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.
27801
From: "Robert Keser"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 0:40am
Subject: Re: Words and shots (Was: A thought about BLACK NARCISSUS) rfkeser
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
wrote:
"Truffaut's endless inserts in Soft Skin were a consequence of
having just interviewed Hitchcock ...I think the primary
meaning is the dominant mood of the film: anxiety ...
Again, these are examples of inserts which exceed their story
function and which, in Dan's terms, exist spatially."
I'm not sure I conveyed that Truffaut puts in many more such
shots than anyone might expect. In fact, these are precisely
the kind of everyday actions that any other filmmaker would not
even shoot, let alone include in the final edit. What fascinates me
is the effect of bringing all these nearly subconscious and usually
unremarked actions to the surface, and presenting them to the
audience as the context in which the story of an unsuccessful love
affair unfolds. It strikes me as an unusual and innovative stylistic
experiment, and I think you're right that the end result is an
unfocused kind of anxiety.
But how does this relate to Hitchcock, apart from sharing the goal
of inducing anxiety? Thinking literally, I can't recall any such
object + gesture shots in Hitchcock.
--Robert Keser
27802
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 0:49am
Subject: Re: Words and shots (Was: A thought about BLACK NARCISSUS) hotlove666
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> wrote:
>
> But how does this relate to Hitchcock, apart from sharing the goal
> of inducing anxiety? Thinking literally, I can't recall any such
> object + gesture shots in Hitchcock.
>
> --Robert Keser
Certainly not of the kind Truffaut used, but Hitchcock always used
inserts as part of his suspense curves - lighters, keys - and
Truffaut does too, especially at the beginning, when the guy is
racing to the airport. As I recall, time pieces get into the act as
well. But I completely agree that the plethora of inserts calls
attention to itself and to features of the modern world, which as far
as I know is a new point about that film. Again, because for me every
Truffaut film corresponds to a Godard film, look at A Married Woman
for a stylistically different atempt at "French Antonioni."
The other Hitchcockian element in Soft Skin is all the cutting on
looks, which he had used for some of Antoine et Colette, but not the
whole movie. Here it's the whole movie, and the looks are pretty
neutral throughout, a la Hitchcock.
Reportedly, this is the one Truffaut script - writen in an unusual 20-
day spurt - that already contains the decoupage as it appears on
screen, with no room for writing scenes the night before, as was his
custom.
I think your point about the inserts raises something interesting
about Truffaut's "Hitchcockism": However immensely he admired
Hitchcock, the Hitchcock style stands for something in a Truffaut
film that it doesn't in a Hitchcock film. Hitchcock style in
Fahrenheit 451 stands for authoritarian mind-control, for example.
27803
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 0:59am
Subject: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality bufordrat
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Peter Wollenese for the causal connection between photograph and thing
photographed; regardless of what a photograph looks like, it "is a
photograph of" whatever was before the camera when the shutter opened.
Paintings, on the other hand, do not have a causal connection to what
they depict (or at least not the same kind of causal connection).
-Matt
Brian Charles Dauth wrote:
>What does indexicality refer to?
>
>
27804
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 0:58am
Subject: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality hotlove666
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Bill, I don't see myself as focusing on films in relationship only
to
> each other and to the "auteur," but on the meaning of an auteur's
work
> as a specific way of seeing the world, ways of seeing that have
social,
> ideological, and political implications.
I'll drink to that! But I do think there is a tendency among American
auteurists to foreclose all that and just make it a cult of the dead,
as Truffaut movingly portrayed in The Green Room. I've known a lot of
American auteurists besides you, Fred!
My writing nearly always tries
> to articulate the meanings expressed, the types of consciousnesses
> evoked, by films, and this has been true of many other posts here
as
> well. It may not come down to the level of arguing about who to
vote
> for, but for example the defense of an aesthetic centered more on
acting
> offered by Zach and others suggests to me a defense of a more
character
> centered cinema. How we see individual wills in relationship to
social
> structures, how much independence of action we believe individuals
have,
> goes to the heart of meaning.
Well, that's an interesting example. But at f&p:trsg, we talk about
globalism (the recent "non" vote in France), colonialism, sexism,
abortion, forms of consciousness and all those other things without
always tying it to film. Hopefully, this kind of follow-up makes the
discussion of films - and tv, and comics, and songs, and... - more
intelligent. The problem here arose when it was time to follow up on
a political issue raised by a contemporary film - and I can perfectly
understand the need not to have that follow-up, or to put it in OT.
For me, you need it to explore politics and cinema, or you're dealing
in abstractions: it is part of the discussion.
>
> Since you mentioned your group, as a non-member I am curious about
some
> aspects of it, and so I've posted a query about it to the OT board,
at
> http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by_OT/message/137
>
I answered OT.
27805
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 1:04am
Subject: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality hotlove666
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> Although I'm too lazy to brush up my Bazin, I just would like
to
> know what is meant by "reality" in this discussion. Reality as
> opposed to what? To naive me, everything is real or else nothing
is.
It's Bazin's word. Left to my own devices I'd have used the
word "world." When we had our 50th and someone asked me what was
distinctive about CdC, I said 1) the auteur theory and 2) a long
tradition beginning with Bazin of seeing cinema in relation to both
its Others: other media, and the world. The first volume of Serge
Daney's collected works from POL (the Cahiers period) is called "The
House of Cinema and the World."
>
> Bill, are you equating "politics" with "reality"?
No,
>
> Although everything is political, isn't politics as unreal as
> anything else?
Even ideology isn't unreal, although it certainly can propagate an
unreal picture of the world.
27806
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 1:29am
Subject: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality jpcoursodon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > Although I'm too lazy to brush up my Bazin, I just would
like
> to
> > know what is meant by "reality" in this discussion. Reality as
> > opposed to what? To naive me, everything is real or else nothing
> is.
>
> It's Bazin's word. Left to my own devices I'd have used the
> word "world." When we had our 50th and someone asked me what was
> distinctive about CdC, I said 1) the auteur theory and 2) a long
> tradition beginning with Bazin of seeing cinema in relation to
both
> its Others: other media, and the world. The first volume of Serge
> Daney's collected works from POL (the Cahiers period) is
called "The
> House of Cinema and the World."
> >
> > Bill, are you equating "politics" with "reality"?
>
> No,
> >
> > Although everything is political, isn't politics as unreal as
> > anything else?
>
> Even ideology isn't unreal, although it certainly can propagate an
> unreal picture of the world.
You seem to know what "the world" is, Bill. How I envy you! I
mean, "the world" -- quite a big order. I would submit that the
relation between cinema and "the world" is implicit and didn't need
what CdC did about it (which is not all that different from what
lots and lots of other people did at the same time and sometimes
before).
But ideology is indeed real just as anything else. Including unreal
pictures of the world (all "pictures" of the world are unreal,
especially if produced by ideology, but then everything ultimately
is ideological). Are there "real" pictures of the world? Who
decides what's real and unreal?
After learning the hard way about the limits and ills of ideology,
aren't you just going back to it? Because perhaps there is nothing
else?
I find it hard to follow you where you're going. But I just must be
the victim of some other ideology. It's hard to escape the damn
thing.
JPC
27807
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 1:53am
Subject: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality hotlove666
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> You seem to know what "the world" is, Bill.
Sure do.
I would submit that the
> relation between cinema and "the world" is implicit and didn't need
> what CdC did about it (which is not all that different from what
> lots and lots of other people did at the same time and sometimes
> before).
OK. But someone has to, right?
>
> But ideology is indeed real just as anything else. Including unreal
> pictures of the world (all "pictures" of the world are unreal,
> especially if produced by ideology, but then everything ultimately
> is ideological). Are there "real" pictures of the world? Who
> decides what's real and unreal?
It's a good topic for discussion - and it is being discussed.
27808
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 2:02am
Subject: Re: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality fredcamper
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Bazin's idea of photography's "indexical" relationship to reality is
also found in various nineteenth century writers on the subject. Bazin's
use of "reality" or the "real" seems to (a) refer to what we
Brakhage-ites sometimes call "shared seeing," that is, we can all agree
that it's a tiger chasing the people, and including it in the same frame
makes it seem more believable, and also (b) tied to his religious faith,
such as it was, about which I don't know a whole lot. For Bazin, cinema
had a redemptive quality, in that it could give us back the primal,
given world that we had become alienated from. It didn't work -- in the
age of videogames and PCs and pomo simulacra we seem much more alienated
from the touchable and shared simple things than, say, 40 years ago. But
I think Bazin meant the actual physical touchable world, especially a
world not totally reshaped by human intervention, by "reality." He
didn't, for example, mean class relations in France in the 18th century.
He meant the physical world that could be "indexed" by photographs.
Photographs can reveal class relations too, but that would be using
photographically interpretively rather than indexically. Bazin might say
that a photograph that revealed class relations was more believable for
its indexicality, but the "revelation" would be a product of subject
matter choice and composition, not the indexicality itself.
Fred Camper
27809
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 2:31am
Subject: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality tharpa2002
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
"...I think Bazin meant the actual physical touchable world,
especially a world not totally reshaped by human intervention, by
'reality.'...He meant the physical world that could be 'indexed' by
photographs."
I'm not certain that Bazin was the one who suggested these concepts
grouped under the heading of "optical attitudes:" Representational
(realist: the "window"), Expressionist (illusionist: the "canvas"),
and Reflexive (self-referential of the medium or the artist: the
"mirror".)
My understanding of Bazin was that he favored the representaional
attitude, the window on the world, which was best accomplished when
spatial integrity was preserved by deep focus and the long take.
Didn't he identify those strategies as the high point of cinematic
style?
Richard
27810
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 2:55am
Subject: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality hotlove666
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> My understanding of Bazin was that he favored the representaional
> attitude, the window on the world, which was best accomplished when
> spatial integrity was preserved by deep focus and the long take.
> Didn't he identify those strategies as the high point of cinematic
> style?
>
As do Rohmer, Rossellini, Renoir - a slew of artists who are pretty
political, although Rohmer is a bit sneakier than the others.
27811
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 3:35am
Subject: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality jpcoursodon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> It's a good topic for discussion - and it is being discussed.
Where?
27812
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 5:29am
Subject: Advise and Consent noelbotevera
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Thanks to the fans hereabouts and a NYT article, I decided to rent
Otto Preminger's Advise and Consent, and it's terrific fare. Aside
from the fact that much of the dialogue seems to echo--sometimes
with unnerving accuracy--recent headlines (John Bolton, anyone?),
Preminger manages to make the intricacies of Senate procedure
fascinating and, at one point, even exciting (I'm thinking of the
sequence where Preminger uses a roll call as a kind of countdown
device, while a senator desperately tries to get himself heard). A
lot could be credited to Allan Drury's novel, of course, but
there've been plenty of novels with thriller setpieces that somehow
translate poorly to the big screen.
Large cast--everyone from Henry Fonda (whose salt-of-the-earth
persona comes on so strong it's a shock to hear him admit to lying)
to Walter Pidgeon (who's simply magnificent) to Franchot Tone (who
has this moment of silent comprehension opposite Pidgeon that's
very fine) to Burgess Meredith (who seems like the only innocent in
the film, and appropriately befuddled) to Lew Ayres (possibly the
most intelligent and sensitive vice president in all of history) to
Don Murray and George Grizzard, all give excellent performances, not
only by themselves but opposite each other (you can believe just
watching them that they all have worked--and not just worked but
worked in politics--together, for years).
But what sold me to the film, what raised the film beyond mere
intelligent political filmmaking, was the senior senator from South
Carolina (hiya, neighbor!). Charles Laughton in his last screen role
holds this movie as assuredly and thoroughly as his Senator
Seabright Cooley holds whatever audience he speaks to, from
Senatorial chamber to a small bridge party, in the palm of his hand.
He waddles along, like an oversized penguin; declaims to the highest
rafters then drops his voice to the merest whisper; throws lecherous
sidelong glances at the odd pretty young woman; does the most
outrageous, audacious things, and it's all an integrated, completely
controlled performance--you can't take your eyes off him for a
minute, the very air in the room seems to dim whenever he exits,
brightens whenever he pops up; even just sitting at a card table he
manages to steal the scene.
And while Murray's story is strong enough, and Murray is intense and
moving as he labors under an impossible predicament (strange how
that same 'predicament' seems just as damning--if not more so--today
as it was then), and his ultimate fate harrowing (though I for one
felt that with this particular subplot I was consistently ahead of
the story--knew what the problem was the moment I heard the
word "Hawaii," didn't need the visit to the bar, or the letter that
followed, at all), Laughton's Cooley somehow tops that dramatic
climax with his own little twist--a twist that manages to be
dizzyingly idealistic and soberly realistic, both. Murray, in short,
was good, was riveting, but Cooley's speech that followed moved me
almost to tears.
27813
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 5:37am
Subject: Re: Revenge of the Pink Panther noelbotevera
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
>
> "Is there good physical comedy possible in beautiful, sexy
actresses
> doing pratfalls?
> Since beautiful, sexy actresses have done physical action and stunts
> (Michelle Yeoh, Maggie Chung, Anita Mui, Zhang Ziyi among others)
Richard has a point--but why stop short of actual comedy? Anita Mui in
Drunken Master 2, Josephine Siao in the Fong Sai Yuk movies--they're
beautiful, and they give great physically comic performances.
27814
From: "Noel Vera"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 5:44am
Subject: Re: Revenge of the Pink Panther noelbotevera
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Forgot to add that I never watched the Panther films as an auteurist,
or even a critic; just loved them for what they are, hilarious
comedies. The Panther films were consistent hits in Manila, and I
loved them as they came--Return, Strikes Again (my favorite, mainly
because it pushed the series as far as it could go, with the whole
world's gang of professional assassins out to kill Clouseau--a kind of
Killer's Olympics), and the rather muted Revenge (which I still loved,
of course). I was too young to see the first Pink; saw that on TCM,
liked it well enough, showed it to a 9-year-old girl, she liked it a
lot. And on it goes...
27815
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 6:15am
Subject: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality bufordrat
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
I guess I'll begin by saying that I generally agree with Fred's reading
of Bazin.
I don't think Bazin definitively worked out his idea of what "reality"
was (at least not with the same thoroughness that Plato, or Berkeley, or
Kant, or Wittgenstein, or whoever may have), but I'm not sure that he
really needed to, for his purposes. His main doctrine on reality seems
to be that, whatever it is, it is fundamentally open to interpretation.
So to have "faith" in reality rather than in the image is to make a film
that respects, in whatever way it might, the hermeneutic polyvalence of
the phenomenal world.
His thoughts on editing have a tendency to be oversimplified into easily
digestible formulas like "long takes are superior to montage" when they
are considerably more nuanced--his line in "Montage interdit" (English
title: "The Virtues and Limitations of Montage") is more like "certain
kinds of narrative action need to be depicted in such a way that they
respect the unity of profilmic space."
Documentary is rife with examples of great films whose visual artistry
depends upon their indexicality; to me, one of the fascinating ironies
of Bazin's work is that he chose to focus on narrative film and devoted
so little attention to documentary. It is of paramount importance, for
instance, that the images of Bert Haanstra's magnificent _Zoo_ are
photographic records of events which transpired in a zoo. It would be
strange to say that the film's appeal was somehow not visual--it
certainly is visual, but it's a special kind of visuality, whereby the
images are bound up with a dated context. This is part of the point of
the editing, and one of the reasons it has such a miraculous feel.
Incidentally, are there any Haanstra fans on the list? I've only seen a
few of his films, but I think they're marvelous--I wish someone would
release them on DVD.
-Matt
Fred Camper wrote:
>For Bazin, cinema had a redemptive quality, in that it could give us back the primal,
>given world that we had become alienated from.
>
27816
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 7:57am
Subject: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality hotlove666
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> >
> > It's a good topic for discussion - and it is being discussed.
>
> Where?
At Film & Politics: The Raymond Sapene Group.
Well, sort of.
27817
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 9:02am
Subject: re: female physical comedy (was: Pink Panther) apmartin90
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
I think this is an absolutely fascinating topic. There is no doubt that
cinema has a criminal shortage of women in
burlesque/slapstick/knockabout physical comedy. I believe, in fact,
cinema is way behind some other fields - like 'progressive' circus and
some forms of alternative theatre - in this respect; it's one of the
most conservative things about film, for all sorts of dire
cultural/ideological reasons too depressing to lay out.
For instance, re-seeing Rivette's CELINE AND JULIE again just recently,
I was amazed all over with the physical work of Labourier and Berto -
and how closely it relates to theatre experiments of the time, which
were bringing together (not the first time) avant-gardism and
burlesque.
On this topic, we shouldn't get too boxed in to mainstream American
cinema examples (I'll say it again ... ). Hong Kong has came up a few
times already; that's a whole other tradition, with a very liberated
(on one level) sense of female comic physicality. I was watching
Johnnie To's splendid LOVE ON A DIET the other day; the gross 'fat
jokes' (for male and female star alike) are a riot. There are a hundred
HK examples like this.
Lucille Ball was mentioned - Pat Mellencamp's writing on her, and this
whole neglected area of female physical comedy is a key reference.
Some other great physical women who come to mind immediately:
Marion Davies in King Vidor's THE PARTY - I wish I could see this great
film again!
A film perhaps only I and Mike would know: Alan Spencer's HEXED (1993),
where Claudia Christian as a deranged supermodel has some fabulous
scenes. (Including one of cinema's funniest sex scenes.)
Molly Shannon in SUPERSTAR (1999) - a terrific film (one of my all-time
favourite comedies), cueing the sad fact that USA cinema has had no
idea what to do with the gifted Shannon since, except stick her in
pallid 'best friend' roles.
Drew Barrymore has her moments: NEVER BEEN KISSED, for example.
Another delirious avant-garde example: Chytilova's DAISIES, a source of
inspiration for CELINE AND JULIE.
Boris Barnet's films: GIRL IN THE HAT BOX, HOUSE ON TRUBNAYA ...
IN THE SPIRIT (1990): Sandra Seacat's little-known film which has both
Elaine May and Jeannie Berlin in it (Berlin in THE HEARTBREAK KID is
amazing): can't remember just how physical it is, but it's an oddity I
just want to recommend!
And sometimes you really have to go right down to Z-movies for some
strikingly physical funny women: stuff like WHEN NATURE CALLS, SIX PACK
ANNIE and of course AWESOME LOTUS (directed by David O'Malley, 'subject
for future research')!
Ah, and I see there's a new Wong Jing film just starting in Melbourne
Chinatown, KUNG FU MAHJONG, with the astonishing old landlady from KUNG
FU HUSTLE!!! Just try to keep me away ...
Adrian
27818
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 9:36am
Subject: Re: female physical comedy (was: Pink Panther) thebradstevens
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin >
> IN THE SPIRIT (1990): Sandra Seacat's little-known film which has
both
> Elaine May and Jeannie Berlin in it (Berlin in THE HEARTBREAK KID
is
> amazing): can't remember just how physical it is, but it's an
oddity I
> just want to recommend!
The comedy is almost entirely verbal. I have it on good authority
that this film was actually directed by Elaine May.
27819
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 10:02am
Subject: Re: female physical comedy (was: Pink Panther) hotlove666
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin >
>
>
> > IN THE SPIRIT (1990): Sandra Seacat's little-known film which has
> both
> > Elaine May and Jeannie Berlin in it (Berlin in THE HEARTBREAK KID
> is
> > amazing): can't remember just how physical it is, but it's an
> oddity I
> > just want to recommend!
>
> The comedy is almost entirely verbal. I have it on good authority
> that this film was actually directed by Elaine May.
It's very funny - too bad she had a bad cameraman.
27820
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 10:17am
Subject: re: female physical comedy apmartin90
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Brad wrote re IN THE SPIRIT:
"I have it on good authority
that this film was actually directed by Elaine May."
What a revelation !!! You read it first on A FILM BY !!!!!!!
By the way, in my long post on this topic I meant Vidor's THE PATSY
(1928) with Marion Davies, not THE PARTY - I substituted Vidor/Edwards
title confusion for Vidor/Lewis title confusion !
Adrian
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27821
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 1:37pm
Subject: Re: female physical comedy (was: Pink Panther) michaelkerpan
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> I think this is an absolutely fascinating topic. There is no
> doubt that cinema has a criminal shortage of women in
> burlesque/slapstick/knockabout physical comedy.
To my mind, the absolute best contemporary actress of this sort is BAE
Doo-na. Her face is extraordinarily plastic and expressive -- and she
has no inhibitions whatsoever about "looking bad". Her movements are
perfectly controlled -- so that she can appear cloddishly graceless
(when necessary) in a believably artful fashion. She is such an
extraordinary performer that she can bring inconsequential nonsense to
life (viz. "Spring Bear Love" and "Saving My Hubby" -- which boasted
cinematography as good as her acting, even if the script was not at
the same level of either). When working with great young directors,
her work is even more impressive. She is tremendously impressive in
both JEONG Jae-eun's "Take Care of My Cat" and BONG Joon-ho's "Barking
Dogs Never Bite". To my mind, she is one of the few bright spots
(other than the cinematography) in PARK Chan-wook's "Sympathy for Mr.
Vengeance" (a film I can't ever watch again, however, due to what
happens to Bae's character -- among 100 other things).
After being out of the international cinematic limelight for a while,
Bae is currently working on Bong's newest film:
http://tinyurl.com/bxu69
I eagerly await the results of this cinematic reunion.
MEK
27822
From: "Brian Dauth"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 1:45pm
Subject: 2 new movies and Thanks cinebklyn
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
First: thanks for the explanations
of indexicality. I am still absorbing
the information, so I will probably
have more questions in a day or two.
Saw two interesting movies this weekend.
One was GARCON STUPIDE at the NewFest.
It was great. Erotic, political,
romantic and great use of form -- something
for everyone.
The other was LE PONT DES ARTS. It started
as (I think) a satire, but veered off into
some very nasty homophobia. Though the
director made the boys look more beautiful
that the girls. Weird.
Brian
27823
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 1:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality fredcamper
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Matt Teichman wrote:
> ... one of the fascinating ironies
> of Bazin's work is that he chose to focus on narrative film and devoted
> so little attention to documentary. ....
I think this helps make my point. Bazin was interested in aesthetic
constructions that redeemed, in some pseudo-mystical sense, his notion
of reality. A documentary, by his lights, might be, well, just a "slice
of life." His excellent analysis of "Paisan" shows that he's looking for
things that aren't all that likely in a documentary.
Fred Camper
27824
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 2:07pm
Subject: Sirk retro in France apmartin90
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
For those passing by the Cinematheque francaise later this year ...
"Intégrale Douglas Sirk - novembre - décembre
Retour sur un cinéaste hollywoodien majeur, Douglas Sirk, auteur de
mélodrames flamboyants et d'œuvres baroques subtiles tels que Le Secret
magnifique, Le Mirage de la vie et Écrit sur du vent."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27825
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 2:16pm
Subject: re: female physical comedy apmartin90
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Michael wrote:
"She [BAE Doo-na] is tremendously impressive in
both JEONG Jae-eun's "Take Care of My Cat" and BONG Joon-ho's "Barking
Dogs Never Bite".
Michael, I could not agree more, she is sensational - and BARKING DOGS
is among my favourite screen comedies, it is such a brilliantly
integrated work of acting, mise en scene, narrative, etc. Also
outrageously funny, and utterly divisive of audiences, which is a good
thing in my opinion! Have you seen the interview with BAE in KIM
Soyoung's fascinating documentary on women in Korean cinema (made circa
2002)? She says there that she would really like to play a lesbian !
Maybe BONG will give her the chance.
Adrian
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27826
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 2:34pm
Subject: Re: female physical comedy michaelkerpan
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> Michael, I could not agree more, she is sensational - and BARKING
> DOGS is among my favourite screen comedies, it is such a brilliantly
> integrated work of acting, mise en scene, narrative, etc. Also
> outrageously funny, and utterly divisive of audiences, which is a
> good thing in my opinion!
I am a fanatic dog lover -- so I was glad that the first thing one
sees in this film (even before title, credits or anything else) is the
assurance that "no dogs were harmed" in the making of the film. ;~}
What I find amazing about Bong's film is the extent to which the humor
can be extremely robust and yet equally intelligent (and inventive).
I think that Bae is an essential ingredient here. For all Bong's
great skill as director, this could not have worked (at least not so
supremely well) without a comic genius (Bae) at the center of the film.
To be perfectly fair and honest, however, I must note that one of the
greatest scenes of the film, BYEON Hie-bong's lengthy recounting of
the tale of Boiler Kim doesn't involve Bae at all. How can a long
rambling recital be so "cinematic". I haven't figured this out yet.
> Have you seen the interview with BAE in KIM Soyoung's fascinating
> documentary on women in Korean cinema (made circa 2002)? She says
> there that she would really like to play a lesbian !
> Maybe BONG will give her the chance.
I thought that there was a tinge of something of this sort in Bae's
relationship with her store clerk friend in "Barking Dogs".
Bae's debut in a Japanese film (Linda, Linda, Linda) is due out (in
the theaters in Japan) any day now. I wonder how this will turn out.
MEK
27827
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 5:00pm
Subject: Noel Murray intro (and Kazan) sallitt1
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
> I'm Noel Murray. I'm 34, and I write about
> film (among other things) for THE ONION A.V. CLUB and NASHVILLE SCENE.
Noel will also be a good candidate the next time Kevin John is looking for
someone to discuss contemporary pop music with.
> I know Kazan has a rep as an
> actors' director, and not necessarily a distinctive visual stylist
It's been a while since I've seen A FACE IN THE CROWD, but I think Kazan
can display a very strong visual sense. The first example that comes to
mind is the uncanny scene where Deanie tries to drown herself in SPLENDOR
IN THE GRASS, with its unorthodox use of closeups and long shots to change
the scene from a dramatic climax to an eerie subjective experience.
I find Kazan an odd guy: sometimes he gets into an overheated mode of
performance that practically turns the world into stage scenery, and
sometimes he shows the greatest sensitivity to rhythm and to the interplay
between the subjective and the objective. - Dan
27828
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 5:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: faith in the image/faith in reality sallitt1
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
> Reality as opposed to what?
How about: things that exist apart from human consciousness, as opposed to
things that are created within human consciousness.
Philosophers tell us that the existence of things apart from our
perception of them has never been proven. Nonetheless, Bazin seems to
rely upon this distinction.
I do not get a mystical vibe from Bazin. - Dan
27829
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 5:26pm
Subject: Re: Noel Murray intro (and Kazan) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> I find Kazan an odd guy: sometimes he gets into an
> overheated mode of
> performance that practically turns the world into
> stage scenery, and
> sometimes he shows the greatest sensitivity to
> rhythm and to the interplay
> between the subjective and the objective.
This is especially true of "Wild River." Jo Van
Fleet's character and performance are quite overheated
whereas Lee Remick and Montgomery Clift are incredibly
sensitive and subtle.
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Have fun online with music videos, cool games, IM and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/online.html
27830
From: BklynMagus
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 7:25pm
Subject: Rossellini on TCM cinebklyn
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
I guess some one at TCM monitors AFB. LOL.
Europa '51
Monday 06/27/2005 12:00 AM
Stromboli
Monday 06/27/2005 02:00 AM
27831
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 7:35pm
Subject: Re: Rossellini on TCM sallitt1
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
> Europa '51
>
> Monday 06/27/2005 12:00 AM
Wow. That's amazing. When's the last time that showed anywhere in the
USA? - Dan
27832
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 7:58pm
Subject: Re: Rossellini on TCM cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Europa '51
> >
> > Monday 06/27/2005 12:00 AM
>
> Wow. That's amazing. When's the last time that
> showed anywhere in the
> USA? - Dan
>
I taped it off the tube a number of years back.
Isabella Rossellini introduced it, saying it was her
personal favorite "of Mama and Papa's pictures."
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
27833
From: Adam Lemke
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 8:25pm
Subject: Re: Rossellini on TCM moviemiser412
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
They are also showing Visconti¹s ³Senso² on the 24th and a whole day of
Anthony Mann films on the 30th.
-Adam
On 6/6/05 3:58 PM, "David Ehrenstein" wrote:
>
>
> --- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
>>> > > Europa '51
>>> > >
>>> > > Monday 06/27/2005 12:00 AM
>> >
>> > Wow. That's amazing. When's the last time that
>> > showed anywhere in the
>> > USA? - Dan
>> >
>
> I taped it off the tube a number of years back.
> Isabella Rossellini introduced it, saying it was her
> personal favorite "of Mama and Papa's pictures."
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Discover Yahoo!
> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27834
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 5:29pm
Subject: Re: re: female physical comedy (was: Pink Panther) scil1973
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
The relative poverty of great female physical comedians is a no-brainer to
me. It's a classic Mulveyian situation. Women are to be looked at in cinema,
Mulvey's quintessential example being Dietrich in Von Sternberg's films, of
course. The more they move around in space, the better chance they have of
advancing the narrative forward which is the male character's province.
But. BUT. Molly Haskell has written of the 1930s as a time that allowed women
more mobility within the frame, mainly in the Hollywood screwball comedies of
the era. So we should be adding Carole Lombard to the list. And perhaps
Miriam Hopkins. Were they the equal of Chaplin or Keaton? Seems an absurd question
to even ask, esp. when they weren't directing/writing/etc. their own films.
And I hope we dont have to start wondering why there haven't been as many great
female directors.
And may I put in a good word for Jenny McCarthy? She single-handedly made
that testosterone fest SINGLED OUT a joy to watch. Loud, obnoxious, pushing her
way through a crowd of frat pigs each week, yanking them around the set, she
was poised for something better. That something better was THE JENNY MCCARTHY
SHOW, a terrific sketch comedy show that MTV's fickle programmers pulled all too
soon. Physical to the nth (Freaky Fran is one of the most hilarious sketch
characters I know), she moved beyond mere funny and tried to construct her own
myth from the very first episode. The next Jerry Lewis? We'll never know. But
it's not her fault.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27835
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 10:15pm
Subject: TCM in June jpcoursodon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Not only does TCM screens "Senso" and the two Rossellinis in June,
they also have the delightful "I Love Melvin" (one of my favorite
musicals, as most members of AFB must know by now) on the 23rd,
sandwiched in-between "Rear Window" and "Blow-Up" (guess what the the
theme of the evening is!). As for "Senso" it is followed by "Rope"
(which TCM insists on calling "Rope!"). Also, on the 26th,
Vidor's "The Patsy" and earlier that day two Keaton masterpieces (my
two favorites among his features), "Steamboat Bill Jr." and "Sherlock
Junior."
JPC
27836
From: BklynMagus
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 11:25pm
Subject: Re: female physical comedy (was: Pink Panther) cinebklyn
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Kevin John writes:
> The more they move around in space, the better chance they have of
advancing the narrative forward which is the male character's province.
So we could starft with Hildy's (Rosalind Russell) entrance in HIS GIRL
FRIDAY moving down the ranks as the moment of her most complete
freedom.
As the film continues, Walter Burns (Cary Grant) tries to restrict her
movements more and more until he commands her not to leave the press
room. When she finally does exit, it is as a trophy slung over his shoulder.
Also, the first moment of true stillness is when Hildy interviews Earl Williams
in his cell. He cannot move and she remains still for the first time in the film.
> Molly Haskell has written of the 1930s as a time that allowed women
more mobility within the frame, mainly in the Hollywood screwball
comedies of the era. So we should be adding Carole Lombard to the list.
And Jean Arthur?
Brian
27837
From: "jess_l_amortell"
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 11:55pm
Subject: Re: Female physical comedy (was: Re: Revenge of the Pink Panther) jess_l_amortell
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
> > Mabel Normand?
>
> A worthy candidate, but so much of her stuff is unavailable...
Gloria Swanson? ... in films like Dwan's Stage Struck (which I have seen) and, I assume, Manhandled (which I haven't)...
27838
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 0:14am
Subject: Re: TCM in June cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
As for "Senso" it is
> followed by "Rope"
> (which TCM insists on calling "Rope!").
>
>
Perfect! Frarley Granger is just as much an axiom of
the cinema as Alain Delon -- not to mention the former
president of the NRA.
Note the "additional dialogue" credit on "Senso" to
Paul Bowles and Tennessee Williams. Here's the
backstory: Libby Holman had run off with Bowles'
latest boyfriend. Word was they were in Rome. So
Bowles accompanied by delighted pal Tennessee headed
for the Eternal City. And while there Visconti offered
them some work -- largely explaining to Farley Granger
what he was trying to do.
Arthur Laurents' invaluable "Original Story By" has
all the dish on "Rope." And Granger himself is putting
the finishing touches on his own memoir. Can't wait to
read it!
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/
27839
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 0:57am
Subject: Re: TCM in June tharpa2002
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
"Perfect! Frarley Granger is just as much an axiom of the cinema as
Alain Delon...Note the "additional dialogue" credit on "Senso" to
Paul Bowles and Tennessee Williams."
This reminds of the late '60s or 1970 TV version of "Laura" with Lee
Radizill as Laura and Granger as Shelby from a teleplay by Truman
Capote (George Sanders played Waldo.) I remember that Granger was
pretty good and more obviously a gigolo than in the film version. I
also seem to recall that it was a live telecast.
Richard
27840
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 2:27am
Subject: Re: TCM in June jpcoursodon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> This reminds of the late '60s or 1970 TV version of "Laura" with Lee
> Radizill as Laura and Granger as Shelby from a teleplay by Truman
> Capote (George Sanders played Waldo.) I remember that Granger was
> pretty good and more obviously a gigolo than in the film version. I
> also seem to recall that it was a live telecast.
>
> Richard
And absolutely perfect casting, as far as Granger and Sanders. The Fox
Movie channel revived this one not long ago.
27841
From: MG4273@...
Date: Mon Jun 6, 2005 10:39pm
Subject: Auteurism, computers and marketing nzkpzq
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Welcome Noel Murray!
Your comments on TiVo are fascinating. Never knew there was a machine that
lets one search cable TV for directors.
Relational databases are the computer technology that forms the core of the
Internet Movie Database (IMDB), the Grand Comics Database (which tries to list
all comic books ever published - www.comics.org), the www.mvdbase.com (music
video database), and similar works for Broadway theater, mystery short stories,
etc. Similar technologies allow one to buy films by director (at Amazon.com
and other booksellers) or rent by director (Netflix, etc). And now watch TV by
director!
When I read Sarris' "The American Cinema" in 1971, printed paper was the only
medium that contained filmographies. Am sure that less than 1% of all
educated people in the US knew what a "filmography" was - the whole concept was
completely alien to people, other than a handful of film scholars. I remember
around 1990 computer friends telling me about Cinemania, a CD-ROM that allowed one
to search lists of films by director or actor. This was a jaw-droppingly new
concept to my friends - they had never heard of such a thing, and never heard
of a filmography.
Today, "everybody" knows about such things. They have become part of the
standard known to nearly everyone who uses the Internet.
This whole concept is profoundly auteurist. And it is now becoming part of
how everyone thinks about film - and also comic books, theater and other media,
too.
I was at a mega-bookstore recently in my home town of Lansing, Michigan, USA.
There was a prominent display of Orson Welles material at the end of one
bookshelf. It contained DVDs of Citizen Kane, Lady From Shanghai, Touch of Evil
and F for Fake; a CD of Welles recitations from literature, and paperback copies
of "This Is Orson Welles" by Bogdanovich and Rosenbaum, and Naremore's books
on Welles. The whole merchandising display could not be more auteurist.
As Rosenbaum scornfully points out in the book, when Welles died, few
American obituaries could discuss anything about him but his wine commercials. Now
marketers have found ways to get the whole auteurist history of Welles out for
sale. It is also a startling transformation.
Mike Grost
27842
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 3:53am
Subject: Re: The Big Trail: more on circles in Raoul Walsh fredcamper
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Mike,
Thanks for your comments on "The Big Trail" (
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/27612 ) They
inspired me to put an old review of it by me on the 'Net; it's now at
http://www.fredcamper.com/Film/Walsh.html
This is for me a very great and relatively atypical Walsh, much "puruer"
in a way for lacking the characteristic film-grammar breakdown that was
to come, and that tends to fill the screen with character emotions.
Your observations about circles interest me, but for reasons I don't
think you quite mention. For me Walsh's landscapes have a curious,
weighty neutrality to them, as repositories of pure space to be filled,
sometimes, by the pure energy of the action. While there are exceptions,
landscape isn't humanized or emotionalized in Walsh to the degree that I
think it is in Ford or Anthony Mann; it's just there. The perfection of
the circle, seen from above, seems to me to kind of signify that.
What form did you see it in? This is a square screen and a widescreen
film; my review was of the widescreen version, which I saw in a print.
Fred Camper
27843
From: bear@...
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 4:24am
Subject: Re: Auteurism, computers and marketing noelmu_2000
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Quoting MG4273@...:
> Welcome Noel Murray!
Thanks!
> Your comments on TiVo are fascinating. Never knew there was a machine that
> lets one search cable TV for directors.
Directors, actors, titles, years, key descriptive words ... just enter what
you're looking for, and it keeps a running up-to-two-weeks-ahead search for
when something's coming on that matches your terms. It's helpful for tracking
directors with large bodies of work, like William Wellman -- I likely wouldn't
have seen the marvelous MIDNIGHT MARY or NIGHT NURSE without it.
It also helps to track directors who did TV work. I've seen all the Robert
Altman-directed BONANZAs thanks to TiVo, and the Peckinpah and De Toth episodes
of THE WESTERNER. The BONANZAs were hit-and-miss and not especially Altman-y
from a visual standpoint (aside from some drifting camera at the finales),
though the performances have some of the complexity and darkness that Altman
demands. As for THE WESTERNER, the Peckinpah episodes are so of a piece with
his other work, in terms of the combination of expressionism and naturalism,
that it's pretty astonishing.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Conway Corporation WebMail -- www.conwaycorp.net
27844
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 0:45am
Subject: Re: Re: Female physical comedy (was: Re: Revenge of the Pink Panther) scil1973
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Of course, we shouldn't take Hildy's capitulation at the end as binding. In
fact, we really shouldn't take any ending as binding. There's never any
guarantee that the image of Hildy moping behind Walter washes back over the rest of
the film so that she could never serve as a role model or an ideal for any of
the women in the audience.
Similarly, I imagine Miriam Hopkins meant more to some women than Chaplin or
Keaton ever did. She certainly means a lot to one of the (male) subjects (who
may be on this list - can't recall) in the not-very-good doc CINEMANIA. One
entire extra on the DVD is devoted to the liberatory potential of Hopkins.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27845
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 0:55am
Subject: Re: Auteurism, computers and marketing scil1973
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
In a message dated 6/6/05 9:44:01 PM, MG4273@... writes:
> This whole concept is profoundly auteurist.
>
On one level, sure. But it's also auteurist in a way that, say, Fred Camper
would abhor. IMDb allows you to search for characters and actors thus upholding
Joan Crawford as the auteur us smart people have always known her to be. ;)
And one click gets you the filmographies of producers, screenwriters, DPs,
foley artists, focus pullers, etc.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27846
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 1:51am
Subject: Re: Noel Murray intro (and Kazan) scil1973
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
In a message dated 6/6/05 12:01:27 PM, sallitt@... writes:
> Noel will also be a good candidate the next time Kevin John is looking for
> someone to discuss contemporary pop music with.
>
Any time, Noel (or whoever). But we should take it to the film and politics
list where such blah isn't as frowned down upon as it is here.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27847
From: MG4273@...
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 8:01am
Subject: Re: The Big Trail: more on circles in Raoul Walsh nzkpzq
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
In a message dated 05-06-06 23:54:30 EDT, Fred Camper writes:
<< put an old review of The Big Trail by me on the 'Net; it's now at
http://www.fredcamper.com/Film/Walsh.html
>>
This is a very good article! I plan to link to it, in the next version of my
Walsh website:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/walsh.htm
Landscape is hugely important in Walsh. The whole second half of "The Naked
and the Dead" is full of extraordinary landscape. Not to mention the finale of
"Colorado Territory", 'High Sierra", etc. I am so far completely lacking in
any sort of critical apparatus to write about landscape in Walsh, or most other
directors. At an intuitive level, have an aesthetic feeling for the great
landscapes of Ford, Mann and Antonioni - but trying to articulate how the
landscapes are composed, or what meaning they contain, in clear, straightforward words
- is a challenge for the future.
A caveat: did not mean to imply that circles are the most important thing in
"The Big Trail", or the key to the film, etc. They are a thread that runs
through the movie, and the rest of Walsh, and hence legitimate to write about.
The overhead views of the circle of wagons during the attack recalls the
overhead shots of the circles of dancing children on the boat in "Regeneration",
and the concentric circles of the orchestra in Heaven in "The Horn Blows at
Midnight". Seeing the wagons as "circular containers for humans" links them to
the oil tanker containing the men at the end of "White Heat", the rocket ship in
"The Horn Blows at Midnight", and the cylindrical orchestra shell in the
finale of "Going Hollywood".
What "meanings" do all these circles have? I am not sure. First, it is
important just to record that they are there - part of Walsh's vision as an artist.
If we are ever to understand what "visual style" means in Walsh, we need to
recognize the presense of such geometrical patterns - plus a whole lot more.
Mike Grost
27848
From: MG4273@...
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 8:12am
Subject: Re: The Big Trail: more on circles in Raoul Walsh nzkpzq
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
PS This was based on a recent Cable TV broadcast of the widescreen (70mm)
version of "The Big Trail", on the Fox Network. Had previously seen the square
screen version on TV. Have never had a chance to see these in a theater - which
would clearly be preferable, with these huge landscape panoramas.
I THINK that this version is available on DVD.
Mike Grost
27849
From: "Robert Keser"
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 0:21pm
Subject: Re: TCM in June rfkeser
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
wrote:
> As for "Senso" it is followed by "Rope"
> (which TCM insists on calling "Rope!").
It's probably another sign of auteurist bias at TCM. Adding an
exclamation point improves most titles, but above all auteurist
favorites: Sylvia Scarlett! Only Angels Have Wings! Moon Over Harlem!
Under Capricorn! I Love Melvin! Senso!
See? It always works.
--Robert Keser
27850
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 1:07pm
Subject: Fatih Akin is Neither East nor West cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
http://service.spiegel.de/cache/international/spiegel/0,1518,359213,00.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced
search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27851
From: "alfred eaker"
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 3:00pm
Subject: Re: The Big Trail: more on circles in Raoul Walsh eaker40b04
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Mike,
>
> Thanks for your comments on "The Big Trail" (
> http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/27612 ) They
> inspired me to put an old review of it by me on the 'Net; it's now at
> http://www.fredcamper.com/Film/Walsh.html
fred, read your 'old review'. it's positively beautiful and
enlightening, a pleasure to read.
thank you
peace
alfred
27852
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 5:08pm
Subject: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) sallitt1
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
>> I find Kazan an odd guy: sometimes he gets into an
>> overheated mode of
>> performance that practically turns the world into
>> stage scenery, and
>> sometimes he shows the greatest sensitivity to
>> rhythm and to the interplay
>> between the subjective and the objective.
>
> This is especially true of "Wild River." Jo Van
> Fleet's character and performance are quite overheated
> whereas Lee Remick and Montgomery Clift are incredibly
> sensitive and subtle.
Hmmm. I didn't really find Van Fleet's performance that different in
scale from the others.
There are whole Kazan films, to my mind, that seem oddly disconnected from
a sense of time or place. STREETCAR, say, or even ZAPATA (which has
scenic elements) or BABY DOLL. WATERFRONT has a setting, but it
eventually gets eaten by the same histrionic quality. It's not just that
the acting is up front - it's something about the way the actors only have
to negotiate with the dialogue, not the world, so that somehow the images
just recede in my mind. And then other films feel quite rooted in what
the camera sees: not just the later ones (which on the whole I like best)
but some early works like PANIC IN THE STREETS. Even A TREE GROWS IN
BROOKLYN feels more like a movie to me than STREETCAR. - Dan
27853
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 6:01pm
Subject: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cinebklyn
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Dan writes:
> And then other films feel quite rooted in what
the camera sees: not just the later ones (which
on the whole I like best)
I have always like THE LAST TYCOON best of
all his films. Maybe coming in late, doing the
film as a job, and being pre-occupied with personal
matters freed something in Kazan. He didn't
change or influence the script as was his
accustomed way.
In his earlier work, there always seemed to be
a strong element of male melodrama, with Kazan
filling the screen with his own anxieties (both
sexual and those regarding his status as an informer).
You can also point to how he de-queered Tennessee
Williams' texts when he directed them on stage.
Brian
27854
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 6:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> I have always like THE LAST TYCOON best of
> all his films. Maybe coming in late, doing the
> film as a job, and being pre-occupied with personal
> matters freed something in Kazan. He didn't
> change or influence the script as was his
> accustomed way.
>
Well he couldn't because Sam Spiegel was the producer
and the screenplay was by Harold Pinter. Most of what
we would associate with Kazan comes through DeNiro's
performance and Theresa Russell's too. Nice that Peggy
Ann Garner was given a part in it -- thus bringing
kazan's career full circle. Mitchum is wonderful.
Jeanne Moreau quite funny. Ingrid Boulting's the odd
girl out. In a sense she was well cast, but when
DeNiro drops by to see her and passes Anjelica Huston,
who's out on a date of her own, it was all I could do
to keep from screaming "YOU'RE AFTER THE WRONG
GIRL!!!!"
> In his earlier work, there always seemed to be
> a strong element of male melodrama, with Kazan
> filling the screen with his own anxieties (both
> sexual and those regarding his status as an
> informer).
>
That only comes through in "America America" when
Stathis Gilleas tells the heroine "Don't trust me."
Interesting film in light of Kazan's Turkish side.
Ideal for Fatih Akin to remake.
> You can also point to how he de-queered Tennessee
> Williams' texts when he directed them on stage.
>
Up to a point. After all Williams was Beyond Daring.
The production code demanded that Blanche's husband's
queerness be muffled in the Blue Casino speech. But
"Baby Doll" is great camp. Cardinal Spellman was quite
upset over it --Eli Wallach REALLY got the old boy hot
under the clerical collar!
__________________________________
Yahoo! Mail
Stay connected, organized, and protected. Take the tour:
http://tour.mail.yahoo.com/mailtour.html
27855
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 6:38pm
Subject: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cinebklyn
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
David E writes:
> Up to a point. After all Williams was Beyond Daring.
The production code demanded that Blanche's husband's
queerness be muffled in the Blue Casino speech.
But on stage Kazan tilted the play to Stanley, when it
is Blanche's play. That imbalance is seen in productions
to this day. Williams said the best Blanche was Claire
Bloom in London.
As for "Cat," Kazan ruined the play with his insistence
that Big Daddy come back in Act III. Can't leave a
faggot and a powerful female on stage at the end. The
het male must reappear and say there is life. (Why THE
LAST TYCOON is fun for me: Kazan allows the hero to
fail -- DeNiro echoing Brando's walk at the end of ON THE
WATERFRONT, but no heroic swelling music or sense of
triumph).
Then Tennessee goes into psychoanalysis, gets even
more fucked up, and produced the poor third version
in the 70's.
Brian
27856
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 7:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> But on stage Kazan tilted the play to Stanley, when
> it
> is Blanche's play.
I disagree and Tennessee is with me on that ppoint.
For "Streetcar" to work at all itHAS to be a battle of
sexual equals. Stanley was based on a wild mexican
dude named Pancho that Williams was having an affair
with at the time of "Streetcar's" staging. Moreover
Willimas LOVED the fact that Brando had made the part
of Stanley so much his own.
That imbalance is seen in
> productions
> to this day.
A REAL imbalance can be seen in the current"Glass
menagerie" -- playing Amanda as if she were Blanche
and then compouding this errort by firing Dallas
Roberts and replacing him with Christian Slater in
order to make Tom straight.
Now that's what I call a REAL artisitc crime!
Williams said the best Blanche was
> Claire
> Bloom in London.
>
She may well have been. I adore her.
> As for "Cat," Kazan ruined the play with his
> insistence
> that Big Daddy come back in Act III. Can't leave a
> faggot and a powerful female on stage at the end.
Again, I disagree. The whole point of "cat" is that
the dead Skipper is more powerful than the live Brick.
In fact he's more powerful than anyone else in the
play, Big Daddy included.
> The
> het male must reappear and say there is life.
What he "says" and what the plays "says" are two
different things.
(Why
> THE
> LAST TYCOON is fun for me: Kazan allows the hero to
> fail -- DeNiro echoing Brando's walk at the end of
> ON THE
> WATERFRONT, but no heroic swelling music or sense of
> triumph).
>
> Then Tennessee goes into psychoanalysis, gets even
> more fucked up, and produced the poor third version
> in the 70's.
>
For which we can thank two eveil queens: Dotson Rader
and Christopher Makos.
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/
27857
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 8:29pm
Subject: Re: Glass Menagerie (Was:Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) lukethedealer12
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> A REAL imbalance can be seen in the current"Glass
> menagerie" -- playing Amanda as if she were Blanche
> and then compouding this errort by firing Dallas
> Roberts and replacing him with Christian Slater in
> order to make Tom straight.
>
> Now that's what I call a REAL artisitc crime!
>
>
I am perfectly prepared to defer to you on the above David if you
provide something in the TEXT OF THE PLAY which specifically
indicates Tom as gay rather than straight. I love the play, and
love the character (and the other characters as well) whether he is
gay or straight but just don't remember anything in it which
indicates either that he is gay or that he is straight. He is
defined as being deeply caught up in these relationships with his
mother and sister and kind of unable to really live his own life.
I always had the sense his own sexuality has not yet settled and
won't be until this part of his life is over.
I think a lot of men, both gay and straight, relate to Tom and in
fact identify with him. I know I do. If one was in that kind of
family structure with mother and sister in some way, as I was, and
particularly if the mother is the kind of person where everything
is really about her and not the son and daughter, it's very easy to
relate. Maybe this is on my mind today for a certain personal
reason. It's also true that this is one of my favorite plays
because I feel very close to it. I'm just sincerely interested in
why you put this as you do in your post.
I'm sure you will agree that the fact that the playwright based this
on his own familial experience does not mean the character is gay--
these are still characters within a play, and it is not Williams
himself. Also, my sense that this is ambiguous is supported by John
Malkovich, who said that he INTERPRETED Tom to be gay when he played
in the movie version of it he was in (a good way for Malkovich to go,
in my view) but that he wasn't saying unequivocally it was that way.
I know the earlier Irving Rapper movie version is considered
compromised in many ways, but Arthur Kennedy seemed a good choice
for Tom--one can easily imagine him cast in the role on the stage in
that period--and he seemed to play it straight.
So a few questions:
1) Do you know how Tom was played in the original production
(neither of us was around for that one)?
2) Any reason Dallas Roberts could not play Tom as straight and
Christian Slater could not play him as gay?
3) Do you believe it matters if Tom is gay and if so, why?
Finally, I'm hoping you can answer this in theatre historian role
though I know it's challenging. In the 50s there was a one time
staged reading of "The Glass Menagerie" at, I believe, Beverly Hills
High here in L.A. I was there, and unknown to me, my future wife was
also there, and we both remember it and the impression it made on us.
John Kerr played Tom, Jocelyn Brando played Laura, Robert Loggia
played The Gentleman Caller. But who played Amanda? Neither of us
can remember. Do you know?
Blake
27858
From: "Robert Keser"
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 9:02pm
Subject: Re: Glass Menagerie (Was:Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) rfkeser
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- "Blake Lucas" wrote:
> 3) Do you believe it matters if Tom is gay and if so, why?
As I understand it, the controversy over the present New York
production is centered on indications of an incestuous relationship
between Tom and Laura, with one scene where they lie together
in "spoon" position. Obviously, if the director insists on pushing
this interpretation, then portraying Tom as straight arguably makes
more sense.
--Robert Keser
27859
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 9:48pm
Subject: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) thebradstevens
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
> > In his earlier work, there always seemed to be
> > a strong element of male melodrama, with Kazan
> > filling the screen with his own anxieties (both
> > sexual and those regarding his status as an
> > informer).
> >
>
> That only comes through in "America America" when
> Stathis Gilleas tells the heroine "Don't trust me."
THE ARRANGEMENT is all about Kazan's guilt over having informed.
Everyone agrees that the film is autobiographical, but whereas Kazan
was responsible for numerous serious films and stage productions, THE
ARRANGEMENT's protagonist makes cigarette adverts! There is no
obvious parallel for this in Kazan's own career - the cigarette
adverts obviously represent Kazan's decision to do something he knew
perfectly well was morally corrupt, simply so that he could continue
to enjoy the good life.
27860
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 10:04pm
Subject: re: The Glass Menagerie apmartin90
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
I loved Paul Newman's film of GLASS MENAGERIE. I don't know about
elsewhere, but since 1987 it's been an unseeable film here in
Australia: absolutely no release on any format, no more theatrical
screenings. A great pity for me! Newman seems to me a kind of lost or
forgotten auteur of immense interest. Few people seem to recall, or
ever been aware of, the praise his directorial work once received from
Durgnat, Daney ... not to mention 4 pages in 50 YEARS OF AMERICAN
CINEMA! (There, GLASS MENAGERIE is described as a "total success", and
compared in its style to Doillon and Tourneur.)
Adrian
27861
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 10:14pm
Subject: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cinebklyn
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Me:
> Then Tennessee goes into psychoanalysis, gets even
more fucked up, and produced the poor third version
in the 70's.
David:
> For which we can thank two eveil queens: Dotson Rader
and Christopher Makos.
But in a roundabout way, a service was done to auteurism
(if at the expense of Williams' sanity and stability).
He wrote SUDDENLY, LAST SUMMER after being in analysis
and having the analyst say he should give up being gay.
Sam Spiegel buys the rights and hires Gore Vidal to write a
screenplay (which Williams hates) and Mankiewicz to direct
(JLM also works on the script).
Mankiewicz turns the predatory faggot into a predatory
capitalist, filming Sebastian only in pieces and gestures --
throwing money at the poor or on a table; dragging Elizabeth
Taylor into the ocean -- to give a sense of the force of
capitalism as an action - always in motion, always desiring.
At first the youths admire him and flock to him (Cousin
Sebastian as Uncle Sam), but then they turn on him --
the colonized exacting revenge on the colonizer (whose
attention has gone to other geographical regions). It is
interesting that Mankiewicz connects Cousin Sebastian to
the Quiet American from his film of the year before by
having both characters wear white suits.
So the idiocy of Williams denying that he was gay helped
to produce a great film.
Brian
27862
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 10:22pm
Subject: Re: The Glass Menagerie cinebklyn
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Adrian writes:
> I loved Paul Newman's film of GLASS MENAGERIE.
I agree. To me it was the best filmed version I have
ever seen and tied with the Sally Field stage version
as the best I have seen overall.
I also like RACHEL, RACHEL and THE EFFECT OF GAMMA
RAYS ON MAN-IN-THE-MOON MARIGOLDS ("My heart is
full.")
I had no idea he was so well thought critically.
Brian
27863
From: BklynMagus
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 10:31pm
Subject: Re: Mrs. Robinson is Dead cinebklyn
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
http://nytimes.com/2005/06/07/movies/07cnd-bancroft.html?hp
27864
From: "hotlove666"
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 10:56pm
Subject: Re: The Glass Menagerie hotlove666
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
Few people seem to recall, or
> ever been aware of, the praise his directorial work once received
from
> Durgnat, Daney ... not to mention 4 pages in 50 YEARS OF AMERICAN
> CINEMA!
...Skorecki (The Shadow Box) and Gilles Deleuze, who regularly
described the drowning of Richard Jaeckel in Sometimes a Great Notion
in his lecture classes.
27865
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 10:57pm
Subject: Re: Re: Mrs. Robinson is Dead cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Oh I am REALLY upset.
In all my years as a journalist she was without
question the best interview I ever had.
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g006/annebancroft.html
We had a long lunch together, without benefit of
publicists or "handlers" of any kind. She had tons to
say about "Seven Women," "The Graduate," working under
contract at Fox, you name it.
And she was as laugh-out-loud funny as her husband.
She was one of the greats boys and girls. One of the
absolute greats.
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
http://nytimes.com/2005/06/07/movies/07cnd-bancroft.html?hp
>
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/
27866
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 11:04pm
Subject: Re: The Glass Menagerie jpcoursodon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin
wrote:
> I loved Paul Newman's film of GLASS MENAGERIE. I don't know about
> elsewhere, but since 1987 it's been an unseeable film here in
> Australia: absolutely no release on any format, no more theatrical
> screenings. A great pity for me! Newman seems to me a kind of lost
or
> forgotten auteur of immense interest. Few people seem to recall,
or
> ever been aware of, the praise his directorial work once received
from
> Durgnat, Daney ... not to mention 4 pages in 50 YEARS OF AMERICAN
> CINEMA! (There, GLASS MENAGERIE is described as a "total success",
and
> compared in its style to Doillon and Tourneur.)
>
> Adrian
I'm so glad someone brought up Newman's THE GLASS MENAGERIE. Both
Tavernier and myself loved the film and were so deeply moved by it
that we really got carried away discussing it in the book (by now I
can't quite remember who wrote what, although I'm sure the mention
of Doillon and Tourneur is Bertrand's). I remember we talked about
it on the phone for nearly an hour before writing anything...
It's an absolute masterpiece -- based on two stage productions
directed by Newman in 18985-86 with the same actors (except one.
Woodward is sublime.
JPC
27867
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 11:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Glass Menagerie (Was:Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
> I am perfectly prepared to defer to you on the above
> David if you
> provide something in the TEXT OF THE PLAY which
> specifically
> indicates Tom as gay rather than straight.
Can't find my copy at the moment, but there's a very
intense exchange in which Amanda questions where Tom
goes at night and he replies "I went to the movies
mother!"
I love
> the play, and
> love the character (and the other characters as
> well) whether he is
> gay or straight but just don't remember anything in
> it which
> indicates either that he is gay or that he is
> straight.
That's it. It's a dialogue exchange every gay man of
my generation knows all too well.
He is
> defined as being deeply caught up in these
> relationships with his
> mother and sister and kind of unable to really live
> his own life.
> I always had the sense his own sexuality has not yet
> settled and
> won't be until this part of his life is over.
>
Life isn't as neatly arranged as all of that. Williams
remained caught up in the lievs of his mother and his
sister long after he established a life of his own. He
was a good son and brother.
> I think a lot of men, both gay and straight, relate
> to Tom and in
> fact identify with him. I know I do.
Good. Don'tlet the fact htat he's gay scare you off.
I've been forced to identify with straight male
characters all my life.
It's the Law!
>
> I'm sure you will agree that the fact that the
> playwright based this
> on his own familial experience does not mean the
> character is gay--
> these are still characters within a play, and it is
> not Williams
> himself.
Nope it's him. And his mother. And his sister. Gore
Vidal recalls going to lunch with Tennesse and his
mother and hearing her chatter away exactly like the
play -- which of course she hadn't read.
Also, my sense that this is ambiguous is
> supported by John
> Malkovich, who said that he INTERPRETED Tom to be
> gay when he played
> in the movie version of it he was in (a good way for
> Malkovich to go,
> in my view) but that he wasn't saying unequivocally
> it was that way.
Well he was Simply Malkovich -- which encompasses all
manner of sexuality.
> I know the earlier Irving Rapper movie version is
> considered
> compromised in many ways, but Arthur Kennedy seemed
> a good choice
> for Tom--one can easily imagine him cast in the role
> on the stage in
> that period--and he seemed to play it straight.
>
He was OK but he was no Malkovich.
Incidentall the Newman film while scored by Henry
Mancicni interpolates Paul Bowles original score as
well.
>
> 1) Do you know how Tom was played in the original
> production
> (neither of us was around for that one)?
>
No idea.
> 2) Any reason Dallas Roberts could not play Tom as
> straight and
> Christian Slater could not play him as gay?
For the answer to that question see "A Home at the End
of the World" and then read Christian Slater's rap
sheet.
>
> 3) Do you believe it matters if Tom is gay and if
> so, why?
>
Yes.
Because!
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
27868
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 11:16pm
Subject: Re: Mrs. Robinson is Dead jpcoursodon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Oh I am REALLY upset.
>
> In all my years as a journalist she was without
> question the best interview I ever had.
>
> http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g006/annebancroft.html
>
> We had a long lunch together, without benefit of
> publicists or "handlers" of any kind. She had tons to
> say about "Seven Women," "The Graduate," working under
> contract at Fox, you name it.
>
> And she was as laugh-out-loud funny as her husband.
>
> She was one of the greats boys and girls. One of the
> absolute greats.
>
Tonight I'll rerun "7 Women" and "The Miracle Worker" (I can live
without watching "The Graduate" again).
Sad. She was still rather young...
JPC
> --- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> >
> http://nytimes.com/2005/06/07/movies/07cnd-bancroft.html?hp
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Discover Yahoo!
> Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it
out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/
27869
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 11:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> THE ARRANGEMENT is all about Kazan's guilt over
> having informed.
Actually it'smore about his dumping Molly for Barbara
Loden.
> Everyone agrees that the film is autobiographical,
> but whereas Kazan
> was responsible for numerous serious films and stage
> productions, THE
> ARRANGEMENT's protagonist makes cigarette adverts!
> There is no
> obvious parallel for this in Kazan's own career -
> the cigarette
> adverts obviously represent Kazan's decision to do
> something he knew
> perfectly well was morally corrupt, simply so that
> he could continue
> to enjoy the good life.
>
Maybe. it's an attempt to quasi-universalize his
situation by relating it to the world of business
success.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27870
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jun 7, 2005 11:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- BklynMagus wrote:
>
> He wrote SUDDENLY, LAST SUMMER after being in
> analysis
> and having the analyst say he should give up being
> gay.
>
And did he? Ofcourse not. The analyist made him give
up Frank Merlo, the love of his life. That didn't last
of course and Frank died in Tennessee's arms.
> Sam Spiegel buys the rights and hires Gore Vidal to
> write a
> screenplay (which Williams hates) and Mankiewicz to
> direct
> (JLM also works on the script).
>
Vidal wrote the surrounding material but kept the play
(a one-act) pretty much intact. The film soars on
Williams' poetry.
"Let's fly away litte bird to all of those blonde
northern countries."
> Mankiewicz turns the predatory faggot into a
> predatory
> capitalist, filming Sebastian only in pieces and
> gestures --
> throwing money at the poor or on a table; dragging
> Elizabeth
> Taylor into the ocean -- to give a sense of the
> force of
> capitalism as an action - always in motion, always
> desiring.
>
That's because you couldn't put a gay man on screen
and get a code seal. Mankiewicz was challenging the
code by putting Sebastian only partially on screen.
> At first the youths admire him and flock to him
> (Cousin
> Sebastian as Uncle Sam), but then they turn on him
> --
> the colonized exacting revenge on the colonizer
> (whose
> attention has gone to other geographical regions).
> It is
> interesting that Mankiewicz connects Cousin
> Sebastian to
> the Quiet American from his film of the year before
> by
> having both characters wear white suits.
>
True.
> So the idiocy of Williams denying that he was gay
> helped
> to produce a great film.
>
He never denied it.
"I never lied in my heart!"
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27871
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 0:14am
Subject: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) jpcoursodon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> THE ARRANGEMENT is all about Kazan's guilt over having informed.
> Everyone agrees that the film is autobiographical, but whereas Kazan
> was responsible for numerous serious films and stage productions,
THE
> ARRANGEMENT's protagonist makes cigarette adverts! There is no
> obvious parallel for this in Kazan's own career - the cigarette
> adverts obviously represent Kazan's decision to do something he knew
> perfectly well was morally corrupt, simply so that he could continue
> to enjoy the good life.
With all due respect, I think this is the most absurd "interpretation"
of anything I have read in a long time. THE ARRANGEMENT -- both the
novel and the film -- is about a lot of things but definitely not
about guilt about something Kazan didn't actually feel "guilty" about.
Maybe we should stop playing drugstore psychiatry and let his soul
rest in peace. I've being hearing and reading about Kazan being
an "informer" for most of my adult life and I am SO sick of it!
JPC
27872
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 0:29am
Subject: Re: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
THE
> ARRANGEMENT -- both the
> novel and the film -- is about a lot of things but
> definitely not
> about guilt about something Kazan didn't actually
> feel "guilty" about.
True, but it does deal with other forms of guiltquite
interestingly.
> Maybe we should stop playing drugstore psychiatry
> and let his soul
> rest in peace.
"Put away your Penguin Freud, Diana," is one of my
favorite movie lines.
I've being hearing and reading about
> Kazan being
> an "informer" for most of my adult life and I am SO
> sick of it!
>
Well brace yourself, because in the forthcoming "Film
Quarterly" I have a book review that deals with it
tangentially. At firstkazan wasn'tgoing to cooperate
at all. Then he saw what was happening to peoplelike
Alvah Bessie, whose screen credit for "Ruthless" was
yanked away (it was finally restored two years ago.)
Then he said he'd speak about his won experience in
the party but not name names. Then Mike Connolly of
the Hollywood Reporter -- the town's own personal Roy
Cohn -- started threatening Kazan in his column. So he
capitulated. What made things worse was the ad he took
out in the papers saying everyone should squeal. That
really tore it. He was a shit. But he was also a great
filmmaker. And there's the rub.
Lets face facts: all of this would be a mere detail of
history were it not for Kazan's manifest talent. "A
Tree Grows in Brooklyn," "On the Waterfront," "A Face
in the Crowd," "Wild River," and "Splendor in the
Grass" are amazing movies that will live forever.
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27873
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 0:29am
Subject: Re: Anne Bancroft (Was:Mrs. Robinson is Dead) lukethedealer12
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Oh I am REALLY upset.
>
> In all my years as a journalist she was without
> question the best interview I ever had.
>
> http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g006/annebancroft.html
>
> We had a long lunch together, without benefit of
> publicists or "handlers" of any kind. She had tons to
> say about "Seven Women," "The Graduate," working under
> contract at Fox, you name it.
>
At link above, David, you cite "Seven Women" as your favorite--I
agree with that and no doubt many other a_f_b members also agree.
Anything she said about it, Ford, her co-stars, that you might share
over the next few days would be much appreciated.
My personal close second favorite of her movies of those years
is "The Pumpkin Eater"--a great Pinter script, good direction by
Clayton, haunting music by Delerue, and Bancroft is just wonderful
in it. Just to look at her face at the beginning is to see the
story of the film, much like those silhouettes in "Seven Women."
But I must say that Anne herself should have taken another look at
those early Hollywood films, in which she is generally excellent.
They include some of her best movies, gems like "The Raid"
(Fregonese), "Nightfall" (Tourneur), The Last Frontier" (Mann),
and ones at least more interesting and engaging than many of her
later ones like "Walk the Proud Land" (Hibbs), "The Naked Street"
(Shane) and nice debut in "Don't Bother to Knock" (Baker).
But it's always "Gorilla at Large." As if they were all just like
that one. Anyway, it's not that bad.
Blake
27874
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 1:09am
Subject: Re: Glass Menagerie (Was:Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) lukethedealer12
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> --- Blake Lucas wrote:
>
> > > I am perfectly prepared to defer to you on the above
> > David if you
> > provide something in the TEXT OF THE PLAY which
> > specifically
> > indicates Tom as gay rather than straight.
>
> Can't find my copy at the moment, but there's a very
> intense exchange in which Amanda questions where Tom
> goes at night and he replies "I went to the movies
> mother!"
>
I cut the rest of this, mindful that's what we are supposed to do,
but all good answers I enjoyed reading. I think I was clear before
that I am well aware the play was autobiographical and always have
been, that it is based on himself, his mother, and his sister. And
yes, as you said, those relationships do go on in life. I should
know, believe me.
The key thing here is that line "I went to the movies mother!" Hey,
David, that's the one I most remember and which obviously makes me
identify with Tom without even thinking about it. That could be me
saying it. What would it mean? In my case, that I went to the
movies. I went to a lot of movies--for escape, dreams, awakening
aesthetics, eroticism, everything. I'm guessing you did too.
I simply resist the idea that because it's autobiographical that he
is identified as gay within the play when he is not so identified.
These characters don't wear the same names as their real-life
counterparts--they become characters and it's universal. Of course
he could be gay. And obviously, I can identify just as readily with
a gay character as a straight one or anyone else and never feel this
is forced on me--my empathy is probably about equal for say, Elvira
in "A Year with 13 Moons" as for Cody in "Comanche Station."
But in Tom's case, I feel he can be played as straight just as
effectively within the play, because the text doesn't insist on one
way or the other. My interest in making the query was because Linda
and I happened to be talking about this very thing over the weekend
before you wrote about it here--how Williams could so effectively
universalize his experience (this is surely his greatest play) and
didn't need to make Tom overtly gay to do so. We were talking about
Inge as well as Williams--honestly I like Inge even better and so
does she. I heard one version of the "Splendor in the Grass" story
as deriving from a gay couple Inge knew--in the movie, one sees a
male and female character in love, and the sexual puritanism of the
period repressing their heterosexuality. But of course it could be
two men, or two women, and I think anyone relates to it.
Subtext is a different thing than the actual text, and here anything
can be argued, and directors and actors interpret. To me, the
subtext of "Johnny Guitar" as directed and played makes the
homoerotic currents of the relationship between The Dancing Kid and
Turkey much more overt than anything about Tom in "Glass Menagerie,"
even though it is in the dialogue only very obliguely. But I am
certainly as comfortable as I said with either a gay or straight
Tom. I must say I am less comfortable with what was said about the
current Broadway production, and intimations of some physical
incestuousness between Tom and Laura. Those brother/sister currents
are very charged--as they often are in life--but so much so that the
whole play seems carefully written to repress anything physical
between them. And by the way, I think gayness would not preclude
incestuous feelings on Tom's part at all--everyone's sexuality is
quite complex, especially in things they feel they must suppress.
Hope you don't think that is naive.
By the way, the Newman "Glass Menagerie" did come out on tape and is
available at least here in L.A. to rent anyway, at a good specialty
place, though haven't looked for it lately.
David, the one thing in my first post you didn't respond to was
about that staged reading in the 50s. Man was I disappointed--but
why should you know it? But if anyone does, please respond. Again
it was at Beverly Hills High I believe--John Kerr as Tom, Jocelyn
Brando as Laura, Robert Loggia as Gentleman Caller, and we can't
remember who played Amanda.
Blake
> __________________________________
> Discover Yahoo!
> Find restaurants, movies, travel and more fun for the weekend.
Check it out!
> http://discover.yahoo.com/weekend.html
27875
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 1:15am
Subject: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) jpcoursodon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> Well brace yourself, because in the forthcoming "Film
> Quarterly" I have a book review that deals with it
> tangentially. At firstkazan wasn'tgoing to cooperate
> at all. Then he saw what was happening to peoplelike
> Alvah Bessie, whose screen credit for "Ruthless" was
> yanked away (it was finally restored two years ago.)
> Then he said he'd speak about his won experience in
> the party but not name names. Then Mike Connolly of
> the Hollywood Reporter -- the town's own personal Roy
> Cohn -- started threatening Kazan in his column. So he
> capitulated. What made things worse was the ad he took
> out in the papers saying everyone should squeal. That
> really tore it. He was a shit. But he was also a great
> filmmaker. And there's the rub.
I have to restrain myself, David! For most of mylife I have felt
so sick about this smug, hollier-than-thou attitude of everybody
blaming Kazan because of course they would never had done such a
despicablething, not in a million year -- and 99% of those people
had never been even close to a similar situation, so it was so
easy for them to feel smug from the comfortable standpoint of moral
purity (that includes all of the French leftist critics I knew who
decided Kazan was a shit).
> Lets face facts: all of this would be a mere detail of
> history were it not for Kazan's manifest talent. "A
> Tree Grows in Brooklyn," "On the Waterfront," "A Face
> in the Crowd," "Wild River," and "Splendor in the
> Grass" are amazing movies that will live forever.
> >
You're right, but there are all those people (including I
believe a few people in this group) who decided his films were all
despicable because he was an "informer".
JPC
> >
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
27876
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 1:19am
Subject: Re: Re: Anne Bancroft (Was:Mrs. Robinson is Dead) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
> At link above, David, you cite "Seven Women" as your
> favorite--I
> agree with that and no doubt many other a_f_b
> members also agree.
> Anything she said about it, Ford, her co-stars, that
> you might share
> over the next few days would be much appreciated.
>
As you may rememebr it was begun with Patricia Neal.
They had shor several weeks with her -- then she had
that stroke that nearly killed her and put her out of
comission for years. As she was a personal friend
Bancroft stepped in. She said she read the script on
the plane.
I told her many had commneted on the way the way Ford
had treated her in the film-- as if she were John
Wayne. "He even called me Duke!" she said. She also
pointed out that while Ford wasn't the vogorous man he
once was "You always knew when he was on the set. he
had this band that played his favorite songs. So when
they started up you knew he was there." She genuinely
appreciated the gun-it-to-the-floor melodrama of it
all.
As for her early work she LOVED being under cotnractat
Fox.
Years ago a friend of mine worked brifly for the
Vagabond theater here in L.A. when they had a 3-D
festival.Among the delights: "Gorilla at Large." One
day he came in late for the earlyshow. There were only
a handful of peopl in the theater, among them a
couplesitting down in front roaring with laighter at
the whole show. He went to check the couple out --
they were Anne Bancroft and Mel Brooks!
"Nightfall" is indeed wonderful. But at the moment I'm
thinking of her late roles, especially "Torch Song
Trilogy," the remake of "The Roman Spring of Mrs.
Stone" (Lenya's part) and "Garbo Talks" -- in which
she's dying of cancer. The way she said "I want to see
Garbo!" was indelible.
> My personal close second favorite of her movies of
> those years
> is "The Pumpkin Eater"--a great Pinter script, good
> direction by
> Clayton, haunting music by Delerue, and Bancroft is
> just wonderful
> in it. Just to look at her face at the beginning is
> to see the
> story of the film, much like those silhouettes in
> "Seven Women."
>
> But I must say that Anne herself should have taken
> another look at
> those early Hollywood films, in which she is
> generally excellent.
> They include some of her best movies, gems like "The
> Raid"
> (Fregonese), "Nightfall" (Tourneur), The Last
> Frontier" (Mann),
> and ones at least more interesting and engaging than
> many of her
> later ones like "Walk the Proud Land" (Hibbs), "The
> Naked Street"
> (Shane) and nice debut in "Don't Bother to Knock"
> (Baker).
>
> But it's always "Gorilla at Large." As if they were
> all just like
> that one. Anyway, it's not that bad.
>
> Blake
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27877
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 1:34am
Subject: Re: Re: Glass Menagerie (Was:Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
>
> The key thing here is that line "I went to the
> movies mother!" Hey,
> David, that's the one I most remember and which
> obviously makes me
> identify with Tom without even thinking about it.
> That could be me
> saying it. What would it mean? In my case, that I
> went to the
> movies. I went to a lot of movies--for escape,
> dreams, awakening
> aesthetics, eroticism, everything. I'm guessing you
> did too.
>
Well let me put it to you another way. Remember "Far
From Heaven"? Dennis Quaid "goes to the movies" in
that one. Literally as well as figuratively.
> I simply resist the idea that because it's
> autobiographical that he
> is identified as gay within the play when he is not
> so identified.
And I'm saying that he is.
> These characters don't wear the same names as their
> real-life
> counterparts--they become characters and it's
> universal. Of course
> he could be gay.
Which i what makes it universal.
And obviously, I can identify just
> as readily with
> a gay character as a straight one or anyone else and
> never feel this
> is forced on me--my empathy is probably about equal
> for say, Elvira
> in "A Year with 13 Moons" as for Cody in "Comanche
> Station."
>
Well true. You're a serious cineaste. But dominant
cultural expectations take on quite a different
character.
> But in Tom's case, I feel he can be played as
> straight just as
> effectively within the play, because the text
> doesn't insist on one
> way or the other.
Not to me. It's never a question of "one the other."
My interest in making the query
> was because Linda
> and I happened to be talking about this very thing
> over the weekend
> before you wrote about it here--how Williams could
> so effectively
> universalize his experience (this is surely his
> greatest play) and
> didn't need to make Tom overtly gay to do so. We
> were talking about
> Inge as well as Williams--honestly I like Inge even
> better and so
> does she. I heard one version of the "Splendor in
> the Grass" story
> as deriving from a gay couple Inge knew--in the
> movie, one sees a
> male and female character in love, and the sexual
> puritanism of the
> period repressing their heterosexuality.
He based it on a couple he knew but I don't believe
they were gay. Inge was far more troubled about his
sexuality than Williams. And he paid for it more
dearly. "Icnic," "Bus Stop," and "The Dark at the Top
of the Stars" were enormous Browadway hits. Critics
werehailing Inge as the heir apparant to Arthur Miller
and so much "healthier" thatthat sicko Tennessee
Williams. Then he started to loosen up in plays like"A
Los of Roses" and especially "Where's Daddy?" which
had a gay protagonist -- an older man who wants his
bisexual boyfriend (played by a veryyoung beau
Bridges) to settle down and marry the girl he's just
impregnated. In other words Inge darewd to create a
"fag" who embodied what are referred to today
as"family values."
He wasnever forgiven for this.
His last play "The last pad" was produced
off-broadway. It was a prison love story and launched
the career of Inge's last discovery
-- Nick Nolte.
> Subtext is a different thing than the actual text,
> and here anything
> can be argued, and directors and actors interpret.
> To me, the
> subtext of "Johnny Guitar" as directed and played
> makes the
> homoerotic currents of the relationship between The
> Dancing Kid and
> Turkey much more overt than anything about Tom in
> "Glass Menagerie,"
> even though it is in the dialogue only very
> obliguely.
Well that's Nick Ray for you. I trustyou've read Gavin
Lmbert's "Mostly About Lindsay Anderson" which details
his affair with Ray.
And by the way, I think gayness would
> not preclude
> incestuous feelings on Tom's part at all--everyone's
> sexuality is
> quite complex, especially in things they feel they
> must suppress.
> Hope you don't think that is naive.
>
Not naive, but just not applicable to Williams and his
sister Rose -- who died not al that long ago, you
know.
> David, the one thing in my first post you didn't
> respond to was
> about that staged reading in the 50s. Man was I
> disappointed--but
> why should you know it? But if anyone does, please
> respond. Again
> it was at Beverly Hills High I believe--John Kerr as
> Tom, Jocelyn
> Brando as Laura, Robert Loggia as Gentleman Caller,
> and we can't
> remember who played Amanda.
>
I would have loved to have seen it. John Kerr would
ave made a great Tom.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27878
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 2:10am
Subject: Re: Williams/Inge/Ray (Was:Glass Menagerie (Was:Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) lukethedealer12
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
{On "Splendor in the Grass")>
>
> He based it on a couple he knew but I don't believe
> they were gay.
That is the way I always heard it, but then at one time heard this
other gay version so that one was probably less authoritative.
Either reality wouldn't change that anyone should be able to relate
to these characters, in fact feel their emotional devastation which
the film expresses so beautifully.
Inge was far more troubled about his
> sexuality than Williams. And he paid for it more
> dearly. "Icnic," "Bus Stop," and "The Dark at the Top
> of the Stars" were enormous Browadway hits. Critics
> werehailing Inge as the heir apparant to Arthur Miller
> and so much "healthier" thatthat sicko Tennessee
> Williams. Then he started to loosen up in plays like"A
> Los of Roses" and especially "Where's Daddy?" which
> had a gay protagonist -- an older man who wants his
> bisexual boyfriend (played by a veryyoung beau
> Bridges) to settle down and marry the girl he's just
> impregnated. In other words Inge darewd to create a
> "fag" who embodied what are referred to today
> as"family values."
>
> He wasnever forgiven for this.
>
> His last play "The last pad" was produced
> off-broadway. It was a prison love story and launched
> the career of Inge's last discovery
>
> -- Nick Nolte.
This was very interesting. Thanks for taking the time to write it,
because I do love Inge. I don't know those last plays but I believe
I would like them because I like all the ones I do know, and the
films (which include his uncredited "Bus Riley's Back in Town" which
did have a gay character in it). I am well aware of how tortured he
was, and that's really sad. Linda took a writing class from him
when he was back to teaching and has talked a lot about it--like me,
she is entranced and moved by his work and saw the original Broadway
production of "Picnic" with Ralph Meeker and Janice Rule.
>
> > Subtext is a different thing than the actual text,
> > and here anything
> > can be argued, and directors and actors interpret.
> > To me, the
> > subtext of "Johnny Guitar" as directed and played
> > makes the
> > homoerotic currents of the relationship between The
> > Dancing Kid and
> > Turkey much more overt than anything about Tom in
> > "Glass Menagerie,"
> > even though it is in the dialogue only very
> > obliguely.
>
> Well that's Nick Ray for you. I trustyou've read Gavin
> Lmbert's "Mostly About Lindsay Anderson" which details
> his affair with Ray.
>
Yes, I've read Lambert on his relationship with Ray. One thing I
like about Ray is that there are a lot of different sexual
undercurrents in relationships in his films. And by the way, in
an observation on "Suddenly, Last Summer" you said the code strictly
prohibited a gay character on screen, but what about Plato in "Rebel
Without a Cause?" I know he didn't have a scarlet "G" emblazoned on
his jacket, but could his character be taken any other way by any
adult, including the Code enforcers? [I don't necessarily think it's
the only example, by the way, just one that readily jumps to mind,
especially because unlike some others, he's entirely sympathetic.]
>
> > David, the one thing in my first post you didn't
> > respond to was
> > about that staged reading in the 50s. Man was I
> > disappointed--but
> > why should you know it? But if anyone does, please
> > respond. Again
> > it was at Beverly Hills High I believe--John Kerr as
> > Tom, Jocelyn
> > Brando as Laura, Robert Loggia as Gentleman Caller,
> > and we can't
> > remember who played Amanda.
> >
> I would have loved to have seen it. John Kerr would
> ave made a great Tom.
Kerr was especially good in that cast--a perfect Tom I thought. But
the whole cast was very good.
And as to Tom's sexuality, I completely understand your point of
view and hope you understand mine, too. I don't consider it
entirely the opposite of yours, just different. And remember, I did
come in many nights and said to my mother "I went to the movies."
And if I hadn't been to the movies, I sure wanted to go to one.
Blake
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
27879
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 2:29am
Subject: Re: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) sallitt1
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
> For most of mylife I have felt so sick about this smug,
> hollier-than-thou attitude of everybody blaming Kazan because of course
> they would never had done such a despicablething, not in a million year
> -- and 99% of those people had never been even close to a similar
> situation, so it was so easy for them to feel smug from the comfortable
> standpoint of moral purity (that includes all of the French leftist
> critics I knew who decided Kazan was a shit).
The social pressure back then was so intense that I would think it would
be easy to forgive those who cracked under the strain. "Communist" then
had something of the heft of "child molester" now. When society gives
something that negative a charge, one's personality tends to warp at the
points where it comes in contact with the concept.
And a lot of people who belonged to the Communist Party in the 30s really
disliked what the party had become by the 50s. It must have been so
tempting to take a stand against these people that one despised anyway, in
order to avoid what seemed like eternal pollution. - Dan
27880
From: bear@...
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 2:50am
Subject: Re: Re: Kazan noelmu_2000
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
> And a lot of people who belonged to the Communist Party in the 30s really
> disliked what the party had become by the 50s. It must have been so
> tempting to take a stand against these people that one despised anyway, in
> order to avoid what seemed like eternal pollution. - Dan
On the DVD of A FACE IN THE CROWD there's a featurette about the making of the
movie which devotes fully half its running time to Kazan's and Budd Schulberg's
ideological disillusionment as the reason for their both naming names. It's a
reasonable argument, and it's perhaps unfair that Kazan suffered a kind of
"critical blacklist" later in life, with his work being judged in the shadow of
the controversy.
But I wouldn't bring the subject up with Jules Dassin, who in an archival
interview included on the NIGHT & THE CITY DVD claims that his biggest problem
with Kazan's actions was that the night before Kazan's testimony, he promised
his friends that he was going to take the 5th. And then the day after his
appearance, he took out an ad in the trades insisting that everyone should
follow his lead and bare their souls to congress.
Leaving aside the political issues, there's some artistic irony to what Kazan's
act did both to his career and to Dassin's. Arguably, Kazan toughened up his
style and his subject matter in the wake of his testimony; and Dassin had an
opportunity to follow up on the promise of films like THIEVES HIGHWAY and BRUTE
FORCE, in an artistic environment that was more forgiving than the Hollywood of
the '50s might've been.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------
This message was sent using Conway Corporation WebMail -- www.conwaycorp.net
27881
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 4:05am
Subject: Re: Re: Williams/Inge/Ray (Was:Glass Menagerie (Was:Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
And by
> the way, in
> an observation on "Suddenly, Last Summer" you said
> the code strictly
> prohibited a gay character on screen, but what about
> Plato in "Rebel
> Without a Cause?" I know he didn't have a scarlet
> "G" emblazoned on
> his jacket, but could his character be taken any
> other way by any
> adult, including the Code enforcers? [I don't
> necessarily think it's
> the only example, by the way, just one that readily
> jumps to mind,
> especially because unlike some others, he's entirely
> sympathetic.]
>
That's definitely a case of 'slippin'on past the
goalie." Mark Rappaport wrote an excellent article
about it for "Senses of Cinema."
>
> And as to Tom's sexuality, I completely understand
> your point of
> view and hope you understand mine, too. I don't
> consider it
> entirely the opposite of yours, just different. And
> remember, I did
> come in many nights and said to my mother "I went to
> the movies."
> And if I hadn't been to the movies, I sure wanted to
> go to one.
>
Well you know Blake it's all rather complicated in
that freestanding gay characters were few and far
between until very recently. And part of this has to
do with the fact that when there WERE gay characters
the fact of their sexuality problematized them
dramatically.
One of the reasons I value "Those Who Love me can Take
the Train" so highly is thefact that the gayness of
its gay characters isn't problematized. it one of the
very few films reflecting life as I know it. There's
an absolute dramatic equality between the gay and
straight characters because sexual identity isn't
problematized in this way -- therefore leaving the
door open for bisexual (Thierry) and even
transgendered (Vivianne) characters -- who are in the
same dramatic soup as all the others. For once love
isn't segregated by sexual orientation. But what this
DOESN'T mean is a heterosexualization of everything.
I don't know what Williams would have made of it, however.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27882
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 4:08am
Subject: Re: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
a lot of people who belonged to the Communist
> Party in the 30s really
> disliked what the party had become by the 50s. It
> must have been so
> tempting to take a stand against these people that
> one despised anyway, in
> order to avoid what seemed like eternal pollution. -
Perhaps. But the Hollywood communists that always
interested me were the ones who not only didn't fink
out but clearly were party of a left that had long
before left the party in the dust eg. Abraham
Polonsky, John Berry, Joseph Losey, Alvah Bessie, Ring
Lardner Jr.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27883
From: "Richard Modiano"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 4:56am
Subject: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) tharpa2002
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
"The social pressure back then was so intense that I would think it
would be easy to forgive those who cracked under the strain."
It's one thing for the people who suffered from Kazan's testimony to
hold it against him, but it's another matter for arm chair leftists
to attack Kazan with such venom. I say this as someone who's held a
red card for 35 years.
Kazan's political convictions (or lack of them) certainly don't
undermine his greatest accomplishments as a cinema stylist in
pictures like "East of Eden," "Wild River," and "Splendor in the
Grass" (his 3 best IMO.)
"And a lot of people who belonged to the Communist Party in the 30s
really disliked what the party had become by the 50s. It must have
been so tempting to take a stand against these people that one
despised anyway, in order to avoid what seemed like eternal
pollution."
I'm not sure about that. The Party was at it's most dishonest worst
in the late '30s when it promoted Stalin's lies about the Old
Bolshiveks at the Moscow Trials (talk about double think,) supported
the counter-revolution in Spain, and justified the Hitler-Stalin
Pact. By the 1950s half the dues paying members were undercover FBI
agents (this is not hyperbole.) What the party had become by the
1950s was a pale shadow of what it had been from 1932 to 1948, and
the die-hard members who remained by then(not counting the FBI
agents) were either fanatics or pathetically naive.
Richard
27884
From: ptonguette@...
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 1:25am
Subject: Re: re: what is cinematic? peter_tonguette
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
I know this thread has long since been dropped, but I want to return to it
briefly.
Adrian Martin wrote:
"I am feeling very stimulated by the range of examples people are offering
about the 'continually moving camera' in contemporary films!"
Adrian, I don't think any of George Miller's films were mentioned in this
discussion (unless I missed a post.) I bring Miller up because the sense of
movement in his films seem to fit the bill perfectly, AND because I know you're a
tremendous fan of his work! For me, the film I think of in this context is,
strangely enough, "The Witches of Eastwick." I agree with Pat Graham, writing
in a Chicago Reader capsule, that Miller's "real interest lies in delirious
displays of cinematic style." For Graham, this ultimately becomes a negative
("a film without a real center," "more than a carnival of set-pieces, but
something less than a fully realized film," etc.), but I'm not sure that it is for
me. Miller's style, particularly his beautifully orchestrated dolly shots and
tracking shots, really takes my breath away in spots.
Another contemporary film which comes to mind is Cimino's "Year of the
Dragon." An online acquaintance considers it, I believe, to have the finest use of
the 2.35 ratio in all of cinema - and I can almost agree! Surely a big part
of that greatness is due to how Cimino moves the camera (and credit must also
be given to the DP Alex Thomson, who is given the card, "Photographed and
Operated by"); the moves range from relatively subtle long takes which one gets
"lost" in to the most obvious, stunningly operatic shots conceivable.
(Incidentally, there is a DVD out now in America with a commentary by Cimino - it's
wonderful and he makes note of some of these shots.)
I was also going to bring up the later films of Kenneth Branagh, which, for
all of their words, are pumped full of shots which keep the camera moving (I'm
thinking of "Frankenstein," "Hamlet"...) - but I think Miller and Cimino are
enough for one post!
Peter Tonguette
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27885
From: ptonguette@...
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 1:33am
Subject: Re: Re: The Big Trail: more on circles in Raoul Walsh peter_tonguette
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Mike Grost wrote:
"I THINK that this version is available on DVD."
Actually, according to the customer reviews on Amazon.com, the DVD contains
only the Academy ratio version, not the "Fox Grandeur" widescreen version. I
don't know why they would do that when it would be so simple to put both on a
two-sided DVD.
Someone writes on Amazon that there was evidently a THIRD version shot of the
film simultaneously with the other two, one with "German actors in medium and
close shots and footage of John Wayne and company in the long shots." Can
anyone confirm this?
And I concur: Fred's article is superb.
Peter Tonguette
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27886
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 5:42am
Subject: Re: Williams/Inge/Ray (Was:Glass Menagerie (Was:Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) lukethedealer12
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> --- Blake Lucas wrote:
> And by
> > the way, in
> > an observation on "Suddenly, Last Summer" you said
> > the code strictly
> > prohibited a gay character on screen, but what about
> > Plato in "Rebel
> > Without a Cause?" I know he didn't have a scarlet
> > "G" emblazoned on
> > his jacket, but could his character be taken any
> > other way by any
> > adult, including the Code enforcers? [I don't
> > necessarily think it's
> > the only example, by the way, just one that readily
> > jumps to mind,
> > especially because unlike some others, he's entirely
> > sympathetic.]
> >
>
> That's definitely a case of 'slippin'on past the
> goalie." Mark Rappaport wrote an excellent article
> about it for "Senses of Cinema."
>
> >
> > And as to Tom's sexuality, I completely understand
> > your point of
> > view and hope you understand mine, too. I don't
> > consider it
> > entirely the opposite of yours, just different. And
> > remember, I did
> > come in many nights and said to my mother "I went to
> > the movies."
> > And if I hadn't been to the movies, I sure wanted to
> > go to one.
> >
>
> Well you know Blake it's all rather complicated in
> that freestanding gay characters were few and far
> between until very recently. And part of this has to
> do with the fact that when there WERE gay characters
> the fact of their sexuality problematized them
> dramatically.
> One of the reasons I value "Those Who Love me can Take
> the Train" so highly is thefact that the gayness of
> its gay characters isn't problematized. it one of the
> very few films reflecting life as I know it. There's
> an absolute dramatic equality between the gay and
> straight characters because sexual identity isn't
> problematized in this way -- therefore leaving the
> door open for bisexual (Thierry) and even
> transgendered (Vivianne) characters -- who are in the
> same dramatic soup as all the others. For once love
> isn't segregated by sexual orientation. But what this
> DOESN'T mean is a heterosexualization of everything.
>
> I don't know what Williams would have made of it, however.
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
27887
From: "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 5:43am
Subject: Re: The Glass Menagerie dreyertati
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Few people seem to recall, or
> ever been aware of, the praise his directorial work once received
from
> Durgnat, Daney ... not to mention 4 pages in 50 YEARS OF AMERICAN
> CINEMA!
>
> Adrian
Louis Skorecki, too...especially.
Jonathan
27888
From: "Aaron Graham"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 5:49am
Subject: Re: The Big Trail, Year of the Dragon, & Jack Arnold machinegunmc...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Actually, according to the customer reviews on Amazon.com, the DVD
contains
> only the Academy ratio version, not the "Fox Grandeur" widescreen
version.
I received this disc for Christmas, and it indeed only contains the
Academy ratio version. Has the "Fox Grandeur" widescreen version
been known to show up on Turner Classic Movies?
Peter, thanks for pointing out that the Year of the Dragon disc
features commentary with Cimino - it's now become a must-buy for me.
In some respects, it may be my favorite Cimino film simply because
of the visuals you've described. (Somewhat) perversely, I think that
the next film i'm most fond of in Cimino's filmography is
Thunderbolt and Lightfoot.
And for any Jack Arnold fans out there, TCM is showcasing three of
his films on Monday, July 25th - No Name on the Bullet, Man in the
Shadow, and It Came From Outer Space.
-Aaron
27889
From: "Aaron Graham"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 5:52am
Subject: Top 10 Project machinegunmc...
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Dear members,
After corresponding off-list with Peter about my renewed interest
regarding the Top 10 project (located in the Files), he's decided to
pass the responsibilities on to me, so if any member wishes to send
along their Top 10's, please do so to machinegunmccain@....
Best,
Aaron Graham
Co-moderator, A_Film_By
27890
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 6:02am
Subject: Re: Williams/Inge/Ray (Was:Glass Menagerie (Was:Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) lukethedealer12
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> Well you know Blake it's all rather complicated in
> that freestanding gay characters were few and far
> between until very recently. And part of this has to
> do with the fact that when there WERE gay characters
> the fact of their sexuality problematized them
> dramatically.
That's a fair statement, and I did mention Plato because he was
sympathetic. We all know gay characters in classical cinema.
Dall and Granger in "Rope." They are murderers. Wendell Corey
in your own favorite "Desert Fury"--he is the heavy, though to say
that is really a simplification of the narrative and trivializes the
interesting relationships which animates the film. In Westerns there
is Anthony Quinn in "Warlock"--his devotion to Henry Fonda is plainly
motivated by homosexual attachment, whether it has ever been acted on
or not. A well-done and compelling character, but the audience is
encouraged to see him as the villain of the story, even though that is
ridiculous if one considers the complexities of the whole. But since
his attachment to Fonda causes a lot of violence and destruction, his
love for Fonda is not accorded any positive value (except by Fonda
after Quinn dies). In short, it was never been that tough to put in a
gay character if they were in some way evil, or a villain.
So I do get this, believe me, even as I must observe that all of these
movies are interesting and often more than that, and probably deserve
some credit for finding a way to treat homosexuality as a part of life
in movies in which heterosexuality is the dominant cultural norm. You
know, in genres I love, I yearn for more openness, and am very moved
by the kind of acknowledgement of "The Wild Rovers" (Blake Edwards)
that if these two guys--Holden and O'Neal--whose relationship is
incredibly tender and loving but sublimated, had acknowledged what was
really between them, the tragedy that overtakes them might have been
averted.
If it follows the story "Brokeback Mountain" (Ang Lee, for this year)
will finally change "homoerotic subtext" to an actual homosexual
relationship in a "Western"--even if the setting is contemporary,
though a level of denial of the love involved will still give a tragic
feel to the curve of the narrative.
Blake
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
27891
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 6:13am
Subject: Re: Williams/Inge/Ray (Was:Glass Menagerie (Was:Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) lukethedealer12
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Please ignore 27886--hit the Send button before I'd written anything.
Reply is 27890. Thanks-Blake
27892
From: LiLiPUT1@...
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 2:10am
Subject: Dancing Kid & Turkey?!?!?!? (Was: Glass Menagerie) scil1973
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
In a message dated 6/7/05 8:12:19 PM, lukethedealer@... writes:
> To me, the subtext of "Johnny Guitar" as directed and played makes the
> homoerotic currents of the relationship between The Dancing Kid and
> Turkey much more overt than anything about Tom in "Glass Menagerie,"
> even though it is in the dialogue only very obliguely.
>
>
Ah! I've seen JOHNNY GUITAR dozens of times but never picked up on this. Not
that I'm denying it's there - who wouldn't wanna take a ride on Turkey?!?!?
But please do let us know which bits of dialogue you have in mind here.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
27893
From: "Blake Lucas"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 6:58am
Subject: Re: Dancing Kid & Turkey?!?!?!? (Was: Glass Menagerie) lukethedealer12
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 6/7/05 8:12:19 PM, lukethedealer@j... writes:
>
>
>
> > To me, the subtext of "Johnny Guitar" as directed and played
makes the
> > homoerotic currents of the relationship between The Dancing Kid
and
> > Turkey much more overt than anything about Tom in "Glass
Menagerie,"
> > even though it is in the dialogue only very obliguely.
> >
> >
>
> Ah! I've seen JOHNNY GUITAR dozens of times but never picked up on
this. Not
> that I'm denying it's there - who wouldn't wanna take a ride on
Turkey?!?!?
> But please do let us know which bits of dialogue you have in mind
here.
>
As I indicated, what is in the dialogue is kind of nondescript
really. But within the gang of four, these two tend to gravitate
toward each other, causing Bart to try to forge a bond with Corey in
response even though Corey always ends up deferring to the Kid.
The main scene I'm thinking of involves the Kid's reaction to
Turkey's death. Note how the Kid wears his gun in this scene,
directly in front of him, and how he can't help but touch it
suggestively as he talks to Vienna and Johnny while walking
restlessly about the cabin. He is openly dismayed that Turkey wasn't
saved. It is clear to me at least that he'd rather have had Turkey
saved than Vienna. He is antagonistic to both Johnny and Vienna.
It is a payoff scene of this relationship--maybe he can be more open
about his affection for Turkey because the other is dead. Characters
in Westerns tend to repress these kinds of feelings, but that
doesn't mean they are not there and that we shouldn't be aware
of them.
Yes, the Kid had an affair with Vienna, and Turkey--eager to be a man
--tried to impress her and win her affection. But sexuality is a
complex thing in "Johnny Guitar" and that is one of its glories.
At it center may be the bitter romanticism of Johnny/Vienna but
everywhere shadowed by complex pulls on those other characters
(while the hard/soft dichotomy between Vienna and Johnny themselves
is, as often noted, contrary to genre expectations), especially Emma
of course. Wonderful, fascinating, magnetic Emma--a veritable
poster girl for malevolent repression. Yes, she is in love with the
Kid, and I don't question that is part of her delirium, but anyone
who hates Vienna as much as she does--need I go on...?
Blake
27894
From: MG4273@...
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 4:20am
Subject: Re: Williams/Inge/Ray (Was:Glass Menagerie (Was:Kazan (Was: N... nzkpzq
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
As a kid, saw the 1966 American TV version of "The Glass Menagerie". It was
superbly acted by Shirley Booth as the mother and Barbara Loden as the
daughter, with Hal Holbrook as brother Tom and Pat Hingle as the Gentleman Caller.
The IMDB credits the direction to the little known TV director Michael
Elliott. The whole production was very stage-like.
Have no idea if this version even survives.
None of the overtones discussed in posts here was present in this production.
Mike Grost
27895
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 9:30am
Subject: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) thebradstevens
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> I have to restrain myself, David! For most of mylife I have
felt
> so sick about this smug, hollier-than-thou attitude of everybody
> blaming Kazan because of course they would never had done such a
> despicablething, not in a million year -- and 99% of those people
> had never been even close to a similar situation, so it was so
> easy for them to feel smug from the comfortable standpoint of
moral
> purity (that includes all of the French leftist critics I knew who
> decided Kazan was a shit).
I'm sure that if I were in Kazan's position, I'd have sung like a
bird. But that's because I'm a cowardly little shit. This doesn't
change the fact that there were many people in Hollywood (Polonsky,
Losey, Dassin, etc.) who courageously took a stand against HUAC.
27896
From: "thebradstevens"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 10:12am
Subject: Eric Rohmer - A question about screen ratios thebradstevens
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
Just received Arrow's new box set of 8 Eric Rohmer films (the
6 'Comedies and Proverbs', L'AMOUR, L'APRES-MIDI and DIE MARQUISE VON
O), which I've been asked to review for SIGHT AND SOUND. At a quick
glance, it would seem that all 8 films have been transferred at
1.33:1, just like every previous video release and television
screening I have seen. Does anyone know if these films were shown
theatrically at 1.33?
27897
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 1:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Williams/Inge/Ray (Was:Glass Menagerie (Was:Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- Blake Lucas wrote:
>
> If it follows the story "Brokeback Mountain" (Ang
> Lee, for this year)
> will finally change "homoerotic subtext" to an
> actual homosexual
> relationship in a "Western"--even if the setting is
> contemporary,
> though a level of denial of the love involved will
> still give a tragic
> feel to the curve of the narrative.
>
I'm very much looking forward to this because Ang Lee
made his fame on "The Wedding Banquet" -- which
internationally was the most successful film the year
of its release next to "Jusrassic Park."
"Brokeback Mountain" was originally a Gus project,
that he eventually passed on in his continued
abandonment of conventional narrative forms.
__________________________________
Discover Yahoo!
Use Yahoo! to plan a weekend, have fun online and more. Check it out!
http://discover.yahoo.com/
27898
From: "jpcoursodon"
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 1:25pm
Subject: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) jpcoursodon
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> I'm sure that if I were in Kazan's position, I'd have sung like a
> bird. But that's because I'm a cowardly little shit. This doesn't
> change the fact that there were many people in Hollywood
(Polonsky,
> Losey, Dassin, etc.) who courageously took a stand against HUAC.
No one ever questioned that fact! Some people have more courage
than others, and I greatly admire those who took the stand. But it
seems to me that a lot of pretty smug people's attitude toward Kazan
is akin to Patton's attitude when he slapped that "cowardly" soldier.
Incidentally, or not so incidentally, the hearings were a charade
and the naming of names largely symbolical -- all the names Kazan
gave were of people who had already been blacklisted or would have
been anyway even if Kazan had taken the fifth. But of course
symbolical acts are often viewed as more meaningful than the reality
they cover.
JPC
27899
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 1:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cellar47
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Incidentally, or not so incidentally, the
> hearings were a charade
> and the naming of names largely symbolical -- all
> the names Kazan
> gave were of people who had already been blacklisted
> or would have
> been anyway even if Kazan had taken the fifth. But
> of course
> symbolical acts are often viewed as more meaningful
> than the reality
> they cover.
>
Precisely. Kazan ddid precisely what the government
wanted then -- and still wants today -- complete
surrender on bended knee.
There was nothing symbolic about John Garfield's
death, nor the fact that Lee Grant couldn't get a job
for 20 years because, like Garfield, she married a
communist.
And as we all know "I MNarried a Communist" was the
original title of "The Woman on Pier 13" - one of the
most famous red scare films.
It is far from insignificant that the fascist sought
to destroy people at the very root of their lives --
the people that they most loved.
And it's no wonder that Arthur Laurents was so upset
with Pollack falling into line and fudging this point
in the last act of "The Way We Were."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
27900
From: BklynMagus
Date: Wed Jun 8, 2005 2:24pm
Subject: Re: Kazan (Was: Noel Murray intro) cinebklyn
Offline Offline
Send Email Send Email
JPC writes:
> But it seems to me that a lot of pretty smug
people's attitude toward Kazan is akin to Patton's
attitude when he slapped that "cowardly" soldier.
But the smugness works both ways. It seems to
me that there is an equally smug attitude that says
Kazan's betrayal has no relationship to his films.
> But of course symbolical acts are often viewed as
more meaningful than the reality they cover.
And real lives were destroyed by this symbolic act.
It was a real act with real consequences. Dashiell
Hammett stood up and was broken for it, but you
can defintiely see in his art a reflection of his beliefs
and his courage.
Brian
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact