Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:32am
Subject: Re: Re: Scarface
When the BDP Scarface came out I thought it was an interesting and honorable
failure, a very self-conscious attempt to revamp the Hawks as a sort of
Henry Fielding ironic-comedy picaresque that didn't come off because it
never found a consistent comic tone.
Re-saw it again when it came back to theaters last year and was more
disappointed than before. I think my original impulse was correct, and I
certainly wasn't bored over its three hours, but the wrteched excess that
DePalma et al. seemed to find so amusing 20 years ago is simply excess
today. There are still a few choice moments -- Pacino's nauseated expression
when they take the chainsaw to his pal is pretty hilarious -- but it's
pretty much paint by the numbers stuff.
That said, Scarface is still vastly more interesting than five-finger
exercises like The Untouchables and Mission Impossible or self-parody like
Snake Eyes.
Looks to me like a guy who ran out of ideas -- and interest in his job -- a
long time ago.
George (Still interested in my job, but barely) Robinson
Our talk of justice is empty until the
largest battleship has foundered on the
forehead of a drowned man.
--Paul Celan
----- Original Message -----
From: "cairnsdavid1967"
To:
Sent: Monday, July 19, 2004 7:25 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Scarface
> >...Scarface seems
> > to be the Brian De Palma movie for people who don't like Brian De
> > Palma. Which, to me, makes it the forerunner of films like The
> > Untouchables.
>
> Well, I was just thinking that I usually prefer BDP films he didn't
> write, but a big exception is SCARFACE which is just horrible. Martin
> Amis suggested it might as well have been called SHITFACE for all the
> insight it managed in something like three hours running time.
>
> I know BDP fans prefer stuff he's written like BLOW UP or BODY DOUBLE
> as it shows more of the director's personality. I prefer those he
> hasn't written for precisely the same reason. I don't want too much
> of that personality in my face.
>
> I remember Scorsese saying UNTOUCHABLES was "Brian's best film in
> years" but maybe he was just being nice. I kind of enjoyed it at the
> time but can't watch it on the small screen.
>
> >Anyway, the Hawks version is still just as great as
> > it's ever been, but, despite all the hoopla surrounding the
> > anniversary dvd, Scarface is somewhat dated.
>
> Naw, it was always horrible.
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
12702
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:39am
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy (& film and video, again) side note
Just thought I'd mention a recent experience - fast-forwarding
through AN AMERICAN IN PARIS to get a to a bit I wanted to show my
students, I noticed that at a faster speed one becomes more aware of
the many, often minute reframings, Minnelli's camera performs when
filming action or dance.
While this is of course no way to enjoy a film, it did strike me as a
useful study aid - it makes one more aware of movements that are
performed so discretely, subtly, and with such sensitivity that it is
highly unlikely one would be able to consciously take them in while
enjoying the film normally, but which are in fact much responsible
for the beauty of the movement seen.
It's an experiment I'd recommend.
12703
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:43am
Subject: (overused themes) re Delibes and film music
> I didn't have a problem with any of the music, but I guess David C.
> has seen a lot of movies that used Delibes in a way that annoyed
him,
> hence his criticism.
Mainly 'cause it's always reached for as a first recourse when aiming
for a "poetic" feel. Tony scott uses it in the lesbo scene of THE
HUNGER (which you'll dig if you haven't already caught it, Jaime) and
then in seemingly every other bloody film he's made.
Barber's Adaggio, beautifully used in THE ELEPHANT MAN, gets reprised
in PLATOON and quickly became a monstrous cliche, and I've always
regretted that Welles' use of Albinoni in THE TRIAL and Satie in THE
IMMOPRTAL STORY has become standard in many inferior works, slightly
marring the original use he made of them.
12704
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:49am
Subject: Re: Mackendrick's published lecture notes
> I've looked for these lecture notes on the net without
> success. Do you have some sites?
> I found book on directors about
> Mackendrick, Cronin, Scorcese (which I ordered).
The one edited by paul Cronoin is the Mackendrick lectures.
http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0571215610/qid=1090237594/sr=
1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-6748564-7643865
ON FILM-MAKING. it's pretty brilliant - if you have access to camera,
editing facilities and collaborators, this book could almost
eliminate the need for film school.
Doesn't seem to be on US Amazon yet, hope it will soon, but it should
be possible to order from the UK.
> Mackendrick said something like
> 'coincidence is exposition in the wrong place.'
That's nice, though it's not in the book. He does paraphrase
Chaplin's "I don't mind coincidence but I despise convenience" when
he says that one should use chance to make things harder for one's
protagonist, not easier.
12705
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: Tea and Sympathy (& film and video, again)
--- jpcoursodon
>
> I'm not sure what that means, David. I must brush up
> my Durgnat (I'll
> start brushing it now).
> >
> >
There's a whole chapter of "Films and Feelings"
devoted to it.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
12706
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Tea and Sympathy (& film and video, again)
--- hotlove666
>
> >
> > Consequently they would be gobsmacked by Raymond
> Burr.
>
> Gobsmacked?
>
>
Thunderstruck. The rug suddenly pulled out from under
one. Astonished. et. al.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
12707
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: sexuality and the viewer (was: Teen Sympathy)
--- hotlove666
> I've always heard that Don Juan was extremely
> effeminate -- something
> you can see in Depp's uber-sexual Keith Richards-y
> pirate in Pirates
> of the Carribean. I am, and it's never slowed me
> down, although
> growing up in 50s Texas wasn't too much fun. There
> are many types of
> man and many types of woman, and sometimes opposites
> fuse, as in the
> (now) stereotyped notion that militant manliness and
> guy-love can go
> hand in hand.
Precisely. See also Fats Waller ("One never knows --
do one?" Indeed!), and Prince -- especially in the
ineffable "Under the Cherry Moon."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
12708
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:27pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy in Paris
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
>
> Jean-Pierre, the Centre Pompidou is planning an ambitious Minnelli
> show for next year (reportedly they'll not only show all the
features
> but also fragments, sequences from other films he directed, etc.)
so
> you'll have another chance to see T&S and other 'Scope films of his
> projected, if you wish.
Thanks, but I don't live in Paris, or even in France. For the past
two years I have been a resident of the great state of Florida, and
to be more precise, of forever infamous Broward County. Of course i
could schedule a visit to France to coincide with the retro (just as
I could do the same for other retros in New York, L.A. or Chicago). I
never denied that there are a few privileged cities where you can
sometimes see "old" films in optimum or near to optimum conditions.
(I do miss New York where I lived for 25 years.)But you must admit
such trips require some investment in planning, effort and spending.
I saw all those great Minnellis in theaters several times, including
when they came out. Maybe I've seen them enough. Truth to tell,I
don't feel a burning need to see "Teen Sympathy" (as Bill cutely
calls it) yet again before I die.
JPC
12709
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:31pm
Subject: Re: Scarface
> Looks to me like a guy who ran out of ideas -- and interest in his
job -- a
> long time ago.
FEMME FATALE is pretty zany, and I'd think hardcore DePalma fans
would get something out of it. The ludicrousness (ludicrocity?) is
kind of commendable in these days of rigid Hollywoodenness.
The Martin Amis profile of BDP (which is VERY unsympathetic and not
too insightful) has another good line: "DePalma is undoubtably a man
who knows what he wants. The question is - why does he want it?"
12710
From: Michael Lieberman
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:35pm
Subject: Re: Film and video, again - Window Water Baby Moving
I first saw Brakhage's "Window Water Baby Moving" on a really shoddy bootleg dub, in black and white! I still have it somewhere. But I agree with Dan that even though the film wasn't even close to Brakhage's
intentions, I still loved it, and rewatched it several times afterward. Seeing it in color was astonishing, not only because I thought it was in black and white, but because the very rusty color palate and compositions
worked far better as he intended. Watching a 16mm print of it in college 4 or 5 times in one night flushed my mind of the bootleg.
----- Original Message -----
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun, 18 Jul 2004 23:22:05 -0400
To: a_film_by@yahoogroups.com
Subject: [a_film_by] Film and video, again (Was: Tea and Sympathy (& film and video, again))
> But if I don't like the work, I know, from my
> own experience, that it could be that the film simply doesn't survive
> this form of reproduction.
I see the film vs. video debate as an empirical issue, and surely we all
have enough data to make a test for ourselves. Have our reactions to
our favorite films been markedly different in film and video screenings?
I presume we will all have different answers, and that these answers
say something about what we look for in the medium. My experience
happens to be that film and TV viewings of the same film have been
pretty close in terms of the enthusiasm of my response.
In my mind, this isn't about a preference for character-based vs.
visual-based pleasures - I don't identify myself as being more
interested in one or another. It's possible that it has to do with a
preference on my part for the more abstract aspects of visual style: for
instance, I'm more likely to be impressed by the placement of people and
things in a composition than by the plastic particulars of color
saturation, clarity of detail, etc.
Since my early filmgoing days, my feeling has always been that a work of
art has a soul of sorts, an organizing, permeating principle that can
survive a lot of imperfection in the presentation, even up to
mutilation. This idea could be a justification of my early
anything-goes days of TV-viewing, where I saw Preminger 'Scope films in
1:33, late Sirk films in black and white - you name the atrocity, I've
managed to like or love films in spite of it.
Which is not to say that I don't get pleasure from seeing a good film in
a beautiful theatrical presentation. - Dan
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
| |
Yahoo! Groups Links
- To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/">http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
- To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com">mailto:a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe">a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
- Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo!">http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/">Yahoo! Terms of Service.
--
___________________________________________________________
Sign-up for Ads Free at Mail.com
http://promo.mail.com/adsfreejump.htm
12711
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:49pm
Subject: Re: Film and video, again - Window Water Baby Moving
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Lieberman"
> I first saw Brakhage's "Window Water Baby Moving" on a really
shoddy bootleg dub, in black and white! I still have it somewhere.
But I agree with Dan that even though the film wasn't even close to
Brakhage's
> intentions, I still loved it, and rewatched it several times
afterward. Seeing it in color was astonishing, not only because I
thought it was in black and white, but because the very rusty color
palate and compositions
> worked far better as he intended. Watching a 16mm print of it in
college 4 or 5 times in one night flushed my mind of the bootleg.
I really liked the OTHER SIDE OF THE WIND and DREAMERS footage that
one can find in the ORSON WELLES: ONE-MAN BAND documentary as well
as (in the case of WIND) on the video of Welles' AFI award ceremony.
But when I saw it projected at Film Forum - from video - I knew I
hadn't seen jack until that point.
Film would have had the edge in that case, but a small one.
-Jaime
12712
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:49pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy in Paris
> Thanks, but I don't live in Paris, or even in France. For the
past
> two years I have been a resident of the great state of Florida, and
> to be more precise, of forever infamous Broward County. Of course i
> could schedule a visit to France to coincide with the retro (just
as
> I could do the same for other retros in New York, L.A. or Chicago).
I
> never denied that there are a few privileged cities where you can
> sometimes see "old" films in optimum or near to optimum conditions.
> (I do miss New York where I lived for 25 years.)But you must admit
> such trips require some investment in planning, effort and
spending.
> I saw all those great Minnellis in theaters several times,
including
> when they came out. Maybe I've seen them enough. Truth to tell,I
> don't feel a burning need to see "Teen Sympathy" (as Bill cutely
> calls it) yet again before I die.
Sorry. Thought you moved back to France. Dunno why. Your post re T&S
suggested a slight tinge of sadness to me about not being able to see
the film again in 35mm. so I thought I would offer a message of hope
and cheer. But it sounds like if it were playing down the street in
Broward County you wouldn't even walk to it! To be honest, Minnelli
is one of those directors whose films I've seen so many times that I
usually don't even go in New York unless I'm taking a friend who's
never seen them before. But then, I have a lot of friends who have
never seen them.
12713
From: jaketwilson
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:50pm
Subject: Re: Scarface
> Well, I was just thinking that I usually prefer BDP films he didn't
> write, but a big exception is SCARFACE which is just horrible.
Martin
> Amis suggested it might as well have been called SHITFACE for all
the
> insight it managed in something like three hours running time.
It seems ludicrous that Amis of all people should make that
complaint -- his novels of that period are all about "wretched
excess" (from a safe, smug distance) and to say the least, character
development is not their strong point. Maybe he resented De Palma and
Stone beating him at his own game?
JTW
12714
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:51pm
Subject: Re: Scarface
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
> > Looks to me like a guy who ran out of ideas -- and interest in
his
> job -- a
> > long time ago.
>
> FEMME FATALE is pretty zany, and I'd think hardcore DePalma fans
> would get something out of it. The ludicrousness (ludicrocity?) is
> kind of commendable in these days of rigid Hollywoodenness.
>
> The Martin Amis profile of BDP (which is VERY unsympathetic and
not
> too insightful) has another good line: "DePalma is undoubtably a
man
> who knows what he wants. The question is - why does he want it?"
Why is it a good line? You could ask that about anyone, in any
situation.
-Jaime
12715
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:17pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy (& film and video, again)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> Homophobic macho males wouldn't have gone to "Tea and
> Sympathy" which -- over and above everything else --
> is a "woman's picture."
>
> Good point. However it seems reasonable to assume that an
occasional macho man might have allowed himself to be dragged to
a "woman's picture" by his wife or girlfriend. After all the ticket-
buying public for those movies was not 100% female. For one thing
most women were reluctant (many still are) to go to the movies alone.
It is safe to say that the most common type of moviegoer (whatever
the kind of movie) was a couple (heterosexual!) It still probably is
(followed by bunches of teenagers?)
It would be interesting to know what percentage of men saw
those "woman pictures" and how they responded to them. (Generally
speaking there is a great paucity of documents about how "ordinary"
moviegoers responded to the movies they watched.)
This in the context of a country (the USA) where even today movie
tastes are (or are supposed to be) strictly defined along gender
lines: the guy movie (action), the gal movie (romance). Such a sharp
dichotomy never seemed to exist in Europe, at least not in France --
it certainly is not part of my French experience. More generally one
thing that struck me (and both my French wives, incidentally)in the
U.S.was the separation of recreational activities between male and
female pursuits, or all the social rituals were males congregate with
males and females with females. There always seemed to be less
interacting between men and women on a social level than in France,
and as French people we 've always found that frustrating. Both my
wives have always told me "My only American male friends are
homosexuals." Am I getting Off Topic? Slightly, but, as the French
say, "Tout est dans tout."
JPC
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
12716
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:19pm
Subject: film and video, again
When I taught at Columbia a couple of years ago they had just
installed an expensive new video projector and I showed a couple
of 'Scope films in anamorphic DVD. They looked quite good, better
than a 16mm. scope print would have looked in the same space, and
with superb sound. It's still no replacement for 35mm, of course,
but projecting 16 scope is always so difficult (especially in terms
of focusing) whereas the DVD looked sharp and vivid and almost
completely filled the screen. No letterboxing effect.
12717
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:22pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy in Paris
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
>
> Sorry. Thought you moved back to France. Dunno why. Your post re
T&S
> suggested a slight tinge of sadness to me about not being able to
see
> the film again in 35mm. so I thought I would offer a message of
hope
> and cheer. But it sounds like if it were playing down the street in
> Broward County you wouldn't even walk to it!
There is always a tinge of sadness about not being able to do
something one used to do and enjoy. And I can assure you that if the
Minnelli retro played down the street where I live, I wouldn't miss
one screening, no matter how often I've seen them before. But flying
to Paris is another matter...
12718
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:26pm
Subject: "Woman pictures" and their audiences
My post #12715 should have been retitled "Woman pictures and their
audience" (or is it "women pictures" "women's pictures"? )This might
beome an interesting thread if any of you guys have views on the
subject.
12719
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:29pm
Subject: film & video NEALE: WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
Most of my viewing of films was probably on TV (even
before VCR) and without knowledge of PAN and SCAN
and film aspect ratios, etc. People outside the big cities
just didn't have the viewing opportunity. I think
viewers knew something was missing from the
censored cuts and commercial breaks, but how
would you know otherwise? And don't even
talk about masking. I think it was one size fits all;
as well as one lens.
Unfortunately, it doesn't help in one's perception of
cinema! (reminds me of our "4 fouls and you're out"
rule when we played baseball in the backyard...)
Steve Neale's chapter in Contemporary Hollywood
Cinema "WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
OF TELEVISION provides good examples of how
pan and scan restricts viewing of PATTON and SOME
CAME RUNNING... the significance of the framing
is totally lost, especially in the Patton / Bradley
scenes and the opening bus scene which doesn't
even have Ginny visible on the bus.
He also discusses the SAFE SECTION AREA and
comments that many of the interesting motifs of
CHINATOWN and PAT GARRETT and BILLY THE
KID occur on the periphery while the main
narrative action is within the safe section area.
Over the disposable shoulder and grouping of
'extras' in the empty space areas are other
devices.
I found the chapter interesting; perhaps others
already know this, but if interested in some of the
above named films, the chapter merits reading.
Neale also talks about other films and gives
references to similar articles.
>> From: Fred Camper
>> Black and white films in 1.33:1 without complicated light or
>> composition
>> or depth effects -- Howard Hawks or Raoul Walsh, say -- tend to
>> survive
>> video better than Welles or von Sternberg. Wider than 1.33:1 is a
>> problem, because at least pre-HDTV there are no good solutions. Color
>> is
>> a big problem because the colors of your CRT, or plasma, or LCD
>> monitor
>> are going to be very different from film colors.
>>
>> Jess: "I'm curious as to whether you'd make any distinctions at all
>> between standard letterboxed DVDs (where the widescreen image merely
>> occupies the center part of the full frame) and 'anamorphic' (or
>> 'enhanced for wide screen') transfers, which at least in theory are
>> supposed to provide superior resolution."
>
> From: Dan Sallitt
>
>> But if I don't like the work, I know, from my
>> own experience, that it could be that the film simply doesn't survive
>> this form of reproduction.
>
> I see the film vs. video debate as an empirical issue, and surely we
> all
> have enough data to make a test for ourselves. Have our reactions to
> our favorite films been markedly different in film and video
> screenings?
> I presume we will all have different answers, and that these answers
> say something about what we look for in the medium. My experience
> happens to be that film and TV viewings of the same film have been
> pretty close in terms of the enthusiasm of my response.
>
> In my mind, this isn't about a preference for character-based vs.
> visual-based pleasures - I don't identify myself as being more
> interested in one or another. It's possible that it has to do with a
> preference on my part for the more abstract aspects of visual style:
> for
> instance, I'm more likely to be impressed by the placement of people
> and
> things in a composition than by the plastic particulars of color
> saturation, clarity of detail, etc.
12720
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:34pm
Subject: Re: Film and Video, Again (was: Tea and Sympathy (& film and video, again))
> I know you won't buy this, Fred,
> but when I'm watching a film on an iBook with my headphones, in a dark
> room, I feel just as if I'm watching something in the cinema, and can
> see myself in silhouette before the bottom of the frame (à la MST3K,
> fie, fie) and somehow "put" myself into an experiential state whereby I
> "see" the film as though it's on a large screen in front of me.
This is not dissimilar to my experience watching DVD's on my Powerbook.
I DO think the gamma of the Macintosh TFT screens helps. (Although the reds=
on LCD don't please me...)
And, although it's somewhat a coincidence of a trademark, I do sense a
readerly experience of films on a Power BOOK... (but this does not mean,
to me, a more "literary" experience, or coincide with any shift in cinemati=
c
preferences more like 'close reading' but that is itself more likely to
be, you know, Tsai Ming-liang, Brakhage, etc.
No it does not substitute for a great print, but it is A: valuable in itsel=
f,
B: better than a bad print -- i.e. I'll take the PB and a DVD over bad 16mm=
reduction prints any times In fact, speaking of Brakhage, my preference fo=
r
viewing "The Dante Quartet" which I've seen many times is 35mm BY far;
DVD/Power Book; 16mm - *in that order*
FWIW I am pretty much in the process of switching from cutting my film work=
on film to cutting on the computer; I've been a hold out until now, but -
it does encourage a more "non-linear" thought process i.e. you don't have
to fight it so much, and in some ways I can see what I'm doing better..
-Sam Wells
12721
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:47pm
Subject: Re: film & video NEALE: WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan
>
> Steve Neale's chapter in Contemporary Hollywood
> Cinema "WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
> OF TELEVISION provides good examples of how
> pan and scan restricts viewing of PATTON and SOME
> CAME RUNNING... the significance of the framing
> is totally lost, especially in the Patton / Bradley
> scenes and the opening bus scene which doesn't
> even have Ginny visible on the bus.
>
> He also discusses the SAFE SECTION AREA and
> comments that many of the interesting motifs of
> CHINATOWN and PAT GARRETT and BILLY THE
> KID occur on the periphery while the main
> narrative action is within the safe section area.
>
> Over the disposable shoulder and grouping of
> 'extras' in the empty space areas are other
> devices.
>
> I found the chapter interesting; perhaps others
> already know this, but if interested in some of the
> above named films, the chapter merits reading.
> Neale also talks about other films and gives
> references to similar articles.
Does Neale (or anyone else) write about the decline in widescreen
composition that has gradually taken place over the years,
particularly with the advent of video and cable TV and with the "safe
section" idea getting wider and wider currency so that directors are
always thinking in terms of how the film will look cropped? The
result, I think, is a real drop-off in terms of the inventiveness of
the compositions and of making full expressive potential of the
2.35:1 ratio. I don't imagine that directors like Ray, Fuller,
Minnelli, Mann, Kurosawa thought much about how their films would
look on television but it's what everyone from Tarantino to Scorsese
does think about, which also partly explains the appeal of Super 35
to some of these directors. But the days of House of Bamboo or The
Man from Laramie seem to be over.
Question for group in attempt to convince me otherwise: What is the
last contemporary widescreen you saw which seemed to take full
advantage of its wide frame?
12722
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:47pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy (& film and video, again)
> Black and white films in 1.33:1 without complicated light or composition
> or depth effects -- Howard Hawks or Raoul Walsh, say -- tend to survive
> video better than Welles or von Sternberg.
There is a slight crushing of the B&W tonal scale (in part because unlike a
a conventional video signal's linear response, a film print film has a nice
"S curve" in smoothing out highlights and shadows --- "digital" won't be
up to par for cinema viewing until more links to it's history as Television
are abandoned...
I'd be curious, speaking of Raoul Walsh, how "Pursued" would come across
on DVD -- I would not see it is "complicated" light, James Wong Howe
notwithstanding, but it's certainly the darkest Western I've ever seen
(a restored 35mm print projected very large @ Telluride)
-Sam Wells
12723
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:50pm
Subject: Re: Pasolini (was: Delibes and film music)
>............ I don't get
> excited by the way his "pared down" approach is supposed to counteract
> the implied grandiosity of the stories - shooting epics like
> neorealist documentaries.
But this was what the authors of the Gospels of Mark and Matthew were
trying to do in a sense, no ? (Maybe more so in Mark, but....)
-Sam
12724
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:53pm
Subject: safe sections versus REAL 'Scope (was NEALE: WIDESCREEN ...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> Question for group in attempt to convince me otherwise: What is
the
> last contemporary widescreen you saw which seemed to take full
> advantage of its wide frame?
DOGVILLE. I was going to say KILL BILL VOL. 1 and 2 but I guess
you've already disqualified Tarantino.
Also FEMME FATALE, GHOSTS OF MARS, MINORITY REPORT. A few others.
They're out there.
-Jaime
12725
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:01pm
Subject: New York Asian American International Film Festival - notes
Jess -- I found out from the festival director that the Shimizu
movies were pulled because they couldn't afford the rental charges
Shichoku was asking for -- there was no way they could make back the
costs. Doesn't quite make sense to me as festivals typically don't
expect to earn a lot of revenue from ticket sales; sponsorships are
more vital (though of course it's ticket sales that attract
sponsors).
Pleased to report that buzz on Royston Tan's 15 (a film that,
incidentally, would fit right in with the recent "gay or not gay?"
discussion on male behavior in certain films and plays) is incredibly
high around the festival -- it's playing again Wednesday afternoon.
Those in NYC without dayjobs or whose dayjobs permit midday
screenings are strongly encouraged to check this out. It's
reportedly getting a release in January.
I and about 20 other people watched Roddy Bogawa's new film, I WAS
BORN, BUT... The titular homage to Ozu is nice but Bogawa's vision is
very much his own -- a languorous and oddly heartbreaking meditation
on a postpunk filmmaker's childhood, filmed in the wake of the death
of two of his heroes, Joe Strummer and Joey Ramone. Ends with
footage of Strummer's last performance captured on film.
Other than that I can't say that this year's festival has been
terribly impressive, much less coherent. It seems to me that,
ironically, this festival is a victim of the Asian cinematic
diaspora's success -- there is such diversity and range in the
current Asian cinematic landscape, geographically as well as
artistically, that this festival no longer seems to be able to handle
it. It can't pool its resources towards landing the big Asian
releases (the opening night film, Ann Hui's GODDESS OF MERCY, was
itself an incoherent attempt by Hui to break into the Chinese
mainland market: in doing so she tries to infuse her longrunning
personal themes into a formulaic commercial script cluttered with
mainland Chinese cultural tropes, but she doesn't succeed at making
them her own). (On the other hand, this year it's offered itself as
a valuable platform to promote the undervalued cinemas of the
Philippines, Malaysia and Singapore -- now if only it could do a
better job of letting people know this!) If the festival does make
more of a concerted effort of bringing in top-tier films from
overseas, films that have a likelihood of receiving stateside
commercial distribution, it risks neglecting the Asian American
filmbase it's spent the past 27 years cultivating (some would say
this gentrification is already underway). Meanwhile, the far
scrappier and focused Subway Cinema has branded itself more firmly in
the course of only a few years, in its consistent programming of
energetic, commercially-conscious Asian films.
And yet, the San Francisco International Asian American film festival
has been incredibly successful at pulling off a coherent pan-Asian
program... so it is possible.
The new ImaginAsian theater on 59th and 2nd is a nice, clean venue,
which has the distinction of being probably the only theater in North
America that sells sushi and pocky sticks in the concessions. Next
month Subway Cinema will be screening this years Korean Film Festival
there as well as at BAM. I can't find the schedule online, but the
postcard ad I saw listed at least one great film I recognized (Im
Sang-soo's A GOOD LAWYER'S WIFE).
12726
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:03pm
Subject: Re: safe sections versus REAL 'Scope (was NEALE: WIDESCREEN ...)
>
> DOGVILLE. I was going to say KILL BILL VOL. 1 and 2 but I guess
> you've already disqualified Tarantino.
I agree with those choices. (PS on Tarantino -- Remember the part in
'Vol. 1' where it so obviously cuts to black and white so that the MPAA
could be granted a 5 minute respite from all the garish blood and
therefore still give it an R rating? After seeing it, I read an
interview with QT were he said something to the effect of, "And then
like, y'know, there was so much blood but I figured we could switch to
B&W as another "style" and just concentrate, like, y'know, on the
action, O-KAY..." Lo and behold, such a conscious and accepted choice
it was on QT's part that the Asian DVD currently available contains the
sequence with no black and white "style change" -- look for same,
probably, on the super-duper-director's-cut DVDs.) I'll also add Paul
Thomas Anderson's 'Punch-Drunk Love.'
cmk.
12727
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:04pm
Subject: Re: safe sections versus REAL 'Scope (was NEALE: WIDESCREEN ...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
>
> > Question for group in attempt to convince me otherwise: What is
> the
> > last contemporary widescreen you saw which seemed to take full
> > advantage of its wide frame?
>
> DOGVILLE. I was going to say KILL BILL VOL. 1 and 2 but I guess
> you've already disqualified Tarantino.
>
> Also FEMME FATALE, GHOSTS OF MARS, MINORITY REPORT. A few others.
> They're out there.
>
FEMME FATALE is spherical 1.85:1. MINORITY REPORT is Super 35 and I
only saw it full-frame, on cable, so I can't really comment in terms
of how it looked on the big screen. But Super 35 raises interesting
and complicated issues since it is a format where you effectively
compose in two different ways, like the old SuperScope. I didn't see
GHOSTS OF MARS but maybe Carpenter keeps up the old tradition. I'll
take a look. I also didn't see DOGVILLE as Lars von Trier makes me
sick. But maybe he did great things there.
12728
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:10pm
Subject: Re: "Woman pictures" and their audiences
--- jpcoursodon
> My post #12715 should have been retitled "Woman
> pictures and their
> audience" (or is it "women pictures" "women's
> pictures"? )This might
> beome an interesting thread if any of you guys have
> views on the
> subject.
>
>
Well it's most interesting in light of the boost its
given to Sirk as an auteur. back in the 60's when
Sarris did his "American Directors" survey, all
anybody talked about was Hitchcock, Ford, Hawks, Walsh
and Fuller. Sirk was an esoteric interest. But thanks
to fassbinder, pus 70's era scholarchip and feminism
Sirk became a major name to conjure with. And as a
result the "woman's picture" became a mroe than
respectable subject for study.
Now with "Far From Heaven" we have a postmodern
"meta-woman's-picture"
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
12729
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:13pm
Subject: Re: safe sections versus REAL 'Scope (was NEALE: WIDESCREEN ...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> FEMME FATALE is spherical 1.85:1.
Oops, you're right. It's 'Scope in my memory!
> MINORITY REPORT is Super 35 and I
> only saw it full-frame, on cable, so I can't really comment in
terms
> of how it looked on the big screen. But Super 35 raises
interesting
> and complicated issues since it is a format where you effectively
> compose in two different ways, like the old SuperScope.
MINORITY REPORT is indeed Super 35, also Spielberg's first 2.35:1
frame since HOOOK (his all-time worst film). But his composition
fooled me, learning it wasn't Panavision was a shock.
> I didn't see
> GHOSTS OF MARS but maybe Carpenter keeps up the old tradition.
He does. He remains the most classical 'Scope filmmaker in the
business. VAMPIRES is still "recent," but in my opinion his use of
the frame peaked with CHRISTINE.
And of course CARLITO'S WAY!
-Jaime
12730
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Pasolini (was: Delibes and film music)
--- samfilms2003
> >............ I don't get
> > excited by the way his "pared down" approach is
> supposed to counteract
> > the implied grandiosity of the stories - shooting
> epics like
> > neorealist documentaries.
>
> But this was what the authors of the Gospels of Mark
> and Matthew were
> trying to do in a sense, no ? (Maybe more so in
> Mark, but....)
>
I believe Pasolini made something along the lines of
that argument in explaining why he made the film. He
had, after all, gone to Palestine to scout ocations
and found the region "too developed." So he came home
and investigated to poorer regions of Italy and -
voila!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
12731
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:16pm
Subject: Wall Street Journal sources
> MACKENDRICK does paraphrase
> Chaplin's "I don't mind coincidence but I despise convenience" when
> he says that one should use chance to make things harder for one's
> protagonist, not easier.
I like that and just yesterday watched Chaplin and his movies
the 2:15 hour film by Richard Sch... (which I think some
have commented about before... would appreciate
re-comments again)
One thing I like is how Chaplin uses everything... yesterday
I saw for the first time how he makes himself into a human
hedgehog by piling his arms with about a dozen bentwood
chairs. Remarkable.
Interesting that at least 10 or 20 years ago, I read in the WALL
STREET JOURNAL the quote from TOLSTOY about how
the cinematic contraption would be medium of story telling
in the future. He liked the ability to shift time and place
rapidly and no concern for getting characters on and off
the stage.
The WSJ is also where I read the paraphased
>> Mackendrick said something like
>> 'coincidence is exposition in the wrong place.'
When I had my memory / cognition problems I gave
up reading the WSJ, but signed up for the web edition,
but haven't gotten into the habit yet of web viewing WSJ
I like MORGENSTERN's reviews (especially when he
commented quite favorably on AMORES PERROS which
I had seen earlier).
> From: "cairnsdavid1967"
> Subject: Re: Mackendrick's published lecture notes
>
>> I've looked for these lecture notes on the net without
>> success. Do you have some sites?
>> I found book on directors about
>> Mackendrick, Cronin, Scorcese (which I ordered).
>
> The one edited by paul Cronoin is the Mackendrick lectures.
>
> http://www.amazon.co.uk/exec/obidos/ASIN/0571215610/qid=1090237594/sr=
> 1-1/ref=sr_1_10_1/202-6748564-7643865
>
> ON FILM-MAKING. it's pretty brilliant - if you have access to camera,
> editing facilities and collaborators, this book could almost
> eliminate the need for film school.
>
> Doesn't seem to be on US Amazon yet, hope it will soon, but it should
> be possible to order from the UK.
>
>> Mackendrick said something like
>> 'coincidence is exposition in the wrong place.'
>
> That's nice, though it's not in the book. He does paraphrase
> Chaplin's "I don't mind coincidence but I despise convenience" when
> he says that one should use chance to make things harder for one's
> protagonist, not easier.
12732
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:30pm
Subject: Re: "Woman pictures" and their audiences
> > My post #12715 should have been retitled "Woman
> > pictures and their
> > audience" (or is it "women pictures" "women's
> > pictures"? )This might
> > beome an interesting thread if any of you guys have
> > views on the
> > subject.
I don't really have views on the subject (release categories), but I will say that I never thought of Tea & S. as a "woman's picture" (in the Ross Hunter sense) so much as, well, Tradition of Quality -- Broadway plays, Tennessee Williams & Steinbeck adaptations [East of Eden], sensitive treatment of social issues [Bigger than Life], etc.
12733
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:30pm
Subject: Re: sexuality and the viewer (was: Teen Sympathy)
Can't help noticing the relevance of our proto-fascist woman-abusing
Governor's latest shenanigans, which met with the approval of 70% of
respondents in an informal AOL poll. Plus ca change...
LOS ANGELES (July 19) - Democrats aren't amused by Gov. Arnold
Schwarzenegger's use of the mocking term "girlie men'' to describe
some lawmakers, although a spokesman for the governor said no apology
would be forthcoming.
Schwarzenegger dished out the insult at a rally Saturday as he
claimed Democrats were delaying the budget by catering to special
interests. Democrats protested that the remark was sexist and
homophobic.
"If they don't have the guts to come up here in front of you and
say, 'I don't want to represent you, I want to represent those
special interests, the unions, the trial lawyers... if they don't
have the guts, I call them girlie men,'' Schwarzenegger said to the
cheering crowd at a mall food court in Ontario.
12734
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:37pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy (& film and video, again)
one
> thing that struck me (and both my French wives, incidentally)in the
> U.S.was the separation of recreational activities between male and
> female pursuits, or all the social rituals were males congregate
with
> males and females with females. There always seemed to be less
> interacting between men and women on a social level than in
France,
> and as French people we 've always found that frustrating. Both my
> wives have always told me "My only American male friends are
> homosexuals." Am I getting Off Topic? Slightly, but, as the French
> say, "Tout est dans tout."
The separation is very noticeable in the South. At Vero's and my
wedding party the men boozed and talked and the women danced
endlessly to Vero's latest songs. Since one was called Magie Noir I
was particularly struck, seeing a circle of women dancing frenziedly
to it, by the possible pagan survivals in the strange sights I was
witnessing.
12735
From: J. Mabe
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:41pm
Subject: Re: Film and not so much about video
http://www.hi-beam.net/fw/fw25/0068.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
12736
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 3:46pm
Subject: Re: safe sections versus REAL 'Scope (was NEALE: WIDESCREEN ...)
My friend Marvin (a lurker on the site) and I were discussing this
perennial question just last night, re the growth of widescreen on
tv. He pointed out that while HBO's original programming - Carnivale,
say - is shown widescreen (not 'Scope), they don't show films
wide...unless you have Hi-Def, in which case it's an option you can
access by a flip of a switch. It's interesting that the widescreen is
being used now on tv to imbue original programming with the aura of
cinema art -- interesting and ironic, considering the historical and
economic reasons for 'Scope's invention.
12737
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 2:53pm
Subject: digital influence on speed of cinematic images
David-
I've used DVD's and Digital TV and TiVo for several
years now (when interested, I'm an earlier adopter,
had my first computer in early, early eighties; but just
got a cell phone last year).
In my study of a narrative, I often watch a film at double
speed several times as I ingrain the scenes sequences
in my mind... at least I am doing it visually, rather than
from paper.
You are right, there is something else going on and
I wonder if 'visually' minded people can see these
things in slow / rapid speeds naturally. (I was once very
close to a major accident in which a high speed car was
approaching me from behind so close I was certain he
was going to smack right into me. He missed me by
inches and then smashed into a few cars immediately to
my left... I saw the whole thing in slow motion... it was
surreal).
If TV influenced cinematic composition, there is no
question that DVD / digital does have some influence on
speed of cinematic images.
One thing I have noticed in some recent action films is
that there is an action about to happen from the
original perspective (in Spiderman2, a wall frame
is falling on the girl and it has about 2 more seconds
to go) and then the camera angle changes and it is
as if there is a re-wind in time (rather than loss of
time, if only a second for the angle change) and the
action now needs more time to complete (the wall
frame now needs about 5 seconds before it falls on
the girl). I've noticed this delayed action in several
films and it does not work for me... I find it lessens
the effect.
I think this delayed action when the camera angle changes
is a poor response to the complaint that much in the
action / adventure films (like MASTER AND COMMANDER)
goes by too fast to really appreciate in the theater
screening. I'm sure there is a lot of slo-mo in the digital
viewings (especially of certain genres).
From another perspective:
I read one reviewer who commented that his at home
dvd screenings (interrupted by full days) perhaps resulted
in reviews that would be different if made to sit though an
entire screening in toto.
Elizabeth
>
> From: "cairnsdavid1967"
> Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy (& film and video, again) side note
>
> Just thought I'd mention a recent experience - fast-forwarding
> through AN AMERICAN IN PARIS to get a to a bit I wanted to show my
> students, I noticed that at a faster speed one becomes more aware of
> the many, often minute reframings, Minnelli's camera performs when
> filming action or dance.
>
> While this is of course no way to enjoy a film, it did strike me as a
> useful study aid - it makes one more aware of movements that are
> performed so discretely, subtly, and with such sensitivity that it is
> highly unlikely one would be able to consciously take them in while
> enjoying the film normally, but which are in fact much responsible
> for the beauty of the movement seen.
>
> It's an experiment I'd recommend.
12738
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:08pm
Subject: The Doctor and the Devils (Was: Mackendrick's lost masterwork, Mary Queen of Scots)
> Also interesting to me, as an Edinburgh lad, is Nick Ray's plan to
> film Dylan Thomas' bodysnatching screenplay, THE DOCTOR AND THE
> DEVILS (in Prague, with James Mason).
This story didn't turn out half bad when Freddie Francis made a film of
it in 1985.
(Hi, Marvin!) - Dan
12739
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:10pm
Subject: Re: safe sections versus REAL 'Scope (was NEALE: WIDESCREEN ...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
>
>
> And of course CARLITO'S WAY!
>
Yes, I remember Carlito's Way having a number of interesting ideas in
terms of Panavision, as does Blow-Out and some other De Palmas.
Scarface, though, is much less striking and inventive. If my memory
serves me correctly (but it so often doesn't) most of the shots,
while Panavision, seem to be composed with television in mind. I'd
have to give it another look, though.
I think one of the reasons I'm sensing a decline here (and this may
not be an actual decline but simply a type of historical shift which
I'm not able to account for yet)is that most directors using scope in
the '50s and '60s were still tied, in some form or other, to the idea
of the staged (theatrical) scene, of the use of complex widescreen
blocking within a shot, with two or more equal planes of action or
compositional density at work. You didn't just get a striking
widescreen shot but a shot which seemed to have several ideas
operating at once as the shot would unfold and develop, almost
organically. (Especially true of a very mobile long-take director
like Preminger, for example, who like Cukor or Minnelli or Ray, comes
from the stage.) This way of perceiving cinematic space and movement
is simply less and less prominent now, for a variety of reasons, and
so the kinds of widescreen compositions I'm looking for are no longer
such a central part of our visual culture.
12740
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:25pm
Subject: Re: safe sections versus REAL 'Scope (was NEALE: WIDESCREEN ...)
> > I didn't see
> > GHOSTS OF MARS but maybe Carpenter keeps up the old tradition.
>
> He does. He remains the most classical 'Scope filmmaker in the
> business. VAMPIRES is still "recent," but in my opinion his use of
> the frame peaked with CHRISTINE.
Everything after ASSAULT ON PRECINCT 13 is 'Scope with Carpenter.
He's said that anything else "just isn't cinema".
On another Carpenter note - he was to shoot a documentary on Howard
Hawks a couple of years back, but the project ended up not going into
development over Carpenter's refusal to make it on video, rather than
film.
-Aaron
12741
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:28pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy (& film and video, again)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper
>
> Jess: "I'm curious as to whether you'd make any distinctions at all
> between standard letterboxed DVDs (where the widescreen image merely
> occupies the center part of the full frame) and 'anamorphic' (or
> 'enhanced for wide screen') transfers, which at least in theory are
> supposed to provide superior resolution."
>
> Actually, I watch films on video so rarely I don't even know what you're
> talking about.
>I think I've only seen the conventional letterboxed VHS
> tapes. They were better than pan and scan of course but the image is
> still really horrible. It does seem to me that letterboxing on HDTV
> videos will potentially be better; the resolution is higher, and the
> wider "native" format ought to mean that less is lost in letterboxing.
> I'm willing to revisit all this when moves are available on the coming
> higher res DVDs for HDTV format.
I don't know what I'm talking about either, watching on my far-from-state-of-th'art tv (others' notebook viewings sound alluring); that's why I made the inquiry so circumspectly. But even here, some of these Scope DVDs look about as good to me as could be imagined, under the obviously reduced circumstances. Courtship of Eddie's Father (not even sure if it was an anamorphic transfer) was a pleasure which I wouldn't want to dissuade anybody from sharing, until the real thing comes along (not holding my breath); it goes without saying that your appraisal of a disc like this would be enlightening.
12742
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:30pm
Subject: Re: safe sections versus REAL 'Scope (was NEALE: WIDESCREEN ...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "joe_mcelhaney"
> Scarface, though, is much less striking and inventive. If my
memory
> serves me correctly (but it so often doesn't) most of the shots,
> while Panavision, seem to be composed with television in mind. I'd
> have to give it another look, though.
All I remember is that it looked ugly and had incredibly stupid '80s
music.
>
> I think one of the reasons I'm sensing a decline here (and this
may
> not be an actual decline but simply a type of historical shift
which
> I'm not able to account for yet)is that most directors using scope
in
> the '50s and '60s were still tied, in some form or other, to the
idea
> of the staged (theatrical) scene, of the use of complex widescreen
> blocking within a shot, with two or more equal planes of action or
> compositional density at work. You didn't just get a striking
> widescreen shot but a shot which seemed to have several ideas
> operating at once as the shot would unfold and develop, almost
> organically. (Especially true of a very mobile long-take director
> like Preminger, for example, who like Cukor or Minnelli or Ray,
comes
> from the stage.) This way of perceiving cinematic space and
movement
> is simply less and less prominent now, for a variety of reasons,
and
> so the kinds of widescreen compositions I'm looking for are no
longer
> such a central part of our visual culture.
Very few directors made the move from "staging a widescreen frame
using theatrical conventions" to "having several ideas operating at
once as the shot would unfold and develop, almost organically." But
what the CinemaScope frame also meant to the director, at least
early on, was the idea that the format was very much a selling poing
to see the films. So a director might have "stuff going on" outside
the safe area that didn't necessarily grow into "a number of ideas
working at once" or anything particularly complex. Like Marilyn
Monroe stretching her legs across the frame. Or a big apartment
with someone coming in the door on one end, and saying something to
someone on the other. Take THE ROBE: it "uses" the 'Scope frame in
a very classical, theatrical, "full" way but every frame is dead,
dead, dead. Why? Because the director was Henry Koster.
And of course, considering "safe area" directors, it's not
unthinkable that a director will still make something great with the
whole 2.35:1 frame, all the while under the thumb of the TV-consious
front office. He may be thinking of DVD's "faithful to the correct
aspect ratio" audience, which has grown considerably since the
introduction of that format.
There are other kinds of compositions if you feel like looking for
them. Surely the films of my day aren't beyond redemption!
-Jaime
12743
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 4:44pm
Subject: Re: digital influence on speed of cinematic images
> One thing I have noticed in some recent action films is
> that there is an action about to happen from the
> original perspective (in Spiderman2, a wall frame
> is falling on the girl and it has about 2 more seconds
> to go) and then the camera angle changes and it is
> as if there is a re-wind in time (rather than loss of
> time, if only a second for the angle change) and the
> action now needs more time to complete (the wall
> frame now needs about 5 seconds before it falls on
> the girl). I've noticed this delayed action in several
> films and it does not work for me... I find it lessens
> the effect.
>
> I think this delayed action when the camera angle changes
> is a poor response to the complaint that much in the
> action / adventure films (like MASTER AND COMMANDER)
> goes by too fast to really appreciate in the theater
> screening. I'm sure there is a lot of slo-mo in the digital
> viewings (especially of certain genres).
The filmmakers seem to be trading in time-space fidelity for drama. In
other words, the action is so dramatically important to the filmmakers
that they want it to occupy more time, and be the occasion for more
dramatic cues (like cuts, changes of angle, special effects), than would
be the case if they rendered the event real-time. (Slow motion is an
alternate way of doing practically the same thing.)
I think mainstream action cinema always made this tradeoff to an extent,
albeit with different stylistic devices. One of the things that makes
Hawks' films so striking is that he resolutely refuses this tradeoff,
always declining to impose drama via storytelling, so that the viewer
feels as if the action is over almost before it begins. The loss of
drama is offset (more than offset for me) by the shocking sense of raw
experience, which expands in one's mind instead of on screen. I
recently saw an action scene (the first fight scene in THE TWILIGHT
SAMURAI) play out so quickly that I couldn't believe that I'd actually
seen what I saw - the effect really lingered with me. - Dan
12744
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:03pm
Subject: Re: digital influence on speed of cinematic images
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> One of the things that makes
> Hawks' films so striking is that he resolutely refuses this
tradeoff,
> always declining to impose drama via storytelling, so that the
viewer
> feels as if the action is over almost before it begins. The loss
of
> drama is offset (more than offset for me) by the shocking sense of
raw
> experience, which expands in one's mind instead of on screen. I
> recently saw an action scene (the first fight scene in THE
TWILIGHT
> SAMURAI) play out so quickly that I couldn't believe that I'd
actually
> seen what I saw - the effect really lingered with me. - Dan
The effect you're talking about probably comes from the period films
Kurosawa made with Toshiro Mifune. Other dramatic emphases aside
(like the fact that he always wins, and knows he will, and the
audience knows he will, too), Mifune's fight scenes always seem to
take place a little bit faster than the audience can follow, "in
real time."
In his later films, Kurosawa became addicted to slo-mo, with varied
results.
I'd like to see Mizoguchi's MIYAMOTO MUSASHI - wasn't it you, Dan,
that told me about it, that it's a surprisingly exciting "action"
film from that director?
-Jaime
12745
From:
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 1:09pm
Subject: Re: "Woman pictures" and their audiences
I saw Chabrol's Les Bonnes Femmes recently and I was struck by all the
activities in the film. No one was at a loss for what to do with their free time. By
contrast, I can recall complaining to my mother many times that I was bored
as a child (growing up in the Chicago burbs in the 70s and 80s). She would
always fire back that she was never bored as a child (growing up in Chicago in the
40s and 50s). I always took that as a generational and geographical
difference. But after J-P's post, I'm starting to see my boredom as more inscribed
along gender lines and, consequently, very American. Much like our hero Tom in T&
S, I loathed boy activities but feared ridicule for engaging in girl
activities. I think that radical gender split contributed to my boredom far more than
being part of the MTV generation or living in the burbs. I know the characters
in Les Bonnes Femmes were not children. But perhaps what struck me about all
those activities without even realizing it was that both men and women were
doing them, e.g. the pool scene. They seemed more resourceful (for lack of a
better word) than I was.
Or am today. I don't particularly mourn this aspect of my (or American?)
life, though. I just can't stand outdoor activities in general, no matter what
gender is ascribed to them. Going camping fills me with dread. I cannot
understand for the life of me why anyone would go fishing (UGH!) but then refuse to sit
through, oh, Warhol's Empire. And as much as I worship popular music, I
loathe live music (partly because I am forced to go alone in my capacity as a
reviewer).
For what it's worth: I worked security this summer and our cameras gave us a
sizable view of Milwaukee's downtown area. And overall, the weekend revelers
ran in same gender packs.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
12746
From: Noel Vera
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:15pm
Subject: Re: Scarface
Am I the only one who suspects De Palma lifted the
climax off of Throne of Blood, with bullets
substituting for arrows?
It's fun, but not something I can admire.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
12747
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:31pm
Subject: Yamada, Kurosawa, Mizoguchi (Was: digital influence on speed of cinematic images)
> The effect you're talking about probably comes from the period films
> Kurosawa made with Toshiro Mifune. Other dramatic emphases aside
> (like the fact that he always wins, and knows he will, and the
> audience knows he will, too), Mifune's fight scenes always seem to
> take place a little bit faster than the audience can follow, "in
> real time."
The effect in THE TWILIGHT SAMURAI isn't very Kurosawa-like. It
reminded me of Melies!
> I'd like to see Mizoguchi's MIYAMOTO MUSASHI - wasn't it you, Dan,
> that told me about it, that it's a surprisingly exciting "action"
> film from that director?
Not exactly exciting, nor with much action, as I recall. But I love the
final swordfight, which I believe consists of exactly one blow - the
emotional tone is kind of complex, with Mizoguchi's camera running after
the protagonist as he charges his adversary, kills him, and continues
running off the field of battle. All in one unbroken long shot, showing
the protagonist's back. - Dan
12748
From: Noel Vera
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:35pm
Subject: Re: Pasolini
>(Passion) far more
>excessive than "Salo" in many ways
I was going to object and say I thought the violence
in Salo was far more powerful, then thought about it;
it's powerful but it wasn't excessive.
I think that's thanks in no small part to Pasolini's
imaginative approach and use of distancing, where
Passion just likes to flail away with horror movie
cliches.
Gospel of St. Matthew IS lovely, and the most faithful
of Christ films to the source (that particular
gospel). Tho my favorite, and I can't admit this
without some measure of guilt, is Last Temtpation of Christ.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
12749
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:40pm
Subject: Re: safe sections versus REAL 'Scope (was NEALE: WIDESCREEN ...)
> MINORITY REPORT is indeed Super 35, also Spielberg's first 2.35:1
> frame since HOOOK (his all-time worst film). But his composition
> fooled me, learning it wasn't Panavision was a shock.
Well the difference really is with S35 you don't have anamorphic lenses
on the camera. (Allowing typically for faster, sharper lenses).
But some directors & DP's love anamorphic for it's spatial qualities; apparent
Depth of Field for a given angle of view is shallower, wide angle lenses
will behave like longer ones do in spherical; out of focus shapes are
different & can looked compressed.
So, anamorphic & S35 are typically means to the same end re aspect ratio,
but they can be different photographically.
Safe area is concession to the marketplace i.e. the TV sales.
-Sam
12750
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:42pm
Subject: Re: Yamada, Kurosawa, Mizoguchi (Was: digital influence on speed of cinematic images)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> The effect in THE TWILIGHT SAMURAI isn't very Kurosawa-like. It
> reminded me of Melies!
Sounds like I need to brush up on my Melies!
Kurosawa was the only director I thought of, watching the scene,
although the hero of TWILIGHT SAMURAI is out of practice, and facing
a presumably superior opponent as well as the physical exertion
needed to carry out a duel.
One thing that may have pushed the fleeting aspect - as I understand
it from your impression of the sequence - is the fact that most of
the film is spent focusing on issues that would be marginalized in
any normal action/swordfighting picture.
How did you find it overall?
-Jaime
12751
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:44pm
Subject: Re: Pasolini
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Noel Vera
> Tho my favorite, and I can't admit this
> without some measure of guilt...
Why guilt?
-Jaime
12752
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:48pm
Subject: Yamada, Melies (Was: Yamada, Kurosawa, Mizoguchi)
>>The effect in THE TWILIGHT SAMURAI isn't very Kurosawa-like. It
>>reminded me of Melies!
>
> Sounds like I need to brush up on my Melies!
I mean that it happened in front of my eyes, but I couldn't believe I'd
seen it (the last shot of the first fight) - I wondered if Yamada had
snuck a special effect past me.
> How did you find it overall?
You know, other than the fight scenes, I didn't really care for it. The
emotional stuff felt too conventional for me, more movie-like than
life-like. - Dan
12753
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 5:53pm
Subject: Re: digital influence on speed of cinematic images
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
"The effect you're talking about probably comes from the period films
Kurosawa made with Toshiro Mifune. Other dramatic emphases aside
(like the fact that he always wins, and knows he will, and the
audience knows he will, too), Mifune's fight scenes always seem to
take place a little bit faster than the audience can follow, 'in
real time.'"
The effect dosen't originate with Kurosawa. Earlier chambara (the
Japanese name for sword fight films) depicted the action in the same
way. The earliest extant chambara films (there's a fragment of an
action scene from the 1913 version of CHUSHINGURA) showed sword
fights in the stylized manner of the Kabuki stage where the violence
suddenly erupts and is played out as a series of broad balletic
gestures with the looser executing a back flip when he receives the
fatal blow. The back flip was dropped later. But Kurosawa really
brought chambara to perfection though.
"In his later films, Kurosawa became addicted to slo-mo, with varied
results."
As a matter of fact, he used slo-mo in his very first feature SUGATA
SANSHIRO/JUDO SAGA (1943)to show the climactic fight, and he uses it
again in the sequel ZOKU SUGATA SANSHIRO/JUDO SAGA II (1945.) The
introductory duel of the master swordsman in SHCHININ NO SAMURAI/THE
SEVEN SAMURAI is in slow motion. Supposedly Peckenpah was inspired
to use slow motion for his action sequences after seeing Kurosawa's
film.
"I'd like to see Mizoguchi's MIYAMOTO MUSASHI - wasn't it you, Dan,
that told me about it, that it's a surprisingly exciting 'action'
film from that director?"
It seems to me that Mizoguchi was most interested in shooting on the
historical locations, so he puts everything into filming the famous
duel at Ichioji temple. The movie was extremely low-budget, as if
Edgar G. Ulmer made a version of the gunfight at the O.K. Corral for
P.R.C. Anyway, Mizoguchi's MIYAMOTO MUSAHI is certainly the shortest
version with a running time of 65 minutes. The three part Inagaki
version with Mifune has a total running time of about 4 1/2 hours,
and theres a 1960s 'scope version with a 6 hour running time (and
last year NHK televised its 40 hour version.)
Richard
12754
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:03pm
Subject: Re: digital influence on speed of cinematic images/Kurosawa
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
> As a matter of fact, he used slo-mo in his very first feature
SUGATA
> SANSHIRO/JUDO SAGA (1943)to show the climactic fight, and he uses
it
> again in the sequel ZOKU SUGATA SANSHIRO/JUDO SAGA II (1945.) The
> introductory duel of the master swordsman in SHCHININ NO
SAMURAI/THE
> SEVEN SAMURAI is in slow motion. Supposedly Peckenpah was
inspired
> to use slow motion for his action sequences after seeing
Kurosawa's
> film.
I am receiving a lot of lessons today: some I need, some I don't
need.
Here's what I wrote: "In his later films, Kurosawa became addicted
to slo-mo, with varied results."
I know that some of his pre-RED BEARD films use slow motion.
NO REGRETS FOR YOUTH is probably my least favorite Kurosawa, but
there are some great moments - like the scene in which the heroine
tries to redeem herself by helping to re-plant the crops of her
lover's parents, who've been disgraced by his wartime misconduct.
-Jaime
12755
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:07pm
Subject: Scorsese's Temptations
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Noel Vera
>
>> Tho my favorite, and I can't admit this
>> without some measure of guilt...
>
> Why guilt?
Because the music is so goddamn awful, and many of the camera movements
so very gratuitous. Additionally, the cinematography is problematic
for me in that the image throughout seems the 1988 correlative for
overlit Hollywood epics of the '50s.
craig.
12756
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:07pm
Subject: Re: Yamada, Melies (Was: Yamada, Kurosawa, Mizoguchi)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
"I mean that it happened in front of my eyes, but I couldn't believe
I'd seen it (the last shot of the first fight) - I wondered if
Yamada had snuck a special effect past me."
Yamada said in an interview that he wanted the duels to happen fast,
and that the excessive sylization in routine chambara had become a
cliche.
"...other than the fight scenes, I didn't really care for it. The
emotional stuff felt too conventional for me, more movie-like than
life-like."
Well, Yamada specializes in the home drama genre which is noted for
its sentmentality; he made 48 "Tora-san" movies after all (though
TORA-SAN GOES NORTH is an outstanding 'scope movie.)
Richard
12757
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:11pm
Subject: Re: digital influence on speed of cinematic images/Kurosawa
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
"I am receiving a lot of lessons today: some I need, some I don't
need.
Here's what I wrote: 'In his later films, Kurosawa became addicted
to slo-mo, with varied results.'
"I know that some of his pre-RED BEARD films use slow motion."
Moshiwake gozaiimasen (I have no excuse; please accept my apologies.)
Richard
12758
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:26pm
Subject: Re: digital influence on speed of cinematic images/Kurosawa
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
>
>
> "I am receiving a lot of lessons today: some I need, some I don't
> need.
>
> Here's what I wrote: 'In his later films, Kurosawa became
addicted
> to slo-mo, with varied results.'
>
> "I know that some of his pre-RED BEARD films use slow motion."
>
> Moshiwake gozaiimasen (I have no excuse; please accept my
apologies.)
[blushing]
No problem!
-Jaime
12759
From: j_biel
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:39pm
Subject: Re: safe sections versus REAL 'Scope (was NEALE: WIDESCREEN ...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "samfilms2003"
> But some directors & DP's love anamorphic for it's spatial
qualities; apparent
> Depth of Field for a given angle of view is shallower, wide angle lenses
> will behave like longer ones do in spherical; out of focus shapes are
> different & can looked compressed.
Another important difference is that out of focus highlights appear as
ovals (discs stretched horizontally in the 2:1 ratio, see e.g.
"Alien") whereas spherical lenses produce the usual round discs (e.g.
"Aliens"). I like this effect a lot but some directors hate it.
Speaking of anamorphic lenses: there must be something optically wrong
about them in France: check "Contempt", for example. The cigar
distortion along the horizon is very noticeable and quite annoying (no
wonder Godard doesn't like the lens from what I hear).
Jan Bielawski
Mastersofcinema.org
12760
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 6:36pm
Subject: speaking of video and 'Scope
As I mentioned in another post, Von Trier shot DOGVILLE with digital
video, but "in 'Scope," not just using the frame (any image that
runs through Avid can be cropped to 2.35:1 - and you don't need
Super 35 to "fake" widescreen) but with an anamorphic widescreen
lens.
I think George Lucas did the same thing when shooting ATTACK OF THE
CLONES on video.
Amidst the hype surrounding the Lucas and the Von Trier films, this
news went generally unnoticed: not that two high-profile filmmakers
moved from celluloid to digital, but that they'd taken CinemaScope
with them.
New York City camera and equipment rental houses have already
started offering various fittings and attachments to allow digital
filmmakers to follow in Von Trier and Lucas' footsteps.
-Jaime
12761
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:12pm
Subject: Re: The Doctor and the Devils (Was: Mackendrick's lost masterwork, Mary Queen of Scots)
--- Dan Sallitt
> > Also interesting to me, as an Edinburgh lad, is
> Nick Ray's plan to
> > film Dylan Thomas' bodysnatching screenplay, THE
> DOCTOR AND THE
> > DEVILS (in Prague, with James Mason).
>
> This story didn't turn out half bad when Freddie
> Francis made a film of
> it in 1985.
>
>
Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this begun and then
ground to a halt when the money ran out? In the
special Midi-Minuit Fantastique devoted to her it
notes that Barbara Steele appeared in it.
(I'll have to as her the next time I see her.)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
12762
From: Noel Vera
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:44pm
Subject: Re: Scorsese's Temptations
>musics so awful
Ah, well, I never thought much of Peter Gabriel, but I
did like the afro-rock-whatever score he did there (I
know nada about music, though). I do disagree about
the cinematography--I thought he was going for desert
light effects there--mirages, wavering figures in the
horizon, heat distortions, the like.
I do say 'guilt' because a lot of people just can't
accept Harvey Keitel in a red fright wig, or people
from the New Testament speaking in a Brooklyn accent.
But we've had this discussion before, about the
impossibility of really knowing how people speak. And
I do think having everyone speak like they were in the
streets of New York was Scorsese's way of making it
yet another New York movie--one of his movies, so to
speak.
And no, Gibson didn't solve it in his movie--people
spoke mostly Aramaic and GREEK, not Latin, something
even the most cursory research would uncover. I doubt
if Gibson read anything at all on the subject, other
than Emmerich/Bentano's writings.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
12763
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 8:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Scorsese's Temptations
> I do say 'guilt' because a lot of people just can't
> accept Harvey Keitel in a red fright wig, or people
> from the New Testament speaking in a Brooklyn accent.
Keitel's performance in that movie was a weird idea, but I completely
loved what he did with it. He captured that mixture of obduracy and
good will that you see so often in real life, and almost never in
fiction. - Dan
12764
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:38pm
Subject: don't say 'I'm bored' too loud
Kevin,
When I hear youngsters say "I'm bored," I take them aside and
whisper, "don't say 'I'm bored' too loud, because what you are
really saying is "I'M A BORING PERSON. I can't think of anything
to do.""
I was born in 1951 and had few resources for entertainment
yet never felt 'bored' in a rather boring environment as there
were always chores to do and people to talk with and life to
learn about. Very little book learning or other opportunities
reference music, sports, arts. I feel kids today have too much
to do. We used to play hide and seek with about 20 kids from
5-15 years old (both sexes, or all sexes*), boys chase the girls, girls
chase the boys, and
would end the evening sitting up on the corner counting
the colors of cars that went through Fifth Street which
entered and existed town as highway 61.
I once wrote this spontaneous stream of consciousness
about COUNTING THE COLORS OF CARS:
It never really gets very dark on a summer night when there are
other kids around, and there were always other kids around, and
neighbors sitting on their porches listening to the locally favored
baseball team three hundred miles away in the city of Brotherly
Love. We kids played baseball, always in the afternoon and evening,
never in the morning. Perhaps early morning wash loads criss crossed
the outfield, or maybe mass with the occasional funeral service
sanctified
the asphalt of the adjoining grade school playground. Besides, morning
was for sleeping, the high point of coolness before the noon sun arrived
when either one or two of us took some sandwiches to my father for
lunch.
{{ I like this piece, it just came out of my head and stays there (a few
more paragraphs follow). What is really interesting to me is that the
one
script I wrote and had 'reviewed' by one of the script teachers said it
was 'too stucco,' just too terse in the business / activity /
description
section. I assured him I could write more .... and gave him this
stream of consciousness
(we had some TOMBOYS (myself, but some more so than me)
and some fellows who were less boyish, but name calling was
not part of the neighborhood in general. Everyone was
invited to play in the immediate neighborhood, at least until
jr high days when social class differences became apparent
across the different neighborhoods. Perhaps we figured out
that life could be pretty boring if there were no other kids around
to play with ... and so we played with each other, despite our
age and sex differences.)
Elizabeth
From: LiLiPUT1@a...
Subject: Re: "Woman pictures" and their audiences
I saw Chabrol's Les Bonnes Femmes recently and I was struck by all the
activities in the film. No one was at a loss for what to do with their
free time. By
contrast, I can recall complaining to my mother many times that I was
bored
as a child (growing up in the Chicago burbs in the 70s and 80s). She
would
always fire back that she was never bored as a child (growing up in
Chicago in the
40s and 50s). I always took that as a generational and geographical
difference. But after J-P's post, I'm starting to see my boredom as
more inscribed
along gender lines and, consequently, very American. Much like our hero
Tom in T&
S, I loathed boy activities but feared ridicule for engaging in girl
activities. I think that radical gender split contributed to my boredom
far more than
being part of the MTV generation or living in the burbs. I know the
characters
in Les Bonnes Femmes were not children. But perhaps what struck me
about all
those activities without even realizing it was that both men and women
were
doing them, e.g. the pool scene. They seemed more resourceful (for lack
of a
better word) than I was.
Or am today. I don't particularly mourn this aspect of my (or American?)
life, though. I just can't stand outdoor activities in general, no
matter what
gender is ascribed to them. Going camping fills me with dread. I cannot
understand for the life of me why anyone would go fishing (UGH!) but
then refuse to sit
through, oh, Warhol's Empire. And as much as I worship popular music, I
loathe live music (partly because I am forced to go alone in my
capacity as a
reviewer).
For what it's worth: I worked security this summer and our cameras gave
us a
sizable view of Milwaukee's downtown area. And overall, the weekend
revelers
ran in same gender packs.
Kevin John
12765
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:44pm
Subject: DVD -- appraisals of lens, aspects, etc.
If you go to the reviews on IMDB, you will find many reveiws of the
DVD quality of the DVD of the movie. These reviews often include
info about aspect ratios, lens, etc, much beyond my comprehension
at this time.
Perhaps someone familiar with these topics can suggest the
best reviewer reference the characteristics found on the
disc.
Elizabeth
>
> From: "jess_l_amortell"
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper
>>
>> Jess: "I'm curious as to whether you'd make any distinctions at all
>> between standard letterboxed DVDs (where the widescreen image merely
>> occupies the center part of the full frame) and 'anamorphic' (or
>> 'enhanced for wide screen') transfers, which at least in theory are
>> supposed to provide superior resolution."
>
>
> your appraisal of a disc like this would be enlightening.
12766
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:51pm
Subject: dramatic action
> Message: 8
> Date: Mon, 19 Jul 2004 12:44:30 -0400
> From: Dan Sallitt
> Subject: Re: digital influence on speed of cinematic images
>
>> One thing I have noticed in some recent action films is
>> that there is an action about to happen from the
>> original perspective (in Spiderman2, a wall frame
>> is falling on the girl and it has about 2 more seconds
>> to go) and then the camera angle changes and it is
>> as if there is a re-wind in time (rather than loss of
>> time, if only a second for the angle change) and the
>> action now needs more time to complete (the wall
>> frame now needs about 5 seconds before it falls on
>> the girl). I've noticed this delayed action in several
>> films and it does not work for me... I find it lessens
>> the effect.
>>
>> I think this delayed action when the camera angle changes
>> is a poor response to the complaint that much in the
>> action / adventure films (like MASTER AND COMMANDER)
>> goes by too fast to really appreciate in the theater
>> screening. I'm sure there is a lot of slo-mo in the digital
>> viewings (especially of certain genres).
>
> The filmmakers seem to be trading in time-space fidelity for drama. In
> other words, the action is so dramatically important to the filmmakers
> that they want it to occupy more time, and be the occasion for more
> dramatic cues (like cuts, changes of angle, special effects), than
> would
> be the case if they rendered the event real-time. (Slow motion is an
> alternate way of doing practically the same thing.)
>
I think this would work if you are talking about dramatic action and not
what is 'activity as action for action sake, the big action scenes' that
are adding little dramatic to the story. The scenes I am talking about
are just action / activity scenes with little drama per se.
I was watching a clip from Mr. Verdeaux (sp) when Chaplin
follows the female up the steps and you know he is going to
kill her and he stands and looks at the sunset before he
enters into her doorway. The music changes / the night
falls and morning comes and the deed is done... a real
dramatic moment via light and sound and little action and
no change in camera angle. (I've got to read how that was
written up.)
When I see something like this, I think how little the writer
actually has to write when the director and cinematographer
are so capable.
> I think mainstream action cinema always made this tradeoff to an
> extent,
> albeit with different stylistic devices. One of the things that makes
> Hawks' films so striking is that he resolutely refuses this tradeoff,
> always declining to impose drama via storytelling, so that the viewer
> feels as if the action is over almost before it begins. The loss of
> drama is offset (more than offset for me) by the shocking sense of raw
> experience, which expands in one's mind instead of on screen. I
> recently saw an action scene (the first fight scene in THE TWILIGHT
> SAMURAI) play out so quickly that I couldn't believe that I'd actually
> seen what I saw - the effect really lingered with me. - Dan
>
>
12767
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:01pm
Subject: NEALE: WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
Joe,
I think he leaves the impression that the influences are a two-way
street, especially given the made for TV cable programs like
SOPRANOS, etc, as well as the increasing large screens
(even with picture within a picture options) with which we
view TV. (It's really funny to be watching an old movie
on a large screen (52 inches) and not be able to read the
titles because they are too small.
The 10 page article has about 20 footnotes / references. If you
can't find it and are interested, I can make a paper copy and sent
it via USPO. I found it interesting, but am not able to say more
as I'm just learning to appreciate these things.
Despite all my limitations as an emerging cinephile I always knew
John Ford films were good... that's the real test of talent, even the
fellow in the street / gal in the popcorn gallery, knows they're
watching something special.
Elizabeth
> From: "joe_mcelhaney"
> Subject: Re: film & video NEALE: WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan
>>
>> Steve Neale's chapter in Contemporary Hollywood
>> Cinema "WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
>> OF TELEVISION provides good examples of how
>> pan and scan restricts viewing of PATTON and SOME
>> CAME RUNNING... the significance of the framing
>> is totally lost, especially in the Patton / Bradley
>> scenes and the opening bus scene which doesn't
>> even have Ginny visible on the bus.
>>
>> He also discusses the SAFE SECTION AREA and
>> comments that many of the interesting motifs of
>> CHINATOWN and PAT GARRETT and BILLY THE
>> KID occur on the periphery while the main
>> narrative action is within the safe section area.
>>
>> Over the disposable shoulder and grouping of
>> 'extras' in the empty space areas are other
>> devices.
>>
>> I found the chapter interesting; perhaps others
>> already know this, but if interested in some of the
>> above named films, the chapter merits reading.
>> Neale also talks about other films and gives
>> references to similar articles.
>
> Does Neale (or anyone else) write about the decline in widescreen
> composition that has gradually taken place over the years,
> particularly with the advent of video and cable TV and with the "safe
> section" idea getting wider and wider currency so that directors are
> always thinking in terms of how the film will look cropped? The
> result, I think, is a real drop-off in terms of the inventiveness of
> the compositions and of making full expressive potential of the
> 2.35:1 ratio. I don't imagine that directors like Ray, Fuller,
> Minnelli, Mann, Kurosawa thought much about how their films would
> look on television but it's what everyone from Tarantino to Scorsese
> does think about, which also partly explains the appeal of Super 35
> to some of these directors. But the days of House of Bamboo or The
> Man from Laramie seem to be over.
>
> Question for group in attempt to convince me otherwise: What is the
> last contemporary widescreen you saw which seemed to take full
> advantage of its wide frame?
>
>
12768
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:28pm
Subject: Re: digital influence on speed of cinematic images
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> so that the viewer feels as if the action is over almost before
it begins.
Slightly OT, it reminds me "When tomorrow comes", a film I love,
which is precisely based on this principle: the love affair is over
before it even begins. Dunne and Boyer have a few moments and, then,
without any significant dramatic issue, came the story of their
renunciation, with almost every scene as a potential ending. The
work of Stahl follows admirably this idea of renunciation, dry and
sparing with any effects. The last scene is great, almost a single
medium shot of both at the table, until the hand of the waiter
breaks into the frame, calling Boyer to reality.
Maxime
12769
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:31pm
Subject: Re: The Restored "Big Red One"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> Very exciting story on the restoration of Fuller's masterpiece in
the Daily
Who on earth knows when and where the film will be released? I can't
wait anymore.
12770
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 11:41pm
Subject: Re: NEALE: WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
> Despite all my limitations as an emerging cinephile I always knew
> John Ford films were good... that's the real test of talent, even the
> fellow in the street / gal in the popcorn gallery, knows they're
> watching something special.
I wish that were true, Elizabeth. If such were the case, 'The
Magnificent Ambersons' might still exist in its original form.
cmk.
12771
From:
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 7:56pm
Subject: Re: Women's pictures
Both of my parents LOVED Bette Davis. They always saw everything she made.
And in recent years, they always loved it if I brought Davis movies to them on
video.
This perhaps contradicts the belief that Bette's movies were "women's
pictures". They also saw lots of Joan Crawford, Olivia De Haviland, etc. They always
acted as if it were completely "normal" for them to go to these movies "Of
course we went to them, they're MOVIE STARS" seemed to be their attitude.
My folks stopped going to the movies in the 1950's - my birth and my siblings
were the cause! So they never saw the famous Sirk's in the 50's, etc.
My folks never seem to have heard of the concept "women's picture".
Mike Grost
12772
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 0:20am
Subject: Re: Re: Women's pictures
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> Both of my parents LOVED Bette Davis. They always
> saw everything she made.
> And in recent years, they always loved it if I
> brought Davis movies to them on
> video.
> This perhaps contradicts the belief that Bette's
> movies were "women's
> pictures".
Why should it?
Actually it suggests that your parents are gay men.
KIDDING! KIDDING!
They also saw lots of Joan Crawford,
> Olivia De Haviland, etc. They always
> acted as if it were completely "normal" for them to
> go to these movies "Of
> course we went to them, they're MOVIE STARS" seemed
> to be their attitude.
> My folks stopped going to the movies in the 1950's -
> my birth and my siblings
> were the cause! So they never saw the famous Sirk's
> in the 50's, etc.
> My folks never seem to have heard of the concept
> "women's picture".
>
Well the concept exists independent of one's parents.
The studios tehmselves earmarked their product along
such categorical lines. Ross Hunter was proud to be a
confector of "women's pictures." In fact he struck
gold when he turned a middle-aged Lana Turner into a
bigger star than she was wehn young on the belief that
the women who loved her as girls wouldcontinue to be
interested in her as they matured.
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
12773
From: Dave Kehr
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:16am
Subject: Re: The Restored "Big Red One"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
> wrote:
> > Very exciting story on the restoration of Fuller's masterpiece
in
> the Daily
>
> Who on earth knows when and where the film will be released? I
can't
> wait anymore.
A little birdie tells me it will be shown in the New York Film
Festival this Sept and will open theatrically soon thereafter.
dk
12774
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:37am
Subject: Re: Women's pictures
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Both of my parents LOVED Bette Davis. They always saw everything
she made.
> And in recent years, they always loved it if I brought Davis movies
to them on
> video.
> This perhaps contradicts the belief that Bette's movies
were "women's
> pictures". They also saw lots of Joan Crawford, Olivia De Haviland,
etc. They always
> acted as if it were completely "normal" for them to go to these
movies "Of
> course we went to them, they're MOVIE STARS" seemed to be their
attitude.
> My folks stopped going to the movies in the 1950's - my birth and
my siblings
> were the cause! So they never saw the famous Sirk's in the 50's,
etc.
> My folks never seem to have heard of the concept "women's picture".
>
> Mike Grost
Mike, this is the kind of "testimony" I was thinking about and we
hardly ever hear about -- how ordinary people (of both sexes)
responded to movies. And it also goes to support my -- very
reasonable -- claim that so-called women's pitcures were not viewed
by women only.
12775
From:
Date: Mon Jul 19, 2004 10:15pm
Subject: Re: don't say 'I'm bored' too loud
Elizabeth, I agree that boredom comes from within. I'm sure I was a boring
eight year old. But now that you mention it, I did play many outdoor games -
Hide and Seek, Jail, Mother May I, Capture The Flag, the infamous Statue Maker,
etc. But never any sports. And I'm certainly never bored today. Boredom would
actually be welcome once in a while (see Kracauer's "The Hotel Lobby" and
Cantet's L'emploi du Temps/Time Out).
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
12776
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:37am
Subject: Re: Women's pictures
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> --- MG4273@a... wrote:
> > My folks never seem to have heard of the concept
> > "women's picture".
> >
>
> Well the concept exists independent of one's parents.
>
>
>
> But, David, the point is that ordinary moviegoers (such as Mike's
parents) knew nothing about such concepts or about the way we discuss
movies -- although the movies were made for them, not for a handful
of critics (even less for future auteurists). And what I was trying
to say is simply that it is a shame that we have so little
documentation on how the people for whom movies were made actually
responded to them. (I was also making the point that "women's
pictures" were not viewed only by women, and that the men who viewed
them must have had reactions to and opinions about them, and that it
would be interesting to know what they were, and that we know
practically nothing about those things, while millions of pages have
been written about those movies by people who don't have a clue or
care a bit about what the folks the films were made for felt about
them -- which I think is a pity, and not only from a
psychological/sociological point of view.)
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
> http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
12777
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:03am
Subject: Re: don't say 'I'm bored' too loud
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> Elizabeth, I agree that boredom comes from within. I'm sure I was a
boring
> eight year old.
Boredom is a natural state of childhood. It's simply a case of the
child not having learned yet how to manage his/her time and
occupations. Some adults never learn and stay in a state of
childisness. To remain on topic, see Godard's Anna Karina whining,
little girl-like, "J'sais pas quoi faire." (""I dunno what to do.")
Baudelaire considered boredom the worst "vice" of all --he branded it
as such in the (pretty awful) opening poem of "Flowers of Evil."
However the concept of boredom at the time seems to have been closer
to what we would call depression (or perhaps metaphysical anguish)
than to what we call boredom.
Like Kevin I didn't practice sports as a child, yet I was never bored
(reading, the movies, the street were enough to keep me occupied).
JPC
12778
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:53am
Subject: Re: NEALE: WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
> > John Ford films were good... that's the real test of talent, even the
> > fellow in the street / gal in the popcorn gallery, knows they're
> > watching something special.
> I wish that were true, Elizabeth. If such were the case, 'The
> Magnificent Ambersons' might still exist in its original form.
> cmk
You're right if you are referring to studio people ... I was speaking
of naive viewers with no agenda.
12779
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:02am
Subject: Re: NEALE: WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan"
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
> > > John Ford films were good... that's the real test of talent,
even the
> > > fellow in the street / gal in the popcorn gallery, knows they're
> > > watching something special.
> > I wish that were true, Elizabeth. If such were the case, 'The
> > Magnificent Ambersons' might still exist in its original form.
> > cmk
>
> You're right if you are referring to studio people ... I was speaking
> of naive viewers with no agenda.
"Naive viewers with no agenda": Precisely the people who - unawares
and with no agenda - doomed AMBERSONS to oblivion. Needless to say,
if we were to approach the original test audience of AMBERSONS today,
or summon them from beyond the grave, it's not unthinkable that some
of them would change their tune, once they understand the significance
of Welles' great masterpiece. But then, as they say, you can't unsaw
sawdust.
-Jaime
12780
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:07am
Subject: Re: DVD -- appraisals of lens, aspects, etc.
>Perhaps someone familiar with these topics can suggest the
>best reviewer reference the characteristics found on the
>disc.
>
>Elizabeth
I find DVD Beaver the most helpful single place to get information
about DVD quality. He'll frequently compare the versions available
in different countries, with comparative images, allowing those of us
with multi-region capacity a notion where to go for the best disc.
http://www.dvdbeaver.com/
For an index of just about all the reasonably reputable online
reviews of DVDs, DVD Basen is the place to look. It's a terrific
resource.
http://www.dvd-basen.dk/uk/home.php3
Though hardly the most sophisticated critic, Glenn Erickson can
pretty much be trusted about the quality of individual DVDs
themselves.
http://www.dvdtalk.com/dvdsavant/
--
- Joe Kaufman
12781
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 10:02am
Subject: Tea and Sympathy: A Son's Confession
I offer this 'case study' on TEA AND SYMPATHY as no more than what it is -
the (reported) story of one person's response.
Nonetheless: my mother was an enormous fan of this film. For her, it was -
in terms reminiscent of those Jean-Pierre used early on in the group's
discussion of this film and its interpretation - a film about 'sensitive
boys' and the troubles they face in the school ground. For her, sensitive
boys were those boys who liked to talk or read books or look at art more
than they liked playing rough-house sports. This kind of opposition between
sensitive and brutish guys - which has a special resonance in Australian
culture - seems to me a staple of some American drama and film (and probably
literature too) in the mid to late 50s: Kazan (who I have learnt from this
discussion directed the play) made it the core of several films, including
SPLENDOR IN THE GRASS. EAST OF EDEN too, of course - and the image o James
Dean as (among many other things, I know!) an ultra-sensitive boy.
Autobiography begins here: my mother considered me one of these sensitive
boy types, so she urged me more than once to watch this movie with her!
What intrigues me in the context of this discussion is that - unless my Mum
wasn't telling me something at my then-age of 12 that she was pondering,
which is possible but I doubt it - I do not believe for a moment that she
considered TEA AND SYMPATHY a film about gayness.
However, what is perverse about this little family romance is that Deborah
Kerr in that movie is very much a mother-figure to the troubled teen in that
film, and my mother identified intensely with Kerr in all her 'maternal'
type roles of the period. But of course she is a mother-figure who, to help
out the son-figure, sleeps with him! This was a part of the film she never
actually spoke about ... But she was always crying when the 'think kindly of
me' ending rolled around. Some metaphor for a mother's sacrifice, perhaps
???
I think I will go see a psychoanalyst now. Anti- Oedipus, anyone?
Adrian
12782
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 0:34pm
Subject: Re: The Doctor and the Devils (Was: Mackendrick's lost masterwork, Mary Queen of Scots)
> > This story didn't turn out half bad when Freddie
> > Francis made a film of
> > it in 1985.
> >
> >
> Correct me if I'm wrong but wasn't this begun and then
> ground to a halt when the money ran out? In the
> special Midi-Minuit Fantastique devoted to her it
> notes that Barbara Steele appeared in it.
>
> (I'll have to as her the next time I see her.)
It was finished, alas. can't recall if Babs was in the finsihged cut.
Afraid I hated what Francis did toThomas' script, which included
vulgarizing it, failing to solve the dramatic problems inherent in it
(it's magnificently written but somewhat anticlimactic, a result of
follwing the historical facts too closely perhaps), and most
inexplicably of all, Francis seems unable to decide where the story
takes place. some location shots make it clear this is Edinburgh, but
the cast adopt cod-cockney accents throughout. Since part of Thomas'
intent was clearly historical veracity (he follows the facts far more
closely than previous filmmakers), this is a massive mistake, though
I appreciate it will seem far less bothersome to non-Brits.
I also think Francis had several of the right actors, but in the
wrong roles. Would love to have seen Jonathan Pryce as the Doc.
Students of the screenplay are recommended to read the D Thomas
draft, which is masterful piece of simple, filmic prose.
(And in one scene a corpse's jaw falls open, and a scream emerges -
CUT TO the next scene, and we see the true origin of the cry. Smart
stuff, ignored by Francis, who in my opinion should have stuck to
photography, at which he is skilled and sensitive, qualities I can't
find it in my heart to attribute to his directing work.)
12783
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 0:40pm
Subject: Re: Scarface
> It seems ludicrous that Amis of all people should make that
> complaint -- his novels of that period are all about "wretched
> excess" (from a safe, smug distance) and to say the least,
character
> development is not their strong point. Maybe he resented De Palma
and
> Stone beating him at his own game?
Maybe, but it might be fairer to dismiss Amis' own inadequacies when
considering his views on another artist - the fact that Pauline Kael
couldn't have directed FELLINI'S CASANOVA doesn't mean she wasn't
entitled to an opinion about it. (I just wish her opinion agreed with
mine / hadn't hurt the film, etc.)
'Course, amis considers himself a humorous writer, and he dousn't
find DePalma funny. Whether he's right or wrong in either of these
views, they help make sense of his verdict on the Master of
Unpleasantness.
12784
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 0:42pm
Subject: Re: Scarface
> > The Martin Amis profile of BDP (which is VERY unsympathetic and
> not
> > too insightful) has another good line: "DePalma is undoubtably a
> man
> > who knows what he wants. The question is - why does he want it?"
>
> Why is it a good line? You could ask that about anyone, in any
> situation.
I guess I find it fitting because I generally ask that question, with
a new and horrible urgency, when watching something like BLOW UP, and
I rarely find an answer that satisfies me.
But that's just me. :)
12785
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 1:19pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy: A Son's Confession
--- Adrian Martin
Deborah
> Kerr in that movie is very much a mother-figure to
> the troubled teen in that
> film, and my mother identified intensely with Kerr
> in all her 'maternal'
> type roles of the period. But of course she is a
> mother-figure who, to help
> out the son-figure, sleeps with him! This was a part
> of the film she never
> actually spoke about ... But she was always crying
> when the 'think kindly of
> me' ending rolled around. Some metaphor for a
> mother's sacrifice, perhaps
> ???
>
> I think I will go see a psychoanalyst now. Anti-
> Oedipus, anyone?
>
Thanks for confirming wha I said about it's being a
"woman'spicture," Adrian. Your mother was the target
audience and whole thing got to her like a
heat-seeking missile.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
12786
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:33pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy: A Son's Confession
I was looking at Kazan's autobiography this morning and he writes
about his approach to T&S as a new one for him in which he broke away
from the approach of the Group Theatre and its insistence upon always
attempting to "pin a play's meaning down to a didactic theme." Kazan
writes that with T&S he began to believe that the theme should not be
insisted upon and that audiences should leave the play discussing and
debating the play's various possible meanings. With T&S, he wanted
its theme to be "constantly and repeatedly contradicted." All of
these discussions that have been swirling around the film version
among our group, all of the different readings of the film -- as an
example of heterosexual paranoia, as an analysis of that paranoia, as
a film about male homosexuality, as a film about sensitive male
heterosexuality, as a woman's film, as an illustrated page out of the
life of Adrian Martin, etc, etc. – may have their origin in the
approach originally taken to the play by Kazan and which Minnelli
simply inherits in a general fashion, even if Minnelli's own mise-en-
scène sometimes carries different inflections.
I was also struck by Kazan's description of his approach to directing
the play in which he claims that he wanted to discard his
famous "heavy-handed dramatics" built around "violent physical action
and strong unequivocal events." Instead, he wanted the play to be
dominated by "hesitant inflections and half-realized gestures." It's
interesting that the film, on the other hand, occasionally has a more
typical Kazan-like feel, particularly in the scenes which aren't in
the play, such as the bonfire (which does indeed consist of violent
physical action) and, especially, Tom's failed encounter with the
waitress, which looks as though it could have stepped out of East of
Eden or Splendor in the Grass – although these scenes are also
consistent with Minnelli's own love of hysteria and melodrama.
I remember a number of months Tag Gallagher threw out a hypothetical
question to the group, asking us to imagine what a Sirk-directed
version of T&S would look like. I don't recall anyone taking Tag up
on this offer and I admit that I was stumped as the material does not
seem like Sirk's cup of tea (and sympathy?). It might be more
interesting to imagine what Kazan might have done had he directed his
own play for the screen. Would he have gone melodramatic, as
Minnelli sometimes does here, or would he have retained his "string
quartet" approach for the film? An unanswerable question, probably.
12787
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 2:36pm
Subject: Re: NEALE: WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan
> Joe,
> I think he leaves the impression that the influences are a two-way
> street, especially given the made for TV cable programs like
> SOPRANOS, etc, as well as the increasing large screens
> (even with picture within a picture options) with which we
> view TV. (It's really funny to be watching an old movie
> on a large screen (52 inches) and not be able to read the
> titles because they are too small.
>
> The 10 page article has about 20 footnotes / references. If you
> can't find it and are interested, I can make a paper copy and sent
> it via USPO. I found it interesting, but am not able to say more
> as I'm just learning to appreciate these things.
>
>
Elizabeth, thanks for the information and thanks for your kind
offer. I shouldn't have any trouble finding the Neale but if I do I
may you hit you up for a copy.
Speaking of large screens, I was in Virgin not too long ago and
Casablanca was an HDTV screen but projected wide rather than masked
on the sides as it should have been. Needless to say, it looked
horrifying.
12788
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:11pm
Subject: Re: Re: Tea and Sympathy: A Son's Confession
--- joe_mcelhaney
>
> I remember a number of months Tag Gallagher threw
> out a hypothetical
> question to the group, asking us to imagine what a
> Sirk-directed
> version of T&S would look like. I don't recall
> anyone taking Tag up
> on this offer and I admit that I was stumped as the
> material does not
> seem like Sirk's cup of tea (and sympathy?).
I think "Far From Heaven" might be seen as an attempt
to answer that question. And I'm not speaking of
Dennis Quaid so much as Julianne Moore -- particularly
in her unfulfilled longing for Dennis Haysbert.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Vote for the stars of Yahoo!'s next ad campaign!
http://advision.webevents.yahoo.com/yahoo/votelifeengine/
12789
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:09pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy (ending)
> > when you mention the "tacked-on, desperate ending," are you talking about
> > the "When you talk about this - and you will - be kind" scene?
> >
> I was referring to the imperative of informing us at the very end that Tom
> winds up married to a woman. "Tacked-on" was probably a poor choice of words. I
> meant that it feels tacked-on, a final, desperate attempt to insure us of
> Tom's heterosexuality.
Wasn't there a bit more to it -- I'd conveniently forgotten this part, but in Minnelli's words (here from the brochure from an old Minnelli retro): "The Breen office insisted a prologue and epilogue be included, for the wife should be punished for her transgression ... [...] The players knew the play inside it [sic] ... There was no need to gild it with any ornamentation ... There was, however, no way the picture was going to be released without the Breen office's prologue and epilogue, and the retribution required. The Deborah Kerr character would have to pay with her life ... The picture was released, and with the exception of the hated additional sequences, it received gratifyingly warm notices."
12790
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Tea and Sympathy: A Son's Confession
joe_mcelhaney wrote:
>I remember a number of months Tag Gallagher threw out a hypothetical
>question to the group, asking us to imagine what a Sirk-directed
>version of T&S would look like. I don't recall anyone taking Tag up
>on this offer and I admit that I was stumped as the material does not
>seem like Sirk's cup of tea (and sympathy?).
>
Sirk did a lot of assignments that might not have seemed like his cup of
sympathy from the script.
I don't know what a whole Sirk-directed "Tea and Sympathy" might have
looked like, but for how the coach would have been treated and what
those obnoxious boys would have looked like (grotesque!), see the
bodybuilder/health-food advocate and the summer camp race scenes in
"Weekend With Father."
Fred Camper
12791
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 3:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: NEALE: WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
> Speaking of large screens, I was in Virgin not too long ago and
> Casablanca was an HDTV screen but projected wide rather than masked
> on the sides as it should have been. Needless to say, it looked
> horrifying.
My depressing conclusion, after an informal poll on the subject, is:
only film buffs mind this. Most people think it is better to destroy
the image's scale than to leave the sides of the TV screen unused. I
find it weird that such a hideous effect doesn't induce nausea in
everyone, but that seems to be the way it is. - Dan
12792
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 4:04pm
Subject: Re: NEALE: WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
>
> My depressing conclusion, after an informal poll on the subject,
is:
> only film buffs mind this. Most people think it is better to
destroy
> the image's scale than to leave the sides of the TV screen unused.
I
> find it weird that such a hideous effect doesn't induce nausea in
> everyone, but that seems to be the way it is. - Dan
It is my own conclusion too, based upon the reactions of non-film-
buff viewers. People have always wanted to have their TV screen full.
The irony is that now with those wide TV screen the old problem is
going to be reversed: Scope and other wide screen movies will
(hopefully) no longer be shown in pan&scan versions, but it will be
the old, pre-'53 aspect ratio that will suffer... And nobody out
there really cares.
A few years ago I got a phone call from my cable company. A lady
wanted to know why I had cancelled my pay service or services (HBO
and/or Showtime, I don't remember). I said that one of my main
reasons was that the channel showed wide-screen movies in pan&scan
versions (I wasn't even that technical, I think I said "the wrong
format" or something like that). She didn't know what I was talking
about. I explained, and she was really surprised: it had never
occurred to her that such things were done, she had never noticed.
But at the same time I could sense that she felt I was making a fuss
about nothing much. I think this reaction (from someone working for a
cable channel, at that!) was pretty indicative of the way most people
feel. It also goes to prove that most viewers, whether in the theatre
or at home, pay little attention to the visual aspects of a movie.
JPC
12793
From:
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 0:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: Tea and Sympathy (ending)
In a message dated 7/20/04 10:16:26 AM, monterone@m... writes:
>
> Wasn't there a bit more to it
>
Yes, but that only makes it jut out even more historically. In any event, I
watched the film again Sunday night and I find the epistolary ending a
distancing device, an awkward fragment purposely not to be trusted. Even the form of
the letter is odd. Right before Laura comes forth with the "happy to hear
you're married" bit, she says "Dear John..." in the middle of the letter, as if she
were inexpliciably starting the letter over. It's jarring and drains the
voiceover of coherence and thus authority. Furthermore, it was a letter that was
never intended to be read, the same way Minnelli never intended to incorporate
it into his film.
Kevin John
12794
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:09pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy (& Lust for Life)
> If one defines male homosexuality as "a man being sexually attracted to other
> men", it is unclear whether the hero of the film is gay or not.
I don't think anyone has mentioned this, but it's curious that in the same year (!) as T. & S. (I can't find the Minnelli book, which would tell me which film came first), LUST FOR LIFE gives us -- as if in contradistinction to the wimpy and ambiguous J. Kerr character -- a conceivably bisexual Van Gogh all but throwing himself at Anthony Quinn. (The emotional, while obviously not sexual, character of these scenes really seems extraordinary for the time, with Van G.'s self-mutilation actually a response to Gauguin's rejection -- IF I'm recalling correctly.) Obviously, nobody would claim any of this as a forerunner of the gay pride movement or anything, but I wonder if it would be accurate to see the Vincent of this episode as Minnelli's most "out" character.
12795
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 5:14pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy (ending)
Robert Anderson once told me that a sub-text of Tea and Sympathy was
as a metaphorical indictment of McCarthy-ism, with
Tom's "sensitivity" standing in for leftism/progressive politics.
Anderson, who is heterosexual, has always insisted that Tom is
straight, although that does not, of course, preclude Minnelli's mise-
en-scene from leading to a different interpretation of the movie
version of Tom.
More than the "sister boy" elements, the Breen Office had problems
with the play's portraying the adulterous encounter between Tom and
Laura as a positive act -- thus, the enforced coda in which Laura
renounces the affair and is intimated now to be a miserable lonely
middle-aged woman because of what she did. Anderson has always
regretted capitulating to the censors and not having waited a few
years to do the movie, and the irony is that the coda contradicts the
play's famous ending: it is "years from now" and when "speaking of
this" Laura is not "be[ing] kind."
-- Damien
12796
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: Tea and Sympathy (& Lust for Life)
--- jess_l_amortell
(The
> emotional, while obviously not sexual, character of
> these scenes really seems extraordinary for the
> time, with Van G.'s self-mutilation actually a
> response to Gauguin's rejection -- IF I'm recalling
> correctly.)
Not at all. In fact it's alot less romantic than
Thomas Mitchell's longing for Cary Grant in "Only
Angels Have Wings" or the Clark Gable-Spencer Tracy
menage in "Test Pilot." And leave us not forget
Wendell Cory and John Hodaik in "Desert Fury."
Obviously, nobody would claim any of
> this as a forerunner of the gay pride movement or
> anything, but I wonder if it would be accurate to
> see the Vincent of this episode as Minnelli's most
> "out" character.
>
Uh no. That WOULD have been the case had a very
important secondary character in "The Bad and the
Beautiful" been played by a man instead of Elaine
Stewart.
I'm not the first one to mention this but it's fairly
obvious that the scene in which Turner comes back to
Douglas' house to celebrate and discovers him with
somebody else (thereby precipitating that phenomenal
car scen) only makes sense if it's a man.
Not that I'm complaining, really as Elaine Stewart has
always been my favorite movie tough guy.
"Saw the picture, Georgia. You were swell."
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
12797
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:33pm
Subject: Re: Tea and Sympathy (ending)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> Robert Anderson once told me that a sub-text of Tea and Sympathy
was
> as a metaphorical indictment of McCarthy-ism, with
> Tom's "sensitivity" standing in for leftism/progressive politics.
Robert J. Corbin's badly written but provocative and interesting book
In the Name of National Security explores conservative and liberal
uses of this metaphor in Hitchcock's Cold War films -- not just the
obvious one, Strangers on a Train, but Rear Window, The Man Who Knew
Too Much, Psycho and Vertigo, where much is made of Scotty's
perennial bachelorhood. Take with a grain of salt, and be prepared
for the worst imitation of Foucault's style in all of American
letters, but I do recommend it.
12798
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 6:36pm
Subject: Bad & the Beautiful
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> I'm not the first one to mention this but it's fairly
> obvious that the scene in which Turner comes back to
> Douglas' house to celebrate and discovers him with
> somebody else (thereby precipitating that phenomenal
> car scen) only makes sense if it's a man.
Huh? Why does it only make sense if it's a man?
-Jaime
12799
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 7:08pm
Subject: Re: Storytelling/Remakes/Intelligence
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
>
>
> I agree with pretty much everything Rosenbaum argues, but
still think
> the public is culpable to a degree. The information on who
writes and
> directs a film is readily available, so why are people still paying
> to see films written by Akiva Goldsman?
Readily available to who and in what way? Does everyone have
a computer with, for an example in the United States, with the
Chicago
Reader and Village Voice websites in their favorites menu?
Does everybody know where this information can be found and if
it even exists? I think you are writing with a position of
knowledge and/or privilege that you may believe everyone else
should, or is, be going along with. And to reference one of your
arguments, maybe people find the subjects/themes of Akiva
Goldsman "interesting" rather than "uninteresting". Again, you
are writing with this sense of absolute certainty.
> Maybe the filmmaker? Ie, if you sentence Nick Ray to direct
KNOCK ON
> ANY DOOR, you're not going to get IN A LONELY PLACE. In that
case,
> the theme is worthwhile, but the development in story terms
certainly
> lacklustre.
How do you define "worthwhile"? A theme that is socially
responsible? (Which would make Stanley Kramer a great
filmmaker!) Sirk said: "trash by virtue of it's craziness is that
much nearer to art" (Am I getting the quote correct, Fred?) I
would argue that more great films in the history of cinema have
been made out of trashy or "worthless" material than austere
sources. Godard dedicated "Breathless" to Monogram studios
and wanted to sub-title "Alphaville" as "Tarzan vs. IBM"
> Here we differ - I find the film very watchable in filmic terms, but
> feel it falls short of greatness since all the style is at the
> service of a fairly dumb script. In a case like KISS ME DEADLY,
where
> the filmmaker has been able to turn the material in some way
against
> itself, a great film results. But PB to me is a stylish but empty
> entertainment which leaves me wanting more substance.
I've already commented on PB being "empty entertainment" and
the idea that a film's style must be at the service of the script in
other posts, but again, I am rather put off by your use of the word
"greatness". Your usage to me implies some type of value
judgement on a film's subject or intentions rather than
considering the use of the medium by the filmmaker.
> I'm kind of with you on this, but feel it depends on the nature of
> the bad script and the techniques used to transcend it. Kubrick
felt
> he couldn't overcome the "fairly dumb" script of SPARTACUS,
so while
> the film contains masterful scenes it is not as great a film as
> others in the Kubrick canon. Dressing up a stupid script with
> technical flourishes can result in a watchable oddity like
Joseph H
> Lewis' INVISIBLE GHOST, but that's not a great movie like GUN
CRAZY -
> it lacks a solid justification for exisiting.
I am not talking about technical flourishes, I am talking about
how an auteur rises above the material by the use of his/her
cinematic language: camera placement and movement, editing,
sound. These elements are NOT "flourishes", a filmmaker can
find very organic and subtle ways to enrich the body of a dead
script, making the film become his or her own. This act alone,
and how it fits into the oeuvre of an auteur's work is enough, to
me, for a solid justification of "existing". (Another word that
implies a value judgement.)
>
> In DETOUR, a wildly implausible script (with some
admmittedly great
> dialogue) makes a terrific movie because the director's
approach
> makes virtues out of apparent vices. So I agree it can be done.
But
> it's MUCH harder!
And that it is harder and that the filmmaker succeeds is one
aspect of what makes a great director. David, it's REGARDLESS
of the perceived quality or importance of the theme or script, but
how the tools of the medium of film are used that makes a film
great to me. Citing Ulmer is apt, for he had everything against
him and still made great films. Tom Gunning said of "Detour":
"there's nothing but genius in that film because there is no
budget for anything else."
> Disagree repsectfully. If "theme" includes "techniques" it starts
to
> get a bit too woolly for usefulness, imho.
How?! I mean lets look at Max Ophuls for example, where his
moving camera is part, and I would say a significant part, of his
"theme(s)". The way in which the camera moves in "La Ronde" is
similar and different than in "Lola Montes". I think Ophuls was
commenting upon, expanding and reworking his use of camera
movement.
I would venture to argue that you place too much an emphasis
on content: script, plot, dialogue, spine, etc..etc.. and I have to
say that these elements should only be of certain use and
consideration on a board dedicated to auteurism. But it seems
a lot of posts get bogged down in the reduction of cinema into
scripts and their sub-text rather than the director and his/her's
cinematic language and contributions.
I'll quote David, who I have had disagreements with what I find
his tendency to reduce filmmakers and their films down to the
theme/sub-text of homosexuality, from his writing on Coppola's
"Dracula". -- David are you reading this? Because I think you hit
the nail right on the head with the following: "So long as the
cinema continues to kowtow to the standards of 19th century
drama --a vampire far more stubborn than Dracula-- it will
remain a stillborn art, reduced to thumb's approval or
semiotic-psychoanalytic chart."
> Actually can't think of many filmmakers, for instance, who are
bad
> communicators using language. Many of them fall short of the
> standards of academics, which shouldn't be surprising since
each
> group is paid to do what they do best, but compared to the
general
> populace directors score fairly highly (exception: Spielberg,
who
> seemd pretty articulate at first but now waffles endless
nonsense in
> interviews.) Since the act of directing others is at least partly a
> verbal one, this shouldn't be surprising.
I have seen directors speak in public who are very clumsy. As
Jack Angsterich has pointed out: "there are sometimes they
should not be allowed to speak." I do not think that one needs to
be articulate to be able to direct, not all directors have to start
speaking with their actors about a character's motivation and
history. Fritz Lang was known just to bark orders.
What is this "academic standard" you are talking about? What
area of academia? What standards? Again, who decides
these? And "each group is paid to do what they do best?" I know
a lot of intelligent and well spoken blue collar workers and some
ignorant, vulgar and moronic professionals. I find a bit of
classism and elitism in your writing, biases that I think are very
dangerous when talking about art.
> Yeah, I write like an eighteenth century pamphleteer, I'm
working on
> it, I'm working on it...
Which may be why I am inferring things with you that aren't there.
Michael Worrall
12800
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Tue Jul 20, 2004 8:13pm
Subject: Re: NEALE: WIDESCREEN COMPOSITION IN THE AGE
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> My depressing conclusion, after an informal poll on the subject,
> is: > > only film buffs mind this. Most people think it is better
to > destroy > > the image's scale than to leave the sides of the TV
screen unused.
Unfortunately, the fact that most of the directors don't even know
how they have to fill this damned widescreeen doesn't help. Why
should the audience care of the pan&scan reductions, if it isn't
even an issue for the filmmaker.
BTW I read somewhere that Spielberg (or maybe another one - maybe
pure, vain and malicious gossip for my part) shot his movies keeping
in mind the potential outcome of the pan&scan. Is that a common
practice?
Maxime
Home Film Art Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits) Links About Contact