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.


7601


From: Travis Miles
Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 9:44pm
Subject: Re: Jean Rouch dies
 
Just to clarify from my previous post: Damoure Zika and Rouch¹s wife were
involved in the car accident, but were not killed. I am not aware of their
status.
TM


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7602


From: Aaron Graham
Date: Thu Feb 19, 2004 11:10pm
Subject: Re: Blood Brothers
 
>Wasn't
> it Richard Price's first script?

I believe he just wrote the novel and not the script, as I think his
first was "The Color Of Money".
His first three books are all amazing and yet the best one ("Ladies
Man") hasn't been made into a feature film...yet (Showtime owns the
rights.) Has anyone else read it? It's great in that you can really
feel the dirt and grit of NYC in its pages and its lead character
comes off as a narcissistic Travis Bickle. Somebody like Spike Lee
would do great justice to it.
7603


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 0:11am
Subject: Re: Mulligan's The Nickel Ride
 
> I find that Mulligan's work in general is very often neglected (except for
> the canonized "To Kill A Mockingbird" - and, by the way, we shouldn't let its
> popular canonization get in the way of our appreciating a truly wonderful
> movie!), but "The Nickel Ride" is a film I don't think I have >ever< heard mentioned
> before as a great film, an essential film. So I wonder aloud to the group:
> has anyone here seen it?

I'm a fan - after UP THE DOWN STAIRCASE, it's my favorite Mulligan.

> Incidentally, another Mulligan film I've not seen (and which has, so far as I
> know, no real rep) is due for release on DVD this spring: "Same Time, Next
> Year," released the same year (1978) as a great Mulligan film which I have seen,
> "Bloodbrothers."

I'm fond of SAME TIME, NEXT YEAR - it's a stage adaptation and shows it,
but it's got nice things in it. - Dan
7604


From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 0:27am
Subject: Jean Rouch
 
Hope none will find this comment out of place, but let me tell you I
don't share the enthusiasm expressed here about Rouch's work. Which
is, in my opinion, somewhat overrated. I'm quite irritated by this
constant determination to deny the specific power of cinema. In his
movies, all seems to be left to chance. And that's not only an
impression, that's a principle. Every single moment is open to
chance. But life is not to be found at the corner of any street, it
has to be invented. In one of his last pieces, « En une poignée de
mains amies » (97), Rouch goes into ecstasies over the sunshine
miraculously entering into the shot when he films (badly) a Porto's
bridge. As if the sole value of the shot lied in this unexpected
irruption of reality. It makes me mad, the sun was not to be waited;
again, it was to be invented.
Maxime
7605


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 0:52am
Subject: Re: Jean Rouch
 
--- Maxime Renaudin wrote:
> Hope none will find this comment out of place, but
> let me tell you I
> don't share the enthusiasm expressed here about
> Rouch's work. Which
> is, in my opinion, somewhat overrated. I'm quite
> irritated by this
> constant determination to deny the specific power of
> cinema. In his
> movies, all seems to be left to chance. And that's
> not only an
> impression, that's a principle. Every single moment
> is open to
> chance. But life is not to be found at the corner of
> any street, it
> has to be invented.

What "irritates" you is a form of filmmaking that you
do not accept.

Your loss.

Chance is a key element of the work of such disparate
filmmakers as Rivette, Warhol, Godard and Van Sant.

You may not prize it. Others do. Read Marcel Duchamp.

>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7606


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 2:36am
Subject: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
Since it's more often discussed than seen -- here it is.

http://www.panix.com/~pcg/kapo.html

Paul
7607


From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:31am
Subject: Re: Mulligan's The Nickel Ride
 
I only saw "The Nickel Ride" once, and while I liked it I wasn't
overwhelmed. You could be right though; rumors at the time was that it
was a very important film for Mulligan personally, and that he was very
hurt by how badly the studio butchered it.

"To Kill a Mockingbird" is great, and "Bloodbrothers" is of course
tremendous.

"Same Time Next Year" is not as good, but I like it a good deal more
than Dan does. He's right that it's obviously a stage adaptation, but I
don't think that holds the film back one bit. What Mulligan can do with
two characters in a room in terms of emotionalized setups is amazing,
and the ending, which is outdoors, would be an incredibly stupid cliche
(hint: there's a sunset involved) if it wasn't so great. But it is. It
echoes the opening of "The Other," actually: character(s) set apart in a
privileged space.

- Fred
7608


From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:51am
Subject: Re: Jean Rouch
 
Maxime wrote: miraculously entering into the shot when he films (badly) a Porto's
bridge. As if the sole value of the shot lied in this unexpected
irruption of reality. It makes me mad, the sun was not to be waited;
again, it was to be invented.>

The Gare du nord sequence in Paris vu par six, I dimly recall, is
another experiment with what Breton called objective chance.

Anyway, the criticism reminds me of a funny Welles story. A kid who
was helping edit Quixote praised a shot because of the clouds in it,
and Welles was furious. "He didn't make the clouds," explained Oja
when she told me the story. But Welles and Rouch are pretty much
polar opposites. The New Wave's "three Rs" when they were learning
cinema were Renoir, Rossellini and Rouch.

My sense of the man from meeting him was: brilliant trickster/con
artist. And I wouldn't doubt that he made bad films, particularly
later on. But Les maitres fous, Jaguar, Monsieur Cocorico, Moi un
Noir, La chasse au lion a l'arc and many more are gigantic and
imperishable.
7609


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:10am
Subject: Re: Mulligan's The Nickel Ride
 
Don't forget "Inside Daisy Clover" !

--- Fred Camper wrote:
> I only saw "The Nickel Ride" once, and while I liked
> it I wasn't
> overwhelmed. You could be right though; rumors at
> the time was that it
> was a very important film for Mulligan personally,
> and that he was very
> hurt by how badly the studio butchered it.
>
> "To Kill a Mockingbird" is great, and
> "Bloodbrothers" is of course
> tremendous.
>
> "Same Time Next Year" is not as good, but I like it
> a good deal more
> than Dan does. He's right that it's obviously a
> stage adaptation, but I
> don't think that holds the film back one bit. What
> Mulligan can do with
> two characters in a room in terms of emotionalized
> setups is amazing,
> and the ending, which is outdoors, would be an
> incredibly stupid cliche
> (hint: there's a sunset involved) if it wasn't so
> great. But it is. It
> echoes the opening of "The Other," actually:
> character(s) set apart in a
> privileged space.
>
> - Fred
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7610


From:
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 0:26am
Subject: A conversation with Keith Baxter
 
I thought some here might be interested in reading the interview I conducted
with Keith Baxter (referenced a few days ago on the group.) This is not
strictly auteurist-related in that Baxter is an actor and a lot of what we discuss
is about his performance in "Chimes at Midnight." But I believe that his
remarks nonetheless shed a great deal of insight into Welles' process as a
director (including his visual style) and will be of interest to anyone who loves (or
likes) "Chimes."

http://thefilmjournal.com/issue8/baxter.html

Also in Issue 8 of The Film Journal are several reviews by me, a terrific
article by Filipe Furtado on auteurism in the marketplace age, and many other
interesting and insightful pieces.

Enjoy,

Peter
7611


From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:28am
Subject: Re: Mulligan's The Nickel Ride
 
David Ehrenstein wrote:

>Don't forget "Inside Daisy Clover" !
>
>
>
One of the great films about filmmaking, to be sure. The dubbing-booth
scene is particularly amazing, with its use of isolation, and I remember
it being justly celebrated by my friends at the time.

But my all-time Mulligan fave remains the much-reviled "Clara's Heart."

[Hey, and everyone, DON'T FORGET to NOT quote entire posts. It takes up
our server space and many find it annoying.]

Fred
7612


From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:42am
Subject: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher" wrote:
> Since it's more often discussed than seen -- here it is.
>
> http://www.panix.com/~pcg/kapo.html
>
> Paul

As far as I can tell, the missing dialogue is, "We've been had, both
of us."

That's not the shot that Daney mentions, is it?

Do people feel that Spielberg aestheticized the Shoah in a similarly
reprehensible fashion? I don't think the answer is simple.

-Jaime
7613


From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:49am
Subject: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
Thanks, Paul. That's not quite what I expected, or what Rivette
described. It's not an adjustment to the frame made to make the shot
prettier - it's a dolly-in on someone praying as she dies, including
the moment of her death.

It's interesting to compare the shot to what Daney (who never saw the
film) wrote about the look on the Boy's face just before he is
(almost) hanged in the modern episode of Intolerance - a look which
expresses his certainty of passing to the Other Side.* Of course,
Griffith doesn't dolly in on it. The question is (now paraphrasing
Daney's The Screen of the Phantasm, which is translated in the BFI
CdC volume 2) how cinema captures a moment of passage - the rule
of "Bazinian" cinema being not to pass from one thing to another
(montage) when there is a passage (from life to death) to be captured
by the camera.

Obviously Rivette found adding the dolly-in to that "essentially
cinematic" shot disturbing. (Bazin also wrote that if there is an
event that is intrinsically cinematic, it's death.) Was he confusing
the fact that the move is pretty conventional with the idea that it's
somehow immoral? Thought question: Imagine it in a Hitchcock film. Do
we see the equivalent anywhere in a Hitchcock film? The dolly-in on
Marion's eye in Psycho, for example, happens after she has died. Any
other examples?

*Rio Lobo: The One Grows Old
7614


From:
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:03am
Subject: Re: Mulligan's The Nickel Ride
 
Dan Sallitt wrote:

>I'm a fan - after UP THE DOWN STAIRCASE, it's my favorite Mulligan.

Ah, I remember now that you ten-bested it for 1974. (Incidentally, all,
files for our group member's Top 10 lists from the 1970s and '60s should be online
shortly.)

>I'm fond of SAME TIME, NEXT YEAR - it's a stage adaptation and shows it,
>but it's got nice things in it.

I'll look forward to it then. And thanks to Fred as well for his positive
comments on the film.

So far, I've only been disappointed by one Mulligan film: "Kiss Me Goodbye,"
which just didn't come together for me as a work of cinema. I'm pretty
certain that it's also a stage adaptation, so I hope that "Same Time" doesn't suffer
from the same problems that I perceived in "Kiss Me Goodbye." Maybe I'm
bound to be a little disappointed by a Mulligan film which takes place mainly
indoors because he's such a master at using exterior locations expressively. On
the other hand, the most amazing shot in "Clara's Heart" (which is a great
film, flat-out) is indoors: the "split composition" which visually separates a
feuding husband and wife by "placing" a wall literally between them.

Peter
7615


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:25am
Subject: Re: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
> Obviously Rivette found adding the dolly-in to that "essentially
> cinematic" shot disturbing. (Bazin also wrote that if there is an
> event that is intrinsically cinematic, it's death.) Was he confusing
> the fact that the move is pretty conventional with the idea that it's
> somehow immoral? Thought question: Imagine it in a Hitchcock film. Do
> we see the equivalent anywhere in a Hitchcock film? The dolly-in on
> Marion's eye in Psycho, for example, happens after she has died. Any
> other examples?

Thanks, Paul! That was cool.

I think it's going to be hard to find parallel examples in the work of
good directors, because the dolly-in here is on the obvious side. If
Hitchcock were doing it, there would be some important piece of plot
info that we wouldn't be able to see unless we were really close!

(Don't we spiral out of Marion's eye instead of into it?)

The interesting thing about the shot is that, dolly aside, death is
played for morbidity rather than pure drama. The actress (is that
really Riva?) has the skeletal look of starvation, and there's something
a little jolting about the way she can't coordinate her hand and eye
movements. Perhaps Rivette responded to these frightening naturalistic
elements, and was bothered by the capital-M movie-ness of the dolly
because the shot manages to evoke real concentration-camp death in other
ways. I had a KAPO-like negative reaction to Tim Blake Nelson's THE
GREY ZONE, which used some horror-movie elements of style to depict the
camps. I remember thinking, "Maybe it's necessary to show the sun on
the grass in the camps, like Resnais did - maybe otherwise you can't
avoid falling into distasteful aestheticism." I don't necessarily want
to stand behind that spur-of-the-moment rule, but it helps me understand
Rivette's reaction. - Dan
7616


From: filipefurtado
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:57am
Subject: Re: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
> Thanks, Paul! That was cool.
>
> I think it's going to be hard to find parallel examples in t
he work of
> good directors, because the dolly-
in here is on the obvious side. If
> Hitchcock were doing it, there would be some important piece
of plot
> info that we wouldn't be able to see unless we were really c
lose!
>
> (Don't we spiral out of Marion's eye instead of into it?)
>
> The interesting thing about the shot is that, dolly aside, d
eath is
> played for morbidity rather than pure drama. The actress (i
s that
> really Riva?)

No, it´s Susan Strasberg. So either Rivette got the actress
wrong, or this isn´t the exactly shot. I guess Ruy (who seems
to be the only one here who actually saw the movie) could
identify it.

Filipe


---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
7617


From: filipefurtado
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:10am
Subject: Re: Mulligan's The Nickel Ride
 
I'm pretty
> certain that it's also a stage adaptation, so I hope that "S
ame Time" doesn't suffer
> from the same problems that I perceived in "Kiss Me Goodbye.

It´s not a stage adaptation, but a remake of very crappy
brazilian film. It´s the worst Mulligan film, but it´s better
than it´sa source, at lest it´s more honest.

Filipe


---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
7618


From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:45am
Subject: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Thanks, Paul. That's not quite what I expected, or what Rivette
> described.

Possibly because it's not the same shot? I'm really confused by this
discussion.

-Jaime
7619


From: jerome_gerber
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 1:00pm
Subject: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
There is a shot of Riva running and throwing herself on to the
barb wire...electrocuting herself...Pontecorvo cuts in for a facial
close up and then, cuts back out for her full body thrown against
the wire and then, tracks in for yet another waist high medium
close up of her body limp and arms extended against the
wire...a bit excessive. About an hour and seven minutes into the
film. This I think is the shot described.

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> > Thanks, Paul. That's not quite what I expected, or what
Rivette
> > described.
>
> Possibly because it's not the same shot? I'm really confused
by this
> discussion.
>
> -Jaime
7620


From: jerome_gerber
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:12pm
Subject: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
I should add that the timing of 1hour :07minutes is off a dvd
purchased in France.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jerome_gerber"
wrote:
> There is a shot of Riva running and throwing herself on to the
> barb wire...electrocuting herself...Pontecorvo cuts in for a facial
> close up and then, cuts back out for her full body thrown
against
> the wire and then, tracks in for yet another waist high medium
> close up of her body limp and arms extended against the
> wire...a bit excessive. About an hour and seven minutes into
the
> film. This I think is the shot described.
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> > > Thanks, Paul. That's not quite what I expected, or what
> Rivette
> > > described.
> >
> > Possibly because it's not the same shot? I'm really confused
> by this
> > discussion.
> >
> > -Jaime
7621


From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:31pm
Subject: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo: Errata
 


Aha! So Riva didn't die during the dolly in? Scratch my analysis of
Rivette. The shot posted is still a pretty obvious shot, as Dan says,
and it still raises an interesting question for Bazinians: does the
transformation filmed in one shot have to be a stationary shot? I
know the pan to the lion who is in the same shot as the family
(another of Bazin's examples) was necessary because, obviously, they
weren't going to get RIGHT NEXT TO her, but...

And yes, it's IN to the drain, OUT of the eye in Psycho. Which is
hardly abject at all.

Re: Kapo - Let's see the real thing, Paul!
7622


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:36pm
Subject: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> > Thanks, Paul. That's not quite what I expected, or what Rivette
> > described.
>
> Possibly because it's not the same shot? I'm really confused by
this
> discussion.
>
> -Jaime

I'm sorry -- it was the wrong scene. Here is the correct link:

http://www.panix.com/~pcg/kapo-track.html

Paul
7623


From: jerome_gerber
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 4:40pm
Subject: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
That's the shot.

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
I'm sorry -- it was the wrong scene. Here is the correct link:
>
> http://www.panix.com/~pcg/kapo-track.html
>
> Paul
7624


From: Craig Keller
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:27pm
Subject: Faster, mockingbird. Kill. Kill.
 
I tried sending this last night, but to no avail --

Not to be a party-pooper, but let me just put forth the following question:

What in hell is so "great" or "wonderful!" about Robert Mulligan's 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?

Game rules: Any response that includes the all-purpose non-answer of "Use of space" will be disregarded.

You have twenty hours to participate, starting... now.

(Just curious, as I find this film to be one notch higher than "abhorrent" on my scale.)

craig.
7625


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:40pm
Subject: Re: Faster, mockingbird. Kill. Kill.
 
> What in hell is so "great" or "wonderful!" about Robert Mulligan's 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?

I don't get it either. I like Mulligan, but I never would have guessed
on the basis of MOCKINGBIRD that he would make good films. - Dan
7626


From:
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 5:50pm
Subject: Re: Faster, mockingbird. Kill. Kill.
 
Craig Keller:

>
> What in hell is so "great" or "wonderful!" about Robert
Mulligan's 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?
>
> Game rules: Any response that includes the all-purpose non-answer
of "Use of space" will be disregarded.
>

You'll probably just disagree, but here goes:

It's a great story, well told. Gregory Peck's character is one of
the most likable, noble figures ever put on screen. The acting is
superb. The dialogue is top-notch. The Boo Radley subplot is lovely
and heart-breaking.

I realize these aren't typically "auteurist" reasons for liking a
film, but I have to give credit where it's due. There's just nothing
wrong with this film, in my opinion.

-Bilge
7627


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Faster, mockingbird. Kill. Kill.
 
The film is so highly-regarded because it helps white
people forget about the history of racism in this
country.

--- ebiri@a... wrote:
> Craig Keller:
>
> >
> > What in hell is so "great" or "wonderful!" about
> Robert
> Mulligan's 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?
> >
> > Game rules: Any response that includes the
> all-purpose non-answer
> of "Use of space" will be disregarded.
> >
>
> You'll probably just disagree, but here goes:
>
> It's a great story, well told. Gregory Peck's
> character is one of
> the most likable, noble figures ever put on screen.
> The acting is
> superb. The dialogue is top-notch. The Boo Radley
> subplot is lovely
> and heart-breaking.
>
> I realize these aren't typically "auteurist" reasons
> for liking a
> film, but I have to give credit where it's due.
> There's just nothing
> wrong with this film, in my opinion.
>
> -Bilge
>
>
>


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7628


From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 6:30pm
Subject: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
> I'm sorry -- it was the wrong scene. Here is the correct link:

Is anyone as reluctant as I am to view the scene (especially removed from the
context of the entire film)?

I do not think it matters which scene Rivette has talked about. I do not even
care if his memory of the scene is correct. We look with skepticism at Rivette's
ability to isolate a small detail and deem the director fascistic (or whatever),
but here is the power of criticism. If we are looking to see if he is correct than
we are trying to be objective and that is impossible. In Daney's own
longwinded way, he seems to be saying that Rivette's review is a little on the
reckless side, but , oh my, is it completely essential. Who in criticism
nowadays is as exciting in his or her exactitude, in this kind of aesthetic
extremism, in thinking of ideas that don't merely serve filmmakers and
consumers? Per Daney's explication (or not, I don't remember), the tracking
shot in KAPO may not even be there if we seek it out.

And now we have sought out this famous shot and I don't think it does anyone
any good. At least because -- for most of us -- we have not seen KAPO.

Gabe

P.S. I tried to find a print of KAPO to show (as the first film in my Daney series)
but was denied by Cinecitta Holdings. I even wrote a nice letter to Pontecorvo,
whose home address I got from an Italian friend. I mentioned Serge and
Rivette in the letter, assuming he wouldn't have heard of the review. Maybe I
assumed wrong. I never heard back.
7629


From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:40pm
Subject: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
Now THAT's abject!

Seriously, though - there's more going on in that shot than in the
previous one, and it's not obviously dumb. You have the low
angle, the counter-movement of the marching women, the guard
who should be somehwere in the shot before GDP reframes...
It's a little hard to make out the details, but I would say that 1) the
reframing is just part of the form of the shot, which includes all of
the above; 2) the intent seems to be more signifying than
esthetic: isolating the character's suicide from the indifferent
movement in the background (the reverse of the cut to the ELS
after Strasberg's death) and 3) it is what the French producer of
It's All True would call "intentioned" - a word that came up more
than once in the editing room, provoking much mirth - but a
useful word that we don't have in English nonetheless.

Whatever its meaning, the shot is an emphasis supplied by the
author, an authorial statement - its first impact is just that. And
this time you have the co-presence of heterogenous elements in
one shot (another Bazinian "no montage" situation) rather than a
transformation: the suicide and the marching women. I wonder if
in fact Bazin wouldn't consider the camera move - even though
there's no cut - a form of montage and a violation of the
no-montage rule. I can think of a counter-example: In The Pianist
when the thugs knock the guy down in the street and people
keep moving, including Brody's father, Polanski films it in one
shot and doesn't supply any emphasis with the camera - which
is the whole point.

And Gabe, while I agree that we need to see the whole film (if
only to make a comparison like the one I hazarded about the
"world indifferent to the death that moves us" connection to the
later death scene), I couldn't help myself - I've wanted to see this
thing for so long that I couldn't resist commenting.

I do agree with what you said, which is the whole point of the
Daney article. On the other hand, I DON'T think Rivette was
wrong, and I feel that analysing why is worth the effort.

Lastly, Serge himself was very influenced by Rivette - that's why I
asked him about Rivette in our interview, even though/because
he had totally repressed Rivette from the magazine - and loved to
seize on small details that sum up a critique, like the yellowed
magazine in Uranus. However, like much else from the Golden
Age of Auteur Criticism, I would say that this has become a
pretty standard move both here and in France, one which is often
lazily executed. I was doing it - brilliantly of course - when I
started my Elephant review with the question about cell-phones -
"Why are there no cell phones in Elephant?" - and that has
become an absolutely standard piece of introductory rhetoric for
critics looking for the answer to the eternal question: "How do I
start this review?"
7630


From:
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 3:36pm
Subject: Re: Faster, mockingbird. Kill. Kill.
 
Craig Keller wrote:

>Any response that includes the all-purpose non-answer of "Use of space"
>will be disregarded.

Well, I guess you can disregard my response then, but I'll write it anyway.

Bilge is absolutely right about the story and the acting, but the film's "use
of space" does have a great deal to do with why I love "To Kill A
Mockingbird." In his capsule review of "Summer of '42," Dave Kehr wrote enthusiastically
of Mulligan's "subjective camera technique." I believe that Mulligan is a
master of it; he has an incredible ability to visualize a story in such a way
that the viewer comes to feel as though we are "seeing" through a particular
character's eyes. Zach Campbell touched on this aspect of Mulligan's style in a
great essay he wrote on "Summer of '42."

I can't quite relate to Dan's comment that he wouldn't have expected Mulligan
to emerge as a great filmmaker on the basis of "Mockingbird" because I find
that even as early as this film Mulligan's signature style is present. Through
his subjective camera technique, Mulligan has fashioned a film that's true to
the child's eye view of the world present in the source novel.

There's a "seamless" feel to Mulligan's images; I make a lot of his
incredible tracking shots and movements of the camera, but maybe just as important is
his editing. One never feels that the images are being cut together
mechanically, but rather that each image relates to the previous, is part of a unified
vision. I think of the key moments in his cinema where he cuts from close-ups
to long shots (offhand, I don't remember any examples of this in "Mockingbird"
which really jumped out at me, but there are at least two amazing examples of
this in "Clara's Heart" and "The Man in the Moon.")

"To Kill A Mockingbird" is not the greatest Mulligan. I think "The Man in
the Moon" is the best, perhaps along with "Summer of '42," with "Love With a
Proper Stranger," "The Other," "The Nickel Ride," "Bloodbrothers," and "Clara's
Heart" all occupying a second tier level. So maybe "Mockingbird" is third tier
Mulligan, but third tier Mulligan is still extraordinary.

Peter
7631


From: Jess Amortell
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:44pm
Subject: Re: Faster, mockingbird. Kill. Kill. (non-answer)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller wrote:
>
> What in hell is so "great" or "wonderful!" about Robert Mulligan's 'To Kill a Mockingbird'?
>
> Game rules: Any response that includes the all-purpose non-answer of "Use of space" will be disregarded.


I never have seen Tequila etc., but just wanted to say that while I'm somewhat allergic to the phrase "use of space" myself, and would prefer to see a better term devised for it, at the same time I don't think it's vague or evasive, any more than a phrase like "dynamic editing" would be; I think it does its intended job of indicating the kind of thing that's likely to be going on in the film. Some films have it, many don't (or, worse, have "abuse of space" - see Pontecorvo?). I'd even go so far as to add that I wish more reviewers, in their enumerations of sometimes debatable virtues, would avail themselves of all-purpose phrases like "use of space" (among others, of course) -- if only to help me figure out if the film in question is one I want to see!
7632


From:
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 8:44pm
Subject: Re: Faster, mockingbird. Kill. Kill.
 
> The film is so highly-regarded because it helps white
> people forget about the history of racism in this
> country.
>

Racism? What's that?


-Bilge
7633


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 9:20pm
Subject: Re: Faster, mockingbird. Kill. Kill.
 
> I can't quite relate to Dan's comment that he wouldn't have expected Mulligan
> to emerge as a great filmmaker on the basis of "Mockingbird" because I find
> that even as early as this film Mulligan's signature style is present.

Just to clarify, I like some earlier Mulligans (FEAR STRIKES OUT comes
to mind) more than MOCKINGBIRD. I'd have to see MOCKINGBIRD again to be
more precise, but I just felt that something had gone weirdly wrong, and
Mulligan was temporarily a bad director. - Dan
7634


From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:29pm
Subject: Use of Space (and The Tracking Shot in Kapo)
 
Isn't the phrase a near-synonym for mise-en-scene, in the more
restricted sense that excludes montage? Even lighting or acting
can be conceived of as spatial components, once your focus is
on "putting them" "in" a "scene." The French also have the nonce
word "scenographie," which is also a spatializing term. Writers
interested in "use of space" would include Rohmer ("Cinema, An
Art of Space") and Bazin, whose anti-montage examples are all
shots where elements are contained within the same space.

Of course, you have to say what you MEAN by use of space, or it's
like saying: "I liked the mise-en-scene." Good as a consumer
guide, but otherwise not illuminating.

The camera movement in Kapo is (IMO) a misuse, if not an
abuse, of space. There's something obstusely literal-minded
about making "our" camera movement diametrical to the
movement of the marching women. Not immoral - just clunky.
Maybe the abjection comes from the "calling attention to the
camera move at such a time."
7635


From: alsolikelife
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 10:31pm
Subject: Auteur arithmetic and other case study puzzles
 
Hi all, I've been catching up with the posts from last week and
enjoyed the auteur discussion. Correct me if I'm wrong but I believe
there was a call for someone to proffer a base definition but no one
followed up?

Anyway, here's a Zen-like question. Does a director have to make
more than one film to be recognized as an auteur? (or perhaps more
to the point, does one only have to see one film by director to
rightfully identify him/her as an auteur?) Or can a single work be
unmistakably identified as the coherent vision of its director, as
opposed to its writer, actors, etc.?

From my own experience I've come away from my first viewing of movies
by Dovzhenko, Parajanov, Raj Kapoor and King Hu among others thinking
that I had witnessed an auteurist vision, and I'm sure all of us have
had similar first encounters with our favorite directors or films.
But what if the next film you saw from them didn't sustain that
impression? (Fortunately in the case of three of the four names I
mentioned, the follow-up film confirmed auteur status -- I still
haven't seen another Raj Kapoor movie, unfortunately.)

My own example of this phenonmenon would be Carol Reed. None of his
other films that I've seen I've liked as much as THE THIRD MAN, not
even ODD MAN OUT. I don't see a singular and consistent vision
throughout his films. THE THIRD MAN has been one of my favorite
films since I was a kid, but I don't think I'd call it an auteurist
film. I probably would have when I first saw it if I had known what
the auteur theory was, but now I simply can't due to my having seen
his other films. Similarly, Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote that he doesn't
consider it a masterpiece because that term implies a master's hand
at work... but here I disagree, I think it is a masterpiece,
a "schizophrenic" masterpiece owing its creation to many contributors
(Graham Greene, Carol Reed, Welles, Anton Karas, Robert Krasker,
Cotten, Howard, Anton Karas' zithering fingertips). The end result
feels a bit discombobulated but I think that's perfectly in line with
the fragmented state of post-war Vienna being depicted. I think a
film can say something fascinating without an "author" being
identified as the speaker. So for me masterpieces and auteurist
films do not overlap -- in fact they may not more often than they
do...

A similar thing happens in Scorsese/Schrader/DeNiro/Herrmann's TAXI
DRIVER (and here I totally agree with Rosenbaum's assessment that the
film's overall effect is due to an equal parts contribution of those
four persons I listed). I do consider Scorsese an auteur, but I
don't think he is THE auteur of TAXI DRIVER, in that the film isn't
completely "his"... I don't think he was completely successful in
converting Schrader's script into his own coherent statement, which
leads to a fascinating "incoherent text" (to borrow Robin Wood's
term). It's Herrmann's hypnotic score that really provides the glue
to this bloody mess -- and again I consider this at least a near-
masterpiece for how mesmerizing and powerful it all is despite its
incoherence. I wonder how many here agree...

Hey, how about Francis Coppola? Here's a guy who I think made four
great movies, but I whom I wouldn't call an auteur, because I can't
find a strong-enough thematic or aesthetic consistency through all of
them. (though perhaps I'm missing something) This may be too
reductive, but to me his style, however captivating, is a little too-
chameleon-like and derivative of others (GODFATHER=Visconti,
CONVERSATION=Antonioni, APOCALYPSE NOW=Fellini).

Anyway, my irresolute thoughts on a tireless topic...

Kevin
7636


From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 11:44pm
Subject: Rouch, Godard & chance
 
Godard said once: « Sometimes I go for a film as for a walk, with
several elements, I trust the forest, the weather, my capacity to
walk, to be with a couple of friends ».

About a shot of «Je vous salue Marie»: « I wanted a plane landing,
but giving the impression of climbing. I was there influenced by
Rossellini, there are not 36 places for the camera, there is only
one, and if there is a trellis in front of the camera at this very
place, that's the reward. »

I don't blame chance, I blame nonchalance.

You can't take what chance brings to you as it is; you have to
compose with it.

You can't rely only on the miracle of reproduction (of reality).

Yes, more than once Godard made the clouds.

Maxime


--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Maxime Renaudin wrote:
> > Hope none will find this comment out of place, but
> > let me tell you I
> > don't share the enthusiasm expressed here about
> > Rouch's work. Which
> > is, in my opinion, somewhat overrated. I'm quite
> > irritated by this
> > constant determination to deny the specific power of
> > cinema. In his
> > movies, all seems to be left to chance. And that's
> > not only an
> > impression, that's a principle. Every single moment
> > is open to
> > chance. But life is not to be found at the corner of
> > any street, it
> > has to be invented.
>
> What "irritates" you is a form of filmmaking that you
> do not accept.
>
> Your loss.
>
> Chance is a key element of the work of such disparate
> filmmakers as Rivette, Warhol, Godard and Van Sant.
>
> You may not prize it. Others do. Read Marcel Duchamp.
>
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
> http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7637


From:
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:18pm
Subject: Stuck On You (Farrelly's)
 
Just saw "Stuck On You" (2003) based on recommendations in posts by Peter
Tonguette and other a_film_by-ers (PT has it on his ten best list). This is a
surprizingly good movie!
Like many comedy films, its strengths are its story, characters, acting and
feelings. I am not claiming it as a triumph of visual style. There ARE some
good shots in it, notably the early crane soaring through LA streets, and the
scenes are well staged in fairly wide screen - am glad I saw this at the theater,
and not on TV, where it will inevitably be pan-and-scanned. Also, the comedy
scenes are well imagined visually. This is a really sweet movie that had me
rooting for its heroes all the way.
Mike Grost
7638


From:
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:29pm
Subject: Dark Tower + Tunnel Under the World (OT)
 
There certainly are literary benefits to a_film_by!
Just read this week for the first time Frederick Pohl's science fiction short
story "The Tunnel Under the World" (1955), and Robert Browning's "Childe
Roland to the Dark Tower Came", two works that had never even been on my literary
radar. Pohl's story is an early and inventive version of what I'm now
realizing is a kind of Gnostic SF: tales in which the hero comes to realize that the
"reality" around him is a sinister illsuion. Later examples by other writers:
Ray Nelson's "Eight O'Clock in the Morning" (used as basis of John Carpenter's
"They Live"), J.G. Ballard's "The Subliminal Man", and lots of Phillip K. Dick
- "Time Out of Joint", "The Man Who Japed", "Ubik" and the extremely strange
short story, "Faith of Our Fathers". Also "The Matrix" movies fall into the
same pattern. "Wake Up Neo" - reality is an evil illusion!
The Browning poem is impressive. I've never been a big Browning fan - his
syntax seems stilted and his mood gloomy. But "Childe Roland" is also
impressively written and imagined. Browning will never be my favorite poet, but he is
better than I ever imagined.
Thanks to a_film_by for the recommendations!
Mike Grost
7639


From:
Date: Fri Feb 20, 2004 7:51pm
Subject: France, We STILL Love You! (Patrice Chereau alert!)
 
I always read and learn a lot from Jonathan Rosenbaum's movie articles - they
are very good!
But was a bit troubled by suggestions in today's "The Dreamers" review that
Americans no longer admire French culture.
At our beautiful new Post-Modernist public library here in Southfield,
Michigan, USA (a building so gorgeous that everyone in town goes there to just to
gawk at it), the librarians have a big display of recommended films on video and
DVD. Current choices: "La Reine Margot" (Patrice Chereau) and "What Time Is
It There?" (Tsai Ming-liang). In fact Tsai's film must be in every public
library in the greater Detroit area.
Also, tonight at midnight the Sundance cable TV chanel is showing a Chereau
triple feature: Intimacy, Son Frere, Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train.
Americans are still in love with French culture!

Mike Grost
(who recognized the clip from Mouchette in "The Dreamers" right away - they
probably recognize it in Cincinnati, too! - all good Americans love Bresson)

7640


From: jaketwilson
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:45am
Subject: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
> I do not think it matters which scene Rivette has talked about. I
do not even care if his memory of the scene is correct. We look with
> skepticism at Rivette's ability to isolate a small detail and deem
the director fascistic (or whatever), but here is the power of
criticism. If we are looking to see if he is correct than we are >
> trying to be objective and that is impossible.

Yes and no. The significance of Rivette's review and what it led to
is not in question, but the claim that a single camera movement can
sum up an entire moral sensibility (or lack thereof) does need to be
backed up with convincing examples if it's to be more than
grandstanding rhetoric.

Not that I disagree with what Rivette is saying -- I'm sure we can
all think of plenty of films which give away their integrity
through "abject" formal moves, even something as simple as cliche
shot/reverse-shot montage used to impose a phony romantic ending.

More generally, though, if critics are going to draw large
conclusions from small details, then their arguments stand or fall on
whether they can GET THE DETAILS RIGHT -- exactly right, not some
rough approximation. Interpretations are one thing, but part of any
working critic's obligations are journalistic: bringing the facts. It
IS possible to be correct or incorrect in this area. I once wrote a
review in which I referred to the main character as owning a manual
typewriter. Then I lay awake at night wondering if it really was a
manual typewriter and not an electric one. The film wasn't on video
and I never got around to seeing it again in a theatre to check. My
shame.

JTW

 


7641


From: jaketwilson
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:03am
Subject: Re: Rouch, Godard & chance
 
> You can't take what chance brings to you as it is; you have to
> compose with it.
>
> You can't rely only on the miracle of reproduction (of reality).
>
> Yes, more than once Godard made the clouds.

This discussion reminds me of a line that really bothered me in
Daney's KAPO article:

"To choose Cahiers was to choose realism and, eventually, a certain
contempt for imagination."

Maybe Daney is being a little ironic here, but I still distrust the
suggestion here (which is also in Bazin) of an opposition between
imagination and realism. I do like the Rouch movies I've seen, but I
agree strongly that film is more than documentary "witnessing" --
good filmmakers have to invent as well as discover, lie as well as
tell the truth. To say otherwise is to place cinema somehow "beyond
art" and I'm not comfortable with that.

JTW
7642


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:31am
Subject: Re: France, We STILL Love You! (Patrice Chereau alert!)
 
The problem is that I don't think Jonathan is really
aware of Chereau -- his centrality to French Culture,
or as far as I'm concerned World Culture.

My biggest beef with his, and Adrian Martin's,
otherwise excellent "Movie Mutations" (I'm writing a
review of it for somebody) is that it doesn't contain
a single mention of Chereau.

Of course, as everyone know,I'm a href="http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/g001/b_patricechereau.shtml"
target="_blank">Patrice Chereau
fanatic. I saw his production of Genet's "The Screens"
at Nanterre in '83. (Maria Casares made her entrance
standing right next to me!)I have his Ring Cycle on
laser and DVD. "L'Homme Blesse" is less a film to me
than an event in my life (it contains far more
personal resonance than anything in "The Dreamers")
And don't get me started on "Those Who Love Me Can
Take the Train." I consider the analysis of it I wrote
for "Film Comment" (the Winter 2002-2003 number) to be
merely a first pass.

But the problem with the "teenagers in Cincinnati" has
to do with a lot more than the French. It's the
entrenched anti-intellectualism of this entire society
that's the culprit
--- MG4273@a... wrote:


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7643


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 5:44am
Subject: Re: Re: The Tracking Shot in Kapo
 
> I'm sorry -- it was the wrong scene. Here is the correct link:
>
> http://www.panix.com/~pcg/kapo-track.html

This is pretty cool. Anyone have any other rare clips in QuickTime
format? Some of the missing AMBERSONS footage, maybe?

Seems as if Pontecorvo is interested in jacking up the dramaturgy to
make us feel bad about the camps: that "What'll I do now, what'll I do
now?" is pure pathos, and the camera holds on Riva's face as Strasberg
keeps delivering those lethal verbal blows: "You're just like everyone
else." A certain kind of socially conscious filmmaking denies the
audience the satisfaction of a functioning dramatic structure: to make
the movie work properly, you have to change the social order and
eliminate the obstacles to dramatic closure. Here, the very painful
conflict between the two women over the half-slice of bread will never
be worked out.

Riva's death scene has the same troubling aspect as Strasberg's. It's
not as if Pontecorvo has nothing to recommend him: if he weren't able
and willing to go to terrifying places, then his conventional,
aestheticized sense of drama (it's really drama we're talking about here
- the camera is pretty much completely in its service) wouldn't seem as
dissonant.

Hard not to think of Rossellini when you see material like this. I'm
sure that's the gold standard that Rivette measured Pontecorvo against.

Gabe: I dunno, usually a little bit of a film tells the tale for me. 30
seconds into THE ROAD TO PERDITION and MONSTERS BALL, I leaned over to
my companions and said, "I think we're in trouble." I don't deny that
there are exceptions; but usually I feel as if the qualities of a film
are present even in very small excerpts.

- Dan
7644


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 5:53am
Subject: Second-guessing Bazin
 
> and it still raises an interesting question for Bazinians: does the
> transformation filmed in one shot have to be a stationary shot?

It's not as easy a question as it looks. Bazin's idea depends on the
audience's notion of the integrity of the image. Can the audience's
notion change with time and technological advances? The slight blur of
a pan or track is just enough to conceal the raggedy edges of today's
digital effects, and audiences are probably hip to that already.

There are two aspects to the one-shot aesthetic: our conviction in the
integrity of the representation of events, and the conceptual/artistic
impact of seeing two things at once, or two states one upon another. A
pan or track might preserve the first aspect, but sacrifice the second
in the name of some other aesthetic goal. - Dan
7645


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:47am
Subject: Re: Auteur arithmetic
 
Kevin, Charles Laughton is an auteur, in the sense you mean, on the
basis of Night of the Hunter, just as Satiyajit Ray would be an
auteur on the basis of Pather Panchali if he'd been run over by a
streetcar after making it.
7646


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:49am
Subject: Re: Stuck On You
 
I love Stuck on You, Mike - I've devoted the last month of my life to
writing an article about it.
7647


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:03am
Subject: Rivette on Kapo
 
I looked up Rivette's review of Kapo.


De l'abjection


KAPO. film italien de GILLO PONTECORVO.
Scénario Franco Solinas et Gillo Pontecorvo.
Images : Alexander Sekolovic.
Musique: Carlo Rustichelli.
Interprétation: Didi Perego, Gianni Garko, Susan Strasberg,
Laurent Terzieff, Emmanuelle Riva.
Production : Vides. Zebro, Francinex. 11960.
Distribution Cinédis.


Le moins que l'on puisse dire, c'est qu'il est difficile, lorsqu'on
entreprend un film sur un tel sujet (les camps de concentration),
de ne pas se poser certaines questions préalables ; mais tout
se passe comme si, par incohérence. sottise ou lâcheté.
Pontecorvo avait résolument négligé de se les poser.


Par exemple, celle du réalisme : pour de multiples raisons, faciles
à comprendre. le réalisme absolu, ou ce qui peut en tenir lieu
au cinéma, est ici impossible ; toute tentative dans cette direction
est nécessairement inachevée (« donc immorale »), tout essai de
reconstitution ou de maquillage dérisoire et grotesque, toute
approche traditionnelle du « spectacle » relève du voyeurisme et
de la pornographie. Le metteur en scène est tenu d'affadir, pour
que ce qu'il ose présenter comme la « réalité » soit physiquement
supportable par le spectateur, qui ne peut ensuite que conclure,
peut-être inconsciemment, que, bien sûr, c'était pénible, ces
Allemands quels sauvages, mais somme toute pas intolérable,
et qu'en étant bien sage, avec un peu d'astuce ou de patience,
on devait pôuvoir s'en tirer. En même temps chacun s'habitue
sournoisement à l'horreur, cela rentre peu à peu dans les moeurs,
et fera partie bientôt du paysage mental de l'homme moderne ;
qui pourra, la prochaine fois, s'étonner ou s'indigner de ce
qui aura cessé en effet d'être choquant?


C'est ici que l'on comprend que la force de <>
venait moins y des documents que du montage, de la science avec
laquelle les faits bruts, réels, hélas ! étaient offerts au regard,
dans un mouvement qui est justement celui de la conscience lucide,
et quasi impersonnelle,, qui ne peut accepter de comprendre et
d'admettre le phénomène. On a pu voir ailleurs des documents
plus atroces que ceux retenus par Resnais : mais à quoi l'homme
ne peut-il s'habituer ? Or on ne s'habitue pas à Nuit et Brouillard ;
c'est que le cinéaste juge, ce qu'il montre, et est jugé par la façon
dont il le montre.


Autre chose : on a beaucoup cité à gauche et à droite, et le plus
souvent assez sottement, une phrase de Moullet : la morale est
affaire de travellings (ou la version de Godard : les travellings
sont affaire de morale) ; on a voulu y voir le comble du formalisme,
alors qu'on en pourrait plutôt critiquer l'excès « terroriste », pour
reprendre la terminologie paulhanienne. Voyez cependant, dans
Kapo, le plan où Riva se suicide, en se jetant sur les
barbelés électrifiés ; l'homme qui décide, à ce moment, de faire
un travelling- avant pour recadrer le cadavre en contreplongée,
en prenant soin d'inscrire exactement la main levée dans un
angle de son cadrage final, cet homme n'a droit qu'au plus
profond mépris. On nous les casse depuis quelques mois avec
les faux problèmes de la forme et du fond, du réalisme et de
la féerie, du scénario et de la « misenscène »
de l'acteur libre ou dominé et autres balançoires ; disons qu'il se
pourrait que tous les sujets naissent libres et égaux en droit ;
ce qui compte, c'est le ton, ou l'accent, la nuance, comme on
voudra l'appeler - c'est-à-dire le point de vue d'un homme, l'auteur,
mal nécessaire, et l'attitude que prend cet homme par rapport à ce
qu'il filme, et donc par rapport au monde et à toutes choses :
ce qui peut s'exprimer par le choix des situations, la construction
de l'intrigue, les dialogues, le jeu des acteurs, ou la pure et simple
technique, a indifféremment mais autant ». Il est des choses qui ne
doivent être abordées que dans la crainte et le tremblement ; la mort
en est une, sans doute ; et comment, au moment de filmer une chose
aussi mystérieuse, ne pas se sentir un imposteur ? Mieux
vaudrait en tout cas se poser la question, et inclure cette
interrogation, de quelque façon, dans ce que l'on filme :
mais le doute est bien ce dont Pontecorvo et ses pareils
sont le plus dépourvus.


Faire un film, c'est donc montrer certaines choses, c'est en
même temps, et par la même opération, les montrer par un
certain biais : ces deux actes étant rigoureusement indissociables. De
même qu'il ne peut y avoir d'absolu de la mise en scène. car il n'y a
pas de mise en scène dans l'absolu, de même le cinéma ne sera jamais
un « langage » : les rapports du signe au signifié n'ont aucun
cours ici, et n'aboutissent qu'à d'aussi tristes hérésies
que la petite <>. Toute approche du fait cinématographique
qui entreprend de substituer l'addition à la synthèse,
l'analyse à l'unité, nous renvoie aussitôt à une rhétorique
d'images qui n'a pas plus à voir avèc le fait cinématographique
que le dessin industriel avec le fait pictural ; pourquoi
cette rhétorique reste-t-elle si chère à ceux qui s'intitulent
eux-mêmes « critiques de gauche » ? - peut-être,
somme toute, ceux-ci sont-ils avant tout d'irréductibles professeurs ;
mais si nous avons toujours détesté, par exemple, Poudovkine, 'de
Sica, Wyler, Lizzani. et les anciens combattants de l'Idhec,
c'est parce que l'aboutissement logique de ce formalisme
s'appelle Pontecorvo. Quoi qu'en pensent les journalistes
express, l'histoire du cinéma n'entre pas en révolution tous
les huit jours. La mécanique d'un Losey, l'expérimentation
new-yorkaise ne l'émeuvent pas plus que les vagues de la
grève la paix des profondeurs. Pourquoi ? C'est que les uns
ne se posent que des problèmes formels, et que les autres
les résolvent tous à l'avance en n'en posant aucun.
Mais que disent plutôt ceux qui font vraiment l'histoire, et que l'on
appelle aussi « hommes de l'art » ? Resnais avouera que,
si tel film de la semaine intéresse en lui le spectateur,
c'est cependant devant Antonioni qu'il a le
sentiment de n'être qu'un amateur ; ainsi Truffaut parlerait-il sans
doute de Renoir, Godard de Rossellini, Demy de Visconti ;
et comme Cézanne, contre tous les journalistes et
chroniqueurs, fut peu à peu imposé par les peintres,
ainsi les cinéastes imposent-ils à l'histoire Murnau ou Mizoguchi...


Jacques RIVETTE.


Cahiers du Cinéma 120 (1961)
7648


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:10am
Subject: Re: Dark Tower and Tunnel Under the World
 
Great, Mike - you're the one who started that thread.

Further Gnostic sci-fi recommendations: Dark CITY (on film) and in
literature, Dick's early novel Eye in the Sky and Theodore Sturgeon's
mind-blowing story Yesterday Was Monday (I think that's the title).

Further Robert Browning recommendations (I know, he's dificult -
during his lifetime there were Browning Societies where people would
meet to figure his poems out): A Tocatta of Galuppi's, My Last
Duchess, Andrea del Sarto and The Ring and the Book - a twelve-book
poem about a murder case told from conflicting points of view. I
don't expect anyone to read the latter, but it does amazingly
anticipate a lot of modern cinema. The dramatic monologues are
brilliant little slices of subjectivity where the speaker's deforming
of reality (and Childe Roland REALLY deforms reality) reveals his/her
soul. Browning wrote scores of monologues, and each one implies the
equivalent of a whole Shakespeare play going on around it. The title
of Childe Roland, I believe, is actually a line from one of Poor
Tom's songs in King Lear - so it was really Shakespeare who first
dreamed the monoliths. Unless he was visited by one!
7649


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:14am
Subject: Re: Rouch, Godard and Chance
 
Although Daney's article on Bazin ( Screen of the Phantasm) barely
acknowledges it, Bazin always shows both sides of the issues he is
often treated as a dogmatic authority on - such as reality and
imagination (or abstraction). Always. He gets a real kick out of
paradox.
7650


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:19am
Subject: Re: Second-Guessing Bazin
 
When we second-guess Bazin, he's usually there ahead of us. He is
very clear in the Limits of Montage article that process work to make
the balloon do tricks wouldn't cut the mustard, no matter how
polished it was. That already anticipates the digital revolution,
declaring it irrelevant. The balloon at the beginning of "One, Two,
Three" will always amaze us in a way that the feather at the
beginning of Forrest Gump can't.
7651


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:39am
Subject: Welles' The Magic Show
 
I caught the first of the excellent Welles Rarities programs shown by
Stefan Droessler of the Munich Archives at the American Cinematheque
tonight - Welles the magician. I'm not going to every show, but I
went to this one because I had to see the restored Magic Show, and as
luck would have it, everything in the program was new to me: the
Follow the Boys sequence with Dietrich, OW on I Love Lucy, the BBC
Sketchbook about Houdini and Barrymore (which opened the program),
the COLOR restroration of the great 10-minute F for Fake trailer, the
unfinished workprint of Orson Welles' Vienna (included because of a
trick with Senta Berger at the end) and The Magic Show: six illusions
performed, directed and edited by OW, loosely constituting an essay
on magic. (One sequence was edited by Stefan and his collaborators to
go with the narration Welles had recorded for it.)

All this by way of saying that the ONLY magic trick of the evening
that played out in one shot (with some cutaways that didn't affect
its credibility) was the one in I Love Lucy. EVERY OTHER TRICK was so
edited that he could have been slipping rabbits into hats every time
the camera changed angles. In The Magic Show he tells us up front
that what we are seeing are real illusions, with no cinema trickery,
but the whole point of the show is that each trick is lit, framed,
edited and dramatized to be much more than a stage illusion. The
Bazinian dogma (not necessarily Bazin's) that would oblige any film
student to film any trick in one shot is calmly relegated to the dust-
bin of academic filmmaking by the Master.

In fact, assuming that he was working toward some kind of unified
essay that he never finished, the simplest trick - a minute illusion
performed with a piece of thread - is the most significant. While
telling a fantastic tale about the Indian rope trick and how he had
to marry Beatrice to a dirty old Indian magician to find out how to
do it (to the magician's infinite regret!), he cuts a piece of thread
in segments, rolls them into a tiny ball, STICKS HIS HAND OUTSIDE THE
FRAME FOR JUST A SECOND, and then reveals that the thread has been
made whole again. That second out of frame is enough to call into
question - "ontologically" - the whole trick, and I don't believe it
happened by accident!
7652


From:
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:52am
Subject: Re: Welles' The Magic Show
 
Bill Krohn wrote:

>That second out of frame is enough to call into
>question - "ontologically" - the whole trick, and I don't believe it
>happened by accident!

By pure and utter coincidence, I just last week interviewed the magician who
was present during the filming of this trick (which is called "The Gypsy
Thread") and who helped Welles with it. The magician's name is Mike Caveney, he
was one of a series of magician friends Welles hung out with in the '80s, and he
went into detail about Welles' handling of the trick - including the whole
business about Welles sticking his hands out of frame for a split second! - and
how it differed from how Welles might perform the trick on the stage. For
those interested, the interview will be appearing next June in The Film Journal.
Caveney was full of terrific insights, as was another magician friend of
Welles' who I interviewed last summer:
>http://www.thefilmjournal.com/issue6/steinmeyer.html<

I've seen the Munich Filmmuseum's assembly of "The Magic Show" and it's a
total beaut. "Vienna" is minor, in my opinion, but you have to love Welles'
cataloging of Viennese deserts!

Peter
7653


From: jaketwilson
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 8:13am
Subject: Re: Dark Tower and Tunnel Under the World
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> Great, Mike - you're the one who started that thread.
>
> Further Gnostic sci-fi recommendations: Dark CITY (on film) and in
> literature, Dick's early novel Eye in the Sky and Theodore
Sturgeon's
> mind-blowing story Yesterday Was Monday (I think that's the title).

I guess we could add BLADE RUNNER, where "false consciousness" takes
the form of memories implanted by an evil corporation. Then there's
William Gibson's NEUROMANCER and its sequels, where the search for
truth becomes hard to distinguish from its opposite: the "postmodern"
sense of free-fall, which assumes that there's no ultimate reality,
just different levels of simulation. Like in Cronenberg's EXISTENZ --
I take Cronenberg as a basically anti-religious filmmaker, which
maybe explains why he's never been wholly comfortable within his
various genres; his characters are trying to break through to
existential freedom, not knowledge of the divine.

All this somehow reminds of a useful rule stated by the modern SF
master Gene Wolfe: "Any interesting work of art comes close to saying
the opposite of what it actually says." That's if you value coherent
statements in the first place...

JTW
7655


From: Andy Rector
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:29am
Subject: Tracking Shot in Kapo--Death Moment
 
I, for some reason to do with my computer, am unable to play the
proper tracking shot from KAPO. However I glimpsed the other
("wrong") shot that Paul so graciously posted and that was enough
for me (as well as having glimpsed BURN! in the past). Pontecorvo is
not a careful director, and rarely concerned with morality. This
makes him a poor (political) filmmaker according the importance one
ascribes to the relation morality/politics (c'est tout, IMO).

It is difficult to proclaim this in good faith about KAPO, with only
this fragment, in this format, with such a history. I would like to
proclaim though that there is something putrid, an error at best, in
the shot (I am speaking of the first clip Paul posted now); the
tracking shot moves IN to the actress, cutting OUT the soldier who I
assume is an SS, gaurd, or even from the Allies. This seems to me
the worst part of it. To personalize a moment like this as such
seems to me the nadir of the Spielberg/Holocaust industry.

I don't think we should ignore the shot as it is and will be, but I
agree with the various members who say that it is not altogether
important that the shot be concretely analyzed but that the analysis
be concrete. Particularly at this late date.

As another member of the group keeps reminding us, it may be more
useful to create a fantasy (if one wants to create a fantasy) that
tells us something about our present; what's the point otherwise?

As for Bill's inquiry about moment of death in films, I would like
to bring up Modigliani's death in MONTPARNASSE 19 by Becker,
striking especially considering all of the cliches that could have
occured, morality intact, if only because of the liberties one takes
in representing or viewing a figure such as he.

Best,
andy
7656


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:16pm
Subject: Re: Dark Tower and Tunnel Under the World
 
Jake wrote: "I take Cronenberg as a basically anti-religious
filmmaker, which
maybe explains why he's never been wholly comfortable within his
various genres; his characters are trying to break through to
existential freedom, not knowledge of the divine.

All this somehow reminds of a useful rule stated by the modern SF
master Gene Wolfe: "Any interesting work of art comes close to saying
the opposite of what it actually says." That's if you value coherent
statements in the first place..."

Case in point? Or SOMETHING... I've written that Videodrome and Naked
Lunch are both remakes of Orphee, perhaps the central Gnostic film:
both are human tragedies and spiritual triumphs (rebirth as the New
Flesh, etc.) Of course they can also be seen the opposite way.

Worth mentioning again: The scene in The Birds where Mitch listens to
the radio for news reports in the garage is a reference to Orphee,
which may be why, at Truffaut's request, Hitchcock sent a print to
Paris to be screened for Cocteau before he died.
7657


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:17pm
Subject: Re: Welles' The Magic Show
 
So Peter, why does your source say he stuck his hand out of frame for
a split second? It wasn't necessary to do the trick, was it? Or was
it?
7658


From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:41pm
Subject: Guru Dutt & others/ Bollywood recommendations?
 
Retrospective at Paris Centre Pompidou of Indian popular cinema,
including 50's classics by Guru Dutt, Raj Kapoor, Bimal Roy, Mehboob
Khan and V. Shantaram, and more "anonymous" productions from the
30's up to now.
Any recommendation welcomed (most of the film are about 160mn.
long...)
7659


From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 1:52pm
Subject: Re: Guru Dutt & others/ Bollywood recommendations?
 
Maxime ... I haven't watched it yet, but a cinephile acquaintance
(who's Indian) lent me a DVD copy of Guru Dutt's KAAGAZ KE PHOOL
(1959) with extremely high recommendations. It's an semi-
autobiographical story about a filmmaker. I had never heard of this
title by Dutt before, so I don't know how big its reputation
actually is. But if it's playing, it's one you may want to catch.

--Zach
7660


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:12pm
Subject: Re: Guru Dutt & others/ Bollywood recommendations?
 
> Retrospective at Paris Centre Pompidou of Indian popular cinema,
> including 50's classics by Guru Dutt, Raj Kapoor, Bimal Roy, Mehboob
> Khan and V. Shantaram, and more "anonymous" productions from the
> 30's up to now.
> Any recommendation welcomed (most of the film are about 160mn.
> long...)

Haven't seen the Guru Dutt title that Zach recommended (someone put it
on their 2002 Sight & Sound ten-best list), but PYASSA is worth seeing.
Not a great film, I don't think, but it has virtues, and an
exceptional score.

I don't understand why people like Mehboob Khan's MOTHER INDIA, but
there's a populist adventure film called THE BANDIT (GANGA JUMNA) by
Nitin Bose, starring Nasir Khan, that I think is nicely directed.

I've seen one or two Kapoor films and one Shantaram film, and wasn't too
impressed.

Are they showing PAKEEZAH by Amrohi? I haven't seen it, but it's the
Bollywood film that been on the most Sight & Sound lists for the last
two decades. - Dan

- Dan
7661


From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 2:27pm
Subject: Re: Guru Dutt & others/ Bollywood recommendations?
 
Some like Dutt more than I do, but his films are at the very least quite
interesting and worth seeing. They are often stylistically
heterogeneous, which may be part of my problem; I'm often thought to
place too high a priority on unity. I've only seen a few by Raj Kapoor,
but prefer them. Anyway by far my favorite Dutt of the five I've seen is
"Pyaasa." Here are the five I've seen in approximate order of preference
along with the url to very short capsule reviews I wrote, but they're
all of interest.

- Fred
__________________________________________________________________


Pyaasa (Eternal Thirst):
http://65.201.198.5/movies/capsules/21216_ETERNAL_THIRST_PYAASA

Kaagaz Ke Phool (Paper Flowers):
http://65.201.198.5/movies/capsules/21174_PAPER_FLOWERS_KAAGAZ_KE_PHOOL

Aar Paar (Cupid's Arrow):
http://65.201.198.5/movies/capsules/21199_CUPIDS_ARROW_AAR_PAAR_ACROSS_THE_HEART

Jaal (The Net) http://65.201.198.5/movies/capsules/21245_NET_THE_NET_JAAL

Baazi: A Game of Chance:
http://65.201.198.5/movies/capsules/21244_GAME_OF_CHANCE_THE_GAMBLE_BAAZI
7662


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 3:30pm
Subject: Re: Tracking Shot in Kapo--Death Moment
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
wrote:
> I, for some reason to do with my computer, am unable to play the
> proper tracking shot from KAPO. However I glimpsed the other
> ("wrong") shot that Paul so graciously posted and that was enough
> for me (as well as having glimpsed BURN! in the past). Pontecorvo
is
> not a careful director, and rarely concerned with morality. This
> makes him a poor (political) filmmaker according the importance one
> ascribes to the relation morality/politics (c'est tout, IMO).
>
> It is difficult to proclaim this in good faith about KAPO, with
only
> this fragment, in this format, with such a history. I would like to
> proclaim though that there is something putrid, an error at best,
in
> the shot (I am speaking of the first clip Paul posted now); the
> tracking shot moves IN to the actress, cutting OUT the soldier who
I
> assume is an SS, guard, or even from the Allies.

I should have provided some of the story. He's a German guard.
Susan Strasberg's character, Edith, is Jewish and imprisoned
in the camp. A doctor takes pity on her and gives her a new
non-Jewish identity, Nicole. This allows her to collaborate
and becomes a kapò, a boss to the other inmates. She explains why
she collaborates: she doesn't want to die. But after her friend,
Terese -- Riva's character -- kills herself on the electric
fence, Edith/Nicole decides to open up the gates. That's where
the clip of the last few minutes of _Kapò_ begins. Nicole opens
the gates, and she and many others are killed, but hundreds
more escape. Only a few days are left until the German defeat,
so there's a very good chance they will survive.

So -- Terese's death transforms Nicole. She realizes it's "not
necessary to live," and values self-sacrifice over survival.
Dying, Edith tells the German guard, "We've been cheated,"
and re-affirms her Jewish identity.

I'll see if I can fix the clip. You could try getting it directly
from my computer, http://68.173.37.135.

Paul
7663


From: Fred Camper
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 5:43pm
Subject: Re: re: 2001 (and American Avant-garde Cinema)
 
hotlove666 wrote:

>Fred, the quote is from the Browning poetic monologue, not the
>Byron epic, but coincidentally, Clarke misquotes it (in "The Lost
>Worlds of 2001") as "Childe Harold to the Dark Tower came."
>
Thanks a lot for this info! Some future Brakhage scholar will doubtless
thank you too. It's surprising that Brakhage would be reading Clarke,
but not impossible. The real question now is whether he actually
intended a reference to the Browning poem, which it's likely that he
read. Now I'll read it too.

- Fred
7664


From: alsolikelife
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:36pm
Subject: Re: Shopping list from Europe
 
I hope you do write more about these films, here or on your own site! (and =
I
hope you do see RAJA, it was one of my favorites from last year's New York =

Film Festival)

Here's my Berlin list, with link to IMDb info and my own shorthard form of
ratings:

Intimate Strangers (2004, Patrice Leconte)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0363532/
mixed (though I must add i saw this without benefit of English
subtitles, which
made me more attentive to the visual and aural properties of the
film, and on
those grounds it was rather unimpressive)

The Love Eterne (1963, Li Han Hsiang)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0057248/
yes (YES for the genderbending setup, mixed for the long middle
stretch, YES
for the ending)

Notes of an Itinerant Performer (1941, Hiroshi Shimizu)
not listed on IMDb
YES YES

Me and My Brother (1969, Robert Frank)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0063286/
yes

Process (2004, C.S. Leigh)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0354848/
NO NO (and an extra NO for John Cale's live accompaniment)

A Tale of Two Sisters (2003, Kim Ji-Woon)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0365376/
yes

Country of My Skull (2003, John Boorman)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0349260/
no

End of the Century: The Story of the Ramones (2003, Jim Fields,
Michael
Gramaglia)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0368711/
yes

Demain on Demenage a/k/a Tomorrow We Move (2004, Chantal Akerman)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0328990/
mixed

Before Sunset (2004, Richard Linklater)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0381681/
YES YES

South of the Clouds (2004, Zhu Wen)
not listed on IMDb
YES

Maria, Full of Grace (2004, Joshua Marston)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0390221/
yes

Lost Embrace (2004, Daniel Burman)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0366137/
mixed

Monster (2003, Patty Jenkins)
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0340855/
very very mixed

And without trying to sound cliquish or coquettish, I'll just say it
was a pleasure
to meet Gabe and Chris Fujiwara, two people whose online writings
I've
admired for some time.

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
> I know it doesn't mean much to post a list of films without
commentary, but=
> I
> thought I would at least highlight some of the better films I saw
during my=
> trips
> to Berlin and Paris before I have some time to comment further:
>
> 1st category - favorites
> L'esquive, by Abdelatif Kéchiche
> Unfinished (from M'as-tu vue), by Sophie Calle
> Before Sunset, by Richard Linklater
>
> 2nd category - others I liked a lot
> The Sign of Chaos, by Rogério Sganzerla
> Samaritan Girl, Kim Ki-duk
> South of the Clouds, Zhu Wen
> Léo en jouant 'dans la compaignie des hommes', Arnaud Desplechin
> La face cachée de la lune, Robert Lepage
> Triple Agent, Eric Rohmer
>
> 3rd category - others I liked mildly
> Demain, on déménage, Chantal Akerman
> Chain, Jem Cohen
> Feux rouges, Cedric Kahn
> Pas sur la bouche, Alain Resnais
> Return of Caligostro, Daniele Cipri and Franco Maresco
>
> not very interesting:
> Zebraman, Takashi Miike,
> Ae Fond Kiss, Ken Loach
> El Abrazo Partido, Daniel Burman
> Trilogy I: The Weeping Meadow, Theo Angelopoulos
> Folle embellie, Dominique Cabrera
> Anatomy of Hell, Catherine Breillat
>
> duds:
> Witnesses, Vinko Bresan
> Confidences trop intimes, Patrice Leconte
> Beautiful Country, Hans Peter Molland
>
> still unseen by me (though on my list):
> The Missing, Lee Kang-sheng
> Head On, Faith Akin [golden bear winner]
> Les sentiments, Noémie Lvovsky
> Pas de repos pour les braves, Alain Guiraudie
> Vert paradis, Emmanuel Bourdieu
> Raja, Jacques Doillon
> Paul s'en va, Alain Tanner
>
> Gabe
7665


From: alsolikelife
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 6:47pm
Subject: Re: Guru Dutt & others/ Bollywood recommendations?
 
Maxime, could you please post the list of films being shown at this
retrospective?

Of Dutt, I have only seen PYAASA and I think is a masterpiece. Related to my
other post, it would be one of those films that I've seen and go "yup, he's an
auteur". I hope I get to see his other films soon.

When I think of Bollywood cinema, the first word that comes to mind is
"delirium". I think the great films I've seen from this genre all achieve a kind of
madness that goes well beyond the parameters of mere melodrama. It's an
intense feeling that brings the social, cultural, and inter-human paradoxes of a
nation of 800 million people, the vast majority of which live well below the
poverty line. (I've had a similar feeling watching Sirk's IMITATION OF LIFE as
well as some Sam Fuller movies). I think PYAASA and the brilliant second
half of MOTHER INDIA achieve this kind of madness. Raj Kapoor's AWARA is
still my favorite. The only other Bollywood films I've seen are LAGAAN,
SHOLAY (whose legendary popularity in India is simply lost on me) and
MUGHAL E AZAM (a sterling epic, sort of like David Lean with bellydancing).
I'm about to watch PAKEEZAH as I just acquired a copy. Given that PYAASA,
MOTHER INDIA and AWARA are among my favorite films of the '50s (or of
any era), it's a wonder I haven't seen more.

Kevin


--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
> Retrospective at Paris Centre Pompidou of Indian popular cinema,
> including 50's classics by Guru Dutt, Raj Kapoor, Bimal Roy, Mehboob
> Khan and V. Shantaram, and more "anonymous" productions from the
> 30's up to now.
> Any recommendation welcomed (most of the film are about 160mn.
> long...)
7666


From: alsolikelife
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:30pm
Subject: Re: Guru Dutt & others/ Bollywood recommendations?
 
Now I know why I couldn't find a Chireader.com review for PYAASA -- it was
listed as ETERNAL THIRST!

Too bad about that print with no subtitles for the songs -- the DVD of MOTHER
INDIA that I own has the same problem. I think when TCM ran several
Bollywood films last summer they were completely subtitled (that's how I was
able to see PYAASA and PAKEEZAH)

re: heterogeneity -- yes I think that is exactly what makes Bollywood films
special (the ones I like anyway), that they try to throw a little bit of everything in
to see how it blows up in the end. Some critics call this the "marsala effect" (I
don't know if that's any more illuminating than calling Ozu's signature camera
placement the "tatami shot", but in any case it is unique to the genre). I love
how AWARA slips from Dickensian social realism to post-noir romantic
melodrama to MGM Hindu musical set pieces with effortless fluidity.
Tarantino's got nothing on Raj Kapoor.

Kevin

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
> Some like Dutt more than I do, but his films are at the very least quite
> interesting and worth seeing. They are often stylistically
> heterogeneous, which may be part of my problem; I'm often thought to
> place too high a priority on unity. I've only seen a few by Raj Kapoor,
> but prefer them. Anyway by far my favorite Dutt of the five I've seen is
> "Pyaasa." Here are the five I've seen in approximate order of preference
> along with the url to very short capsule reviews I wrote, but they're
> all of interest.
>
> - Fred
>
____________________________________________________________
______
>
>
> Pyaasa (Eternal Thirst):
> http://65.201.198.5/movies/capsules/21216_ETERNAL_THIRST_PYAASA
>
> Kaagaz Ke Phool (Paper Flowers):
> http://65.201.198.5/movies/capsules/
21174_PAPER_FLOWERS_KAAGAZ_KE_PHOOL
>
> Aar Paar (Cupid's Arrow):
> http://65.201.198.5/movies/capsules/
21199_CUPIDS_ARROW_AAR_PAAR_ACROSS_THE_HEART
>
> Jaal (The Net) http://65.201.198.5/movies/capsules/
21245_NET_THE_NET_JAAL
>
> Baazi: A Game of Chance:
> http://65.201.198.5/movies/capsules/
21244_GAME_OF_CHANCE_THE_GAMBLE_BAAZI
7667


From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:51pm
Subject: Re: Guru Dutt & others/ Bollywood recommendations? Programme
 
--- alsolikelife" wrote: Maxime, could you please post the list of
films being shown at this retrospective?

http://www.centrepompidou.fr/Pompidou/Manifs.nsf/Actualites/142D35CD4
FF1B2A0C1256DB400444C43?OpenDocument&sessionM=2.4.1&L=1

Kaagaz Ke Phool , Guru Dutt, 1959
Mr & Mrs '55 , Guru Dutt, 1955
Pyaasa , Guru Dutt , 1957
Aag , Raj Kapoor, 1948
Awaara , Raj Kapoor, 1951
Barsaat, Raj Kapoor , 1949
Shree 420 , Raj Kapoor , 1955
Aan, Mehboob Khan , 1952
Andaz , Mehboob Khan , 1949
Humayun, Mehboob Khan , 1945
Mother India , Mehboob Khan , 1957
Admi, Rajaram Vankudre Shantaram , 1939
Amar Bhoopali , Rajaram Vankudre Shantaram , 1951
Do Aankhen Barah Haath , Rajaram Vankudre Shantaram, 1957
Dr Kotnis Ki Amar Kahani , Rajaram Vankudre Shanttaram, 1946
Bandini, Bimal Roy , 1963
Devdas, Bimal Roy, 1955
Madhumati, Bimal Roy , 1958
Sujata, Bimal Roy , 1959
Pakeezah, Kamal Amrohi , 1971
Bandit Queen , Shekar Kapur , 1994
Bhavni Bhavai , Ketan Mehta , 1980
Chandni Bar , Madhur Bhandarkar , 2001
Chandralekha , S. S. Vasan , 1948
Company, Ram Gopal Varma, 2002
Deewaar, Yash Chopra , 1975
Devdas , Sanjay Leela Bhansali, 2002
Devdas, Pramatesh Chandra Barua , 1935
Devdas, Sanjay Leela Bhansali , 2002
Dil Se , Mani Ratnam , 1998
Ishanou, Aribham Syam Sharma , 1990
Kabhi Khushi Kabhie Gham, Karan Johar, 2001
Kalpana , Uday Shankar , 1948
Kandukondain, Kandukondain , Rajiv Menon , 2000
Kismet, Gyan Mukherjee , 1943
Lagaan, Ashutosh Gowariker , 2001
Main Madhuri Dixit Banna Chahti Hoon , Chandan Arora , 2003
Mughal-e-Azam , Karimuddin Asif , 1960
Nayakan , Mani Ratnam , 1987
Sahib, Bibi Aur Ghulam , Abrar Alvi et Guru Dutt, 1962
Sant Tukaram, Vishnupant Damle et Sheikh Fattelal , 1936
Satya, Ram Gopal Varma , 1998
Sholay, Ramesh Sippy , 1975
Sikandar, Sohrab Modi , 1941
Street Singer , Phani Majumdar , 1938
Tere Ghar Ke Saamne , Vijay Anand , 1963
Umrao Jaan , Muzaffar Ali , 1981
7668


From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 8:27pm
Subject: Re: Welles' The Magic Show
 
>So Peter, why does your source say he stuck his hand out of frame for
>a split second? It wasn't necessary to do the trick, was it? Or was
>it?

There was a Q&A after the show last night with Stefan and with
Peter's informant, and yes, it was necessary to the trick. Basically
all of the tricks in the show were created through editing or camera
placement, though the magician being interviewed said they could have
been done straight on the stage. This despite Orson's assertion at
the beginning that no cinematic trickery was involved.

The "rope trick" took 22 takes, the magician said.
--

- Joe Kaufman
7669


From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 9:23pm
Subject: Re: Welles' The Magic Show
 
My one regret about Stefan's "restoration" of The Magic Show, and
it's a big one, is that the best scene is left out. Why? Because
it's without sound and doesn't contain a magic trick and Welles
isn't in it. It features Ab Dickson as a policeman and is one of the
funniest bits of physical comedy Welles ever filmed. I've spoken to
Stefan about this, and his position, understandable, is that he
didn't know how to integrate it with the other material. But the
same argument could easily be used to leave out the greatest
sequence I've seen from Quixote--which in fact Jesus Franco did
leave out, but probably only because he didn't have it. (The last I
heard, it still belongs to Mauro Bonnani.)

It's too bad, Bill, that you never made it to the Welles conference
in Munich, because you would have seen the Dickson sequence there.
My own presentation at that event was a very crude and makeshift
edit of the Magic Show material, using two VCRs, done at the
invitation of the Archive (which I had visited a few months
earlier), and presented largely in order to solicit Oja's own input
about where to place certain things. That is, it was presented only
speculatively, not as a real cuit, in order to get responses.
Unfortunately, since I was working from 3rd generation video dubs,
the visual quality of the projected image was lousy, and this
prompted Oja to walk out almost immediately, so it proved to be a
bad tactic on my part.

Jonathan



--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I caught the first of the excellent Welles Rarities programs shown
by
> Stefan Droessler of the Munich Archives at the American
Cinematheque
> tonight - Welles the magician. I'm not going to every show, but I
> went to this one because I had to see the restored Magic Show, and
as
> luck would have it, everything in the program was new to me: the
> Follow the Boys sequence with Dietrich, OW on I Love Lucy, the BBC
> Sketchbook about Houdini and Barrymore (which opened the program),
> the COLOR restroration of the great 10-minute F for Fake trailer,
the
> unfinished workprint of Orson Welles' Vienna (included because of
a
> trick with Senta Berger at the end) and The Magic Show: six
illusions
> performed, directed and edited by OW, loosely constituting an
essay
> on magic. (One sequence was edited by Stefan and his collaborators
to
> go with the narration Welles had recorded for it.)
>
> All this by way of saying that the ONLY magic trick of the evening
> that played out in one shot (with some cutaways that didn't affect
> its credibility) was the one in I Love Lucy. EVERY OTHER TRICK was
so
> edited that he could have been slipping rabbits into hats every
time
> the camera changed angles. In The Magic Show he tells us up front
> that what we are seeing are real illusions, with no cinema
trickery,
> but the whole point of the show is that each trick is lit, framed,
> edited and dramatized to be much more than a stage illusion. The
> Bazinian dogma (not necessarily Bazin's) that would oblige any
film
> student to film any trick in one shot is calmly relegated to the
dust-
> bin of academic filmmaking by the Master.
>
> In fact, assuming that he was working toward some kind of unified
> essay that he never finished, the simplest trick - a minute
illusion
> performed with a piece of thread - is the most significant. While
> telling a fantastic tale about the Indian rope trick and how he
had
> to marry Beatrice to a dirty old Indian magician to find out how
to
> do it (to the magician's infinite regret!), he cuts a piece of
thread
> in segments, rolls them into a tiny ball, STICKS HIS HAND OUTSIDE
THE
> FRAME FOR JUST A SECOND, and then reveals that the thread has been
> made whole again. That second out of frame is enough to call into
> question - "ontologically" - the whole trick, and I don't believe
it
> happened by accident!
7670


From: Craig Keller
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:16pm
Subject: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
Not to beat a dead monk, but a few thoughts on Robert Mulligan's 'To
Kill a Mockingbird' --

> >Any response that includes the all-purpose non-answer of "Use of
> space"
> >will be disregarded.
>
> Well, I guess you can disregard my response then, but I'll write it
> anyway.
>
> Bilge is absolutely right about the story and the acting, but the
> film's "use
> of space" does have a great deal to do with why I love "To Kill A
> Mockingbird."  In his capsule review of "Summer of '42," Dave Kehr
> wrote enthusiastically of Mulligan's "subjective camera technique."  I
> believe that Mulligan is a master of it; he has an incredible ability
> to visualize a story in such a way
> that the viewer comes to feel as though we are "seeing" through a
> particular
> character's eyes.  Zach Campbell touched on this aspect of Mulligan's
> style in a
> great essay he wrote on "Summer of '42."

> I can't quite relate to Dan's comment that he wouldn't have expected
> Mulligan
> to emerge as a great filmmaker on the basis of "Mockingbird" because I
> find
> that even as early as this film Mulligan's signature style is
> present.  Through
> his subjective camera technique, Mulligan has fashioned a film that's
> true to
> the child's eye view of the world present in the source novel.


I find this aspect of 'To Kill a Mockingbird' -- the "subjective
child-view" -- to be one of those memes around the film that serve as
de facto touchstones in critical conversation about the picture, but
which really don't hold that much actual currency in any given
screening of the film. This is just my opinion, mind you. I think the
"child's eye-view" of the action only half-exists, if that.

I apologize in advance if my argument here is scattered all over the
place, at least scattered a little bit, -- but I'd like to state that I
agree with the comments made about 'use of "use of space" '
(particularly, "amazing mise en scène!") and find that this staple
tactic comes off (surely some of you agree) as a complete "bluff
insight" when there's no precise example set forth -- this may not
necessarily apply to this particular discussion, but I'd still like to
put my complaint out there. Attempting to "redeem" what might be an
overlooked film ('not just overlooked or bad but goddammit FILM
MAUDIT!!!') by applying the magical sole insight of 'use of space' does
no-one any good, and just makes the proclaimer look like a
bullshit-artist so in love with the magic (the -possibilities-) of the
movies that for him (or her), the very conflux of camera/sound/lighting
equipment, plugged in and turned on, which will necessarily "record" a
film will also 'necessarily' "create cinema" -- which I don't believe
to be the case. This is what Godard and Rivette, for example (I think
the 'Future(s) of Film' book and the Senses of Cinema '98 interview,
respectively, document this), have in mind when they note that
"auteurism" and the 'politique' became something of a cancer starting
in the mid-'60s, and certainly something that extended grossly and
sloppily beyond the confines of any 'politique.' The 'power of cinema'
doesn't redeem cinema; neither does 'the cinematic apparatus,' nor the
television productions before or the films after, redeem Robert
Mulligan's film of 1962.

Winding back to the matter at hand -- In short: "Use of space" is like
the film-critical equivalent of 'patriotism' -- the refuge of, in not
quite 'the scoundrel,' the delusional, or at least the easily
impressed. I would group all frequent invocations of this term under
the heading "a sentimental cinephilia."

> There's a "seamless" feel to Mulligan's images; I make a lot of his
> incredible tracking shots and movements of the camera, but maybe just
> as important is
> his editing.  One never feels that the images are being cut together
> mechanically, but rather that each image relates to the previous, is
> part of a unified
> vision.  I think of the key moments in his cinema where he cuts from
> close-ups
> to long shots (offhand, I don't remember any examples of this in
> "Mockingbird"
> which really jumped out at me, but there are at least two amazing
> examples of
> this in "Clara's Heart" and "The Man in the Moon.")

But what specifically are the two amazing instances? In watching 'To
Kill a Mockingbird,' I note that when there is a cut from a close-up to
a long-shot, it's usually a cut from a close-up to a long-shot -- the
'extended' psychic underpinnings of most of the cuts are nonexistent --
which isn't to say that in terms of 'craft' or 'the purely formal' his
style isn't effective, it's simply to say that his cuts feel no
different from the cuts in any number of other films by any number of
other directors. I would also note that in the case of 'Mockingbird'
or the oeuvre of Robert Mulligan, craftsman par excellence, it is an
editor alone (with RM checking in from time to time to make sure
everything scans) who is putting together his shots, selecting takes
and angles from the -plethora- of camera set-ups that any good
Hollywood worker of the time would order "to cover his
(scene's/scene-space's) ass."

So, Robert Mulligan manipulates cinematic space through cuts: It's only
natural that this should occur, as they're cuts.

> "To Kill A Mockingbird" is not the greatest Mulligan.  I think "The
> Man in
> the Moon" is the best, perhaps along with "Summer of '42," with "Love
> With a
> Proper Stranger," "The Other," "The Nickel Ride," "Bloodbrothers," and
> "Clara's
> Heart" all occupying a second tier level.  So maybe "Mockingbird" is
> third tier
> Mulligan, but third tier Mulligan is still extraordinary.

Or, third-tier Mulligan is third-tier Mulligan. Let's be very clear
here: Robert Bresson is extraordinary -- Robert Mulligan is a
tradesman. And I'd like to assert that this isn't David
Thomson-inspired reactionary-ism on my part -- like most people here, I
believe the cinema has lived beyond 1968, lives in 2004, and holds a
wealth of under-appreciated filmmakers, all of whom deserve in turn
some solid championing. Here is why I don't find Robert Mulligan's 'To
Kill a Mockingbird' to be particularly good at all and, frankly, I'm
surprised that no-one else here, besides David, has had much desire to
highlight any of this, though it might do a little bit to help beat
back the truism that 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is a lovely film:

First of all, where is the rage? Where is -Mulligan's rage-, and where
is the rage of the film's black community? It's almost completely
absent from the picture. Instead, where there should be rage, there
are only, in terms of what stands in for a "unified vision" via mise en
scène, the niceties of craft, and the notion of 'child's eye view.'
Well, I'm sure we can all come away -quite sufficiently- edified by a
child's insights on the shit brewing in this town, this geography, this
period of America. Do a film's interior acts, motivations, occurrences
stand only second to the tasteful polish of its apparatus? -- which
incidentally I've heard helps keep Oscar statues shining on the mantle
for years on end.

About this polish: I can admit that the photography is beautiful, and
that Gregory Peck is a fine actor -- I find him more convincing in this
picture than in either 'Gentlemen's Agreement' and 'Spellbound,' for
example (though these remain the two prime reference points for Peck
for me, regardless) -- but to what end? Let's take the courtroom
scene, a distillation of many facets of this story of Faulkner-lite.
Peck -- rather, dignified "Atticus" -- makes his best stand, puts - his
- foot - down in the eloquent fashion required of a colonial orator --
we have the honor of listening to platitudes in his summary such as:
"All men are... created... equal!" -- close-up from Atticus to --
tah-dah! -- long-shot of the black wing -- the two black wings up
above, where the children obediently awed, sit -- the two black
"wings," cross-cut at one earlier point (specifically, "Tom Robinson
take the stand"), as though the 'black folks' are nothing more than
some mournful chorus for Peck's dazzling oration and supposed sense of
conscience (oh, sorry -- is this only 'children's eye view'? --
despite, of course, their being up in the wings as well, though the
relationship between camera placement and
attached-'point-of-view'/'worldview' is another discussion altogether)
-- two "black wings," sitting rapt like pigeons on telephone wire.
Thanks, Mulligan. All his "black community" -- which are practically
one undifferentiated mass-character, except of course for the
'outreaching/conciliatory grandpa' with whom the children sit, and Tom
Robinson himself -- can do in the picture is stand up in deference to
Stoic Atticus in his light-grey suit as he strides forth, exiting the
courtroom. "You stand up for your daddy Scout!" Yes. "The victory of
stoicism" -- it's always done so much to quell racial bigotry and the
wounds of oppression, especially when a white man sets the example;
typical Hollywood solution (more precisely, typical 1960's Hollywood
solution). We can all feel real good when those black people stand up.

Let me also touch upon the contrived nature of the "legitimately
child's-POV" sequence toward the end: I find Ewell's attack on the
little "Ham"let to be pretty contrived as a dramatic occurrence, also
pretty implausible despite any 'motivation' Ewell might have had to
take vengeance on Atticus and the bleeding-hearts of the town.
Furthermore, I find Boo's role as "stalker"-protector to be equally
ridiculous. And Boo's presence behind the door is just total bullshit.
Whether we suspend a sense of 'naturalism' or not because we buy into
some child's-world-view notion of the story, for whatever reason, the
events in the last ten minutes constitute no "phantasy act" -- Ewell is
dead, and Boo is -standing in the fucking child's bedroom-. "Oh, hello
there Boo," says the unphased Stoic. "Miss Jean-Louise, Mr. Arthur
Radley... I believe he already knows you." Yes, I believe he's already
been keeping quite an eye on you, young missy, and from the bushes too,
I reckon. And then shortly after when the camera begins its pull-away
from the porch: what a lovely, clean, no-fuss-no-muss cap to this story
too -- with the narration descending as nicely -- and as implausibly --
as a snowfall in the heat of the American South. 'How Green Was My
Valley' this is not. As far as the film is concerned, Ewell's death
stands in for a pretty solution to the whole rigmarole, and Atticus
rock-a-byes away on the front porch. Atticus's patriarchal self --
being there when Gem [Jem?] "waked up in the morning," as the narration
tells us, is comfort enough. The End.

Yeah -- GREAT film. Totally "wonderful."

If the film were only Stephen Frankfurt's opening titles (minus the
music), it would be a much more interesting and worthy piece of work.

craig.

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
7671


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:24pm
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
--- Craig Keller wrote:

"First of all, where is the rage? Where is
-Mulligan's rage-, and where
is the rage of the film's black community? It's
almost completely
absent from the picture."

What you're speaking of is the "structuring absence of
the text" -- African-Americans in active revolt
against their oppressors

And this is in turn the "structuring absence" of
American history -- held in place by such famous
"classiuc films" as "The Birth of a Nation," "Gone
with the Wind" and "Guess Who's Coming to Dinner."



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7672


From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 10:52pm
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
Craig:
> Let's be very clear here: Robert Bresson is extraordinary --
> Robert Mulligan is a tradesman.

Maybe they're both extraordinary, and maybe being a "tradesman"
(what does this mean for you precisely?) does not preclude this?

> Here is why I don't find Robert Mulligan's 'To Kill a Mockingbird'
> to be particularly good at all and, frankly, I'm surprised that no-
> one else here, besides David, has had much desire to highlight any
> of this, though it might do a little bit to help beat
> back the truism that 'To Kill a Mockingbird' is a lovely film:

How much of a truism is it here on this list? It's too bad we don't
have the poll function up-and-running on the website interface, it
would be a good way to arrive at a quick numerical breakdown. I
believe the issue of Mulligan-MOCKINGBIRD has come up here before,
and if it indeed has, I probably have already positioned myself here
as being less than impressed by the film (which I saw some years
ago, admittedly). My understanding was that the pro-Mulligan
contingent, with some exceptions (Peter being one of them), was not
largely in favor of MOCKINGBIRD. (Whereas the rest of film culture
loved that film and didn't know Mulligan directed anything else.
Hmph.)

> First of all, where is the rage? Where is -Mulligan's rage-, and
> where is the rage of the film's black community?

Given how adamantly you stress Mulligan's tradesman status and his
generally detached, workmanlike involvement with his projects, does
it surprise and bother you this much that Mulligan didn't have
much "rage" to show? And let's keep in mind that the source novel
doesn't have much rage itself. We can't be shocked if a prestige
adaptation of it also lacks the rage. Hypothetically, if I were a
defender of this film, I would probably concede its self-
congratulatory liberalism as a weak point, and argue that its
strengths lie elsewhere--such as in, say, its "use of space." Now,
if everything goes as planned, Peter will hopefully elaborate on his
earlier comments as you asked him to (e.g., "What are the two
amazing instances"), and discussion can continue nicely.

It's been a while since I've watched a Mulligan, maybe I should do
that this week ...

--Zach
7673


From:
Date: Sat Feb 21, 2004 7:10pm
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
I thank you, Craig, for your detailed and thoughtful reply (even though we
disagree on many things) and I will try to get back to most of it as time
allows. For now, a quick answer to one question you raise regarding the two
"amazing" examples of Mulligan cutting from close shots to a long shot in his films
"Clara's Heart" and "The Man in the Moon."

>But what specifically are the two amazing instances?

In "Clara's Heart," there's a climatic scene where the character of Clara
reveals a secret to the character played by Neil Patrick Harris as the two are
sitting at a table. I haven't seen the film since last summer, but I believe it
may be raining outside too. The majority of this scene is covered in
close-ups between the two characters. At the end of the scene, as I recall, Harris
reaches over and puts his hand on top of Clara's. Mulligan then suddenly cuts
back to a long shot of the two at the table, and the scene is over. This is
one of Fred's favorite scenes in "Clara's Heart," I believe, so if I'm getting
any of the details wrong, hopefully he can correct me.

In "The Man in the Moon," Mulligan again cuts to a long shot during another
tough emotional scene between two characters. Sam Waterston's character and
Reese Witherspoon's character (his daughter) are sitting in a pickup truck after
driving home from a hospital. They exchange some words; this follows a
traumatic evening the night before. The compositions are all close-ups or medium
shots. Waterston then exits the truck, opens the door on Witherspoon's side,
and hugs her. Cut: long shot.

If you've seen the films, and know the context and content of these scenes,
the scenes I've described obviously have greater meaning. But I think I've
relayed the essence of the shots and the way Mulligan tends to 'step back'
visually during emotional scenes.

>it's simply to say that his cuts feel no
>different from the cuts in any number of other films by any number of
>other directors.

I just can't agree. I think there is such a thing as a competent craftsman.
Maybe at his least, Richard Fleischer is an example of a director who does a
solid job, creates memorable spaces, etc., but nothing more (though at his
best, Fleischer >is< something more.) But Mulligan's style, the way he moves the
camera and where he chooses to cut, is very unique to me.

Peter
7674


From: jaketwilson
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:10am
Subject: Cronenberg's New Flesh (was: Dark Tower etc)
 
> Case in point? Or SOMETHING... I've written that Videodrome and
Naked
> Lunch are both remakes of Orphee, perhaps the central Gnostic film:
> both are human tragedies and spiritual triumphs (rebirth as the New
> Flesh, etc.) Of course they can also be seen the opposite way.

Too true. Anything at all can be seen two ways (at least) but
Cronenberg's movies are very, very ambiguous. I've tended to see the
religious tropes in his movies as blasphemous parodies, and I don't
think his atheist, materialist side, which he stresses in interviews,
can be written off. From this angle, what's positive about the quests
of his heroes, like Goldblum in THE FLY and the gang of maniacs in
CRASH, isn't the attempt to escape from the flesh, but quite the
opposite, the new configurations of bodies, human and inhuman, which
they're willing to explore. They may view this as a way of
going "beyond" (the couple on the hillside at the end of
CRASH: "Maybe next time") but all we get to see, finally, is the
abjection of physical death. There's no spiritual triumph at the end
of THE FLY, I don't think. The interesting dichotomy in Cronenberg is
between subjective fantasies on the one hand, and uncontrollable
physical processes on the other: the two work in tandem for a time,
but not forever, which is why his shifty guru figures tend to be
viewed ironically. Not that he's against fantasy -- indeed "truth" in
the sense of ultimate meaning seems almost a red herring. In SPIDER
the hero creates his own private version of reality, but I don't
think he's judged for that; the implication may be that we all do the
same in the end.

JTW
7675


From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:18am
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
The two cuts Peter mentioned are both moments I love. The cut in
"Clara's Heart" isn't to all that long of a long-shot, and it's of
course needed to show the hand-on-hand gesture, but it still has the
effect of pulling back from letting faces do the work to letting the
viewer, and the composition of two characters in a room, provide the
emotion. There's actually a related moment in a John Ford film, and Ford
was another great director who withheld close-ups at a time when other
directors might use them: Late in "The Last Hurrah," a cleric from a
different religion than Skeffington's stops in the doorway as he leaves
and in the distance we see him make the sign of the cross. (I hope I
have this right!) There's a stately beauty to the restraint here that's
incredibly moving.

I think "To Kill a Mockingbird" is a great and moving film that need not
be excused as a "third-tier" Mulligan. There are other Mulligans I like
more, but that doesn't make this any less great. "Air Force" may be a
"third tier" Hawks but it's a tremendously great and poetic film too.
The problem is that I've seen "To Kill a Mockingbird" (and, for that
matter, "Air Force") too long ago to mount a detailed defense.

I note, though, that nothing Craig says either for or against the film
has anything to do with how I value film as art. Craig, you don't agree
with the way the film represents the racial situation in the South.
Well, fine. Social critiques of films are important, and we need more of
them. But by those standards you'd have to throw out a vast amount of
classical Hollywood cinema, with its attitudes toward male-female
relationships, towards Native Americans, and (at least from my point of
view as a self-described eco-exstremist) toward nature.

A friend of mine once told me about how a whole session of a college
class on Dante was spent dealing with the complaints of women students
that he was a "sexist."

Films reflect the attitudes of the times and of their production
systems. Where are the Hollywood films made at the time of or before "To
Kill a Mockingbird" that express the rage you want? I'm not saying there
aren't any, but I can't think of any just now, and surely there aren't
many. "Rage" simply wasn't publicly expressed all that often before the
late 1960s. And, by the way, where is the rage in the black-made films
of Oscar Micheaux? I recently saw "Within Our Gates" (1920), which I
liked very much, and which is thought to have been a response to "The
Birth of a Nation." Not long before its release several dozen Chicago
blacks were murdered by white mobs in a so-called "race riot." Where is
his rage? There are some nasty white racists in the film, but nowhere
near as nasty as the Chicago murderers. Please. You can write critiques,
but if we judged works of art by the social values we want to see
expressed we'd have precious little left after we got done with our
judging.

Besides, I don't think great art works that way. A great film USES SPACE
to express an entire vision. In my own writing, I've tried to describe
the way many different filmmakers use space in different ways. A lot of
that writing is on my Web site so I won't start repeating myself here,
but I'd like to think that I don't just use "space" as a meaningless
word, but try to give it specificity by describing different uses of
space. By contrast, the statement that you find Gregory Peck more
"convincing" in one film than in another is to me an example of the kind
of mystified and unjustified and unexplained personal tastes that make
much mainstream film criticism so worthless.

You wrote, "The 'power of cinema' doesn't redeem cinema."

Yes it does. We couldn't disagree more. The true statement that you deny
above is a corollary of the historical truth that the power of art
redeems art. Why do you think a painter like Rembrandt, a composer like
Bach, a writer like Shakespeare, have survived for so many hundreds of
years? Why do so many artisanal objects, such as so much great
pre-Columbian pottery, seem so sublime today? It's not because of what
they were made for, to be sure. We don't see them used to eat out of
when we see them in museums, nor do we see those wonderful and scary
sculptures of the rain god Tlaloc used in the way they were intended to
be used -- to receive the blood of children murdered in human
sacrifices. It's hard to think of a more odious use that a work of art
can be put to, and we shouldn't forget that, but the objects are
stunningly great. Does Bach survive because of his religious views --
which his cantatas, passions and masses amply demonstrate and argue
passionately for? I don't think so. What about great abstract painting
-- or abstract filmmaking? When you disagree with the social content of
a film, it's completely kosher to critique it, but such a critique is
not the same thing as evaluating the film as a work of art.

I think I may have quoted from this before here, but I think I also
botched the quote. W. H. Auden wrote an elegy for William Butler Yeats
after Yeats died in 1939, "In Memory of W. B. Yeats." Auden had the
problem of accounting for Yeats's highly reactionary political and
social views (when Yeats decries the then-current wave of "base-born
products of base beds" in "Under Ben Bulben," his "credo" and his last
great poem, I've always wondered if he would have meant to include me,
the offspring of Lebanese Christian grandparents on one side and Eastern
European Jewish ones on the other). And so he wrote:

Time that with this strange excuse
Pardoned Kipling and his views,
And will pardon Paul Claudel,
Pardons him for writing well.

and concludes, addressing the poet:

In the deserts of the heart
Let the healing fountain start,
In the prison of his days
Teach the free man how to praise.

I'd ask something similar of a filmmaker: "Teach the free man how to
see." This is no more nor less important than telling the historical
truth about race, it seems to me, but is actually a rarer skill.

I'm curious about your aesthetic now. Can you tell us what's great about
your favorite, or one of your favorite films? One thing that I've long
noticed about myself is that the things many others, including many
others on this list, value about films are not things I care about all
that much.

- Fred
7676


From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:30am
Subject: Re: Guru Dutt & others/ Bollywood recommendations?
 
>Too bad about that print with no subtitles for the songs -- the DVD of MOTHER
>INDIA that I own has the same problem. I think when TCM ran several
>Bollywood films last summer they were completely subtitled (that's how I was
>able to see PYAASA and PAKEEZAH)

Most DVDs of Indian films have the same affliction: no subtitles for
the songs. So much of the meaning of the films is in the song lyrics
that this is a major problem. And the lyrics aren't redundant to the
dialog.

The TCM airings had the songs fully subtitled, but I didn't get good
copies of everything that I wanted, and they've been slow to repeat
them.
--

- Joe Kaufman
7677


From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:34am
Subject: Re: Re: Guru Dutt & others/ (Reader search tips)
 
alsolikelife wrote:

>Now I know why I couldn't find a Chireader.com review for PYAASA -- it was
>listed as ETERNAL THIRST!
>
>
I always search by director too, the director's name as "keywords"
rather than as title.

- Fred
7678


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:01am
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
--- Fred Camper wrote:
Social critiques of films are important,
> and we need more of
> them. But by those standards you'd have to throw out
> a vast amount of
> classical Hollywood cinema, with its attitudes
> toward male-female
> relationships, towards Native Americans, and (at
> least from my point of
> view as a self-described eco-exstremist) toward
> nature.
>
Not at all. A superior filmmaker has more complexity
thanto allow one element to outweigh others in such a
vulgar manner.


> Films reflect the attitudes of the times and of
> their production
> systems. Where are the Hollywood films made at the
> time of or before "To
> Kill a Mockingbird" that express the rage you want?

Mulligans' film was made in 1962. Cassavetes made
"Shadows" several years prior to that. In 1964 Shirley
Clarke made "The Cool World."

> I'm not saying there
> aren't any, but I can't think of any just now, and
> surely there aren't
> many. "Rage" simply wasn't publicly expressed all
> that often before the
> late 1960s.

Then you haven't seen "Intruder in the Dust."


And, by the way, where is the rage in
> the black-made films
> of Oscar Micheaux? I recently saw "Within Our Gates"
> (1920), which I
> liked very much, and which is thought to have been a
> response to "The
> Birth of a Nation."

Only by those looking for a response to "The Birth of
a Nation." Micheaux wasn't that kind of filmmaker.


Please. You
> can write critiques,
> but if we judged works of art by the social values
> we want to see
> expressed we'd have precious little left after we
> got done with our
> judging.
>

nd we DO have precious little left.For anumber of
reasons. Whenever anybody says to me"You're too
judgmental." My response is "Then you shoudl bless the
day you met me, cause I've barely drawn blood."

> Besides, I don't think great art works that way. A
> great film USES SPACE
> to express an entire vision. In my own writing, I've
> tried to describe
> the way many different filmmakers use space in
> different ways. A lot of
> that writing is on my Web site so I won't start
> repeating myself here,
> but I'd like to think that I don't just use "space"
> as a meaningless
> word, but try to give it specificity by describing
> different uses of
> space.

But what do you FILL that space with?


>
> You wrote, "The 'power of cinema' doesn't redeem
> cinema."
>
> Yes it does. We couldn't disagree more. The true
> statement that you deny
> above is a corollary of the historical truth that
> the power of art
> redeems art.

Art doesn't exist in a vaccum.

Why do you think a painter like
> Rembrandt, a composer like
> Bach, a writer like Shakespeare, have survived for
> so many hundreds of
> years? Why do so many artisanal objects, such as so
> much great
> pre-Columbian pottery, seem so sublime today? It's
> not because of what
> they were made for, to be sure. We don't see them
> used to eat out of
> when we see them in museums, nor do we see those
> wonderful and scary
> sculptures of the rain god Tlaloc used in the way
> they were intended to
> be used -- to receive the blood of children murdered
> in human
> sacrifices. It's hard to think of a more odious use
> that a work of art
> can be put to, and we shouldn't forget that, but the
> objects are
> stunningly great.

But not so great as to obviate its purpose.


Does Bach survive because of his
> religious views --
> which his cantatas, passions and masses amply
> demonstrate and argue
> passionately for? I don't think so. What about great
> abstract painting
> -- or abstract filmmaking? When you disagree with
> the social content of
> a film, it's completely kosher to critique it, but
> such a critique is
> not the same thing as evaluating the film as a work
> of art.

Nope. Can't agree. It's part and parcel of any
critique in depth.
>
> I think I may have quoted from this before here, but
> I think I also
> botched the quote. W. H. Auden wrote an elegy for
> William Butler Yeats
> after Yeats died in 1939, "In Memory of W. B.
> Yeats." Auden had the
> problem of accounting for Yeats's highly reactionary
> political and
> social views (when Yeats decries the then-current
> wave of "base-born
> products of base beds" in "Under Ben Bulben," his
> "credo" and his last
> great poem, I've always wondered if he would have
> meant to include me,
> the offspring of Lebanese Christian grandparents on
> one side and Eastern
> European Jewish ones on the other). And so he wrote:
>
> Time that with this strange excuse
> Pardoned Kipling and his views,
> And will pardon Paul Claudel,
> Pardons him for writing well.
>
> and concludes, addressing the poet:
>
> In the deserts of the heart
> Let the healing fountain start,
> In the prison of his days
> Teach the free man how to praise.
>
> I'd ask something similar of a filmmaker: "Teach the
> free man how to
> see." This is no more nor less important than
> telling the historical
> truth about race, it seems to me, but is actually a
> rarer skill.
>

There are ways of seeing and things to see. Not all of
them have to do with Space or notions of purity.

One
> thing that I've long
> noticed about myself is that the things many others,
> including many
> others on this list, value about films are not
> things I care about all
> that much.
>
Because we are all desperately alone.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7679


From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 5:19am
Subject: Mulligan in the Moon
 
So I ended up revisiting THE MAN IN THE MOON on DVD tonight and I
still think it's an amazing film. (Spoilers.)

Mulligan is interested in the Elemental, the Natural: the
uncontrolled and uncontrollable torrents of emotion and energy that
we try to socialize into a human order. The fact that THE MAN IN
THE MOON has a middling script (the dialogue is bad, but the
character psychology is actually quite nuanced and precise) detracts
nothing from its power as visionary cinema. The nighttime scene
when Dani runs home after being rejected, with the winds announcing
a powerful storm, is a complete surrender to natural forces: the
Dionysian sexual energy in the air unleashes itself on the land and
characters, challenging the characters' emotionally,
psychologically, and physically.

Another great stroke: Dani runs home from the pond, slowing her
breathless run to let herself absentmindedly through the gate ... we
must be able to recognize the power and poetry of the same event
doubled later in the film, when her sister does the same thing in
practically the same shot, and in this subtle formal repetition
Mulligan captures the sheer, horrific indignity of the girl's
stunned realization of her sister's perceived betrayal and her own
perceived sexual inadequacy (she has been replaced by her superior,
so to speak).

A scene near the end has Dani sitting at her pond, the spot where
she (effectively) 'communes' with Nature, and in doing so is able to
reconcile, at least partly, the overwhelming emotions within her.
The aesthetic climax of the film is as quiet and understated as it
is emotionally moving: when Dani meets a grieving Marie at the
graveyard, and quietly props her sister's head on her lap, looking
down, slightly confused and highly empathetic, she whispers (barely
audible), "It's OK ... it's OK ..." Mulligan focuses on
Witherspoon's face, drawing our attention to the gravity and
tenderness of this moment as being what Dani's "coming of age"
really amounts to, and then he cuts to a very long shot of the two
in the graveyard, the green and brown enveloping them in a gorgeous,
lush visual composition of Nature -- not unlike the long shot
Mulligan cuts to in the scene Peter described.

Suffice it to say that THE MAN IN THE MOON was not made by a
tradesman.

--Zach
7680


From: jaketwilson
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:03am
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
Re early `60s films that display rage over racism: maybe SHOCK
CORRIDOR (1963) or Roger Corman's THE INTRUDER (aka I HATE YOUR GUTS,
1961; script by Charles Beaumont) might fit the bill?

I have nothing to contribute on TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD – I've always
avoided seeing it because I dislike the book so much. But I think the
more general issues raised by Craig merit discussion. Some of his
comments point towards what I think is the main danger of narrow
formalist criticism, of which I'm not accusing anyone here: reducing
a director's style to a series of codified moves (Hitchcock's POV
shots, Preminger's long takes, etc) which are then valued simply
because they seem unusual. This critical approach doesn't hold water –
someone like Jess Franco has a "style" which deviates dramatically
from the norm, but that doesn't make his films particularly
worthwhile (I know there have been defenders).

What I look for in cinema, in a word, is "poetic truth" – a phrase
which I know is as much a shibboleth as "use of space", but never
mind. For me, good filmmaking isn't just about coming up with more-or-
less effective rhetorical moves (like cutting to a long shot at a
moment of emotion) but about using these moves in the service of a
vision which is meaningful on its own terms, suggestive, interesting,
worth brooding upon. Of course, a director who appears more
interested in "space" than in his characters also displays a vision
of the world, an anti-humanist one, which may have its own poetic
validity (e.g. De Palma).

Zach's account of MAN IN THE MOON seems to me like good criticism,
because it has concrete illustrations of how Mulligan's style and his
worldview come together. I'll admit I haven't yet caught on to any
similar sense of purpose in Fleischer's films – he seems basically a
metteur-en-scene on the Biette scale, though I haven't seen enough to
be sure. Question to Peter: what's the difference between a good
craftman and an efficient hack?

Fred must know by now that I disagree with him on almost everything
(in theory if not in practice) and I learn from him anyway, or
because of that. I obviously don't agree we should be able to
appreciate artworks on the basis of "pure form" even when we find
their meanings stupid or offensive. I think the (indefensible) racism
of BIRTH OF A NATION compromises the film's artistic achievement and
helps to define the limits of Griffith's interest for us today –-
just as, say, Dickens' sexism, however "normal" for its time, limits
his ability to write well about women, who after all are half the
human race. Making fun of political correctness doesn't change the
reality that numerous Great Traditions have had to be re-evaluated in
the wake of what feminism has taught us about male privilege! On the
other hand, as Tag has argued here in relation to Ford, taking the
worldviews of earlier eras seriously can help cure us of the delusion
that our own era is wiser and more enlightened than any other.

JTW
7681


From:
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:31am
Subject: Re: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
Jake Wilson wrote:

>Question to Peter: what's the difference between a good
>craftman and an efficient hack?

Actually, probably not much. At his least memorable or interesting, I'd say
that Fleischer is some combination of the above: he gets the job done well
enough, moves the story along, etc. But Fleischer can be a great, great deal
more than that. I'd point to "Mandingo," "The Girl In the Red Velvet Swing,"
"Violent Saturday," "The Narrow Margin," "Barabbas," and "The New Centurions" as
some examples of Fleischer at his best. The biggest problem in the Fleischer
films that don't work for me is that sometimes he seems to get lost in the
movie-style fads of the day (i.e., the split-screen in "The Boston Strangler" or
the wild camerawork of "See No Evil") when he'd be better served to stick to
his signature style.

The thing about Fleischer is that there's no real thematic continuity to his
work (although maybe I'm just repeating received wisdom here: between "Red
Velvet Swing," "The Boston Strangler," "10 Rillington Place," etc., the guy seems
drawn throughout his whole career to true life murder stories). Instead, the
thing which seems to unify Fleischer is quite simply the way he presents
cinematic space in his best films. Dan's compared him to Preminger in the way his
camera usually hovers a little outside the scene; I think that's exactly
right. Another important attribute of his style, as Ian Cameron has noted, is his
use of real locations to heighten the action of the scene proper; even when
he's on a set, like the house in the underrated "Amityville 3D," the mobility
of his camera in relation to the stage and the actors is just incredible to
watch. For me, this is enough; I don't need the films to connect thematically.


Maybe we get the purest kind of auteur in Richard Fleischer: when I watch his
films, I always come away with the sense that this is a guy who is devoting
most of his energy on the set to figuring out the most visually compelling way
to stage a scene. This is an intentional provocation, as I know many here
feel that a director must also work on the screenplays of his or her films to be
considered an auteur, but think about it!

Peter
7682


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 7:53am
Subject: Serge Daney sans postérité? by Jean-François Pigoullié
 
An interesting article, from Esprit, July 2002.

http://www.panix.com/~pcg/daney.html
7683


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:19am
Subject: Re: Welles The Magic Show/Merchant of Venice
 
I'd love to see that silent footage from The Magic Show. I had missed
Stefan's explanation of the "rope" trick because I got there late -
apparently that's when OW switched the bundles.

Actually, Stefan did show the movie theatre scene from Quixote
tonight. It was mediocre quality, taped off Italian tv, of all
things! Apparently Ciro Giorgine has access to Bonnani's material and
just ran some of it on RAI one night at around two in the morning, so
Stefan showed that (including some of the Patty M/OW exchanges for
the wraparound) as an addendum to the extensive rushes he has on
film.

As part of the theatre episode, I got to see the available sequences
from Merchant of Venice on a big screen for the first time, and it
was the high point of the series for me so far (given the video
quality of the new Quixote material). Welles was pushing the envelope
from wherever he left it after Chimes. Can't wait to see all of it, I
hope. I was glad to hear that the series will be run at Film Forum
for a_film_byers in NY to see.

There was talk tonight during the q and a of a Chimes screening in
Chicago. Has that happened?
7684


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:22am
Subject: Re: Cronenberg
 
Jake - I agree with all that. One addendum: there was a cut ending of
The Fly where Davis gives birth to a beautiful man-fly creature. You
can see it in Cinefex.

I just saw Stereo for the first time on a big screen at the
Cinematheque, and it's really good!
7685


From:
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:36am
Subject: Re: Re: Welles The Magic Show/Merchant of Venice
 
Bill Krohn wrote:

>As part of the theatre episode, I got to see the available sequences
>from Merchant of Venice on a big screen for the first time, and it
>was the high point of the series for me so far

Bill, is there more surviving material from "The Merchant of Venice" than the
clip many of us have seen excerpted in "Orson Welles: The One Man Band"? I
think the clip is quite amazing and, of course, would give just about anything
to see the whole film or even just a little more of it.

Parenthetically, I've long toyed with the idea that Kubrick somehow was able
to see the footage, because the montage of Venetian masks in the orgy scene in
"Eyes Wide Shut" reminds me verrry much of the clip I've seen from Welles'
"Merchant of Venice."

Peter
7686


From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:22am
Subject: Re: Cronenberg's New Flesh
 
The New Flesh is a Cronenbergian phrase describing our physical body
after we have accepted the truth of reality. It was said in
"Videodrome", where images on TV opens a gateway to a world,where
imagination and reality are one, noting upon Schizophrenia: Actually
the fissure in Max Renn's stomach is schizogenesis.

Previously Cronenberg actually touched upon this subject, with the
fetuses of Anger ("The Brood") and that thought can alter your
physical appearence. But it was not until "Videodrome" that Cronenberg
coined the word.

It wasnt until "Dead Ringers" where the Cronenberg, we now know, had
matured. With the tale of the Mantle Twins, Cronenberg finally had
seperated mind from the body and was able to examine how our mind
controls our body, yet our thoughts are controlled by the amount of
pain we feel (emotional, physical). To the question if he takes drugs,
Beverly answers: Well against pain. Pain causes character distortions,
that is simply not necessary.

From "Dead Ringers" on, Cronenberg has made practically one
masterpiece after another, constantly pushing the envelope on what
society accepts as normal, always provoking, by examinating how pain
and drugs alter our perception, and as such also reality. For instance
in "Crash", after his accident, Ballard says: Isn't it as if there are
three times the amount of cars than before?

Henrik

PS:

"They may view this as a way of going "beyond" (the couple on the
hillside at the end of CRASH: "Maybe next time") but all we get to
see, finally, is the abjection of physical death."

I disagree. Catherine cannot experience an orgasm unless she dies in
the very moment James has his. Therefor he says: Mayby next time. The
French call an orgasm "le petit mort", and in "Crash" Cronenberg
stresses death.
7687


From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 11:55am
Subject: 27th Annual Japan Academy Awards
 
Friday, the 20th February at 9pm Nippon Time (1pm CET), the 27th
Annual Japan Academy Awards was held. Here are the winners:

Best Picture: "When the Last Sword in Drawn" by Takita Yojiro
Best Actor : Kiichi Nakai "When the Last Sword in Drawn"
Best Actress : Shinobu Terajia "Akame Shijuuyataki Shinju Misui"
Best Actor in supporting role : Koichi Sato "When the Last Sword in
Drawn"
Best Actress in supporting role : Eri Fukatsu "Like Asura"
Best Cinematography: Katsumi Yanagishima "Zatoichi"
Best Editing: Takeshi Kitano and Yoshinori Oota "Zatoichi"
Best Lighting: Hitoshi Takaya "Zatoichi"
Best Score: Keiichi Suzuki "Zatoichi"
Best Screenplay : Tomomi Tsusui "Like Asura"
Best Sound: Senji Horiuchi "Zatoichi"

The winner of Best Picture and Actor awards was "Mibu gishi den"
("When the Last Sword in Drawn") by Yojiro Takita, a more traditional
samurai film. This is thus the second year in a row, where the academy
has chosen a samurai film as best film (last year was "Twillight
Samurai").

It is curious to note, that the both the most popular film in Japan
currently, "The Last Samurai", and "Mibu Gishi Den" both take place
during the Meiji restoration and deals with the fall of the Edo period
and with soul of the Samurai.

Henrik
7688


From:
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 8:44am
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
Some comments on the issues:
USE OF SPACE
This is NOT a vacuous, meaningless concept. One of the first things we want
to understand about a filmmaker is their visual style, if they have one. If you
are talking about Sternberg's Morocco, Blonde Venus or Shanghai Express, you
want to note that that films have a rich, complex and overwhelmingly beautiful
visual style. Agreed: you want then to analyze the visual style in depth,
carefully noting the use of composition, camera movement, space, lighting, etc.
And maybe using mathematical terms to describe the composition.
POLITICS IN FILMS
My position: we want to pay attention to BOTH politics and formal elements in
film (visual style, rhythm, plot patterns, etc), as part as a look at the
total work. But a practical problem arises. Today, there are an army of critics
out there, posed to analyze the slightest shred of sociological signifigance of
anything. In fact, they often over-analyze, reading political meanings into
films that have none. By contrast, hardly anyone seems aware of the formal
elements of film, except for a handful of auteurists (many of whom are on this
list!). There is now a desparate need for people to understand the formal
elements of film much better. So I strongly encourage everyone to take a deep dive in
the formal properties of film.
MIDDLEBROW
Mystery and sf writer Robert Bloch ("Psycho") used to describe himself
proudly as a "middlebrow". Admittedly, he was joking and trying to shock his
listeners. But he was also trying to suggest that he exemplified such unfashionable
virtues as good storytelling, unambiguous meaning, etc. With craft standards
often in complete collapse in today's popular culture, perhaps we need more
artists who are middlebrow!
TRADESMAN
There does not seem to be an objective way to tell a good director from a bad
one. This seems to be entirely a matter of aesthetic response to their films,
a purely subjective process. Take Sydney Pollack. By all accounts he is a
very hard-working, committed and enthusiastic director, who does his best to make
good films. But the results are just awful, in my aesthetic judgment. "This
Property is Condemned" has got to be one of my worst experiences ever with a
movie, dreary and depressing to the nth degree. Subjectively, artistically,
there is a night and day difference between Pollack and Robert Bresson, who is a
great filmmaker. But objectively, Pollack and Bresson are very similar: both
are hard working directors who are doing their best.
So I am skeptical about seemingly "objective" terms like "Tradesman" to
describe directors.
MULLIGAN
Have to revisit his films. My experiences are all piecemeal, over four
decades of filmgoing. In fact, one of my earliest childhood memories of filmgoing is
seeing "Come September" (1961) when it first came out. I was 7 or 8. And no,
I cannot describe the film's use of camera movement or staging, based on this
viewing! But have many visual memories of the film, the hotel, the big party
scenes, etc - which maybe proves that cinephiles are born, not made!
Another fond memory - attending a preview screening of "Summor of 42" (1971),
at which the director spoke. Mulligan was a gentle, friendly, sensitive and
highly intelligent man - much like the characters in his films. He spoke with
pride about his work in the Golden Age of Live TV Drama. Especially his version
of Maugham's "The Moon and Sixpence", which he did in color, a rarity at the
time (life of an artist based on Paul Gauguin).
Echo Dan Sallitt's enthusiasm for "Fear Strikes Out". And also really like
"The Great Impostor".
Mike Grost
PS: a_pot_by:
Lucky Chicagoans get to see all the time the Art Institute's great collection
of pre-Columbian art. I used to spend hours pouring over this collection,
everytime I went to Chicago. Most pottery was designed for the G-rated purpose of
food storage, protecting grain from hungry tribbles and other pests, etc. As
an abstract artist, have especial fondness for the Nazca culture of old Peru.
PPS: Read Browning's "Andrea del Sarto" yesterday at lunch. Very good!
This is the source of famous lines, known here since childhood:
a man's reach should exceed his grasp,
or what's a heaven for?
Mike Grost
(whose strength is as the strength of ten, because his heart is pure)
7689


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
Today,
> there are an army of critics
> out there, posed to analyze the slightest shred of
> sociological signifigance of
> anything. In fact, they often over-analyze, reading
> political meanings into
> films that have none.

Examples please.

I can hardly get anyone to sit still and pay
attentionon ANY point of politics whatsoever. Say ONE
WORD against D.W.Griffith and they shut up like a clam
-- then change the subject.

By contrast, hardly anyone
> seems aware of the formal
> elements of film, except for a handful of auteurists
> (many of whom are on this
> list!).

Not at all.The bookshelves are groaning with volumes
dealing with style and style almost alone.

There is now a desparate need for people to
> understand the formal
> elements of film much better. So I strongly
> encourage everyone to take a deep dive in
> the formal properties of film.

There is a desperate need for people to become
judgmental.

Say it -- JUDGMENTAL!

"This
> Property is Condemned" has got to be one of my worst
> experiences ever with a
> movie, dreary and depressing to the nth degree.
> Subjectively, artistically,
> there is a night and day difference between Pollack
> and Robert Bresson, who is a
> great filmmaker. But objectively, Pollack and
> Bresson are very similar: both
> are hard working directors who are doing their best.
> So I am skeptical about seemingly "objective" terms
> like "Tradesman" to
> describe directors.

There, see? That wasn't so hard, was it?

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7690


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: Welles The Magic Show/Merchant of Venice
 
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:


>
> Parenthetically, I've long toyed with the idea that
> Kubrick somehow was able
> to see the footage, because the montage of Venetian
> masks in the orgy scene in
> "Eyes Wide Shut" reminds me verrry much of the clip
> I've seen from Welles'
> "Merchant of Venice."
>
But he wouldn't have had to see that to be influenced
by Welles. There are the masks in "Confidential Report
/ Mr. Arkadin" -- which I would guess inspired "Eyes
Wide Shut" to a large degree.

__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7691


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: Second-Guessing Bazin
 
> When we second-guess Bazin, he's usually there ahead of us. He is
> very clear in the Limits of Montage article that process work to make
> the balloon do tricks wouldn't cut the mustard, no matter how
> polished it was. That already anticipates the digital revolution,
> declaring it irrelevant.

If I'm reading the right passage, my sense of it is that Bazin is
implying that the spectator will be aware of the process work. What
happens when the process work gets really good is non-obvious. Do
audiences buy it as photography? Or do they come to see all photography
as trickery?

As you say, Bazin is a lot more nuanced than a lot of people give him
credit for, and he always frames questions of the realism of the image
in terms of the audience's perception. (There is a memorable passage in
"Will CinemaScope Save the Film Industry?" where it seems to me that
Bazin anticipates the criticism that was heaped upon him in the 70s.) I
think he was open to the idea that the realism of the image could be
eroded by changes in our perception.

> The balloon at the beginning of "One, Two,
> Three" will always amaze us in a way that the feather at the
> beginning of Forrest Gump can't.

Sometimes films (like "Gump") try to give pleasure by acknowledging
fakery. The more problemsome issues rise when films conceal fakery
successfully. - Dan
7692


From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:46pm
Subject: any filmmakers on the list?
 
After two long nights of exhausting work, I've completed what I shall
delicately call "principal photography" on my first real short film
for NYU. I say "real" because the short films I made two summers ago
for the "Beginning Film Production" class are unwatchable pieces of
shit that I wouldn't even show my friends or family, for laughs.
(That isn't false modesty, they aren't even films.)

If all goes well my film will be an okay exercise in cinematic
storytelling, really nothing more. My biggest concern will be
matching up eye-lines, not expressing a unique vision of the world
through the medium of cinema, or to use space in a great and
expressive way. I think that makes me a "director" but not quite a
metteur-en-scene. But I wanted to share a few observations:

1) Low-budget films (as in, in the thousands) might have awkward
you-read-your-line-and-pause-then-I'll-read-my-line delivery with the
actors for technical reasons. Because I used only microphone, and it
was a directional mic, the boom operator has to tilt the mic from left
to right with each line delivery in, say, a two-shot or an unbroken
take featuring dialogue. Consequently, the director (i.e. me) will
resort to shot/reverse shot, since each take of a dialogue scene can
be recorded without tilting the mic. I more or less agree with a
friend of mine that s/rs sequences are usually where most films fall
asleep, but there are reasons for using the technique beyond laziness.

2) To answer a question asked on this list some time ago, there's no
earthly reason to use a windscreen for interior shots.

3) A tracking shot still means rails.

4) SteadiCams are for the rich.

5) Other high-ticket items (from my perspective as a student) include
a variable-speed motor for under- and over-cranking; an automated zoom
function (a manual zoom will look choppy and distracting); a decent
lens other than the one NYU gives you; ground glass for shooting 1.85
(good for hiding equipment such as the boom, lights, etc); lights that
will "do the job" of school lights but without eating up all available
power.

6) What absolutely kills me is how expensive it is just to marshall
all the elements of the production together so that things can
actually be *shot*. Catering, petty cash, TRANSPOR-FUCKING-TATION and
hauling, the insurance deductible (a hold, not a charge), a decent
d.p. and a decent sound recordist, all of these things will suck the
cash right out of your pocket. And I still have to run this bitch
through post: a supervised transfer is $225/hr right off the bat, and
that's just the beginning. Thankfully, NYU gives students vouchers
for doing some of their post work, or has them carry out various
things on
campus, like editing on AVID or on a Steenbeck.

7) Acting by professional actors > Acting by fellow film students. I
still can't fathom how somebody can kiss a stranger or cry on cue, it
kind of freaks me out.

8) And I can't even think of making a finished print of this thing.
Without a large donation, this is heading straight for Betamax.
Otherwise I'm looking to spend another three to five grand. Which
could be used to make another film...

Without looking at the list, I know for sure that Peter Tonguette, Dan
Sallitt and (of course) Bill Krohn have made films or DV
features/shorts, above and beyond simply playing around with the
camera with friends and cutting it on a Steenbeck. Anyone else?

I'm tired, must sleep.

-Jaime
7693


From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:52pm
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?
 
> 7) Acting by professional actors > Acting by fellow film students. I

It occurred to me that the "greater than" symbol might be lost on some
readers. Just making the observation that most film students probably
have no interest in acting, and therefore will probably do a lousy
job. Even the worst pro actors will know the basic run of actorly
"things to know." I didn't have the worst pro actors, but good ones.

Still, acting is one strange profession. I don't know how those
guys/gals do it, my hat's off to them, etc.

-Jaime
7694


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 2:58pm
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?
 
I'm heading to the airport and can't answer in detail, but:

> 1) Low-budget films (as in, in the thousands) might have awkward
> you-read-your-line-and-pause-then-I'll-read-my-line delivery with the
> actors for technical reasons. Because I used only microphone, and it
> was a directional mic, the boom operator has to tilt the mic from left
> to right with each line delivery in, say, a two-shot or an unbroken
> take featuring dialogue. Consequently, the director (i.e. me) will
> resort to shot/reverse shot, since each take of a dialogue scene can
> be recorded without tilting the mic.

Or you can use a single take and edit in the sound from the
shot/reverse-shot, which is less obtrusive but still kind of undesirable
sometimes. This area is where I've had the biggest differences with my
crew - it's very very hard to make sound people understand that you want
to record sound with some spatial and temporal integrity. On my next
film, if there ever is one, I'm going to try to get two boom operators
instead of one, to take away their biggest excuse for foisting sound
editing on me.

> Catering, petty cash, TRANSPOR-FUCKING-TATION and
> hauling, the insurance deductible (a hold, not a charge), a decent
> d.p. and a decent sound recordist, all of these things will suck the
> cash right out of your pocket.

I do think you can get good DPs without paying a lot (or anything),
especially if you're doing a feature. DPs are trying to get material
for their reels and resumes too. For sound people, you usually need
money, it's true.

- Dan
7695


From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:06pm
Subject: Re: Second-Guessing Bazin
 
implying that the spectator will be aware of the process work. What
happens when the process work gets really good is non-obvious. Do
audiences buy it as photography? Or do they come to see all photography
as trickery?>

I think this will only happen when computers are able to crunch enough
numbers so that "random" things like the saliva dripping from a mutant
dog's mouth will reach such a high state of random-osity that the
human brain will no longer be able to pick up on it, even subconsciously.

"Subconsciously" is the big issue, isn't it? I never seem to be able
to escape hearing about how some film's f/x crew created twenty-five
billion individual skin pores for Shrek or the horses in LORD OF THE
RINGS, but when watching the films, there's always a voice inside
telling me that these creatures are merely a mass of overly-controlled
invidual effects programs trying desperately to look real. Each new
CGI film is just a demo reel, a resume for the f/x tecnicians - Look,
this HARRY POTTER goblin has authentic dilation of the pupils!

On the other hand, two of the biggest CGI films of the past eighteen
months were, HULK and ATTACK OF THE CLONES, both equally guilty of the
look-ma-no-hands business, but both were often stunning, visually.

-Jaime
7696


From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:18pm
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?
 
> On my next film, if there ever is one, I'm going to try to get two
boom
> operators instead of one

That's what I was told that directors normally do, they get two or
three boom mics and it solves a lot of problems. Kind of (but not
really) like how Ridley Scott will use two camera set-ups on a given
scene in order to alleviate the camera-consciousness of the actors.

> I do think you can get good DPs without paying a lot (or anything),
> especially if you're doing a feature. DPs are trying to get
material
> for their reels and resumes too. For sound people, you usually
need
> money, it's true.

Sound people were the only ones who mentioned their daily rate up
front when responding to my craigslist ad. Workaday actors probably
don't dare mention money until it's mentioned *to* them, and even then
they say they're happy with whatever you're willing to give them. I
offered a little money in order to shape the e-mail responses a
certain way, possibly bring in a slightly better crop of people.

I'm paying my DP a small stipend because I thought his reel was
fantastic, and I had to lure him away from another job. You do
whatcha gotta do.

-Jaime
7697


From: Zach Campbell
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:25pm
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
David:
> I can hardly get anyone to sit still and pay
> attentionon ANY point of politics whatsoever. Say ONE
> WORD against D.W.Griffith and they shut up like a clam
> -- then change the subject.

I think you're talking to the wrong people. In my experience, if
you say two words about Griffith, at least one of them better
address his sexism and racism.

> Not at all.The bookshelves are groaning with volumes
> dealing with style and style almost alone.

Well, what sort of bookstores are you going to nowadays? Mainstream
writers and academics certainly aren't putting out anything having
much to do with form (because too often, neither can read it well).

--Zach
7698


From:
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 10:32am
Subject: Re: any filmmakers on the list?
 
In the early 1970's, made several short silent experimental films. These were
mainly just collections of "pretty" images, in a sub-Brakhage, Baillie, Ron
Rice mode. Never showed them anywhere. They DID teach me a lot about
filmmaking, about how a film is put together.
It is a lot easier to paint or write fiction, than to make films. Not
artistically, but in terms of production difficulties. I've made several thousand pen
and paper abstract drawings, which have never been shown in public - am not
part of the "art world". Occasionally work in water color too, but not for a
long time. And have completed ten mystery short stories, 7 of which are on my
web site. Collectively, they are around 200 pages, the size of a book. Am hard
at work on more.
Mike Grost
author of the Jacob Black "Impossible Crime" mysteries, at:
http://members.aol.com/MG4273/mymyst.htm

Jake solves crimes in 1920's silent era Hollywood. The stories are light
hearted and designed to give pleasure. The best one is "Extra! Extra!".
7699


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
--- Zach Campbell wrote:

>
> I think you're talking to the wrong people. In my
> experience, if
> you say two words about Griffith, at least one of
> them better
> address his sexism and racism.
>
Haven't read word one about it. Everythig I've seen
begins with an a priori of dismissing such
considerations as "political correctness."


>
> Well, what sort of bookstores are you going to
> nowadays? Mainstream
> writers and academics certainly aren't putting out
> anything having
> much to do with form (because too often, neither can
> read it well).
>
Samuel French. Take a look at the new books about
filmmkaers, or the BFI film essays.


__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard - Read only the mail you want.
http://antispam.yahoo.com/tools
7700


From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Sun Feb 22, 2004 3:39pm
Subject: Re: To Kill a Middlebrow
 
> I can hardly get anyone to sit still and pay
> attentionon ANY point of politics whatsoever.

I gotta tell you Dave, it's all in the presentation.

-Jaime

a_film_by Main Page
Home    Film    Art     Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)    Links    About    Contact