traveling and I believe in most places they had in fact shown all of
his films. But the head of the film department at the museum here
refused to program four 30s Ophuls films in various languages which
did not have subtitles (interestingly, he left in a few other earlier
ones). The four were "Divine" (especially highly regarded by Ophuls
aficionados), "Yoshiwara," "Werther," "Sans Landemain." I felt
quite bitter about their exclusion, as I'm sure a lot of people did.
I still haven't seen any of those four and wonder if I ever will.
I went to everything else--mostly films I knew well, and enjoyed the
earlier unsubtitled ones quite a bit (there were printed synopses to
read before the films), and was very grateful to see those.
Once cinema and film history began to be considred a serious thing,
archives around the world started finding a lot of things--often
silent films long thought lost. It's easy to replace intertitles
but in haste to show these sometimes they'd just get run them. I've
generally had very good experiences with those. The directors were
basically telling their story visually, as many good directors still
try to do, even when they have a brilliant script and brilliant
dialogue to work with. I've generally found these silents a
pleasure. Sometimes, someone would read a translation of the
intertitles as the film ran.
I remember a screening of "A Romance of Happy Valley" (Griffith)
which was like this. Bob Epstein of UCLA (I hope this complimentary
reference is not against the rules) read the translation, wisely
opting for straightforwardness and no particular dramatic inflection,
and somehow this added to the amusing revelation that the hero
(Robert Harron)--off to the city while his sweetheart Lillian Gish
waited in Happy Valley--was trying to be a success by inventing
a toy frog that swims.
However, sound films can have a strong aesthetic aspect in how
dialogue is delivered within the context of the soundtrack. I don't
think one can fairly feel one knows the film in certain cases. In
this I once disagreed with someone very passionate and insightful
about film, who agreed that sound itself was an aesthetic element
but you did not need to know what the dialogue meant to have a
complete experience of the film. In fact, he preferred to see a
film without subtitles even if he didn't know the language--at least
he claimed this and I had no reason not to believe him. But
consider this, for example. There is a moment in "Morocco" in which
Adolph Menjou says of Dietrich (knowing that he will lose her to
Cooper) "You see I love her." This is a very important line for this
character and it is delivered in a way characteristic of Sternberg,
with no seeming emphasis--though there is inflection, very subtle,
which it would almost be worth a book to analyze, so distinctive is
this director's approach to these kinds of lines, almost invariably
part of some melodrama and often very melodramatic in the words.
As said, Menjou might be saying "I think we should take the other
route home." If one didn't know English, one wouldn't know of the
importance of the line and could not speculate about why Sternberg
approached such a moment in this way. Similarly, in "Gertrud" all
of the dialogue is deliberately stated in a very beautiful way, like
an incantation, to unique effect. Yes, a voice may be raised a
little, and the actors' physical expressiveness in face, gesture
and carriage tells us a lot about what is going on. But the movie
is on an immediate level about love and about passion and its
protagonist's view of these things. While I take pleasure in this
one just in the sound of the voices, the treatment of the dialogue is
a crucial part of its aesthetic, playing expressively against the
text, inflecting it, finally deepening our understanding of what the
film is all about, both in Dreyer's conscious intentions and in
other, perhaps even more profound ways.
Still, what Fred said in this post about the distraction of reading
the subtitles and how the rhythm of the film is affected by it is
very provocative and I believe he is on to something. In my view,
the ideal would be to speak every language and be able to see every
film without subtitles, somehow. Not very practical. Who gets to
move around that much with a cinephile's resources? Alternatively,
what he suggests of trying to just watch the film without reading
the subtitles once one knows it makes a lot of sense. I think when
we do know it really well, we have a tendency in this direction, and
should cultivate this in ourselves.
I have always wanted to see "The Straits of Love and Hate"--what a
great title for a Mizoguchi film. Maybe that's why I have mused over
this whole question today.
Blake Lucas
26985
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 0:49am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
I'd almost rather be consigned
> to a lifetime of Paul Schrader/Henry Jaglom double features than
> see "Triumph of the Will" again).
Strained Seriousness.
26986
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 0:51am
Subject: Subtitleless ventures (Was Re: Mizoguchi on DVD -- in Japan -- at last) michaelkerpan
I must admit that watching unsubtitled foreign language films is much
easier when one at least has a basic familiarity with the language
(even if one's knowledge is highly limited). If one know some basics
-- and has access to a decent synopsis -- one can do pretty well.
If the dialog is sparse enough, however, a synopis will do wonders
even for a film in a language that is completely unknown (for me --
Chinese of any sort).
I can't imagine how a dialog-heavy film would work, though. Despite
understanding some French, Rivette can be rough-going -- and I can't
imagine tackling unsubtitled Rohmer (unless I improve my French
language skills markedly).
Once one does know what is going on, it can be a real pleasure to turn
off the subtitles.
MEK
26987
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 1:18am
Subject: Un souvenir (was: Eustache, Mother/Whore...) jpcoursodon
To Dan and whoever:
After a couple of drinks tonight I suddenly remembered the first
song Leaud listens to with Lebrun in LA MAMAN... It's "Un souvenir"
Un souvenir
C'est l'image d'un reve
D'une heure trop breve
Qui ne veut pas finir.
Un souvenir
C'est toute la tendresse
Des beaux jours d'ivresse
My memory fails me here...
Hope this is not too OT. After all, it's EUSTACHE !
JPC
26988
From: "Fred Patton"
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 1:24am
Subject: Subtitleless ventures (Was Re: Mizoguchi on DVD -- in Japan -- at last) fred_patton
There's the rhythm of camera movements, zooms, edits, physical
movement including nuanced gestures that come together to construct
the visual rhythm. There is also a rhythm to subtitle scanning, how
the eye might run from left to right to quickly or less quickly
decode the spoken, which is typically unintended and haphazard with
the visual music. On top of this, there are all the auditory rhythms
that combine with the visual to complete the overall audio-visual
score. I get a sense of excitement when observing an intricate
interplay of all these varied rhythmic elements, especially when
they play along with the dramatic or comedic content. Like listening
to great jazz or classical pieces.
Often the overall choreography gets lost when one has to sight read
the subtitles, but between subtitled, dubbed or unsubtitled films
for which I can't understand the language, I go with subtitles. But
with DVD's pro-choice, I've been trying to have a subsequent go
without subs whenever I can manage, and typically I discover a
richer viewing experience, and not the hybrid novel reading /
picture viewing that seems to cohere more completely in one's
corrective mind than it does.
For me, usually the second viewing is too early, because I still
don't know the dialogue well enough, to understand all the lingual
semantics. While in Bresson, there can be a good bit of talk
delivered coldly, it's always in rhythmic time--and then there's
Akerman's idiosyncratic inflected speech performances that have
their own spoken musicality within the larger rhythmn (J'ai Froid,
J'ai Faim). The overall audio-visual rhythmic fabric can get lost,
just like Antonioni's frames within frames while reading. The
affective colorings of speech and the rest stops of stirring close-
ups then take on a special relation to the underlying rhythm. That's
my story, and I'm sticking to it! :-)
Fred Patton
26989
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 1:33am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
> wrote:
>
> I'd almost rather be consigned
> > to a lifetime of Paul Schrader/Henry Jaglom double features than
> > see "Triumph of the Will" again).
>
>
> Strained Seriousness.
By the way, isn't seriousness always strained (more or less)?
JPC
26990
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 4:14am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) lukethedealer12
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
> wrote:
>
> I'd almost rather be consigned
> > to a lifetime of Paul Schrader/Henry Jaglom double features than
> > see "Triumph of the Will" again).
>
>
> Strained Seriousness.
I hope you are referring here to the directors cited and not to my
lighthearted comment. My attempt at humor may have been "strained"
but was certainly not "serious."
26991
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 4:24am
Subject: Re: Auteurs, Canon, Pleasure and Change tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Dauth" wrote:
Brian, your post is very though provoking. It would be nice to
respond in a face to face dialouge but since that's impossible I have
just a few remarks to share.
"Today, Joe posted his despair over an eminent auteurist like hl666
finding a film by a canon-enshrined filmmaker to be a turkey. Well,
why can't a master make a turkey?...Since the viewer is both
the manufacturer and experiencer of pleasure, it seems obvious that
masters can make turkeys."
That's addressed by Fred in the Statement of Purpose; even John Ford
nodded. But some people don't think "The Exile" is a turkey at all
and some people do think it's a turkey relative to other Ophuls
pictures but grant it value in relation to other pictures of that
genre or other Fairbanks vehicles or other Maria Montez pictures,
etc. And some find it flat out bad. This is where the subjectivity
you speak of comes into play.
"...The argument might be made that a master filmmaker never makes a
turkey, and that a failure to experience pleasure with regard to a
particular film demonstrates a failure of perception or
sophistication on the part of a viewer..."
The first part of the statement could be re-stated as all the works
of a master filmmaker are valuable including the bad ones because
they illuminate the good ones or otherwise reveal something about the
filmmaker's circumstances, weaknesses, misjudgements, etc. The
second part is practically a truism. This is where change is
important. Many people have had the experience of undervaluing a
film on first viewing and than coming around to a better appreciation
later because of they've grown.
>
"...must all nuances be viewed as equally important and significant?
Isn't it up to each and every viewer to determine which aspects are
most powerful for her?"
I think that's true. Some people find the ideological nuances of a
film of great significance, some don't.
"The implication is that if you can formally identify all the
elements of a film, then you should be able to appreciate it. What
is left out of the equation, of course, is the issue of pleasure.
But since pleasure is produced in and by the viewer, formalists can
ignore the question of pleasure since to address it would require
them to go beyond the formal elements of film."
I would say that the formalist view is that appreciation equals
pleasure.
"So should pleasure considerations be exiled?..."
How to account for them is the hard task.
Richard
26992
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 5:29am
Subject: Subtitleless ventures (Was Re: Mizoguchi on DVD -- in Japan -- at last) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Fred Patton"
wrote:
> Often the overall choreography gets lost when one has to sight read
> the subtitles, but between subtitled, dubbed or unsubtitled films
> for which I can't understand the language, I go with subtitles.
So do I, but I've started doing it the pther way round, and find that
discovering a film in a language I don't know, then finding out what
they're saying, is great fun. Finding out rarely matters that much,
too. One exception: The Virgin Stripped Bare By her Bachelors - because
I started to get confused when it started repeating, I stopped it and
watched it w. subtitles from the start. But seeing it first w/out
certainly didn't spoil the film for me - it's one of my favorites, and
watching rather than reading is so important w. Hong. "Pro-choice" DVDs
are the bomb.
26993
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 5:34am
Subject: Re: Definitions, please (was: defenestration/Eustache) hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Blake Lucas"
wrote:
Strained Seriousness.
>
> I hope you are referring here to the directors cited and not to my
> lighthearted comment. My attempt at humor may have been "strained"
> but was certainly not "serious."
Neither. I'm not an admirer of LR's craft. She belongs in Strained
Seriousness, between Lumet and Riesz. Giving her too much credit for
being "good" even though she's "bad" undercuts the moral and political
significance of film. I don't buy it.
26994
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 5:41am
Subject: Re: Auteurs, Canon, Pleasure and Change hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> "So should pleasure considerations be exiled?..."
>
> How to account for them is the hard task.
>
Beginning of an answer: Metz wasn't the only structuralist who
addressed pleasure - Lacan-based critics like Barthes and Oudart spoke
of it constantly and tried to figure it out, as did Lacan, of course.
(Cf. The Pleasure of the Text, Barthes; Work, Reading, Enjoyment,
Oudart, which I believe is translated in the BFI CDC vol. 2). But the
cudgels were taken up here and in England by puritanical academic types
who presumably found pleasuure in their hobbies - cabinet making,
collecting Gilbert and Sullivan - but not in movies, or else they'd
never admit it if they did. I except Mulvey, because she did try to
keep thinking about it, but her many followers gave it the gate.
Kermmode, of course, is outside all that.
Short answer: "It must give pleasure"
Wallace Stevens, "Notes for the Supreme Fiction"
26995
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 5:46am
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs, Canon, Pleasure and Change fredcamper
As Richard points out, our group's Statement of Purpose allows that
great auteurs can make bad films, and while their bad films may at times
illuminate their great ones, I've so far not found much use for Sirk's
"Thunder on the Hill," Minnelli's "Kismet," or, well, Brakhage's "The
Stars Are Beautiful.
There are at least two of us who think this way, though perhaps not
about those particular films, because the Statement was co-authored by,
and endorsed by, Peter Tonguette.
Furthermore, I've long recognized that lots of filmmakers whose work I
don't like at all have styles, and styles that aren't simply
recognizable "looks" but that have expression and meaning; examples for
me would include Fellini and Jordan Belson. But also, it seems obvious
that simply because a work has a recognizable style doesn't make it
good: examples from other arts are abundant. Indeed, the fact that
anyone could even imagine that recognizable style equals merit seems
utterly absurd outside of the context of commercial narrative
filmmaking, in which so many (perhaps the majority) of films seem
stylistically anonymous.
But I can't accept simply talking about "pleasure" without talking about
what kind of pleasure. If someone told me that the pleasure they find in
Sirk's films lies in their loud colors and outrageously campy acting and
stories, I might suddenly explain that I had a plane to catch and walk
away. An explication of the pleasure of Hawks's adventure films that
restricts itself to talking about his exciting stories and effective
performances would leave me thinking I had shared little with the person
I was listening to.
Taste is to some extent subjective, a product of both individual tastes
and the tastes of a sub-group or culture. But is it totally subjective?
If so, why have so many across the centuries derived such intense and
visionary pleasures from Homer (even in translation), Chartres
Cathedral, Shakespeare, Bach, Titian? A full list of artists or works
that have inspired so many across the centuries would of course be
immensely longer. True, there are other great older artists who were
rediscovered only in the 20th-century -- showing, perhaps, that culture
factors into it to some extent.
In our group, there is likely pretty strong agreement that "Vertigo"
is a masterpiece of film art. A friend who wrote me on occasion of
Vertigo's 1984 release that now that he'd finally seen it he found it
overrated, received a reply something like this: "Now that I'm no longer
teaching and no longer dependant on film for my living, I can come out
of the closet and reveal that I think there are some immutable facts
about film art, and one of them that "Vertigo" is a masterpiece whose
status is beyond subjective judgment. Sorry, but you are just plain wrong."
My real point is that I can distinguish between the considerable
pleasures I derive from the careful pacing, moving time-crossing
structure, and superb acting in Leone's "Once Upon a Time in America,"
and the mind-cleansing, transpersonal, visionary explosions of Sirk's
"The Tarnished Angels" or Brakhage's "The Text of Light" (with Stan at
this moment rolling in his grave to find himself mentioned in the same
sentence as Sirk, but never mind). The films that I call great don't
give me pleasures based on moods or personal identifications with actors
or characters or little dialogue bits that I love or a narrative that
hooks me: they present visual (and often, aural) systems of expression
in which all of the parts come together in a way that lifts me
completely out of myself. The pleasure of such experiences is immense,
even, at their best, almost orgasmic. But these experiences don't work
for me because they push my buttons by appealing to the specifics of my
psychic formation. Rather, it seems to me that their forms convincingly
embody their visions, so that anyone can be moved by them. This is why I
tend to say that people who don't see the greatness of the films that I
love just aren't getting it, even while allowing for the possibility
that I'm not "getting" the films that I don't love. I'm much more
willing to admit that I could be wrong about Fellini than that I'm wrong
about Brakhage or Sirk.
Fred Camper
26996
From: "Henrik Sylow"
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 5:49am
Subject: Re: Pleasure (was: Auteurs, Canon, Pleasure and Change) henrik_sylow
J-P write,
"Every aesthetic experience begins with pleasure and is evaluated in
terms of the pleasure felt. But because pleasure is "subjective" there
is a strong, even irresistible tendency for "serious" critics to
disregard the very notion."
Mulvay said, that pleasure depends on pre-existing psychological
patterns at or within the spectator, and is as such a narcissistic
identification, where the spectator identifies with himself and his
own ideology. So it is indeed strongly subjective.
While I believe that the pleasure principle is important, I believe
that its more important, in terms of critisism, to look at
displeasure, as pleasure is, by being narcissistic, agreeing with
either or both imagery and ideology.
As pleasure is based on whats within the spectator, so is displeasure.
It suggests, that we cannot identify with character, ideology, plot,
narration and/or signifiers. In my opinion, any one of these will
substitute pleasure with displasure.
Take Breillat, an auteur who, as far as I know, only has three
supporters in this fora. And even though, as Adrian in his last post
on her suggested, that one should view her characters in "Anatomy of
Hell" as abstractions, as signifiers, her ideology and narrative
doesn't allow others to find pleasure in her films. So while she for
some of us, fall into the pleasure principle, she projects displeasure
in others.
Displeasure blinds the viewer of the qualities in the text, as it
doesn't allow the spectator to identify with character, ideology,
plot, narrative and/or signifiers. And being blind, one cannot
appreciate, and in terms critic, the text.
While I agree with J-P, that one cannot force oneself to enjoy "the
peas", I do believe, that a better understanding of what "peas" are
would allow a step towards an identification with them. Just think of
the discussion between Fred Patton and Bill about the films of the
Farrelly brothers.
Pleasure does in my opinion not suggest a better understanding of the
"peas" than displeasure, as it depends on, at least to me, an
automated response based upon, according to Mulvay, "pre-existing
psychological patterns at or within the spectator". However, I
believe, that displeasure should entice us to dig deeper, and by
understanding the differences between ours and the filmmakers ideology
(to say one), begin to appreciate and value their work.
Henrik
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Brian Dauth"
> wrote:
> >
> > This is the "eat-your-peas" approach to cinema: you watch Sirk
> since
> > he is a master, and it is good to watch the films of masters. If
> you
> > do not enjoy his work, well then something must be wrong with you
> > (film criticism should try to be on the lookout for the insidious,
> > creeping advance of such elitist thinking). The implication is
> that
> > if you can formally identify all the elements of a film, then you
> > should be able to appreciate it. What is left out of the
> equation,
> > of course, is the issue of pleasure. But since pleasure is
> produced
> > in and by the viewer, formalists can ignore the question of
> pleasure
> > since to address it would require them to go beyond the formal
> > elements of film.
> >
> > So should pleasure considerations be exiled? Is the
> identification
> > of a signature style enough to confer auteurhood?
> >
> > Brian>
>
> You have raised a major important, even essential point. I for
> one believe in the pleasure principle. Every aesthetic experience
> begins with pleasure and is evaluated in terms of the pleasure felt.
> But because pleasure is "subjective" there is a strong, even
> irresistible tendency for "serious" critics to disregard the very
> notion. Metz has written interesting things on that topic (he who
> could easily be considered a contemptor of pleasure!)
>
> Of course there are difficult works that at first may fail to
> give you pleasure but eventually will as you get more familiar with
> them. But while you can force yourself to eat your peas you cannot
> force yourself to enjoy them, and I don't think that a better
> understanding of what peas are should induce you to praise them. So
> your expressing your dislike of (or like of pleasure at) the films
> of Sirk is commendable.
>
> Your closing question, however, goes off on a tangent, leaving the
> pleasure issue behind. It actually asks: "What constitutes
> auteurhood?" A bit heavy for an afterthought. Maybe some other time.
>
> JPC
26997
From: Peter Henne
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 6:17am
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs, Canon, Pleasure and Change peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
This whole point about pleasure is a broadly aesthetic one, not only cinematic, so I will treat it as such. Some would say that positing pleasure as a necessary element for aesthetic experience is a conservative way to go, e.g., the minimalist and conceptualist strands in art of the '60s and '70s. Some traditions put pleasure pretty low on the aesthetic scale, such as medieval architecture--the whole point is to inspire awe, not please. When you look at Goya's war prints, are you feeling pleasure? On the level of appreciating formal invention, yes, but most certainly the horrible depictions are part and parcel of the art, and registering them as grotesque enters your aesthetic experience. I think that means feeling revulsion at the representations of torn flesh, pitiless cruelty, etc. It's not very pleasant, but many have found these prints supreme art.
Peter Henne
hotlove666 wrote:
the
cudgels were taken up here and in England by puritanical academic types
who presumably found pleasuure in their hobbies - cabinet making,
collecting Gilbert and Sullivan - but not in movies, or else they'd
never admit it if they did. I except Mulvey, because she did try to
keep thinking about it, but her many followers gave it the gate.
Kermmode, of course, is outside all that.
Short answer: "It must give pleasure"
Wallace Stevens, "Notes for the Supreme Fiction"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
26998
From: MG4273@...
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 2:58am
Subject: Re: Auteurs, Canon, Pleasure and Change nzkpzq
Pleasure is big in some cultural / critical traditions, and absent in others.
Many admirers of classical music and painting/sculpture center their ideas on
pleasure. This pleasure is aesthetic, and involves deep thinking, but it is a
pleasure-oriented cosmos all the same.
When I was a college student taking an Introduction to Music Appreciation
class, the distinguished musicologist who taught the class told us all,
"Remember, few things in life will give you more pleasure than classical music." He was
right. This point of view was echoed by a thousand radio broadcasts heard
from classical musicians. Commentators all say things like "This is a real
treat!" "What a delightful concert" "This music is pure joy."
Most traditional approaches to poetry also emphasize delight. By extreme
contrast, the academic study of the novel emphasizes pain. Critics praise good
novels as "wrenching, disturbing, upsetting, traumatic", etc. Critics seek out
the most depressing, morbid experiences, and try to inflict them on readers.
(Dostoyevsky anyone?)
Film studies are suspended between these two poles. There are people who
emphasize joy and delight in film. But there are also many, steeped in academic
traditions of the novel, who hate "entertainment", and try to find the most
painful film experiences, treating them as the summit of film art. We see lots of
this today: minimalist films in which nothing happens praised, because they
are so painful for most mainstream audiences to endure. Realistic dramas that
recreate life's most painful events. You can watch "Yi Yi", and experience the
death of a loved one, guilt over failing a parent, the tortures of adultery,
being fired from one's job, unrequited love, middle aged angst, being a kid
being sadistically abused by a school teacher, etc.
The pain crowd is relentless. They have all the answers, regard any pleasure
in art as stupid, and are tireless in looking for bad trip novels and films to
torture folks with.
Auteurism traditionally emphasized films that gave pleasure. Many of its most
beloved works are genre films, which set out to entertain audiences, and
succeed in spades. I still feel deeply committed to a pleasure aesthetic in the
arts. Both serious - poetry, classical music, painting, dance - and popular -
narrative film, prose mystery fiction, comics.
Mike Grost
26999
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 7:13am
Subject: Re: Re: Auteurs, Canon, Pleasure and Change fredcamper
I dunno, I think we're using "pleasure" too simply. The "pleasure" of a
great film, for me, is very different from the "pleasure" of a walk in
the park on a sunny day, or an excellent meal, or Barthes's "Please or
the Text" idea. And films that express negative moods or outlooks can
give immense pleasure if they're great films, from Robert Aldrich's
"Kiss Me Deadly" to Christopher Maclaine's "The End." When Mike Hammer
slams the drawer on the sleazy doctor's hand, his scream is mirrored in
the distorted spaces of the film as a whole -- unpleasant, yes, but also
aestheticized in a powerful way, expressions of a distorted and
contorted and upside-down world in which values are lost.
MG4273@... wrote:
> ....You can watch "Yi Yi", and experience the
> death of a loved one, guilt over failing a parent, the tortures of adultery,
> being fired from one's job, unrequited love, middle aged angst, being a kid
> being sadistically abused by a school teacher, etc. ...
Or you can watch "Yi Yi" and see the film I saw, full of exquisite and
sensuous fields of color which seemed expressive of a deep ambivalence,
an ambivalence mirrored in the oddly chaotic landscape with highways
running through it.
Fred Camper
27000
From: MG4273@...
Date: Fri May 13, 2005 3:18am
Subject: Re: Auteurs, Canon, Pleasure and Change nzkpzq
PS - I would rather sing along with Gurinder Chadha, than suffer with Edward
Yang.
And I enjoyed "Shanghai Knights" and "Win a Date with Tad Hamilton!"
There are plenty of very good art films that have a pleasure aesthetic, such
as "Oporto of My Childhood" (Manoel de Oliveira). But one hears less about
them than unpleasant films like "Sideways"...
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact