Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, 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.
301
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 6:45pm
Subject: Re: The Cahiers and structuralism, actors
> I find it ironic that we have one the best theorists of acting as an
> element of film form on earth in our midst - Dan.
Whoa. Thanks.
> He's been
> listening in on this debate and contributing only asides.
It's a vast subject that one can only chip away at.
> He has
> written fantastic (early) articles on Lubitsch and acting which you
> all should see - one is now in print, I believe.
I believe Bill has read a few college papers I wrote on Lubitsch - I
recently reworked some of the material in them for an essay for Gregg
Rickman's FILM COMEDY READER. If you're interested, the essay is at:
http://www.panix.com/~sallitt/lubitsch.html
- Dan
302
From: David Schwartz
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 6:48pm
Subject: Rear Window and outtakes (really for Hotlove 666)
In Bill Krohn's wonderful Hitchcock book, it's made pretty clear that
Hitchcock shot alternate versions of many scenes, refuting the notion
that Hitch popularized that he ended production with "100 feet of
outtakes." I'm just curious how MUCH Hitchcock did shoot...in the
most mundane terms, what his shooting ratio was on this film in
particular. He's always quote as saying that he's bored with the
shooting process, that the film is essentially done for him when the
storyboards are done, etc. Yet there's clearly no way he can get such
precise, brilliantly mysterious and expressive performances from
Jimmy Stewart and Grace Kelly without many takes...
303
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 6:55pm
Subject: Outtakes
Thanks, and it's a big subject. I actually have the shooting ratio
on Rear Window written down at home - I'll try to find it. It certainly
was not as described. On that one, where we have script reports
in the paramount archives at the Academy library, you can see
that he did as many as 10 or 11 takes sometimes, and always
"covered" - not just shooting what he needed in the editing. And
his editors edited. And so on.
I believe the myth was a) for producers, who were connedby it
(all except Selznick and Zanuck, who saw what he was doing
and bitched constantly) and b) to implant the idea of the auteur in
people's minds: from AH's brain right to the screen. The
storyboards were another version of this. It was a brilliant
political-didactic move thatstarted backfiring when bass claimed
that he directed the shower scene in Psycho, and when critics
who took it it started using it against Hitchcock.
There are directors who do that - Jean-Claude Rappeneau's
charming editrix told me she cut flash-to-flash on Cyrano.
304
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 7:40pm
Subject: Clarification: outtakes
There are directors who do that = just shoot what they'll need.
Re: Sleeping on the set.
a) Making a big-budget movie IS boring - which is why he kept
muscling things around on the set to keep it interesting for
himself, and of course to make it better.
b) You DO see him walking off to discuss something in his
trailer during the unedited behind-the-scenes rushes of the
shooting of the potato-bag scene in Frenzy (now at the
Academy), but during most of that grueling business he was
right there, suffering along with the actor and the crew.
c) The visitor to the Foreign Correspondent set quoted in my
book saw a very excited, involved director.
d) Doing coverage doesn't mean he didn't have a plan. Neither
does the fact that he did alternate takes, which he was one of the
rare directors to do. I asked Carpenter if he ever heard of anyone
doing it and he said: "Too expensive." Gary Graver says Welles
did it, but I'm not sure that wasn't doodling with the shot during
take after take until he achieved the complexity he liked, which
you can see in the It's All True rushes - the equivalent of Chaplin
rehearsing on camera.
e) Stephen Rebello made a brilliant suggestion on the MacGuffin
site recently: that AH sometimes closed his eyes during a take
because he was LISTENING to the voices. We've all heard about
Pagnol going to his trailer and listening to takes on the
earphones while the camera was rolling. Steve argues that AH's
listening with eyes closed shows the importance to him of the
musical use of voices, the need for actors with distinctive
instruments,* etc. , citing the "duets" between Leigh and Perkins
in Psycho as examples. In that case we also now know that he
had two cameras going, one on each actor. The results are
lovely.
*added comment by SR: Where would AH find actors with
distinctive voices today?
305
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 7:49pm
Subject: Outtakes: PPS
On the other hand, a friend at paramount says that when he'd
drop by the Star Trek: The Movie set, Robert Wise was frequently
out cold. Catching some "z'"s. Sawin' wood.
306
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 7:52pm
Subject: Re: Outtakes: PPS
> On the other hand, a friend at paramount says that when he'd
> drop by the Star Trek: The Movie set, Robert Wise was frequently
> out cold. Catching some "z'"s. Sawin' wood.
That was one soporific movie, too.
I'm always envious when I hear about directors napping on set. I'm so
amped up during production that I don't even sleep much off the set. - Dan
307
From: David Schwartz
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 8:11pm
Subject: Re: More on Sleep
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> I believe the myth was... to implant the idea of the auteur in
> people's minds: from AH's brain right to the screen.
Thanks...I love this image, because it strengthens the idea that
the "window" in "REAR WINDOW" is into the unconscious...that amazing
shot of Stewart sleeping (he's sleeping in his first and last shots)
with the courtyard world seemingly projected from the back of his
head. Cleary, we can sort of take the whole film as a dream ("sort
of" because he IS wearing two casts at the end). Anyway, the idea
that Hitch's movies are projections directly from his brain fits into
their thematic structure.
And the notion of Hitch listening to the actors with his eyes closed
makes perfect sense. Since he couldn't look through the camera
viewfinder, looking at the actors would mean he was watching
something different than what would be on screen. Also, the film's
carefully designed soundtrack, with the ebb and flow of real city
sounds, strategic use of silence, and ironic use of music (which
suggests Kubrick...although Hitch is more subtle) implies that the
director paid A LOT of attention to sound.
The more I look at REAR WINDOW, the more I think it's Hitch's most
perfect work, although VERTIGO achieves a strangeness and beauty that
is not equalled by any of his films.
308
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 8:29pm
Subject: Rear Window
The opening is a good example of Hitchcock improvising: He
shot two panoramics - one of which was supposed to be for the
credits (all the shades still closed), then when he decided on
Stewart's shades as the background for the credits, he cut the
two pans together, so that first the courtyard is alseep, then it
wakes up and only JS is asleep. This "found" idea accentuates
the dream-effect you're talking about.
By the way, Stewart IS very expressive in this film - like a silent
actor - contrary to AH's remarks about Kuleshov. I think he was
interest in the K-effect as an illustration of the idea of
"photographs of people thinking," but obviously acting was
important to achieving that aim, too.
Scott Curtis's piece in John Belton's RW anthology may tell the
shooting ratio.
309
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 8:36pm
Subject: Re: Kael
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> I guess it's been pretty well documented that unknown movie critics
for
> WXYZ-TV can often get quoted in ads if they listen to the
publicists who
> say, "If you say, 'It's a rip-snorting adventure for the whole
family,'
> in your review, we'll run that as a quote from you," and given the
> length of TV reviews, that might be all that said unknown movie
critic
> gets to say.
>
> Critics who let publicists write their copy should be fired, in my
> opinion, but that doesn't seem to be happening.
>
> - Fred
The TV quote whores don't bother me -- they are what they are -- as
much as such Paulettes as Village Idiot David Edlestein, who proudly
ascribed his lack of enthusiasm for Douglas Sirk to being neither an
auteurist nor a homosexual; the unbearably Self-Important-With-
Absolutely-No-Reason-To-Be David Denby; and Owen Gleiberman, who
apparently thinks he's a daring iconoclast because he puts such films
as L'Humanité and Va Savoir on his 5 Worst List. Amazing how much,
despite a complete lack of any sense of critical methodology, these
guys can pontificate and crack wise. What they can't do is
illumintae. If ignorance is bliss, these jokers must be in a state of
constant ecstacy.
310
From: David Schwartz
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 8:43pm
Subject: Re: Rear Window: Kuleshov, Shmuleshov
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> By the way, Stewart IS very expressive in this film - like a silent
> actor - contrary to AH's remarks about Kuleshov.
Thanks...Hitch's explanation of the Kuleshov effect and its relation
to REAR WINDOW always seemed a bit off. For one thing, as you point
out, the reaction shots never look neutral. It seems like Hitch
internalized Kuleshov for his own distinct purposes. The expressive
power of the equation "close-up + POV shot + closeup" and its ability
to take the audience inside the mind of the character (and make the
spectator part of the equation..."We've become a race of peeping
toms") is at the heart of Hitch's genius.
311
From:
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 5:09pm
Subject: Re: Clarification: outtakes
In a message dated 6/30/03 3:46:01 PM, hotlove666@y... writes:
>There are directors who do that = just shoot what they'll need.
I think Bogdanovich and Lumet are the two most prominent contemporary
directors I know if in this category. (Though Bogdanovich, so far as I know,
definitely does not storyboard or pre-plan everything; the footage of him on the set
of "The Cat's Meow" - shot by his daughter and included on the DVD - shows him
announcing to the cast and crew that he's just broken down the shots for a
scene - and was up until 4 the previous night doing so.)
>Gary Graver says Welles
>did it, but I'm not sure that wasn't doodling with the shot during
>take after take until he achieved the complexity he liked, which
>you can see in the It's All True rushes - the equivalent of Chaplin
>rehearsing on camera.
I think your assessment is right. When I interviewed him, Gary indicated to
me that Welles would sometimes take a look at scene after he shot it and then
decide to do it again a different way (and sometimes in a completely different
location.) So, clearly, it was a very fluid process for Welles.
Thanks for all the "Rear Window" info., Bill! By pure coincidence, I saw the
film for the second time projected last week. It's still my favorite.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
312
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:02pm
Subject: Reality check: Kiss Me Deadly
In his article on Thai films in last Nov/Dec's Film Comment, Bangkok-based Chuck Stephens wrote: "...as radically as the backward-scrolling credits at the apocalyptic terminus of _Kiss Me Deadly_, the sudden appearance of _Blissfully Yours_'s titles at an unexpected midway point serves to unsettle viewer expectations..."
Is my memory playing tricks? Don't KISS ME DEADLY's backward-scrolling credits appear at the *beginning* of the film? (Or could things somehow be different in his part of the world?) It's hard to believe a mistake like this -- if it is a mistake -- could get past the editors of Film Comment.
313
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:09pm
Subject: Re: Reality check: Kiss Me Deadly
jess_l_amortell wrote:
>...Don't KISS ME DEADLY's backward-scrolling credits appear at the *beginning* of the film?...
>
Yes. The point is that they connect with the view of the highway rushing
toward you in the image.
Maybe they just show the whole film backward in Thailand. It could be
seen as equally apocalyptic that way, the explosion leading to a series
of disparate spaces climaxing in a meaningless race into the night....
- Fred
314
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:46pm
Subject: Kiss Me Deadly
Why is it hard to believe that Film Comment's editors could make
a huge mistake?
315
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 11:51pm
Subject: Re: The Cahiers
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Obviously I have a little to say about the above topic, when I have
> a second. Yes, Gabe, the 2-volume Cahiers history is a travesty,
> and the people who know best - the people it's about -would be
> the first to agree with you.
I didn't read far into volume 2--up to about 1965 in the history--is
volume 1 as hated? I know Rohmer disputed it, but I though de Baecque
had some pretty good analyses of the stances (in writing) of the 50s crew.
Patrick
316
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Tue Jul 1, 2003 0:02am
Subject: Re: actors
hotlove
> An example of what Fred's talking about. I saw In Cold Blood ...
I agree with both of you, but I think Fred's example was subtractive
(take away the formal elements of greatness but leave great acting,
and you have nothing) while I would counter with additive example (you
can not discount the importance of actors as performers in many of the
great auteurist film); the greatness of said films cannot be separted
from visual style and direction alone. Which is sort of what Fred
said anyway with the Wayne example and Peter with the Welles...
This is part self-critique anyway--
Welcome, Mr. Michael Grost; I've been a fan of your page for awhile.
Patrick
317
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jul 1, 2003 0:09am
Subject: Cahiers history
Yes, the whole thing has been criticized.
318
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Tue Jul 1, 2003 0:31am
Subject: Re: Reality check: Kiss Me Deadly
By the way, Stephens' name is IN the closing crawl of that film.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
> In his article on Thai films in last Nov/Dec's Film Comment,
Bangkok-based Chuck Stephens wrote: "...as radically as the
backward-scrolling credits at the apocalyptic terminus of _Kiss Me
Deadly_, the sudden appearance of _Blissfully Yours_'s titles at an
unexpected midway point serves to unsettle viewer expectations..."
>
> Is my memory playing tricks? Don't KISS ME DEADLY's
backward-scrolling credits appear at the *beginning* of the film? (Or
could things somehow be different in his part of the world?) It's
hard to believe a mistake like this -- if it is a mistake -- could get
past the editors of Film Comment.
319
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Tue Jul 1, 2003 0:51am
Subject: Re: Lit-crit
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Somehow, around the beginning of the 80s, it seemed that everyone was
> into mainstream films and what the top-ten grossing releases of the
week
> were. I think there was a trend at the time in American thought in
> general that made auteurism less appealing.
Dan, are you saying that the general culture level lost interest in
film outside a Reagan-era commodity, or also that in academia the new
crap theories legitmized talking very badly, very arcanely about said
pop films (cultural studies!) At least for all the stupidity of
Mulvey and co. they had seen a lot of films.
God this subject makes me mad.
PWC
320
From:
Date: Mon Jun 30, 2003 10:50pm
Subject: Marnie, Rear Window
In a message dated 6/30/03 4:15:59 PM, dschwartz@m... writes:
>The more I look at REAR WINDOW, the more I think it's Hitch's most
>perfect work, although VERTIGO achieves a strangeness and beauty that
>is not equalled by any of his films.
Since I just re-watched it a few nights ago, I might say "Marnie" approaches
"Vertigo" in that department (his cherished unmade project "Mary Rose,"
detailed in Bill's book, might have too). Offhand, I can think of few films which
better fold a protagonists viewpoint into the mise en scene, from the flashes
of red which fill the screen whenever Marnie sees the color to the heightened
reality of the ostensibly "artificial" set design and back projection. The
idea of a protagonist haunted or in some ways "controlled" by a repressed memory
relates to "Spellbound," as group member Mark Pfeiffer has written, I think.
There are a million things I love in "Rear Window." The film's conclusion is
among the most winningly optimistic in Hitchcock: Lisa showing her w
illingness to compromise and adapt in her relationship with Jeff... but not >too< much.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
321
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Tue Jul 1, 2003 3:25am
Subject: Under Capricorn
By the way, does this film ever turn up theatrically? I assume it
played during the Hitchcock centennial, but outside that? I was
hoping it was going to turn up in France while I was there Spring 02,
but no--though there must have must like half a dozen chances to see
PARTY GIRL.
(I like PARTY GIRL, mind you.)
PWC
322
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jul 1, 2003 4:42am
Subject: Re: Re: Lit-crit
> Dan, are you saying that the general culture level lost interest in
> film outside a Reagan-era commodity, or also that in academia the new
> crap theories legitmized talking very badly, very arcanely about said
> pop films (cultural studies!) At least for all the stupidity of
> Mulvey and co. they had seen a lot of films.
The former: I don't know that lit-crit thinking had that big an effect
on the culture at large. The mood of the 80s seemed different in
general from the mood of the 70s. When I was in college (72-76), kids
would go on dates to see Bresson and Godard films - it was sort of in
fashion to be arty. That changed pretty quickly. - Dan
323
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jul 1, 2003 4:43am
Subject: Re: Under Capricorn
> By the way, does this film ever turn up theatrically?
It used to on occasion, but now that I think of it, I haven't heard of
it playing in a while. - Dan
324
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Jul 1, 2003 5:11am
Subject: Re: Re: Lit-crit
Dan Sallitt wrote:
> When I was in college (72-76), kids
>would go on dates to see Bresson and Godard films - it was sort of in
>fashion to be arty. That changed pretty quickly.
>
From where I sat, there was a profound cultural shift in the U.S.
around the time of Reagan's election in November of 1980. I'm not saying
Reagan was the cause (though I'd like to believe that) so much as that
his election, and the attendant Republican sweep of Congress at the same
time, was the symptom.
Throughout the 1970s, some of the adventurousness of the 1960s survived.
Starting in 1980, young people in general seemed to turn much more
conservative; it seemed to me that fewer young people could be seen
questioning the basis of our society and its assumptions, or searching
for meaning, for unusual experiences, for things that might, uh, change
one's consciousness.
I actually was teaching in an art school in Chicago from 1976-82. At the
beginning of 1979 I taught a kind of personal film aesthetics/general
aesthetics (not at all in the theory sense) course that met for six
hours a week, on Saturday mornings from midnight to 6 AM. Part of my
idea for choosing that time was that I wanted to separate film viewing
from the daily grind, the ordinary routine: to suggest that it was
important enough to stay up all night for. Another reason was that I
thought that the time would help select interesting students. It did.
Limited to 18, it filled up halfway through registration, and the
students were terrific A couple remain active filmmakers and teachers
today. The course was a great success; the student evaluations were
highly positive. Almost three years later, fall 1981, I taught a similar
course in the same time slot; it got about ten students. I think it went
very well, but I took those two figures alone as a sign of the shift in
mood. There were many other similar signs.
None of this says anything about any particular individual. All types of
people have been found in all periods, and I have no age biases against
or in favor of 20 year olds, 40 year olds, 60 year olds.
On an unrelated note, for those who read a_film_by by email and don't
visit the Web site, I have followed through on my earlier threat to
place a film still (two adjacent shots from a film, actually, so you can
see the cut) on our home page. My intention is to always have a still
from a great film there, though I suppose others will eventually want to
make suggestions. There are also a couple of new urls of member Web
sites in the "Links" section.
- Fred
325
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jul 1, 2003 6:01am
Subject: Under Capricorn, 1980
It was produced by AH and his partner Sidney Bernstein and
distributed by Warners. (A tiny bit was actually shot here on the
Warners ranch). It didn't do at all well, and the bank eventually got
the film. I don't know what happened after that. I'm sure the full
details will be in Patrick MacGilligan's new book - he spent a lot of
time going through the records of Atlantic Films in London.
1980 was a watershed, all right! Heaven's Gate...
326
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jul 1, 2003 6:01am
Subject: Under Capricorn, 1980
It was produced by AH and his partner Sidney Bernstein and
distributed by Warners. (A tiny bit was actually shot here on the
Warners ranch). It didn't do at all well, and the bank eventually got
the film. I don't know what happened after that. I'm sure the full
details will be in Patrick MacGilligan's new book - he spent a lot of
time going through the records of Atlantic Films in London.
1980 was a watershed, all right! Heaven's Gate...
327
From: David Schwartz
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 0:49am
Subject: Re: Rear Window shooting ratio
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> Scott Curtis's piece in John Belton's RW anthology may tell the
> shooting ratio.
From Bob Harris (who did the recent restoration of REAR WINDOW...and
who has the Paramount production records), the shooting ratio was
approximately 11 to 1.
So much for Hitch's 100-foot outtake reel. (Outtakes are
called "waste" in the studio records!)
David
328
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 5:01am
Subject: No comment
Subject: NYTimes: When Movies Are a Way of Life
When Movies Are a Way of Life
New York Times
May 16, 2003
By STEPHEN HOLDEN
Anyone who ever binged and saw three or more movies in a
row should be able to identify a little bit with the
eccentric New Yorkers profiled in Angela Christlieb and
Stephen Kijak's crisp, intelligent documentary film
"Cinemania."
Jack, Eric, Harvey, Bill and Roberta are intrepid
cinephiles who have forsworn living normal lives (including
having a job and a relationship) to spend their time in the
dark consuming images. Because of the sheer volume of
movies, their goal of catching up with every film to appear
in New York is not as easily realized as you might imagine
and involves meticulous planning, the juggling of schedules
and mad dashes from screening to screening on public
transportation.
Besides their addiction to movies, the five (three of whom
receive monthly payments for a disability) have little in
common, and their tastes vary widely. Each has pronounced
quirks. Jack Angstreich, who is in his early 30's and may
be the most obsessive of the group, watches films eight
hours a day, seven days a week. He carries with him the
phone numbers to the projection booths of every theater
along with a cellphone so he can call them if necessary. He
also arranges his diet to avoid having to go to the
bathroom during a showing and is so intolerant of noisy
fellow patrons that he has been known to rip the food out
of their hands to keep them quiet.
Roberta Hill, a former mail carrier in her early 60's,
lives in an apartment crammed with promotional junk and
bric-a-brac, including the ticket stubs for every movie she
attends. (She shuns television.) Hot tempered and
imperious, she was banned from the Museum of Modern Art
after attacking an usher who unwittingly ripped her stub in
half.
Bill Heidbreder, the most intellectual of the five,
describes himself as a writer and philosopher and prefers
what he calls "relationship films" to action movies. He
places elaborate personal ads to meet his mythical dream
girl (a fellow cinephile, of course) and fantasizes about
moving to Paris.
Harvey Schwartz, 50, who lives with his mother in the
Bronx, maintains an exhaustive collection of soundtrack
albums and has memorized the running times of every movie
he sees. Eric Chadbourne, who loves movie musicals and
worships Audrey Hepburn and Ginger Rogers, lives in a tiny
apartment in Queens, surrounded by stacks of videotapes. He
boasts of having seen such favorite movies as "Ruggles of
Red Gap" and "Stage Door" 20 or more times.
Although "Cinemania," which opens today in Manhattan, keeps
a measured distance from its subjects, who gather at the
end to watch the completed film, its composite portrait is
not a happy one. All five seem to suffer from an
obsession-compulsion disorder that has taken over their
lives.
It is left for Mr. Heidbreder to offer the fanciest
rationalization for their addiction. Asked whether the
movies are a substitute for life, he rejects the suggestion
that their behavior is pathological and declares that film
itself "is a form of living."
Directed by Angela Christlieb and Stephen Kijak
Not rated,
80 minutes
330
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 6:47am
Subject: Re: No comment
> Roberta Hill, a former mail carrier in her early 60's,
> lives in an apartment crammed with promotional junk and
> bric-a-brac, including the ticket stubs for every movie she
> attends. (She shuns television.) Hot tempered and
> imperious, she was banned from the Museum of Modern Art
> after attacking an usher who unwittingly ripped her stub in
> half.
You know, I find this story of Roberta and her ticket more mystifying with each repetition. In the first place, I've never seen "ushers" at MoMA, male or female (a woman employee tells the story in the film): filmgoers were allowed to have brawls and fistfights or scream bloody murder unattended (as happened when Jack Angstreich tried to confiscate a viewer's food at a rare Hou Hsiao-hsien and she launched into a prolonged volley of blood-curdling shrieks, fearsomely disrupting the mood of a film that might not resurface for a generation). And the film tickets, within recent memory at least, have always been taken by a guard (we're talking pre-Gramercy here) and not ripped, just repossessed -- where would a "stub" even enter the picture? Unless it was the actual museum admission ticket (of dubious value, I'd think, even to Roberta), which seems unlikely in any case since she'd presumably have had a membership card. One day I trust all this will be satisfactorily explained.
Meanwhile, there are several nice things in the film that none of the reviewers seem to mention -- like Angstreich's really thoughtful and touching tribute to one (apparently) uncommonly enlightened projectionist.
331
From:
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 3:55am
Subject: Hellman
The new still on Jaime's site from "Two Lane Blacktop" prompts me to ask:
what's the auteurist consensus on Monte Hellman these days? Even with
championing from the likes of Dennis Bartok and Quentin Tarantino (and the whole gang at
Anchor Bay DVD, which has been putting out wonderful editions of his work), I
still don't find myself in too many conversations about him.
"Two Lane" seems to be the consensus favorite, though I think "Iguana" is
just as singular. While Hellman has described the shoot as the worst of his
life, it achieves a rare spartan poetry typical of his work. Very disturbing
film, but unflinching in the way it attempts to locate the source of the
protagonist's disgust at society. I think the only two I haven't seen "China 9,
Liberty 37" or "Silent Night, Deadly Night 3," though I know the former has its
champions.
Anyway, I'm curious for everyone's thoughts on Hellman and if I'm alone in my
sense that he's >still< not discussed enough.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
332
From: David Schwartz
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 10:39am
Subject: Cinemania
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jess_l_amortell"
wrote:
> > Roberta Hill, a former mail carrier in her early 60's,
> > lives in an apartment crammed with promotional junk and
> > bric-a-brac, including the ticket stubs for every movie she
> > attends. (She shuns television.) Hot tempered and
> > imperious, she was banned from the Museum of Modern Art
> > after attacking an usher who unwittingly ripped her stub in
> > half.
>
Just thought I'd point out that Roberta has always been more than
welcome at the American Museum of the Moving Image even though she
threw a water bottle at the Museum's director shortly after we opened
in 1988 during a dispute. (Also, the anonymous projectionist praised
in the film--Richard Aidala--is ours). Finally...Roberta is notorious
indeed and a nuisance at times, but during a panel I moderated after
a CINEMANIA screening at the Museum (in which all the "maniacs" were
on stage), she was quite eloquent when she explained that she loved
movies because they allowed her to watch other people's troubles and
forget her own.
333
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 2:52pm
Subject: Re: Hellman
> The new still on Jaime's site from "Two Lane Blacktop" prompts me to ask:
> what's the auteurist consensus on Monte Hellman these days? Even with
> championing from the likes of Dennis Bartok and Quentin Tarantino (and the whole gang at
> Anchor Bay DVD, which has been putting out wonderful editions of his work), I
> still don't find myself in too many conversations about him.
The auteurist crowd in LA (of which Hellman was one, actually) was very
high on his films - many thought of him as the best American director of
the 70s. It's true, though, that you don't hear much about the films
other than TWO-LANE BLACKTOP these days.
> "Two Lane" seems to be the consensus favorite, though I think "Iguana" is
> just as singular. While Hellman has described the shoot as the worst of his
> life, it achieves a rare spartan poetry typical of his work.
I haven't seen IGUANA, but I remember Hellman putting it on his own list
of the ten-best films of the 80s in MODERN TIMES, so he couldn't have
been too down on the experience.
> Very disturbing
> film, but unflinching in the way it attempts to locate the source of the
> protagonist's disgust at society. I think the only two I haven't seen "China 9,
> Liberty 37" or "Silent Night, Deadly Night 3," though I know the former has its
> champions.
The Hellman fans (I'm sort of in the middle on him) tend to love CHINA
and pass off SILENT NIGHT 3 with faint praise. COCKFIGHTER is also held
in very high esteem by many.
My favorite is still THE SHOOTING. - Dan
334
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 8:22pm
Subject: Yes, Virginia, There Is a Monte Hellman
What a bizarre question! Of course he's an auteur, and a very
fine one. He's been sidelined by horrible luck since Better Watch
Out, but everything he has done is well worth seeing. I recently
rewatched Beast from Haunted Cave and it's quite good - not at
all stock Corman. Brad Stevens just published a book that is very
completist - it goes into the 10 minute add-ons Monte shot for
films like Creature from the Haunted Sea when Corman sold
them to television and all that. For the record, I love both Iguana
and Better Watch Out, which are commercially available - no
mystery there. China 9 is fantastic, but it's hard to see, although
there is a commercial tape which is pan and scan - get it iof you
possibly can. Cockfighter and the two westerns - VERY widely
available - are don't-miss masterpices. Pardon my loud
enthusiasm, but Jesus...
335
From:
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 5:00pm
Subject: Re: Yes, Virginia, There Is a Monte Hellman
In a message dated 7/2/03 4:28:58 PM, hotlove666@y... writes:
>What a bizarre question! Of course he's an auteur, and a very
>fine one.
Oh, I wasn't asking if he was an auteur - of course he is and I love, love,
love what I've seen of his. I was simply curious if others felt that he's a
little neglected these days, what the consensus was about him, and so forth.
Sorry for the confusion.
>I recently
>rewatched Beast from Haunted Cave and it's quite good - not at
>all stock Corman.
I saw this one too just recently. Somewhere I got the impression that
Hellman isn't too crazy about it anymore, but I quite like it.
>Brad Stevens just published a book that is very
>completist - it goes into the 10 minute add-ons Monte shot for
>films like Creature from the Haunted Sea when Corman sold
>them to television and all that.
The DVD of "Shatter" - which Hellman started but wasn't able to complete (I
forget the circumstances, but I think he was fired by the producer) - is quite
fascinating for the commentary track by MH. Thanks for the tip on the Stevens
book. Someone should string together all the 2nd unit work he did on
"Robocop" and come up with a Hellman film in miniature.
Great to hear that there's another "Iguana" fan out there. I think it's my
favorite and, Dan, it's great to learn that Hellman put it on his Ten Best
list.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
336
From:
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 5:09pm
Subject: Hellman, Theatre
Addendum:
Perusing the Amazon page on the Brad Stevens book Bill recommended, I came
across this quote by MH in the book description:
"Once I made my first film I considered myself a film-maker. I lost all
interest in the theater and never went back."
This reminds me very much of something Orson Welles said in that amazing BBC
interview he did in the early '80s, about how the theatre "lost everything"
for him once he discovered film. To stretch the comparison a little further,
both OW and MH could reasonably be called pioneers in the theatre: MH directed
the first L.A. production of "Waiting for Godot" and I don't have to enumerate
OW's many triumphs on the stage. Thank goodness they fell in love with
cinema, though.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
337
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 10:51pm
Subject: Re: Hellman
I try not to pay too much attention to what the consensus among
"auteurists" is, but rather to what specific people might think, and
their reasons, as well as my own perceptions of films.
I've long thought Hellman is great, at least since the release of "Two
Lane Blacktop.". I've seen most all of them except for the last two. My
favorite is "China 9, Liberty 37," which is really amazing; as always,
his editing is brilliantly harsh and precise. I second the endorsement
of "The Shooting," but "Ride in the Whilrwind" is arguably even better,
certainly as good. Both for a while were tagged as "existential
westerns." But so far unmentioned are his two black and white cheapies,
"Fight to Fury" and "Back Door to Hell." Both are really good, in that
rough-edged low-budget manner that characterizes some Ulmers and also
Aldrich's sometimes wonderful "World for Ransom." I remember playful
things with imagery, for example, though I can't remember exactly what
they were.
- Fred
338
From:
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 7:12pm
Subject: Re: Hellman
In a message dated 7/2/03 6:52:29 PM, f@f... writes:
>I try not to pay too much attention to what the consensus among
>"auteurists" is, but rather to what specific people might think, and
>their reasons, as well as my own perceptions of films.
I think that's a sensible approach, Fred. Certainly I value what you or Dan
or Bill (etc) think over any large, ill-defined group of people, though I am
sometimes curious as to what consensus is - just so I know what I'm up against
in the case of potentially unpopular or marginal films.
I'll try to hunt down a copy of "China 9" in time, though immediately I'm
going to re-watch a bunch of things, I think. And this is all thanks to the
still from "Two Lane Blacktop" on Jaime's site.
Re: "Silent Night, Deadly Night 3" - in his capsule piece on it, Jonathan
Rosenbaum writes, "at least one Hellman fanatic I know swears by it." Who is
this person and why ain't s/he on this list (or are they)?
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
339
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 11:32pm
Subject: Hellman fanatic
I'm the Hellman fanatic who swears by Better Watch Out. I wrote
the presskit and a lengthy L*c*nian critique in Cahiers. Monte is
quite proud of it - I think I even heard him say at one point that it's
his best film. As an aside, it was his relationship with Live
through Better Watch Out that enabled him to get Reservoir Dogs
financed - a good deed that may still pay off, although it sure is
taking a long time. There was Red Rain, then Freaky Deaky...
Miramax may be the problem.
I was just remarking the other day what a shame it is that PBS
produced all those Beckett adaptations by mediocre directors
(with the exception of Atom Egoyan's Krapp's Last Tape) and no
one thought to call Monte Hellman.
I agree with Fred about the Philippine films, although I made the
mistake of lending my copies (and a letterboxed China 9 I got
from Monte) to some thief whose name I have happily forgotten
long ago, so I haven't seen them lately. And I strongly urge
younger auteurists to rush to see China 9 and Iguana - beautiful,
moving, imaginative films. And of course Better Watch Out: Silent
Night, Deadly Night 3.
340
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 0:20am
Subject: Dissolves
Is there any sort of definitive date when dissolves were abandoned as
scene-to-scene transitions in Hollywood films? I'm none too
knowledgable about the mid-1960s, but I assume it was sometime around
then. But I'm more interested in why: because films were being sold
to television, so it no longer made sense place a dissolve where a
commerical break would be? or New Wave influence? (less likely) The
current Hollywood tactic of craning or tracking in to a new scene
(e.g. X2) seems pretty worthless.
PWC
341
From:
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 8:25pm
Subject: Hellman, Experimental Films
Mike Grost here in Detroit -
Monte Hellman
I too would vote a resounding Yes to Hellman being an auteur. He has a
special personal brand of vigorous storytelling that gets you involved in the
events. Plus his own visual style. The Western “Ride the Whirlwind” (1966) seemed
excellent, when I saw it years ago. “Beast from Haunted Cave” also shows
Hellman’s personal storytelling style. And “Two-Lane Blacktop” seems like a poetic
meditation on America’s backroads. Warren Oates is also terrific in this.
Warren Sonbert
The stills from Carriage Trade seem fascinating. Wish I could see this movie!
Have never had any chance to see any of Sonbert’s work.
Here is the list of best experimental films I’ve seen:
The Fall of the House of Usher (Melville Webber, James Sibley Watson, 1928)
Composition 1 (Themis) (Dwinell Grant, 1940)
Meshes of the Afternoon (Maya Deren, 1943) At Land, A Study in Choreography
for Camera
In the Street (Helen Levitt, Helen Loeb, James Agee, 1944)
Fireworks (Kenneth Anger, 1947) Inauguration of the Pleasure Dome, Eaux
d'Artifice, Scorpio Rising, Kustom Kar Kommandos
Wonder Ring (Stan Brakhage, 1955) Desistfilm, Window Water Baby Moving, Dog
Star Man, Deus Ex, Stellar
The Flower Thief (Ron Rice, 1960)
George Dumpson's Place (Ed Emshwiller, 1961 - 1963)
Flaming Creatures (Jack Smith, 1963)
Peyote Queen (Storm De Hirsch, 1965)
Lapis (James Whitney, 1963-1966)
Samadhi (Jordan Belson, 1967) Allures
OffOn (Scott Bartlett, 1968)
S:tream:S S:ection S:ection:S S:ectioned (Paul J. Sharits, 1968 - 1970)
Our Lady of the Sphere (Larry Jordan, 1969)
Bleu Shut (Robert Nelson, 1970) Oh Dem Watermelons, The Awful Backlash
Quick Billy (Bruce Baillie, 1971) Castro Street
Battery Film (Franklin Backus, Richard Protovin, 1985)
Turner (M. M. Serra, 1987)
Scenes From the Life of Andy Warhol (Jonas Mekas, 1990)
Raw Images from the Optic Cross (Karl Nussbaum, 1998)
342
From:
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 8:34pm
Subject: Dissolves
Curtis Harrington has rich, Sternberg-like dissolves in Games (1967).
He also included them in the director's initial version of "What's the Matter
With Helen?" (1971), but the film's producer hated dissolves, and cut them
all out of the movie.
The dissolves in Sternberg's "Shanghai Express" (1932) are beautiful beyond
belief.
Phil Karlson's film noir "Kansas City Confidential" (1953) has an excellent
dissolve, in which a giant policeman seems to be floating above the bank in
which the big robbery just took place.
343
From:
Date: Wed Jul 2, 2003 9:14pm
Subject: Re: Dissolves
In a message dated 7/2/03 8:21:04 PM, pwc8@c... writes:
>Is there any sort of definitive date when dissolves were abandoned as
>scene-to-scene transitions in Hollywood films?
I don't have the answer to this, but I think Kubrick must stand as one of the
last Hollywood directors to use dissolves right up until the end. "Eyes Wide
Shut" is full of them (and often without any 'thematic' purpose; they are
simply used to transition from one scene to another), contributing to a slightly
'retro' feel to the whole mise en scene.
Bogdanovich still uses them, though usually more artistically (the
coffin-yacht dissolve in "The Cat's Meow").
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
344
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 2:01am
Subject: Re: Dissolves
> The dissolves in Sternberg's "Shanghai Express" (1932) are beautiful beyond
> belief.
Right on! And in MOROCCO - my favorite dissolve ever is that shot of
Amy Jolly walking back down the row of hospital beds, smiling, with the
hospital dissolving into the Arabic cafe and music.
I put a 15-second Von-Sternberg-style dissolve into my new movie.
I'm not quite sure why the dissolve went away. It was always an
old-Hollywood-type code, a way of announcing that one dramatic unit was
ending and another beginning. The greater dramatic fragmentation of the
late 60s and 70s doesn't fit with dissolves as well.
But the commercials problem sounds plausible too.
A dissolve-heavy 70s movie is Ashby's wonderful THE LAST DETAIL. The
dissolves there are arty and not purely functional - sometimes Ashby
dissolves between shots in the same scene, the way that silent movies
used to do before the syntax of time elapsing became established. - Dan
345
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 2:03am
Subject: Beckett
> I was just remarking the other day what a shame it is that PBS
> produced all those Beckett adaptations by mediocre directors
> (with the exception of Atom Egoyan's Krapp's Last Tape) and no
> one thought to call Monte Hellman.
I agree with your assessment of the Beckett directors, but I was
startled at how much I liked Mamet's CATASTROPHE, though I never liked
Mamet much otherwise. Text by Beckett, directed by Mamet, starring
Pinter (who's a bit of an auteur as an actor, in case you haven't seen
him in anything): sounds like a mess, but it worked for me. - Dan
346
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 2:47am
Subject: Re: Dissolves
> Is there any sort of definitive date when dissolves were abandoned as
> scene-to-scene transitions in Hollywood films?
Maybe it's a separate issue, but I wonder if the question could be extended to fades -- which at a certain point in time seemed to be routinely replaced by unmotivated, ugly cuts between "sequences" (if you could still call them that), like running the chapters of a book all together. (Was there ever any relation between fades and reel changes? Didn't reels eventually get larger...)
Also, would the decline of dissolves have had anything to do with a desire to avoid opticals? Dissolves tended to take on that dupey look in color films...
347
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 2:55am
Subject: Eastwood (and BLOOD WORK)
It's taken me a while even to acknowledge Clint Eastwood as a film
artist, primarily due to his image in the westerns, the Dirty
Harry movies, etc. After he won the Oscar for UNFORGIVEN, I noticed
each new Eastwood film but I've never paid special attention; I liked
ABSOLUTE POWER quite a bit, I think I liked A PERFECT WORLD but I
can't remember it too well, but I wasn't crazy at all about TRUE
CRIME or MIDNIGHT IN THE GARDEN OF GOOD AND EVIL...I could tell (and
still can) that they were unusual, personal films and I was glad that
someone in Hollywood was doing "his own thing," but his personal
style never really interested me to the same degree as a lot of other
directors. Zach has talked a lot and written a little about Eastwood
and his investigations have been very illuminating. Since knowing
Zach I've seen three Eastwoods that I've enjoyed: WHITE HUNTER,
BLACK HEART, the lovely and underrated BREEZY, and his latest (prior
to MYSTIC RIVER), the 2002 thriller BLOOD WORK.
I was very cautious about seeing BLOOD WORK, first because Eastwood
*still* isn't a filmmaker that I'm *extremely* interested in (unlike
Hawks, Jerry Lewis, Naruse, Godard, Bresson, Guitry, Almereyda,
Sokurov, and so on for twenty-seven minutes), and second because -
and this is kind of a silly reason to be cautious - I wasn't sure if
I was going to "see" what Zach saw in it and wrote about so
eloquently on 24FPS.
Well, I don't think it's a great film - it's almost a complete
failure as a genre effort, and I think part of Eastwood wanted to
provide his audience with the thrills of a serial killer movie - but
more importantly, it's fascinating as a self-examination
(Zach: "having his director persona examine his star persona at
every possible turn."), his use of non-white ethnic groups in a way
that, sure, calls attention to "look how I've cast a Mexican as an
authority figure," but as an illustration of his personal attitudes
toward race and gender, not as a representative of a corporation
that's trying to erect/maintain a liberal facade. The way he puts
his characters into tight spots - here, Terry nearly runs himself
into the ground trying to satisfy an emotional obligation - is far
more interesting, dramatically, than anything the chase-the-killer
plot has to offer. And Eastwood's soundtrack (all his soundtracks,
really) is an analog of his leisurely, doin'-what-the-fuck-I-want
aesthetic, which is very pleasurable: I don't think another filmmaker
could get his "tone" right if they wanted to go and imitate
Eastwood's filmmaking, and the music is a big part of it.
348
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 3:17am
Subject: addendum re: Blood Work
I feel like I need to point out - more for the benefit of skeptical
non-auteurists reading the messages here - that the observations Zach
made w/BLOOD WORK can occur to the viewer instinctively, and by that
I mean: it's not as if I took Zach's review and tried to see if the
movie could "prove" the things he said (the cinephilic equivalent of
conducting a scientific experiment in such a way as to ensure
desirable or undesirable results), as this would not have done the
movie, Zach's review, or myself any favors.
Zach's critism - and Fred's, I think - doesn't necessarily teach me
new things or concepts of which I was unaware before reading, but his
arguments tend to make me notice things that I'd already noticed but
maybe passed off as incidental and/or superfluous. I think (trying
not to embarrass Zach here) that's a vital service for filmmakers
like Eastwood and De Palma, who are generally thought of, at least in
America, as incidental and/or superfluous.
Jaime
349
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 4:00am
Subject: Re: Eastwood (and BLOOD WORK)
Jaime wrote:
> Zach has talked a lot and written a little about Eastwood
> and his investigations have been very illuminating.
Thanks! I'd like to write more about Eastwood, maybe it'll have to
wait until MYSTIC RIVER, though. I just hope it doesn't break my
phenomenal track record with his work.
> I think part of Eastwood wanted to provide his audience with the
> thrills of a serial killer movie
Definitely. One of Eastwood's charms is that, as a director, he's
supremely humble and introspective: he's undeniably doing personal
work but despite his Hollywood durability and power of final cut (he
still does have final cut always, right - can anyone verify?) he's
disciplining himself to keep his self-indulgences under the radar. I
think it's part of the workmanlike, masculine persona he quietly
examines in his films. A Clint Eastwood who keeps some sort of
respect for conventions and codes is more interesting than one who
outright rejects them as a thing of the past.
There's so much interesting friction when his conventional
entertainer side and his autobiographical philosopher side
contradict. The latter usually wants to slow down whatever latter
would demand would be in pace with convention - maybe this accounts
for the weird feeling of that early, wonderful chase scene in BLOOD
WORK.
--Zach
350
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 5:24am
Subject: Eastwood, Arzner
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
wrote:
> Thanks! I'd like to write more about Eastwood, maybe it'll have to
> wait until MYSTIC RIVER, though. I just hope it doesn't break my
> phenomenal track record with his work.
I'd say all signs point to a success: the teaser trailer gives me a
positive feeling (it sounds more ambitious than his last few films,
but not in a pretentious way), and Mike D'Angelo gave it a 43!
The August MoMA schedule is online - fewer must-sees next month than
this month, I feel, but one item of particular interest is a series
devoted Dorothy Arzner: 14 films from 1927 to 1943. I haven't seen
any of them, so I was wondering if our esteemed list could make
recommendations/issue warnings. Is her talent as a director equal to
the vividness of her public image? Word is (according to a
presentation I saw last year at NYU, for a class entitled "Old
Hollywood, New Hollywood") she liked to wear men's suits, slick her
hair back like a man's, and arrive at premieres with a starlet or two
on her arms. That is awesome.
Jaime
351
From:
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 2:24am
Subject: Arzner
Arzner's early talkie, "The Wild Party" (1929), is an entertaining look at
coed flappers. Arzner reportedly invented the "fish-pole mike" for this film,
having the sound man follow her characters around with a microphone attached to
a fishing pole. And the Zola adaptation, "Nana" (1934) is interesting. It
stars Anna Sten, who also appeared in one of Rouben Mamoulian's best films, "We
Live Again", the film version of Tolstoy's "Resurrection". The ballet versus
burlesque movie, "Dance, Girl, Dance" (1940), is also fairly lively.
Nothing I've seen so far suggests that Arzner was a Great Director, on the
order of Sternberg or Bresson. Even her best work tends to be more pleasant than
profound. The consistent femist aspect of Arzner's work is interesting.
Mike Grost
352
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 7:16am
Subject: Dissolves
I guess that's why Carpenter has started dissolving WITHIN
sequences...to stunning effect (Vampires, Ghosts of Mars).
353
From:
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 3:29am
Subject: Fordian resonances in Eastwood, fades
In a message dated 7/3/03 1:25:33 AM, j_christley@y... writes:
>I'd say all signs point to a success: the teaser trailer gives me a
>positive feeling (it sounds more ambitious than his last few films,
>but not in a pretentious way)
That was exactly my impression of the teaser trailer as well. I know that
Zach postulated a while back that it could be his "7 Women" (expanding on the
train of thought which compares "Space Cowboys" to "Donovan's Reef") - I'll just
say, what a thought!
I think "A Perfect World" is a major work and actually prefer it to the more
popular, canonized "Unforgiven." The way Eastwood treats that Texas
countryside calls to mind Ford and Monument Valley. As a matter of fact, I think the
plot bears some passing resemblance to that of "The Searchers."
To Jess about fades: Well, you're asking this as I just finished watching the
new DVD of Bogdanovich's "What's Up, Doc?," a film which punctuates its three
acts with fade-outs. Such an elegant framing device, though just as scarce
as dissolves these days, I think.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
354
From:
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 3:33am
Subject: Re: Hellman fanatic
In a message dated 7/2/03 7:33:30 PM, hotlove666@y... writes:
>I'm the Hellman fanatic who swears by Better Watch Out. I wrote
>the presskit and a lengthy L*c*nian critique in Cahiers. Monte is
>quite proud of it - I think I even heard him say at one point that it's
>his best film.
Wow! That's quite a ringing endorsement, Bill. And, what do you know, one
can get a video of "Better Watch Out" used for under $5 from Amazon; I just
have.
I note that one of the film's writers was Steven Gaydos, who also worked on
the script for "Iguana" (and, according to the IMDB, a production assistant on
"Cockfighter"). This leads me to believe than "Better Watch Out" was less of
a strict 'assignment' than one might think; at least Hellman was able to bring
along one of his usual collaborators for, I presume, a re-write. In any
event, I can't wait to see this film.
(By the way, Hellman's an auteur if there ever was an auteur, obviously; I
didn't intend my original post to read as though I was questioning this.)
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
355
From:
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 3:45am
Subject: Harrington
In a message dated 7/2/03 8:35:45 PM, MG4273@a... writes:
>Curtis Harrington has rich, Sternberg-like dissolves in Games (1967).
>He also included them in the director's initial version of "What's the
>Matter
>With Helen?" (1971), but the film's producer hated dissolves, and cut them
>all out of the movie.
I just saw "What's the Matter With Helen?" recently and was duly impressed,
though obviously I'd be greatly interested in Harrington's original cut.
This reminds me that Mike and I were talking in private e-mail about how much
we'd both like to see Harrington's recent short film "Usher," taken from the
Poe story and photographed by Gary Graver. Has anyone here seen this? I
believe it's Harrington's first in quite a while.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
356
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 11:43am
Subject: Re: Dissolves
Welles actually experiments with a reversal of traditional syntax in Kane, using dissolves for short periods of time elapsed (the shots of Thompson walking the long, long hallway to the entrance of the Thatcher library, for example) and straight cuts bridging longer periods.
It's something I don't believe he ever did again and I can't recall anyone else playing with it before or after.
George Robinson
Alas, where is human nature so
weak as in a bookstore?
-Henry Ward Beecher
----- Original Message -----
From: hotlove666
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 3:16 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Dissolves
I guess that's why Carpenter has started dissolving WITHIN
sequences...to stunning effect (Vampires, Ghosts of Mars).
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
357
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 11:53am
Subject: Re: Arzner
It is many years since I saw The Wild Party at MOMA -- I think it was in the Paramount Series, so we're talking something like 1975 or so -- but what I remember most vividly about it was the huge amount of barely disguised lesbian eroticism and an extremely wooden performance by Frederic March.
That combination seems to me to be pretty typical of her work, but this perception is admittedly based only only a handful of her films.
George Robinson
Alas, where is human nature so
weak as in a bookstore?
-Henry Ward Beecher
----- Original Message -----
From: MG4273@a...
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 2:24 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Arzner
Arzner's early talkie, "The Wild Party" (1929), is an entertaining look at
coed flappers. Arzner reportedly invented the "fish-pole mike" for this film,
having the sound man follow her characters around with a microphone attached to
a fishing pole. And the Zola adaptation, "Nana" (1934) is interesting. It
stars Anna Sten, who also appeared in one of Rouben Mamoulian's best films, "We
Live Again", the film version of Tolstoy's "Resurrection". The ballet versus
burlesque movie, "Dance, Girl, Dance" (1940), is also fairly lively.
Nothing I've seen so far suggests that Arzner was a Great Director, on the
order of Sternberg or Bresson. Even her best work tends to be more pleasant than
profound. The consistent femist aspect of Arzner's work is interesting.
Mike Grost
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
358
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 1:56pm
Subject: Re: Eastwood, Arzner
> The August MoMA schedule is online - fewer must-sees next month than
> this month, I feel, but one item of particular interest is a series
> devoted Dorothy Arzner: 14 films from 1927 to 1943. I haven't seen
> any of them, so I was wondering if our esteemed list could make
> recommendations/issue warnings.
I haven't seen much Arzner, and what I've seen hasn't impressed me.
I've heard more than once that DANCE, GIRL, DANCE is her best film. - Dan
359
From: George Robinson
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 1:58pm
Subject: Re: Eastwood, Arzner
It probably is, but that's not saying much.
She's more interesting as a personality and a theoretical case history than her films are to sit through.
George Robinson
Alas, where is human nature so
weak as in a bookstore?
-Henry Ward Beecher
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Sallitt
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Thursday, July 03, 2003 9:56 AM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Eastwood, Arzner
> The August MoMA schedule is online - fewer must-sees next month than
> this month, I feel, but one item of particular interest is a series
> devoted Dorothy Arzner: 14 films from 1927 to 1943. I haven't seen
> any of them, so I was wondering if our esteemed list could make
> recommendations/issue warnings.
I haven't seen much Arzner, and what I've seen hasn't impressed me.
I've heard more than once that DANCE, GIRL, DANCE is her best film. - Dan
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
360
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 4:55pm
Subject: Usher
Usher is very stripped-down and personal. It was shot in curtis's
house by Gary Graver. Curtis plays both Madeleine and Roderick
- no CGI.
361
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 5:38pm
Subject: Re: Usher
>Usher is very stripped-down and personal. It was shot in curtis's
>house by Gary Graver. Curtis plays both Madeleine and Roderick
>- no CGI.
Personal is the word I was going to use. Maybe the equivalent of two
years' therapy for Curtis.
--
- Joe Kaufman
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
362
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Jul 3, 2003 5:47pm
Subject: Re: Usher
And a two-year setback for the rest of us.
363
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Jul 4, 2003 6:43pm
Subject: Bill Morrison's "Decasia" and Andrew Jarecki's "Capturing the Friedmans"
Well, I went to two current movies today. (That's not going to impress
anyone in our group but it's relatively rare for me, unless I'm writing
on them.) Bill Morrison's "Decasia" I found lovely to look at and almost
impossible to sit through. It's an essay in decaying emulsion with a
nice choice of subject matter (human aspirations, such as ladder
climbing and planes flying, and disasters), all seen through the filter
of decaying film as a metaphor for impermanence in general and more
specifically for human failure, though this is not exactly an original
idea in art. I'd put it, though, in the category of "avant-garde films
for people who don't like avant-garde film," or, perhaps (wording it
more carefully here than I did before on another group to be clearer
about what I mean), "a film best appreciated by people who don't share
Fred Camper's view of film art." Other films in this category include
"Koyaanisqatsi, "Baraka," and the two Matthew Barney "Cremaster" films
I've seen (2 and 3). The problem is that as far as I could tell the
editing was utterly mindless, a continuous stream with no more "thought"
than is contained in the mildly listenable trance
music-industrial-techno sound track. Morrison's main idea of editing
seems to be to repeat shots, such as that of an (I think) Whirling
Dervish, now and then. Now there may be some complicated system at work
here, but as a "plastic" construction I don't think it "worked" at all,
where for me "works" means that the kinds of spaces in images combine
with rhythm and subject matter to make a vision. I believe the credits
listed the production company as "Hypnotic Films," but I don't think of
a truly "hypnotic" work of art as a good thing.
My other movie was "Capturing the Friedmans," which I was even more
disappointed by, and I didn't go expect "film art" (see above) but
rather an interesting social document, and so it is on those terms that
I was disappointed. Jonathan Rosenbaum makes some good arguments for it
at http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2003/0603/030613.html, but
the film looked a lot less carefully constructed to me than it did to
him, and I very much disliked the way it chopped up its source material
-- a few seconds of a home movie, a few minutes of a family argument
(for those who've not seen it, it's about a disastrously "dysfunctional"
family and how two of its members go to jail for having sex with young
boys, which they likely didn't). I used to read case history type books
about dysfunctional families with some fascination, and this interest of
mine is one reason I went; my problem with the film is that it seemed a
lot less authoritative and informative than the product of a decent
writer-researcher. Home movies and home videos can be fascinating
documents, either seen whole anthropologically as evidence of how a
family member saw others, or used artfully in fragments ("Urban
Peasants" (Jacobs), "Daughter Rite" (Citron), "Sink or Swim"
(Friedrich)). "Capturing the Friedmans" seemed to me to do neither --
instead we get the "highlights" from these family movies and videos,
when it would be a more extended view, everything that happened over
five or ten minutes, that would be interesting, though I realize that
could be impractical for a feature intended to appeal to a wide audience.
Anyway, as is often the case with films I don't like, I found in it an
argument for the superiority of another medium ("Ghost World" seemed to
me a great argument for the superiority of comics to film), in this case
prose. A good writer could tell us more about the mother's rather opaque
psychological make up (we hear that she had problems but never get a
good sense of her as a whole), about how Jesse fared in prison (likely
horribly, but we barely hear), about what Jesse's prospects are now
(very bleak, according to a radio interview I heard with the director).
We don't even learn enough about the charges against father and Jesse of
having had sex with numerous boys. Some evidence is presented that one
supposed victim "remembered" these rapes under hypnosis, obviously an
unreliable method, but how many of the other accusers also recovered
their memories this way? The documentation on the infamous McMartin
preschool case suggests that all the children were coerced into false
testimony, but these kids were much younger than the accusers here. The
film as a whole felt like a sensationalistic and undigested accrual of
disorganized factoids, with key questions remaining unasked. It *did* do
a good job of suggesting that all of us, even seriously screwed up
people, have a measure of humanity, but I think I knew that already. I
also already knew that sometimes it can be heard to know what the truth
is. I mean, I did see "Rashomon." And, not to start a new thread or
offend anyone here who may have taken his email address froth Kurosawa
film, but I much prefer Gerd Oswald's western spin-off, "Valerie."
By the way, I'm not necessarily expecting responses, though responses
are fine if someone wants to make them. But since these are current
films I thought my thoughts might be of interest to some who have seen them.
- Fred
364
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jul 5, 2003 6:32pm
Subject: The H Word
Glad to see you all have lives. Question: Does anyone give a rat's
ass about Brian G. Hutton? No response will be taken as
signifying "No."
365
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Jul 5, 2003 8:40pm
Subject: Re: The H Word
Out of morbid curiosity, I went to IMDB and checked his filmography and was appalled to find that I have actually seen four of his wretched films, of which Kelly's Heroes is the most utterly odious.
I gotta get out more.
George Robinson
Alas, where is human nature so
weak as in a bookstore?
-Henry Ward Beecher
----- Original Message -----
From: hotlove666
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 2:32 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] The H Word
Glad to see you all have lives. Question: Does anyone give a rat's
ass about Brian G. Hutton? No response will be taken as
signifying "No."
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
366
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Jul 5, 2003 9:06pm
Subject: Re: The H Word
> Glad to see you all have lives. Question: Does anyone give a rat's
> ass about Brian G. Hutton? No response will be taken as
> signifying "No."
THE FIRST DEADLY SIN isn't bad, really. I've seen a few others that
weren't as good. I seem to remember Sarris putting WHERE EAGLES DARE
on his runners-up list for 1968 or 1969. What do you think? - Dan
367
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Jul 5, 2003 9:40pm
Subject: Re: The H Word
I liked Where Eagles Dare when I was a kid, but it's sort of like
liking a William Witney movie.
I seem to recall that The First Deadly Sin has an impressive sense of
melancholia to it.
-- Damien
368
From: George Robinson
Date: Sat Jul 5, 2003 9:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: The H Word
I assume that the melancholia was caused by Sinatra and Dunaway having seen the rushes.
George Robinson
Alas, where is human nature so
weak as in a bookstore?
-Henry Ward Beecher
----- Original Message -----
From: Damien Bona
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Saturday, July 05, 2003 5:40 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: The H Word
I liked Where Eagles Dare when I was a kid, but it's sort of like
liking a William Witney movie.
I seem to recall that The First Deadly Sin has an impressive sense of
melancholia to it.
-- Damien
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
369
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003 1:28am
Subject: The H Word
Actually, I asked because I just saw First Deadly Sin for my serial
killer book and was impressed in spite of myself, and at the same
time puzzled. I checked and saw that he made Where Eagles Dare, which
I also enjoy - apparently it's the Coen Bros.' favorite movie.
But First Deadly Sin is an odd duck. On the one hand the music,
production design and photography are ravishing, and the character
parts are numerous and w4ell-played. There's a scene where Sinatra,
following Daniel Blank, goes through an uptown cofee house decorated
with Christmas lights, where Bach is playing on the Muzak system,
that is hallucinatoirily like a scene in Eyes Wide Shut (which is
notable for its character parts, too). And the confrontation in the
construction area with the flapping black plastic covers is kind of
tasty.
On the other hand it's very slow and devoid of winning moves, to
borrow Farber's phrase. It's almost a throwback to an era (pre-1980
for sure) when you typically got more than one or two characters per
film, and when naturalistic detailing was indulged in because it was
assumed to be part of the art form - before films started to be set
in completely abstract worlds.
Going to sleep afterward I tried to imagine what would happen if
George Stevens came back to life with total power and made a film
like Giant today. In a 2003 context, it would almost look like
Satantango. That's a little bit what I felt about First Deadly Sin
when I was watching it, and I wonder if that isn't part of why Dan
likes Ivory?
370
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003 3:40am
Subject: Re: The H Word
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> I checked and saw that he made Where Eagles Dare, which
> I also enjoy - apparently it's the Coen Bros.' favorite movie.
I just opened the new Film Comment, and this film turns up in "Opening Shots," where it is No. 2 in the list of Guilty Pleasures by Michael Barker, Co-President of Sony Pictures Classics. ("...provides fantastic, mindless action.")
371
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003 6:36am
Subject: Re: The H Word
> Going to sleep afterward I tried to imagine what would happen if
> George Stevens came back to life with total power and made a film
> like Giant today. In a 2003 context, it would almost look like
> Satantango.
Ha! To me, GIANT and A PLACE IN THE SUN feel like films watched at
half speed, perhaps on one of those VCRs that does pitch correction
to keep the slowed-down voices in a human register.
> That's a little bit what I felt about First Deadly Sin
> when I was watching it, and I wonder if that isn't part of why Dan
> likes Ivory?
You know, I don't think of Ivory as old-fashioned. His virtue to me
is just the intelligence he applies as he follows the rules of his
chosen genre. The genre is perhaps a bit old-fashioned, but I
wouldn't call Ivory's sensibility either retro or avant. He just
seems interested and open to the material. - Dan
372
From: nzkpzq
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003 1:33pm
Subject: Creative Arts Showcase
(Mike Grost here in Michigan.)
Creative Arts Showcase (CAS) is a cable TV channel. It shows an
endless progression of short films, mainly related to classical
music. It is like a classical version of MTV.
It is not strictly speaking a channel, the way MTV or TCM are.
Instead, each week the non-profit foundation that runs it, provides 8
hours of programming. This is turn is shown by various public
television and community access channels around the country. In
Lansing, Michigan it is shown by the Lansing Community College
channel.
The programming can be characterized as both highbrow and joyous.
Highlights this week include two abstract color films by Oskar
Fischinger: Allegretto / Radio Dynamics (1936), and An American March
(1941). The last is synchronized to Souza's "Stars and Stripes
Forever"; it is probably part of the 4th of July celebration. This is
my first chance in years to see any films by Fischinger. They are eye
popping.
CAS regularly shows silent shorts. This week they have Melies' "The
Mermaid" (1904), and Alan Taylor's "Unusual Hollywood Architecture"
(1927), a zany but visually rich look at all the exotic-influenced
buildings around Los Angeles in the 1920's.
CAS also shows a lot of ballet clips. This week's highlight is an
excerpt from a modern day recreation of the 1910 Scheherazade.
Choreography: Fokine; sets and costumes: Leon Bakst. It is gorgeous,
like everything else I have ever seen from the Ballets Rousses.
CAS has no programming guide. You just sort of watch it and let it
wash over you. A lot of its clips are straightforward little films of
classical musicians playing. I tend to just listen to these, instead
of watching them full attention. Still, it is interesting to see what
the musicians look like. This week they had old 1960's clips of Helen
Traubel and Maureen Forrester, for instance.
373
From: nzkpzq
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003 2:08pm
Subject: John M. Stahl
(Mike Grost again.)
Just saw Stahl's "The Keys of the Kingdom" (1944). It reminds one of
Stahl's "Imitation of Life" (1934) and "Parnell" (1937). All of these
films mix: biographies of a character's whole life; soap opera about
their relationships, with good acting; a strong and detailed
historical background; idealistic liberal attacks on racism and
religious bigotry and intolerance. This is a pretty potent mix. There
is always a lot happening in these films. They can tend to the gloomy
side and present life as full of tragedy and trouble. They only
really upbeat Stahl I've seen is "Oh You Beautiful Doll" (1949) a
zany color musical staring S.K. Sakall, no less. It too has the
biography/historical background approach, being one of those musicals
allegedly based on a composer's life.
Less interesting than any of these is "Strictly Dishonorable" an
early talkie version of Preston Sturges' Broadway play hit.
374
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003 2:58pm
Subject: Re: John M. Stahl
> Just saw Stahl's "The Keys of the Kingdom" (1944). It reminds one
of
> Stahl's "Imitation of Life" (1934) and "Parnell" (1937). All of
these
> films mix: biographies of a character's whole life; soap opera
about
> their relationships, with good acting; a strong and detailed
> historical background; idealistic liberal attacks on racism and
> religious bigotry and intolerance. This is a pretty potent mix.
There
> is always a lot happening in these films. They can tend to the
gloomy
> side and present life as full of tragedy and trouble.
I recently saw Stahl's THE WALLS OF JERICHO, which I enjoyed quite a
bit. A month before I revisited PARNELL, which was better than I'd
remembered, though perhaps a little heavy with sentiment and
an "important" biographical subject.
Stahl is pretty wonderful. If you forget about genre and just put
out your feelers for directorial vibe, he reminds you more of Dreyer
than any American director (well, maybe Ashby a little bit, but that
might be my quirk - I notice that all auteurists don't hold Ashby in
the regard I do): there's that solidity and weight of the image that
you get in Dreyer, and the emphasis on elements of atmosphere (you
really feel "snow" or "water" in Stahl as something more than
background). As you note, he's more willing than most Hollywood
directors to dive into a dark moment and let its tone blossom.
Many auteurists have been greatly tempted to elevate him to a higher
rank in the Pantheon. I'm one, but lately I note that he doesn't
exercise as much control over acting style as I would like - it's not
uncommon for the acting to strike the only conventional tone in an
otherwise expressive Stahl moment.
I guess I'd go along with the consensus that LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN is
the crown jewel of his career, and the film that most suggests a
master at work in his control of all elements. But I'd put the
little-seen WHEN TOMORROW COMES up at the top of the pile as well (is
there some rights issue with this wonderful film, which I haven't
seen in twenty years?), and the gentle comedy HOLY MATRIMONY is
surprisingly fine.
- Dan
375
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003 3:14pm
Subject: Re: Creative Arts Showcase
> Highlights this week include two abstract color films by Oskar
> Fischinger: Allegretto / Radio Dynamics (1936), and An American
March
> (1941). The last is synchronized to Souza's "Stars and Stripes
> Forever"; it is probably part of the 4th of July celebration. This
is
> my first chance in years to see any films by Fischinger. They are
eye
> popping.
Fischinger, whom I enjoy too (it's hard not to like him), was
important to the "pure cinema" aesthetic that was especially
prominent in the 30s and 40s, and which was pretty directly opposed
to the Bazinian view that eventually gave rise to auteurism.
(Interesting how many of Bazin's key essays are about the conjunction
of film and other media.) I'm sort of intrigued at how different
auteurists deal with the outcroppings of cinema that are not built on
that bedrock of photographic realism that was so important to the
formation of the auteurist aesthetic. I notice that I have a
tendency to put work like Fischinger's in a different category in my
mind - even though I enjoy Fischinger, I don't think of it as the
same kind of object as, say, VOYAGE IN ITALY, and am not tempted to
compare them in any way. I think this is because I am a categorizing
kind of guy, though. (For instance, I also tend to draw a fairly
sharp line between fiction and documentary, and in that case I am
following no Bazinian dictates.) - Dan
376
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003 3:40pm
Subject: Re: John M. Stahl
I think When Tomorrow Comes is Stahl's masterpiece, one of
Hollywood's greatest romantic dramas (and as much as a McCarey-phile
as I am, I prefer this to the otherBoyer/Dunne film of 1939, the much
better-known Love Affair). And all that rain -- talk about the
viewer feeling the weather in a movie!
Dan, there's a rights dispute with the James Cain estate regarding
the film, which is why it doesn't get shown. (I have a tape of it I
recorded in the 80s from a Long Island public television station
which probably didn't have the rights to show it.) The film was also
the subject of an obscenity action back in its day, because of the
two leads spending the tonight together in a church. (Speaking of
missing Stahl movies, whatever happened to The Eve of St. Mark, which
I haven't seen since 1969?)
I do disagree with you about Stahl and actors, for I think almost
every performance in Stahl's films is just imbued with a sense of
inner conviction, whether it's reverent-but-very-human Gregory Peck
in Keys of the Kingdom, or nutty Gene Tierney in Leave Her To
Heaven. I don't know what Stahl did to achieve this effect, but it
is something he shares with Hal Ashby (a director I, too, cherish, by
the way).
I think Stahl is a prime example of a director who is very clearly an
auteur despite a lack of thematic consistency in his films. There is
so much respect for his characters in his film (something he shares
with Ashby) and just no moments that don't ring true.
-- Damien
377
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003 5:20pm
Subject: Re: John M. Stahl
> (and as much as a McCarey-phile
> as I am, I prefer this to the otherBoyer/Dunne film of 1939, the
much
> better-known Love Affair).
Yes, I do too.
> (I have a tape of it I
> recorded in the 80s from a Long Island public television station
> which probably didn't have the rights to show it.)
If you'd ever like to have a screening of your tape, you have at
least one guaranteed attendee! I saw the film on broadcast TV in Los
Angeles a long time ago, but it hasn't turned up anywhere that I've
noticed for quite a while.
> (Speaking of
> missing Stahl movies, whatever happened to The Eve of St. Mark,
which
> I haven't seen since 1969?)
Yeah, that's true - I don't think I've seen that in almost 30 years
as well... - Dan
378
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jul 6, 2003 9:18pm
Subject: Dreyer in Tinseltown, the Cahiers and the avant-garde
Dan,
Jacques Tourneur and Douglas Sirk were influenced by Dreyer, although
not always in ways that equate to the original. There are certainly
Dreyer references throughout both oeuvres - from the subjective dolly
of trees passing over the hay wagon in Stars in My Crown to
the "resurrection" scene at the end of Speak to Me Like the Rain.
Rohmer, who took Bazin's ideas in a somewhat different direction,
said that people who talk about use of space in avant-garde film
could see it done better by Keaton or Fairbanks if they would just
take a look. Of course, that doesn't have to be an either/or
proposition - he was being polemical.
Currently there is a minority devoted to Brakhage and Mekas on the
Cahiers, but truth to tell, there always was. The coverage has been
spotty, but Viola, Paik, Snow and so on have always received a kind
of marginal treatment that sometimes moves to the center (notably
during the structuralist phase). Anger first published there, and
Olivier Assayas' book on him in the Cahiers series of auteur
monographs is very good, by the way.
Of course there are people in France who take the avant-garde a lot
more seriously than the Cahiers: Dominique Noguez, newcomer Nicole
Brenez, Thierry Kunzel and especially Raymond Bellour, who started
off doing frame-enlargement studies of Hitchcock and Hawks and now
writes almost exclusively about the avant-garde. At Trafic he and
Patrice Rollet are the champions of that kind of filmmaking.
Bellour's friend Kunzel, a filmmaker, started with structural
analysis of M and King Kong and The Most Dangerous Game and then
plunged into structural cinema with nary a look back. Kunzel and
Bellour's passion for structuralist theory would of course lend
itself to that evolution.
379
From:
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 0:34am
Subject: Re: Harrington
Before I drop the subject of Harrington altogether, might I ask for any
opinions on his film directly preceding "Usher," 1985's "Mata Hari"? I know Mike
is a fan, but I wonder if this fits into that strange and wonderful category of
'art films' subsidized by Golan-Globus in the mid-80s (i.e., "Love Streams,"
"King Lear," "Tough Guys Don't Dance"). It seems as though it must, however I
hope it escaped with fewer cuts than did the video version of the Cassavetes.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
380
From:
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 0:56am
Subject: Cimino
As you all probably could have guessed from my recent mentions of him on this
group, I've been itching to have another look at Michael Cimino for some time
now. Granted, I'm a long-standing supporter of "The Deer Hunter" and
"Heaven's Gate," but sometimes re-seeing old favorites in a new context (that new
context, in my case, being a desire to see those films as part of a whole body of
work, not two isolated masterpieces) can be incredibly beneficial and
revelatory.
So I decided to start with TDH and HG since I own those two and they are my
avowed favorites. I plan to have new looks at the other Ciminos - "Thunderbolt
and Lightfoot"; "Year of the Dragon"; "The Sicilian"; "Desperate Hours"; and
"The Sunchaser" - as I am able to purchase them (hopefully letterboxed
versions exist somewhere.) If it turns out that there are other Cimino partisans
here (besides Bill, that is), I thought I might keep the group abreast of my
impressions of these as I re-see them, though I obviously won't go all-out if he's
not liked in these quarters.
About TDH: My difficulties with this film have always been politically
oriented and similar to the ones articulated by Jonathan Rosenbaum over the years.
But I've slowly come to believe that Cimino is much more sophisticated,
subtle, and tragically inclined than I used to give him credit for. This is a movie
about a war that never should have happened, about some (working class)
people who had to fight it, what happens to them when they are thrown into the
chaos their government has created and what happens to them when they return home;
right now I'm thinking that it's about as "pro-war" as "Hearts and Minds."
The singing of "God Bless America" has the aura of a funeral march, sung in
sotto, and standing as one of the most moving things I know of in film. Favorite
scene: the nearly silent sequence of Michael returning home, skipping the
party being thrown for him, sitting agonizingly in an empty motel room. I offer
this as answer to anyone who says Cimino can't pull off anything which isn't
grandiose or booming.
About HG: I think it's a great work, unambiguously so. So many things to
talk about and it's difficult for me to get past the pure, wrenching power of the
individual sequences: the dance at Harvard set to the Blue Danube; the first
pool table exchange between James and Billy; the rhapsodic quality of James
and Ella dancing alone, the camera spiraling wildly all the time. Yet it does
gel into a real vision by the time that final scene comes and it hits you
hard. The endings of HG and TDH get my vote for two of the most melancholy
evocations of what America is. In both of these films, Cimino seems interested in
exploring the tragic consequences history wrecks on individual lives; the
grandeur of his mise en scene is appropriate to such a vision.
Does anyone find it a little ironic that the version of HG which sank UA was
the re-cut version? I've never seen that cut, but I'm led to believe that it
>is< indeed incomprehensible, a mess, etc. But it seems to me that the main
person who hated the original cut was... Vincent Canby. Too many articles
about and profiles of Cimino gloss this point over, I think.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
381
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 5:16am
Subject: Re: Cimino
> I offer
> this as answer to anyone who says Cimino can't pull off anything which isn't
> grandiose or booming.
I guess I'll use this as an opportunity to ask for insight about why
Cimino is well-regarded. I've always had a very difficult time with him
myself, and "grandiose" is one of the words I'd use to describe him.
I remember arguing with Noah Ford about Cimino once, and commenting
that, on the evidence of the films, the fellow didn't seem to be very
bright. Noah basically said, "Yeah, so what? A lot of great directors
aren't that bright." Which is an interesting observation that I'm still
thinking about. It's true that auteurists have a tradition of
perceiving a visual or dramatic sophistication in directors that are not
verbally or intellectually sophisticated: Fuller is the locus classicus.
Perhaps I'm more easily fazed than some auteurists in such cases. To
my mind, Cimino has limitations of sensibility that result directly in
distended, ponderous, overromanticized storytelling. I can't drive a
wedge between the filmmaker and the imagined unbearable dinner
conversationalist. - Dan
382
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 7:32am
Subject: Re: Cimino
Strange, I've just taken a break from HEAVEN'S GATE - I quite like
it, although I'm not sure what to make of it. Cimino doesn't really
interest me very much as a director, but his widescreen compositions
are really unbeatable.
Rosenbaum mentions in his tribute to Manny Farber that MF rather
liked THE DEER HUNTER, while conceding that the representation of the
Viet Cong in the film was perhaps questionable.
Jaime
383
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 2:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: John M. Stahl
I've always found it useful to think of Stahl (who I like a lot) as an
opposite of Sirk -- along with Frank Borzage, even more profoundly an
opposite.
Stahl directed three Sirk "pre-makes" ("When Tomorrow Comes" is a
pre-make of "Interlude," not one of the greatest of Sirk's late 50s
films (of the last eight, it's better only than "Battle Hymn") but
terrific anyway and very much underrated). Aside from the pre-makes,
there's also "Back Street," a plot with Sirkain potential which Stahl
takes in the opposite direction: in a key scene late in the film, in
which the spurned mistress is left only with a photo of her man, Stahl
intercuts her looking at it with a genuine sense of belief, that is, as
if the man's presence is real for her through the photo. Sirk's view of
the photos owned by his characters of the people they love is an
opposite one, in that the photos' presences mocks their owners' failed
desires for an authentic connection: consider the image of Mitch that
Marylee dances with (though "dances" doesn't quite convey the perverse
eroticism of the scene) in "Written on the Wind," or the photo of Sarah
Jane at Annie's bedside at the end of "Imitation of Life."
There are several Stahls I like a bit more than his wonderful "Leave Her
To Heaven," including "Back Street" and "The Foxes of Harrow" (seen only
on TV a few decades ago -- but it has one completely amazing scene that
has stayed with me). Also, on a non-auteurist note, reseeing "Gone With
the Wind" helped me to see how certain rather artificial elements from
it crop up in some later auteurist films, such as "Leave Her to Heaven"
(and even more obviously, "Duel in the Sun"). The sense of a producer's
wish to impart "big subject" in "Leave Her to Heaven" to its bad woman
theme weights down her presence, in my view, robbing it of a bit of the
emotional authenticity found in Stahl's best characters. Well, maybe
that *was* an "auteurist note" after all.
I didn't knowt hat "When Tomorrow Comes" was unavailable. I saw it a
few times in 16mm, again, decades ago.
McCarey can also be an anti-Sirk, particularly in his sublime "An Affair
to Remember," in which one key image (too much of a spoiler to reveal)
has a related but in part opposite effect to similar images in Sirk. I
was delighted to discover that Sirk himself was a great admirer of the film.
- Fred
384
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 2:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: John M. Stahl
> "Interlude," not one of the greatest of Sirk's late 50s
> films (of the last eight, it's better only than "Battle Hymn")
I'm actually quite fond of BATTLE HYMN, myself, though it's been years
since I've seen it. I thought INTERLUDE was pretty uninteresting, but I
believe Jim makes a case for it.
> The sense of a producer's
> wish to impart "big subject" in "Leave Her to Heaven" to its bad woman
> theme weights down her presence, in my view, robbing it of a bit of the
> emotional authenticity found in Stahl's best characters.
That's an interesting angle on the film. Still, as far as "big
subjects" go HEAVEN has a pretty quirky big subject. GONE WITH THE WIND
and DUEL IN THE SUN go for scope - in space, time, and history - to
emphasize their big subjects. But LEAVE HER TO HEAVEN is much smaller
and much weirder - Gregory Peck's perversity in DUEL is just a flicker
compared to the wildfire of Gene Tierney's unreadable insanity in
HEAVEN. - Dan
385
From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 3:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: John M. Stahl
Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > "Interlude," not one of the greatest of Sirk's late 50s
>
>
>>films (of the last eight, it's better only than "Battle Hymn")
>>
>>
>
>I'm actually quite fond of BATTLE HYMN, myself,
>
Oh, "Battle Hymn" is really good. The problem is with terminology here.
I have the same problem writing about what I think is a very over-rated
Brakhage film; I have to say, "This is a very great film; it's just not
nearly as great as Brakhage's best," or something like that. And then
Brakhage, and Sirk, both have the odd film that just isn't any good at
all (though seen only on TV, I can't imagine what anyone's case would be
for "Mystery Submarine," save maybe one or two shots).
The scene in the "summer house" in "Interim," and the arrangement of
objects therein, while hardly worthy of the Miami hotel suite in
"Written on the Wind," is pretty Sirkian, I think.
- Fred
386
From:
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 2:01pm
Subject: An Affair to Remember
In a message dated 7/7/03 10:18:16 AM, f@f... writes:
>McCarey can also be an anti-Sirk, particularly in his sublime "An Affair
>to Remember," in which one key image (too much of a spoiler to reveal)
>has a related but in part opposite effect to similar images in Sirk. I
>was delighted to discover that Sirk himself was a great admirer of the
>film.
I've been incredibly curious to see "An Affair to Remember" and I think your
recommendation, Fred, will finally spur me to check it out. Over the past
seven months, I've seen a number of McCareys for the first time - "The Awful
Truth," "Make Way For Tomorrow," "Good Sam," and "Once Upon a Honeymoon" (all
great, though I particularly love the first two) - and just recently saw his two
last films, "Rally Round the Flag, Boys" and "Satan Never Sleeps." I thought
they were both great, particularly the former, and will try to write something
about them here soon. But consensus seems to suggest that "Affair" is the
most major of his last three films. I know that Jonathan Rosenbaum makes a big
case for it; I believe it appears on his Alternate 100 Best American Films list.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
387
From:
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 2:07pm
Subject: Re: Cimino
In a message dated 7/7/03 1:17:15 AM, sallitt@p... writes:
>I remember arguing with Noah Ford about Cimino once, and commenting
>that, on the evidence of the films, the fellow didn't seem to be very
>bright. Noah basically said, "Yeah, so what? A lot of great directors
>aren't that bright." Which is an interesting observation that I'm still
>thinking about. It's true that auteurists have a tradition of
>perceiving a visual or dramatic sophistication in directors that are not
>verbally or intellectually sophisticated: Fuller is the locus classicus.
Well, it's an interesting question, for sure. I tend to agree with Ford
pretty much. To get really broad, simplistic, and polemical about it, I think I
usually value personality over intellect. I don't intuit a great mind at work
in any number of great directors; what they bring to the table is a vision of
the world and that seems pretty divorced from intellect as such.
Jaime, many have argued that HG is a kind of Marxist/progressive "answer" to
TDH, though right now I'm groping for commonalties between the two films
rather than the ways in which they're different. I need to re-read Robin Wood's
work on him as soon as the revised edition of "From Vietnam to Reagan" arrives.
Compositionally, I think Cimino's beyond question. At the risk of repeating
myself - is that shot of the students dancing on the lawn something or what?
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
388
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 6:13pm
Subject: Cimino and Fuller
Dan,
For the record, Cimino and Fuller are/were among the most
brilliant, original, downrigbht gifted conversationalists I have ever
known, right up there with Orson Welles.
Incidentally, Noah's paradoxical defense is ill-foundedd: I have
never met a great filmmaker who disappointed me as a person,
and a conversationalist: they are all as individual as their films,
and there hasn't been a dummy in the pack. In other words,
standard auteurist references to "personality" are not
misplaced.
You don't have to take my word for it - there are inerviews in print
with just about everyone. Rick Thompson's long-ago Film
Comment interview with Fuller certainly captures the verbal
brilliance. Cimino is harder, because of the incredible treatment
he has received from the press here (starting with Heaven's
Gate, because of its radical leftwing politics), but if any interested
party can get hold of the UK DVD of Deer Hunter, it has a
commentary/conversation with FX and Michael that you won't
hear in this country.
389
From:
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 2:59pm
Subject: Re: Cimino
In a message dated 7/7/03 2:15:53 PM, hotlove666@y... writes:
>Cimino is harder, because of the incredible treatment
>he has received from the press here (starting with Heaven's
>Gate, because of its radical leftwing politics), but if any interested
>party can get hold of the UK DVD of Deer Hunter, it has a
>commentary/conversation with FX and Michael that you won't
>hear in this country.
Bill, does this mean the DVD won't be released in the States? I noticed it
was coming out in the UK, asked this question on a DVD forum, and have received
no answer.
You're definitely right that most profiles of Cimino tend to be almost
ridiculously loopy and militantly uninterested in his actual work. I'd love to read
an interview with him which goes against this trend. That said, my sense was
that Dan was intuiting MC's personality through the films and I can't fault
him if he doesn't respond to them. He's a tough director, though I hope to
come away with a better understanding after this little project of mine. Next
up: "Year of the Dragon."
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
390
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 7:01pm
Subject: Amendment on intelligence
Michael isn't on the same verbal level as Sam. For one thing,
he's not a verbal pyrotechnician - when I did my post-Heaven's
Gate interview with him, I was at first thrown by the way he would
stare at his coffee for a minute or more after each question, then
begin speaking in intricate, fully-formed analytical and/or
argumentative paragraphs. I think that the little you may have
read of Cimino interviews here were probably the result of
people not giving him time to formulate his thoughts, for reasons
that are the opposite of stupidity: he doesn't do soundbites, and
he took the questions I was asking, at least, very seriously.
It was more like talking to Straub, who isn't dazzling verbally, but
is very thoughtful and of course very smart. By the way, although
Straub would fiercely deny it, their minds have more than a few
other similarities.
When we got to Deer Hunter in that interview, I remember
Michael saying that the people who bashed the film as right wing
"wouldn't know a worker if he jumped out of the toaster when
they were having breakfast."
I think distinguishing personality from brains is pointless.
People with dazzling personalities have dazzling intellects,
whether they are formally educated or not. I'll stick by what I said
about the auteur theory use of "personality," which includes
intellect. By the way, one of Manny Farber's terms for visual
qualities he admires in film is "intellectual content." And I would
even go so far as to argue that de Kooning's ability to keep
painting after Alzheimer's shows that his intellect wasn't affected
by the loss of memory and, collaterally, verbal ability. Intellect can
express itself in paint, and on celluloid, without passing through
words. That isn't the same thing as being a gifted idiot.
Nonetheless, for the record, Cimino, Fuller, Seigel, Boetticher,
Sirk, Scorsese, Bogdanovich, Ferrara, Bezzerides, Peckinpah,
Ray and so on are among the most intelligent people I ever met -
smarter than all but one or maybe two of my teachers, and much,
much smarter than most of the people who write about them in
the press or, God knows, in Akademia. That has always been a
big part of the problem!
391
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 7:14pm
Subject: Deer Hunter DVD
My understanding is definitely that it won't be out here. My
post-Heaven's gate interview is in the Cahiers for April '82. It was
never transcribed in English - I did a viva voce tape "transcript" of
it to go fast, and that's what Dominique Villain translated; it was
later reprinted in a Cahiers book of interviews with various
directors edited by Nicolas Saada. I believe Michael had his tape
copy transcribed for some tribute that the BFI did - maybe it was
published in English at that time. In any case, Dominique's
translation was very accurate except for the last line.
I don't know how Dan can be intuiting that Michael is stupid from
Heaven's Gate. Is the opening Harvard speech the work of a
stupid man? Of course the speech is historical, but look at how
he and the actor put it across, along with the subtext of class
ignorance.
392
From:
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 4:10pm
Subject: Re: Amendment on intelligence
In a message dated 7/7/03 3:05:54 PM, hotlove666@y... writes:
>When we got to Deer Hunter in that interview, I remember
>Michael saying that the people who bashed the film as right wing
>"wouldn't know a worker if he jumped out of the toaster when
>they were having breakfast."
Gosh, that's a keeper.
>I think distinguishing personality from brains is pointless.
That may very well be, though I should try to rephrase what I meant. I think
it's perfectly possible for a hack director to possess great intellect. If I
didn't always blank in these situations, maybe I could think up some examples
of relatively anonymous or uninteresting filmmakers who are very smart, have
great minds, are superbly read (though that's a different thing entirely,
natch) - but don't leave behind any particular mark as a film artist. So I would
say that "personality" is the real make-or-break thing and that probably
includes intellect (I personally feel that anyone who put together something like
HG has got a great brain on him), but there is such a thing as intellect
without memorable film personality. How's that for backpedalling?
Anyway, I'm sorry to hear that TDH DVD won't be appearing in the States.
That makes no sense. The current release is just pitiful for a film of that
class (and I think it still has a pretty strong mainstream rep; wasn't it on the
AFI's list?). But, fortunately, I just bought a region free DVD player.
Has anyone here read Cimino's novel?
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
393
From: dougdillaman
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 8:31pm
Subject: Re: Bill Morrison's "Decasia" and similar films
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Other films in this category include
> "Koyaanisqatsi, "Baraka," and the two Matthew Barney "Cremaster" films
> I've seen (2 and 3).
FWIW, I saw WINGED MIGRATION this weekend, and it fits perfectly into this category. It's pretty much a disaster on every level except for the one where there's pretty stuff on screen that's astonishingly beautiful imagery. But the editing is arbitrary, the music is insipid, the narration is even worse.
The theory I came to during it is that these are films for people who are interested in the content of the shots in and of themselves, rather how they connect. In a weird way, it reminded me of pornography: you could yell until you're blue in the face about its formal failings, but it has nothing to do with what its proponents are responding to.
(I also find the fact that elements of WINGED MIGRATION were staged to be somewhere between annoying and insulting.)
(I should also note that I actually like the first two QATSI films, as well as Perrin's earlier MICROCOSMOS, while recognizing that they have these same failings. They're collections of moving photography, not films.)
Conversely, (THE) HULK has almost nothing going for it except its editing. The person I was watching it with compared it to THE ANDROMEDA STRAIN, which I haven't seen, so I don't know how derivative HULK is of that, but the 40-50% of HULK that takes advantage of innovative (to me) editing is the most exciting thing I've seen in a multiplex in a long time. It's the first comic book movie that actually captures the feel of the comic book form in filmic form. The script's sluggish and intermittently laughable (I haven't heard that much unintentional laughter in a theater since ... well, since DREAMCATCHER), the acting's wildly inconsistent, the film's incredibly long in the tooth, and so on, but every time another of those crazily-edited sequences with moving split-screen segments showed up, I was hooked. If Lee had managed to put together the entire movie using that technique, it might be in my top ten for the year, despite all those failings I've pointed to.
What does it say when I find the $175 million blockbuster (admittedly one that's flopping hard with audiences) more formally engaging than the current arthouse smash?
Doug
394
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 8:52pm
Subject: Re: Amendment on intelligence
"hotlove" Bill wrote:
>Nonetheless, for the record, Cimino, Fuller, Seigel, Boetticher,
>Sirk, Scorsese, Bogdanovich, Ferrara, Bezzerides, Peckinpah,
>Ray and so on are among the most intelligent people I ever met -
>smarter than all but one or maybe two of my teachers, and much,
>much smarter than most of the people who write about them in
>the press or, God knows, in Akademia. That has always been a
>big part of the problem!
Yes. I don't think I'll ever forget sitting directly behind
Antonioni, post stroke, as he attended a UCLA seminar on his work
conducted by the academicians, all of whom spoke in the most abstruse
theoretical language about his work. For hours they went on as
Antonioni sat there, infinitely patient and not letting on anything,
as inscrutable as the sphinx.
--
- Joe Kaufman
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
395
From:
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 5:26pm
Subject: Re: Amendment on intelligence
In a message dated 7/7/03 4:51:37 PM, joka@e... writes:
>Yes. I don't think I'll ever forget sitting directly behind
>Antonioni, post stroke, as he attended a UCLA seminar on his work
>conducted by the academicians, all of whom spoke in the most abstruse
>theoretical language about his work. For hours they went on as
>Antonioni sat there, infinitely patient and not letting on anything,
>as inscrutable as the sphinx.
You guys have far more experience with these things than I do (though I will
say that the one director who I have interviewed at great length - Keith
Gordon - is as smart and eloquent about his own work as any critic I know), but I
will nominate Bogdanovich's very funny interview with Von Sternberg in Joe's
category of inscrutable, unmovable directors.
"They are all abstract."
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
396
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 11:31pm
Subject: Hulk
Talk about divergent views. Hadrian Belove of Cineflie, LA, loved
everything about the movie EXCEPT the editing, which he
thought was a misuse of comic book ideas. Paul Duncan, an
English friend who wrote indie comics and edited a comics
crit-mag, thought the editing was fun.
I was moved by the character and not at all bothered by the
dialogue, which I took as comic book dialogue. I thought the Hulk
animation - especially the expressions - was fantastic, and the
mise en scene in those scenes (the high-angle shots of him
hopping around the desert, with Arabic [?] music playing) was
very original.
Most people object to the length and the illegibility of the
climactic father-son battle. I think it works. The scenes where
Hulk takes on the army are brightly lit and have a very different
mood tfrom the ones with his father (or his father's mutant
attack-poodles), which are all in shadow or near-darkenss. The
sea battle with the father, transformed into a creature of pure
energy, is literally impossible to see or make sense of, but I think
that's appropriate to what's going on.
It is an art film that hasn't worked with teenage boys - the arbiters
of taste in summer movies - but would work with older and more
sophisticated audiences, if Universal's strong review ad for the
4th brought them in.
For what it's worth, in my one phone conversation with Ang Lee,
when I was writing the Ice Storm presskit, he told me that his
favorite directors were Ozu and Wilder.
397
From: Tristan
Date: Tue Jul 8, 2003 0:50am
Subject: Re: Hulk
It's good to see that more people enjoyed this film. I loved the
editing, but it wasn't just that that made me like it. It seems so
more human and psychological than Spiderman. I'm 14, so I have idiot
teenager friends that all tell me the Hulk sucked and Spiderman was
so great. Does anybody know if Ang Lee is signed on to Hulk 2?
398
From: Tristan
Date: Tue Jul 8, 2003 0:56am
Subject: Re: Bill Morrison's "Decasia" and similar films
I saw Winged Migration at the WGA theater with Q&A afterwards by
Perrin. Even thought it was close to midnight and I had been awake
all day, I really enjoyed it and I loved the imagery. I don't know
what the problem with the editing was. There was a problem that kind
of upset me. I didn't like how it had a dislaimer that said there was
no CGI, but it used CGI to show the birds looking like they were way
above the Earth. Somebody actually asked Perrin about this, and he
obviously didn't know how to answer, so he just used his lack of
English as an "excuse".
Re: Decasia; I saw a few minutes on Sundance channel, and I decided
to tape it. I haven't watched it because I realized I would probably
be bored out of my mind. I've seen Koyaanisqatsi, and I didn't care
much for it. There was some kind of meaning, but I thought it just
looked cool in parts.
399
From:
Date: Mon Jul 7, 2003 9:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: Hulk
In a message dated 7/7/03 8:50:53 PM, limphead52@n... writes:
>It seems so
>more human and psychological than Spiderman.
I agree with you. Especially on second and third viewings, the slightly
goofy aspects of "Spiderman" became more problematic to me. I'm thinking
particularly of the death of the Green Goblin, which is all but thrown away as a comic
aside ("Uh-oh") by Raimi. The Peter/MJ romance had charm (liked that long
shot of the two on opposite sides of a fence), though nothing like the resonance
or depth of feeling of what I think of as the great romance in comic book
movies: Lois/Clark in Lester's "Superman II."
Now, I found the Bruce/Betty stuff in "Hulk" a little rote and unimaginative,
but that's more than compensated by the depth of imagination behind the
father-son relationship.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
400
From: Tristan
Date: Tue Jul 8, 2003 1:14am
Subject: Chantal Akerman
I just finished washing a bootleg VHS of Jeanne Dielman, and I think
it is one of the best films I've ever seen. What Akerman films should
I try next? I think they have a few at the rental store near me.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact