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.
6401
From: Tosh
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:52am
Subject: Tati Criterion
I have the original Criterion version of 'Playtime.' Is that not a
director's cut? I am running out of money!
--
Tosh Berman
TamTam Books
http://www.tamtambooks.com
6402
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:26am
Subject: Re: Re: losey on dvd
Is anyone here a fan of Losey's "Galileo"? Glancing at Kehr's Chicago Reader
capsules, he seems to be about as enthusiastic about this film as he does
anything by Losey - and it's readily available on DVD too.
And another Losey request: does anyone know the aspect ratio of "Secret
Ceremony"? I'm intrigued to check it out, but only a (presumably) pan-and-scanned
videotape is available and I only want to see it that way if it's 1.85 or
something.
Thanks,
Peter
6403
From: cjsuttree
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 6:31am
Subject: Re: voice-overs
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Yes, Joe, that's exactly my point. Thanx! But now that you've
mentioned The
> River, I'd be interested to hear of non-Hollywood, pre-1960 films
that fit the
> description better.
>
Louis Malle's _The Lovers_, for starter. Many French directors
(Truffant,
Resnais, Malle, Tavernier) like it, it imparts a literary feel to the
films.
(All the other examples I can think of are post-60, however.) And
Chris Marker's _Sans Soleil_, a female narrator no less.
While I'm at it, let me just gently point out that calling anyone who
doesn't agree with your "academic" approach a "terrorist" makes as
much sense as Rush Limbaugh slandering people with "feminazi."
(And it is in about equal bad taste, too.)
6404
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 6:31am
Subject: Re: Re: losey on dvd
Not crazy about "Galileo.' Would havce loved to have
seen the original production, which premiered here in
Los Angeles -- Losey directing Charles Laughton.
"Secret Ceremony" isn't in 'scope. "Boom!" most
definitely is.
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Is anyone here a fan of Losey's "Galileo"? Glancing
> at Kehr's Chicago Reader
> capsules, he seems to be about as enthusiastic about
> this film as he does
> anything by Losey - and it's readily available on
> DVD too.
>
> And another Losey request: does anyone know the
> aspect ratio of "Secret
> Ceremony"? I'm intrigued to check it out, but only
> a (presumably) pan-and-scanned
> videotape is available and I only want to see it
> that way if it's 1.85 or
> something.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Peter
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6405
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:32am
Subject: Re: Re: Zinnemann
Thanks to Jean-Pierre and Bob for their comments on Vitoux and "Five Days One
Summer." Given Zinnemann's less-than-stellar auteurist reputation, I kind of
suspected that Vitoux's admiration for "Five Days" was similar in nature to
the appeal late period Huston has for some auteurists. Per Kent Jones, I don't
know that Huston had ever made a film as personal or heartfelt as "Fat City"
at the time he made that one; and perhaps he didn't ever again, although "The
Dead" is a close second.
But I know that Bob is writing a piece on Zinnemann's whole career, so I am
most interested in reading that and seeing the key films besides "Five Days";
I'm mostly unfamiliar with Zinnemann's work.
Thanks again, guys.
Peter
6406
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:37am
Subject: Re: Re: losey on dvd
David Ehrenstein wrote:
>Not crazy about "Galileo.' Would havce loved to have
>seen the original production, which premiered here in
>Los Angeles -- Losey directing Charles Laughton.
I've not liked the films that I've seen in the American Film Theatre series
so far, but Kehr really emphasizes how visual Losey's is. So it seems that
it's not just filmed theatre - or am I wrong?
>"Secret Ceremony" isn't in 'scope. "Boom!" most
>definitely is.
And that's why I'm going to wait for a DVD for that one! Bill, is there
really a DVD? I can't find one after a brief search of the web.
Peter
6407
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:38am
Subject: Re: Re: voice-overs
cjsuttree wrote:
>And
>Chris Marker's _Sans Soleil_, a female narrator no less.
Marker's "One Day In the Life of Andrei Arsenevich" also has a female
narrator.
Peter
6408
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 6:49am
Subject: Re: Jour de fête / Criterion
My mistake, I was not yet awake. Sorry for the mixup.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tristan" wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Henrik Sylow"
> wrote:
> > The Criterion website says, "These DVDs will be identical to
> > Criterion's original releases in every way" and it has been
> confirmed
> > by Jon Mulvaney. So you owe us your arms and legs :)
> >
> > Henrik
>
>
> Um, it can't be identical to the already released version of Jour de
> Fete when there has been no DVD released by Criterion of Jour de
> Fete. He meant that Monsieur Hulot's Holiday and Mon Oncle will be
> identical. Playtime will be the director's cut, and the number of
> versions on Jour de Fete is just speculation.
6409
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 7:28am
Subject: Re: losey on dvd
David Ehrenstein:
>
> Oh it's much more than that. It's central to Losey's
> concerns about fortress/homes "invaded" by outsiders
> (see "The Servant," "Secret Ceremony" and "Boom!" or
> "Modesty Blaise Takes a Streetcar Named Noel Coward")
No, I agree about all that. It certainly has Losey's themes. But
while I've found Losey to usually be admirably focused at least part
of the time on story and character, I just find little to keep me
watching when I'm watching MODESTY BLAISE. (Well, except for Dirk
Bogarde's utter coolness.) It's just too much of a strained lark for
my tastes. And I suspect it's also a bit dated for me as well.
But like I said, when that Losey retro hits New York this year, I'll
be there to finally see this on a big screen, cause it really needs
it.
>
> On the terrace of Gabriel's house an Elizabeth Frink
> sculpture, much like the one she created for "These
> Are the Damned," is clearly visible.
Yeah, I noticed this, and even wondered if maybe MODESTY had been
shot in the same locale as THESE ARE THE DAMNED. That cliff-
overlooking-a-sea setting is a Loseyesque location if I ever saw one.
-Bilge
6410
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 7:51am
Subject: Secret Things
I just walked out of this French turkey in midstream. The story has
been done a million times in H'ws with Claudette Colbvert and/or Joan
Blondell, and done better. I don't see how adding lots of on-camera
female masturbation sequences "makes it new." Horrible fraud of a
director, and pretentious, too. Deville would have done the same
story much better.
6411
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 7:59am
Subject: Re: Female voiceovers
Interesting question. These have been popular in French films since
the 60s - "taking back the soundtrack" from imperialist male
voiceovers. But how important are non-diegetic voiceovers in fiction
film, anyway? I think the use of Walter Winchell types for this job
was largely confined to pseudo-documentary crime dramas, and was a
way of emulating newsreels.
Diegetic female voiceover that was missed: Secret Beyond the Door,
for which Lang originally wanted to have a different actress,
representing Bennett's unconscious mind. Hugely important in that
film, in Rebecca, in Letter to Three Wives, and in many other fiction
films. To me, these are as important as who narrates The
Untouchables, if not more.
Tons of documentaries have been narrated by women, here and in
France, but probably lots more since feminism. Actually, our editor
Ed Marx wanted Alfre Woodard to narrate the prologue to Four Men on a
Raft in It's All True, before he trumped himself by thinking of
Miguel Ferrer, who turned out not to know what The Magnificent
Ambersons was! (We actually turned DOWN Tim Robbins. Yikes!) In
France it was Moreau.
6412
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:50am
Subject: Re: Re: voice-overs
In a message dated 1/9/04 12:34:24 AM, cjsuttree@y... writes:
> While I'm at it, let me just gently point out that calling anyone who
> doesn't agree with your "academic" approach a "terrorist" makes as
> much sense as Rush Limbaugh slandering people with "feminazi."
> (And it is in about equal bad taste, too.)
>
Apparently you missed this post to which I was referring satirically:
"With all due respect, your educators are brainwashing you with
absolute crap. It would be better to take a bomb to your school and
start anew, burn most of your TEXTbooks--"
Sounds like terrorism to me.
Proud to straddle academia and criticism,
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6413
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:04am
Subject: Re: Re: Female voiceovers
In a message dated 1/9/04 2:01:42 AM, hotlove666@y... writes:
> But how important are non-diegetic voiceovers in fiction
> film, anyway?
>
Voiceovers can be detrimental to the fiction in the film which is why they're
not used often. But they still exist and their ideological function is
extremely important. The one that kicks off The Reckless Moment plays a crucial role
in the film.
Sad no one read my Reckless review,
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6414
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 6:43am
Subject: Re: Female voiceovers
One suspects the frequent use of both narration and flashbacks in radio might
have influenced it in 1940's movies. Orson Welles, whose "Citizen Kane" did
much to popularize both, came from a radio background.
"The Railway Children" (Lionel Jeffries, Britain, 1972) has a diegetic female
narrator - one of the children in the story. The original novel by E. Nesbit
(1907) has a third person narrator, and text originally attributed to this
narrator is put in the mouth of the heroine - sometime to odd effect, as in the
closing narration.
"Trenchcoat" (Michael Tuchner, 1983) is a parody of detective stories. It is
narrated with excerpts from the private eye novel being typed by its
writer-heroine (Margot Kidder). Lots of private eye parodies seem to have a spoof-tough
narration by their gumshoe heroes.
The Felix the Cat cartoons opened with the title song being such by a woman.
It is not quite narration, but it does set up the background and the
character. It often surprized me as a kid - such songs were usually sung by men, or by
a mixed voice chorus.
"Tell Them Wilie Boy Is Here" (Abraham Polonsky, 1969) opens with a
historical statement about the oppression of Native Americans. It is narrated by a
woman. She does not continue the narration throughout the film, if memory serves;
her statement is separated from the "action" of the story. She is clearly an
authority figure, like deep-voiced Reed Hadley at the start of all those 40's
semi-docs telling us The Truth about the FBI or the Treasury Department (see
"The Street With No Name", "T-Men"). I always thought Polonsky did this as a
deliberate political statement.
Maya Angelou has been a prolific narrator of documentaries in recent years;
and Linda Hunt has done some too. Not to mention Elizabeth Montgomery and "The
Panama Deception".
At the opposite extreme is Rohmer's "Perceval le gallois", where the group of
male and female narrators constantly show up on camera, in medieval costume
like everybody else in the tale. A mixed chorus also provides some singing
narration on the sound track of "The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail" (Kurosawa
Akira, 1945).
Mike Grost
6415
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 11:59am
Subject: Re: Female voice-overs?
> What's shocking to me isn't that there don't seem to be any non-diegetic
> female narrators but that there are so damned few diegetic ones also.
Letter from an Unknown Woman, Bonjour Tristesse... Rashomon?
6416
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 0:28pm
Subject: Re: voice-overs
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> now that you've mentioned The
> River, I'd be interested to hear of non-Hollywood, pre-1960 films that fit the
> description better.
The 1948 Chinese classic SPRINGTIME IN A SMALL TOWN was apparently noted for its use of the female narrator -- reviews of the recent remake noted that the narrator had been eliminated. Shelley Kraicer wrote at http://www.chinanowmag.com/filmreview/filmreview.htm : "The film's most innovative feature is Yuwen's strikingly modernistic voiceover, a half-whispered, half-incanted stream-of-consciousness that complicates and poeticizes the entire narrative. This narrator's voice, though clearly identified with Yuwen, is not fixed in any particular time; sometimes it anticipates action about to occur, sometimes it looks back omnisciently, sometimes it wonders, uncertainly, what is about to happen. Moreover, the film presents a split perspective, its text and its gaze often at odds. Though the voiceover is Yuwen's, the gaze seems to be Liyan's..."
6417
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 1:58pm
Subject: Re: female voice-overs, pre-1960
Kevin,
Haven't come up with any European or Asian non-diegetic female
narrators pre-1960 yet. But I did think of another use of a female
narrator in a pre-1960 Hollywood film who straddles diegetic and non-
diegetic: Joan Crawford's voice-over at the beginning of FLAMINGO
ROAD. She does, of course, play a character within the diegesis but
she doesn't really narrate as that character at the beginning of the
film. Instead, she establishes the setting, much the way that
omniscient male narrators tend to: "There's a Flamingo Road in every
town -- the street of social success..."
Just slightly outside of your time frame is a documentary on Hitler
called BLACK FOX (Oscar winner for Best Documentary feature in 1962)
narrated by Marlene Dietrich.
Do you know Sarah Kozloff's book on voice-over narration? She might
be able to supply you with some examples of what you're looking for.
(And I haven't forgotten to make those Preminger dupes for you.)
6418
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 2:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: losey on dvd
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I've not liked the films that I've seen in the
> American Film Theatre series
> so far, but Kehr really emphasizes how visual
> Losey's is. So it seems that
> it's not just filmed theatre - or am I wrong?
>
Well it is. But there's a great tradition for that.
Sacha Guitry is the master. And Alain Resnais is his
disciple in "Melo" and "Smoking/ No Smoking." More
recently there's Ozon's "8 Women."
I just didn't particularly care for Losey's "Galileo."
I saw it quite some time ago. Now that it's on DVD
I'll take another look.
I'm sure it was because of Topol.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6419
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 3:14pm
Subject: Re: Female voiceovers
> > But how important are non-diegetic voiceovers in fiction
> > film, anyway?
> Voiceovers can be detrimental to the fiction in the film which is why the=
y're
> not used often. But they still exist and their ideological function is
> extremely important.
They're essential to Duras' "Son nom de Venise dans Calcutta désert" ;-)
(But are they non-diagetic ? No and Yes at the same time....)
-Sam
6420
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 3:55pm
Subject: Re: Female voiceovers
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> > > But how important are non-diegetic voiceovers in fiction
> > > film, anyway?
>
>
> > Voiceovers can be detrimental to the fiction in the film which is
why the=
> y're
> > not used often. But they still exist and their ideological
function is
> > extremely important.
>
> They're essential to Duras' "Son nom de Venise dans Calcutta
désert" ;-)
>
> (But are they non-diagetic ? No and Yes at the same time....)
>
> -Sam
Which inevitably brings up the question: Are the female voice-
overs in "India Song" diegetic or non-diegetic? No and yes? Are they
calling for a re-definition of "diegetic"?
JPC
6421
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:09pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jour de fête / Criterion
> The Criterion website says, "These DVDs will be identical to
> Criterion's original releases in every way" and it has been confirmed
> by Jon Mulvaney. So you owe us your arms and legs :)
Not so fast, body-snatcher -- Criterion never released a previous
version of 'Jour de fête.' Their releases of 'M. Hulot's Holiday' and
'Mon oncle' are identical, for sure -- but their blurb goes on to say
to stay-tuned for forthcoming details on 'Jour de fête' and 'Playtime'
specifically.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6422
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:14pm
Subject: Re: Best Films SEEN in 2003
I am in Palm Springs for the PSIFF
If any one would care to take the time and scan this list and make
recommendations for films, I would appreciate it.
http://www.psfilmfest.org/search.asp
You can direct email to
eanmdphd@e... or use the board if your comments seem
appropriate.
thanks; and if it is too much, I understand.
thanks
Elizabeth
6423
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Female voiceovers
jpcoursodon wrote:
>-
>
> Which inevitably brings up the question: Are the female voice-
>overs in "India Song" diegetic or non-diegetic? No and yes? Are they
>calling for a re-definition of "diegetic"?
>
>
Perhaps Kevin would like to explain the point behind his adoption of the
standard academic distinction between "diegetic" (story-telling?) and
non-diegetic.
It seems to me that if some avant-garde filmmaker were to take some
footage from a Howard Hawks film, strip away the sound track, and add a
voice-over taken from, oh, a book on quantum mechanics, that voiceover
would be almost by definition diegetic rather than non-diegetic: it,
plus what glimmer we can get of the narrative on the screen from the
character movements without the original sound track, would tell its own
story. I've never liked the digetic/non-diegetic distinction because it
usually seems like a false split, false to the way any but the most
naive of viewers would experience a film. It usually is used to
privilege one over the other too. But then, much of film academia seems
to be about making sociological accounts of how naive viewers experience
films rather than trying to find deeper ways of seeing them. Or, perhaps
more accurately, much of film academic seems to be trying to account for
the ways that highly trained academics imagine naive viewers see films.
This in itself seems, like the standard diegetic/non-diegetic split, to
be deeply conservative actually. Why not see a film as a
unique-in-itself whole? One can talk about elements of the narration
that double the story shown on the screen (if that's even possible),
elements that comment on it, and elements that appear to be adding other
things to it, and ways in which the use of narration in one film might
be influenced by other films, arriving at a more nuanced and
individuated account of how an individual film might be understood.
Of course, many film academics have little or not interest in
illuminating individual films.
And, leave it to film academia to adopt a word for "story" or
"narrative" that (a) will be obscure to non-acaemics and (b) sounds a
lot like a disease.
More interesting would be to hunt down diabetic voicevers (in films
about diabetes) and dyanetic voiceovers (in films about Scientology),
though the possible existence of the latter would clearly cry out for
non-dyanetic voiceovers too, unless you're Tom Cruise.
- Fred
6424
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: Female voice-overs?
>
> Letter from an Unknown Woman, Bonjour Tristesse... Rashomon?
...'Days of Heaven'....
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6425
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Jour de fête / Criterion
> My mistake, I was not yet awake. Sorry for the mixup.
It happens. I am really looking forward to seeing what their revision
of 'Playtime' will be like... fixed cropping, full-length, etc. Does
anyone know what the definitive length of the film is? I think 3 hours
+, no?
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6426
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:35pm
Subject: Re: Best Films SEEN in 2003
Elizabeth Anne Nolan:
> I am in Palm Springs for the PSIFF
> If any one would care to take the time and scan this list and make
> recommendations for films, I would appreciate it.
>
A number of these films have already opened in NY and a few other
cities, so you may have seen them already (esp. the documentaries),
but I'd recommend:
BALSEROS - a pretty expansive doc about a group of Cuban raft
refugees, following them from Cuba and through their lives in the US.
BUS 174 - Brazilian doc about a notorious bus-hijackinga nd
standoff. One of the better films of last year.
CAPTURING THE FRIEDMANS - if you haven't seen it already.
CRIMSON GOLD - I've been a bit cold on Jafer Panahi's previous work,
but this one, about a pizza delivery man (!) in Teheran, was a
highlight of the New York Film Festival.
DISTANT - Won the Grand Jury Prize at Cannes last year. Absolutely
stunning Turkish film. One of the 2 or 3 best films I saw last year.
Don't miss this. (Opens in NY in February, I believe.)
DIVINE INTERVENTION - This Palestinian film has been doing the
circuit for a while now, so for all I know, you might have seen it
already.
OK, I'm running out of time now, so I'll just list the others, sans
comments:
GOODBYE LENIN!
GOOD MORNING, NIGHT (might be the best Bellocchio I've seen)
MY ARCHITECT
OSAMA
THE RETURN
SPRING SUMMER FALL WINTER...AND SPRING
SUNSET STORY
A THOUSAND MONTHS (not very well known, but one of my favorites from
this year's NYFF)
Others (Dan?) can tell you about RAJA, which I haven't seen, but
which is supposed to be great.
-Bilge
6427
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:39pm
Subject: Re: Female voice-overs?
Craig:
> >
> > Letter from an Unknown Woman, Bonjour Tristesse... Rashomon?
>
> ...'Days of Heaven'....
>
Don't forget BADLANDS!!
But we're well beyond the '60s now...
-Bilge
6428
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Best Films SEEN in 2003
> I am in Palm Springs for the PSIFF
> If any one would care to take the time and scan this list and make
> recommendations for films, I would appreciate it.
That's a massive line-up! Not a lot of time to look through everything
on the list, but I did check to see if 'Story of Marie and Julien' by
Rivette was playing, and sure enough it is. I would say that's a
definite do-not-miss -- seems to be the American premiere too?
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6429
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:47pm
Subject: Re: Female voiceovers
Fred:
> I've never liked the digetic/non-diegetic distinction because it
> usually seems like a false split, false to the way any but the
most
> naive of viewers would experience a film.
I think the diegetic/non-diegetic distinction can be taken too far
(as you've suggested) but in terms of music and sound effects,
especially, it provides a useful function. There is a world of
difference, I think, between music that originates from the world of
the film (say, a band playing in the background or the foreground)
and music that's on the soundtrack, without any motivation fromt he
space of the film. I'm not entirely sure academia privileges one
over the other. (I know the Dogme filmmakers, on the other hand,
explicitly banned non-diegetic music, but that's a different story).
When it comes to diegetic/non-diegetic voiceovers, though, it's a
bit trickier. Isn't all narration technically non-diegetic, unless
it's a case of a story within a story?
-Bilge
6430
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:50pm
Subject: Re: Female voice-overs?
> Don't forget BADLANDS!!
Sissy Spacek naming the State Bird is priceless
-Sam
6431
From: Greg Dunlap
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Best Films SEEN in 2003
Aside from the good films you probably already know about (Goodbye
Dragon Inn, Distant, Crimson Gold, Capturing The Friedmans, Fog Of War)
The Twilight Samurai played here at CIFF and I enjoyed it very much. It
is very tender and beautifully made. I also quite enjoyed
Reconstruction, although I can see how someone would think it is a
little much.
A couple other things I saw that I didn't enjoy were That Day and My
Architect. The former just didn't interest me for whatever reason, and
My Architect is good when it talks about Louis Khan and shows his
fantastic creations, but whenever the son started talking I wanted to
punch the screen. I don't see how this is getting so praised by
everyone. I also found At Five In The Afternoon to be almost completely
uninteresting.
I've heard a lot of good things about Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter. .
.and Spring and Zero Day, but haven't seen them myself.
--- Elizabeth Anne Nolan wrote:
> I am in Palm Springs for the PSIFF
> If any one would care to take the time and scan this list and make
> recommendations for films, I would appreciate it.
>
> http://www.psfilmfest.org/search.asp
>
> You can direct email to
> eanmdphd@e... or use the board if your comments seem
> appropriate.
>
> thanks; and if it is too much, I understand.
>
>
> thanks
> Elizabeth
>
>
=====
--------------------
Greg Dunlap
heyrocker@y...
6432
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 4:54pm
Subject: Re: Female voiceovers
> When it comes to diegetic/non-diegetic voiceovers, though, it's a
> bit trickier. Isn't all narration technically non-diegetic, unless
> it's a case of a story within a story?
Well, in this case the distinction was relatively straightforward -- whether or not the narrator was a character in the film.
I always thought "auteurism" itself sounded a bit like a disease...
6433
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:13pm
Subject: Re: Female voiceovers
> jpcoursodon wrote:
> > Which inevitably brings up the question: Are the female voice-
> >overs in "India Song" diegetic or non-diegetic? No and yes? Are they
> >calling for a re-definition of "diegetic"?
It's an interesting question. I cited "Son nom de Venise dans Calcutta
désert" because it's was a more extreme example than "India Song"
(for those who don't know, the film uses India Song's soundtrack,
and locations, but omits the the actors)
I dunno, Fred, I think the question and distinction _is_ interesting.....
I was thinking of mentioning Frampton's "Nostalgia" as well... I mean, it
does give us some terms to work with. I mean it does seem to get at
something Duras, or Frampton, or your hypothetical A-G filmmaker are
doing.....
Since celluloid itself cannot speak, can we suggest therefore that all
sound in cinema is non-diagetic, and lip sync dialog is always a case of
coincidence ? ;-)
-Sam
6434
From: samfilms2003
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:32pm
Subject: Re: Female voiceovers
Not to mention the Diuretic sound in "What Time Is It There" .....
-SW
6435
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 7:28pm
Subject: diegetically speaking
Although I agree with Fred's diatribe against academics (in post
#6423) I have to disagree with his stern rejection of the
terms "diegetic" and "non-diegetic". I have always been hostile to
jargon but I do use the adjective "diegetic" for the simple reason
that it expresses a concept no other adjective in English (or French,
or any other language I'm familiar with) expresses: "which relates to
the narrative/story of the film". Bilge gave a good example
with "diegetic" or "non diegetic" music in a film. In order to convey
what you mean without using the one adjective you have to use at
least a dozen words of clumsy explanation. Actually, you have to give
a definition of "diegetic"! So why not use the proper term itself?
That said, I'd love to see a Hawks film ("Red Line 7000" perhaps?)
with the soundtrack replaced by a discourse on quantum mechanics.
That should be great fun!
JPC
6436
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 7:33pm
Subject: Palm Springs festival
> I am in Palm Springs for the PSIFF
> If any one would care to take the time and scan this list and make
> recommendations for films, I would appreciate it.
I see a lot of films on this schedule that I've liked. In
approximate order of how much I liked them:
RAJA
ZERO DAY
TOUTES CES BELLES PROMESSES (can't remember what English title they
are using for it)
CRIMSON GOLD
WHO KILLED BAMBI?
CHOKHER BALI
THE MAGIC GLOVES
THE TRIPLETS OF BELLEVILLE
THE FOG OF WAR
If you go to the Senses of Cinema web site, you can find a review I
wrote of the 2003 Toronto film festival which includes a paragraph
each on RAJA, TOUTES CES BELLES PROMESSES, WHO KILLED BAMBI?, CHOKHER
BALI, and THE MAGIC GLOVES. - Dan
6437
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 7:48pm
Subject: Re: Female voice-overs?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
> Craig:
>
> > >
> > > Letter from an Unknown Woman, Bonjour Tristesse... Rashomon?
> >
> > ...'Days of Heaven'....
> >
>
> Don't forget BADLANDS!!
>
> But we're well beyond the '60s now...
>
> -Bilge
And they're ALL diegetic (the question was for non-diegetic
female voice-overs)
6438
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 8:02pm
Subject: Re: Female voice-overs?
JPC:
> > > >
> > > > Letter from an Unknown Woman, Bonjour Tristesse...
Rashomon?
> > >
> > > ...'Days of Heaven'....
> > >
> >
> > Don't forget BADLANDS!!
> >
> > But we're well beyond the '60s now...
> >
> > -Bilge
>
> And they're ALL diegetic (the question was for non-diegetic
> female voice-overs)
True, but these specific titles were in response to the following
statement:
> What's shocking to me isn't that there don't seem to be any non-
diegetic
> female narrators but that there are so damned few diegetic ones
also.
-Bilge
6439
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 8:54pm
Subject: words and music
In this silly but entertaining biopic (shown last night on TCM)which
I hadn't seen in many years there is one egregious and puzzling
anachronism (amid countless smaller ones). After Rodgers and Hart's
first two Broadway hits (according to dialogue), which places the
action no later than 1927, there is a sequence where Tom Drake as
Rodgers goes to the movies, and the movie is... Garbo's "Camille"!
Even more bizarre, there is an orchestra with a conductor conducting,
as though the film were silent (we briefly see the film's last shots).
Is it possible that MGM thought the 1948 moviegoers had such a short
memory that they would believe Garbo's "Camille" was a twenty-year
old silent movie, even though it had been a big (talking!) hit ten
years before?
This raises some questions about the perception of "old" movies then
and now. This kind of anachronism would clearly be impossible today.
Maybe for most moviegoers in the forties a ten-year-old film belonged
to a dim, distant past, whereas today -- well, when we think of a ten-
year-old film it's almost a contemporary one (unless we are a very
young teen). 1993: Short Cuts, Schindler's List, Philadelphia,
Carlito's Way, The Age of Innocence... Of course there was no video
in the forties, and very few "repertory" movie theatres.
Incidentally it is ironic that there WAS a silent version
of "Camille" in 1927 (with Norma Talmadge, directed by Fred Niblo for
First National) but of course MGM couldn't use it. Still they could
have used any of their silents-- Garbo in 1926 "The Temptress" for
example. Of course Words and Music being a musical no one cared about
such things.
JPC
6440
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 9:08pm
Subject: Re: words and music
I think Bilge and JPC make a good point re diegetic and non-diegetic
music, and I think they're right. Perhaps my journalistic writing for
the Reader influences me here, in that I know for the Reader and it's
"general audience" I couldn't write "non-diegetic music," I *would* have
to give a definition of the word itself, as JPC suggests. But in an
academic paper, or a group such as this, I suppose it makes sense to use
it, though please excuse me if I try to avoid it in my own writing. And
I normally don't go off on diatribes about the uses of the word in other
cases. It just seems to me that so often when it's used there's an
ideology behind its use, often to the effect that "non-diegetic" is
better (not in terms of sound applications now, but other uses), more
special, et cetera. I once heard a talk by someone I greatly respect
that privileged intertitles that add something extra over Griffith-style
intertitles that "just" tell the story, for example. Having just been
busy arguing for avant-garde film, I now want to argue that there's
nothing "better" to one method versus another, about making up a
different narrative rather than doubling the one in the images, about
supposedly stopping the "diegesis" for privileged moment versus filming
one incident after another.
Also, the distinctions in terms of storytelling really don't make a lot
of sense to me. Is the ecstatic last twenty minutes or so of Walsh's
great "The Bowery," with the almost nonsensical intercutting of the
Carrie Nartion and Steve Brodie stories, an example of plenty of
diegesis, maybe even an excess of diegesis, or does the intercutting
reach a level of rhythmic brilliance and conceptual nuttiness as to
create something quite different, a space of its own, so to speak? I
vote for option two.
- Fred
- Fred
6441
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 9:11pm
Subject: Re: Female voiceovers
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003" wrote:
> Not to mention the Diuretic sound in "What Time Is It There" .....
>
> -SW
Now that's a pisser. Could we call OHAYO's soundtrack diarrhetic? Godard's soundtracks, of course, are dialectic... Seriously, this whole thread (and btw one might mention the considerably Pre-Malick -- diegetic, but pyrogenic -- Vivian Kurz narration in Andrew Meyer's MATCH GIRL) has me thinking, or imagining, that somewhere out there is a film I can't place which exists in alternate editions with either male or female narrator, probably as result of a transatlantic crossing (no, I'm not thinking of the "Joanne Dru narration" version of RED RIVER). Sleepless nights ahead.
6442
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 9:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Female voiceovers
--- jess_l_amortell wrote:
-- Vivian Kurz
> narration in Andrew Meyer's MATCH GIRL) has me
> thinking, or imagining, that somewhere out there is
> a film I can't place which exists in alternate
> editions with either male or female narrator,
> probably as result of a transatlantic crossing (no,
> I'm not thinking of the "Joanne Dru narration"
> version of RED RIVER).
Goodness, I hadn't thought about "Match Girl" in eons!
It's narrated by Vivian (who is also the subject of a
lovely Bruce Conner film, "Vivian") but at one point a
male and female are heard chatting abou Warhol at a
gallery opening.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6443
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 9:46pm
Subject: Re: Words and Music
Fred Camper's points about Raoul Walsh and "The Bowery" are very interesting! Walsh is one of the screen's most dynamic storytellers, and insight into how he produces such lively results are needed. I haven't seen "The Bowery" for a while, but recall it has a rousing saloon sequence complete with bar room brawl (a Walsh trademark).
On "Words and Music": Lena Horne is great singing "The Lady is a Tramp".
On Camille: The studios seemed to encourage total ignorance about silent film in the public. My Dad (born 1923) knew a lot about remakes of sound films, eg, that "Little Women" had been remade several times. But he was deeply convinced that the films he saw in the 1930's were the first versions of everything.
Sample dialogue:
Son (Me): There's a new version of "The Last of the Mohicans on TV" with Daniel Day-Lewis.
Kind-Hearted Dad: I saw the original in 1937 with Randolph Scott.
Know-It-All Son: Actually there were ten silent versions.
Dad: You're Kidding!
Son: Yep. Some scholar actually wrote a book called "The Lasting of the Mohicans" about how the film keeps getting remade.
On Camille: The 1921 version with Nazimova and Valentino is terrific, directed by Ray C. Smallwood (who???). Have not seen the 1927 Fred Niblo. Am a big Niblo fan after "The Mark of Zorro", "Blood and Sand" and "Ben-Hur".
The other silent movie puzzle: Many friends say they cannot watch silent movies. They fall asleep. Or they cannot focus on it. Or they just can't seem to watch them.
Yet in the silent era, they were much more popular than today's films. Movie palaces had thousands of seats, and packed them in from 10 AM to Midnight. Only films like Titanic or Star Wars can do that today. And the 1920's men all wore suits to go to the movies!
Why is it so hard for so many folks today to watch silents? If poor people with grade school educations in the 20's could appreciate thousands of silent films, why cannot today's well educated populace enjoy them?
Strange paradox...
Mike Grost
6444
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: female voice-overs, pre-1960
Joe, good call on Flamingo Road, an old favorite (although it doesn't a hold
a candle to Crawford's masterpieces from the 1950s, especially Harriet Craig
and my beloved Female on the Beach). I never thought of Crawford's narration
that way before. I'll have to dig it out again soon. Thanx!
Haven't heard of Sarah Kozloff's book on voice-over narration. I'll look for
it. And no rush on the Preminger dupes. I'm trying to watch the DVD of Manji
as many times as is reasonable before returning it to Netflix.
Starting a Masumura obsession,
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6445
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:09pm
Subject: Re: words and music
In a message dated 1/9/04 3:26:26 PM, f@f... writes:
> Perhaps my journalistic writing for
> the Reader influences me here, in that I know for the Reader and it's
> "general audience" I couldn't write "non-diegetic music," I *would* have
> to give a definition of the word itself, as JPC suggests.
>
My own journalistic writing (although I've only written about popular music
for the Reader) has influenced me as well since I defined diegetic in my very
first post on voice-overs.
No evil academic intentions here,
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6446
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 10:23pm
Subject: Re: words and music
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> Also, the distinctions in terms of storytelling really don't make a lot
> of sense to me. Is the ecstatic last twenty minutes or so of Walsh's
> great "The Bowery," with the almost nonsensical intercutting of the
> Carrie Nartion and Steve Brodie stories, an example of plenty of
> diegesis, maybe even an excess of diegesis, or does the intercutting
> reach a level of rhythmic brilliance and conceptual nuttiness as to
> create something quite different, a space of its own, so to speak? I
> vote for option two.
Never having attended film school, I initially came across the term in perusing Bordwell and others on Ozu, where there's been a lot of discussion - and debate - of whether, for example, the cutting - to various spaces - is or is not "diegetic" (and if there IS a simpler word for it - just "narrative"? - we need to know!). Given Ozu's reimagining of cinematic syntax, the question of whether and how such locations, for example, relate to the narrative (of course I'm overly generalizing about this) seems pretty crucial to how one understands the films. (Don't know if it's necessarily a matter of privileging one over t'other.) I do wonder whether there are many other films or filmmakers where the distinction can seem nearly as essential...
6447
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 10:31pm
Subject: Re: words and music
> Given Ozu's reimagining of cinematic syntax
Or really, I probably should have said "reimagining of narrative cinematic syntax," or some such. (Does non-narrative cinema have a syntax?)
6448
From:
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 5:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Words and Music
> Yet in the silent era, they were much more popular than today's films.
> Movie palaces had thousands of seats, and packed them in from 10 AM to Midnight.
>
That's because they weren't as silent as you think they were. Some exhibitors
preferred to screen films in absolute silence. But there were a plethora of
sound options in pre-1927 film exhibition practices. Lectures, sound effects,
musical accompaniment (including the practice of “funning†where a song or
lyric provided humorous counterpoint to the image), illustrated song slides, etc.
set their own realistic codes for synchronization long before Al told us we
ain't heard nothing yet. James Lastra has a fascinating chapter about all this,
perceptively entitled “Everything But The Kitchen Sync,†in his book Sound
Technology and the American Cinema (New York: Columbia University Press, 2000).
And don't underestimate the power of shitty accompaniment to silent films.
There's a Chaplin short (the name escapes me - the one where Chaplin's kissing a
girl dressed as a boy, David and Goliath or something) on the DVD of The
Cat's Meow with hideous random sound effects and music. There's also that horrible
DVD of Metropolis where it sounds as if someone just pushed play on a CD and
let it run its awful little course on the soundtrack. I suppose someone can
recuperate these versions along some sort of Rose Hobart or Dark Side of the
Moon/The Wizard of Oz line of disjointed reasoning. But for most, the inevitable
result is boredom if not rage.
Dying to see some illustrated song slides,
Kevin
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6449
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 10:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Female voice-overs?
>
> > > ...'Days of Heaven'....
> > >
> >
> > Don't forget BADLANDS!!
> >
> > But we're well beyond the '60s now...
> >
> > -Bilge
>
> And they're ALL diegetic (the question was for non-diegetic
> female voice-overs)
I thought the conversation had relented to diegetic female voice-overs
at that point, out of the futility of finding any non-diegetic female
voice-overs anywhere. The animated films mentioned seem to hit closest
to the mark. It seems that this conversation is essentially borne out
of the trivia of the issue rather than any concern for the implications
of such an absence -- those implications being: women have been
suppressed from the extra-diegesis. Beyond that, I'm not sure what can
be said. Non-diegetic narration/voice-over is rare enough as it is.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6450
From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 10:57pm
Subject: codes of silence
> And don't underestimate the power of shitty accompaniment to silent
> films.
It's very interesting: the de-rigueur practice of not just
Mickey-Mousing the action and emotion with the soundtrack, but also the
tendency to -drown- what is occurring on-screen from beginning to end
in a -deluge- of notes. (Pianola in over-drive, hammy string section,
etc.)
Case in point: I've never liked any of the winners' scores for the TCM
"score a silent" contests as they always seem to follow this
"tradition." Ick ick ick. The winners are invariably know-it-all USC
brats with a direct-line to the cringingly sentimental.
Of course, a lot of the silents' contemporary cue cards included what
were the standards and popular styles of the day, but speaking for
myself, even watching these pictures with their original scores and
cues in place, the effect tends to do not much besides annoy and
distract. Lang's 'Der müde Tod' (the Image DVD of which includes the
same theme that we also find from the original cues replicated on
Kino's 'Blind Husbands' disc), for example, -- I just can't watch this
picture with the volume up. The power of the images in silence is
overwhelmingly more arresting -- ditto goes for Criterion's 'La Passion
de Jeanne d'Arc' disc -- I just won't watch that film with either the
more traditional accompaniment, or the overwrought Richard Einhorn
thing.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6451
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Jan 9, 2004 11:53pm
Subject: Re: Words and Music
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Why is it so hard for so many folks today to watch silents? If poor
people with grade school educations in the 20's could appreciate
thousands of silent films, why cannot today's well educated populace
enjoy them?
> Strange paradox...
>
> Mike Grost
The answer is incredibly simple: people then had never seen a
talking picture. The moment sound came in, the silents were dead and
you couldn't have paid anybody to go see one. No matter how terrible
most of the early sound films were, they attracted huge crowds. Most
people alive today have never seen a silent movie. They have to learn
how to "read" them the way simple folks naturally read them in the
teens and twenties. And few people have the patience to learn. It's
really like learning a foreign language -- a arduous endeavor.
JPC
6452
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 0:14am
Subject: Re: codes of silence
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> > And don't underestimate the power of shitty accompaniment to
silent
> > films.
>
> It's very interesting: the de-rigueur practice of not just
> Mickey-Mousing the action and emotion with the soundtrack, but also
the
> tendency to -drown- what is occurring on-screen from beginning to
end
> in a -deluge- of notes. (Pianola in over-drive, hammy string
section,
> etc.)
>
> Case in point: I've never liked any of the winners' scores for the
TCM
> "score a silent" contests as they always seem to follow this
> "tradition." Ick ick ick. The winners are invariably know-it-all
USC
> brats with a direct-line to the cringingly sentimental.
>
> Of course, a lot of the silents' contemporary cue cards included
what
> were the standards and popular styles of the day, but speaking for
> myself, even watching these pictures with their original scores and
> cues in place, the effect tends to do not much besides annoy and
> distract. Lang's 'Der müde Tod' (the Image DVD of which includes
the
> same theme that we also find from the original cues replicated on
> Kino's 'Blind Husbands' disc), for example, -- I just can't watch
this
> picture with the volume up. The power of the images in silence is
> overwhelmingly more arresting -- ditto goes for Criterion's 'La
Passion
> de Jeanne d'Arc' disc -- I just won't watch that film with either
the
> more traditional accompaniment, or the overwrought Richard Einhorn
> thing.
>
> craig.
I completely agree, and that's my major problem with silent
film. The non-stop music, bombastic, pleonastic, overemphasizing even
the most banal moment, constantly grabbing my attention (and it's
most of the time third-rate music at best). Thanks to DVD it is
fortunately possible to watch a silent without the soundtrack --
which is certainly not ideal, but better than suffering through
distracting, invasive scores -- whether "original" or written by some
contemporary composers .
JPC
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
6453
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 0:29am
Subject: Re: voice-overs
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney" wrote:
> There are many female narrators, of course, but they
> are almost always characters within the diegesis and are never given
> the kind of presiding power so often connoted through non-diegetic
> narration. There are probably some documentary shorts produced by
> Hollywood with non-diegetic female narrators but I would guess that
> most of them have some kind of specialized female interest to them.
Here, at least, is a concrete example: Katharine Hepburn narrated "Women in Defense" (1941).
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0034400/
There must be many such instances, no? But then, that *was* the moment of Rosie the Riveter (see Kevin's article on "Reckless Moment," http://www.neumu.net/continuity_error/2002/2002-00001_continuity.shtml ).
6454
From:
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 0:44am
Subject: Re: Words and Music
> And [in] the 1920's men all wore suits to go to the movies!
In the 1920's men wore suits to go pretty much everywhere, since
leisure clothing hadn't been introduced yet.
-Bilge
6455
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 0:59am
Subject: Re: flamingo road
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Joe, good call on Flamingo Road, an old favorite (although it
doesn't a hold a candle to Crawford's masterpieces from the 1950s,
especially Harriet Craig and my beloved Female on the Beach). I never
thought of Crawford's narration that way before. I'll have to dig it
out again soon. Thanx!
Kevin, when you look at FLAMINGO ROAD again please do so with a very
open mind. I think it's a great film, amazing from beginning to end
and, along with THE BREAKING POINT, Curtiz's masterpiece. It made
Fassbinder's list of the ten greatest films ever made (a list which
you can find in THE ANARCHY OF THE IMAGINATION) although it was
George Morris who first alerted me to the film's greatness years ago,
when it used to play regularly on Channel 9 in New York.
Interestingly, Fassbinder did not list a single Sirk film. I think
especially towards the end of his life, Curtiz was becomingly an
increasingly important figure for him and an unfinished essay on
Curtiz (unfinished because Fassbinder died before being able to
complete it) is also in ANARCHY.
>
>
>
6456
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 1:48am
Subject: Re: flamingo road
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney" <> out again soon.
Thanx!
>
> Kevin, when you look at FLAMINGO ROAD again please do so with a
very
> open mind. I think it's a great film, amazing from beginning to
end
> and, along with THE BREAKING POINT, Curtiz's masterpiece. It made
> Fassbinder's list of the ten greatest films ever made (a list which
> you can find in THE ANARCHY OF THE IMAGINATION) although it was
> >
> FLAMINGO ROAD and THE TURNING POINT. Yes!. We have a choice of
Curtiz masterpieces, but I would definitely vote for Turning Point
(which I always liked better than the Hawks -- crime of lese-auteur
of course)and Flamingo is a wonderful, so underrated one.
JPC
6457
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:00am
Subject: Re: diegetically speaking
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"Although I agree with Fred's diatribe against academics (in post
#6423) I have to disagree with his stern rejection of the
terms "diegetic" and "non-diegetic". I have always been hostile to
jargon but I do use the adjective "diegetic" for the simple reason
that it expresses a concept no other adjective in English (or French,
or any other language I'm familiar with) expresses: 'which relates to
the narrative/story of the film'."
Somewhere I came across a somewhat different definition
of "diegetic," namely that it refers to the world created by the
story. For example, in a Sherlock Holmes story the milieu of late
Victorian England is evoked with its gaslights and dog carts, fog and
cobbled streets, professional clubs and smoking jackets, etc.
I agree that the value of such terms is their utility as terms of
clarification and concision as you say (and I think the
term "diegetic" does that,) though a lot of terms found in academic
film criticism obfuscate and are often borrowed from some other
discipline such as linguistics.
As an undergraduate in the early 1970s I minored in anthroplogy and
noticed that the social sciences were striving to become as accurate
as the hard sciences, and that the humanities (of which cinema
studies was one) were trying to match the objectivity of the social
sciences. At least this was true in the US. In my view the
humanities were largely impoverished by this trend.
Richard
6458
From: cjsuttree
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:25am
Subject: Re: Female voice-overs?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
>
> I thought the conversation had relented to diegetic female
voice-overs
> at that point, out of the futility of finding any non-diegetic
female
> voice-overs anywhere. The animated films mentioned seem to hit
closest
> to the mark. It seems that this conversation is essentially borne
out
> of the trivia of the issue rather than any concern for the
implications
> of such an absence -- those implications being: women have been
> suppressed from the extra-diegesis. Beyond that, I'm not sure what
can
> be said. Non-diegetic narration/voice-over is rare enough as it is.
>
> craig.
Rebecca Miller's _Personal Velocity_ uses a male narrator for all
three female centered story, which I thought is a strange choice,
since the stories originates from Miller's own writing (or so I
heard).
Anyway, the voiceover did evoke the films of the 60s and 70s that I
like,
so Miller shouldn't be too saddened she just missed being the answer
to a trivial question.
One of my favorite narration is the one in _La Guerre est Finie_,
which lies somewhere between second and third person. (This
is long before the tiresome "you you you ..." voiceover in _Zentropa.)
My copy of the screenplay doesn't who did the narration; the IMDB
claims it is by screen writer Jorge Semprun himself. This has always
been my second favorite Resnais film, behind _Hiroshima_. I know
one of the professional critics who frequents this board used to
hate this film, although I never found out why. In any case, I
thought
it is appropriate to mention _La Guerre set Finie_, because Ingrid
Thulin is so memorable in it -- especially in that last frame. Hope
she
rests in peace, if it is indeed true she has passed away.
6459
From: Damien Bona
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 3:30am
Subject:
I'm not sure who gives these out (I've heard it was online critics) ,
but the results of the Cinemarati awards include:
EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT IN CRITICISM
#1. Fred Camper, Liner Notes by Brakhage
#2. Jessica Winter, "Noe Exit", City Pages
#3. R.J. Smith, "Faster, Pussy Wagon! Kill! Kill!", The Village Voice
#4. Robin Wood, "In Search of the Code Inconnu", Cineaction issue 62,
2003
#5. Gregory Solman, "Awakening to A.I.'s Dream", Senses of Cinema
#6. Kent Jones, "The Eastwood Variations", Film Comment
#7. Armond White, "Their Souls For a Freebie", New York Press
#8. Dana Knowles,"Straw Dogs", The High Hat
6460
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:07am
Subject:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> I'm not sure who gives these out (I've heard it was online
critics) ,
> but the results of the Cinemarati awards include:
>
> EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT IN CRITICISM
> #1. Fred Camper, Liner Notes by Brakhage
> #2. Jessica Winter, "Noe Exit", City Pages
> #3. R.J. Smith, "Faster, Pussy Wagon! Kill! Kill!", The Village
Voice
> #4. Robin Wood, "In Search of the Code Inconnu", Cineaction issue
62,
> 2003
> #5. Gregory Solman, "Awakening to A.I.'s Dream", Senses of Cinema
> #6. Kent Jones, "The Eastwood Variations", Film Comment
> #7. Armond White, "Their Souls For a Freebie", New York Press
> #8. Dana Knowles,"Straw Dogs", The High Hat
Congratulations to Fred! I really have to get that Brakhage
stuff...
Of course the title should read EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS IN
ENGLISH LANGUAGE CRITICISM but the ethnocentricity is, as usual,
just taken for granted.
JPC
6461
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 5:11am
Subject: Re: (unknown)
Damien Bona wrote:
>I'm not sure who gives these out (I've heard it was online critics) ,
>but the results of the Cinemarati awards include:
>
>
I only just heard from them a few days ago. This is not an award yet;
what they have been posting is their list of nominations, and what you
posted here was the list of the nominees for the criticism award. I
believe in some kind of order that depends on the current status of
voting. The final awards won't be until late January, I believe.. It's
an association of on-line film critics that was founded in 2000;
admission is by invitation, so presumably the proprietor of "Joe's Movie
Moron Page" doesn't get in automatically. I don't know a lot more about
it and haven't had time to research it yet; if anyone in our group is a
member, tell us a little more about the group. The page with their award
nominees is at http://www.cinemarati.org/features/awards2004.shtml
I am of course biased, but I think it's great that an essay on Brakhage
made it to their nomination phase along with reviews of Tarantino and
White's engaging piece on criticism.
- Fred
6462
From: iangjohnston
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:04am
Subject: Re: Best Films SEEN in 2003
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
wrote:
> I am in Palm Springs for the PSIFF
> If any one would care to take the time and scan this list and make
> recommendations for films, I would appreciate it.
>
> http://www.psfilmfest.org/search.asp
>
> You can direct email to
> eanmdphd@e... or use the board if your comments seem
> appropriate.
>
> thanks; and if it is too much, I understand.
>
>
> thanks
> Elizabeth
I've seen very few of these, but I would recommend two of my
favourite films of 2003, DISTANT and GOODBYE DRAGON INN.
Also worth seeing, although not quite at the same level, are: A
THOUSAND MONTHS; DISTANT LIGHTS; LAST LIFE IN THE UNIVERSE; NOI.
I did NOT like: THE BARBARIAN INVASIONS and THE TULSE LUPER
SUITCASES - THE MOAB STORY.
Ian
6463
From: iangjohnston
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 10:20am
Subject:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
> wrote:
> > I'm not sure who gives these out (I've heard it was online
> critics) ,
> > but the results of the Cinemarati awards include:
> >
> > EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENT IN CRITICISM
> > #1. Fred Camper, Liner Notes by Brakhage
> > #2. Jessica Winter, "Noe Exit", City Pages
> > #3. R.J. Smith, "Faster, Pussy Wagon! Kill! Kill!", The Village
> Voice
> > #4. Robin Wood, "In Search of the Code Inconnu", Cineaction
issue
> 62,
> > 2003
> > #5. Gregory Solman, "Awakening to A.I.'s Dream", Senses of
Cinema
> > #6. Kent Jones, "The Eastwood Variations", Film Comment
> > #7. Armond White, "Their Souls For a Freebie", New York Press
> > #8. Dana Knowles,"Straw Dogs", The High Hat
>
> Congratulations to Fred! I really have to get that Brakhage
> stuff...
>
> Of course the title should read EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS IN
> ENGLISH LANGUAGE CRITICISM but the ethnocentricity is, as usual,
> just taken for granted.
>
> JPC
Or: EXCEPTIONAL ACHIEVEMENTS IN NORTH AMERICAN ENGLISH LANGUAGE
CRITICISM.
6464
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:22pm
Subject: Rogerio Sganzerla
Rogerio died after a prolonged battle with a brain tumor yesterday in
Sao Paolo. Filipe sent me an e-mail, and Gabe, who's visiting his
grandparents in SP, was kind enough to telephone me at work, so I
didn't hear about it on an answering machine. You have all, I hope,
read Ruy's passionate critique of Rogerio's last film, which like his
three previous was about It's All True. I haven't seen the last one
yet - the title has the word "Chaos" in it - but I know his earlier
work pretty well. Rogerio was, with the late David Neves, a leader of
the small group of great Brazilian filmmakers who followed Cinema
Novo, and by temperament and cultural destiny he was obliged to make
only low-budget films. His first feature, Red Light Bandit, is a film
in the Breathless mold about an urban outlaw, black and white,
radical, beautiful and original. He made an essay film about Noel
Rosa, the great sambista, Isto e Noel Rosa, and an unclassifiable
feature about Welles in Brazil, Nem Tudo e Verdad (It's Not ALL
True), where the actor playing Welles as a Dionysian genius looks a
bit like Glauber Rocha. (Rogerio's wonderful wife Helena Iglesias was
previously married to Rocha, the leader of the Cinema Novo.)
Researching Nem Tudo, Rogerio dug through the Sao Polo archives and
found 30 minutes of newsreel footage documenting Welles' Brazilian
adventure, which he paid to have preserved out of his own pocket -
many were later used in the documentary prologue of our It's All True
film. Much nonsense had been written about the making of IAT by film
historians who never set foot in Brazil, but Rogerio was the first to
seriously research those events in Brazil: as such, he was the
crucial predecessor not only of our film, but of the researches
Catherine Benamou, associate producer on IAT, later did in Brazil,
living with the jangadeiros of Fortaleza and recording their
recollections, as well as delving into the Carnaval episode and its
musical roots. The lost Carnaval episode was Rogerio's Great White
Whale, and one day in 1982 he was talking to Grande Otello, the star
of Carnaval, who made his film debut for Welles and went on to be a
star of the chanchada genre (I believe he starred in the first
chanchada), and then to work with the Cinema Novo directors, notably
on Macunaima. Grande Otello said to Rogerio, "Someone put the 'big
eye' on this project, and we better take it off." So they did
a "work" (a magical ceremony to remove the Macumba curse on IAT) with
a native Brazilian shaman at a crossroads called Ita Curacao, and one
month later I stumbled across the footage of IAT that had been hidden
for forty years (under the watchful eye of Fred Chandler since 1975)
in the vaults of Paramount. I contacted Dick Wilson, introduced him
to Fred, and the reurn of IAT was underway - thanks, in my opinion,
to the work that was done at Ita Curacao in February of 1982. Rogerio
subsequently made a short, The Language of Orson Welles, which is one
of the three or four most beautiful essay films ever made - 22
minutes, like the short we made announcing the find, which was shown
at Venice in '86. Still with no access to the footage, he evoked the
jangadeiro episode and the suspicions of conspiracy that surrounds
the death of Jacare in Brazil to this day, not unlike the death of
JFK in the US. By this time Rogerio was an unofficial member of the
IAT team, and when we filmed in Rio he was an important consultant on
all matters, along with David, who came to the set despite his
illness. Then in 2000 Rogerio made Tudo e Bresil (All is Brazil), a
joyous work about Welles and Carnaval, exactly the running time of
our It's All True reconstruction. In his latest film, a member of the
DIP (the Brazilian secret police during the era of the military
junta) finds an old trunk containing the lost Carnaval footage, with
black consequences. The film was completed while Rogerio was already
ill and presented at the 2003 Riofest. It has yet to be seen here. If
anyone is thinking of programming it, The Language of Orson Welles,
which is in English, would be a good introduction to it. Rogerio was
a great man, whose like Brazil and the world will never see again.
6465
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:23pm
Subject: Re: Palm Springs Festival
I already told ER, but for anyone else who may be at the festival,
Jean-Claude Biette's Saltimabnk is playing Jan. 13 - the first Biette
film ever to be subtitled and programmed in the US. I'm renting a car
and driving up for the day.
6466
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:26pm
Subject: Re: Genre
Peter and Fred wrote: "a poster who only asks the members of our
group for homework help should cease and desist."
But guys, it's madlyangelicgirl! Jeez Louise...
6467
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Genre
hotlove666 wrote:
>Peter and Fred wrote: "a poster who only asks the members of our
>group for homework help should cease and desist."
>
>But guys, it's madlyangelicgirl! Jeez Louise...
>
>
>
>
Yeah, but, Mr. "hotlove666," you of all people should know that screen
names aren't necessarily accurate. Or does that "666" mean something
that I hope it doesn't? I mean, you do love the films of Kenneth Anger.
Hmmmm....
In any case, she unsubscribed shortly after our post. I was sorry if we
hurt her feelings, but at the same time I took her unsubscription to
mean that she actually wasn't a lover of cinema, and that she really did
join just to ask homework help, which is, in fact, all she ever did in
our group.. I know I'm not the only one who was getting annoyed with
class assignments being pasted in to our emails for us to answer.
I should make doubly clear that members who are students are more than
welcome to ask for help with film assignments, including assignments
that they don't care about. The key for us is that we want people who
join to be film lovers, not just students trying to get through a theory
class.
Every couple of weeks I get an email that reads something like, "I think
you're a terrific writer with great insights into cinema. I'm curious
about something that I'm sure you can help me with.. Can you compare and
contrast the relative merits of genre studies and cultural studies when
applied to an investigation of film noir? I'm a beginning film student
so please give me as much detail as possible."
The point is that if we're not careful we could get more people joining
for just "homework help."
- Fred
6468
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 6:52pm
Subject: Re: Curtiz (was Flamingo Road)
I'm repeating what I said in a much earlier thread, but a) Peckinpah
told me he loved Curtiz, preferring his Flynns to Walsh's, because of
their intricate "European" sensibility; and 2) Roughly Speaking is
Curtiz's masterpiece, with The Breaking Point, which Peckinpah (like
Monte Hellman) prefered to To Have and Have None. I'll have to check
out Flamingo Road.
Roughly Speaking stars Rosalind Russell and Jack Carson as an
ordinary married couple facing the rocky challenges of an ordinary
life. It was made in 1943, the same year as Shadow of a Doubt,
Hitchcock's tribute to regular folks.
Breaking Point was initiated by Jerry Wald. Garfield was denounced as
a Communist sympathizer before the start of shooting - in the film
Hemingway's communist revolutionaries become Chinese immigrants.
Curtiz, Garfield and Neal all had to fight - not always successfully -
against the studio's efforts to further water down the script.
Locations were shot in a fishing village in Newport, CA.
The "naturalism" (Monte's word - "a superior form of realism":
Monte's definition) of Breaking Point is adumbrated in Young Man with
a Horn and even in Roughly Speaking, which few people have seen. When
Monte first saw the film in a double bill with Sunset Boulevard, he
was particularly impressed by the actors - the leads, but also
Phyllis Thaxter and Wallace Ford. He says Sunset Boulevard suffered
by comparison. Warners remade the Hemingway book two more times, as
The Gun Runners (Don Seigel) and as a Presley musical, Girls! Girls!
Girls! Hemingway liked Curtiz's version, which adapts on the "Winter"
section of the novel.
Question: Is it true that Curtiz pretty routinely caused the deaths
of extras while working in Europe, to the tune of THREE on Noah's
Ark, for example???
6469
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 7:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: Curtiz (was Flamingo Road)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
.
> I'll have to check
> out Flamingo Road.
>
It's great fun, but the auteur is Joan Crawford.
> Roughly Speaking stars Rosalind Russell and Jack
> Carson as an
> ordinary married couple facing the rocky challenges
> of an ordinary
> life. It was made in 1943, the same year as Shadow
> of a Doubt,
> Hitchcock's tribute to regular folks.
It's not like it at all, however.
Acorsese listed it as one of his "Guilty Pleasures"
for "Film Comment" a number of years back.
It's a nice through-the-years saga, with talcum
powdered hair for the last reel. But I'm not all that
taken with it.
>
>
> Question: Is it true that Curtiz pretty routinely
> caused the deaths
> of extras while working in Europe, to the tune of
> THREE on Noah's
> Ark, for example???
Yes.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6470
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:23pm
Subject:
The Site Nazi wrote: "Mr. hotlove666, you of all people should
know that screen names aren't necessarily accurate..."
Oh yeah? I can supply you with a list of women that stretches
from here to Venezuela who can disabuse you of that little notion!
6471
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:28pm
Subject: Re: Curtiz
David, do you remember the scene where they dance in the
garden -Carson wearing a tophat with a candelabra on top? It's
a rather offbeat picture, also for Russell's performance, which
anticipates Susan Sarandon in Lorenzo's Oil. She's a woman of
boundless energy and drive who has nothing to do but raise a
family, take care of her loser husband when he constantly
screws up and nurse her kid with polio. I agree that Curtiz and
AH took different approaches, but I wonder if salutes to the
goodness and courage of regular folks weren't kindly viewed by
the powers at Uni and WB in 1943 because of the war. As I
recall, RR has her time as a gold star mother, too. Of course, AH
avoided any direct mention of the war, while using it as
wall-to-wall wallpaper.
6472
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Curtiz
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> David, do you remember the scene where they dance in
> the
> garden -Carson wearing a tophat with a candelabra
> on top? It's
> a rather offbeat picture, also for Russell's
> performance, which
> anticipates Susan Sarandon in Lorenzo's Oil. She's a
> woman of
> boundless energy and drive who has nothing to do but
> raise a
> family, take care of her loser husband when he
> constantly
> screws up and nurse her kid with polio.
I remember that scene, but for me both Carson and
Russell were acting fairly true to form.
"Lorenzo's Oil" is one of Dr.Miller's best films --
not as well-recognizefd as it should be.
You got me to thinking how much I love Jack Carson --
especially in "Mildred Pierce," "Romance on the High
Seas" and "A Star is Born."
"Romance on the High Seas" is teriffic Curtiz, with
Doris Day giving the greatest debut performance in the
history of the cinema. She had never acted before.
In anything.
Betty Hutton was "unavailable." They put her in and
voila --"It'sMagic."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6473
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 8:57pm
Subject: Re: Curtiz (was Flamingo Road)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Roughly Speaking stars Rosalind Russell and Jack Carson as an
> ordinary married couple facing the rocky challenges of an ordinary
> life. It was made in 1943, the same year as Shadow of a Doubt,
> Hitchcock's tribute to regular folks.
ROUGHLY SPEAKING is another terrific Curtiz film, especially
fascinating (as I recall) for the driven nature of Russell's
character. For me, if there's a film it makes an interesting
companion piece to it's not SHADOW OF A DOUBT but Curtiz's own
MILDRED PIERCE. Both were made the same year (1945 not 1943, unless
ROUGHLY was held back two years. Do you know, Bill?) and both deal
with ambitious women. But ROUGHLY may be even more complex in that
her character is explicitly situated in relation to early 20th
century American history and with the gradual emancipation of women.
But Russell's character is persistently defeated throughout the
course of the film while still retaining her fundamental optimism, in
spite of death, disease, divorce, economic hardship, etc. At times,
she's almost like the protagonist of Beckett's HAPPY DAYS crossed
with dynamism of someone out of King Vidor. The violent and often
masochistic drives of Curtiz's characters (no wonder Fassbinder was
so fascinated)really deserve to be discussed more fully
> Breaking Point was initiated by Jerry Wald. Locations were shot in
>a fishing village in Newport, CA. The "naturalism" (Monte's word -
>"a superior form of realism": Monte's definition) of Breaking
>Point is adumbrated in Young Man with a Horn and even in Roughly
>Speaking, which few people have seen.
I think this naturalism even extended to the use of music. I'll have
to drag out my tape to confirm but I don't remember any underscoring
outside of the credits and the scene at the end with Garfield and
Thaxter on the boat.
Curtiz's body of work is filled with neglected gems. Alert TCM
viewers should keep an eye out for (among others): THE MAD GENIUS,
THE WOMAN FROM MONTE CARLO (Lil Dagover's only Hollywood film, I
believe), STRANGE LOVE OF MOLLY LOUVAIN (also on VHS), KENNEL MURDER
CASE (in public domain, so everywhere including DVD), MANDALAY, and
THE UNSUSPECTED (one of the high points of late forties Hollywood
baroque).
> Question: Is it true that Curtiz pretty routinely caused the deaths
> of extras while working in Europe, to the tune of THREE on Noah's
> Ark, for example???
I don't know about routinely but the accidental death of at least one
extra on the set of NOAH'S ARK (which I think was shot in Hollywood)
is part of the lore of Hollywood. Of course, Fritz Lang caused the
death of at least one horse on the set of RETURN OF FRANK JAMES and
in this day and age of animal rights, killing an animal is equal (if
not worse, in some quarters)than killing a human being. Bette Davis
hated Curtiz so much that when her Warners contract was renegotiated
in 1940 she had it written in that she would never have to work for
Curtiz again.
6474
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 9:15pm
Subject: I Kid Because I Love
Fred, you know I was just kidding about the "Site Nazi" thing,
right? madlyangelicgirl was a "user" - a type my wide experience
with women and profound sense of self-respect fortunately
enables me to instantly spot and avoid. Good work, guys!
6475
From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 9:21pm
Subject: re: Curtiz
It's 1945 - so much for that theory. Never trust Halliwell..
I agree that RR's character is something of a norm-buster. She's
not playing a hotshot reporter - she's playing a housewife. She's
like the Stanwyck character in Crime of Passion, except that RR,
instead of channeling her frustrated energies into adultery and
murder, channels them into the struggles of ordinary life, as
millions of women did in those days, and she never admits
defeat.
Curtiz = metteur-en-scene, auteur or cineaste?
6476
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 11:12pm
Subject: Re: re: Curtiz
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Curtiz = metteur-en-scene, auteur or cineaste?
>
>
Metteur-en-scene.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6477
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sat Jan 10, 2004 11:45pm
Subject: Re: Curtiz
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Curtiz = metteur-en-scene, auteur or cineaste?
I can't completely remember all the fine points of Biette's
distinctions. I know they're listed here somewhere on an earlier
post but the search engine failed me once again. Working from memory
(which in my case is always bad) I would say that Curtiz could be
thought of as a figure who straddles the world of the auteur and the
world of the metteur-en-scene.
Fassbinder calls Curtiz an anarchist.
6478
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 1:31am
Subject: Re: Curtiz
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>
> > Curtiz = metteur-en-scene, auteur or cineaste?
>
> I can't completely remember all the fine points of Biette's
> distinctions. I know they're listed here somewhere on an earlier
> post but the search engine failed me once again. Working from
memory
> (which in my case is always bad) I would say that Curtiz could be
> thought of as a figure who straddles the world of the auteur and
the
> world of the metteur-en-scene.
>
> Fassbinder calls Curtiz an anarchist.
Curtiz is a metteur en scene who can sometimes be better than a
auteur ("The Breaking Point" -- I am glad to hear that Peckinpah too
felt it's better than "To Have and Have Not").
I think a auteur is a metteur en scene who is also a cineaste,
while a cineaste is a metteur-en-scene who might be (become) a
auteur. Or something. Can't remember Biette's definitions
either. "anarchist" brings in a whole different concept. Perhaps
anyone truly creative is by nature an anarchist.
JPC
6479
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 1:46am
Subject: Re: Curtiz
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
.
> You got me to thinking how much I love Jack Carson --
> especially in "Mildred Pierce," "Romance on the High
> Seas" and "A Star is Born."
>
> "Romance on the High Seas" is teriffic Curtiz, with
> Doris Day giving the greatest debut performance in the
> history of the cinema. She had never acted before.
>
--"It'sMagic."
>
> ___How can we forget Carson in "Romance" singing (with a Jamaican
accent): "Run, run run, when you see a pretty woman"?
When we walk hand in hand the world becomes a wonderland
It's magic. How else can I explain those raindrops when there is
no rain -- it's magic. Why do I tell myself those things are not
really true, when all the time I know the magic is my love for you.
David correct me if my lyrics are wrong. haven't heard the song in
a while
I think "Romance" is the one that has the great line "Girls don't
want to be asked, they want to be told." Those were the days...
The trailer made a pun on "High Seas" and "High C". Neat...
JPC
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
> http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6480
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 1:56am
Subject: Re: Re: Curtiz
You got it, J-P!
Love that film. I have it on Laser.
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> wrote:
> >
> .
>
> > You got me to thinking how much I love Jack Carson
> --
> > especially in "Mildred Pierce," "Romance on the
> High
> > Seas" and "A Star is Born."
> >
> > "Romance on the High Seas" is teriffic Curtiz,
> with
> > Doris Day giving the greatest debut performance in
> the
> > history of the cinema. She had never acted before.
>
> >
> --"It'sMagic."
> >
> > ___How can we forget Carson in "Romance" singing
> (with a Jamaican
> accent): "Run, run run, when you see a pretty
> woman"?
>
> When we walk hand in hand the world becomes a
> wonderland
> It's magic. How else can I explain those
> raindrops when there is
> no rain -- it's magic. Why do I tell myself those
> things are not
> really true, when all the time I know the magic is
> my love for you.
>
> David correct me if my lyrics are wrong. haven't
> heard the song in
> a while
>
> I think "Romance" is the one that has the great
> line "Girls don't
> want to be asked, they want to be told." Those were
> the days...
>
> The trailer made a pun on "High Seas" and "High
> C". Neat...
> JPC
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus"
> Sweepstakes
> > http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6481
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:22am
Subject: Raindrop correction
How could I type "raindrops" when I meant "rainbows"?
6482
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:28am
Subject: Re: Curtiz
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
>
> I think a auteur is a metteur en scene who is also a cineaste,
> while a cineaste is a metteur-en-scene who might be (become) a
> auteur. Or something.
Had a sudden memory flash: Isn't an auteur (for Biette) someone like
Huston, often literally an author or writer who is often in a rush to
make a point of some kind and who doesn't care so much about
technical/formal perfection? If that's the case, then I'm wrong
about calling Curtiz an auteur and what he straddles is the
cineaste/metteur en scene category -- that is, if we're still in
Biette Land.
Maybe when Bill returns he can straighten this out.
6483
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:33am
Subject: Re: Curtiz
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > I think a auteur is a metteur en scene who is also a cineaste,
> > while a cineaste is a metteur-en-scene who might be (become) a
> > auteur. Or something.
>
> Had a sudden memory flash: Isn't an auteur (for Biette) someone
like
> Huston, often literally an author or writer who is often in a rush
to
> make a point of some kind and who doesn't care so much about
> technical/formal perfection? If that's the case, then I'm wrong
> about calling Curtiz an auteur and what he straddles is the
> cineaste/metteur en scene category -- that is, if we're still in
> Biette Land.
>
> Maybe when Bill returns he can straighten this out.
The key statement in my post was "or something".
6484
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:33am
Subject: Re: Curtiz
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> >
>
> When we walk hand in hand the world becomes a wonderland
> It's magic. How else can I explain those raindrops when there is
> no rain -- it's magic. Why do I tell myself those things are not
> really true, when all the time I know the magic is my love for you.
>
> David correct me if my lyrics are wrong. haven't heard the song
in a while
Jean-Pierre,
New, corrected lyrics for "It's Magic."
When we walk hand in hand the world becomes a wonderland
It's magic
How else can I explain those rainbows when there is no rain?
It's magic
Why do I tell myself these things that happen are all really true?
When in my heart I know the magic is my love for you.
6485
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:39am
Subject: Re: Curtiz
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> > wrote:
> > >
> >
> > When we walk hand in hand the world becomes a wonderland
> > It's magic. How else can I explain those raindrops when there
is
> > no rain -- it's magic. Why do I tell myself those things are not
> > really true, when all the time I know the magic is my love for
you.
> >
> > David correct me if my lyrics are wrong. haven't heard the
song
> in a while
>
> Jean-Pierre,
>
> New, corrected lyrics for "It's Magic."
>
> When we walk hand in hand the world becomes a wonderland
> It's magic
> How else can I explain those rainbows when there is no rain?
> It's magic
> Why do I tell myself these things that happen are all really true?
> When in my heart I know the magic is my love for you.
YES YES "these things that happen" of course.
But isn't it "are not really true"?
It has to be.
6486
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 2:49am
Subject: Apology to Jule and Sammy
As Trenet wrote (and sang):
Parfois on change un mot, une phrase
Et quand on est a court d'idees
On fait "la la la la la la"...
6487
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:17am
Subject: Best writing nominations?
Dear team -
Further to the comments on the cited provisional list of best film writings
of '03, how about some nominations from the knowledgeable folk of this group
as to the best/most interesting/etc critical writing of the period -
including and going beyond the English-speaking/Europhile axis?
Adrian
6488
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:24am
Subject: Re: Curtiz
An auteur can be someone like Huston, or someone like Hawks, who is
also a metteur-en-scene. If we seriously believe that Curtiz has
something to say, beyond a few recurrent themes or motifs of no great
interest, then he's both, too. If not, David's right: metteur-en-
scene. Cineaste is the highest level and means someone who when
he/she films takes an individual stance with respect to the world and
with respect to cinema. Hawks makes that cut; Curtiz, even if we
accord him the status of Wilder (metteur-en-scene of his own auteur
ideas), does not. Casablanca, in fact, would be the perfect example
of a good movie (Biette's example is Bicycle Thief) which is
thoroughly conventional in its ideology and outlook, and in its use
of cinema. Hence its immense popularity. The degree zero designation,
by the way, is director, and many would just as soon relegate MC to
that - reserving the term metteur-en-scene for the likes of Murnau.
Peckinpah, Hellman (at least for Breaking Point) and Fassbinder,
however, would not. Interesting group of defenders...
6489
From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 4:52am
Subject: Re: Best writing nominations?
Adrian called for "nominations from the knowledgeable folk of this
group as to the best/most interesting/etc critical writing of the
period - including and going beyond the English-speaking/Europhile
axis?"
Actually, one gripe registered here about the online crix list was
that it didn't MAKE it to the "Europhile axis," but here goes:
I thought Ruy's piece on Rogerio's last film was wonderful, although
in need of a better translation. Speaking as an English speaker, I
thought Tag's piece on Milius, published here, was just great.
Speaking as a Europhile, I'd nominate Laurence Giavarini's drily
skeptical piece on Sobibor in Cahiers (hope that's this year), and
Olivier Assayas's interview in Cinama Scope. Lastly, I believe I will
incur no charges of Europhilia if I cite "He Who Lies Down with Dogs
Gets Up with Fleas: The 'Digital' Cinema of Jean-Claude Brisseau" by
the little-read and less-cited Bosnian critic Vlad the Deconstructor.
Any other nominations?
6490
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:01am
Subject: Re: Cineaste
Bill, would you please explain what this means...
"Cineaste is the highest level and means someone who when
he/she films takes an individual stance with respect to the world and
with respect to cinema."
6491
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:05am
Subject: Re: Re: Cineaste
For me that would mean Fellini, Hitchcock, Michael
Powell, Patrice Chereau.
Not just a ood director, not just a wrier-director,
nto just a director with "style." Saying their name
invokes the cinema.
--- Henrik Sylow wrote:
> Bill, would you please explain what this means...
>
> "Cineaste is the highest level and means someone who
> when
> he/she films takes an individual stance with respect
> to the world and
> with respect to cinema."
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Hotjobs: Enter the "Signing Bonus" Sweepstakes
http://hotjobs.sweepstakes.yahoo.com/signingbonus
6492
From:
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 0:09am
Subject: Re: Best writing nominations?
I just submitted a list of my favorites to Senses of Cinema for their World
Poll and I'll replicate that list here. I'm sure I'm forgetting some - and I'd
include Fred's Minnelli piece had it not been published two days into 2004.
Tag Gallagher's DVD of film criticism
Armond White's review of Stuck on You (New York Press)
Jonathan Rosenbaum's review of 25th Hour (Chicago Reader)
F.X. Feeney's review of The Secret Lives of Dentists (Film Comment)
Bill Krohn's "The Cliff and the Flume" (Senses of Cinema)
Kent Jones's "The Eastwood Variations" (Film Comment)
Peter
6493
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 5:26am
Subject: Cineaste
The perversity of Biette's vocabulary is that his most exalted level
of achievement, "cineaste", is a word that in French merely
means "filmmaker" -- so that Biette was deliberately creating
confusion except for a handful of happy few.
6494
From: grimmyhk
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 6:11am
Subject: 2004: Not a promising year
Hi all,
I'm new to the forum, so guidance would be greatly appreciated :)
Anyways, I'd like to inaugurate my first post with a look-forward to
the wasteland that is 2004. 2003, frankly, was not particularly
auspicious for films. But 2004 looks to be even worse.
The first film I saw in 2004 was the acclaimed "Young Adam" by David
McKenzie. The director, who was present, was a very nice bloke, and
he chatted amiably about his experience with Tilda Swinton, Peter
Mullan, etc. But the film is plain BAD - dull, lacking in tension,
utterly predictable, and a courtroom scene that is the most
jarringly false since "Dancer in the Dark". And the constant sex is
just *so* monotonous. Plus, the whole plight of the writer/artist as
he descends into darkness is done much better by, say, Cronenberg.
Ugh - it's been a while since I've had a terrible urge to just walk
out of a film, but this nearly drove me to it.
The director says that he's working on an adaptation of Patrick
McGrath's "Asylum" (same writer as Spider). Somehow, I highly doubt
he'd pull it off.
Then, I saw "Calendar Girls" (which nominally is a 2003 film), and
another "ugh". God, such forced contrivance and feel-goodness. And
the whole part in Hollywood just collapses into ludicrous self-
parody. Awful, and I can't believe Helen Mirren decides to waste her
time with such a script.
The only bright spot so far is my screening of Yu Lik-Wai's "All
Tomorrow's Parties". Kinda like a Jia Zhangke film done by a HK
hipster (which is exactly what it is). Nowhere near as lyrical,
insightful or intelligent as a Jia film, but the absolutely
beautiful cinematography and digital composition are amazing. A very
flawed film, but much more inspired than anything I can recall in
the last few weeks.
So here's to a better outlook in 2004. I have high hopes for new
films like Angelopoulos, Wong, Kusturica, Loach, Olmi, Kurosawa, and
others.
Cheers,
Grimfarrow
6495
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 8:03am
Subject: Re: Curtiz/Cineaste
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> An auteur can be someone like Huston, or someone like Hawks, who is
> also a metteur-en-scene. If we seriously believe that Curtiz has
> something to say, beyond a few recurrent themes or motifs of no great
> interest, then he's both, too. If not, David's right: metteur-en-
> scene. Cineaste is the highest level and means someone who when
> he/she films takes an individual stance with respect to the world and
> with respect to cinema.
What a caste system! At least Andrew Sarris' categories left something to the imagination -- some of them did, anyway. I realize the idea here is to get some precision but I for one am now completely confused. Did Biette mean for others to adopt his system? Can one do so responsibly without knowing his writing?
> The degree zero designation,
> by the way, is director, and many would just as soon relegate MC to
> that - reserving the term metteur-en-scene for the likes of Murnau.
What did Murnau do to deserve that?
So Huston is ranked higher (by whom?) than Murnau, because he had "something to say"?? Or is it more like "auteur" and "metteur en scene" both occupy the same middling rung of the hierarchy?
> Peckinpah, Hellman (at least for Breaking Point) and Fassbinder,
> however, would not.
(They also employed Biette's system?)
6497
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 8:16am
Subject: Re: Best writing nominations?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> Tag Gallagher's DVD of film criticism
Please explain!
6498
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:05pm
Subject: Re: Curtiz
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> An auteur can be someone like Huston, or someone like Hawks, who is
> also a metteur-en-scene. If we seriously believe that Curtiz has
> something to say, beyond a few recurrent themes or motifs of no
great interest, then he's both, too. If not, David's right: metteur-
en-scene. Cineaste is the highest level and means someone who when
> he/she films takes an individual stance with respect to the world
and with respect to cinema. Hawks makes that cut; Curtiz, even if we
> accord him the status of Wilder (metteur-en-scene of his own auteur
> ideas), does not. Casablanca, in fact, would be the perfect example
> of a good movie (Biette's example is Bicycle Thief) which is
> thoroughly conventional in its ideology and outlook, and in its use
> of cinema. Hence its immense popularity.
Since I'm not the only member of this group who is confused about the
notion of "an individual stance with respect to the world and with
respect to cinema" I'll pass over it for now in the hopes that this
will get clarified later. But doesn't Biette make some claim about
the cineaste not only taking an individual stance towards cinema but
also having an historical awareness of themselves as filmmakers? Or
is my memory faulty here? If that's the case, I'm not sure why Hawks
would qualify as a cineaste. How does he have a higher awareness of
himself in this regard than, say, any number of other major American
directors of the period? If I got this part of Biette's argument
wrong, please pass over this paragraph in silence.
However, I am slightly uneasy about the confidence with which films
like CASABLANCA and BICYCLE THIEVES are categorized as being
thoroughly conventional, formally and ideologically. I realize that
auteurism has created a climate in which TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT is
regarded as being superior to CASABLANCA and that De Sica is inferior
to Rossellini. I am not particularly interested in reversing these
values. But what exactly does Biette mean by conventional? As an
auteurist film, TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT may be more satisfying than
CASABLANCA. But I'm not sure that the Hawks film is significantly
less beholden to Hollywood conventions (formal and ideological) than
the Curtiz.
6499
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:17pm
Subject: Re: Apology to Jule and Sammy
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> As Trenet wrote (and sang):
> Parfois on change un mot, une phrase
> Et quand on est a court d'idees
> On fait "la la la la la la"...
And Doris does sing "These things that happen are all really
true..." There's a kind of logic here. I think she's battling her
more rational and skeptical nature with her new-found awareness of
the forces of magic since she's fallen in love. The problem may be
that Cahn doesn't quite manage the transitions with the necessary
finesse. But in the movie, Doris does. She looks off and changes
facial expression as she sings this line and then turns back to Jack
Carson and says "When in my heart I know the magic is my love for
you."
When lyricists stumble, Doris Day knows what to do.
6500
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Jan 11, 2004 3:53pm
Subject: Re: Apology to Jule and Sammy
A very astute reading, Joe. I had forgotten. Other singers sing it as
written, I think. Doris Day as auteur?
Cahn rarely stumbled. Sometimes deliberately, as when (pressed for
time, according to him) he just repeated "Which one will the fountain
bless" three times -- and got an Academy Award for it, but that's
Oscar for you (one of Styne-Cahn's lesser efforts).
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> > As Trenet wrote (and sang):
> > Parfois on change un mot, une phrase
> > Et quand on est a court d'idees
> > On fait "la la la la la la"...
>
>
>
> And Doris does sing "These things that happen are all really
> true..." There's a kind of logic here. I think she's battling her
> more rational and skeptical nature with her new-found awareness of
> the forces of magic since she's fallen in love. The problem may be
> that Cahn doesn't quite manage the transitions with the necessary
> finesse. But in the movie, Doris does. She looks off and changes
> facial expression as she sings this line and then turns back to
Jack
> Carson and says "When in my heart I know the magic is my love for
> you."
>
> When lyricists stumble, Doris Day knows what to do.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact