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.
27501
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 8:39pm
Subject: Re: re: what is cinematic? cellar47
--- Adrian Martin wrote:
> When did this sort of 'gliding' begin in mainstream
> cinema?
It began when "mainstream" directors saw "The
Conformist" and decided to imitate Bertolucci's crib
from "Mr. Arkadin" as a figure of "style."
As might be expected they weren't Bertolucci. In fact
sometimes even Bertolucci isn't Bertolucci.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
27502
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 8:45pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese summarized for all-time cellar47
--- LiLiPUT1@... wrote:
> After Rick Altman's "A Semantic/Syntactic Approach
> to Film Genre," I argue
> that KING is a syntactically but NOT semantically
> gay film.
HUNH?
It's quite a lovely
> piece (well, towards the end, at least). I'll do
> some cleaning before
> submitting for publication somewhere. The title
> comes from an amazing essay I found:
>
> Miller, William Ian. “‘I can take a hint':
> Social Ineptitude, Embarrassment,
> and The King of Comedy.” Michigan Quarterly
> Review. 33 (1994): 322-4
>
Social ineptitude and embarrassment know no sexual
orientation.
> Didn't know CASINO was your fave. Nice to hear it
> has supporters. Also,
> surprised to hear that you think MEAN STREETS is
> overrated.
>
It's a nice little movie, but it's been asked to carry
a whole lot more weight that it can. Moreover the
praise heaped on it has led to far many presumably
thoughtful people overlooking its predecessor, "Who's
That Knocking at My Door." While seen by fewer people
it's a MUCH more important film for Marty in that its
most heartfelt expression of cinephilia AND his most
naked admission of incomprehension of women.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27503
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 8:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese summarized for all-time cellar47
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> As for CASINO, the new dvd comes out June 14th with
> deleted scenes. Maybe I have always been drawn to
> it
> since it is 2:35 rather than 1:85. I like David E's
>
> distinction between middle class and nouveau riche
> as
> well. Also, the hand-offs from one narrator to
> another
> reminds me of Mankiewicz.
>
I have it on laser. Very interested in seeing those
scenes. It had me from the start with the use of
"St.Matthew Passion" -- a clear hommage to Pasolini,
this making "Casino" Marty's "Accatone."
Also, while it was being shot, I came to know two
former Vegas chorus boys from that era who wored the
Lido de paris show when the model for DeNiro's
character was running the hotel. They told me
innumerable details -- all of which ended up in the
movie. Their pit boss was a woman with the magnificent
name of Floff LeCloque. She plays the witness Pesci
kills before she can turn state's evidence.
Those chorus boys saved their gay pennies and now run
a hotel in Palm Springs -- the "InnExile"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27504
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 8:58pm
Subject: Re: what is cinematic? samfilms2003
-> It's miles away from the meaningless trackings in Lord of the Rings, but Lee
> Ping-bing's constant reframings in Hou Hsiao-hsien's films -- mostly Goodbye
> South Goodbye and The Flowers of Shanghai -- set the standard very very
> high.
It's almost cheating to place GS,G in competition here as *mobility* (and the inhibition
of it ) of every type - personal, social, economic **even the dreams of it** and 'roads
not taken' nonetheless revealed is the essence of this film's structure and meaning
IMO.
-Sam
27505
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 9:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: Group business: all members please read fredcamper
Peter,
I don't think we would have done anything differently re the Oliveira
thread today. As Peter and I have both affirmed, we aren't changing
anything, aren't making any new rules. The historical information
brought into the Oliveira thread was not on the order of speculation on
whether Bush caused 9/11. As I recall, it was actual information.
This is not to say that a single speculation about Bush and 9/11 is
banned. Not at all. It was the way the threads seemed to be going, in
combination with other things, and doubtless the phase of the moon too.
Keep in mind that our interventions don't follow some system or formula.
Maybe if the Lucas stuff had not been accompanied by two url-only
posts in two days we wouldn't have intervened at all, just waited to see
what happened. It's not like we make posts everything something pops up
that violates our Statement of Purpose.
I hope people feel free to include politics (and everything else
relevant) in discussions of films. I hope also that when the discussions
become mostly about politics rather than on film, and start to involve
many posts, that they get taken to the OT board. If people want to
debate 9/11, there are many other places on the 'Net to do that.
Personally, I think Dr. Mabuse did it.
Fred Camper
27506
From: "Aaron Graham"
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 9:18pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese summarized for all-time machinegunmc...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
Also,
> [Mean Streets] It's a nice little movie, but it's been asked to carry
> a whole lot more weight that it can. Moreover the
> praise heaped on it has led to far many presumably
> thoughtful people overlooking its predecessor, "Who's
> That Knocking at My Door." While seen by fewer people
> it's a MUCH more important film for Marty in that its
> most heartfelt expression of cinephilia AND his most
> naked admission of incomprehension of women.
David, wasn't there a middle part to this "loose" trilogy
entitled 'Bethlehem, Bethlehem' that was never filmed? I recall
reading that it was set at the religious retreat mentioned in Mean
Streets, but I've also read that it was simply an alternate title (or
earlier draft) of that film. I've always been curious.
-Aaron
27507
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 9:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese summarized for all-time cellar47
--- Aaron Graham wrote:
>
> David, wasn't there a middle part to this "loose"
> trilogy
> entitled 'Bethlehem, Bethlehem' that was never
> filmed? I recall
> reading that it was set at the religious retreat
> mentioned in Mean
> Streets, but I've also read that it was simply an
> alternate title (or
> earlier draft) of that film. I've always been
> curious.
>
Yes there was another part, though that wasn't the
title as I recall. It was to be about why Marty never
became a priest. Thankfully he relaized that the
subject was already dealt with in the other two films
and didn't need to be further explored. Then there was
a project called "Season of the Witch" that never got
made, and then he was out here in L.A. working as an
a.d. for Cassavetes on "Minnie and Moskowitz" and a
whole bunch of other stuff happened. And then came
"Taxi Driver."
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27508
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 9:46pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese summarized for all-time thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Aaron Graham"
wrote:
> David, wasn't there a middle part to this "loose" trilogy
> entitled 'Bethlehem, Bethlehem' that was never filmed? I recall
> reading that it was set at the religious retreat mentioned in Mean
> Streets, but I've also read that it was simply an alternate title
(or
> earlier draft) of that film. I've always been curious.
>
This was actually part one of the trilogy. The title was JERUSALEM!
JERUSALEM! It was written up as a treatment (dated March 29 1966),
but never filmed. Lengthy excerpts from this treatment were printed
in Mary Pat Kelly's book MARTIN SCORSESE: THE FIRST DECADE.
27509
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 9:48pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese summarized for all-time thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
Then there was
> a project called "Season of the Witch" that never got
> made
SEASON OF THE WITCH was an early title for MEAN STREETS. There's
actually a draft of MEAN STREETS that can be found on the internet
which still bears the title SEASON OF THE WITCH.
27510
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 9:51pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese summarized for all-time thebradstevens
The SEASON OF THE WITCH/MEAN STREETS screenplay can be found here:
http://www.awesomefilm.com/script/meanstreet.html
27511
From: "Matt Armstrong"
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 10:01pm
Subject: Re: Group business: all members please read matt_c_armst...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Peter,
>
> I don't think we would have done anything differently re the
Oliveira
> thread today. As Peter and I have both affirmed, we aren't
changing
> anything, aren't making any new rules. The historical information
> brought into the Oliveira thread was not on the order of
speculation
on
> whether Bush caused 9/11. As I recall, it was actual information.
Actual information, laced with plenty of subjective political
opinion.
I don't see why your posts (linked below) are any less OT than mine.
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/19075
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/19064
I don't mean to be disrespectful, but my posts were singled out, and
I still don't understand what makes them OT in comparison to yours
from the Oliveira thread.
27512
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 10:09pm
Subject: Re: cinematic dialogue (was: Group Business) bufordrat
Fred Camper wrote:
>David, I'll admit to my biaes, but I agree with you that dialogue -- or
>song lyrics -- can be "cinematic" -- and in many or most poorly-made
>films the imagery can be "uncinematic."
>
>The way to argue for the cinematic qualities of song lyrics or scripts
>is to make the case for it, just as others might try to make a case for
>the imagery of a particular film.
>
>
How about Sacha Guitry's films?
I'll take the liberty of quoting Richard Roud on _Faisons un reve_: "A
recent re-viewing of _Faisons un Reve_ confirmed Alain Rensais' view of
it as pure cinema--even though it is as faithful a transposition of a
three-act play as one could imagine. There is even a long monologue by
Guitry imagining the route Mademoiselle Delubac will have to take to
reach his house from hers. The camera is simply placed on Guitry for
over three minutes. But the result, far from being stagy, is quite
simply miraculous: 'Now, she's getting into the taxi, now she's going up
the Avenue Georges V; the traffic light has just turned red...' etc.
And he shows us nothing but his own face, and yet we see the whole ride:
extraordinary."
A bit elliptical and mysterious, perhaps, but suited to the nature of
the scene. It's difficult to describe what's so commanding about
Guitry's monologue, but one feels as though he is "seizing" the diegetic
space of the film as a hunk of pizza dough, as it were, braiding and
moulding it, only by standing there and talking. It's clearly much more
than just a "canned" theatrical performance; the scene's uncanny effects
have everything to do with the orientation of his utterances in relation
to the shot's "hors-champ" and the relatively close miking, which makes
it seem as if he's speaking to the viewer directly. Guitry's language,
which could be the subject of a several-volume study in and of itself,
has an overwhelmingly "written" sound (though only occasionally literary
in a conventional way), but his every delivery erupts orgasmically with
the spontaneity of the unrepeatable moment. The entire monologue has
something like the structure of an extended De Quinceyesque digression,
only here spoken in real time on film, directly from the mouth of its
author.
I suppose this is just a way of saying that I'm not quite sure what to
do with this scene, except to say that it seems to be a good "degree
zero" test case for "cinematic" dialogue, that somehow it is a case of
the cinematic apparatus coming most forcefully to life by apparently
doing very little. I think there are similar moments in Snow's films,
or in some of Warhol's sync-sound films.
This sort of scenario is reprised all over the place in Bertrand Blier's
work, most obviously in the "Mozart" scene from _Preparez vos mouchoirs_
(which was apparently the basis for the entire film), but also in _Trop
belle pour toi_, the most thorough exploration of the interface between
dialogue and film style that I am aware of.
-Matt
27513
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 6:39pm
Subject: Memo to Krohn et al: POST! (on LORD LOVE A DUCK) Was: Group business: all members please read scil1973
In my defense, I thought the subject line for the URL I posted was
explanation enough. Mea culpa if it was not. I'll be sure to really explain the
relevance of any URLs I post in the future. But beyond that, the article was extremely
short. Not sure if I could have summarized it any more than it already was.
And even further beyond that, I feel certain Peter and Fred would have found
the gay angle to be not formalist enough for an on topic post anyway.
I was hoping to remain silent on all this but my URL post after the political
discussion clearly fanned the policy flames. To be 1000% honest here, my own
policy on putative policy abuses is simply to ignore the moderators. This is
why I didn't apply for the co-moderator job. Time-wise, I could've handled it.
But I just don't agree with strict interpretations of any group's Statement of
Purpose and that would have driven Fred and Peter understandably batty. So
I continue to post as I see fit until it gets to the point where the
moderators want to throw me or anyone else off the list. And I know they weren't
threatening anyone (least of all, Bill - that would have been absurd) with such an
action.
I know this is a shitty attitude to take on some level. And I'm sorry that
we've lost members along the way supposedly due to Statement of Purpose abuses.
But really folks - it's just a freakin' mailing list. If one of the chief
nuisances of your day is 5 or even 50 posts on politics in your formalist mailbox
(as if formalism wasn't political to the nth), then you've been living an
extremely charmed life.
I don't dig all the posts to this list. That acres/months long thread on
screen ratios was a real drag to me. But I didn't leave the list in a huff. I read
the initial posts and then deleted the rest once my eyes started to glass o
ver. Precious little time was wasted in the process too. And it's not as if I
have oodles of time. I just completed the first year of my PhD with little
tear/bloodshed. And you know what? When I had three papers due in one week about a
few weeks ago, I took a bit time off from the list. If you're feeling
overwhelmed, take a break. Or simply read the posts on the Yahoo website at your
convenience. Your settings are extremely easy to change.
And in short, if you feel as if your formalist concerns aren't being
addressed on the list, then start freakin' posting more often! I find it near
impossible to believe that, for example, Bill's posts have been so rabidly
anti-formalist and intimidating as to prevent anyone from talking about, oh, graphic
matches in the films of Minnelli and Ozu.
So Bill (or anyone else), start posting! Tell me what you think of LORD LOVE
A DUCK. (SPOILERS!) Saw it recently. I fuckin' hated it for the first ten or
so minutes. Wanted to belt Roddy's smug little countercultural "radical" in the
chops. But then this parodic element seeps into a vaguely lesbo scene in a
lockerroom. And then BAM! Those AMAAAAAAAAAAAAZING few scenes between dad and
Tuesday Weld (in a truly remarkable performance). I don't think I've laughed so
hard all decade (well, I haven't seen that new Jiminy Glick flick yet). My
husband, watching in horror, didn't even crack a smile: "This is more disturbing
than funny!" And therein lies the film's genius. It is perfectly suited to my
tastes for films showcasing cognitive dislocations every five minutes or so.
This is the movie I wanted THE LOVED ONE to be. And "Grape Yum-Yum!" has now
supplanted "Birdie Num-Nums" as the non-sequitur of choice in my house.
Kevin "Papaya Surprise!" John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27514
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 6:50pm
Subject: Semantic vs. Syntactic/Note to Brian WAS: Scorsese summarized for all-time scil1973
In a message dated 5/23/05 3:52:57 PM, cellar47@... writes:
> HUNH?
>
>
Dearest, you obviously have to know Altman's argument to understand mine. In
brief, semantic studies of genre focus on the specific signs that dominate the
genre (e.g., guns and horses in the western, singers and dancers in the
musical, etc.) whereas syntactic studies trace narrative structures and themes
(e.g. civilization vs. the wilderness in the western, a synthesis of the
heterosexual couple’s antimonies in the musical, etc.). Now please, no posts on where
semantics end and syntactics begin or anything like that until you've at least
digested Altman's essay.
>
> Social ineptitude and embarrassment know no sexual orientation.
>
>
Nope. Only gay folks ever experience it.
Come on, dude! First off, Miller's piece has nothing to do with sexual
orientation. Second, MY piece anticipates reactions such as yours above although I
must say I'm a tad disturbed hearing it from you.
Note to Brian: For some reason, AOL won't let your posts through to my
mailbox. I usually get the gist of them since others frequently quote you. But if I
ever fail to answer a question of yours, that's why. Feel free to email
offlist with anything. I do enjoy your posts a great deal. Such an unorthodox take
on so many films/directors. As a Sirk worshipper, I still love it!
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27515
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 11:04pm
Subject: Re: Semantic vs. Syntactic/Note to Brian WAS: Scorsese summarized for all-time cellar47
--- LiLiPUT1@... wrote:
> >
> > Social ineptitude and embarrassment know no sexual
> orientation.
> >
> >
> Nope. Only gay folks ever experience it.
>
> Come on, dude! First off, Miller's piece has nothing
> to do with sexual
> orientation. Second, MY piece anticipates reactions
> such as yours above although I
> must say I'm a tad disturbed hearing it from you.
Sorry.There should have been a ? at the end of that
sentence.
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
27516
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 11:08pm
Subject: re: what is cinematic? apmartin90
I am feeling very stimulated by the range of examples people are
offering about the 'continually moving camera' in contemporary films!
It is interesting to start thinking about the differences on this front
between films, and between filmmakers.
I didn't express it well first time around, but when I evoked the
'meaningless glide' in films, I was particularly thinking of the kind
of movement when the characters are essentially still, it's a basic
shot/reverse shot dialogue scene, yet every shot is nonetheless
rendered as a 'sculpting' movement passing from a left-side view of the
character to a right-side view (or vice versa!). What Kubrick does in
SHINING (great example, Saul) is a much more 'holistic' practice where
there is a much greater 'sense' and mood attached to the system of
camera movements. And Altman (another great example, Brad: and I think
you're right, he has to be one of the first who does this in post-60s
film history) uses the 'glide' in an expressive way, as much in long
shot (and group shot) as well as in intercut midshots. THE LONG GOODBYE
might indeed be the film where I first paid attention to the technique.
With Hou (third great example, Ruy!) we have a very distinctive
stylistic practice somewhere between old-fashioned reframing and
'gliding', with the key difference that Hou tends to stake out a
specific 'zone' for the camera from which he takes in the scene,
rather than cutting 'around' the scene or giving it faux 'volume' with
the 'moving around a figure' glides so common in modern movies.
More examples to follow!
Adrian
27517
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 11:08pm
Subject: Re: Memo to Krohn et al: POST! (on LORD LOVE A DUCK) Was: Group business: all members please read cellar47
--- LiLiPUT1@... wrote:
>
> So Bill (or anyone else), start posting! Tell me
> what you think of LORD LOVE
> A DUCK. (SPOILERS!) Saw it recently. I fuckin' hated
> it for the first ten or
> so minutes. Wanted to belt Roddy's smug little
> countercultural "radical" in the
> chops. But then this parodic element seeps into a
> vaguely lesbo scene in a
> lockerroom. And then BAM! Those AMAAAAAAAAAAAAZING
> few scenes between dad and
> Tuesday Weld (in a truly remarkable performance). I
> don't think I've laughed so
> hard all decade (well, I haven't seen that new
> Jiminy Glick flick yet). My
> husband, watching in horror, didn't even crack a
> smile: "This is more disturbing
> than funny!" And therein lies the film's genius. It
> is perfectly suited to my
> tastes for films showcasing cognitive dislocations
> every five minutes or so.
> This is the movie I wanted THE LOVED ONE to be. And
> "Grape Yum-Yum!" has now
> supplanted "Birdie Num-Nums" as the non-sequitur of
> choice in my house.
>
>
>
I saw it when it was first released. Many MANY times.
My favorite was when it was double featured on 42nd
street with "Kis Me Deadly." You can't imagine how
perfect a double feature that was. Easily the equal of
Fabiano Canosa's legendary New Yorker bill of "Duck
Soup and "Cobra Woman."
Tuesday Weld made me the man that I am today.
David "Peach Put-Down" Ehrenstein
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
27518
From: Peter Henne
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 11:34pm
Subject: Re: re: what is cinematic? peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
Angelopoulos is certainly a master of the glide, and the technique goes to the very essence of his filmmaking. Here's what I wrote about it in a review of "Eternity and a Day":
http://www.filmjournal.com/filmjournal/search/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000697923
Yeah, that common practice for the past 10-15 years now of busying the camera to prove the crew can work the equipment irritates the hell out of me--and Campion sure did a lot of it in "The Piano," which is one of the first movies where it started to show up regularly in "art house" films. I'm for the very opposite of extreme SRS rigidity, like in Bresson's "Trial of Joan of Arc" and Straub/Huillet's "Death of Empedocles." Framing, shot lengths and the rhythm of cuts count for everything in these two cases. On the other hand, the famous lampshade track in Godard's "Contempt," which might be interpreted to be a "glide" although it is on a straight track, expresses everything that could be said about the couple's self-imposed imprisonment and the light literally flickering out of their relationship.
Peter Henne
Adrian Martin wrote:
I am feeling very stimulated by the range of examples people are
offering about the 'continually moving camera' in contemporary films!
It is interesting to start thinking about the differences on this front
between films, and between filmmakers.
Adrian
__________________________________________________
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]
27519
From: MG4273@...
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 7:42pm
Subject: Re: what is cinematic? nzkpzq
There is a lot of camera movement in Julien Temple, both his feature films
and his music videos. The long take that opens ":Absolute Beginners" moves all
over a huge set representing a London neighborhood. There are similar camera
moves over buildings at the finale of "Come On Eileen". This video is full of
the circular moves around people that Adrian Martin suggests are somewhat of a
modern cliche - maybe less so when Temple did it in the early 1980's. The
tracks are more lateral in "Poison Arrow".
Lots of TV shows since the early 90's are full of camera movement, enabled by
the rise of Steadicam. The TV series "Pacific Blue" used to have delightful
camera movements. Some are described on my website at:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/tvmove.htm
Mike Grost
27520
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 11:59pm
Subject: Re: what is cinematic? joe_mcelhaney
Historically, I think that the beginning of this tendency
towards "gliding" and seemingly irrelevant camera movements is the
offshoot of a complex network of things happening at once, starting
especially in the 1970s and then into the `80s and beyond.
Purely in terms of the technology, these movements which rely less
and less on the "classical" impulse towards tracking with a clear
beginning, middle and end are traceable to the introduction of more
portable camera equipment (even in slick, professional Hollywood
filmmaking: a camera like the Panaflex, for example), increased speed
of lenses and, especially, the ultimate in gliding movement, the
Steadicam. By the `70s, directors were shooting less than ever in
studios and needed speed and portability for interior and exterior
work. The Steadicam's portability is ideal for this in that you no
longer have to employ the shakiness of a hand-held camera (if you
don't want it) but neither is your camera rigidly tied to the floor
or to a tripod. Suddenly, you have all this mobility in tight,
location interiors: the Copa sequence in "GoodFellas," for example.
With mediocre directors, of course, this can and has been exploited
to the maximum so that any reasonably attentive admirer of camera
movement can become thoroughly sick of the often pointless roving
camera, unable to sit still for a simple shot/reverse shot. Even
Scorsese (whose influence on contemporary camera movement and editing
is, in many ways, more influential than virtually any filmmaker
today, although this is an influence that has most often been
misunderstood or misused) claims that he only employs the Steadicam
now when there is no other way to achieve movement in a sequence.
Moreover, the overall portability of cameras has led to a general
epidemic of movement in films, including incessant handheld work,
from some of Woody Allen's films to virtually all of the Dardenne
Brothers to most of Olivier Assays to a TV show like NYPD Blue and
countless TV commercials and music videos. To say that these
filmmakers employ a mobile frame seems inadequate as there is less
and less a sense of the frame as such, with the camera on top of the
actors, on top of the action at virtually every moment and so often
in films in which there is less and less a sense of the sequence as a
fully dramatic or extended and shaped entity. Of course, the larger
question here is why so many other directors today feel this need for
incessant movement and why so many spectators not only accept it but
seem to want it.
I would begin such an argument by going back to changes in technology
and general perception in the 1980sbut I'm getting tired. If
somebody else wants to jump in and finish this argument or take it
somewhere else, fine. For the moment, I need a break.
27521
From: ptonguette@...
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 8:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: what is cinematic? peter_tonguette
Brad Stevens wrote:
"Indeed, I understand that Altman frequently tells his camera operator to
"just keep the
camera moving", without worrying about precisely what is (or isn't) in frame."
I seem to remember an interview where Altman says he gave this instruction
specifically on "Gosford Park." In any event, that film and "The Long Goodbye"
do this perhaps more than any other Altman films, and it is indeed very
beautiful to watch.
From day one, Michael Cimino has been a genius at moving his camera, though I
have the impression from watching it numerous times that his most recent
picture, the great "The Sunchaser," contains more camera movement than most of his
films, or maybe all of them. I'm sure a lot of it could be considered
meaningful (in that it ties in with the themes of the film), but I also think the
guy just likes moving that camera!
I don't think these are examples of "empty" style, either, because the shots
are so staggeringly great, so elegantly orchestrated. I can see how some
might include "The Shining" here, but the greatness I detect in the examples I
cite above from Altman and Cimino are very much tied to them NOT using a
Steadicam. You don't get the same look with Steadicam that you do on tracks or a
dolly. John McTiernan knows this; according to his commentary track on the DVD,
he didn't use Steadicam on his underrated remake of "The Thomas Crown Affair"
because he wanted the film to have a "classical" appearance.
Peter Tonguette
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27522
From: Peter Henne
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 0:51am
Subject: Re: Re: what is cinematic? peterhenne
Online Now Send IM
Whoa. I make an exception for the Dardennes because they are so tightly economical about the handheld movement. The camera doesn't make those broad "swishing" movements approximating establishing shots that most others do. In "Rosetta" the camera stays fixedly on her, perhaps as though an imaginary companion who watched and cared about her every move were accompanying her. Watch the Dardennes' movies again, and I think you will see how unexpendable the movements are. The camerawork is surprisingly strict.
Woody Allen's "Husbands and Wives" parodies the documentary form, so the meaning is different.
There are aesthetic differences to map out for how the handheld is manipulated. Tran Anh Hung evokes a more limpid kind of swaying motion than NYPD Blue. Handheld may mean less rigor but not without different practices of control.
Peter Henne
joe_mcelhaney wrote:
Moreover, the overall portability of cameras has led to a general
epidemic of movement in films, including incessant handheld work,
from some of Woody Allen's films to virtually all of the Dardenne
Brothers to most of Olivier Assays to a TV show like NYPD Blue and
countless TV commercials and music videos. To say that these
filmmakers employ a mobile frame seems inadequate as there is less
and less a sense of the frame as such, with the camera on top of the
actors, on top of the action at virtually every moment and so often
in films in which there is less and less a sense of the sequence as a
fully dramatic or extended and shaped entity. Of course, the larger
question here is why so many other directors today feel this need for
incessant movement and why so many spectators not only accept it but
seem to want it.
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Mail Mobile
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Check email on your mobile phone.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27523
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 1:22am
Subject: Re: what is cinematic? joe_mcelhaney
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne wrote:
> Whoa. I make an exception for the Dardennes because they are so
tightly economical about the handheld movement. The camera doesn't make
those broad "swishing" movements approximating establishing shots that
most others do.
Just to clarify what was probably a muddled post: I wasn't necessarily
passing a value judgment on the Dardennes or Woody Allen or anyone else
I mentioned there for their use of the handheld camera. I was merely
attempting to list a wide range of filmmakers -- from the realm of art
cinema to the commercial mainstream -- in which the use of the handheld
camera often predominates, sometimes for better, sometimes for worse.
27524
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 1:49am
Subject: Re: Memo to Krohn et al: POST! (on LORD LOVE A DUCK) Was: Group business: all members please read jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>> >
> >
> >
>
> I saw it when it was first released. Many MANY times.
> My favorite was when it was double featured on 42nd
> street with "Kis Me Deadly." You can't imagine how
> perfect a double feature that was. Easily the equal of
> Fabiano Canosa's legendary New Yorker bill of "Duck
> Soup and "Cobra Woman."
>
> Tuesday Weld made me the man that I am today.
>
> David "Peach Put-Down" Ehrenstein
>
David, I just can't believe there ever was such a thing as a double-
bill -- even on 42nd St -- of "Kiss Me Deadly" and "Lord Love a
Duck". It just sounds too good to be true.
Interesting about Tuesday Weld making you the man you are today.
You really have to write your autobiography (of course a little bit
of it is already on-line). But it sorts of reminds me of the famous
exchange: "Snakes are my life." - "What a life!"
JPC
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
> http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
27525
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 2:22am
Subject: Re: What is cinematic jpcoursodon
This thread has been highly stimulating. A few remarks.
There seems to be a general condemnation of "meaningless" camera
movement in films of recent decades. This to me sounds reminiscent of
condemnations of free verse or abstract (or cubist) painting in the
distant past. Camera movement is here to stay just as free verse and
abstract painting were -- and as Joe pointed out before I had a chance
to make the point (and he certainly did it better than I might have)
the evolution of the technology is largely responsible for it, but it
also responds to a need -- a kinetic need if you want. It's not going
to go away any more than the cell phone or the Internet are going to
go away.
And anyway, what does "cinematic" mean? Everything that is on film is
by definition "cinematic" -- like Guitry and Duras and Oliveira (check
out "A Talking Picture"!) And what do we mean by a "meaningless"
camera move as opposed to a "meaningful" camera move? How does a
camera move "mean"? And why do we think in terms of "classical' camera
moves (Lang, Hitchcock, the usual suspects) while we wouldn't dream of
thinking in terms of classical poetry or fiction writing (or painting
or music...) when discussing today's poetry, fiction etc...?
Filmmakers are going to move their camera because they can and we have
to get reconciled with the fact that we no longer live in the forties.
I live in the past as much and probably more than the next fellow, but
there are some realities to be checked.
JPC
27526
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 10:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: what is cinematic? scil1973
In a message dated 5/23/05 7:58:00 PM, peterhenne@... writes:
> Whoa. I make an exception for the Dardennes because they are so tightly
> economical about the handheld movement. The camera doesn't make those broad
> "swishing" movements approximating establishing shots that most others do.
>
Hou's camera doesn't swish or swirl either (extra credit question: forget
cinematic - are swishing and swirling camera movements GAY?). Rather, it floats,
e.g. the opening shot/scene of THE FLOWERS OF SHANGHAI, esp.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27527
From: samadams@...
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 2:51am
Subject: Re: what is cinematic arglebargle31
>
> Date: Mon, 23 May 2005 20:01:16 EDT
> From: ptonguette@...
>Subject: Re: Re: what is cinematic?
>
>Brad Stevens wrote:
>
>I seem to remember an interview where Altman says he gave this instruction
>specifically on "Gosford Park." In any event, that film and "The
>Long Goodbye"
>do this perhaps more than any other Altman films, and it is indeed very
>beautiful to watch.
>
>Peter Tonguette
>
There are few camera moves that as readily convey a director's
signature to me as Altman's floating track/zoom, which is entrancing
enough just as a movement that it almost doesn't matter what's in
frame. I think the purest or at least most noticeable use is in the
overlooked -- and, sadly, mostly unavailable - JAZZ '34, which is
essentially the best moment of KANSAS CITY extended to feature
length: just musicians playing and the camera taking its own
improvisational part. It may more more prevalent in some movies than
others, but I'm hard-pressed to think of one in in which it doesn't
at least play a part. Altman's sense of rhythm, of contiguous space,
of outside-the-frame narrative, of movement as a kind of jazz or
dance, as well as his disinterest in solitary protagonists, are
really all contained in/expressed by his characteristic camera work
(which interestingly enough seems to transcend the differences in
camera operators/DPs). More than anything else it's what makes Altman
Altman.
Sam
27528
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Mon May 23, 2005 11:18pm
Subject: Classical WAS: What is cinematic scil1973
In a message dated 5/23/05 9:24:36 PM, jpcoursodon@... writes:
> And why do we think in terms of "classical' camera
> moves (Lang, Hitchcock, the usual suspects) while we wouldn't dream of
> thinking in terms of classical poetry or fiction writing (or painting
> or music...) when discussing today's poetry, fiction etc...?
>
Because cinema has been around much less longer than fiction or poetry. And,
of course, you hear "classical" all the time in relation to music (although
the classical era really only encompasses Hayden and Mozart, for the big names).
Still, "classical" in relation to cinema (usually Hollywood) is a frequently
useful shorthand that leaves out a lot (like all shorthands): musicals,
melodrama, Oscar Micheaux, Hugo Haas, short subjects, exhibition practices, etc.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27529
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 3:45am
Subject: Re: What is cinematic tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"There seems to be a general condemnation of 'meaningless' camera
movement in films of recent decades. This to me sounds reminiscent of
condemnations of free verse or abstract (or cubist) painting in the
distant past..."
The "meaningless" camera movement is more akin to gingerbread
in architecture or tail fins on 1950s cars or noodling in bad
classical music than it is to free verse in poetry or abstract
painting. The bad camera movements that have been cited are
unnecessary flourishes used to disguise the thinness of the scene
being photographed. One could also liken the "meaningless"
camera
movement to purple prose.
"...And what do we mean by a 'meaningless' camera move as opposed to
a "meaningful" camera move? How does a camera move 'mean'?"
It seems to me that the meaning of a camera movement can be found it
the larger context of the film in which it occurs; there isn't a
single meaning attached to camera movement.
"...And why do we think in terms of 'classical' camera moves (Lang,
Hitchcock, the usual suspects) while we wouldn't dream of thinking
in terms of classical poetry or fiction writing (or painting or
music...) when discussing today's poetry, fiction etc...?"
As a matter of fact, poets and painters who work in open form or in
the abstract not only dream of but do in fact think in terms of
classical poetry, fiction and painting. Many poets and painters
seem themselves as part of a lineage descending from the classics.
See, for example, "Vow to Poetry" by Anne Waldman,"Composed
on the
Tongue" by Allen Ginsberg, "The Poetics of the New American
Poetry"
edited by Donald Allen and Warren Tallman. And then there are the
new formalists (Dana Gioia, Rita Dove, Thomas Disch.) A careful
comparison of, say, "The Night Watch" by Rembrandt and
"Blue Poles"
by Jackson Pollack will show that they deploy order and balance,
light and dark, color, space, shape and proportion, texture, motion,
etc. to convey their effect. Pollack studied under Thomas Hart
Benton at the Art Students League (my distinguished former employer)
and always credited Benton with opening his eyes to composing by
massing color.
"Filmmakers are going to move their camera because they can..."
This is probably true, but filmmakers will eventually become
disenchanted with the technology for its own sake and start using it
in new and expressive ways they may owe something to the old masters.
Richard
27530
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 1:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Memo to Krohn et al: POST! (on LORD LOVE A DUCK) Was: Group business: all members please read cellar47
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> >
> David, I just can't believe there ever was such a
> thing as a double-
> bill -- even on 42nd St -- of "Kiss Me Deadly" and
> "Lord Love a
> Duck". It just sounds too good to be true.
>
As Karamer would say on "Seinfeld" -- "Oh it be true!"
There were any number of weird double bills back in
the Golden Age of 42nd st, now alas Disneyfied out of
existence. At its best it was a bit like "Rouge City"
in "A.I."
> Interesting about Tuesday Weld making you the man
> you are today.
> You really have to write your autobiography (of
> course a little bit
> of it is already on-line).
And there's a lot moreto come. Working title:"Raised
by Hand Puppets"
But it sorts of reminds
> me of the famous
> exchange: "Snakes are my life." - "What a life!"
>
"Maybe now's good time to tell you about his brother."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
27531
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 1:15pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> "...And what do we mean by a 'meaningless' camera move as opposed
to
> a "meaningful" camera move? How does a camera move 'mean'?"
>
> It seems to me that the meaning of a camera movement can be found
it
> the larger context of the film in which it occurs; there isn't a
> single meaning attached to camera movement.
>
Exactly. In other words, a camera move can be said to
be "meaningful" only in relation to content. In itself it is neither
meaningful or meaningless. Of course there is always "content". But
how do we assess the camera move's "meaning" in relation to content?
Can we prove that the camera moves that we call "meaningless"
or "useless" can and should be replaced by other stylistic devices,
to the benefit of "content"? And when we criticize those camera
moves, aren't we actually criticizing the content of the shots
rather than the way they are filmed? We admire complex long takes
with a moving camera in Welles, Altman, Scorsese but one could
perversely argue that those sequences could just as well have been
filmed in a series of still shots with a lot of editing and little
or no camera move. Even more perversely, perhaps, one could compare
those stylistic flourishes to "purple prose"... There are many ways,
perhaps an infinite number of ways, to film any given scene. Why
single out one option (the moving camera) for blame?
JPC
27532
From: "Saul"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 1:35pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic asitdid
Online Now Send IM
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> Exactly. In other words, a camera move can be said to
> be "meaningful" only in relation to content.
Form IS content, regarless of narrative/character/thematic content. it
creates something in and of itself. (i know we all know this, but i
needed to state it anyhow.) if you don't like a camera move it's
because you don't like what it expresses, and that has nothing to do
with reframings, with it's relation to the narrative, with it's
relation to any conventional notion of "content". (this is what
schrader realized all those years ago: form should not be tied down to
narrative -- form should not be subservient -- form should be freed
from its shackles of oppression!)
> In itself it is neither
> meaningful or meaningless.
Of course it is meaningful in and of itself. as said above.
> Of course there is always "content". But
> how do we assess the camera move's "meaning" in relation to content?
we don't have to. we look at the meaning of the shot in relation to
the rest of the filmic form, which in itself creates a expressive
whole. it takes its meaning from that larger framework.
> Can we prove that the camera moves that we call "meaningless"
> or "useless" can and should be replaced by other stylistic devices,
> to the benefit of "content"?
no. we change the camera move, we might as well be saying something
different, making another film, be another director.
> And when we criticize those camera
> moves, aren't we actually criticizing the content of the shots
> rather than the way they are filmed?
it seems that that is what a lot of people are doing -- or, failing to
find what they see as a "meaningful" link between form and content,
they dismiss the form. why not dismiss the content and say the
director has a great shot, but the content is "meaningless" and should
be changed to "the benefit" of the form. that would make as much
sense, or lack thereof.
Funny we mention "purple prose". As I write this, outside it is "a
dark and stormy night"...
27533
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 1:48pm
Subject: Rivette & Birkin apmartin90
News flash: Rivette is preparing a new film, starring Jane Birkin. And
I am preparing excitedly for her Gainsbourg tribute concert in
Australia next month!
Adrian
27534
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 2:18pm
Subject: Re: Rivette & Birkin joe_mcelhaney
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> News flash: Rivette is preparing a new film, starring Jane Birkin.
And
> I am preparing excitedly for her Gainsbourg tribute concert in
> Australia next month!
Wonderful to hear about the new film. I was just looking on IMDB the
other day to see if he was shooting anything.
What is the Jane Birkin tribute concert? Is that "Arabesque?" If so,
it's fabulous. I saw it in New York a few months ago and it's on CD.
Sorry, am I off-topic now? In that case: Lovely Jane Birkin, star of
films by many auteurs including Tavernier, Antonioni, Doillon and
Rivette. Note the fluid camera movements in "La Belle Noiseuse," the
exquisite long takes indebted to Preminger and Mizoguchi, and the
complex use of sound.
>
>
27535
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 2:25pm
Subject: Re: Group business: all members please read jess_l_amortell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matt Armstrong" wrote:
>
> I don't mean to be disrespectful, but my posts were singled out, and
> I still don't understand what makes them OT in comparison to yours
> from the Oliveira thread.
May I suggest what seems to me the obvious point, that there WAS no OT group at the time of the Oliveira thread. Presumably if there had been, the discussion might have moved there by that point. I don't think this was a question of "singling out" (as Fred noted, you yourself suggested your post was OT), but of preferring to continue a "who started 9/11" debate in the other group.
I think it might help, though, if the procedure for joining that group could be clarified. Anyone know, is an email command more reliable than the web interface? I tried to join yesterday (web) and I don't think the Yahoo mechanism ever put through the application -- it hasn't shown up as "pending" on my "My groups" page, as I think it should.
27536
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 2:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rivette & Birkin cellar47
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
Lovely
> Jane Birkin, star of
> films by many auteurs including Tavernier,
> Antonioni, Doillon and
> Rivette. Note the fluid camera movements in "La
> Belle Noiseuse," the
> exquisite long takes indebted to Preminger and
> Mizoguchi, and the
> complex use of sound.
> >
Jane Birkin is a goddess!!!!
She made her debut in "The Knack" -- borowing a chair
from Michael Crawford in the opening scene, and riding
off with Ray Brooks on his motorbike. Other debuts in
the same film: Jacqueline Bissett and Charlotte
Rampling.
"Knack" composer John barry married Birks shortly
thereafter. Then in 1966 came cinematic immortality in
"Blow-Up"
Other Birks credits of note include
"Je T'Aime Moi Non Plus" (by second hubster, the
immortal Serge Gainsbourg)
"La Piscine"
"La Pirate" (by third hubster, Jacques Doillon)
"L'Amour par Terre"
and
"Kung Fu Master"
There's also a video of Chereau's production of
Marivaux's "La Faussue Suivante" in which she starred
with Michel Piccoli.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27537
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 3:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: Group business: all members please read fredcamper
Matt, and everyone, I want to apologize for the way that people seem to
have taken our initial post in this thread as a personal attack. No
personal hostility was intended toward anyone. The post was meant to
remind everyone of our main focus and adjust the group a little bit,
that's all.
You cite two of your posts as comparable to two of mine, but you don't
mention the fourth,
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/27423 This one
responds to a discussion of the film with something that seems entirely
political. Still, a lone post or two doing that is OK.
In hindsight, it seems fine with me to mention the way you have used a
"Star Wars" film briefly. It was, as I've said, more a fear of the way
the thread might start to develop. We were trying to forestall a debate
solely on whether or not Bush "did" 9/11, which it seemed might have
gotten started. (A New Yorker cartoon that I liked that appeared at the
time of Moore's film showed a wide-eyed couple emerging from a theater
showing "Farenheit 911" with the man saying, wide-eyed with wonder, "I
had no idea Bush flew the plane that hit the North Tower.") Perhaps we
should have worded another part of the initial post differently,
suggesting that if you anyone wanted to continue that line without
reference to a film for more than a couple of posts then it belonged on
the OT board. But now I hope Saul clarifies that admission will be
prompt and automatic for members. Saul, if you're reading this, you can
always add one or more co-moderators who also have power to admit, which
should make the process more prompt.
I'm not a good person to judge the posts comparison though, obviously,
since, as the professor in Borzage's "The Mortal Storm" says, "Each hen
thinks she's laid the best egg"; if I make a post I think it's relevant.
If someone thinks my posts veer excessively off topic, please write. But
I do note that in the two posts of mine you cited there is substantial
discussion of the film in question as well as political stuff. Jess also
points out that the OT board didn't exist then. If others had replied
with other solely political things I would have backed way from
continuing the discussion here, I believe. But I'm not perfect. I've
certainly made OT posts. And remember OT posts are allowed in
moderation. You know, I'm sure one part of the reason we felt we should
intervene is that you yourself wrote, "I'm afraid this all pretty OT."
Yet you didn't even label the posts OT, as we've asked in the past.
Finally, neither Peter nor I enjoys doing this, and as I've said before
I think we're going to try to figure out what other group members want.
We did note that when we asked for a third co-moderator no one offered
to help; Peter then asked Aaron to join us. On the other hand, I truly
believe that our interventions are part of what has kept the group as
successful as it is. We have both seen the way other groups can devolve
into pointless and endless OT discussions, fill up with personal
insults, et cetera.
Fred
27538
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 3:23pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic cinebklyn
Saul writes:
> Form IS content, regarless of narrative/character/thematic
content. it creates something in and of itself. (i know we all
know this, but i needed to state it anyhow.)
With respect, while we all might have heard it, we don't all
agree with it. We are not all Hegelians. I for one agree with
William James who described Hegel as being possessed of a
viscious intellectualism.
> if you don't like a camera move it's because you don't like
what it expresses, and that has nothing to do with reframings,
with it's relation to the narrative, with it's relation to any
conventional notion of "content".
I dislike it when it camera movement expresses nothing (which
is possible in a non-Hegelian, pluralistic world).
> (this is what schrader realized all those years ago: form
should not be tied down to narrative -- form should not be
subservient -- form should be freed from its shackles of
oppression!)
Maybe that is why I find his films so empty and dull.
> Of course it is meaningful in and of itself. as said above.
But that implies essentialism.
> we look at the meaning of the shot in relation to the rest
of the filmic form, which in itself creates a expressive
whole. it takes its meaning from that larger framework.
But that implies that there is a Hegelian harmony to the
whole that is expressed in and through the parts. The
Jamesian "and" and the concept of pluralism is thrown
out the window.
> Can we prove that the camera moves that we call
"meaningless" or "useless" can and should be replaced by
other stylistic devices, to the benefit of "content"?
We cannot prove it, but we can note that they are empty
of content. The fiat that "form is content" is just that:
a fiat. Hegel posited it so that his notion that existence
moves toward perfection (which he imagined as Prussia
during his lifetime) would hold. Nothing could or would
be left over.
> no. we change the camera move, we might as well be
saying something different, making another film, be
another director.
Again, what prevents different camera moves from
saying the same thing? Form as well as content can
be pluralistic. Under your system there is a hierarchy of
meaning which admits of a best reading/interpretation,
superior to all others. In the same way, Hegel posited
that there was a best culture (again Prussian), superior
to all others. I have found it useful to avoid the straight
jacket of Hegelian thinking.
> And when we criticize those camera moves, aren't we
actually criticizing the content of the shots rather than the
way they are filmed?
No, I am criticizing the moves.
> why not dismiss the content and say the director has a
great shot, but the content is "meaningless" and should
be changed to "the benefit" of the form.
I often do.
Brian
27539
From: Craig M Keller
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 3:27pm
Subject: Re: Rivette & Birkin evillights
>News flash: Rivette is preparing a new film, starring Jane Birkin. And
>I am preparing excitedly for her Gainsbourg tribute concert in
>Australia next month!
Awesome. But is this new Rivette film the same one that was set to star Jeanne Balibar, and whose (working?) title was 'Next Year in Paris'? Or is that one already in the can, and he's preparing the next film after?
craig.
27540
From: "Saul"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 3:34pm
Subject: Re: Group business: all members please read asitdid
Online Now Send IM
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
>I think it might help, though, if the procedure for joining that
group >could be clarified. Anyone know, is an email command more
reliable >than the web interface? I tried to join yesterday (web) and
I don't >think the Yahoo mechanism ever put through the application --
it hasn't >shown up as "pending" on my "My groups" page, as I think it
should.
The best way is just to apply from the site itself. I should be able
to approve any application fairly speedily. I think the email command
ain't working too well.
27541
From: programming
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 3:40pm
Subject: Re: Re: Time's 100 Best cfprogramming
On 5/22/05 9:54 PM, "Fred Camper" wrote:
> The AFI's registry does include many avant-garde
> films, for example.
No one else seemed to catch this. The various AFI (American Film Institute)
lists I've seen are bad LCD (lowest common denominator) lists. Their 100
Best Films list is what caused Jonathan R. to make his own alternative list
for the Reader (expanded to, what, 1000 in his recent book).
No experimental on the AFI!
Fred is thinking of the Library of Congress' National Film Registry, which
does have a few questionable narratives among some good and great ones, but
overall is very diverse and inclusive with lots (comparatively) of
experimental work and also includes home movies, documentaries, newsreels,
cartoons, historical footage, ethnography, etc.
A minor point, but credit where credit is due!
Patrick Friel
27542
From: "Saul"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 3:41pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic asitdid
Online Now Send IM
Brian, you do realize that some of the comments below are from JPC,
and some are from me? They are all bulked under "Saul writes:"
although some are clearly oppositional to the others.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> Saul writes:
>
27543
From: "Saul"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 4:06pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic asitdid
Online Now Send IM
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> Saul writes:
> Form IS content, regarless of narrative/character/thematic
> content. it creates something in and of itself. (i know we all
> know this, but i needed to state it anyhow.)
Brian replies:
> With respect, while we all might have heard it, we don't all
> agree with it.
so how do meanings primarily change when, for example, a book is made
into a movie? the change in form. if you don't agree that form is
content, then what primarily makes the content of a film? if you want,
for example, dialogue, in and of itself, and to examine it as
"dialogue", then go look at plays. if you want to examine filmic
dialogue, you need to look at it's meaning through its formal
realization.
isn't form one of the main ways auterists examine meanings in a
director's work? isn't form is content part of this 'belief system'?
saul writes:
> > if you don't like a camera move it's because you don't like
> what it expresses, and that has nothing to do with reframings,
> with it's relation to the narrative, with it's relation to any
> conventional notion of "content".
brian replies:
> I dislike it when it camera movement expresses nothing
what does that mean! what do u mean by that!!! do you mean that you
dislike camera moves which express nothing of what you see as the
"content" of the film, and which you therfore class as meaningless???
saul writes:
> > (this is what schrader realized all those years ago: form
> should not be tied down to narrative -- form should not be
> subservient -- form should be freed from its shackles of
> oppression!)
brian replies:
> Maybe that is why I find his films so empty and dull.
>
i was referring to his formalistic analyses of ozu, bresson and dreyer
in "transcendental style in cinema" which look at the formal whole of
those directors (particularly the first two) and how this form carries
their meanings, and the film's ultimate expression of spritual
'transcendance'.
saul writes:
> > we look at the meaning of the shot in relation to the rest
> of the filmic form, which in itself creates a expressive
> whole. it takes its meaning from that larger framework.
brian replies:
> But that implies that there is a Hegelian harmony to the
> whole that is expressed in and through the parts.
in the way you see it. it doesn't have to.
brian writes:
> We cannot prove it, but we can note that they are empty
> of content.
there is no such thing as 'no content'. and if there is, how do you
decide that the shot lacks this element you name 'content'??
saul writes:
> > no. we change the camera move, we might as well be
> saying something different, making another film, be
> another director.
brian replies:
> Again, what prevents different camera moves from
> saying the same thing?
i never said that different camera moves cannot say the same thing.
though with a different move, comes a subtle difference of expression,
and sometimes a major one.
Brian writs:
> Form as well as content can
> be pluralistic. Under your system there is a hierarchy of
> meaning which admits of a best reading/interpretation,
> superior to all others.
no there isn't. i never said that.
JPC writes:
> > And when we criticize those camera moves, aren't we
> actually criticizing the content of the shots rather than the
> way they are filmed?
brian replies:
> No, I am criticizing the moves.
>
then what you are doing is criticizing the content of the moves.
27544
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 4:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Time's 100 Best (&National Film Registry) fredcamper
programming wrote:
> Fred is thinking of the Library of Congress' National Film Registry,
Yes, thanks. I had thought the AFI was also involved with this, but
perhaps only formerly, or never. Their Web site is at
http://www.loc.gov/film/filmnfr.html
I know they included "Detour" early on, and the most recent avant-garde
addition is "Empire." Dave Kehr is a member of the associated board.
John Belton was much earlier involved in the selections. Also, when
judging their selections, which are on their site, keep in mind that
they say that to be included films should be "culturally, historically,
or aesthetically significant." This implies that a film could be
aesthetically negligible but culturally or historically significant and
be included. For a project such as this, that seems to me a good idea,
but it means we shouldn't judge their list the same way we might judge
the AFI's or TIME's.
They add 25 films a year. The first year they announced 25 films, "The
Searchers" and "Vertigo" were in there along with "The Wizard of Oz,"
something that, to continue my point, would have bee inconceivable
twenty years earlier for such a group. Their second year they added an
avant-garde film, Deren's "Meshes of the Afternoon," and Brakhage's "Dog
Star Man" was added in 1992.
Their site also contains a form whereby anyone can nominate a film!
Fred Camper
27545
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 4:15pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic cinebklyn
> Brian, you do realize that some of the
comments below are from JPC, and some
are from me? They are all bulked under
"Saul writes:" although some are clearly
oppositional to the others.
My apologies. I messed up on cutting and
pasting from word to my email program and
confused things. Teches me not to try to
respond to email at work LOL. Again, my
pardon.
Brian
PS: But I still reject essentialist, Hegelian thinking.
LOL
27546
From: Adam Lemke
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 3:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Time's 100 Best moviemiser412
I was fascinated/upset by Schickels list of Guilty Pleasures that didnt
make the list...
Premingers Anatomy of a Murder (or any Preminger as he phrases it)
Joseph H. Lewis Gun Crazy
Jack Arnolds Incredible Shrinking Man
Farrelys Theres Something About Mary
And Joe Versus the Volcano
Im not guilty in the least in my adoration of those first three films...
-Adam
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27547
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 4:47pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic samfilms2003
This is such a broad area I'd hardly know where to begin.
I'm going to suggest a couple things that would bore Hegel but probably not Paul
Schrader.
One is - from experience on crews - you might be surprised how many times "to move
or not to move" is a choice determined by logistics and location geometry. I would BET
MONEY that every commercial film playing in theaters right now contains scenes planned
with moves that didn't happen, Steadicam or dolly shots cut in half by editorial decisions,
etc. For every Gus VanSant, there are a couple dozen pragmatists ;-)
It certainly need NOT be given over to the vagaries of time and budget - see the "Ulmer
Short Line" comments in the Bogdanovitch interview. (Maybe a reason we talk about
those under-the-radar-screen movies 60 years later ??)
That said, there's clearly *some* demarcation between a classical (and studio-shooting-
inspired if not studio-shooting-bound) mise-en-scene which accomodates fluidity,
sculptural style, and the television-driven "coverage" aesthetic.
p.s. As so many of the Steadicam shots in "The Shining" had the operator doing the
Steadicam work from a pushed wheelchair, it's kinda hard to delineate dolly and
Steadicam here. (Or to quote Steadicam master the late Ted Churchill "The dolly that
bleeds")
-Sam Wells
27548
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 4:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: Time's 100 Best cellar47
And I'm not guilty about the last!
--- Adam Lemke wrote:
> I was fascinated/upset by Schickels list of Guilty
> Pleasures that didnt
> make the list...
>
> Premingers Anatomy of a Murder (or any Preminger
> as he phrases it)
> Joseph H. Lewis Gun Crazy
> Jack Arnolds Incredible Shrinking Man
> Farrelys Theres Something About Mary
> And Joe Versus the Volcano
>
> Im not guilty in the least in my adoration of those
> first three films...
>
> -Adam
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been
> removed]
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27549
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 5:06pm
Subject: Hot buttons (Was: Auteurs, Canon, Pleasure and Change) sallitt1
> I was somewhat startled to read Mike's and Dan's posts on characters and
> empathy, since reading them underlined for me how "different" my views
> seem to be from those of most cinephiles.
>
> Admittedly, subject-matter that pushes one's buttons negatively can
> interfere with an appreciation of a film's style, but I think the
> viewer's task is not to remain stuck in his own tastes, but struggle to
> over come them. Perhaps this is the coping Dan refers to when faced with
> plots he dislikes.
I guess it's optional to try to overcome one's limitations and become open
to more kinds of art. I suspect that even a great effort to do so will
produce only partial results.
I'm temperamentally like you in this regard: when I realize that a "hot
button" is preventing me from appreciating what might be perfectly good
art, I feel as if I have to get more universal. For whatever reason, I
don't want to be trapped inside myself. Sometimes I have a little
success. But, given that I think the goal is out of reach, I can
understand why others might choose to accept their limitations.
> I remember being totally baffled by a friend's reaction to the ending of
> "Mouchette" at its New York premiere. He was disturbed that it was so
> negative. Say what? Artists' job is to give us visions
But suppose your friend was struggling with suicidal impulses. He might
not have been able to handle MOUCHETTE. Just a small example of how the
road to art might be barred sometimes....
- Dan
27550
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 5:24pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic cinebklyn
Saul writes: (I will get it right this time LOL):
> so how do meanings primarily change when,
for example, a book is made into a movie?
They change when the artist changes them.
You can say the same thing in a book or a play
or a movie or a painting. You can say it with
flowers if you believe the advertisement.
> if you don't agree that form is content, then
what primarily makes the content of a film?
Ideas.
> isn't form one of the main ways auterists examine
meanings in a director's work?
Form carries the meaning; it is not the meaning.
Me:
> I dislike it when it camera movement expresses nothing
Saul:
> what does that mean! what do u mean by that!!!
I mean I dilsike camera movements for sensation's sake.
> i was referring to his formalistic analyses of ozu, bresson
and dreyer in "transcendental style in cinema" which look
at the formal whole of those directors (particularly the first
two) and how this form carries their meanings, and the film's
ultimate expression of spritual 'transcendance'.
As tedious a text as I have ever encountered. Again, being
a materialist and not having any evidence of this concept of
"spiritual transcendence," I am at a loss to comprehend what
you mean by a film's "ultimate expression of spiritual
transcendance." All I get from Schrader is a longing for the
lost certainties that religion seemed to have once provided
him (along with a severe case of body shame/phobia). He
seems merely to have switched his religious longings to
moviedom. For me, that is like looking for sushi in a pizza
parlor.
saul writes:
> it takes its meaning from that larger framework.
brian replies:
> But that implies that there is a Hegelian harmony to the
> whole that is expressed in and through the parts.
Saul again:
> in the way you see it. it doesn't have to.
But isn't that the point of the dialectic -- the gradual
achievement of perfection and harmony? Isn't this sense
of harmony what Shrader allegedly finds in Ozu et. al.?
> there is no such thing as 'no content'. and if there is, how
do you decide that the shot lacks this element you name
'content'??
No content for me is when the camera swoops around,
devoid of ideas, merely trying to induce vertigo or some
other sensation in the viewer. If it is sensation I desire,
I'll get on a rollercoaster.
Brian
27551
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 5:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rivette & Birkin jontakagi
On 5/24/05, joe_mcelhaney wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> > News flash: Rivette is preparing a new film, starring Jane Birkin.
Whatever happened to that project reported in Film Comment a while
back, called "Next Year In Paris", with Jeanne Balibar?
Jonathan Takagi
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27552
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 6:00pm
Subject: Re: Re: What is cinematic cellar47
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> Form carries the meaning; it is not the meaning.
>
Wrong.
I refer you first of all to Gielgud's "Form IS
content," speech in Resnains' "Providence," script by
David Mercer.
This entire discussion of "meanignless" camera
movements stems from the critical awareness that a
paerticular camera movement is there to "impress" the
viewer. It's marking time. it's not "saying anything"
about the story and cahracters, but it's "saying"
plenty about the fimmaker's attitudes toward the
prospective suckers, er, viewers.
"Heaven's Gate" is overrun with this sort of thing. To
give but one example, I refer to that scene fairly
early on where Kristofferson visits a town in order to
get a piece of information that could easily have been
conveyed to him -- and thus the viewer by other means.
Instead Cimino builds an enormous set crammed with
extras (he was even supposed to have ordered
comepletely dressed sets for rooms in buildings the
camera never enters) and turns up the sound level so
high-- allegedly to "accurately" render the sort of
noise that one would have heard were one there in
"real life" -- that none of the presumbaly "important"
dialogue is audible. On that level the scene is
"meaningless." But in terms of creating the desired
impresion of Cimino's Stroheim-on-acid devotion to
"realism," it is full of meaning.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
27553
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 6:56pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic cinebklyn
David E writes:
> Wrong.
Let me catch my breath. I have been assaulted
by a strong opinion without warning. I will try
to respond as best I can. LOL.
> This entire discussion of "meanignless" camera
movements stems from the critical awareness that
a paerticular camera movement is there to "impress"
the viewer. It's marking time. it's not "saying anything"
about the story and cahracters, but it's "saying"
plenty about the fimmaker's attitudes toward the
prospective suckers, er, viewers.
I was using "saying" in a more limited sense, but
I agree. The filmmaker signifies his artistry with
extraneous cinematic flourishes without saying
anything in the narrow sense of the term.
> But in terms of creating the desired impresion of
Cimino's Stroheim-on-acid devotion to "realism," it is
full of meaning.
It is film as sensation producing mechanism. You
overwhelm the senses so nobody notices that you
are starving the mind. It then labeled as "transcendent"
(whatever that means), and we're off to ther races.
Brian
27554
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 7:28pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic samfilms2003
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> All I get from Schrader is a longing for the
> lost certainties that religion seemed to have once provided
> him (along with a severe case of body shame/phobia). He
> seems merely to have switched his religious longings to
> moviedom.
But one might as well say Godard switched his political and literary
longings to cinema, or Minelli his design longings, or...
Are you willing to psychoanalyse Dreyer on the same terms ?
-Sam (who wouldn't be surprised to find sushi in a pizza parlor these days)
27555
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 7:35pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic samfilms2003
-Anybody for "La Region Centrale" ? ;-)
-Does the camera "move" in "Serene Velocity" ?
(Is that a zen koan and if so CAN I have sushi with my pizza ?)
"Film is a variable intensity of light, an internal balance of time,
a movement within a given space" - Ernie Gehr.
That's where I *begin* to comprehend films. To be honest.
-Sam Wells
27556
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 8:27pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic cinebklyn
Sam writes:
> (Is that a zen koan and if so CAN I have sushi
with my pizza ?)
Certainly you can. Just make sure the pizza shop
is near the sushi bar so your slice doesn't cold
on the way there (or your rice soggy vice versa).
> "Film is a variable intensity of light, an internal
balance of time, a movement within a given space"
-- Ernie Gehr
> That's where I *begin* to comprehend films. To
be honest.
Sounds like a good place. Just not where I either
begin or end up, though it is a stop on my travels.
I am not a formalist first or last. Though I do think
formal elements convey meaning, I am always first
struck by the idea(s) of a film. On second viewing
(or first if the idea is puerile or stillborn), do I begin
break down formal elements. The elements
themselves, however, no matter how skillfully
deployed, are not foremost for me.
Brian
27557
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 8:28pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
Saul: "if you don't agree that form is content, then what
primarily makes the content of a film?"
Brian: "Ideas."
An old poet said, "No ideas but in things." Isn't this
the materialist view of ideas?
"Form carries the meaning; it is not the meaning."
Another old poet said: "Form is nothing more than an extension of
content." This same old poet was a mentor of Stan Brakhage.
Consider Brakhage's "Text of Light" a 70 min. film of
light refracted through a glass ash tray. Here the form is indeed an
extension of the content. One could even argue that the form is
identical with the content since one possible reading of the
film is that the light passed through an ash tray is a metaphor for
the light passed through the celluloid of motion picture film. In
much abstract art form is the subject of the art work and thus the
meaning is to be found in the contemplation of form.
"Being a materialist and not having any evidence of this concept
of `spiritual transcendence,' I am at a loss to comprehend
what you mean by a film's `ultimate expression of spiritual
transcendance.'"
But certainly a materialist can understand spiritual transcendence as
a metaphor. After his formal conversion to Buddhism Mizoguchi
invokes transcendence in several films ("Saikaku Ichidai
Onna", "Sanshu Dayu", "Ugetsu Monogatari," "Yokihi," and
others.)
Then there's the "world of light" that Borzage returns to again and
again ("The Green Light," "Disputed Passage", "Strange Cargo" "The
Mortal Storm" and others.)
It seems to me more fruitful to engage these kind of films in the
terms in which they present themselves without trying to force them
into alien thought forms. One doesn't necessarily have to
sacrifice one's deeply held suppositions to do this.
"No content for me is when the camera swoops around, devoid of
ideas, merely trying to induce vertigo or some other sensation in the
viewer"
Or the content is so weak that sensation is used to disguise its
paucity.
Richard
27558
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 4:33pm
Subject: Snow/Gehr/Form/Content WAS: What is cinematic scil1973
In a message dated 5/24/05 2:36:05 PM, samw@... writes:
> -Anybody for "La Region Centrale" ? ;-)
>
> -Does the camera "move" in "Serene Velocity" ?
>
I see where you're going with this, Sam. But what if Gehr "moved" his camera
in a porn shop instead of a nondescript hallway? Or if Snow placed his camera
in the middle of a McDonald's? And what does it mean that Snow has never
revealed, as far as I know, where exactly La Rgion Centrale is?
I think Snow tried to circumvent such questions (unsuccessfully, I say) with
PRESENTS.
Kevin John
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27559
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 9:38pm
Subject: re: Rivette and Birkin apmartin90
My info about the new Rivette came from Birkin herself, interviewed
(not by me, alas) a few days ago - so I am presuming this particular
project in indeed 'in preparation'. Not sure if the Balibar one that
others here have mentioned is already in the can.
Birkin herself is preparing to direct a film, her second. It was
originally to star her mother (for whom it was written), but she passed
away last year.
And Joe - yes, it's the 'Arabesque' concert she is doing in Australia.
I cannot wait!
Adrian
27560
From: "samfilms2003"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 10:53pm
Subject: Re: Snow/Gehr/Form/Content WAS: What is cinematic samfilms2003
> I see where you're going with this, Sam.
Well in terms of this discussion and "La Region Centrale"
CAN I actually going anywhere with this ? ;-)
>But what if Gehr "moved" his camera
> in a porn shop instead of a nondescript hallway?
Then it would be a Ken Jacobs film in 2D.......
>Or if Snow placed his camera
> in the middle of a McDonald's?
I wish he would.
Seriously I don't think these hypothetical variants negate the
premise - that the films are well carved out of structure before
all else. (Does this mean I'm subscribing to the idea that they
are 'Structual Films' ? In this context, I say yes.i.e the only thing
that sets them aside from, well in fact your above suggestions,
AND from "other kindza movies" is that they're content to stay
"there" (corridor landscape structure), explore as it were the
thisness (material) and thereness (what is exposed on the film
material).
My point is any film must at the least be *capable* of doing
just that, it's what makes it a film.
The mechanism of cinema blatantly reveals its history. (As
oppose to language ?) That perhaps is beautiful.
In a more prosaic sense, I might suggest that camera movement
be assesed by this test: does the movement dance with what is
moved through or against, or is it gesture in the singular merely
passed off as connective tissue (Stan's"canary singing in a mirror") ?
?
-Sam Wells
27561
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 11:28pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic jpcoursodon
>
> "No content for me is when the camera swoops around, devoid of
> ideas, merely trying to induce vertigo or some other sensation in
the
> viewer"
The camera doesn't have "ideas." It may sometimes express ideas,
but by and large it doesn't. What "idea" is expressed by, say, the
opening shot of "Touch of Evil" -- or the infamous tracking shot
in "Kapo"?
The camera is always trying to "induce some sensation" in the
viewer, whether it's vertigo or fear or serenity or whatever. It's its
job -- to make you feel
JPC
27562
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 11:33pm
Subject: Re: Snow/Gehr/Form/Content WAS: What is cinematic bufordrat
LiLiPUT1@... wrote:
>And what does it mean that Snow has never
>revealed, as far as I know, where exactly La Rgion Centrale is?
>
In case you're curious, here's an excerpt from Snow's account of the film:
"The other big problem was finding a place. I had several requirements
and Joyce and I spent months of fantastic trips trying to find them all
in one place. We looked mostly in Quebec from Montreal north to 110
miles south of Ungava. I wanted complete wilderness with nothing
man-made visible, yet it had to be relatively accessible because of the
budget and the heavy but delicate equipment, four people, etc. We tried
by car first, thinking we could find something just off a road, but
there was always something wrong. I finally gave up on the car idea and
after a lot of consulting with people, maps, and aerial photos, I rented
a helicopter and found the place about 80 miles north of Sept-Iles.
It's a mountaintop strewn with extraordinary boulders, it had some of
the kinds of slopes I wanted and a long deep vista of mountains. It's
not a travel-poster beauty, but it's a unique place, arctic-like, rocky,
no trees. I was thinking of subtitling the film 'A Rock and Grass
Festival'!"
In an earlier note he indicates that this region of Canada has a certain
autobiographical significance as well.
-Matt
27563
From: "Andy Rector"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 11:38pm
Subject: Re: Snow/Gehr/STAR WARS/Form/Content kinoslang
Kevin wrote:
> I see where you're going with this, Sam. But what if Gehr "moved"
his camera
> in a porn shop instead of a nondescript hallway? Or if Snow placed
his camera
> in the middle of a McDonald's? And what does it mean that Snow has
never
> revealed, as far as I know, where exactly La Rgion Centrale is?
>
> I think Snow tried to circumvent such questions (unsuccessfully, I
say) with
> PRESENTS.
Snow has revealed where he shot La Region Centrale. Even if it
wasn't always mentioned in analysis of the film, he's the most
approachable and straight forward director I've ever met, you could
just ask him if it wasn't here: "100 miles to the north of Sept-
Isles in the province of Quebec".
(http://www.lafilmforum.org/spring2005/4_10/4_10.html)
Which McDonald's, one downtown or one off the highway next to the
three Waffle Houses? The one in Tel Aviv?
Gehr was right, its all those things FIRST ("Film is a variable
intensity of light, an internal balance of time,
a movement within a given space") and for evidence see his recent
edit of old footage called ESSEX ST. MARKET. The camera doesn't move
at all there. And what about SIGNAL-GERMANY ON THE AIR? If Snow or
Gehr want to create a place with film, so much the better for human
ingenuity given that the material world is always there: SIGNAL is
quite concrete about place and history, as is WAVELENGTH.
I must say in lieu of recent posts on Star Wars III, camera
movement, and politics that REVENGE OF THE SITH is not a film. It
has no natural "variable intensity of light, internal balance of
time...movement within a given space". It in fact has NO SPACE AT
ALL, it unwittingly eliminates space. Time in the "film" hence
suffers an interesting casualty as well.
Perhaps it would be too much to say that, in my mind, this fact of a
no-space movie automatically disqualifies it as having anything to
say politically on account of it being so far removed from a
relationship to the senses, which are dulled beyond belief here. And
that's partially a result of the superfluous camera movement that
Adrian mentioned that Lucas also indulges in.
I don't think it would be too much to say however that its politics
are completely reactionary, leaving space aside, seeing as how it
represents a collection of governers browbeating about democracy,
doing the fighting themselves in fact (I'm the last to advocate
Michael Moore but at least his documentary murders that mythology),
in the total absence of the people, in every sense, human or not in
this case. The governed --the represented-- are not there. There is
no periphery of any kind in the movie, and democracies are worthless
without them. Even C3P0 is reduced to a mammy type in the
proceedings. This sort of representation of a struggle for democracy
as the "enlightened" battling it out is PROFOUNDLY UNDEMOCRATIC. The
Constitution itself is based on this contradiction and it must be
why we're having so much trouble in the here and now.
No, Lucas is nothing but a slaveowner contemplating freedom. In his
concern with the market (special effects competition, trying to out-
do the next filmmaker, making them obsolete, driving the market)
he's using specific tools that tie him up, to his and our detriment;
using a few humans over a green screen. He's not helping anyone but
himself, he's hurting other filmmakers, and who knows about the
spectators.
I'll hand it to him though, that his autueristic plantation is
revolutionary, in terms of a revolutionization of film form, as huge
and stunning as napalming a city (Dresden,Baghdad)-- as
technologically exciting as that is for some.
yours,
andy
27564
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 11:44pm
Subject: Re: What is cinematic cinebklyn
Richard writes:
> Another old poet said: "Form is nothing more
than an extension of content."
I kinda like that one. Who said it? It seems to be
implying that content precedes form, and that
form evolves from content.
> In much abstract art form is the subject of the art
work and thus the meaning is to be found in the
contemplation of form.
Sounds like meditating on a mandala. But there is
the Buddhist warning not to confuse the finger
pointing at the moon with the moon. So is the
meaning in the form or does the form merely point
to/facillitate the arising of a consciousness that can
perceive the meaning?
> But certainly a materialist can understand spiritual
transcendence as a metaphor.
I can, but are Schrader and others using the term
metaphorically, or do they do they actually believe
that they can transcend material reality through
making/watching a movie? That there is some
supernatural other sphere/place that film can take
a person to?
> After his formal conversion to Buddhism Mizoguchi
invokes transcendence in several films ("Saikaku
Ichidai Onna", "Sanshu Dayu", "Ugetsu Monogatari,"
"Yokihi," and others.)
But Buddhist transcendence involves coming into
ever closer and intimate contact with material reality,
not escaping from it. In fact, there is no soul/atman
in Buddhism to escape the material plane. For me,
Schrader is about disgust with this material plane and
escape to a supernatural neverland, the soul shedding
the dirty body.
> It seems to me more fruitful to engage these kind of
films in the terms in which they present themselves
without trying to force them into alien thought forms.
My problem is that if they are based on the notion
of the capacity to transcend the reality of material
existence, then for me they are based on bogus
concepts. To engage them on their terms is to
take on false thought.
> Or the content is so weak that sensation is used to
disguise its paucity.
The sensation does disguise the paucity, and since
humans tend not to like to be ripped off, sensation
is then elevated as the purpose of form in and of it
self (which is the opposite of contemplation).
Brian
27565
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 11:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Snow/Gehr/STAR WARS/Form/Content cellar47
--- Andy Rector wrote:
>
> No, Lucas is nothing but a slaveowner contemplating
> freedom. In his
> concern with the market (special effects
> competition, trying to out-
> do the next filmmaker, making them obsolete, driving
> the market)
> he's using specific tools that tie him up, to his
> and our detriment;
> using a few humans over a green screen. He's not
> helping anyone but
> himself, he's hurting other filmmakers, and who
> knows about the
> spectators.
>
>
> I'll hand it to him though, that his autueristic
> plantation is
> revolutionary, in terms of a revolutionization of
> film form, as huge
> and stunning as napalming a city (Dresden,Baghdad)--
> as
> technologically exciting as that is for some.
>
Don't hold back, Andy -- tell us what you REALLY think!
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
27566
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 0:00am
Subject: re: Snow/Gehr/STAR WARS-etc apmartin90
"Lucas is nothing but a slaveowner contemplating freedom"
That's brilliant, Andy! Bravo!
Oh for the for the days of '77 when one could open FILM COMMENT and
read a zippy, journalistic but completely sharp commentary on how STAR
WARS uncannily echoes TRIUMPH OF THE WILL ! Instead, I have to read all
these 'prefab' review in '05 about how apparently 'progressive' Lucas'
politics are. And how we are now all meant to 'forgive and forget' how
many horrible movies he has made (and caused to be made) since 1973.
Adrian
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27567
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 0:07am
Subject: Un-Kill Bill apmartin90
Bill K has been notably absent during the recent conversations on
style, camera movement, what is cinematic, etc - on which I would
expect he has much to say. He hasn't left the group after the political
flare-up, has he? Bill, come back, we miss you!
concerned Adrian
27568
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 0:19am
Subject: Re: What is cinematic jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
> Richard writes:
>
> > Another old poet said: "Form is nothing more
> than an extension of content."
>
An even older (or younger? I'm not sure)poet (or Zen Monk, I forget)
said: "Content is nothing more than an extension of form."
I wish I had said that...
JPC
27569
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 1:11am
Subject: Re: What is cinematic tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
"I kinda like that one ["Form is nothing more than an extension of
content."] Who said it?"
Charles Olson in his essay "Projective Verse."
"It seems to be implying that content precedes form, and that form
evolves from content."
I guess you already read the essay.
"...So is the meaning in the form or does the form merely point
to/facillitate the arising of a consciousness that can perceive the
meaning?"
It's said that they're co-emergent.
"..For me, Schrader is about disgust with this material plane and
escape to a supernatural neverland, the soul shedding the dirty
body."
I agree with you about Schrader (talk about trying to fit filmmakers
into alien thought forms; he especially distorted Ozu.)
"My problem is that if they are based on the notion of the capacity
to transcend the reality of material existence, then for me they are
based on bogus concepts. To engage them on their terms is to
take on false thought."
But only temporarily. It's like suspension of disbelief for the
duration of the viewing or reading. Then one can subject the works to
criticism and challenge their premises.
Richard
27570
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 1:23am
Subject: Re: What is cinematic tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
An even older (or younger? I'm not sure)poet (or Zen Monk, I forget)
said: 'Content is nothing more than an extension of form.'"
You're referring to the Prajnaparamita Hridaya Sutra attributed to
Nagarjuna and used in the Zen school and recited in Sino-
Japanese: "Shiki fu i ku ku fu i shiki" "Form is emptiness, emptiness
is form." To bring this back on topic would entail a discussion of
George Landow's "Bardo Follies" but I haven't seen it in years.
Richard
27571
From: MG4273@...
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 9:54pm
Subject: Re: Un-Kill Bill nzkpzq
I second the emotion!
I really enjoy reading Bill's posts.
And just watched "Simon of the Desert" (Bunuel) mainly because of Bill's
enthusiasm. (It's terrific).
Mike Grost
27572
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 1:58am
Subject: Re: What is cinematic jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>
> An even older (or younger? I'm not sure)poet (or Zen Monk, I forget)
> said: 'Content is nothing more than an extension of form.'"
>
>
> You're referring to the Prajnaparamita Hridaya Sutra attributed to
> Nagarjuna and used in the Zen school and recited in Sino-
> Japanese: "Shiki fu i ku ku fu i shiki" "Form is emptiness,
emptiness
> is form." To bring this back on topic would entail a discussion of
> George Landow's "Bardo Follies" but I haven't seen it in years.
>
> Richard
Of course. This is what I recite every night before going to sleep.
And it sure puts me to sleep too.
Somewhat OT (?): A monk asked Master Gensha: "The vast wide world is
like a bright pearl. Why don't I know this?" Gensha said: "What is the
use of knowing?"
JPC
27573
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 2:03am
Subject: Re: Un-Kill Bill jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I second the emotion!
> I really enjoy reading Bill's posts.
> And just watched "Simon of the Desert" (Bunuel) mainly because of
Bill's
> enthusiasm. (It's terrific).
>
> Mike Grost
Bill is probably sulking and enjoying your concern. Or maybe he went
to Catalina for a while to forget.
JPC
27574
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 2:12am
Subject: Re: Un-Kill Bill cinebklyn
I definitely agree.
I just hope he didn't decide he needed to do some
field research for his serial killer book.
Brian
27575
From: "Brian Charles Dauth"
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 2:36am
Subject: Re: What is cinematic cinebklyn
Richard writes:
> I guess you already read the essay.
I just read about it two sentences ago LOL.
But I did look it up on line and found passages
from it. And one struck me:
"ONE PERCEPTION MUST IMMEDIATELY AND
DIRECTLY LEAD TO A FURTHER PERCEPTION.
It means exactly what it says, is a matter of, at all
points (even, I should say, of our management of
daily reality as of the daily work) get on with it, keep
moving, keep in, speed, the nerves, their speed, the
perceptions, theirs, the acts, the split second acts, the
whole business, keep it moving as fast as you can, citizen."
Maybe this is what I feel about the gliding camera: it
is not getting on with it. One shot I remember from
"Dominion" (Paul Schrader) goes from looking at the
ground to Merin to a cinematic loop-the-loop curlicue
to end focused on the uncovered church. I remember
thinking: "Okay, where is the camera going to land,"
and being disappointed by the banality/meaninglessnees
of the final destination. The flourish was a delaying tactic
to me -- at best showing that Schrader can move the camera
and giving the audience the opportunity to compliment
itself for noticing how cleverly Schrader moved the camera.
> It's said that they're co-emergent.
I was afraid you were going to say that. LOL.
> I agree with you about Schrader (talk about trying to fit
filmmakers into alien thought forms; he especially distorted
Ozu.)
Maybe why I had such a negative reaction to his book (after
I had read so many good things about it).
> It's like suspension of disbelief for the duration of the viewing
or reading. Then one can subject the works to criticism and
challenge their premises.
I can suspend disbelief, but the first thing that I most often
become aware of are the premises upon which a filmmaker is
building.
Brian
27576
From: "Noel Bjorndahl & Carole Dent"
Date: Tue May 24, 2005 11:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Noel on Roger noelbjorndahl
Joe
I wondered why, in 1974, when Roger first returned for a visit to his homeland he had already developed a pronounced American-Australian accent. When I asked, he brushed it off saying he wasn't particularly aware of it. I do know that in spite of all the efforts of his dedicated fellow auteurists here to develop a strong, serious film environment he found the intellectual climate here uncongenial and provincial and pretty much turned his back on it for good. Ironically, in the years after he left Australia, two of our closest friends, fellow cinephile/auteurists Jenny Sabine and Bruce Hodsdon, had worked extremely hard to develop a National Film Lending Collection (attached to the National Library) which eventually grew to 22 000 films.
Roger loved the American Cinema, identified with America and established an identity there true to his intellectual and emotional needs as he never had here.
I was privileged to hear many of his personal anecdotes on the NY film community as well as those marvellous stories you mention in relation to his summer stints at Martha's Vineyard. He talked about his meetings with Patricia Neal in considerable detail. He also referred to his annoyance at the version of the La Cava that appeared in Bright Lights, but his natural reticence prevented him from allocating blame.Happily the La Cava piece in its final form is, as you say, first rate. Among his other writings, I thought Roger one of the best commentators on Raoul Walsh (article in The Velvet Light Trap) and I've often wondered whether he left anything in writing on George Cukor about whose work he was always eloquent.
I have for many years thought about attempting an extended historical piece on auteurism and cinephilia in Australia with particular reference to Roger's prominent place in it. Yours and Fred's and JP's kind responses to my post have certainly renewed my interest in such a project. I would certainly like to visit NY sometime in the nearer future and feel something of the context he embraced with such commitment .
Noel
----- Original Message -----
From: joe_mcelhaney
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, May 21, 2005 1:07 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Noel on Roger
Noel, thank you so much for that posting on Roger McNiven. I really
didn't know all that much about Roger's Australian past. He did talk
about that group you were a part of and his auteurist beginnings
there. But otherwise, Australia was something he wanted to half erase
from his past. He struggled to get rid of his accent, for example.
Interesting that some members of this group who knew him didn't even
know that he was Australian. We were on a panel together once at a
conference and the entire panel went out for drinks beforehand. The
women on the panel, who had never met him before, immediately noted
the (repressed) accent, complimented him on it, and were shocked that
he would want to deny his origins in this manner.
I wish his writings were better known. That essay you mentioned on
All That Heaven Allows and Bigger Than Life is first rate, as you
noted, and deserves more attention. And I love his piece on La Cava
in the Coursodon book. An earlier version of it appeared in Bright
Lights, rewritten by Howard, much to Roger's consternation. The
second published version of it is the "director's cut."
Did you know about his Martha's Vineyard theater, where he would
program films during the summer at some barn-like space and local
film celebrities would turn up and talk about their work? Patricia
Neal often came and Roger would show things like The Fountainhead or
Breakfast at Tiffany's. Neal tried to talk Roger into showing Seven
Women and told him that Mildred Dunnock would love to come and talk
about Ford and the making of the film. But Roger wasn't able to show
scope films in that space. Lillian Hellman came for a screening of
The Little Foxes. Very imperious and demanding on the phone, she
wanted to get paid for the appearance. I think they settled on
something like fifty dollars. She showed up in a wheelchair, with a
male nurse, who wheeled her into the projection booth with Roger,
undressed her completely, laid her out on a table, and gave her a
vigorous massage. Roger had to try hard to avert his eyes from the
withered, nude body of Hellman. But she was very lively during the
discussion, the crowd loved her, and as she was being wheeled out
past a cheering throng she turned to Roger and said, "Roger, we can
forget about the fifty dollars."
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
a.. To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
b.. To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
c.. Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------
No virus found in this incoming message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.13 - Release Date: 5/19/2005
----------
No virus found in this outgoing message.
Checked by AVG Anti-Virus.
Version: 7.0.322 / Virus Database: 266.11.16 - Release Date: 5/24/2005
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27577
From: "Henrik Sylow"
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 6:24am
Subject: Re: What is cinematic henrik_sylow
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> >
> > "No content for me is when the camera swoops around, devoid of
> > ideas, merely trying to induce vertigo or some other sensation in
> the
> > viewer"
>
> The camera doesn't have "ideas." It may sometimes express ideas,
> but by and large it doesn't. What "idea" is expressed by, say, the
> opening shot of "Touch of Evil" -- or the infamous tracking shot
> in "Kapo"?
>
> The camera is always trying to "induce some sensation" in the
> viewer, whether it's vertigo or fear or serenity or whatever. It's its
> job -- to make you feel
>
> JPC
To "make you feel" is only part of the job of the camera, and the
camera does have "ideas", in so far, that the DoP via Director can use
the camera to execute an idea.
Consider Wells' "Touch of Evil" (opening), Sokorov's "Russian Ark" and
the opening of "Birth". All three challenge "tense" in the conventual
sense, but from three different ideas. There are many other sequences
who challenge "tense" (or recit in general), like Kubrick in "Barry
Lyndon", Tsai Ming-Liang's "Goodby, Dragon Inn", Van Sant's "Elephant".
While there seemingly are worlds apart between "Touch of Evil" and
"Elephant", most will say that Wells impresses and Van Sant bores.
Both are (by Genette) scenes, and both use the long takes to underline
the dramatic significe of the narrative, yet they are so different.
Here, at least for me, the camera expresses an idea.
Opposite (for instance) the seduction scene in "Barry Lyndon" and the
opening shot of "Birth", likewise challenge "tense", here expressing
emotion. Where Kubrick slows the scene down to a hypnotic slow to
underline the significe of the actions of Barry, Glazer uses "tense"
to show the sensation of just running.
To me, the camera is first and foremost neutral in terms of "inducing
emotions", and its ability to do so is always by the idea of the DoP /
Director, how to to note upon the significance of the shot. The
emotional aspect of the camera cannot exist (in my opinion) without an
idea first.
David said,
"(about "meaningles camera") ...it's not "saying anything" about the
story and characters, but it's "saying" plenty about the filmmaker's
attitudes toward the prospective suckers, er, viewers."
I completely agree. For me, one of the best examples of "meaningles
camera" is "Kill Bill". Note Uma's battle against the Crazy 66 (or
whatever they are called). In the US version, the fight suddenly
becomes black and white, then later QT stages the fight as a
shadowplay. To me, it is interesting to compare QT's mise-en-scene vs.
Seijun Suzuki's in for instance "Tatooed Life" (the final battle).
Where Suzuki lets his frame explode in the use of colour, using
filters to suggest blood, using shadows to narrow the frame (alike
Iris Shots), using existing diagonals and lines to seperate action
from the rest of the frame, using unconventional camera positions to
hightend the tension and to focus on their movements (from straight
above, to straight from below thru a glas floor), QT does not use
either camera, nor colour or his mise-en-scene, to note upon the
significe, but only to impress. Comparing QT against for instance
Suzuki, the compositions of QT in "Kill Bill" comes off as empty
imitations, without the ideas of their original. In my opinion, to
compare Suzuki vs. Tarantino really stresses David's argument, that
the meaningles camera says nothing about the characters nor story, but
plenty about the filmmakers attitude towards, not only, the suckers,
but also towards the media as such.
Henrik
27578
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 1:03pm
Subject: Re: Re: What is cinematic cellar47
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
To bring this back on topic would entail
> a discussion of
> George Landow's "Bardo Follies" but I haven't seen
> it in years.
>
And no one has seen Owen Land in years either!
"Bardo Follies" consists of a repeated shot of a Mardi
Gras float that eventually appears to disintegrate
into bubbles of film emulsion.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Small Business - Try our new Resources site
http://smallbusiness.yahoo.com/resources/
27579
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 4:42pm
Subject: Re: Re: Palindromes sallitt1
>> He has a temperamental point of view: he noses out the subjects with
>> which his actual target audience has difficulty, and then issues
>> provocations. I find this much more appealing than the kind of
>> iconoclasm that attacks the other guy's beliefs.
>
> Isn't there are more engaging option? Somewhere between partisan
> polemics and above-it-all posing? As a satire on abortion politics,
> I'll take "Citizen Ruth" which is at least funny.
There's the question about Solondz: is he "above it all"? I admit that
I've felt different ways about that at different moments in his films, but
basically I think he's in it with the rest of us. My guess is that
Solondz himself feels a twinge of repulsion at some of the things he
shows, and that he takes that twinge as a sign that he has to force his
way past the repulsion and put that thing in his movie. Is this a good
way of making movies? I don't know - it's a way, anyhow. - Dan
27580
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 4:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: Palindromes sallitt1
>> He has a temperamental point of view: he
> noses out the subjects with which his actual
> target audience has difficulty, and then
> issues provocations.
>
> But isn't that what most adolescents do?
> Provoke their teachers, their parents,
> their classmates?
Sure. But adolescents do lots of things. Our motivations for making art
are often somewhat...primal, shall we say - often less sophisticated than
the works of art themselves.
I wouldn't defend a movie just by calling it provocative, but I wouldn't
dismiss it for that reason either. - Dan
27581
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 5:26pm
Subject: Re: Noel on Roger McNiven jess_l_amortell
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Bjorndahl & Carole Dent" wrote:
> Among his other writings, I thought Roger one of the best commentators on Raoul Walsh (article in The Velvet Light Trap) and I've often wondered whether he left anything in writing on George Cukor about whose work he was always eloquent.
I don't know the answer, but he contributed a couple of capsules to the catalogue for a Cukor retrospective (University of Connecticut, 1973). His blurb for Heller in Pink Tights ends where it probably could well have begun: "Cukor's dramatic method - constant synthesis of exposition and development - bears comparison with Rossellini's in Voyage to Italy or Renoir's in Golden Coach." (That also sounds like a reference to musical form -- I recall him also as an enthusiastic opera-goer.)
27582
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 2:37pm
Subject: Re: Snow/Gehr/Form/Content WAS: What is cinematic scil1973
In a message dated 5/24/05 6:34:26 PM, bufordrat@... writes:
> I rented a helicopter and found the place about 80 miles north of
> Sept-Iles.
>
I need exact coordinates please so I can make my disco remix.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27583
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 7:46pm
Subject: Auteurism in the grind houses (Was: The Nick Dorsky Nobody Knows) sallitt1
> Note (gulp!) "Revenge of the Cheerleaders"
That's very interesting: I used to make a modest case for REVENGE OF THE
CHEERLEADERS back in the day.
Somehow I remembered William A. Levey's name on the director's credit for
REVENGE, and was able to draw various connections among REVENGE and
Levey's other films, which I thought had a tiny something going for them.
There was even a scene repeated in another Levey film (I think it was
SKATETOWN, U.S.A.) with some of the same actors as in REVENGE. But then
it turned out I was wrong about Levey's credit on REVENGE: Levey himself
denied any connection with the film. So my most subterranean auteur case
was predicated on some form of brain lapse, I guess. In those days, once
those films left the grind houses, there was no way to revisit them for
research. - Dan
27584
From: BklynMagus
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 10:07pm
Subject: Re: Palindromes cinebklyn
Brian:
> But isn't that what most adolescents do?
Provoke their teachers, their parents, their
classmates?
Dan:
> Our motivations for making art are often
somewhat...primal, shall we say - often less
sophisticated than the works of art themselves.
I am not so interested in the motivation (whether
Solondz is trying to provoke or not), as in the fact
that film does provoke, and provokes in what I
consider to be an adolescent manner. My pardon
for not being clear.
He seems to be trying to get attention and then
forgetting about why he wanted it in the first place
(other than to show that he could get it). In some
ways, his work reminds me of the shot I talked
about in "Dominion" (P. Schrader). In both cases
attention is drawn, but once gotten, it is abandoned,
only to have the cycle repeated again.
For me there is a reluctance to go beyond provocation
for provocation's sake, which to me is indicative of
an adolescent mindset on Solondz' part.
Brian
27585
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed May 25, 2005 11:58pm
Subject: Snow's La Region Centrale [Was: Snow/Gehr/Form/Content] fredcamper
I've always loved Michael Snow's "La Region Centrale." The panoply of
camera movements is almost fugal, and the way a space feels completely,
almost exhaustively explored, is amazing.
He's done later installation pieces with a video camera on the custom
mount he built. I saw one in New York and one in his 1994 retrospective
at the Art Gallery of Ontario, where it was installed in the lobby. This
custom camera mount executed complicated curves through space, and you
could see the patterns on the monitor as well as observe the way it was
transforming the room. It was fascinating. Of course, if you also stood
in the right place, you would be a star in a Michael Snow video, but
Snow not being Warhol, your role didn't even last for fifteen minutes,
but more like a second.
Among the deepest inspirations of my life are a series of wilderness
trips I took, sometimes with a friend but more often alone, between 1967
and 1981. And the best of those were five taken in northern Canada, to
terrain not unlike that of "La Region Centrale," between 1975 and 1981.
There were two to Quebec, one a bit south of Snow's locale and one east
of it near the coast but on around the same latitude, two to Labrador,
further north, and one to the Northwest Territories near Yellowknife,
still further north. With a backpack carrying my food, a sleeping bag,
and a tent, I would go off alone for ten days to two weeks, hiking
through woods, drinking out of and swimming in lakes and ponds. Since
the elevations were lower than at Snow's locale there were more trees,
but there were also many hills, and to climb 100 or 200 feet was to be
above the treeline.
One thing that was so profound about these trips was the way they broke
down single-point perspective, not just in the technical art history
sense but in the sense of views that imply a static viewing position.
Every moment of walking your view changes, and every view is connected
to every other, and you can look back and look ahead and see where
you're gong and where you've come from. This ought to happen just as
well when you walk around the block, but at least for me it took the
wilderness for me to really experience the transformative possibilities
of this way of seeing.
My point is that Snow's film is obviously made by someone who got flown
in on a helicopter. I can't fault him for not walking -- no one could
carry that camera -- but the way the film was made is reflected in it.
It's Ptolemaic in a way -- the whole universe revolves around the point
occupied by the camera. It reflects the human and machine bias of
cinema. It's a reminder of how stuck in ourselves we remain in the face
of wild nature. I'm waiting for someone who can make a film from the
point of view of the rocks, or the lichen.
Fred Camper
27586
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 0:00am
Subject: Ry Cooder's Musical Film Noir tharpa2002
Just heard a preview on the radio of Ry Cooder's new CD "Chavez
Ravine." He was interviewed by Jon Wiener and said he was much
influenced by Anthony Mann's films noir in putting together the
musical narrative. For those unfamiliar with Los Angeles, Chavez
Ravine was a predominantly Mexican-American working class
neighborhood used for location filming in late '40s and '50s films
noir ("Crime Wave," Losey's "M," "He Walked by Night" among others)
that was destroyed by urban renewal to make way for Dodger Stadium.
The CD has a loose narrative weaving together fact and fiction that
was very evocative. I know there are a lot of Ry Cooder fans here so
I thought this might be of interest, and I was reminded of Dan's
remark about "watching" movies with his eyes closed, so this should
be right up his alley.
Richard
27587
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 0:23am
Subject: Re: Snow's La Region Centrale [Was: Snow/Gehr/Form/Content] tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
"...Snow's film [La Region Centrale] is obviously made by someone who
got flown in on a helicopter. I can't fault him for not walking -- no
one could carry that camera -- but the way the film was made is
reflected in it. It's Ptolemaic in a way -- the whole universe
revolves around the point occupied by the camera. It reflects the
human and machine bias of cinema. It's a reminder of how stuck in
ourselves we remain in the face of wild nature. I'm waiting for
someone who can make a film from the point of view of the rocks, or
the lichen."
I happened to see a home made video made by a solitary hiker on the
John Muir Trail in the High Sierras. The shots were picturesque
vistas alternating with pans and reverse angles of the trail. At one
point the hiker put the camera down to rest and accidently left it
running. From the camera's position all you can is a granite stone
occupying most of the frame with something out of focus in the bottom
of the foreground. The shot continued for about 20 minutes (though
when it was being shown the host fast forwarded this part but I was
able to watch it again in real time.) There's a final few shots of the
mountain range and then the battery died. Not exactly from the point
of view of the rocks but the 20 minute shot of the granite stone was
suggestive.
Richard
27588
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 9:07am
Subject: Two Questions hotlove666
I'm working long hours finishing a project and could use some help:
There's a film called Charlot dans l'asile de nuit in French (that
translates: Charlie in the Doss-House) that is actually on sale at e-
bay in 8mm, but isn't mentioned in the one Chaplin filomgraphy I have
at hand.
My understanding is that this is part of the unfinished feature
called Life that Chaplin did at Essanay and abandoned, or at least
didn't release, mining it instead for material that was released in
the usual short format. However, I don't believe that this particular
one-reeler is an Essanay release. Could it be a kind of bootleg? Has
anyone seen it, and if so, does anyone know the English title?
BTW, some friends of mine restored Life over a decade ago and led up
to the restoration with a blow-by-blow history of Chaplin's
development at Essanay prior to the attempted feature. As far as I
know it's not available. I was told by Karl Thiede, who knows more
about Chaplin than anyone I know, that Joe Adamson's narration got
the Essanay dates all wrong; moreover, Burgess Meredith's delivery of
the narration was a tad goofy sounding - as in Late Burgess Meredith.
I would be curious to know what became of it. It's listed on the imdb
as The Chaplin Puzzle.
That's actually just one question. The shorter one is: Apparently The
Story of Adele H. was filmed in French and in English. Has anyone
ever seen the English version, or heard of it being shown or
available? It would be a different film at least insofar as the takes
would be different, except, I assume, those where they were speaking
English already.
27589
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 9:42am
Subject: Re: Two Questions thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> There's a film called Charlot dans l'asile de nuit in French (that
> translates: Charlie in the Doss-House) that is actually on sale at
e-
> bay in 8mm, but isn't mentioned in the one Chaplin filomgraphy I
have
> at hand.
>
> My understanding is that this is part of the unfinished feature
> called Life that Chaplin did at Essanay and abandoned, or at least
> didn't release, mining it instead for material that was released in
> the usual short format.
The doss house sequence from LIFE was used in the unauthorized
Chaplin short TRIPLE TROUBLE, cobbled together by Essanay three years
after Chaplin had left the company. It doesn't appear in all of the
Chaplin filmographies. Could that be what this is?
27590
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 10:46am
Subject: Re: Two Questions hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> The doss house sequence from LIFE was used in the unauthorized
> Chaplin short TRIPLE TROUBLE, cobbled together by Essanay three years
> after Chaplin had left the company. It doesn't appear in all of the
> Chaplin filmographies. Could that be what this is?
Sounds possible. The French presumed bootleg is just the doss house.
Truffaut and Jean Gruault screened it when they were writing Adele,
along w. other pertinent Chaplins.
27591
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 11:07am
Subject: Re: Two Questions thebradstevens
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Sounds possible. The French presumed bootleg is just the doss
house.
> Truffaut and Jean Gruault screened it when they were writing Adele,
> along w. other pertinent Chaplins.
Apparently, Chaplin used the entire doss-house scene in POLICE, his
last film for Essanay. Essanay cut out part of this scene before the
film was released, then used the entire scene in TRIPLE TROUBLE,
which also includes another scene from LIFE (I believe it involves a
housemaid), the ending of Chaplin's WORK, and some new footage
directed by Leo White. It's quite possible that the doss-house scene
taken from TRIPLE TROUBLE was released separately in France.
27592
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 11:22am
Subject: Re: Two Questions hotlove666
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>
> > Sounds possible. The French presumed bootleg is just the doss
> house.
> > Truffaut and Jean Gruault screened it when they were writing Adele,
> > along w. other pertinent Chaplins.
>
> Apparently, Chaplin used the entire doss-house scene in POLICE, his
> last film for Essanay. Essanay cut out part of this scene before the
> film was released, then used the entire scene in TRIPLE TROUBLE,
> which also includes another scene from LIFE (I believe it involves a
> housemaid), the ending of Chaplin's WORK, and some new footage
> directed by Leo White. It's quite possible that the doss-house scene
> taken from TRIPLE TROUBLE was released separately in France.
Truffaut actually referred to Police separately re: the same scene -
Adele in the doss-house. So it's the same doss-house as in Triple
Trouble? Perhaps the refrences appear in different documents. I'll ask
Karl tomorrow and report back. Karl is The Guy when it comes to this
director. After Brownlow, of course.
27593
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 1:42pm
Subject: motivation to provoke Palindromes (USA) / The Holy Girl (ARG) eanmdphd
I felt THE HOLY GIRL also takes the audience just to the "point of the
scene" but in a more subtle and un-telling way than PALINDROMES, and
then leaves the audience to figure it out. Are the similarities in
these films tempered by the cultural differences of the USA /
Argentina? I thought THE HOLY GIRL was quite good, but also that it
was PART 1, ending in the middle. The scene of the girls holding their
breath under water for quite different time periods sets up for one of
the last scenes... any ideas on what happens?
> I am not so interested in the motivation (whether
> Solondz is trying to provoke or not), as in the fact
> that film does provoke, and provokes in what I
> consider to be an adolescent manner. My pardon
> for not being clear.
>
> He seems to be trying to get attention and then
> forgetting about why he wanted it in the first place
> (other than to show that he could get it). In some
> ways, his work reminds me of the shot I talked
> about in "Dominion" (P. Schrader). In both cases
> attention is drawn, but once gotten, it is abandoned,
> only to have the cycle repeated again.
>
> For me there is a reluctance to go beyond provocation
> for provocation's sake, which to me is indicative of
> an adolescent mindset on Solondz' part.
>
> Brian
27594
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 2:03pm
Subject: Re: Two Questions jpcoursodon
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> It's quite possible that the doss-house scene
> taken from TRIPLE TROUBLE was released separately in France.
No Chaplin film called "Charlot dans l'asile de nuit" was ever
released in France. "Triple Trouble" was released as "Les Avatars de
Charlot".
JPC
27595
From: "joe_mcelhaney"
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 2:21pm
Subject: Re: Noel on Roger joe_mcelhaney
As far as I know, Roger never wrote anything extended on Cukor, even
though Cukor was among Roger's favorites. Re Jess's post, he told me
once about either a course or a series he programmed in which he paired
Renoir and Cukor films. Unfortunately, the only pairing I can recall
is the one already mentioned: Heller in Pink Tights and The Golden
Coach. So much of Roger's insight on Cukor and others I picked up
through conversation with him and those conversations are now, alas,
more than 20 years old. In spite of his ambivalence about Australia I
do recall him telling me once that he was considering returning there
to teach, once he got his doctorate. Alas, he became ill not long
after that. Considering what is happening in Australia now in terms of
a film culture it is truly sad that Roger never lived to see it happen.
He was such an odd duck in those classes at NYU (and I mean that in a
caring way, as my other favorite Australian, Dame Edna, would say)
bringing up titles that those graduate students had never seen or heard
of, things like Way of Gaucho, and during a period when having seen
many films counted for little in the eyes of academics. If you had seen
a lot of films you weren't an historian -- you were a film buff or,
worst of all, a film fetishist. Without really intending to I think he
ruffled a few feathers but in an ultimately positive way in that he was
often very clear and firm in his attitudes and I think that many people
who got to know him at NYU were affected and influenced by his manner
of seeing films. Certainly I was. However, I do think that academia at
that time was not entirely productive for him and that it was almost
forcing him into certain directions that did not come naturally to
him. He was writing papers for classes on things like gay porn in
relation to an aesthetics of realism which I frankly thought were
beneath him. He was being forced to jump through hoops with projects
like this when he was at his best writing about La Cava or Walsh or
Rossellini. But in 1984, almost no one in film studies wanted to read
about La Cava.
By the way, although he was not a fan of much contemporary cinema, he
loved Rivette above all directors born after the heyday of the so-
called classical period. And he was beginning to bend a little in terms
of directors he once had not been fond of. I remember that he loved
Rumble Fish.
27596
From: BklynMagus
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 2:32pm
Subject: Re: motivation to provoke Palindromes (USA) / The Holy Girl (ARG) cinebklyn
Elizabeth writes:
> I felt THE HOLY GIRL also takes the audience just
to the "point of the scene" but in a more subtle and
un-telling way than PALINDROMES, and then leaves
the audience to figure it out.
I was much less impressed with THE HOLY GIRL.
I had loved her previous film LA CIENAGA and had
looked forward to her next film.
> Are the similarities in these films tempered by the
cultural differences of the USA /Argentina?
I am not qualified even to speculate.
> I thought THE HOLY GIRL was quite good, but also
that it was PART 1, ending in the middle.
Maybe that is the problem. For me the movie came
across as a series of abandoned scenes. She seemed
to be attempting Becketts minimalism without
Becketts sense of impoverishment. (For the record,
Becketts FILM is my favorite abstract/experimental/
whatever-you-call-it-this-week film).
> The scene of the girls holding their breath under
water for quite different time periods sets up for one
of the last scenes... any ideas on what happens?
Not a clue. What do you think?
Brian
27597
From: Craig Keller
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 4:30pm
Subject: Griffin on Welles evillights
From an NYTimes piece on Merv Griffin today --
http://www.nytimes.com/2005/05/26/arts/television/26merv.html?8hpib
Of the estimated 25,000 people he has interviewed, Orson Welles was
the most fascinating, he said. "He allowed no pre-interview and no
questions about his past at all." In 1985, Welles, once married to
Rita Hayworth, approached Mr. Griffin moments before the show: "He
said, 'You know all the wonderful gossipy things that you've always
wanted to ask about my past?' And I said, 'Yes, but I'm not allowed
to ask those.' And he said: 'Well, tonight you are. I'm feeling very
expansive.' He said, 'Ask me anything,' and I did, and then he went
home and died two hours later."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27598
From: BklynMagus
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 4:45pm
Subject: Re: Griffin on Welles cinebklyn
Craig writes:
> In 1985, Welles, once married to Rita
Hayworth, approached Mr. Griffin moments
before the show: "He said, 'You know all
the wonderful gossipy things that you've
always wanted to ask about my past?'
And I said, 'Yes, but I'm not allowed to ask
those.' And he said: 'Well, tonight you are.
I'm feeling very expansive.' He said, 'Ask
me anything,' and I did, and then he went
home and died two hours later."
I remember eagerly watcing Welles on the
Griffin show (on the missed Metromedia, Ch 5).
Sometimes he would give over the whole 90
minutes to him. I felt like taking notes. LOL.
I remember one episode where he did a
monologue from Othelle. Maybe he was
working on "Filming Othello" then.
Brian
27599
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 5:28pm
Subject: Re: Griffin on Welles tharpa2002
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, BklynMagus wrote:
"I remember eagerly watcing Welles on the Griffin show (on the
missed Metromedia, Ch 5). Sometimes he would give over the whole 90
minutes to him. I felt like taking notes."
That final Griffin show appearance was to publicize Barbara Leaming's
recently published biography (she was also a guest.) I saw it. He
said "Old age is like a shipwreck," as the cigar wobbled in his
trembling hand.
One memorable 90 minute tv appearance was when Welles acted as guest
host on "The David Frost Show" circa 1968 or '69. He said he'd been
out of the country for awhile and so was going to hold a "teach-in"
to catch up. Among his personally invited guests(who were seated in
the audience)were a feminist, a black power advocate, a member of the
Socialist Worker's Party (probably the only time in tv history a
Trokskist got a respectful hearing)and a memeber of Young Americans
for Freedom (a conservative youth group.) The rest of the audience
got to respond too. What Welles did was to brilliantly craft the show
into a truly democratic town hall debate on the issues of the day
with himself as moderator. Maybe this show should be included in his
filmography?
Richard
27600
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Thu May 26, 2005 5:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: Griffin on Welles cellar47
--- Richard Modiano wrote:
>
> That final Griffin show appearance was to publicize
> Barbara Leaming's
> recently published biography (she was also a guest.)
> I saw it. He
> said "Old age is like a shipwreck," as the cigar
> wobbled in his
> trembling hand.
>
I have it on tape.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact