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.
6001
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 3:20am
Subject: Re: PA
I don't recall the Nixon; where was?
Went to the others you name.
Alden was in East Falls. You surely went to the Band Box. But did you
ever go to The Pearl?
Joseph Kaufman wrote:
>
>
> I must admit don't remember where the Alden was. My neighborhood
> theater in Philly was the Bala, but the Suburban was more home for
> double-feature Saturday matinees (Harryhausen, Hammer et al).
> However I went all over the city to see films, including to funky
> houses like the Nixon, or a little more classy, the Uptown.
6002
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 3:31am
Subject: Re: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
The Halloween sequence is omitted in French prints, or so Emmanuel
Burdeau tells me.
jpcoursodon wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> If you think the Halloween sequence is "by far the best part of
> the film", no matter how good it is, then I don't think you think
> it's such a good film,
6003
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 3:42am
Subject: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> >
> >
> >>
> >>while I can't remember if he talks about this scene, I think his
> >>formulation is extremely useful for (for example) considering the
> >>relationship of the Halloween sequence (by far the best part of
the
> >>film, in my view) in "Meet Me in St. Louis" to the whole.
> >>
> >>- Fred
> >>
> >>
> >
> > If you think the Halloween sequence is "by far the best part of
> >the film", no matter how good it is, then I don't think you think
> >it's such a good film
> >
> You think correctly. I think as a whole it's only "pretty good," or
> something like that.
>
> Most overrated Minnellis: Gigi, An American in Paris, The Band
Wagon,
> Meet Me in St. Louis
> Most underrated: Home From the Hill, Home From the Hill, Home From
the
> Hill, also Brigadoon....
>
Fred I agree 100% on Gigi and American in Paris (but who
wouldn't?) Of course your stance is anti-musical, pro-melodrama.
Fine. But I don't see why we need such a dichotomy. Oh, I see you
like Brigadoon -- probably because it's a failed musical. And it has
that great non-musical opening sequence about the horrors of
sophisticated modern city life (after which I walk out or fall
asleep). Obviously anyone who loves Brigadoon for other reasons has
to despise the musical as a genre. I think I know why you love Home
from the Hills. My problem about his melodramas has to do with
ambivalence. I find it so hard to embrace them completely. On a
superficial level, after all, they are so ridiculous. OK am I getting
kicked out of the Group for contempt of auteur?
One of his best dramatic films is The Long Long Trailer, don't
you think?
JPC (relapsed auteurist)
6004
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 3:53am
Subject: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> The Halloween sequence is omitted in French prints, or so Emmanuel
> Burdeau tells me.
>
> jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> >
> >
> > If you think the Halloween sequence is "by far the best part of
> > the film", no matter how good it is, then I don't think you think
> > it's such a good film,
As usual, total confusion: Fred didn't write the above, JPC did.
I never saw "Meet Me in St Louis" in France. It's quite possible
that the Halloween sequence is/was missing. French audiences hated
musical sequences in American films (I remember the groans from
popular audiences when a song was coming on), so the distributors
deleted as many musical sequences as they could. However, the
Halloween sequence is NOT a musical sequence. But they cut out lots
of stuff anway (in an earlier post today I mentioned the cuts in Rio
Bravo). In A Star Is Born they cut whole scenes -- the print jumped
from the "Man That Got Away" sequence to the scene where Garland is
being made up for her screen test! That was in addition to the
original cuts of about, what? 20 minutes? and made the story very
hard to follow. Strangely enough they left the "Born in a Trunk"
sequence.
JPC
6005
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 4:01am
Subject: Re: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
I'm not sure that my stance is "anti-musical, pro-melodrama." Though I
probably do have a bias in favor of melodrama, I'd like to think that I
am neither anti nor pro any particular genre. "The Pirate" is one of my
very favorite Minnelli films; "Yoalnda and the Thief" is also quite
great. And my favorite Borzage of all of them is "Smilin' Through."
How can the melodramas be ridiculous to someone who accepts the musical
as a genre, which is inherently ridiculous: characters are having a
conversation, and suddenly someone starts singing? I'm not saying
there's anything wrong with that, only that if you accept that, then
"Home From the Hill" moments like the mother-son confrontation in the
kitchen ought to seem deeply authentic and realistic.
"The Long, Long Trailer" is usually classified as one of his comedies.
In answer to a post Peter made ages ago, I think the best of his
comedies is "Father of the Bride."
- Fred
6006
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 4:08am
Subject: Re: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
--- Fred Camper wrote:
> How can the melodramas be ridiculous to someone who
> accepts the musical
> as a genre, which is inherently ridiculous:
> characters are having a
> conversation, and suddenly someone starts singing?
Whereas I find it hard to accept films where the
characters DON'T sing.
> I'm not saying
> there's anything wrong with that, only that if you
> accept that, then
> "Home From the Hill" moments like the mother-son
> confrontation in the
> kitchen ought to seem deeply authentic and
> realistic.
Authentic, yes. Realistic? Who cares? Realism is
overrated. I get enough realism in life. That's why I
go to the movies.
>
> "The Long, Long Trailer" is usually classified as
> one of his comedies.
> In answer to a post Peter made ages ago, I think the
> best of his
> comedies is "Father of the Bride."
>
And I find many of his dramas to be darkly amusing --
particularly "The Bad and the Beautiful" and "Two
Weeks in Another Town."
(Elaine Stewart is my favorite movie tough guy.)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6007
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 5:08am
Subject: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> I'm not sure that my stance is "anti-musical, pro-melodrama."
Though I
> probably do have a bias in favor of melodrama, I'd like to think
that I
> am neither anti nor pro any particular genre. "The Pirate" is one
of my
> very favorite Minnelli films; "Yoalnda and the Thief" is also quite
> great. And my favorite Borzage of all of them is "Smilin' Through."
>
> How can the melodramas be ridiculous to someone who accepts the
musical
> as a genre, which is inherently ridiculous: characters are having a
> conversation, and suddenly someone starts singing? I'm not saying
> there's anything wrong with that, only that if you accept that,
then
> "Home From the Hill" moments like the mother-son confrontation in
the
> kitchen ought to seem deeply authentic and realistic.
>
> "The Long, Long Trailer" is usually classified as one of his
comedies.
> In answer to a post Peter made ages ago, I think the best of his
> comedies is "Father of the Bride."
>
> - Fred
Come on, Fred, the opera is also a "genre" that is "inherently"
ridiculous and yet all music lovers accept it and relish it without
ever thinking about its "ridiculousness" (and of course you lose an
awful lot if you're stopped by that ridiculousness). We're talking
about conventions and accepting them. Once I have accepted the
conventions of the melodrama I can appreciate it as much as anybody
else (some of my favorite films ARE melodramas) but it takes a little
effort because the surface gives itself as "realistic drama" and you
have to go past tons and tons of very unrealistic conventions that
keep reminding you that this, after all, is not any more real than
any musical.
I agree that "Father of the Bride" is his best, or one of his very
best, comedies. It is also terrifying and so much more realistic than
Home or Some. That was my point about The Long Long Trailer: I know
of very very few comedies that are so realistically upsetting (and
it's supposed to be fun with Lucy!).
JPC
6008
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 5:11am
Subject: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> (Elaine Stewart is my favorite movie tough guy.)
>
> _______And she thought she was passing!!
6009
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 5:59am
Subject: Re: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
I don't find "realism" a very useful category. To David, I wasn't saying
that "realistic" was better, I was merely puzzled as to how someone who
likes Minnelli's musicals can find the melodramas "ridiculous."
Personally, I have to expend less effort to accept the conventions of
melodrama, especially in Minnelli, because the conversations in films
such as "Home From the Hill" aren't that far away from conversations I'm
familiar with among families (no comment on what that may say about my
own family!), whereas I don't have any close friends who start singing
and dancing in the midst of "serious" conversations -- and I would like
to think that I've spent more time talking to friends during the years
of my adult life than watching musicals. I'm not criticizing anyone
else's, uh, musical preferences. I hope we all agree that, as Bazin once
said, realism in cinema depends on artifice, and all cinema that
produces images with some intended resemblance to the daily world
depends on conventions to achieve that resemblance. I won't get into an
extended argument with someone who finds the conventions of the musical
easier to accept; it's simply that I don't. It strikes me as not very
productive to argue questions of taste, because in such arguments people
are basically just asserting their personalities. There's even something
to that effect in our group's statement of purpose: "...one intent is to
make this group a place where people can try to explore those aspects of
their reactions to a film that transcend their personal tastes and
quirks, and therefore might be accessible to others." If someone does,
or doesn't, like films in which the characters regularly burst into
song, I'm not sure that knowing that fact tells us anything about cinema.
Anyway, I don't think I really got close enough to or specific enough
about the visual essence of what I love about Minnelli in the piece I
was writing, so in that sense I was a bit disappointed with my effort,
which I regard as a start in (I hope) the right direction.. But it has
just appeared, and can be found at
http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2004/0104/040102.html (You will
also find Jonathan Rosenbaum's top films of the year at
http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2004/0104/040102_2.html)
- Fred
6010
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 6:44am
Subject: Re: Gerd Oswald
Roger screened me his print of
BRAINWASHED once, about twenty years ago, the only time I have seen
the film.
Same print I saw at Roger and Howard's, I guess. Sheer genius.
6011
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 6:48am
Subject: Re: Gerd Oswald
THE STAR was GO's swan-song, and a worthy one. Shot on tape and in
color, it had the expressionist lighting of his films all the way
back to his first, also for tv: THE OX BOW INCIDENT, recently reshown
as part of the Fox Television Theatre revival. THE STAR, a 20-30 min.
quicky, was based on Arthur C. Clarke's answer to H. G. Wells' story
of the same name. My lips are sealed re: the twist.
6012
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 6:50am
Subject: Re: Gerd Oswald
M. C., Tavernier is completely wrong about the one German film he
described, aka BRAINWASHED, which has been praised here both by me
(just a minute ago) and much earlier by Fred. So his assessment of
the other German films as "worthless" is suspect.
6013
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 6:52am
Subject: Re: Gerd Oswald
And especially DON'T OPEN TILL DOOMSDAY (his second best Outer
Limits, after FORM OF THINGS UNKNOWN).
6014
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 7:10am
Subject: Re: Auteurs on The Twilight Zone
I believe Lamont Johnson also directed the Kick the Can episode,
remade by Spielberg.
Night Call by Tourneur is a classic. I watched it again at the turn
of the New Year with the sound off, so as not to wake my hosts--awed
by the mise en scene, which I'm incapable of analyzing.
SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER SPOILER The story ends with the crippled old
woman who has been harrassed by inaudible phonecalls from the grave
screaming at the caller to leave her alone, only to learn that it's
her fiance, dead these many years because she (ever imperious) told
him she wanted to drive - car wreck - paralysis - a lifetime of
loneliness etc. At last she can at least talk to him - but too late:
Finally audible, the voice says he won't be calling back, because
he "always does what she says." Enter v.o. Serling, cackling
sadistically that she has "made her bed and must lie in it."
This typically moralistic Serling ending, which I can't imagine
Tourneur wrote, is nonetheless subverted in a quintessentially
Tourneurian way. As Serge Daney theorized, Tourneur's subversion of
classical style has to do with a) an effect that arrives too close to
its cause or b) an effect that arrives too far from its cause. This
one is too far - after watching this poor crippled woman being
tortured for 20 minutes in the present, it's a little hard to hear
about something not all that terrible that she did 30 years ago and
to tfeel, "She's made her bed and now she can lie in it!" Her
imperiousness with her caretaker is supposed to fill the gap for our
imaginations, but that's easy enough to put down as the ill-temper of
a bed-ridden cripple compounded a by her growing terror at the
mysterious phone calls.
Incidentally, this was NOT the ending to Richard Matheson's short
story, which appeared in BEYOND Magazine. At the end of the story the
voice on the phone says, "I'll be right over."
BTW, some of the best TZ's are directed by John Brahm. The one about
the couple who are seduced by a fortune telling machine in a dimner
is the best - again, Matheson, well executed. The Tourneur is more
than well executed. The mysteries of auteurism.
6015
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 7:20am
Subject: Re: Re: the Manny Farber exam
The Cafe Kroner quote is from "Not Reconciled" (Straub)
On Thursday, January 1, 2004, at 03:21 PM, Elizabeth Anne Nolan wrote:
> Let's take another collective stab. Sure we don't know what films
> were sho=
> wn in the
> class, but they were pre-1970's, and probably of the ilk Manny Farber
> would=
> admire
> (not that I know his criticism or taste).
>
> These are all guesses, based on 'sounds like something' these
> characters wo=
> uld say
>
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> w=
> rote:
> > This is only part of the notorious "Manny Farber final exam," printed
> > in Film Comment during the 1970s. I was just wondering if we could
> > collectively attribute all of the quotes to their correct films. I
> > know one right off the bat, but I won't say it. (It's very obvious.)
> >
> > 9 Identify the movies which provide posterity with the following
> > great lines:
> >
> > a "This is the face that says it knows a lot about something."
> >
> > b "How many breakfasts in the Cafe Kroner?"
> reminds me of WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION Berlin flashback in the
> bombed ou=
> t
> apartment with Deitrich and the soldier
> >
> > c "I have nothing to say and my students sleep in class."
> sounds like Prof GROUCHO MARX in HORSE FEATHERS
> >
> > d "We'll be leaving the neighborhood soon. My husband's getting a
> > promotion."
> sounds like Mrs. Nolan from A TREE GROWS IN BROOKLYN
> >
> > e "He's going to come toward me, he's going to take me by the
> > shoulders, he's going to kiss me…he'll kiss me…and I'll be lost!"
> sounds like Scarlett O'hare in GONE WITH THE WIND
> >
> > f "You were made to the measure of my body."
> >
> > g "No one's ever crossed our family before."
> sounds like Michael Corleone in The GODFATHER
> >
> > -Jaime
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> • To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
>
> • To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
>
> • Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6016
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 8:43am
Subject: Cinemania
I feel physically ill.
Once I was proud of calling myself a cinephile. I am one. I was one
from when I first read Godard calling himself one, I was one since
Lang made the analogy between heroin and film.
I will no longer call myself one.
Once I thought how great it would be to move to Paris or New York and
to be able to watch great films. How often have I joked about, if I
ever came to NY, how I would "live" at MoMA.
Good Morning!!!
This is not like if someone who had 2-3 beers a day suddenly gave up
drinking because he saw an alcoholic. This is a Buchowsky sober.
And being sober sucks.
But what is the alternative after having seen Cinemania.
Henrik
6017
From:
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 3:52am
Subject: Re: Auteurs on The Twilight Zone
Bill Krohn is right: the piece about the newlyweds seduced by the fortune
telling machine IS good. I almost included it in my last post, and should have!
It is:
Nick of Time
Writer: Richard Matheson Director: Richard L. Bare (11-18-1960)
Bare is a TV comedy director. One suspects that Matheson is more the auteur
of this piece. Matheson's script for Roger Corman's "The Pit and the Pendulum"
is very powerful. Matheson also wrote on the Twilight Zone:
A World of Difference
directed by Ted Post (Magnum Force).
Matheson also experimented with "silent film" (dialogueless episodes or
segments) in:
The Invaders
directed by Douglas Heyes (The Captains and the Kings), and in:
Once Upon a Time
directed by vetrean comedy director Norman Z. MacLeod (Horse Feathers, The
Secret Life of Walter Mitty). This episode has Buster Keaton, no less, but is
fairly disappointing.
By the way, the state trooper played by Mark Richman in Ted Post's TZ episode
"The Fear" is consistent with his interest in the police in Magnum Force - a
strange if not very good film.
Mike Grost
6018
From: George Robinson
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 9:30am
Subject: Kim Novak sighting
For all of you listmembers on the West Coast, Kim Novak is making a very
rare public appearance at the American Cinematheque on Jan. 17, with a 70mm
print of Vertigo:
http://americancinematheque.com/archive1999/2004/kimnovak.htm#BELL%20BOOK
A 70mm print? Can that be right?
She's going to talk about Hitch, so even if it's a mere 35, it should be an
interesting evening. If anyone gets to this, I sure hope they will report
back to us snowbound Easterners.
George (actually more rainbound so far this winter) Robinson
To find a form that accommodates the
mess, that is the task of the artist.
--Samuel Beckett
6019
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 9:48am
Subject: Re: Kim Novak sighting
>For all of you listmembers on the West Coast, Kim Novak is making a very
>rare public appearance at the American Cinematheque on Jan. 17, with a 70mm
>print of Vertigo:
>http://americancinematheque.com/archive1999/2004/kimnovak.htm#BELL%20BOOK
>
>A 70mm print? Can that be right?
That's the version prepared by Harris and Katz, with the
unfortunately altered soundtrack. The large format VistaVision
negative was appropriately printed onto 70mm, but it still fell way
short of an original Technicolor print.
>
>She's going to talk about Hitch, so even if it's a mere 35, it should be an
>interesting evening. If anyone gets to this, I sure hope they will report
>back to us snowbound Easterners.
I saw her at the "re-premiere" of VERTIGO a few years ago, and she
looked great.
>
>George (actually more rainbound so far this winter) Robinson
--
- Joe Kaufman
6020
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:13am
Subject: Re: PA
>I don't recall the Nixon; where was?
52nd and Market. Had a problem with rats.
>Alden was in East Falls. You surely went to the Band Box. But did you
>ever go to The Pearl?
I don't remember the Pearl. When was it around? Did go to Barney
Sackett's Wayne Avenue Playhouse, and of course the Band Box, the
theater that ran a double bill of LANCELOT DU LAC and JAZZ ON A
SUMMER'S DAY, and one of PERSONA and HELP!. Did you ever go to
manager Art Carduner's house, where he had a sideline selling
paperback books?
--
- Joe Kaufman
6021
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:20am
Subject: Re: Cinemania / Kim Novak
It was fun to see in CINEMANIA a complete assembly of all the stories that have become street legend -- as New York cinephiles or through New York cinephiles, who hasn't heard about Roberta's MoMA encounter, for example? Much has been said on the subject, and the Cinemaniacs defended in print by some critics, but Henrik, you should know we have one of the film's subjects as a group member (at least I think we do). Naturally, he is not unfamiliar with strong opinions; I believe all of the five cinemaniacs have been berated in public at one point or another. Nor do I think he will feel the need to defend himself (I don't know him, but I don't think that I would).
That's not to hide away from my own opinion; using Daney's terms, I consider myself a cinephile, but also a "cine-child" -- a child who gets lost in movies, not because films allow me to temporarily escape, but because cinephilia is already its own world, a world that most of us consider very different from the travelled ones, the common ones, the ones that the people we didn't get along with in grade school belong to. The nature of cinephiles is already very peculiar, and yes, I believe there are levels of cinephilia. My aunt (an art critic for Sao Paulo's Estadão) used to say we can get "full" of art, we can get sick of it, our bodies tell us to stop. So we stop for a while, and then there is one great work of art that awakens our senses again and ignites the flame. We are all cine-children one way or another because we are also human. Unless the cast of CINEMANIA is from some alien planet, I believe they stop, too, even if we don't see it in the film. But then, I don't care to bring Daney's terms into that particular scenario.
Briefly on Kim Novak: Eastman House had her in November. I heard it was a lovely affair. Kim's manager, Sue, works only for her and on the phone made Mrs. Novak out to be temperamental and reclusive. This was hardly the case, as it turns out, but it can certainly appear so when someone like Novak isn't contacted for lack of public interest (which was somewhat the case in Rochester).
Gabe
6022
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 1:44pm
Subject: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
As I am in the midst of writing my own Minnelli essay for Senses
right now, getting into a debate about his work would distract me a
bit too much from my deadline -- especially since I would have to
deal with such skilled debaters as Fred and Jean-Pierre. But I do
want to strongly caution against the tendency to rank certain
Minnelli films as overrated. Fred's post is not the first time I've
seen AN AMERICAN IN PARIS and GIGI described in this way. (Naremore
does this in his book on Minnelli, for example). But I was shocked
to see Fred place THE BAND WAGON and MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS in this
category as well. Both of them are absolutely key Minnelli texts and
understanding them is certainly as central to grasping the qualities
of Minnelli's cinema as HOME FROM THE HILL. As with so many Minnelli
admirers, I do wish that the melodramas (as well as the comedies)
would receive more attention -- and I am devoting a chapter to TWO
WEEKS IN ANOTHER TOWN in my book, which should be out late
spring/early summer (sounds like an Ozu double feature). But even
many of the musicals are misunderstood and underrated: Certainly
BRIGADOON but Fred also made a passing negative reference in an
earlier post to BELLS ARE RINGING, which I love. It seems to me at
this point in Minnelli criticism and scholarship, when his work
continues to be misunderstood (see Rivette's recent idiotic comments
on Minnelli)we need to take the work whole, as Deleuze would put it.
6023
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 2:32pm
Subject: Re: PA
The Pearl was in the black ghetto. Maybe still is. A large old
orpheum-style house with balconies. I went there for 7 Women (which I
followed all over the city); it was sold out. I had to sit first row
left. I was the only white person in the theater. It was amazing.
Never have I dreamt of a whole audience so totally in tune with every
nuance and movement in a movie.
Yes, I went to Art Carduner's house where he was selling books (not just
paperbacks) until the city zoning shut him down. And he wrote those
incredible program notes. And one of his projectors wouldn't focus.
Whatever happened to him? Germantown at one time had Orpheum,
Colonial, Bandbox within a block, plus Rialto, Sedgewick, Wayne Avenue
Playhouse, and another on Chelten Avenue that used to play foreigns
before going porno. 52nd & Market was too far away and hard to get to;
I think I went over there once to see Hiroshima mon amour or something;
didn't meet any rats.
Did you know David Grossman?
Joseph Kaufman wrote:
> >I don't recall the Nixon; where was?
>
> 52nd and Market. Had a problem with rats.
>
> >Alden was in East Falls. You surely went to the Band Box. But did you
> >ever go to The Pearl?
>
> I don't remember the Pearl. When was it around? Did go to Barney
> Sackett's Wayne Avenue Playhouse, and of course the Band Box, the
> theater that ran a double bill of LANCELOT DU LAC and JAZZ ON A
> SUMMER'S DAY, and one of PERSONA and HELP!. Did you ever go to
> manager Art Carduner's house, where he had a sideline selling
> paperback books?
> --
>
> - Joe Kaufman
>
> ------------------------------------------------------------------------
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
>
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
>
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
> Service <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6024
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 2:34pm
Subject: Re: Cinemania
Please excuse the utterly ignorant, but what is CInemania? I've never
heard of it -- except for the Microsoft CD/site some years ago.
6025
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 2:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
Where might one see Rivette's recent idiotic comments? (And what did he
say?)
And why do we have to take Minnelli's work whole? After we watch every
picture three or four times, can't we decide that the melodramas are the
best of it, that the musicals are overrated and some of the comedies
so-so, and that Lust for Life, Some Came Running and Tea and Sympathy
are super masterpieces on a higher level (even higher than Home from the
Hill, Fred!)?
joe_mcelhaney wrote:
> (see Rivette's recent idiotic comments
> on Minnelli)we need to take the work whole, as Deleuze would put it.
>
6026
From: jerome_gerber
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 3:02pm
Subject: Re: Cinemania
This link should explain CINEMANIA...but it is a documentary of 5
very intense film addicts in NYC...one of whom is a member of
this group...Jack?
http://us.imdb.com/title/tt0281724/
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher
wrote:
> Please excuse the utterly ignorant, but what is CInemania? I've
never
> heard of it -- except for the Microsoft CD/site some years ago.
6027
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 4:28pm
Subject: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> I don't find "realism" a very useful category. To David, I wasn't
saying
> that "realistic" was better, I was merely puzzled as to how someone
who
> likes Minnelli's musicals can find the melodramas "ridiculous."
"Ridiculous" was a poor and careless choice of word. What does
bother me in some of Minnelli's melodramas (and it's not a matter
of "accepting" the conventions or not)is a certain lack of subtlety,
the heavy hammering of intentions, the way some major characters are
little more than archetypes, everything in the writing and the
various aspects of the direction pointing to that mono-dimensional
characteristic (the Mitchum character in Home from the Hills -- a
film I cited, by the way, among M's best in Am. Dir. -- is a good
example). JPC
> Personally, I have to expend less effort to accept the conventions
of
> melodrama, especially in Minnelli, because the conversations in
films
> such as "Home From the Hill" aren't that far away from
conversations I'm
> familiar with among families (no comment on what that may say about
my
> own family!), whereas I don't have any close friends who start
singing
> and dancing in the midst of "serious" conversations -- and I would
like
> to think that I've spent more time talking to friends during the
years
> of my adult life than watching musicals. I'm not criticizing anyone
> else's, uh, musical preferences.
We don't, or shouldn't have to expand any effort on accepting the
conventions of any genre. If you need to make an effort, then it
means that something in you deeply rejects those conventions, so why
bother? You love opera or you hate it. Making an effort to "accept"
the conventions of the form won't lead you to enjoying it, which is
the main point.
Strangely, you seem to be making a point for the "realism", true-
to-life-ness of M's melodramas because the conversations in "Home..."
are "not very far" from conversations in your own family. Personally
I can't remember ever having had a conversation that even remotely
resembled a conversation in a Hollywood melodrama (or in a French
melodrama for that matter). May I quote myself? "Working in a medium
whose relationship to "the real" is inevitably ambiguous and within a
system... that had evolved what must be the most arbitrary code of
representation in Western cinema, Minnelli... could filter reality
through his personal emotions and reconstruct it as a projection of
the inner world. This rearrangement is not only 'dreamlike' it also
involves a magnifying of the real into a larger-than-life vision....
both physical reality and the characters' feelings, personalities and
relationships are put through a process of intensification -- which
does not always avoid the pitfall of caricature." JPC
I hope we all agree that, as Bazin once
> said, realism in cinema depends on artifice, and all cinema that
> produces images with some intended resemblance to the daily world
> depends on conventions to achieve that resemblance. I won't get
into an
> extended argument with someone who finds the conventions of the
musical
> easier to accept; it's simply that I don't. It strikes me as not
very
> productive to argue questions of taste, because in such arguments
people
> are basically just asserting their personalities.
But with all due respect, Fred, arguing questions of taste is
exactly what you are doing here. You seem to have a strong dislike
for the musical and keep harping on its silliness and the fact that
people in real life don't burst into song and dance (although I do
all the time :) "transcending" personal tastes and quirks is a worthy
objective but you are proving how difficult it can be. I would
estimate that 90% of the postings in this group express personal
tastes and quirks. JPC
There's even something
> to that effect in our group's statement of purpose: "...one intent
is to
> make this group a place where people can try to explore those
aspects of
> their reactions to a film that transcend their personal tastes and
> quirks, and therefore might be accessible to others." If someone
does,
> or doesn't, like films in which the characters regularly burst into
> song, I'm not sure that knowing that fact tells us anything about
cinema.
>
> Anyway, I don't think I really got close enough to or specific
enough
> about the visual essence of what I love about Minnelli in the piece
I
> was writing, so in that sense I was a bit disappointed with my
effort,
> which I regard as a start in (I hope) the right direction.. But it
has
> just appeared, and can be found at
> http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2004/0104/040102.html (You
will
> also find Jonathan Rosenbaum's top films of the year at
> http://www.chireader.com/movies/archives/2004/0104/040102_2.html)
>
> - Fred
6028
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 4:31pm
Subject: Re: Kim Novak sighting
Kim Novak came to my home town (Binghamton, NY) to shoot a Mike Figgis film in the early '90s. I got to walk on the set (or budged my way illegally, either way) and was
feet away from Novak, not knowing who she was or what she'd been in, but loving her presence. When I watched Vertigo for the first time, I felt like Scotty for a second, as
we both followed the same woman. Ehh, sounds rather turgid I know.
Mike
----- Original Message -----
From: "George Robinson"
Date: Fri, 2 Jan 2004 04:30:54 -0500
To:
Subject: [a_film_by] Kim Novak sighting
For all of you listmembers on the West Coast, Kim Novak is making a very
rare public appearance at the American Cinematheque on Jan. 17, with a 70mm
print of Vertigo:
http://americancinematheque.com/archive1999/2004/">http://americancinematheque.com/archive1999/2004/kimnovak.htm#BELL%20BOOK">http://americancinematheque.com/archive1999/2004/
kimnovak.htm#BELL%20BOOK
A 70mm print? Can that be right?
She's going to talk about Hitch, so even if it's a mere 35, it should be an
interesting evening. If anyone gets to this, I sure hope they will report
back to us snowbound Easterners.
George (actually more rainbound so far this winter) Robinson
To find a form that accommodates the
mess, that is the task of the artist.
--Samuel Beckett
6029
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 4:35pm
Subject: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> we need to take the work whole, as Deleuze would put it.
Joe, is there a single Minnelli film that you don't love and that
is not in your opinion misunderstood and underrated?
What did Rivette say recently about Minnelli?
JPC
6030
From:
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 5:09pm
Subject: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
The Rivette interview was translated & published in Senses of Cinema:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/16/rivette.html
It is strongly negative about Minnelli - a complete dismissal. He loathes Mankiewicz, too (Mankiewicz enthusiast Fred Camper, fasten your seatbelts - it's going to be a rough night!)
My tastes in Minnelli are nearly global, the same as Joe McElhaney. I have been wildly enthusiastic about many Minnelli films, both musicals and melodrama. I love such visual triumphs as "Meet Me In St. Louis", "An American in Paris" and "Gigi". Tag Gallagher is also right about his enthusiasm for "Lust For Life" and "Tea and Sympathy".
I greatly enjoyed reading Fred Camper's new Minnelli article. It concetrates on positive criticism of three Minnelli classics: "The Pirate", "Some Came Running" and "Home From the Hill".
Joe McElhaney is on the right wavelength about the vulneability of Minnelli right now. Somehow, it is awfully easy for people to condescend to Minnelli. The idea that Minnelli is one of the world's great filmmakers just seems difficult for most people to grasp.
Mike Grost
6031
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 5:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
Is this available to the public?
MG4273@a... wrote:
>
> I greatly enjoyed reading Fred Camper's new Minnelli article.
6032
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 5:14pm
Subject: Rixchard Matheson (was Auteurs on The Twilight Zone)
Mike, thanks for correcting my mis-attribution of Nick of Time to
Brahm, whose TZ's include Time Enough at Last, which was once voted
the best episode of the series in a poll of viewers. The auteur of
Nick of Time, whose style couldn't be more stripped-down, is indeed
the writer, Richard Matheson. Here is the URL for my Matheson article
in Written By: http://www.wga.org/WrittenBy/0399/Matheson.html.
Now who remembers which episodes were written by Matheson's brilliant
buddy Charles Beaumont?
6033
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 5:25pm
Subject: Re: Minnelli (was: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question]
To Tag, I think the other melodramas you mention are all great. "Some
Came Running" I like about as much as "Home From the Hill," and I have
nothing bad to say about any of the others.
To JPC, I don't dislike musicals because people burst into song, I'm
only arguing that to me one has to make more of an effort to accept
their conventions. And I do believe in making that effort. I don't think
a great movie of something that should necessarily appeal to you without
any effort. If you use that model, then you never get out of your own
tastes. I didn't like Walsh at first at all, in a story I think I've
told here before, but since critics I respect did I kept trying until I
had my Road to Damascus moment with his last (and one of his greatest)
films. I don't go to movies just to have my buttons pushed, but to learn
and change. It may be that I'd prefer watching a bad melodrama to a bad
musical, but I don't see how you can say that I have a "strong dislike"
for the musical if my very favorite Borzage is "Smilin' Through" (and
that's not because I don't think that "The Mortal Storm" or "Moonrise"
or "Strange Cargo" are anything other than unbelievably sublime) and one
of my favorite Minnellis is "The Pirate."
About personal taste, I think there's a difference between making an
argument for a film one loves in terms that might make one's love
accessible to others and asserting something like "I like movies in
which the characters sing." It's the latter, made in numerous one liner
posts here, whose value I question; we're too large a group to just be
having conversations among friends, and that wasn't our purpose anyway.
Which is not to say that the occasional assertion of a personal taste or
shared exchange among friends shouldn't happen here, just that I wonder
about the balance of late.
I don't find musicals silly when I like them; I only brought up the
silliness in reply to your statement about Minnelli's melodramas, as in,
if the melodramas are ridiculous, why not the musicals. And while the
"Cap'n" in "Home From the Hill" may not be a subtly-limned character, I
think the other major ones are, and that's kind of the point: they
define themselves by the degrees to which they can free themselves from
his pull. He's the handed-down, socially-defined, received stereotype;
can others become free? SPOILERS SPOILERS SPOILERS Mr. Halsted, the
father of Libby (Theron's girlfriend), who ultimately kills him, cannot,
but some other characters can.
- Fred
6034
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 5:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
Tag Gallagher wrote:
>Is this available to the public?
>
>
>
I can see that I am not alone in being overwhelmed by the volume of
posts here, but I do think it's a good idea to read all the posts in a
thread one is posting on, and I do try to do that. I posted the url to
this as soon as it appeared, in post 6009, which is at
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/6009
I think our group is starting to have a problem in terms of volume. I
think thread like the "PA" one, which I've read only some of, which are
well-definied descriptions of a particular history are great, and easy
to avoid if one doesn't have time or interest, but maybe we should all
slow down a bit at least so that we have time to read each other's
posts? Think in terms not of a chat between friends (and why not
schedule a chat and announce it for that, if two or three people want to
debate a particular topic and invite others to observe and/or join), but
of "publishing" to the Web.
- Fred
6035
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 5:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
Fred, it sounded as though the Minnelli piece you're working on had
appeared. I didn't realise Joe was referring to your post here.
Apropos, I posed the question: How would Sirk have done TEA AND
SYMPATHY differently than Minnelli? I pose it again, having read
Rivette's comparison of Sirk and Minnelli.
Enough talk about "melodrama"! Let's talk about Minnellimelodrama and
Sirkmelodrama. (I argued in my Sirk article that virtually ALL cinema
is melodrama. And I suggested that there is black melodrama and white
melodrama -- tragedies and comedies, but BOTH are melodrama.)
Fred Camper wrote:
>
> >Is this available to the public?
>
> I posted the url to
> this as soon as it appeared, in post 6009, which is at
> http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/message/6009
>
>
6036
From: GaryTooze
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 5:39pm
Subject: Days of Wine and Roses...
A Favorite film... and I'm VERY happy with this DVD... "Warner !, Warner!,
Warner !!!" ( Gary chants down the street)
http://www.reviews.dvdbeaver.com/
Joe (Jack Lemmon) forces Kirsten (Lee Remick) to take an honest, harsh look
in the mirror: "I walked by the Union Square Bar. I was going to go in.
Then I saw myself - my reflection in the window - and I thought, 'I wonder
who that bum is.' And then I saw it was me. Now look at me. I'm a bum. Look
at me. Look at you. You're a bum. Look at you. And look at us. Look at us.
C'mon, look at us. See? A couple of bums."
Blake Edwards's powerful adaptation of J.P. Miller's PLAYHOUSE 90 story,
starring Jack Lemmon and Lee Remick in career performances, remains a
variation in his body of work largely devoted to comedy. Clay (Lemmon), a
San Francisco public relations man who is a constant social drinker, meets
secretary Kirsten Arnesen (Lee Remick), who doesn't drink, and after a
short time later they wed. A few months pass and Kirsten is capable of
downing as much booze as her hubby. The years drift by and Joe loses one
job after another and his wife neglects their child until he begins to come
to grips with the fact that both of them are alcoholics. They move into her
father's (Charles Bickford) nursery to dry out, but following a couple of
weeks of sobriety, they go on a binge. Joe nearly destroys a greenhouse in
a fanatical search for a bottle and ends up in hospital ward. Former
alcoholic Jim Hungerford (Jack Klugman) tries to persuade Joe to join an
organization to help deal with his problem, but Kirsten coaxes him back to
the bottle. Lemmon is at his best and ditto for Remick in this harrowing
tale of people consumed by their mutual addiction. This turns to an honest
and heartbreaking portrayal of alcoholism as deftly done as any film I can
remember. 5/5
The DVD
This is a favorite film and the image quality is better than my wildest
dreams. Everything looks absolutely marvelous... some of the best black
levels I've seen in memory... excellent contrast. The Edwards commentary is
a little weak and the Lemmon interview is oddly done but this is a fabulous
disc. Original sound is clear and one of the better mono audios I've ever
heard. Criterion-like disc would be an accurate description of this DVD. 4.5/5
Regards,
Gary
6037
From: programming
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 5:52pm
Subject: Re: PFA Civil War film
On 12/23/03 11:33 PM, "hotlove666" wrote:
> ER, If you ever spend time at the Pacific Film Archives in Berkeley,
> ask to see Pickett's Charge, a civil war film made like a home movie
> by a Disney animator with locals who reenact the Charge every year in
> period costume, filmed exclusively in silhouette with dialogue looped
> over the brilliantly edited images. Against all odds, it feels realer
> than Cold Mountain.
>
>
Bill,
Do you remember the name of the animator? Or when this was made?
Best,
Patrick
6038
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 6:02pm
Subject: Re: PA
>Did you know David Grossman?
Not personally, but if I recall correctly it was he who showed L'AGE
D'OR in a class I sat in on, during the days when that film was
utterly out of circulation in the US.
--
- Joe Kaufman
6039
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 6:08pm
Subject: Re: Minnelli (was: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question]
Oops, sorry. I had missed the link to his article at the bottom of
Fred's post, and I had missed the original post itself due to its being
killed by a spam filter.
With three or four exceptions, my enthusiasm for film criticism is in
direct proportion to how strongly it inspires me to respond. So I
always love Fred's writings, and could not have written my Sirk and
Mizoguchi pieces without him. So:
Fred says (SOME CAME RUNNINGS): "When Gwen finally rejects Dave because
of his chaotic life, the scene is set in her clean, perfectly ordered,
symmetrically decorated bedroom."
But her ordered room is also cluttered and too full of objects and
mirrors. And I don't think she rejects Dave for his disorder but for
her own fear of passion. I suspect Fred too quickly writes off Gwen as
a heavy.
Fred says: " The last composition links selflessness and freedom, as
Minnelli cranes up to show a view of the Ohio river receding into an
almost infinite depth, replacing the film's subtle interweaving of
characters and decors with an image of liberation."
But where is Gwen? Standing in the parking lot, apart, and Dave is
staring at her as the camera moves past him. Nothing is resolved. No
one is liberated. Why is the river image liberating, any more than the
vistas at the end of some Mizoguchis, which suggest a dimension, yes,
but of liberation?
I think Fred hits the nail on the head when he writes: "These echoes are
what make the characters' attempts to break out of the film's cycles so
moving." He writes this of HOME FROM THE HILL, which he inspires me to
see again immediately!!!!, but it seems to me to apply to the last shot
of SOME.
(Side remark: this is the same town that is the subject of von
Sternberg's documentary short, The Town, is it not?)
Fred, why isn't Marty Rubin here?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6040
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 6:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question
Wow -- what an interview! I don't know where to begin.
Wait a minute, yes I do:
"The Knights of the Round Table, which is not too well
known. An astonishing piece, very autobiographical,
about homosexuality and opium. Chéreau should stage
it."
Sing Out Louise!!!!
As I'm sure most of you know, Rivette used "The
Knights of the Round Table" as a secondary text that
the characters quote in "Duelle" (my favorite Rivette
film, hands down.)
His remarks about Mankiewicz and Minnelli are quite
striking, especially in that they reveal the fact that
Rivette has very hard and fast rules about what
constitutes good and bad direction. What he (and by
extension Berto) say here is reminiscent of Manny
Farber's remarks on "White Elephant" and "Parade
Float" movies. Manny quite dislikes Mankiewicz,
Stevens and Kazan for the reasons Rivette cites.
I also recall that in another interview (don't
remember where) Rivette hailed Walters as superior to
Minnelli in his direction of musicals. As you all
know, Walters is a particular favorite of mine.
Moerover much of the musical staging in Minnelli was
actually done by Walters (all the numbers in "Meet Me
in St.Louis," the "Madame Crematon" number in
"Ziegfeld Follies") and when Freed didn't like the
dailies on "Gigi" he had Walters come in and re-shoot
"The Night They Invented Champagne."
As for Verhoven -- well this is where I get off.
Jean-Pierre, maybe you can arrange to take Rivette to
Las Vegas. And have him stay at the "Paris" hotel!
Just make sure he sees "Looney Tunes Back in Action"
-- and tell him that Joe Dante is so superior to
Verhoven it isn't even worth comparing them.
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> The Rivette interview was translated & published in
> Senses of Cinema:
>
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/16/rivette.html
>
> It is strongly negative about Minnelli - a complete
> dismissal. He loathes Mankiewicz, too (Mankiewicz
> enthusiast Fred Camper, fasten your seatbelts - it's
> going to be a rough night!)
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6041
From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Minnelli (was: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> (Side remark: this is the same town that is the subject of von
> Sternberg's documentary short, The Town, is it not?)
Yes--I haven't seen the von Sternberg, but Madison, IN, is apparently
still very aware and proud of SOME CAME RUNNING. I discovered I have
relatives who live there when I went to my grandfather's funeral last
spring--they were excited to learn that I'd just seen the Minelli (in
a theater, no less!) a couple weeks before.
I think the last shot of SOME CAME RUNNING is about the suffocating
imprisonment of freedom, if that makes sense.
Patrick
6042
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 6:46pm
Subject: Re: Minnelli, and Mizoguchi, and viewing videos (was: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question]
Thanks, Tag, for your comments and responses.
I'm once again out of time and have to get back to work, so I'll have to
read the Rivette interview and speculate on Sirk and "Tea and Sympathy"
at some later point, if at all. Actually, I'm not sure if Sirk *could*
have made "Tea and Sympathy." At the very least, he would have likely
played the "sister-boy" stuff as black comedy, a little like the way he
treats the gym-god health guru in "Weekend With Father."
Gwen's bedroom *is* cluttered, as Tag says, with objects that are
arranged to signal her own passion-less-ness, or rejection of Dave's
"passion." I think in the film Dave's passions are presented as
disorderly: drunken brawls, his time with Ginny, which is why I
described her rejection of Dave as I did.
About the ending of "Some Came Running," I think that Tag is absolutely
right that it is more nuanced that I indicated. I'd plead only space
limitations here Thanks very much for pointing this out.. I do think the
final shot represents a kind of freedom echoed in Bama's hat removal,
but that freedom is qualified and surely not shared by all the
characters. I don't think we're supposed to think that everyone is
transformed by Gunny's self-sacrifice. It's even possible to believe
that Bama isn't all that transformed. It's certainly possible to imagine
that his noble moment as at a funeral will be followed by his going back
to talking about certain kinds of women as "pigs." I do agree that what
I wrote about the end of "Home From the Hill" applies to the "Some Came
Running" ending as well.
The vistas at the end of some Mizoguchis? Depends on the Mizoguchi. I'd
say the closest parallel to the end of "Some Came Running" is the end
of "Sansho Dayu," the pan over the sea from on high. But this moment is
even more tragic (and, for me, even more affecting) than the end of
"Some Came Running." The vistas that conclude "Ugetsu" and "Shin Heike
Monogatari" are more about the "transcendence" of traditional rural
Japanese life, and the spiritual possibilities of that.
Madison, Indiana is the town Sternberg used. Not only that, I once
visited, and tried to construct my own "Some Came Running" tour. I found
a guy who remembered the movie, and he told me where to find the
cemetery. The main street was recognizable, as was of course the bridge.
Interestingly, though hardly surprisingly, there is no way in hell that
a bus from Chicago would be going over that bridge to get to Madison;
the bridge goes south, into rural Kentucky. Apparently the "old
Carmichael place" was there too, but I didn't find it.
Much later, perhaps in the 80s, Madison was the locale of a truly
astounding rue life crime story. I don't even remember it exactly, and I
think there may have been a commercial movie based on it (anyone?) One
girl in her mid teens murdered another, and the reason was supposedly
that they were competitors in a battle for the affections of
twelve-year-old girl! Adolescence, and gay adolescents, have sure
changed since I was in my early teens -- or since, only three or four
years before my early teens, when Minnelli made his film -- is what I
thought when I read about this. I wouldn't mind reading a book about
this triangle (except I think maybe there was a fourth girl involved
too), if it really illuminated the characters.
Marty has been invited more than once, by me, but is just too busy with
work to join an Internet discussion group. I am too, really!
A final note: When writing the Minnelli piece I needed to resee two of
the three films I concentrated on, "The Pirate" and "Home From the
Hill." "Some Came Running" I've seen at least 10 times in prints and
didn't need to resee. Anyway, prints weren't available for the other
two, so I borrowed videos (from Marty's vast collection) to refresh my
memory and make notes from, since I'd seen those films multiple items
too and remember what I love about them pretty well. What surprised me
was how little pleasure I got from the videos, even of "The Pirate." And
to Marty, a video collector par excellence, that made sense too: so much
of what's great about Minnelli's color films depends upon the particular
sensuality of his colors. I'm guessing that on video, "The Pirate"
doesn't necessarily seem any greater than "Meet Me in St. Louis" (which
probably translates better), but in even a good 16mm print I think the
quality difference is vast, vast. I continue to believe that film
criticism, and film history, is being badly distorted by writers'
viewing, or reseeing films they don't remember well, on video. If you
see something once in a print and then the next eight times on video
while writing your paper, I think the video light will eventually infect
your memory of what the film actually looks like.
- Fred
6043
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 7:02pm
Subject: SIZE OF THE IMAGE
I agree with you on the color; equally important is size of the image. The characters
and stories of films are meant to be larger than life. I suspect there is a 'correct
image size' that theaters are very close to in their projections, individual preference
notwithstanding, even allowed for in seating choices. The screening dvd/video flap
for the oscar voters ignores the large size experience of the theater. Although the
color is good, I think much is missed with DVD also, and that I am changing the
cinema experience as I pause and review, etc. Sometimes in theaters, I want to pause
the scene for a moment or review...I even want to do that to the radio at times.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> I continue to believe that film
> criticism, and film history, is being badly distorted by writers'
> viewing, or reseeing films they don't remember well, on video. If you
> see something once in a print and then the next eight times on video
> while writing your paper, I think the video light will eventually infect
> your memory of what the film actually looks like.
>
> - Fred
6044
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 7:05pm
Subject: Re: PFA Civil War film
It was John R. McDermott. A former Marine as well as Disney animator,
JRM made 5 war films in home movie conditions near his home in
Weston, Conn. between 1938 and 1964. Pickett's Charge was actually
shown once on Omnibus (CBS) in 1958. It and Belleau Wood, which I
haven't seen, are both at the PFA. Belleau Wood was made in 1964 with
a 10,000 dollar grant from the Ford Foundation. The films were
located and preserved through the efforts of Tom Luddy, Irvin
Kershner and D. K. Jakob, who wrote the program notes when Pickett's
Charge was shown with his film, The Invaders, at the PFA in 1979,
when everyone was waiting to see Apocalypse Now (on which DKJ was
credited as "creative consultant"): Dennis attributed McDermott's
success to his graphic sense and his use of Russian-style audiovisual
counterpoint for purposes of realism. Other remarkable aspects of the
film: the standardized scale of closeup, medium shot and long shot
etc. doesn't seem to apply - it's as if everything is "in close-up"
(cf. Eisenstein). Also, there are some strange variations in focal
length possible only with amateur equipment. The film is anything but
realistic, but it produces a dreamlike suspension of disbelief,
somewhere between a commemoration and a haunting. (I'm retranslating
my own remarks on the film in a 1979 Letter to CdC.) It would be
great if someone could show it again, now that war has again become a
major fact of life and film.
6045
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 7:09pm
Subject: Re: SIZE OF THE IMAGE
Peter Bogdanovich thinks that the small screen destroys the mythic
significance of movies - something Peter T. got into with him when he
interviewred him recently about the influence of Robert Graves on his
films. Peter B. told me that the screens on which he and his family
saw films like I WAS A MALE WAR BRIDE (which I was interviewing him
about when this came up) when he was a boy in NYC were even bigger
than the screens in theatres today.
6046
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 7:14pm
Subject: Re: Minnelli, and Mizoguchi, and viewing videos (was: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question]
I have seen lots of prints of Meet Me in St Louis and they all made it
look like one of the ugliest films ever made. The videos I've seen
haven't been any better.
I have lots of 16mm prints and lots of videos, and if you put the images
side by side without too much elargement, video is often superior in
terms of image quality, at least for me. I think these matters depend
on the quality of the media and the quality of the equipment and set-up.
I do know of reviewers (even on this very group) who find no problem
watching vhs copies of vhs copies of vhs copies on lousy tvs in lighted
rooms. Likewise, most film clubs, back in the 60s and 70s, were showing
wretchedly dupey 16mm prints on occasion, and most universities don't
even bother having a dark room for their film classes.
I'd much rather watch Renoir's French Cancan or The River (both on my
ten-best list) on video, because the "restored" 35mms from which the
videos are made are so pale and washed-out and colors are so unbalanced,
and one can correct and improve their image quality substantially on
video, whereas with film ...
Films, Inc., used to have one (just one) really good 16mm Cinemascope
print of SOME and LIST. And sure, it beat video hands down. But that's
mostly because of sheer size; those pictures need big space.
I'm extremely impressed with some of the video projection I've seen in
Europe. I can't see how anyone could support 16mm as a preference
(except in the rare instance of a really fantastically good 16mm print).
Fred Camper wrote:
> so much
> of what's great about Minnelli's color films depends upon the particular
> sensuality of his colors. I'm guessing that on video, "The Pirate"
> doesn't necessarily seem any greater than "Meet Me in St. Louis" (which
> probably translates better), but in even a good 16mm print I think the
> quality difference is vast, vast. I continue to believe that film
> criticism, and film history, is being badly distorted by writers'
> viewing, or reseeing films they don't remember well, on video.
6047
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 7:20pm
Subject: Re: SIZE OF THE IMAGE
Elizabeth wrote:
>I agree with you on the color; equally important is size of the image.
It's worth remembering that the US national *average* size of a movie
theater used to be 750 seats in the days prior to the multiplex.
When looking at older films it's important to remember that it was
expected that the projected image size would be enormous by current
standards.
Also resolution often was higher than nowadays, what with 70mm,
VistaVision etc. As a for instance, small details in the distance in
long shots could be discerned clearly in movies like Cy Endfield's
ZULU.
--
- Joe Kaufman
6048
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 7:46pm
Subject: Re: SIZE OF THE IMAGE
I believe the screens were bigger for 750 seat theaters, but most adults
would find their childhood theaters (and classrooms) seem rather
smaller and probably remember the images on the screens as being
even bigger.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Peter Bogdanovich thinks that the small screen destroys the mythic
> significance of movies - something Peter T. got into with him when he
> interviewred him recently about the influence of Robert Graves on his
> films. Peter B. told me that the screens on which he and his family
> saw films like I WAS A MALE WAR BRIDE (which I was interviewing him
> about when this came up) when he was a boy in NYC were even bigger
> than the screens in theatres today.
6049
From: Robert Keser
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 7:50pm
Subject: Zinnemann
This is a very long shot, I realize, but does anyone
have access to the March 1983 issue of Positif? I´m
working on a piece about Fred Zinnemann, and that issue
has Yann Tobin´s "Zinnemann, premiere epoque" and a piece
on Five Days One Summer by Frederic Vitoux. (I´m working
on a Spanish language keyboard, so apologies for the missing
accent marks).
--Robert Keser
6050
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 7:57pm
Subject: Re: Minnelli, and Mizoguchi, and viewing videos (was: A little factual Minnelli/Stuart Byron question]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher wrote:
> I have lots of 16mm prints and lots of videos, and if you put the
images
> side by side without too much elargement, video is often superior in
> terms of image quality, at least for me. I think these matters depend
> on the quality of the media and the quality of the equipment and set-up.
I tend to agree now. I actually prefer the look of DVD's on Powerbook to most of the
16mm reduction prints of 35mm films I've seen.
Having said that, and maybe it's the "book" aspect of the PB but I find, forgive the
academicism, the experience "readerly" (as opposed to the theater's spatial -- but
what is interesting is the readerly experience has nothing much to do with literalness
or (conventional) narrative; it works for "Dog Star Man" etc.
One issue I do have about my DVD/video viewing is that there is a tendency for many
color films to all look like they've been "printed" on the same "print stock" altho "print
stock" here is well, virtual...
> I do know of reviewers (even on this very group) who find no problem
> watching vhs copies of vhs copies of vhs copies on lousy tvs in lighted
> rooms.
I've gotten if anything better reviews from VHS pre-screeners than from festival /
press film screenings, a fact that *amazes* me, as I hate my work on video (yes I
contradict myself a little -- also VHS really is marginal).
> I'm extremely impressed with some of the video projection I've seen in
> Europe. I can't see how anyone could support 16mm as a preference
> (except in the rare instance of a really fantastically good 16mm print).
Depends depends. I think work created in 16mm, work that is *formal* with respect to
film's properties, is best seen in 16 (or blown up to 35mm, but the kinds
of films I'm talking about this is pretty rare for obvious (i.e. budget) reasons.
-Sam
6051
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 8:51pm
Subject: Re: Zinnemann
Robert, there's a rave review of Five Days One Summer in CdC 345, if
you haven't seen it. By Toubiana.
6052
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 8:51pm
Subject: great year beginning
the first film i saw (just now) in 2004 was EUROPE 51
the first record i'm listening to is David S. Ware's Threads.
ok, later tonight i'm gonna watch 21 grams, but till now it's a most
magnificent beginning of an year...
happy new year to you all.
ruy
6053
From: Robert Keser
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 8:58pm
Subject: Re: Zinnemann
Thanks, Bill! I wasn´t planning to focus much on Five
Days One Summer (more on The Nun´s Story and The Search
and Act of Violence), but then who knows what I´ll do?
Now to find a library...
--Robert Keser
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Robert, there's a rave review of Five Days One Summer in CdC 345,
if
> you haven't seen it. By Toubiana.
6054
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 9:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Zinnemann
I ran into Lambert Wilson in "Book Soup" here in L.A.
in November. He's still Babe-a-licious.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> Robert, there's a rave review of Five Days One
> Summer in CdC 345, if
> you haven't seen it. By Toubiana.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6055
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 9:56pm
Subject: viewing videos/DVD (if "videos" now = "VHS")
> I tend to agree now. I actually prefer the look of DVD's on Powerbook
> to most of the
> 16mm reduction prints of 35mm films I've seen.
And Chris Marker would agree.
>
> Having said that, and maybe it's the "book" aspect of the PB but I
> find, forgive the
> academicism, the experience "readerly" (as opposed to the theater's
> spatial -- but
> what is interesting is the readerly experience has nothing much to do
> with literalness
> or (conventional) narrative; it works for "Dog Star Man" etc.
I absolutely agree with this; being able to sit in a dark room on a
couch and have the sort of direct-eyeline relationship with (in my
case) the iBook is often preferable to me than watching even on a
screen. There's something even more rewarding about watching while on
a flight or a bus trip or something -- I can concentrate on the film
even more in this kind of venue than I might be able to in a theater,
and I have only the slightest inkling of why this might be. (Maybe
something to do with the various reasons discussed here a week or so
ago, around the subject of why the setting of a train can contribute to
fascinating mise-en-scène.) I've watched the Brakhage DVDs almost
exclusively in this manner.
And while I know it's all ultimately digital simulacra, watching a good
DVD (like a Criterion or major-studio release) on my iBook provides
more of a "film-like" image than even a component-connection to my CRT
Wega.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6056
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:27pm
Subject: for tidy typing (no topic but useful for board)
I find that when I use the REPLY BOX I need to keep the line space
of my sentences about an inch or two shorter than the box, otherwise the sentence
runs onto another line. Since my comments are torturous enough
I thought it best to make the reading as easy as possible. I had no
problem with email replies.
6057
From: Damien Bona
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:35pm
Subject: Re: Days of Wine and Roses...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, GaryTooze wrote:
> A Favorite film... and I'm VERY happy with this DVD...
>
> Blake Edwards's powerful adaptation of J.P. Miller's PLAYHOUSE 90
story,
> starring Jack Lemmon and Lee Remick in career performances, remains
a
> variation in his body of work largely devoted to comedy.
Days of Wine and Roses works so well because in many ways it's only a
few steps removed from Edwards's comedic work. When I interviewed
him a few years back, he said he felt the film would have been
imposssible to sit through had it not been leavened by humor --
Lemmon walking into the plate glass window could have been Peter
Sellers as Clouseau.
Jack Lemmon's character is not only a darker version of the Everyman
he was playing at the time, but also of the brash young men Tony
Curtis played in Operation Petticoat and Mister Cory. The film
itself can be seen as the flip side of the cocktail party in
Breakfast At Tiffany's -- it's as if the essence of the woman in
Tiffany's who is looking at herself in the mirror and laughing
uproariously and later is crying has moved front and center. The
film also represents an extreme example of Edwards and the nature of
self-identity; intruiging, too, that his two bleakest films were made
one after the other: Wine and Roses and Experiment In Terror.
Interesting to compare the humor in Wine and Roses and Wilder's Lost
Weekend. In the Edwards, the cmedy is used to show self-deception on
Lemmon's part, whereas in the Wilder the humor is a cruwl joke -- Ray
Milland can't hock his typewriter because it's Yom Kippur and the
pawnshops are all closed.
6058
From: Frederick M. Veith
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:37pm
Subject: Chromatic range of video, print stocks
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, samfilms2003 wrote:
> One issue I do have about my DVD/video viewing is that there is a
> tendency for many color films to all look like they've been "printed" on
> the same "print stock" altho "print stock" here is well, virtual...
This brings to mind an interview with Aleksandr Sokurov, speaking about
The Second Circle:
Int: You must have worked very precisely with color in this film.
AS: Certainly. The film has almost no color in it, it's very restrained.
Aleksander Burov, who worked on my documentaries, was the cameraman. It's
his first fiction film. I had given him a very difficult task--the
creation of a certain expressive atmosphere. I think that he did it
brilliantly, within the limits of Soviet technology. It sounds
paradoxical, but it's precisely the outmoded Soviet technology and film
material which makes it possible to work much more inventively than in the
West, where cameramen have little eye for aesthetic qualities, I find.
That's because Kodak makes it impossible. Kodak brings with it a certain
chromatic range, with little variations, within which one must work. What
we work with is actually a deformation of the Kodak standard, a protest
against the Kodak Fuji totalitarianism that lords over the whole world and
forces the Russian, the German and the Italian to express themselves in a
kind of chic monthly magazine style.
Fred.
6059
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:51pm
Subject: Re: for tidy typing (no topic but useful for board)
Thanks, I'll try it. This has been bedeviling me.
Does this work ?
-sam
> I find that when I use the REPLY BOX I need to keep the line space
> of my sentences about an inch or two shorter than the box, otherwise the sentence
> runs onto another line. Since my comments are torturous enough
> I thought it best to make the reading as easy as possible. I had no
> problem with email replies.
6060
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 10:56pm
Subject: Re: viewing videos/DVD (if "videos" now = "VHS")
> And Chris Marker would agree.
Well I'll never watch Sans Soleil on a video format, dammit ! :)
> And while I know it's all ultimately digital simulacra, watching a good
> DVD (like a Criterion or major-studio release) on my iBook provides
> more of a "film-like" image than even a component-connection to my CRT
> Wega.
It's a gamma more like film.
Funny though, I found I liked "Fallen Angels" a little better on a good CRT.
It's such a neon film.......
-sam
6061
From:
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 6:11pm
Subject: List and blurb
Guess I'm a little late, but here are some 2003 favorites, along with the
full text of an Elephant blurb I wrote for a poll.
Happy 2004!
Brent
1. Demonlover
2. Elephant
3. Bright Future
4. Pistol Opera
5. Dracula (Maddin)
6. Friday Night
7. Spider
8. Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle
9. I Began to Wish (Julie Murray)
10. Gerry
2. Elephant
Critic and painter Manny Farber once said, "Like [filmmaker Jean-Marie]
Straub, I think it's sinful to give the audience material it knows already." So
with Elephant, its problematic elements (sins?) are easy enough to point out,
located in four or five discrete shots each tagged with a label "what we know
about Columbine" (or high school, or Gus van Sant). What's great about the film
is more evanescent because it lies in things we don't quite have words for, but
I'll try to point in its general direction: The sliding of the soundtrack
between sharply recorded acoustics (the noise collage of institutional hallways)
and something more abstract and interior. A similar play with visual focus and
depth of field, in which characters are located in grounded spaces that
dissolve over the course of the film into rectangles, spheres, and diamonds of
light and color, with only the figure we're following in sharp relief. The effect
is one of singular intimacy, a paradoxical bond formed not through character
psychology but through remembrance of these corridors, of knowing them so well
one no longer sees them, of the equivalence of self-presentation and
self-preservation on the mined stage of adolescence. The dread that runs beneath the
film from the beginning is certainly inspired by the massacre to come, however
much the film itself seems to want to rewind itself perpetually to delay its
arrival, but it's rooted also in the continual sense of foreboding and fragility
of the age. I can't think of another film that captures this as well, feels
it as intensely. In this sense, it's telling us many new things, and maybe even
a few about Columbine.
6062
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 11:15pm
Subject: Re: Chromatic range of video, print stocks
Frederick M. Veith wrote
>This brings to mind an interview with Aleksandr Sokurov, speaking about
>The Second Circle:
>
That's fascinating, and I have a particular reason for wanting to find
this interview, so
(1) Please post the source of the interview, whether print or online.
(2) In general, I'd like to encourage that people include sources for
quotes such as this....
- Fred
6063
From: Frederick M. Veith
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 11:28pm
Subject: Re: Chromatic range of video, print stocks
On Fri, 2 Jan 2004, Fred Camper wrote:
> That's fascinating, and I have a particular reason for wanting to find
> this interview, so
>
> (1) Please post the source of the interview, whether print or online.
It's from an interview entitled "The Last Elegy" by Giovanni Buttafava
from LENFILM and the Liberation of Soviet Cinema, Tijgerreeks 4 (1990),
p. 43. It's a publication of the Rotterdam Film Festival.
> (2) In general, I'd like to encourage that people include sources for
> quotes such as this....
Mea culpa. I've more than once nearly posted the same 'demand' myself.
Fred.
6064
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 11:38pm
Subject: Re: List and blurb
>
> 1. Demonlover
> 4. Pistol Opera
'demonlover' is also my #1 of the year, without a blink of the eye --
and 'Pistol Opera' I would have as my #2 of last year, err, 2002,
followed by 'Éloge de l'amour' (both 2001 films, but I saw them at the
Seattle festival summer before last -- along with 'Millennium Mambo').
As always, it's worth remarking that I haven't seen everything by any
stretch of the imagination -- haven't seen the latest Marker, the final
Monteiro, the Moodysson, etc., and that's just the M's who interest me;
nor the latest Sokurov, Ruiz, last three Oliveiras, etc. As for the
rest of the entries in my top 10, I honestly couldn't even properly
formulate it. The best theatrical experiences I had in addition to the
Assayas were revivals -- 'Tokyo Twilight' and 'Au hasard Balthazar.' I
can't even remember what I saw this year, but for American films I'd
rate 'Down with Love,' 'Lost in Translation,' and 'Mystic River' as
among the best.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6065
From:
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 6:46pm
Subject: Re: List and blurb
"As always, it's worth remarking that I haven't seen everything by any
stretch of the imagination -- haven't seen the latest Marker, the final
Monteiro, the Moodysson, etc., and that's just the M's who interest me;
nor the latest Sokurov, Ruiz, last three Oliveiras, etc. As for the
rest of the entries in my top 10, I honestly couldn't even properly
formulate it. The best theatrical experiences I had in addition to the
Assayas were revivals -- 'Tokyo Twilight' and 'Au hasard Balthazar.' "
I'm in the same boat, missed a shameful number of movies this year, including
TEN, MILMAMBO, LILYA, PLATFORM... But what can you do when there are so many
great revivals on tap? The Ozu retro was certainly the highlight of my year.
6066
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 0:22am
Subject: Re: minnelli and walters
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> I also recall that in another interview (don't
> remember where) Rivette hailed Walters as superior to
> Minnelli in his direction of musicals.
I think this is in Rivette's review of UNSINKABLE MOLLY BROWN.
As you all know, Walters is a particular favorite of mine.
> Moerover much of the musical staging in Minnelli was
> actually done by Walters (all the numbers in "Meet Me
> in St.Louis," the "Madame Crematon" number in
> "Ziegfeld Follies")
Those are the only films in which Walters worked with Minnelli that I
can think of off the top of my head. In your book, David, didn't you
say that Walters cordially loathed Minnelli--or words to that effect?
(So did Cukor, as I think you also note. And so did Donen.) Of
course, Minnelli's collaboration with his choreographers was never
one in which he simply handed over direction of musical numbers to
them and to my eyes the numbers in ST. LOUIS look more like Minnelli
than they do Walters. In fact, even though I enjoy a number of
Walters films, I'm not sure that I could describe his style. And, in
fact, didn't Walters hand over direction of musical numbers in some
of his films to others? Robert Alton gets credit for both
choreography and direction of the musical numbers in things like GOOD
NEWS, EASTER PARADE and THE BELLE OF NEW YORK. And some of the
production numbers in EASY TO LOVE and JUMBO look completely like
Berkeley. I wonder how much input Walters actually had here. Have
you done any research? And since you're such a huge fan, do you have
a reading of Walters's style that you could offer? I think Dan
Sallitt is also a fan so maybe the two of you could make an auteurist
case here. (Sorry. I just re-read this and it sounds like some big,
obnoxious command for information and insight. Not my intention.
I'm genuinely curious about and interested in all of this.)
>and when Freed didn't like the dailies on "Gigi" he had Walters come
>in and re-shoot "The Night They Invented Champagne."
GIGI went through a complicated re-shooting period, part of which
Minnelli was involved in and part of which he was not, as much of it
took place after he left for Paris to shoot RELUCTANT DEBUTANTE. It
was at this point that Walters was brought in. Walters re-shot
portions of "She's Not Thinking of Me," which Minnelli had also re-
shot after Alan Jay Lerner requested close-ups and two-shots for it.
After Minnelli left, Lerner re-wrote some lyrics and Walters did some
work there. Lerner also disliked the pacing of Andre Previn's
conducting on "The Parisians" and requested a retake there. You can
still spot some of Minnelli's footage in the middle of the number, as
Caron walks around Paris, moving slightly faster than the tempo of
the song. Walters also shot bits and pieces of rewritten dialogue but
not, to my knowledge, any entire dialogue scenes. Walters also did
an entire reshoot of the title song on the backlot at MGM but
Minnelli's editor, Adrienne Fazan, fought hard and successfully to
keep Minnelli's version, which she thought vastly superior, in the
film. (Lerner thought that Minnelli's mise-en-scene was too
distracting, taking attention away from the lyrics.)
As for "The Night They Invented Champagne," that was directed by
Minnelli, who asked Walters to come in and supply choreography. But
Minnelli was still behind the camera. Contrary to some reports,
Walters had nothing to do with "I Remember It Well."
>
>
6067
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 1:22am
Subject: Re: Re: minnelli and walters
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
>
> Those are the only films in which Walters worked
> with Minnelli that I
> can think of off the top of my head. In your book,
> David, didn't you
> say that Walters cordially loathed Minnelli--or
> words to that effect?
As far as I know he never commented on Minnelli,
though I'm sure that given the opportunity he would
have supplied an earful. Minnelli was the Star
director at Metro, with prestige for miles. Walters
was the workhorse.But that workhorse won the Kentucky
Derby with "Easter Parade" -- one of the biggest hits
in the history on MGM. He got along swimmingly with
just about everyone-- though Hank Moonjean (an MGM,
a.d. --later a line producer of everything from
"Stroker Ace" to "Dangerous Liasons") loathed Walters
for personal reasons (stole a boyfriend way back
when.)
Walters got on with Garland far better than Minnelli
did, because it was a Will & Grace relationship all
the way. Strike that -- it was Jack & Karen more than
Will & Grace. Garland danced with Walters in the
finale of "Presenting Lily Mars" which he
choreographed and was directed by Minnelli. He also
danced with her in the "Embraceable You" number in
"Girl Crazy" (Norman Taurog).
Garland went through so much anguish making "The
Pirate" that her psychiatrist advised her never to
work with Minnelli again. The "Easter Parade" shoot
went swimmingly -- in stark contrast to the "Pirate"
shoot. Of course her problems had to do with a lot
more than her marriage,and at the end Walters was
selected to do "Summer Stock" because he could work
with her in ways that nobody else could. After a
fashion as it turned out because drugs, drink and
weight fluctuation made the shoot a nightmare. There
were light moments, however. When Garland did the
"Friendly Star" number in one take (as was typical
with her when things were going her way), ending with
a "Big fat close-up" Walters yelled out "Get me
towel,I've just come!" Judy loved that sort of thing.
They remained close to the end. When Garland played
the Palace, Walters did the "Couple of Swells" number
with her on stage.
In fact, even though I enjoy a
> number of
> Walters films, I'm not sure that I could describe
> his style.
It's extremely subtle. Like Hawks in some ways. He
sticks to very basic set-ups, but uses the actors very
dynamically and inevntively within them.
And, in
> fact, didn't Walters hand over direction of musical
> numbers in some
> of his films to others? Robert Alton gets credit
> for both
> choreography and direction of the musical numbers in
> things like GOOD
> NEWS, EASTER PARADE and THE BELLE OF NEW YORK.
Yes. But Alton was his S.O. at the time, so his input
goes without saying. In "Good News" I'd say "The
Varsity Drag" finale is pure Alton whereas "Pass That
Peace Pipe" is more Walters, because of its intimacy.
Of course when you've got chorus boys leaping on top
of soda fountains it's six of one half a dozen of the
other.
And
> some of the
> production numbers in EASY TO LOVE and JUMBO look
> completely like
> Berkeley.
Well that's because they ARE Berkeley. But "My
Romance" and "Little Girl Blue" are pure Walters.
Simple, intimate and rather intense for all of that.
I wonder how much input Walters actually
> had here. Have
> you done any research? And since you're such a huge
> fan, do you have
> a reading of Walters's style that you could offer?
I'm still working on it. He's not an auteur, but he's
a personal stylist nonetheless. "Ask Any Girl" is a
marvelous comedy. Raymond Durgnat wrote about it most
insightfully in "Films and Feelings."
Thanks for the more precise info on "Gigi."
One thing about Walters vs. Minnelli that the Rivette
interview confirms -- Minnelli could get THINGS to
move, but people weren't his strong suit. That's where
Walters came in.
Incidentally, Walters was quite friendly with Cukor.In
the Cukor file I found a very nice note Walters sent
him, complimenting him on "Les Girls" and indicating
he knew quite well the problems Cukor faced making it
ie. not feeling musicals were his genre while
directing one that starred Gene Kelly -- a VERY
difficult man. Walters signed the note "Madeleine
Carroll."
Now THAT'S camp!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6068
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 1:49am
Subject: Re: minnelli and walters
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> When Garland did the
> "Friendly Star" number in one take (as was typical
> with her when things were going her way), ending with
> a "Big fat close-up" Walters yelled out "Get me
> towel,I've just come!" Judy loved that sort of thing.
>
>
> It's actually three shots, not one take -- or possibly
editing was involved, but it is indeed remarkable as the camera
follows her from inside the house (where she turns out the lights --
as in Minnelli...) to the outside singing 24 bars -- no less! -- of
the song to the end of the release. Then there's a cut, then 8 more
bars to "There you are" then the tag with that great camera move
tracking back and to the left, leaving Garland to frame Kelly sitting
in the chair and then finding Garland again behing Kelly (still the
same take) on the last last words of the song. Wonderful!!!
JPC
6069
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 1:52am
Subject: Re: Director Books & Minnelli Today
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
"Note that the musicals and comedies were shown in the LACMA
auditorium, which pulls in an older, AFI-list audience, while the
melos were shown in the much smaller(and less comfortable) Bridges
Auditorium at Melnitz, nestled within the groves of Academe. That
tells me that your impression is true,even though lip service is paid
to VM's versatility in the body of the release."
There was a Minnelli retrospective shown at LACMA in the early 1990s
that screened only the comedies and melodramas. If memory serves it
was called "Non-Musical Minnelli."
"Another indication would be how many of them are out on DVD. If it's
a much smaller percentage than the musicals, that says something,
given that MGM and Turner are pretty good about exploiting the
archives."
During the early 1990s many of the comedies and melodramas were
released on laser disc, including THE CLOCK, MADAME BOVARY, THE BAD
AND THE BEAUTIFUL, FATHER OF THE BRIDE, LUST FOR LIFE, THE COBWEB,
TEA AND SYMPATHY, DESIGNING WOMAN, HOME FROM THE HILL, SOME CAME
RUNNING, and TWO WEEKS IN ANOTHER TOWN. This suggests to me that
this centenial retrospective may reflect the Academy's evaluation of
Minnelli or whoever is curating this series. On the other hand, at
present there are fewer non-musicals available on dvd, so maybe there
has been some kind of general shift of opinion as to the value of
Minnelli's comedies and melodramas.
Richard
6070
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 1:56am
Subject: Re: minnelli and walters
David, thanks so much for the information on Walters. Very
interesting and informative. I didn't know that Minnelli had worked
on the finale for LILY MARS. Where did you find this info?
I quickly did a bit of research of my own since I posted that note
and Walters has claimed that he left the production numbers on GOOD
NEWS and EASTER PARADE to Alton and that he concentrated on the more
intimate numbers (a bit like Hawks on BLONDES). It sounds like he
did this throughout the rest of his career as well. What seems a bit
unusual in this regard is that Walters was originally a dancer and
choreographer so his lack of comfort with big numbers is a bit odd
but perhaps symptomatic of where his interests are.
> One thing about Walters vs. Minnelli that the Rivette
> interview confirms -- Minnelli could get THINGS to
> move, but people weren't his strong suit. That's where
> Walters came in.
Well...I don't know about that, at least in terms of Minnelli not
knowing how to move people around. I did respond to Rivette's claims
about VM in this regard in an online Danish magazine, 16:9, this past
June, particularly in relation to SOME CAME RUNNING. I've plugged
this piece earlier here and I probably shouldn't do it again lest I
seem like Constance Collier in STAGE DOOR, lugging around my bag of
the same old sorry clippings to show to bored people. Anyway, if I
try to find the URL for it now I'll lose this note. But I can always
pass it on in separate post later, to interested parties.
And if you want to talk about camp, how about Walters and TORCH SONG?
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
> http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6071
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 2:05am
Subject: Re: The end of cinema?
This past weekend, I saw a TV program about Frank Sinatra who
recorded a set of his performances on film for the specific purpose
of obtaining the best "audio" recording. The video is not bad, either,
tho some of the prints were quite vinegary. These prints are all
being re-stored and I suspect will elicit a "nostalgia" all things black
and white, pre-computer, cell phones, etc for a generation not
familiar with 'classics.'
There will be an immense flow of large screen showings of all classics
once the satellite transmissions are in place in the next 5-10 years,
if not sooner, and I suspect the quality will be good.
Hollywood is merely riding the DVD wave right now; when that wave
demands more 'extras" than available for many of these
classics, Hollywood will release these films for satellite transmission,
around the world.
But I agree, there seems to be a lack of appreciation of these classics
by Hollywood producers who are ready to make expensive, yet inferior, re-makes
rather than re-issue popular winners
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tosh wrote:
> It's interesting to read the thoughts here about making director film
> lists. Basically the Guardian's list are not the greatest filmmakers
> in the world - but one's who are alive and still making films.
>
> This is probably a harsh thing to say: but I think the golden age of
> cinema is now over. There are stuff that are made now, but in no way
> is it good as the older stuff.
>
> Since I am not in the film business, I don't feel that bad about it.
> I just wish that there was more revival theaters out there - because
> I prefer seeing an old film shown in a proper setting. And luckly
> through the medium of video and DVD, one can watch an endless amount
> of classic older films. It is also great that there are companies
> out there that re-releases Melville, Godard, etc.
>
> So basically what I am saying is that it would be great if Hollywood
> stopped making movies for about two years - and just re-show some of
> their older catalog in proper settings.
>
> Instead of putting out the latrst Hugh Grant film - why not just
> release a new print of 'His Gal Friday,' or some other classic.
> There are so many masterpieces that have been made -they should just
> get a committee or two or three to re-release them.
>
> Of course this is totally an aesthetic urge and I understand that
> people need to make their living making bad films, etc.
>
>
> --
> Tosh Berman
> TamTam Books
> http://www.tamtambooks.com
6072
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 2:20am
Subject: Re: Re: The end of cinema?
>
> Hollywood is merely riding the DVD wave right now; when that wave
> demands more 'extras" than available for many of these
> classics, Hollywood will release these films for satellite
> transmission,
> around the world.
Can you explain more fully what you mean by satellite transmissions?
Are you just predicting, or is there some ten-year-plan in place that
I'm unaware of? Or does this have to do with the fact that while they
won't want to spend money on manufacturing/distribution of discs on
some of the more obscure classics, the studios will wait for
"digital/HD view-on-demand" to become the commonplace relationship
between viewer and television (as opposed to passive catch-as-catch-can
programming, as television as operated since its inception)?
cmk.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6073
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 2:22am
Subject: Re: Re: The end of cinema?
>
> > This is probably a harsh thing to say: but I think the golden age of
> > cinema is now over. There are stuff that are made now, but in no way
> > is it good as the older stuff.
The golden age of Hollywood cinema? Hard to disagree. If you mean the
golden age of cinema, period, I hardly agree. Taking cinema as a
whole, I'm hard-pressed to find any one era that would qualify as a
definitive "golden age."
cmk.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6074
From:
Date: Fri Jan 2, 2004 9:54pm
Subject: Re Richard Matheson (was Auteurs on The Twilight Zone)
Bill Krohn's article on Richard Matheson is terrific!
It is at:
http://www.wga.org/WrittenBy/0399/Matheson.html
Matheson has long seemed to be one of the world's best screen writers.
At the time of the making of one of the versions of Matheson's novel "I Am
Legend", its star Charlton Heston gave a typical celebrity interview that
appeared in the newspaper. Heston said that his involvement in the project started
originally when Orson Welles recommended the book to him - Welles was a big
admirer of Matheson's fiction. (This is the best I can do with source at this
late date - but a file of Heston's publicity interviews for the picture might
dredge up specifics.) The book is most ingenious. And Tobe Hooper's video for
Billy Idol's "Dancing With Myself" does recall it...
Around 1973 I wrote a fan letter to Matheson, and received a very nice letter
back. "Horror" people tend to be the kindest human beings. Theory: they use
up all their aggression on the printed page, leaving them kind and decent in
their personal lives!
Mike Grost
PS As a teenager, a friend suggested that I was just like the monster
protagonist of Matheson's story "Born of Man and Woman", who liked to "hang on the
wall and drip green." This seemed a little extreme at the time.
Actually, I drip chartreuse...
6075
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 3:00am
Subject: The Song Is ended (but the memory lingers on)
Haven't you heard, it's in the stars... Well, yes, we've had the end
of cinema and the end of history and the end of everything (including
God) but lo and behold they all somehow, like it or not, are still
around. Golden age, my ass, as Zazie would say. Of course we no
longer "go to the cinema" (this doesn't sound right in English -- "on
ne va plus au cinema" is more like it)and the magic has vanished. And
they don't make them the way they used to, sure, but fortunately they
don't. I mean do you want to be stuck in a timeless groove
redoing/reliving all the past decades?
Cinema is as strong as ever. The problem is, for many people
(including me) how to get access to the good stuff.
JPC
PS Sorry Fred I've burst into song again! I promise I'll never
dance on your ceiling, though.
6076
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 3:00am
Subject: satellite transmissions
A few years back when I was still reading Investor's Business Daily and
the dot-com wave was rolling along, the idea of a circle of 24 satellites
orbiting the earth was discussed. It is a $5 billion project and goes well
beyond entertainment, including transfer of all sorts of information.
A consortium of companies, the likes of Microsoft, Pfizer, Walmart,
Citibank, etc. will probably do it. All this got de-railed with the economic
bust of the past few years...but it is coming. The USA will soon have no
product, other than information and entertainment, that it can export to
other countries as any product we make can be made cheaper elsewhere.
In order to prevent the piracy of info and entertainment products, "digital
transmission" will be the only 'product,' encoded in such a way that it
cannot be copied.
The last installment of MATRIX was released in the USA and China on the
same day. Who would have predicted that even 2 years ago?
The third world is not going analog; they will be very few telephone lines
in China, even fewer reels of film, but digital cameras all over the place,
especially after the 2008 Olympics, if not sooner. Sony is already training
teams in digital camera use for Olympic coverage (even if the training will
be obsolete by then!)
Digital TV offers digital on demand for recent releases, but there is also
the opportunity to view HBO, Show, TCM, Cinemax on demand, These each
offer about 50 different showings every month for about $7.00 total. You
could watch all of SOPRANOS, SEX IN THE CITY, and innumerable movies from
the past few years, and rarely, a classic. You can watch whenever and as
often and with stops, rewinds, etc. These digital TV box connections also offer a
digital recorder (breaking into the tivo market).
Even on the internet, you can go to www.movieflix.com and see something like
QUEEN KELLY (maybe free or see all available for $6/mo). Not ideal viewing, but
certainly better than not seeing it, and only going to get better over time.
Distribution and screenings will not be the problem...content will, as well as
separating the grain from the shaft.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
> >
> > Hollywood is merely riding the DVD wave right now; when that wave
> > demands more 'extras" than available for many of these
> > classics, Hollywood will release these films for satellite
> > transmission,
> > around the world.
>
> Can you explain more fully what you mean by satellite transmissions?
> Are you just predicting, or is there some ten-year-plan in place that
> I'm unaware of? Or does this have to do with the fact that while they
> won't want to spend money on manufacturing/distribution of discs on
> some of the more obscure classics, the studios will wait for
> "digital/HD view-on-demand" to become the commonplace relationship
> between viewer and television (as opposed to passive catch-as-catch-can
> programming, as television as operated since its inception)?
>
> cmk.
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6077
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 3:08am
Subject: Re: SIZE OF THE IMAGE
While there is a difference between cinema and home cinema, the notion
of "Size of Image" (SoI) is largely psychological, IMO.
1) Right seating
In order to see the entire screen (1,33:1) one has to have a 45-50
degree field of vision, one has to sit aprx 1,5 times screen width
away from the screen. This corresponds roughly to sitting 2/3rds of
the way back. Since 1953 this rule of thumb was distorted, as
widescreen entered the cinema. While I can't remember if standard
widescreen (1,85:1) was an improvement (I believe it was due to its
geometry), Scope wasn't, as the screen was 77% wider than AA and 27%
wider than WS, thus pushing the degree of field of vision to 60; so
either one had to sit all the way in the back or some of the screen
was catched periphal.
But as a rule of thumb, 1,5 times screen and 2/3rds back is "right
seating".
2) TV seating
If you sit 75 feet away from a 50 feet screen or you sit 75 inches
away from a 50 inch plasma TV wont change your perception, as the SoI
will be exactly the same. So in theory right seating at home and in
the theater gives you the same image.
While the standard TV screen size up until WSTV was 28 inches and
today with WSTV is 32, the right home seating is 42 inches (3,5 feet)
to 48 inches (4 feet) from the screen. Some will say that is sitting
with your nose on the screen and ones mother always told us, that
sitting so close ruins out eyes (and it probably does/did). Most
people use the "fist" rule of thumb (don't know its origin) which says
that the screen should be as large as your fist and suggests sitting
3-4 times screen width away. This will of course give you a good look
at your shelf / wall aswell, but you can always avoid this by watching
TV with the lights off. Yet your SoI is half of the one at the cinema.
But Home Vision entusiats always have the right seating and with sound
ranging from 5,1 surround to 7,1 EX DTS you will in most cases get
superior sound than in the theatre.
3) TV vs. Film
An obvious problem with TV is its resolution. Even HDTV is inferior to
film. Resolution will eventually surpass film and has already done so
on a small scale. The integration of 4K CGI onto film (Clone Wars,
Solaris) is perfect and one cannot tell the difference.
The real problem is texture. Film has grain and a warmth given my its
photochemicality. TV is electronic. Purists will time and time again
tell you about real vs. fake and to some extend they are right, as the
texture are very different. This is something I don't know much about,
but where you can adjust your TV set according to THX standards, a
projectionist will most likely utter a giggle at the idea of
"optimizing TV" and being telling you about contrast, lambers and
illumination.
4) Details
As mentioned above there is a considerable difference in details
between traditional TV (even low HDTV) and Film. This allows film to
have a richer field of detail, especially in depth. One can test this,
on a small scale, at home (if you have a DVD) by simply altering the
signal between Video and RGB (or Super Video).
But there also is a difference in details between stock. JK mentioned
the resolution of 70mm next to 35mm, one could also note upon
VistaVision vs. Panavision, Pre 1984 Kodak vs. Post 1984 Kodak and so
on. If we really want to become purists, one also has to watch films
only filmed on a certain material :)
5) My Point of View
While I agree that one could easily say in the past that watching film
at the cinema and at home were two different things, I dont agree that
much any more. Home TV Screens are getting bigger and better. HDTV
projectors are now available at affortable cost, so are decent sound
systems.
IMO the difference is more psychological than actual. The temperature
in the theatre, the smell, the seats and the entire presence of
"cinema" does affect our viewing experience.
Henrik
6078
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 3:15am
Subject: Re: minnelli and walters
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> As far as I know he never commented on Minnelli,
> though I'm sure that given the opportunity he would
> have supplied an earful. Minnelli was the Star
> director at Metro, with prestige for miles. Walters
> was the workhorse.But that workhorse won the Kentucky
> Derby with "Easter Parade" -- one of the biggest hits
> in the history on MGM.
David, where did George Sidney fit in the Metro hierarchy? I would
have figured Sidney would have been regarded as the work house, while
Walters was more of a talented, fun craftsperson to Minnelli's
artist. I know that's how I regard them artistically. Still, Good
News strikes me as being what the rest of the world claims Singin' In
The Rain is, and an occasion when Walters's exuberant humaneness
became Art.
An interesting sidenote regarding Walters, along with Wyler, Huston,
Wilder, Zinnemann and, ultimately, Ford, Walters was one of the most
vociferous opponents of the loyalty oath put forth by Cecil B.
DeMille at the legendary DGA meeting in 1950. I remember being
surprised at the time thinking that from his films Walters seemed
completely apolitical. But as a friend pointed out, Walters probably
realized that if they could go after the Commies, they would
certainly go after the queers.
6079
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 3:24am
Subject: Re: The end of cinema?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> >
> > > This is probably a harsh thing to say: but I think the golden
age of
> > > cinema is now over. There are stuff that are made now, but in
no way
> > > is it good as the older stuff.
>
> The golden age of Hollywood cinema? Hard to disagree. If you mean
the
> golden age of cinema, period, I hardly agree. Taking cinema as a
> whole, I'm hard-pressed to find any one era that would qualify as a
> definitive "golden age."
>
> cmk.
I strongly disagree. The Golden area stopped in 1948 (give or take a
few years), but did film die then? Did film die with television? No,
it transformed, it adapted, it overcame.
I believe we are on the doorstep of a new Golden Age. I believe that
the endless stream of idiotic and stupifying block busters will allow
cinemas to open their doors to smaller films.
As b-film allowed the a-film to make a profit, so will the block
buster today allow the theatre owners to make enough profit to show
small film.
Film will never die. It will alter and change form, but it will never
die.
6080
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 3:25am
Subject: Re: SIZE OF THE IMAGE
How many inches is the fist from the eyes in this rule of thumb?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow" wrote:
>Most people use the "fist" rule of thumb (don't know its origin) which says
> that the screen should be as large as your fist and suggests sitting
> 3-4 times screen width away.
6081
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 3:52am
Subject: Re: satellite transmissions
> "digital
> transmission" will be the only 'product,' encoded in such a way that it
> cannot be copied.
No such thing. "Copyability" is the WHOLE POINT of digital computation
and recording.
-sam
6082
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 4:00am
Subject: Re: SIZE OF THE IMAGE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow" wrote:
> The real problem is texture. Film has grain and a warmth given my its
> photochemicality.
Agree, but I do believe it should be possible to preserve film texture in electronic
exhibition.
> But there also is a difference in details between stock. JK mentioned
> the resolution of 70mm next to 35mm,
70 to 35, sure, in 65/70 there's "more of it"
> VistaVision vs. Panavision,
Well today it would be more useful to say "Super35/spherical camera optics vs. 35/
anamorphic camera optics. I don't think it's a cut and dried truth one is always better
than the other.
>Pre 1984 Kodak vs. Post 1984 Kodak
?? Explain ?
-Sam
6083
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 4:31am
Subject: Re: SIZE OF THE IMAGE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> >Pre 1984 Kodak vs. Post 1984 Kodak
>
> ?? Explain ?
>
> -Sam
I believe it was in 1984, when a bunch of film makers collected
signatures (helmed by Scorsese and Lucas I believe); Please correct me
if I am wrong. The problem was that the quality of Kodak's film was so
bad that they simply told Kodak, that unless certain quality demands
were met, the film makers, who had signed the list, would not use
Kodak anymore.
Henrik
6084
From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 4:48am
Subject: Re: Re: SIZE OF THE IMAGE
>
> I believe it was in 1984, when a bunch of film makers collected
> signatures (helmed by Scorsese and Lucas I believe); Please correct me
> if I am wrong. The problem was that the quality of Kodak's film was so
> bad that they simply told Kodak, that unless certain quality demands
> were met, the film makers, who had signed the list, would not use
> Kodak anymore.
Wasn't this more around the time of 'Raging Bull' / 1980? I recall
Godard bringing it up in the little symposium with Pauline Kael
transcripted in the David Sterritt-edited 'JLG Interviews' book, which
was around the time of 'Sauve qui peut (la vie)' (I -think-), so 1980
-- his remark was something to the effect of, "Film degrades, that's
what happens. Scorsese is wasting his time."
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6085
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 4:54am
Subject: Re: minnelli and walters
So was Walters gay?
6086
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 4:59am
Subject: TV schedule for DIRECTORS
http://www.tv-now.com/stars/
lets you search for films by stars or DIRECTORS for TV screenings over the next
month.
6087
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 5:20am
Subject: Rene Clair UNDER THE ROOF TOPS OF PARIS
Criterion's UNDER THE ROOF TOPS OF PARIS has a 1965 BBC interview
with Rene Clair. Even then, cinema was in always in a 'crisis,' as with the
talkies, and TV. As you well know, Clair was concerned early cinema
would loose its inventiveness with sound.
In 1965, he said "what we call cinema today, we do not know what it be
will exactly."
...if you realize that cinema is not 100 years old... no one believed
the future of the invention (in 1895), the talkies,
...Hollywood in 1945 did not believe tv would invade half of its empire
...how can we predict, we are unable to know what it will be
6088
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 5:53am
Subject: Re: Re: minnelli and walters
--- joe_mcelhaney wrote:
I didn't know that
> Minnelli had worked
> on the finale for LILY MARS. Where did you find
> this info?
I'm sure Steven Harvey mentions it in his book.
Minnelli also did the finale for"Lovely to Look At."
>
> I quickly did a bit of research of my own since I
> posted that note
> and Walters has claimed that he left the production
> numbers on GOOD
> NEWS and EASTER PARADE to Alton and that he
> concentrated on the more
> intimate numbers (a bit like Hawks on BLONDES). It
> sounds like he
> did this throughout the rest of his career as well.
> What seems a bit
> unusual in this regard is that Walters was
> originally a dancer and
> choreographer so his lack of comfort with big
> numbers is a bit odd
> but perhaps symptomatic of where his interests are.
>
Not really. He excelled at intimate bits of business
with small numbers of people. As a dance director he
was in the business of teching people routines in a
one-on-one way, much like Astire would teach Hermes
Pan steps that Pan would teach Ginger Rogers.
>
>
>
> And if you want to talk about camp, how about
> Walters and TORCH SONG?
> >
Well Joan Crawford in a musical is automatic camp.
Walters gave a somewhat extensive interview in the
1960s to "Film and Filming" (who else?) and they
illustrated it with a picture of him parnering
Crawford at rehearsal. He could deal with devious
divas because he ahd such a bawdy sense of humor --
and they all loved it.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6089
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 5:57am
Subject: Re: Re: minnelli and walters
Is the Pope Catholic?
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> So was Walters gay?
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6090
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:08am
Subject: Re: Re: minnelli and walters
--- Damien Bona wrote:
>
> David, where did George Sidney fit in the Metro
> hierarchy? I would
> have figured Sidney would have been regarded as the
> work house, while
> Walters was more of a talented, fun craftsperson to
> Minnelli's
> artist. I know that's how I regard them
> artistically.
Sidney wa fun too in his heyday. His commentary on the
DVD of "The Harvey Girls" is very amusing and
informative. And leave us not forget he's responsible
of the very best Elvis Presley musical,"Viva Las
Vegas."
Still, Good
> News strikes me as being what the rest of the world
> claims Singin' In
> The Rain is, and an occasion when Walters's
> exuberant humaneness
> became Art.
I wouldn't discount "High Society" either -- though
everyone seems to. It was just as big a hit as "Easter
Parade." And the added kick is that needing a number
for Crosby and Sinatra to do together, Cole Porter
took "Week Did You Evah?" from the score of "DuBarry
Was a Lady." This number was sung and danced in the
original show by Charles Walters and Betty Grable.
MGM bought the show, and picked up several of its
players, Walters included. Grable, however, went to
Fox instead -- and the rest is history.
Oh to have been a fly on the wall as Chuck taught Bing
and Frank how to camp it up!
>
> An interesting sidenote regarding Walters, along
> with Wyler, Huston,
> Wilder, Zinnemann and, ultimately, Ford, Walters was
> one of the most
> vociferous opponents of the loyalty oath put forth
> by Cecil B.
> DeMille at the legendary DGA meeting in 1950. I
> remember being
> surprised at the time thinking that from his films
> Walters seemed
> completely apolitical. But as a friend pointed out,
> Walters probably
> realized that if they could go after the Commies,
> they would
> certainly go after the queers.
>
Well historically they were one and the same. Burgess
and McLain, Hiss and Chambers. And leave us not forget
the central role played by the Borgia of closet
queens, Roy Cohn.
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Find out what made the Top Yahoo! Searches of 2003
http://search.yahoo.com/top2003
6091
From: samfilms2003
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:35am
Subject: Re: SIZE OF THE IMAGE
Sorry, I missed what the context was. I don't know the exact date but
yes -- although the complaint raised by Martin Scorsese et al at that
time was about the short life span specifically of Eastman color print
stock. (Kodak offered a more stable alternative at a higher price, by
then, but it was rarely used).
-Sam
> I believe it was in 1984, when a bunch of film makers collected
> signatures (helmed by Scorsese and Lucas I believe); Please correct me
> if I am wrong. The problem was that the quality of Kodak's film was so
> bad that they simply told Kodak, that unless certain quality demands
> were met, the film makers, who had signed the list, would not use
> Kodak anymore.
>
> Henrik
6092
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 6:58am
Subject: Re: minnelli and walters
I second David on Sidney's Harvey Girls commentary - relaxed and
freewheeling, it has good information about young Garland, mentions
in passing Sidney's brief blacklisting (!), and generally gives a
very good feeling for what MGM was like for someone who was
practically born there. A point that struck me: Sidney says that most
of the Golden Age moguls were musically-inclined.
6093
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 7:03am
Subject: Re: Richard Matheson
Thanks, Mike. I met Matheson while working on that piece - he lent me
copies of his scripts for Shrinking Man and Usher to copy. A "bear of
a man," as the cliche goes, in Bermuda shorts, living in one of those
gated communities to the south and west where so many from H'wd
settle - his SUV's license plate reads "RNR 1," and his wife's, "RNR-
2." Very nice guy, as you noted. He autographed my Gold Medal
Original of Shrinking Man, which scared the living crap out of me
when I was 12 or so. I was not able to get into his last novel,
Hunted Past Reason, but will go back when I'm in a more leisurely
mood - lots of detail at the start about hiking, which I assume
builds to a shattering experience later on.
6094
From:
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 5:18am
Subject: Re: Re: minnelli and walters
In a message dated 1/2/04 9:18:03 PM, damienbona@y... writes:
> Still, Good
> News strikes me as being what the rest of the world claims Singin' In
> The Rain is
>
Which is what?
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6095
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 2:58pm
Subject: Re: Director Books & Minnelli Today
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
>
>
> During the early 1990s many of the comedies and melodramas were
> released on laser disc, including THE CLOCK, MADAME BOVARY, THE BAD
> AND THE BEAUTIFUL, FATHER OF THE BRIDE, LUST FOR LIFE, THE COBWEB,
> TEA AND SYMPATHY, DESIGNING WOMAN, HOME FROM THE HILL, SOME CAME
> RUNNING, and TWO WEEKS IN ANOTHER TOWN. This suggests to me that
> this centenial retrospective may reflect the Academy's evaluation
>of Minnelli or whoever is curating this series. On the other hand,
>at present there are fewer non-musicals available on dvd, so maybe
>there has been some kind of general shift of opinion as to the value
>of Minnelli's comedies and melodramas.
>
So many of Minnelli's films were released on laser by MGM/UA in the
early '90s because of who was in charge of making decisions on what
titles would get released from the Turner archives. One man in
particular, George Feltenstein, was (and is) a big Minnelli fan and
stated at the time that his plan was to release every Minnelli film
on laser. And he almost made it before he and his staff were fired.
(Some of the titles Feltenstein put out, like TWO WEEKS and THE
COBWEB, have still only received laser release, not VHS.) We also
have him to thank for putting out rarities like a letterboxed PARTY
GIRL or double-disc sets of things like I LOVE MELVIN and THE BELLE
OF NEW YORK or EASY TO LOVE and TEXAS CARNIVAL.
The pitiful selection of Minnelli titles on DVD at the moment is a
sign of the shift at work from when a small group of cinephiles are
responsible for putting out classic titles to when a major
corporation does it alone, as all of Turner is now released by Warner
Bros. Warners has more titles than they can effectively handle and
so major films languish, waiting for "restoration" before they can
meet the supposedly high standards of the DVD format. And so we have
(for Minnelli) no MEET ME IN ST. LOUIS, no BAND WAGON, no CABIN IN
THE SKY, no SOME CAME RUNNING (even though they released every other
crappy Rat Pack movie last year), etc. But these films are only the
tip of the iceberg of things Warners has yet to put out. So far, no
Astaire/Rogers, none of the Val Lewton films, no OUT OF THE PAST, no
Garbo (although GRAND HOTEL is due very soon), no Hitchcock Warners
titles except for STRANGERS, no MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS, and almost
none of their classic silent titles.
6096
From:
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 10:05am
Subject: Madison, Indiana
TCM regularly shows a little documentary, comparing what Madison locations
look like today, versus their appearance in "Some Came Running" (Minnelli,
1959). It is surprizing how much more "Minnellian" everything looks like in the
1959 movie. The director's choice of camera angles, staging, and color schemes
all combine to make these real life locations look as if they were invented by
and for Minnelli in the film. When you see these same locations today in the
documentary, they have little of any Minnelli-like feel.
I also saw a documentary on the making of "Touch of Evil" (Welles, 1958).
Once again, real life Venice, California locations today looked far more
Wellesian when paraded across Welles' camera in his movie.
TCM also shows a 1956 short documentary about the making of "Lust For Life",
called "Darkness Into Light"; and a clip of William Gibson discussing his
novel "The Cobweb", followed by him introducing the amazing cast of the film. They
all parade down a staircase, and smile at the camera in turn...
There is also an independent feature film called Madison (2001). It is
apparently a "family film" about a hydroplane race there. It has been screened at
some regional film festivals, and is reportedly inching its way towards some
sort of national distribution deal.
Mike Grost
6097
From:
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 10:28am
Subject: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
Recently I've suffered through a series of films recommended by critics that
had almost no plot and very thin characterization. Just saw "Lost in
Translation" (Sophia Coppola); another extreme example is "What Time Is It There?"
These films have been touted by critics as masterpieces. They have almost no
story; nothing happens in them; and you know almost as little about the characters
at the end of the film as you do in the beginning. As far as I can tell,
neither of these films has much in the way of visual style. They seem to be
exercises in Minimalism - films in which nothing happens.
I never liked Minimalism is painting or sculpture - always found it to be a
worthless gimmick. Cinematic minimalism seems disasterous, too.
There are plenty of subtitled movies in which a LOT happens, and which are
rich in well developed characters and events. Recent examples include:
Character (Mike van Diem, 1997)
Alice et Martin (André Téchiné, 1998)
Dr. Akagi (Shohei Imamura, 1998)
Goya (Carlos Saura, 1999)
Solas (Benito Zambrano, 1999)
Malena (Giuseppe Tornatore, 2000)
La Veuve de St. Pierre (Patrice Leconte, 2000)
Nirgendwo in Afrika / Nowhere in Africa (Caroline Link, 2001)
I've been wholeheartedly recommending these films on my web site. But somehow
I get they impression that these films are considered "un-hip" by the
critical powers that be. "Telling a story, with real characters - how un-hip!" One
NEVER sees discussions of "Goya" or "Nowhere in Africa" in film journals,
despite these films' high quality.
Let's go further, and really stick my neck out.
Critics today are full of complaints about Hollywood films. They are vulgar,
they are made by committee, they are disgraces to the potential of the film
medium, and so on. Yet when I compare characterization in the Hollywood action
film "Daredevil" with that in "Lost in Translation" and "What Time Is It
There?", a funny thing happens. The protagonist Matt Murdock in "Daredevil" is
elaborately developed. We learn his whole life history, and see him in many modes.
Matt Murdock is a vastly better developed character than anybody in "Lost in
Translation" and "What Time Is It There?".
"Daredevil" seems to be a much better work of art than "Lost in Translation"
and "What Time Is It There?"
Mike Grost
6098
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 3:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: Director Books & Minnelli Today
Thanks to him also, I guess, for 7 WOMEN in scope.
But boos for ZABRISKIE POINT in scope -- with that awful horrible stupid
pop song at the end replacing the Pink Floyd. Is there anywhere one
can see Zabriskie Point correctly now?
joe_mcelhaney wrote:
>
> >
> So many of Minnelli's films were released on laser by MGM/UA in the
> early '90s because of who was in charge of making decisions on what
> titles would get released from the Turner archives. One man in
> particular, George Feltenstein, was (and is) a big Minnelli fan and
> stated at the time that his plan was to release every Minnelli film
> on laser. And he almost made it before he and his staff were fired.
>
6099
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 4:56pm
Subject: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism
A plot with a lot of things happening in it is hardly an indication
of a good film, or a required ingredient to make one. With such
criteria you would have to reject much that is most interesting in
modern cinema -- much of Tarkovski and Kiarostami to mention only
two, or a film like Erice's "El Sol del membrillo" and many others.
And the argument that there was no plot and no characterization was
also used back in the fifties against a film like "Voyage in Italy" --
just because it was not traditional plotting and traditional
characterization.
I still haven't seen "What Time is it There?" but I think a lot does
happen in "Lost in Translation" --little things but important things
emotionally. The characters are rich and complex (although not in a
highly dramatized way) and we learn a lot about them (especially the
Murray character) as the film develops. Actually the Murray character
reminded me a little of the Sanders character in "Voyage in Italy"
(culture shock, malaise...) which I watched several times recently.
The film does have visual style, too. I have seen few films that so
convincingly evoke the feeling of mild-to-intense clautrophobia and
alienation one can experience in a big hotel in a foreign country (or
even in your own country)-- and that's done through the use of
lighting and camera placements as well as through dialogue or actor
direction. I don't see the film's style as minimalism at all. I'd
prefer to call it intimate. Do you have anything against intimacy?
Perhaps the critics who praised "Lost in Translation" were relieved
to see one American film that didn't scream at them for a change...
JPC
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Recently I've suffered through a series of films recommended by
critics that
> had almost no plot and very thin characterization. Just saw "Lost
in
> Translation" (Sophia Coppola); another extreme example is "What
Time Is It There?"
> These films have been touted by critics as masterpieces. They have
almost no
> story; nothing happens in them; and you know almost as little about
the characters
> at the end of the film as you do in the beginning. As far as I can
tell,
> neither of these films has much in the way of visual style. They
seem to be
> exercises in Minimalism - films in which nothing happens.
,
> Mike Grost
6100
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Sat Jan 3, 2004 5:02pm
Subject: Re: Pro-Plot, Pro-Character, Anti-Minimalism Lost in Translation
Lost in Translation is ennui personified.
Its attraction to audiences speaks to their identification with the
content and characters.
I thought the Bill Murray character was a failure in career and family,
and probably in 'affairs,' as he was too depressed to participate.
Like the movie, he did the minimal required for job, his wife and
child, and girlfriend... and got away with it with the girlfriend; she
was the perfect match for him. It return, he got the minimum from
the relationship, and was happy with it, as are audiences with the
movie. {the most telling point is that these people did not have
sex together; that would have required too much effort; just drink
with me, that's all I want}
Coppola's skill is in tapping into this ennui, and giving the audience
the minimum required; it was perfect. Personally, I like more engaging
narrative, but when there is nothing to say, there is nothing to say.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Recently I've suffered through a series of films recommended by critics t=
hat
> had almost no plot and very thin characterization. Just saw "Lost in
> Translation" (Sophia Coppola); another extreme example is "What Time Is I=
t There?"
> These films have been touted by critics as masterpieces. They have almost=
no
> story; nothing happens in them; and you know almost as little about the c=
haracters
> at the end of the film as you do in the beginning. As far as I can tell, =
> neither of these films has much in the way of visual style. They seem to =
be
> exercises in Minimalism - films in which nothing happens.
> I never liked Minimalism is painting or sculpture - always found it to be=
a
> worthless gimmick. Cinematic minimalism seems disasterous, too.
>
> There are plenty of subtitled movies in which a LOT happens, and which ar=
e
> rich in well developed characters and events. Recent examples include:
> Character (Mike van Diem, 1997)
> Alice et Martin (André Téchiné, 1998)
> Dr. Akagi (Shohei Imamura, 1998)
> Goya (Carlos Saura, 1999)
> Solas (Benito Zambrano, 1999)
> Malena (Giuseppe Tornatore, 2000)
> La Veuve de St. Pierre (Patrice Leconte, 2000)
> Nirgendwo in Afrika / Nowhere in Africa (Caroline Link, 2001)
> I've been wholeheartedly recommending these films on my web site. But som=
ehow
> I get they impression that these films are considered "un-hip" by the
> critical powers that be. "Telling a story, with real characters - how un-=
hip!" One
> NEVER sees discussions of "Goya" or "Nowhere in Africa" in film journals,=
> despite these films' high quality.
>
> Let's go further, and really stick my neck out.
> Critics today are full of complaints about Hollywood films. They are vulg=
ar,
> they are made by committee, they are disgraces to the potential of the fi=
lm
> medium, and so on. Yet when I compare characterization in the Hollywood a=
ction
> film "Daredevil" with that in "Lost in Translation" and "What Time Is It =
> There?", a funny thing happens. The protagonist Matt Murdock in "Daredevi=
l" is
> elaborately developed. We learn his whole life history, and see him in ma=
ny modes.
> Matt Murdock is a vastly better developed character than anybody in "Lost=
in
> Translation" and "What Time Is It There?".
> "Daredevil" seems to be a much better work of art than "Lost in Translati=
on"
> and "What Time Is It There?"
>
> Mike Grost
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact