Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact
a_film_by Main Page
Posts From the Internet Film Discussion Group, a_film_by
This group is dedicated to discussing film as art
from an auteurist perspective. The index to these files of posts can be found at http://www.fredcamper.com/afilmby/ The purpose of these files is to make our posts more accessible, for downloading and reading and to search engines.
Important: The copyright of each post below is owned by the
person who wrote the post, and reproducing it in any form requires
that person's permission.
It is possible to email the author of any post by finding a post
they have written in the a_film_by archives at
http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/messages and
emailing them from that Web site.
14101
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:59am
Subject: Re: Acting
I believe it was Brando who said, that a part is a "suit" and the
actor has to slip into it; The actor may be too small for the suit, in
which case the suit will be weak and unnoticed, the actor may be too
big for the suit, in which case people will notice the actor and not
the suit, and finally the suit many be too big for the actor. Thus the
actors job is to make the suit fit, either by shrinking or my
enlarging his role.
Hence, a character is a signifier in narrative cinema and the "size"
of the actor determines the strenght of it, i.e. "filling of the
suit". This makes sense, as a strong performance can lift and enhance
the narrative, or as Bill said, "Sometimes great cinema is born of a
more complicated relationship between the actor and the image."
But this also suggests that the "suit" and / or actor can disrupt the
narrative. I noted upon this in my critic of "Collateral", where I
suggested, that the name of Cruises' character, Vincent, gave allusion
to "The Colour of Money" and the positure gave allusion to "Mission
Impossible"; Hence the "suit" was tailored badly and the actor was too
large for the suit. Another allusion by actor is in "Enemy of the
State", where Gene Hackman gives allusion to "The Conversation". But
is this bad acting or bad designed "suit"?
Its not only allusion, which is an element of acting, also homage and
various forms of intertextuality are, according to Genette. But inter-
and transtextuality relies upon the viewer, as those unfamiliar with
the subtext wont recognize it.
This suggests, that an uneducation (in lack of a better word, in terms
of information on which to reference by) viewer wont note inter- and
transtextuality.
Bill notes upon another element of acting, when he says, that, "For
most film spectators, the actor is (or used to be) what they paid to
see." If an audience by assumed naivity overlooks the "suit" and only
observes the actor, or if the narrative (i.e. the "suit") is so
undefined and weak, that you only see the actor, the narrative becomes
secondary to the actor. This is the potential danger, and fallacy, of
the "Star" system and "Star" film. The narrative have to match the
stars strenght, if not, the narrative becomes secondary.
But if the narrative is secondary, then the "suit" also must be, and
the question is then, to what purpose is acting, when the actor just
has to be himself?
Henrik
14102
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:35am
Subject: Re: The Militant on "Fahrenheit 9/11"
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
> There are several articles for and against "Fahrenheit 9/11"'s
> line at counterpunch.org.
> http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine07022004.html
> http://www.counterpunch.org/jensen07052004.html
> http://www.counterpunch.org/valentine06302004.html
> http://www.counterpunch.org/bardacke07292004.html
I neglected a few more reviews:
http://www.counterpunch.org/landau07172004.html
Paul
14103
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:32am
Subject: Re: She Hate Me
So help me I loved SHE HATE ME.
In addition to what hotlove666 has already said (obervations likely not to mean much
to those who haven't seen the film) --
The flashback scene when Mackie encounters his soon-to-be bride in bed with her
Dominican lover, both nearly reaching orgasm, and then violently broken apart,
reminded me of the scene in John Singleton's BABY BOY when Tyrese's girlfriend has
fantasies during orgasm -- brief flashes that, as Jonathan noted in his capsule of the
film, show unexpected flair and inventiveness. What Singleton and Spike Lee have in
common is that they dare to stage emotionally complex moments while characters
are having intercourse. Most filmmakers would rather not deal with the mess.
While it's true that the film touches on the issue of diabetes, I think it would be
inaccurate to say it touches on the issue of diabetes in impoverished black
communities: Mackie's parents live in an elegant brownstone and are apparently well
off.
What I dslike about Lee is that he seems out of touch with reality; in most of his films
we only see sleek apartments with designer stuff, and impeccably dressed and trendy
people, with interesting faces. Also -- as I'm sure has been noted in dozens of
reviews (making it a totally conventional criticism, but whatever) -- Lee's characters
are all annoyingly preachy and talk alike.
But ... the flaws are beside the point. This is intensely personal stuff, and if you can
get through it, it leaves you with a full plate.
Gabe
14104
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 1:58pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> There are many fine performances in Preminger films but Sarris
> commented that there were often indifferent or poor ones within the
> same film; but what else within the auteurist literature has been
said
> about acting in Preminger's oeuvre?
>
>
> - Jack Angstreich
>
>
> Although I haven't read an enormous amount of auteurist
literature (and sometimes it feels like too much anyway...) I would
say that auteurist criticism, as well as "intellectual" criticism in
general, has a tendency to take acting for granted and to focus on
other aspects, perhaps in part because the "non-intellectual"
approach to movies is to focus on the stars. As far as Preminger is
concerned, I don't remember reading about "indifferent or poor" acting
(did Sarris give examples, by the way?)but then there isn't much
about good acting either. How much of the praise written about
ANATOMY goes to the extraordinary good acting of all concerned?
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2004, at 1:15 AM, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
>
> Jack Angstreich:
>
> > Wasn't it conventional wisdom among auteurists that Preminger
was
> > usually indifferent to performance?
>
> I can't believe that Joan Crawford gave the performance she did
in
> DAISY
> KENYON without someone leaning on her. Maybe Jimmy Stewart might
have
> come up with the conception for his character in ANATOMY on his
own,
> but
> it remains one of the cinema's sharpest critiques of an actor's
own
> persona - I wouldn't think that a director indifferent to
performance
> would have even thought to make that particular movie.
>
> - Dan
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14105
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:14pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
. I believe, and have long believed, that the
> determination of "good" and "bad" acting lies within the
jurisdiction
> of acting connoisseurs, other actors, and drama critics.
>
I don't know about that. You might as well say that the
determination of "good" and "bad" direction lies within the
jurisdiction of directing connoisseurs: other directors (in other
words, judgement by your peers -- like the Academy Awards. And what
makes the drama critic a "connoisseur" anyway?
> And that the sole purpose of acting, to a hardcore auteurist, is
> subordinate to strong/great mise-en-scene, and that we are more
likely
> to prize a great perfromance - as a singular event - when it exists
> amidst weak or poor mise-en-scene.
>
I don't know about that either. You might as well say that the
purpose of mise en scene (although not its sole purpose of course) is
to generate strong/great acting. I've asked this question before: are
there really great films with bad acting in them?
(and although my answer tends to be a resounding "NO" I must
immediately admit to exceptions, at least as far as I am concerned.
Dorothy Malone in WRITTEN ON THE WIND -- since someone has mentioned
her -- I find awful. But then again we're brought back to kevin's
dilemma of "good bad acting" in LAURA. Malone's "bad" acting is
written into the script and obviously encouraged by the director. And
the film is great anyway).
> Any port in the storm - is that how the saying goes?
>
> No point to this post. Sorry, very sorry.
>
> -Jaime
14106
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:19pm
Subject: They Hate Spike
Black lesbians, that is --
http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/08/16/spike_lee_film/
Go ahead and discount them all you want.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14107
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 2:35pm
Subject: Re: Acting
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> -
>
> The actor (a word now used of both sexes, it seems) is the main
> ingredient of narrative cinema.
I agree! By the way it's funny that after ages of feminist
protest against words, and especially those designating a profession,
that had no feminine form, now all actresses proudly call
themselves "actors".
.
>
> A whole branch of French cinephilia -- while very mise-en-scene-
> oriented -- is actor-centered: MacMahonism.
I should have mentioned it in my previous posts about auteurist
neglect of acting. "Charlton Heston is an axiom." Mourlet. But the
Macmahoniens were only a splinter group, plus, their approach of
acting and performers was highly intellectualized...
For most film spectators,
> the actor is (or used to be) what they paid to see, and the fact
that
> a turkey like The Last Samurai still made a fortune because it
> starred Cruise suggests this is still the case. Any theory that
> doesn't take the actor into account as the main ingredient of H'wd
> film and the narrative cinema of other countries is barking up the
> wrong tree
Again, I completely agree.
14108
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: Acting
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> I should have mentioned it in my previous posts
> about auteurist
> neglect of acting. "Charlton Heston is an axiom."
> Mourlet. But the
> Macmahoniens were only a splinter group, plus, their
> approach of
> acting and performers was highly intellectualized...
>
>
>
and worth pursuing. Think for example of Robert
Mitchum, James Dean, Parker Posey and Craig Chester.
> For most film spectators,
> > the actor is (or used to be) what they paid to
> see, and the fact
> that
> > a turkey like The Last Samurai still made a
> fortune because it
> > starred Cruise suggests this is still the case.
> Any theory that
> > doesn't take the actor into account as the main
> ingredient of H'wd
> > film and the narrative cinema of other countries
> is barking up the
> > wrong tree
>
> Again, I completely agree.
>
>
Tom Cruise is NOT an axiom of the cinema.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14109
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
>>Seems to me there are two basic approaches here. One is to
> say, "Good acting is acting that makes the film work." This lets one
> argue that John Wayne is a good actor, Bresson's actors, Warhol's,
> etc. In this approach, one rejects any evaluation of acting that is
>>independent of the evaluation of the work as a whole. The other
> approach is to uphold criteria for the performance itself. The
> criteria can have to do with whether the actor is the same in every
> role he or she plays, wears lots of makeup, yells loud enough,
> suggests real people that the viewer has known, exhibits great skill
>>in rendering some behavior, etc.
>
> Sure, but it's often hard to draw the line. I think Wilder uses Fred
> MacMurray brilliantly in both DOUBLE INDEMNITY and THE APARTMENT;
> whether MacMurray is an actor of great range or virtuosity is another
> question. Still, it's hard to see how he would have given those
> performances without being quite thoughtful and self-aware about the
> ambigities in his persona.
Maybe I'm missing what you're saying, but I don't think it's a matter of
drawing the line: those two perspectives can be applied at the same
time, and both have truth to them. One viewer can think of the
performance as an aid to the film, and another viewer (or the same
viewer in a different mode) can evaluate the performance independently.
- Dan
14110
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:32pm
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
> I've asked this question before: are
> there really great films with bad acting in them?
It's hard to talk about this when we've been having such a tough time
agreeing on what "bad acting" is. But there are certainly famous
controversies, which you can comment on: Martine Carol in LOLA MONTES,
Curt Jurgens in BITTER VICTORY, etc.
Personally, I don't have any trouble considering a film great even when
it contains a number of important things that don't work perfectly. - Dan
14111
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 3:57pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Maybe I'm missing what you're saying, but I don't think it's a
matter of
> drawing the line: those two perspectives can be applied at the same
> time, and both have truth to them. One viewer can think of the
> performance as an aid to the film, and another viewer (or the same
> viewer in a different mode) can evaluate the performance
independently.
> - Dan
But the performance is consubstantial to the film, it's part and
parcel of it. You can evaluate it independently only in an artificial
and very reductive fashion. The performance is always an 'aid" to the
film (and more) because without the performance there is no film (we
are talking about narrative cinema, of course). So the
first "perspective" has to be the right or at least dominant one,
while elements of the second may be used simultaneously, as you
stated, Dan.
JPC
14112
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:01pm
Subject: Re: They Hate Spike
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> Go ahead and discount them all you want.
Rowr!
14113
From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 4:26pm
Subject: Re: Acting
> Oudart thought that some early films -- Dreyer's Joan of Arc, The
> Wind -- were metaphors of the struggle of the actor not to be
> absorbed by the celluloid.
It's been too long since I've seen The Wind, but this is a fascinating thought re
Falconetti.
The last time I saw it (in the company of her daughter among other people)
I was - hyper aware - of "Falconettiness" , her Corsican beauty, almost like
another layer of the film's emulsion.....
-Sam Wells
14114
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:02pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
> There are many fine performances in Preminger films but Sarris
> commented that there were often indifferent or poor ones within the
> same film; but what else within the auteurist literature has been said
> about acting in Preminger's oeuvre?
Robin Wood talks about acting in his two essays on Preminger that were
collected in the MOVIE READER. He discusses Jill Haworth's performance
in EXODUS in "good bad acting" terms, and talks a lot about the use of
gesture, and stripping performances down to essentials, in ADVISE AND
CONSENT. - Dan
14115
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:02pm
Subject: Re: Acting
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
> Sometimes great cinema is born of a more complicated relationship
> between the actor and the image. Certain actors (cf. Farber on
this)
> occupy space in the military sense (Katharine Hepburn taking over
an
> office in Baby); some squeeze themselves into it, becoming part of
> the furniture (Dustin Hofman in tHe Graduate). Duras said Chaplin
> could occupy a whole city, while Woody Allen only occupies a small
> slice of one.
Perhaps not so much military as field composition/projectivist... not
all Farber-approved performances have this kind of aggressive-
ssertive existential quality (Negative Space p. 136):
"One of the good termite performances (John Wayne's bemused cowboy in
an unreal stage town inhabited by pallid repetitious actors whose
chief trait is a powdered make-up) occurs in John Ford's THE MAN WHO
SHOT LIBERTY VALANCE. Better Ford films than this have been marred by
a phlegmatically solemn Irish personality that goes for rounded
declamatory cting, silhouetted riders along the rim of a mountain
with a golden sunset behind them, and repetitions in which big bodies
are scrambled together in a rhythmically curving Rosa Bonheurish
composition. Wayne's acting is infected by a kind of hoboish spirit,
sitting back on its haunches doing a bitter-amused counterpoint to
the pale, neutral film life around him. In an Arizona town that is
too placid, where the cactus was planted last night and nostalgically
cast actors do a generalized drunkenness, cowardice, voraciousness,
Wayne is the termite actor focusing only on a tiny present area,
nibbling at it with engaging professionalism and a hipster sense of
how to sit in a chair leaned against a wall, eye a flogging overactor
(Lee Marvin). As he moves along at the pace of a tapeworm, Wayne
leaves a path that is only bits of shrewd intramural acting - a
craggy face filled with bitterness, jealousy, a big body that idles
luxuriantly, having long grown tired with roughthouse games played by
old wrangler types like John Ford."
> Oudart thought that some early films -- Dreyer's Joan of Arc, The
> Wind -- were metaphors of the struggle of the actor not to be
> absorbed by the celluloid. Certainly there are modern films which
are
> allegories of a similar (losing) struggle: Beetlejuice and The Last
> Emperor (actor seeking to escape from, or accepting confinement
> within, a shrinking space) are two I cited in an article for the
CdC
> issue on The Actor, in which all these points are made at greater
> length.
This was something I was trying desperately to articulate with LAURA
and DOUBLE INDEMNITY, the struggle, the friction between the
performances against the constrictive social fabric of the films.
Perhaps the whole question of whether this effect is "good or bad"
and "who's responsible" were unhelpful distractions from this issue.
For most film spectators,
> the actor is (or used to be) what they paid to see, and the fact
that
> a turkey like The Last Samurai still made a fortune because it
> starred Cruise suggests this is still the case. Any theory that
> doesn't take the actor into account as the main ingredient of H'wd
> film and the narrative cinema of other countries is barking up the
> wrong tree, IMHO.
or setting a new paradigm?
14116
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:05pm
Subject: Re: She Hate Me
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
> So help me I loved SHE HATE ME.
Thanks, comrade!
> While it's true that the film touches on the issue of diabetes, I
think it would be
> inaccurate to say it touches on the issue of diabetes in
impoverished black
> communities: Mackie's parents live in an elegant brownstone
and are apparently well
> off.
But it's not a class issue -- it's genetic. My roommate died of it in
1997, after having a leg amputated at Cedars. African and
Spanish Americans are simply high risk groups, wherever they
live. Some Native American tribes have a 50% rate of Type 1. Lee
is getting the word out to his audience that they're all at risk and
need regular checkups. Actually, we all need to start paying a
little more attention. Hope this isn't OT!
As for the depthless characters and the tendency to preach, this
is satire. I know that doesn't excuse all faults, but you do have to
see it in that context. Also, the preachings often collide head-on
because Lee is a carnivalesque filmmaker, interesting in
staging the clash of discourses, not in their resolution. The
classic example is Do the Right Thing. She Hate Me has more in
common with The Second Civil War than it does with Remains of
the Day.
14117
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:07pm
Subject: Re: They Hate Spike
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Black lesbians, that is --
>
> http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/08/16/spike_lee_film/
>
> Go ahead and discount them all you want.
This line does that for me: ""Real, authentic lesbians will not
sleep with men for any reason at all."
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14118
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:18pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
I'm still going through all the responses, but this post as well as
David's about the variable of "naturalism" make me see a hole in my
argument: that I saw aesthetic convention, the thing that "bad"
acting actively critiques and thus becomes "good" acting, as a fixed
property. Sirk may very well have used his alienating performance
style as a way to comment on everyday social affectation (that
priceless line Sondra Dee delivers to Lana Turner in IMITATION OF
LIFE, accusing her mother of always putting on a performance). But
audiences at the time found it less alienating and "campy" than
audiences today.
I also realize that this was something that some of you were trying
to tell me in regards to LAURA and DOUBLE INDEMNITY, but I lost track
of it amidst the other ideas I was working through. Still, I think
projecting an account of the way audiences saw it back then only gets
us so far in accounting for how a performance works or doesn't within
a film, and at most should supplement, not substitute, one's honest
reaction in the present.
Kevin
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> Richard Modiano wrote:
>
> >.... telegraphing is bad in Ibsenite theatre but
> >good in Epic theatre....
> >
> It is a fundamental consequence of my personal brand of auteurism
that
> "good" or "bad" in acting cannot be determined separately from
> considering the whole film, and in particular the appropriateness
of the
> performance style to the filmmaker's vision. My interest in acting,
at
> least in a great film, is not a question of whether I like the
character
> or find him interestingly or subtly or artfully portrayed on his
own,
> but how the performance contributes to the whole. Dean Martin's
Dude in
> "Rio Bravo" would make no more sense in a John Ford film than would
> Jeffrey Hunter's Martin in "The Searchers" work in a Hawks film.
>
> I once showed "Written on the Wind" at Bard College. Actually,
twice.
> The first time, in the late 1970s, in what must have been an
excellent
> course on Sirk co-taught by Paul Arthur and Warren Sonbert, the
students
> were sympathetic. The second time, circa 1990 I believe, with both
of
> those instructors long since departed that institution, they were
not.
> And they complained about a "bad" script and "bad" acting. What was
an
> example of a "good" script and "good" acting, I asked. "A Place in
the
> Sun." I started looking at the exit signs. Dorothy Malone's Marylee
> would not, in fact, exemplify "good" acting in a Ford film, and
probably
> not in a George Stevens film either.
>
> I have fond memories of a few moving performances in otherwise
> uninteresting films: Olivier's Wiesnthal like character in "The
Boys
> From Brazil" comes to mind, as well as Rita Hayworth's wonderful
> portrayal of a drunk -- was it the real her then that she was
> portraying? -- in "The Money Trap." When there's no total vision
> controlling things, a performance can stand out.
>
> And I say all this without even mentioning Bresson.
>
> Fred Camper
14119
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:27pm
Subject: Re: They Hate Spike
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Black lesbians, that is --
>
> http://www.salon.com/ent/feature/2004/08/16/spike_lee_film/
>
> Go ahead and discount them all you want.
Sorry, David. Got up on the wrong side of the bed.
I suppose that there will be men who see it and have their
stereotypes reinforced about lesbians just needing a "real man"
to turn them around, but that's the risk of not being John Sayles.
The film is open to misinterpretation by all sorts of folks --
including organizations who make distinctions between "real,
authentic lesbians" and "unreal, inauthentic" ones.
If by "real" they mean "realistically depicted," I never assumed
that. I thought the scene where he couples with his ex- was a
dream sequence, and subsequently accepted it as the
filmmaker's fantasy -- a funny one. This is a movie about a man
who leaves his tribe (paternalistic corporate America) and seeks
refuge with another tribe (lesbians), then returns to his own tribe
(the corporate plot gets dropped for an hour and a half and tied
up only at the end) a better man. Lee's lesbians are only
marginally more fantastic than Fuller's Indians, who also "evolve
and change" when Steiger is with them, like the Alex character.
If by "real" they mean some kind of litmus test for who's entitled
to call herself what, I assume people are too complex and varied
to be subjected to those kinds of tests. But I also don't assume
Lee knows more about this than I do, and I assume he made
lots of mistakes, which I'd love to hear about from a lesbian who
got the movie. I just don't see them as being pernicious . Even
those audience members whose stereotypes will be reinforced
have to overlook the fact that the hero's ex- refuses to define
herself when he's pushing her and refuses to give up Alex.
Could the trio that they seem to form at the end actually happen
in real life? Is it something that has NEVER happened in real
life? That's not a rhetorical question. Meanwhile, the other gals
seem quite happy just having their babies.
14120
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: They Hate Spike
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> This line does that for me: ""Real, authentic
> lesbians will not
> sleep with men for any reason at all."
> >
> >
> >
>
Really? Why?
(Don't get me started on "But I'm really bisexual(s)"
)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14121
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:32pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
> wrote:
If the acting serves the overall design of a
> given story than it should be called simply good acting.
>
In essence I agree. I think what's happening with me sticking with
the "good bad" descriptive is that my aesthetic distinctions become
more of a critical response to the conventional assesments of "good"
and "bad" that you see in mainstream criticism and popular aesthetic
discourse. Like I was saying in my long post, perhaps this approach
only makes sense if the need is felt to push against popular notions
of acting, retrieving through recontextualization. It seems that a
lot of the people on this board are so developed or sophisticated in
their appreciation(s) of performance that my (essentially
reactionary) concerns really don't matter much to them. I suppose as
auteurists, people take the recontextualizing they do all the time
for granted. (jp, I disagree with you that auteurism is
a "convention" -- it may be around here, but not in the world beyond
a_film_by, and this past week I've felt the distance).
I appreciate the correction and background info on Preminger.
Kevin
14122
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Acting
This is only a small offering, and I might be guilty of having missed
the point already made somewhere in the thread (been too busy to engage
as much as I'd like), but can't we say that in some (many? all?) films,
acting is -part- of the mise en scène, and not just something afloat in
the filmic space? We're talking about whether it works or not only in
so far as it meshes with the m-e-s, but in large part a performance
(which is, after all, comprised of movement and appearance) helps to
-define- the mise en scène. (It's also comprised of speech, -- cadence
still counts when we talk about "placement within the scene.") Hence
Stanwyck in 'Double Indemnity'; and hence the entire history of
aleatorical filmmaking ("naturalistic" be damned), from Cassavetes to
Rivette, backwards further and forwards more, too. When acting is
"bad" in the abstract, I'm at a loss to say whether this is out of
conflict with the rest of a
supposedly-fluid/intermeshed/works-as-one-unit understanding of the
rest of the mise en scène, or whether it's one discrete element among a
host of discrete elements (script, lighting, editing, pacing --
soundtrack), all of which we can talk about separately, and all of
which we can say are part of the mise en scène, and absolutely
divisible from the mise en scène. In abstract and sometimes particular
terms.
craig.
14123
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- Kevin Lee wrote:
But
> audiences at the time found it less alienating and
> "campy" than
> audiences today.
>
No they didn't! I saw "Imitation of Life" when it was
first released and audiences roared with laughter with
Sandra Dee said "Oh mother, stop acting!"
Dorothy Malone's "Mambo of Death" scene in "Written on
the Wind" provoked guffaws as well, as did much of the
film -- which was the reason why Tashlin parodied the
"We've come so far from the river" scene in
"Rock-a-bye Baby"
You're chained to the myth of "progress" and the
ultimate "perfectability" of man that the future
allegedly brings.
Well Frank O'Hara was perfection itself and he died in
1966. It's ALL been downhill since then. (Cue Devo.)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14124
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:47pm
Subject: Re: They Hate Spike
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> >
> > This line does that for me: ""Real, authentic
> > lesbians will not
> > sleep with men for any reason at all."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> Really? Why?
>
> (Don't get me started on "But I'm really bisexual(s)"
I already replied, but something I left out is that the film does
assume that one of the lesbians, his ex-, is bisexual. There's
really no indication that Alex is. My assumption about the trio they
form at the end is that Alex won't be sleeping with John. And
neither will the other 16 mothers.
OK, so it's sappy and silly. It also isn't one of the things I listed
that I liked about the film. But it's not pernicious.
I'm more uncertain of my defense of the film with regard to the
idea that "a baby needs a afther." That's not a proposition to be
accepted or denied a priori, but if I had to bet, it's wrong, and
pernicious re: gay couples, male or female, adopting, which -- to
my limited knowledge -- can work quite well.
14125
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:02pm
Subject: Re: They Hate Spike
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> >
> > This line does that for me: ""Real, authentic
> > lesbians will not
> > sleep with men for any reason at all."
> > >
> > >
> > >
> >
>
> Really? Why?
>
> (Don't get me started on "But I'm really bisexual(s)"
> )
>Backing up, I initially reacted -- maybe overreacted -- to that line
because I did the permutations in my head: "No real, authentic
homosexual would sleep with a woman [note the correct use of
the singular] for any reason at all." "No real, authentic
heterosexual would sleep with a man for any reason at all." It
becomes a conceptual morass, where the words "real" and
"authentic" are the culprit, as they so often are.
The lesbians in the film sleep with Armstrong to get pregnant.
This presumes that -- with the means at hand -- it's the only
viable way to make it happen. It's also the only way they're'd be a
movie, so I let that one slide. He isn't enjoying it -- important
point, and with one or two ambiguous exceptions -- and the very
large exception of his ex- -- neither are they.
The point -- if there is just one point -- is that what he gets out of
it is being a father, which is what the suicidal scientist said to do
before jumping. This changes him, and apparently changes the
women who are the active agents in the transaction, for the
better -- as they already anticipated, and as he learns more
gradually, with time in the slammer to think about it. No one
changes sexual orientation, not even the ex-, who was in a
relationship with him before she fell in love with the unknown
other woman.
And on the plus side, the film ringingly endorses their right to
have babies -- even (gasp!) female ones -- and to form couples,
even the unconventional one that gives us our silly, sappy happy
ending. What's wrong with that?
14126
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: They Hate Spike
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Sorry, David. Got up on the wrong side of the bed.
>
I slept like an angel.
> I suppose that there will be men who see it and have
> their
> stereotypes reinforced about lesbians just needing a
> "real man"
> to turn them around, but that's the risk of not
> being John Sayles.
You're talking about MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF MEN
whose overweaning vanity is re-inforced by the notion
that all any dyke needs is a good stiff dick (theirs)
to "make her a real woman."
And they've never so much as heard of John Sayles.
> The film is open to misinterpretation by all sorts
> of folks --
> including organizations who make distinctions
> between "real,
> authentic lesbians" and "unreal, inauthentic" ones.
>
The film is also open to the criticism I'm just
levelled.
> If by "real" they mean "realistically depicted," I
> never assumed
> that.
Neither did I. Elsewhere in here I've taken up arms
against realism -- as I'm sure you've noted.
I thought the scene where he couples with his
> ex- was a
> dream sequence, and subsequently accepted it as the
> filmmaker's fantasy -- a funny one.
Maybe, but it doesn't obviate my point.
This is a movie
> about a man
> who leaves his tribe (paternalistic corporate
> America) and seeks
> refuge with another tribe (lesbians), then returns
> to his own tribe
> (the corporate plot gets dropped for an hour and a
> half and tied
> up only at the end) a better man.
Then on that "tribal" level "Mrs. Doubtfire" is "Le
Crime de M. Lange."
Lee's lesbians are
> only
> marginally more fantastic than Fuller's Indians, who
> also "evolve
> and change" when Steiger is with them, like the Alex
> character.
>
When Spike gets anywhere NEAR Sam, I'll be sure to let
you know. At the moment he's the art house Albert
Zugsmith.
And "Sex Kittens Go to College" had Tuseday Weld.
> If by "real" they mean some kind of litmus test for
> who's entitled
> to call herself what, I assume people are too
> complex and varied
> to be subjected to those kinds of tests.
No they're not. The older I get the LESS complex
people appear.
But I also
> don't assume
> Lee knows more about this than I do, and I assume he
> made
> lots of mistakes, which I'd love to hear about from
> a lesbian who
> got the movie. I just don't see them as being
> pernicious .
Not pernicious -- presumptuous.
Even
> those audience members whose stereotypes will be
> reinforced
> have to overlook the fact that the hero's ex-
> refuses to define
> herself when he's pushing her and refuses to give up
> Alex.
"Refusing to define oneself" is not heroism. IT'S THE
VERY DEFINITITON OF COWARDICE!!!!
> Could the trio that they seem to form at the end
> actually happen
> in real life?
Hey, even the trio that formed "A Home at the End of
the World" couldn't hold.
Is it something that has NEVER
> happened in real
> life?
No -- it has never happened in real life.
(I LOVE questions like that!)
That's not a rhetorical question. Meanwhile,
> the other gals
> seem quite happy just having their babies.
>
>
>
Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, eh?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14127
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:10pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I don't have any problem with our speculating about whether a
director
> had control of a performance or not, but it's a difficult thing to
nail
> down. If we've ultimately decided that the performance helps the
film
> rather than hurts it, then we might hesitate to assume that the
director
> had no control over the good result. This is true even if we
perceive
> incoherence or extra-cinematic qualities in the performances.
I think the tendency around here (naturally, given that it's an
auteurist board) is to give the director the benefit of a doubt.
Sometimes I think this goes too far; auteurist defenses sometimes
have a way of overstating the director's scope of control in how
meaning and effect are generated through a film, as if everything was
the director's intention. I think it's worth considering an
alternative critical approach that can argue for how great cinema can
result without having to attribute it to the director's overarching
vision --instead it works simply because of how it reacts with the
viewer in a certan time, space and context. I guess I am arguing
against auteurism, at least in certain cases where I feel that truth
and insight are better served by stepping out of the auteurist
framework. Please don't revoke my membership on this board -- I
still think auteurism has a vital part in interpreting a film!
It appears that I'm more inclined than my esteemed colleagues to
second-guess directors on their choices. I guess this is my way of
making the film more of my own, having more of a personal stake in
understanding what it is about. This may be why some of my favorite
directors (Tati, Kiarostami, Ozu, Hou, Hawks) are the ones who seem
to allow for the most space for a viewer to establish themselves
within the space created for their spectatorship, so that the act of
viewing is active rather than passive. Even a seemingly controlling
and foreboding director like Bresson somehow creates enough space for
me to relate actively through his films.
> This is interesting, but I need more guidance on how to make the
> connection between good acting codes and good behavior codes - I'm
not
> sure I see this immediately. It can't be as simple as it sounds,
or
> else there would be a tendency for people not to like, say, Michel
> Simon's acting in BOUDU.
You're right, it's not simple, as the social codes that govern our
understanding of good behavior are always in flux. In the case of
LAURA I felt that what I deemed to be the "fakeness" and affectation
of Webb, Price and Anderton and initially wrote off as bad acting
chops was actually intended to reflect the affectation with which the
characters related to their social environment. But maybe back in
1944 no one thought twice of these performances -- which would then
undermine my claim that the film is making the above-stated insight
about social behavior, wouldn't it?
>
> Jean-Pierre,
>
> > 1. What is "bad" acting? Without a definition, there is no point
in
> > discussing "bad" and "good" or "good bad". Maybe there's no point
> > with a definition either.
>
> Seems to me there are two basic approaches here. One is to
say, "Good
> acting is acting that makes the film work." This lets one argue
that
> John Wayne is a good actor, Bresson's actors, Warhol's, etc. In
this
> approach, one rejects any evaluation of acting that is independent
of
> the evaluation of the work as a whole. The other approach is to
uphold
> criteria for the performance itself. The criteria can have to do
with
> whether the actor is the same in every role he or she plays, wears
lots
> of makeup, yells loud enough, suggests real people that the viewer
has
> known, exhibits great skill in rendering some behavior, etc.
>
> I suppose one can draw on both approaches, but it's good to get
clear on
> which approach one is using at any moment.
>
Isn't it possible (and preferable) to do both at once? I don't know
if you'd agree with me, but in my reaction to DOUBLE INDEMNITY and
LAURA I used observations on performance style (the second approach)
to support my general conclusions on how they meshed with the film
(the first approach). Initially I felt that the performances did not
fit properly with the visions of the films, but then what I did was
refocus my understanding of the vision of the film, with the
performances closer to the center.
14128
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:19pm
Subject: Re: They Hate Spike
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > Sorry, David. Got up on the wrong side of the bed.
> >
>
> I slept like an angel.
>
> > I suppose that there will be men who see it and have
> > their
> > stereotypes reinforced about lesbians just needing a
> > "real man"
> > to turn them around, but that's the risk of not
> > being John Sayles.
>
> You're talking about MILLIONS AND MILLIONS OF MEN
> whose overweaning vanity is re-inforced by the notion
> that all any dyke needs is a good stiff dick (theirs)
> to "make her a real woman."
The movie would be pernicious if it reinforced that stereotype. I
think every guy who believes that lesbians are just in need of a
man will be drooling when he couples with his ex- -- which is a
fantasy scene, meant to flatter their fantasies as well as Lee's --
and only retain that belief if he doesn't watch the next hour of the
movie. Those women are not enjoying themselves, with maybe
two exceptions. And neither is Armstrong.
>
>
> Even
> > those audience members whose stereotypes will be
> > reinforced
> > have to overlook the fact that the hero's ex-
> > refuses to define
> > herself when he's pushing her and refuses to give up
> > Alex.
>
> "Refusing to define oneself" is not heroism. IT'S THE
> VERY DEFINITITON OF COWARDICE!!!!
>
Will you admit that that's a highly polemical point that's open to
discussion? Even if it's true in many real-life cases, I don't think
it's true in the dramatic conext of that scene. She's not being a
coward. She's still trying to figure out what's going on, that's all.
> > Could the trio that they seem to form at the end
> > actually happen
> > in real life?
>
> Hey, even the trio that formed "A Home at the End of
> the World" couldn't hold.
>
>
> Is it something that has NEVER
> > happened in real
> > life?
>
> No -- it has never happened in real life.
>
> (I LOVE questions like that!)
Was that a serious answer?
>
Meanwhile,
> > the other gals
> > seem quite happy just having their babies.
> Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, eh?
Oh, c'mon!
14129
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:23pm
Subject: Re: Acting
My quick and shallow response, kind of in line with something Bill
said earlier, would be that if performance is indeed mise-en-scene,
it's the only mise-en-scene that we may identify closely with. I
think human behavior, both onscreen and off, is judged with more
scrutiny and subjectivity than a table or a wall hanging.
Having said that, I'd be a fool to state that a viewer reacts to a
performance by itself, regardless of how that performance relates to
its surroundings (that Farber quote on Wayne is sufficient evidence
to the contrary). It's kind of paradoxical, I think, but no
different than how we perceive humans in everyday life (I fell in
love with my future wife amidst a throng of Chinese people -- if I
had brushed past her in a suburban shopping mall, I probably would
still be living with my mother in San Francisco).
Have you ever read Chekov's LADY WITH THE PET DOG? One of my
favorite short stories and perfectly illustrates how environment
influences social interactions and perceptions.
Kevin
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> This is only a small offering, and I might be guilty of having
missed
> the point already made somewhere in the thread (been too busy to
engage
> as much as I'd like), but can't we say that in some (many? all?)
films,
> acting is -part- of the mise en scène, and not just something
afloat in
> the filmic space? We're talking about whether it works or not only
in
> so far as it meshes with the m-e-s, but in large part a performance
> (which is, after all, comprised of movement and appearance) helps
to
> -define- the mise en scène. (It's also comprised of speech, --
cadence
> still counts when we talk about "placement within the scene.")
Hence
> Stanwyck in 'Double Indemnity'; and hence the entire history of
> aleatorical filmmaking ("naturalistic" be damned), from Cassavetes
to
> Rivette, backwards further and forwards more, too. When acting is
> "bad" in the abstract, I'm at a loss to say whether this is out of
> conflict with the rest of a
> supposedly-fluid/intermeshed/works-as-one-unit understanding of the
> rest of the mise en scène, or whether it's one discrete element
among a
> host of discrete elements (script, lighting, editing, pacing --
> soundtrack), all of which we can talk about separately, and all of
> which we can say are part of the mise en scène, and absolutely
> divisible from the mise en scène. In abstract and sometimes
particular
> terms.
>
> craig.
14130
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
>>I don't have any problem with our speculating about whether a
> director
>>had control of a performance or not, but it's a difficult thing to
> nail
>>down. If we've ultimately decided that the performance helps the
> film
>>rather than hurts it, then we might hesitate to assume that the
> director
>>had no control over the good result. This is true even if we
> perceive
>>incoherence or extra-cinematic qualities in the performances.
>
> I think the tendency around here (naturally, given that it's an
> auteurist board) is to give the director the benefit of a doubt.
> Sometimes I think this goes too far; auteurist defenses sometimes
> have a way of overstating the director's scope of control in how
> meaning and effect are generated through a film, as if everything was
> the director's intention. I think it's worth considering an
> alternative critical approach that can argue for how great cinema can
> result without having to attribute it to the director's overarching
> vision --instead it works simply because of how it reacts with the
> viewer in a certan time, space and context. I guess I am arguing
> against auteurism, at least in certain cases where I feel that truth
> and insight are better served by stepping out of the auteurist
> framework. Please don't revoke my membership on this board -- I
> still think auteurism has a vital part in interpreting a film!
No, I think it's fine to step back and take other perspectives. But I
wasn't trying to argue that the director is necessarily responsible for
everything good in a film. I was just saying that you need a good
reason before you claim that something good in a film was out of the
director's control. Most directors would define their job as making the
movie as good as possible - they generally do not claim or aspire to
create or manage everything in the movie. Maybe Wilder saw what
Stanwyck was doing and said to himself, "This is kind of weird, but it's
working for me somehow." That's probably more the rule, and the
micromanaging dictatorial director is probably more the exception, even
among the most distinctive directorial voices.
If a director has a proven record of producing one kind of performance,
and we see a different kind of performance in his or her movie, I think
it's legitimate to assume that some other powerful force besides the
director's creativity is operating in the film. But that's not the same
thing as assuming a loss of control.
>>I suppose one can draw on both approaches, but it's good to get
> clear on
>>which approach one is using at any moment.
>
> Isn't it possible (and preferable) to do both at once? I don't know
> if you'd agree with me, but in my reaction to DOUBLE INDEMNITY and
> LAURA I used observations on performance style (the second approach)
> to support my general conclusions on how they meshed with the film
> (the first approach). Initially I felt that the performances did not
> fit properly with the visions of the films, but then what I did was
> refocus my understanding of the vision of the film, with the
> performances closer to the center.
Yeah, it's possible, and I guess it's even preferable. Of course, there
are wars about this sort of thing, and auteurists have been in the
middle of them: people still say things like, "I just can't watch
anything with John Wayne in it. He's such an awful actor." In fact, I
heard this from a friend two days ago. It's possible to draw on both
approaches here, and acknowledge that Wayne lacks the versatility and
craft of some great actors. But the war tends to polarize one, and one
is greatly tempted to come out swinging in defense of the great films
that one can't imagine without Wayne. - Dan
14131
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:15pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
Under no stretch of the imagination would I consider the fascinating
performances of Vincent Price, Judith Anderson and Clifton Webb in
Laura to be "bad acting." They're all somewhat theatrical, but
this theatricality strikes me as appropriate for the personalities
and backgrounds of the people they are playing (of course, the three
actors all came to Hollywood after great successes on the stage).
Their work in Laura is certainly stylized, but I think that such
stylization was often the essence of the way the Hollywood of
the `40s portrayed the particular milieu of upper-crust (i.e.
slightly effete) New York society. One can see it in Irving
Rapper's Deception (in which Bette Davis, Paul Henreid and Claudse
Rains give very different types of performances than they did in
Rapper's Now, Voyager), and in such other examples as Robert
Douglas's Ellsworth Toohey in Vidor's The Fountainhead, Farley
Granger and John Dall in Rope, John Hoyt as the Poor Man's Clifton
Webb in Bretaigne Windust's Winter Meeting, and some of the devil
worshippers in The Seventh Victim.
In Irving Reis's mystery, Crack-Up – set among the rarified world of
museums and art galleries, we know that the hero, art expert Pat
O'Brien, is a good guy because he prefers traditional representative
painting and doesn't cotton to the surrealism and abstract
expressionism preferred by the elitist villains in the film.
14132
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:28pm
Subject: Re: They Hate Spike
I looked on Rotten Tomatoes, and they sure do. Thomas and
Michael Wilmington liked it but didn't like the sexual stereotypes.
Roger Ebert came up with an ingenious justification for even
loving even those:
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2004/08/080606.h
tml
I think that it uses stereotypes to subvert them, too, but I think the
subversion happens very explicitly after the dream scene where
he has sex standing against the wall with his ex- , and I didn't
see 17 other women having "thrashing orgasms." But go, Roger,
anyway. I think he got the mood of it right.
The unprotected sex issue is dealt with, nominally, so it didn't
bother me that much. I agree with Roger that lesbian partners
have no need for a papa once the kid's on the way, but I think
that's one place where SL tripped up, because he was also
trying to address the absent father issue in the black community.
Apples and oranges, which get mixed up inappropriately. Minor
sin.
14133
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:45pm
Subject: Re: They Hate Spike
You've certainly piqued my interest -- if it survives into next
weekend in NYC I'll check it out.
What are your favorite Spike Lee films, Bill? And how many of them
would you say bear the noble "flaw" of trying to address more social
issues than any one film has any right to? (what did you think of
BAMBOOZLED?) My impression is that more often than not he's
incoherent about his prescriptions on society's ills and injustices,
but when he's able to articulate his incoherence in terms of genuine
emotions, he hits it out of the park (cf. DO THE RIGHT THING, 25TH
HOUR).
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> I looked on Rotten Tomatoes, and they sure do. Thomas and
> Michael Wilmington liked it but didn't like the sexual stereotypes.
> Roger Ebert came up with an ingenious justification for even
> loving even those:
>
> http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2004/08/080606.h
> tml
>
> I think that it uses stereotypes to subvert them, too, but I think
the
> subversion happens very explicitly after the dream scene where
> he has sex standing against the wall with his ex- , and I didn't
> see 17 other women having "thrashing orgasms." But go, Roger,
> anyway. I think he got the mood of it right.
>
> The unprotected sex issue is dealt with, nominally, so it didn't
> bother me that much. I agree with Roger that lesbian partners
> have no need for a papa once the kid's on the way, but I think
> that's one place where SL tripped up, because he was also
> trying to address the absent father issue in the black community.
> Apples and oranges, which get mixed up inappropriately. Minor
> sin.
14134
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: They Hate Spike
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> Will you admit that that's a highly polemical point
> that's open to
> discussion?
No.
> > Is it something that has NEVER
> > > happened in real
> > > life?
> >
> > No -- it has never happened in real life.
> >
> > (I LOVE questions like that!)
>
> Was that a serious answer?
> >
Yes.
> Meanwhile,
> > > the other gals
> > > seem quite happy just having their babies.
>
> > Keep 'em barefoot and pregnant, eh?
>
> Oh, c'mon!
>
>
>
and listen to the Lullaby of Broadway!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14135
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:50pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
> > I think the tendency around here (naturally, given that it's an
> > auteurist board) is to give the director the benefit of a doubt.
> > Sometimes I think this goes too far; auteurist defenses sometimes
> > have a way of overstating the director's scope of control in how
> > meaning and effect are generated through a film, as if everything was
> > the director's intention. I think it's worth considering an
> > alternative critical approach that can argue for how great cinema can
> > result without having to attribute it to the director's overarching
> > vision --instead it works simply because of how it reacts with the
> > viewer in a certan time, space and context. I guess I am arguing
> > against auteurism, at least in certain cases where I feel that truth
> > and insight are better served by stepping out of the auteurist
> > framework. Please don't revoke my membership on this board -- I
> > still think auteurism has a vital part in interpreting a film!
Maybe I am still behind in adsorbing this thread, or perhaps Kevin I
missed something in your initial post that started this topic but, I am
a little confused by your position.
If you are saying that one needs to take a step back from directorial
influence and consider other factors that inform a film, why do you
suggest that the "bad" performances are due to the director's "loss of
control"?
Michael Worrall
14136
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 7:50pm
Subject: Re: They Hate Spike
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
> You've certainly piqued my interest -- if it survives into next
> weekend in NYC I'll check it out.
>
> What are your favorite Spike Lee films, Bill?
They don't offer solutions, that's for sure: Do the Right Thing,
Malcolm X, Crooklyn, Get on the Bus, He Got Game, 25th Hour.
I like Bamboozled and others, but those are my all-time favorites.
Mostly, I like everything he does. But he's not everybody's cup of
tea. And I repeat: discourses colliding (Get on the Bus being a
model Spike Lee film), not solutions.
14137
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:03pm
Subject: Re: They Hate Spike
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
I missed part of the link for Eberet's review:
http://www.suntimes.com/ebert/ebert_reviews/2004/08/080606.h
tml
Let me add that people who are all set to read Ford dialectically
don't think of doing it with Lee for reasons of taste -- his visuals
are nothing like Ford's, but his vision is. To me, Get on the Bus is
just a modern version of Stagecoach. Calling it "integrist" as
Jean-Marc Lalanne did in his CdC review is like calling
Stagecoach "Lordsburgian." Ironically, the issue where that
capsule appeared featured an interview with Ferreri by Toubiana
proclaiming "the end of ideologies," even though Lee's gem had
a busload of them, all alive and kicking (to judge by the response
at the highly interactive radio-promoted screening where Marco
Muller and I saw it). Joe McBride told me he want to do a Lee bio
after his Ford bio, but couldn't get it financed.
14138
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- Damien Bona wrote:
>
> In Irving Reis's mystery, Crack-Up – set among the
> rarified world of
> museums and art galleries, we know that the hero,
> art expert Pat
> O'Brien, is a good guy because he prefers
> traditional representative
> painting and doesn't cotton to the surrealism and
> abstract
> expressionism preferred by the elitist villains in
> the film.
>
>
>
Contrast this with Reis' director of Damon Runyon
chgaracters in "The Big Street" -- just as rarified
but completely "Old Broadway." And in it Lucille Ball
gives flat-out one of the greatest performances I've
ever seen in the movies -- right up there with Gish in
"The Wind," Louise Brooks in "Pandora's Box," and
Maria Casares in "Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne."
And it's as "unrealistic" as the day is long.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14139
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
I recall that Sarris discussed the variable quality of the performances
in "in Harm's Way".
- Jack Angstreich
On Aug 16, 2004, at 9:58 AM, jpcoursodon wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> There are many fine performances in Preminger films but Sarris
> commented that there were often indifferent or poor ones within the
> same film; but what else within the auteurist literature has been
said
> about acting in Preminger's oeuvre?
>
>
> - Jack Angstreich
>
>
> Although I haven't read an enormous amount of auteurist
literature (and sometimes it feels like too much anyway...) I would
say that auteurist criticism, as well as "intellectual" criticism in
general, has a tendency to take acting for granted and to focus on
other aspects, perhaps in part because the "non-intellectual"
approach to movies is to focus on the stars. As far as Preminger is
concerned, I don't remember reading about "indifferent or poor" acting
(did Sarris give examples, by the way?)but then there isn't much
about good acting either. How much of the praise written about
ANATOMY goes to the extraordinary good acting of all concerned?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14140
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:37pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
I can see how you're basically asking, "Well, Kevin, do you want us
to care about the director or not?" Still, if you want to see the
two statements as contradictory, on the contrary you can say that
they're informed by the same motivation, not to automatically assign
credit to the director for certain laudable elements in a film.
I don't mean to suggest that all "bad" performances are due to the
director's loss of control -- they may very well be deliberate (this
is the question I am still uncertain about with Preminger). Maybe
it's not even a matter of whether the director has control or not,
but what *kind* of control he exerts. I feel a different kind of
director orchestrating the free-wheeling, anarchic SOME LIKE IT HOT
than the one calling the shots behind DOUBLE INDEMNITY. Maybe Jake
is right, that in the case of Wilder it really has to do with the
genre of film (screwball vs. noir), but I still feel there's
something leaden and overdetermined about the performances in DOUBLE
INDEMNITY. And yet those qualities play perfectly into the film's
dehumanizing, objectifying vision of humanity as reflected in the
story itself. I just don't know how prepared I am to credit Wilder
for intending these results; and it may be more interesting to argue
that if Wilder did not intend to dehumanize his characters, it
reveals more about him as a director and what kind of impulses are
working through him instinctively. How many of us consider the
possibility of unintended results revealing as much about artists as
intended ones? (yeah, but who's to say what's intentional or not? I
hear you muttering under your breath)
When I first presented my case of DOUBLE INDEMNITY (on another board)
as a vision of dysfunctional, dehumanized 20th century modernity,
someone laughed me off and said that "Wilder just wanted to make a
great film, not a sociological tract". The thing is, as a straight
film, the particular affectations of the acting in this film don't do
as much for me; as a reflection of the stilted, amoral behaviors (bad
jokes, obsessive white-collar mannerisms and all) engendered by
modern workplace alienation, it all fits perfectly. I think I'll
desist from attempting to locate Wilder's place in my appreciation of
the film, as to a certain extent it doesn't matter.
I'm sure I'm repeating a lot of these points for the nth time over,
so I beg the forgiveness of my colleagues as I try to work through
and refine my thoughts (with your incredible assistance).
Kevin
> Maybe I am still behind in adsorbing this thread, or perhaps Kevin
I
> missed something in your initial post that started this topic but,
I am
> a little confused by your position.
>
> If you are saying that one needs to take a step back from
directorial
> influence and consider other factors that inform a film, why do you
> suggest that the "bad" performances are due to the director's "loss
of
> control"?
>
> Michael Worrall
14141
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:38pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> I recall that Sarris discussed the variable quality of the
performances
> in "in Harm's Way".
Tryon is wooden as usual, the villains are too broad, and de
Wilde is exaggerated too. It's not all on one level, but I don't know
anyone who doesn't love the Wayne-Neal scenes. When
someone is going on about good-bad and bad-good in OP I cite
Patrick O'Neal in Harm's Way as a counterexample.
14142
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:49pm
Subject: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Hart" wrote:
> The Antonioni short, which I saw yesterday in Seattle, is indeed
> wonderful. Warner Independent has saddled it with the unfortunate
> title "Michelangelo Eye to Eye" rather than a more accurate
> translation such as "Michelangelo's Gaze."
I should have realized that Warner Independent Pictures was showing
this in four or five cities without press screenings only in order to
qualify for an Oscar nomination. So if (a) it gets nominated and (b)
it wins, maybe it will show again, but otherwise, forget it. I just
learned I can't make it a Critic's Choice for this week's Reader--
even though it's already a shoo-in on my ten best list for 2004--
because it's already gone; two weekend screenings at 11:50 am and
that's it.
A technical point: I've just learned that the "magic of movies"
allowing us to see Antonioni today walking around without his
wheelchair is strictly digital--a fact that makes the film's
achievement even more impressive.
Jonathan
14143
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 8:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
Is anyone else aware of a received idea among auteurists that Preminger
was usually indifferent to performance, as Fred Camper said to me?
Jack Angstreich
On Aug 16, 2004, at 4:38 PM, hotlove666 wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> I recall that Sarris discussed the variable quality of the
performances
> in "in Harm's Way".
Tryon is wooden as usual, the villains are too broad, and de
Wilde is exaggerated too. It's not all on one level, but I don't know
anyone who doesn't love the Wayne-Neal scenes. When
someone is going on about good-bad and bad-good in OP I cite
Patrick O'Neal in Harm's Way as a counterexample.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14144
From:
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
Just as a side note to this, I assume our group is aware that there's yet
another new Antonioni short is due to be released this year: Antonioni directed
one segment of the anthology film, "Eros."
I can't wait to see "Michelangelo Eye to Eye." I'm not a tremendous fan of
Antonioni's work from the '60s, but I love some of the later works:
"Identification of a Woman," "The Mystery of Oberwald," and "Beyond the Clouds" (except
for the Wim Wenders segments.)
Peter
14145
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 9:37pm
Subject: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
I'm not a tremendous fan of
> Antonioni's work from the '60s, but I love some of the later works:
> "Identification of a Woman," "The Mystery of Oberwald," and "Beyond
the Clouds" (except
> for the Wim Wenders segments.)
>
> Peter
I'm a bit startled, Peter, that you would prefer these films to
L'Avventura, La notte, Eclipse, and Red Desert (without even bringing
up Blow Up and Zabriskie Point, which are more debatable)--but maybe
you haven't seen some (or most, or all) of these. For me, I can't
even think of the great films of the 60s without according these four
films a central place.
14146
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 9:57pm
Subject: Preminger & Acting (was: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> Is anyone else aware of a received idea among auteurists that
Preminger
> was usually indifferent to performance, as Fred Camper said to me?
>
>
> Jack Angstreich
I'm not aware of this received idea among auteurists, Jack, although
I haven't read all of the auteurist literature on Preminger. Almost
all of the early critics I read on Preminger praised his direction of
actors. Robin Wood writing on Exodus, for example, acknowledges
certain difficulties in initially dealing with Jill Haworth's work on
that film. But after two or three viewings of Exodus he finds
that "in context the character is perfectly 'placed' and the self-
consciousness[of the performance]is exactly right." And in relation
to Advise and Consent, Wood argues that the performances are central
to the film: "camera-movement, camera-angle, editing are all
subordinated to the demand for the utmost clarity, precision and
conciseness in the playing...Time and again a character is revealed
in [a] precise concrete way through a gesture or expression..."
I remember seeing Bonjour Tristesse at a Preminger retro at the
Public in 1979, with Preminger in attendance and George Morris
presenting the film. Morris began by defending Jean Seberg's
frequently-criticized work on BT, in much the same manner that Wood
defends Haworth in Exodus: Seberg's mechanical or wooden performance
was, for George, right for the character she was playing. Preminger
stood up after George had finished and told the audience that he had
not seen the film since he made it but that he was going to watch it
again now and, turning to George he said, "We will now see if you are
right." After the film, he told the crowd that he thought Seberg was
very good.
All of that yelling and screaming at actors on the set could hardly
be taken to be a form of indifference to them, even if some actors
would want to claim that that kind of treatment onl leads to bad
acting. Preminger was originally a stage director and very interested
in the actor. I think I posted this somewhere here many months ago,
but Ilka Chase (who was directed by Preminger in a play) says in her
autobiography that Preminger was one of the greatest directors of
actors she ever worked with. Even performances that some may
find "bad" in Preminger are still performances, attempts at something
very serious and considered. I can't recall any performance in
Preminger that I would call indifferent.
If it's out there, it's more likely to be part of the popular
perception that since Preminger was so hard on so many of his actors
14147
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:00pm
Subject: Re: Miramax monopolism
>
> There's no way that Miramax can prohibit people from searching out
> their films when they don't want to supply them. The internet
> renders all national boundaries for video rights almost meaningless.
>
> There are obvious drawbacks to this trend, but dvds are allowing
> cinephiles to return to the source and bypass the mandated
> interference of Harvey and Co. And, personally, I think that the
> dvds of 'Hero' will help its attendance. Not a favorite of mine,
but
> once people see that it's certainly more than a 'Crouching Tiger'
> knock-off, then they'll be more inclined to see it on a big screen,
> as this is undoubtedly a movie that requires the biggest screen you
> can find. And that will be obvious to anyone who sees it on a
> television.
>
> Wow, that message was kind of all over the place, wasn't it?
Harvey was also responsible for removing the ZATOICHI DVD from U.S.
suppliers but at least he released it in New York. However, he held
on to Stephen Chow's SHAOLIN SOCCER for years threatening to dub and
rescore it with a hideous soundtrack. The film is not one of Chow's
best but it deserved better treatment.
However, isn't Harvey also behind the fact that the Shaw Brothers
reissues are only available on Region 3 DVD although VCD versions are
non-coded? As one of those eagerly awaiting the restored version of
GOLDEN SWALLOW I've had to content myself with the VCD version though
I'm sadly tempted to invest in a multi-region DVD player. I think
there were some postings about reliable models some time ago.
Yamakawa retails for $50 but Five Star Laser offers another one for
$100.
Now that I can finally discern what happens in the credit sequence of
GOLDEN SWALLOW (and I'd defy anyone to explain things based on the
former cropped VHS version), I'm now waiting for ONE ARMED SWORDSMAN
in its digitally restored widescreen version to say nothing of THE
NEW ONE ARMED SWORDSMAN which I saw theatrically many years ago in
Manchester. Yes, the theatrical screening could not be matched but
the dubbing left a lot to be desired which the subtitles on both DVD
and VCD versions will now erase from my mind.
Tony Williams
14148
From:
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:12pm
Subject: Re: She Hate Me
I think there will be men who see it that way, and I don't think it's
a misinterpretation -- every woman, even those who are skeptical
and/or outright hostile to the idea of having sex with a man, ends up
enjoying herself. Lee might charitably been seen to be parodying the
idea of the black male super-stud, but he's using quite a few female
characters as props to get there. The clinch at the end at least
partly redeems the oversimplification, though, since the look of
skepticism on the face of John Henry's ex-girlfriend's lover is
impossible to miss. It's very much a tentative, ok-for-now agreement.
For what it's worth, Lee employed sex columnist Tristan Taormino as a
consultant on the movie, who basically tutored the actresses on
lesbian culture, etc. (although not Kerry Washington, who comes from
a progressive family and was doing AIDS education in schools when she
was still a teenager).
Sam
Bill wrote:
>
>I suppose that there will be men who see it and have their
>stereotypes reinforced about lesbians just needing a "real man"
>to turn them around, but that's the risk of not being John Sayles.
>The film is open to misinterpretation by all sorts of folks --
>including organizations who make distinctions between "real,
>authentic lesbians" and "unreal, inauthentic" ones.
>
>If by "real" they mean "realistically depicted," I never assumed
>that. I thought the scene where he couples with his ex- was a
>dream sequence, and subsequently accepted it as the
>filmmaker's fantasy -- a funny one. This is a movie about a man
>who leaves his tribe (paternalistic corporate America) and seeks
>refuge with another tribe (lesbians), then returns to his own tribe
>(the corporate plot gets dropped for an hour and a half and tied
>up only at the end) a better man. Lee's lesbians are only
>marginally more fantastic than Fuller's Indians, who also "evolve
>and change" when Steiger is with them, like the Alex character.
>
>If by "real" they mean some kind of litmus test for who's entitled
>to call herself what, I assume people are too complex and varied
>to be subjected to those kinds of tests. But I also don't assume
>Lee knows more about this than I do, and I assume he made
>lots of mistakes, which I'd love to hear about from a lesbian who
>got the movie. I just don't see them as being pernicious . Even
>those audience members whose stereotypes will be reinforced
>have to overlook the fact that the hero's ex- refuses to define
>herself when he's pushing her and refuses to give up Alex.
>Could the trio that they seem to form at the end actually happen
>in real life? Is it something that has NEVER happened in real
>life? That's not a rhetorical question. Meanwhile, the other gals
>seem quite happy just having their babies.
>
14149
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:14pm
Subject: Re: Preminger & Acting (was: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?)
Thank you, Joe, for your informative response, but I suppose now the
question must be posed to Fred Camper about the "received view" that
Preminger was not especially concerned with performances.
Jack Angstreich
On Aug 16, 2004, at 5:57 PM, joe_mcelhaney wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> Is anyone else aware of a received idea among auteurists that
Preminger
> was usually indifferent to performance, as Fred Camper said to me?
>
>
> Jack Angstreich
I'm not aware of this received idea among auteurists, Jack, although
I haven't read all of the auteurist literature on Preminger.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14150
From:
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 6:18pm
Subject: Re: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
>I'm a bit startled, Peter, that you would prefer these films to
>L'Avventura, La notte, Eclipse, and Red Desert (without even bringing
>up Blow Up and Zabriskie Point, which are more debatable)--but maybe
>you haven't seen some (or most, or all) of these.
I've seen all of them, though a few ("L'Avventura"; "La Notte") not for some
years. I do love "Eclipse" and "Red Desert," and would say they're the equal
of "Identification" and "Oberwald," and superior to "Beyond the Clouds." I
think I was being a bit of a polemicist in that last post because you so rarely
hear the '80s and '90s Antonioni films mentioned in a favorable light, or
mentioned at all (except in places like a_film_by), while "L'Avventura," etc., are
all out in deluxe DVD editions and so on.
A period of Antonioni's work I AM entirely unfamiliar with is the '70s, with
"The Passenger" and "China." I'd be curious to know how you'd rank those
films in his body of work.
Peter
14151
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:26pm
Subject: Re: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
>
> I'm a bit startled, Peter, that you would prefer these films to
> L'Avventura, La notte, Eclipse, and Red Desert (without even bringing
> up Blow Up and Zabriskie Point, which are more debatable)--but maybe
> you haven't seen some (or most, or all) of these. For me, I can't
> even think of the great films of the 60s without according these four
> films a central place.
I've been having something of a Bergman retrospective here at home,
going in chronological order through all his films I own on DVD, from
'Smile of the Summer Night' to 'The Autumn Sonata' -- approaching the
end (and having just finished 'The Serpent's Egg,' which contrary to
mainstream belief is a terrific film), I put in the supplementary disc
last night that comes with the MGM boxed set and started to watch the
interview film, 'Ingmar Bergman; intermezzo' from 2002. It's really
great (and Bergman is more fiery here than in either of the long
interviews included on the Criterion 'Wild Strawberries' and 'Cries and
Whispers' discs, possibly because of the mostly young crew, visible
on-camera in the beginning), so I decided to save it for the end of my
series, but I did take in the first ten minutes. I always thought
Bergman hated Antonioni (or maybe only Monica Vitti), but here he
relents a little -- he quotes Antonioni on how part of the magic that
the medium bestows on a filmmaker is the ability to express something
very easily, if he or she indeed has something to express, even if it's
done very clumsily. He then says, "And Antonioni is no technician --
God can well bear witness to that." After which he declares, "However,
Antonioni was able to make two undisputed masterpieces -- 'Blow Up' and
'La Notte.' "
craig.
14152
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:28pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
Regarding "bad acting" in Preminger, I think in his later films especially he certainly, systematically, cultivated instances of "bad acting" -- or, perhaps, "amateurish" acting or even non-acting (almost Warhol-like): flat, singsong line readings, for example, that seem to signify superficiality, or solipsism, or some lack of authenticity. Generally (probably too generally) speaking, there are performance patterns there that seem intentional: Jill Haworth, Carol Lynley, Alexandra Hay... And of course don't forget Jean Seberg.
I wouldn't call this the most interesting thing about Preminger, and I wouldn't have linked LAURA to it particularly (although I'd agree there is something somehow heavy-handed about the performance style there -- Waldo's wit is more bludgeon-like than rapier-like), but neither would I be automatically averse to an attempt to trace it back that far.
Richard McGuinness, an unusually perceptive writer on Preminger, discussed Preminger acting at some length in an essay on RIVER OF NO RETURN in Film Comment in 1972. "I've often been disputed on this, but some of the prominent means Preminger has of showing people's wrong approaches in dire situations include bad, unconvincing effects, unfinished acting, and exigencies in the script," he wrote. "RIVER OF NO RETURN is one of my favorite Preminger films, replete as it is with questionable aesthetic devices used for truth-telling. The occasional stilted readings by some of the actors are most striking. They show the artificial approach to a threatening environment of people struggling to find their center.
"Many of Marilyn Monroe's lines and her reading of them give us the feeling of a false consciousness. These lines have a raised, badgelike quality, as if their recitrix knows she's on her high horse and not in touch with her best judgment..."
And he added, "Seeing the ghost of an alien acting style in Preminger actors usually happens at least once in each movie. As here, it often occurs as a criticism of the facility of acting effects, of the ease with which a style can be appropriated for selfish purposes by destructive people. This appropriation initially seems like transubstantiation and can be startling..."
In any event, I don't see how the idea of a Preminger indifferent to acting gibes with the picture we have of his exacting behavior toward actors.
I would guess, by the way, that a detailed consideration of Preminger's approach to performance would probably have to begin by exploring his theatrical apprenticeship with Max Reinhardt.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > There are many fine performances in Preminger films but Sarris
> > commented that there were often indifferent or poor ones within the
> > same film; but what else within the auteurist literature has been said
> > about acting in Preminger's oeuvre?
>
> Robin Wood talks about acting in his two essays on Preminger that were
> collected in the MOVIE READER. He discusses Jill Haworth's performance
> in EXODUS in "good bad acting" terms, and talks a lot about the use of
> gesture, and stripping performances down to essentials, in ADVISE AND
> CONSENT. - Dan
14153
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Miramax monopolism
> However, isn't Harvey also behind the fact that the Shaw Brothers
> reissues are only available on Region 3 DVD although VCD versions are
> non-coded? As one of those eagerly awaiting the restored version of
> GOLDEN SWALLOW I've had to content myself with the VCD version though
> I'm sadly tempted to invest in a multi-region DVD player. I think
> there were some postings about reliable models some time ago.
> Yamakawa retails for $50 but Five Star Laser offers another one for
> $100.
I have the R3 'Come Drink with Me' -- beautiful stuff. You absolutely
must get a region-free player, it's the only way to go in amassing a
DVD library -- but make sure you do your research and get one with good
PAL-to-NTSC (and vice versa) conversion (i.e., such that the image
doesn't constantly wobble) and with incremental zoom -- so you can zoom
the image out and see the whole thing with its proper composition and
in its proper aspect ratio. The phenomenon of "overscan" on most 4:3
sets cuts off somewhere between 5 and 10% or more from the edges of the
frame -- having the ability to 'zoom out' lets you see everything.
(I'd always wondered why some 'Scope films always ended up looking like
1.85 before I found out about dread overscan.)
craig.
14154
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:37pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> Is anyone else aware of a received idea among auteurists that
Preminger
> was usually indifferent to performance, as Fred Camper said to me?
>
>
> Jack Angstreich
>
>
> I'm not, and some of my best friends are auteurists... But
really, received or not, it's an absurd idea. No director can be
indifferent to performance. It's just like saying that he is
indifferent to directing. Mise en scene is primarily directing
actors. How can you be indifferent to their performance?
>
>
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2004, at 4:38 PM, hotlove666 wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
> wrote:
> > I recall that Sarris discussed the variable quality of the
> performances
> > in "in Harm's Way".
>
> Tryon is wooden as usual, the villains are too broad, and de
> Wilde is exaggerated too. It's not all on one level, but I don't
know
> anyone who doesn't love the Wayne-Neal scenes. When
> someone is going on about good-bad and bad-good in OP I cite
> Patrick O'Neal in Harm's Way as a counterexample.
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14155
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:21pm
Subject: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> >
> > I'm a bit startled, Peter, that you would prefer these films to
> > L'Avventura, La notte, Eclipse, and Red
Peter loves late everybody. He is a true blue auteurist.
14156
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:44pm
Subject: Re: She Hate Me
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, samadams@e... wrote:
> I think there will be men who see it that way, and I don't think
it's
> a misinterpretation -- every woman, even those who are
skeptical
> and/or outright hostile to the idea of having sex with a man,
ends up
> enjoying herself.
If by "enjoying herself" you mean having an orgasm or even
experiencing sexual pleasure, I need to see the movie again,
because that's not what I saw. Some of what sort of looks like
sexual pleasure -- and here the stereotype may have come into
play -- is actually just the pleasure of doing something raunchy,
or funny, or of mauling Armstrong. Some of them don't even
enjoy the experience that way -- the "chi" lady, for example. If
they're all having orgasms, I withdraw one and a half of my 3
stars.
Again, even if it's what I thought, the fact that it's open to
misinterpretation is dicey. But like I said, he's not John Sayles.
14157
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:55pm
Subject: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
>
>
> A period of Antonioni's work I AM entirely unfamiliar with is
the '70s, with
> "The Passenger" and "China." I'd be curious to know how you'd rank
those
> films in his body of work.
>
> Peter
The Passenger is a great film which for some reason has vanished
from view and is never mentioned. Among other things it has this mind-
blowing closing long take sequence with the camera getting out of a
room through a window and continuing a 180 degrees pan of a
courtyard. Extremely difficult shot, and Bergman says Antonioni
wasn't a technician! I wish I could see it again.
14158
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 11:56pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> >
> Contrast this with Reis' director of Damon Runyon
> chgaracters in "The Big Street" -- just as rarified
> but completely "Old Broadway." And in it Lucille Ball
> gives flat-out one of the greatest performances I've
> ever seen in the movies -- right up there with Gish in
> "The Wind," Louise Brooks in "Pandora's Box," and
> Maria Casares in "Les Dames du Bois de Boulogne."
>
> And it's as "unrealistic" as the day is long.
>
The only things I remember about The Big Street -- which I saw in the
early 70s -- is how mean Lucy's character was to the masochisticly
adoring Fonda, and the mouth-dropping absurdity of a sequence in
which he pushes her in her wheelchair all the way from (as I recall)
New York to Florida -- its worthy of Bunuel.
14159
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 0:04am
Subject: Re: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
> Extremely difficult shot, and Bergman says Antonioni
> wasn't a technician!
I was also befuddled by this comment when I heard it. I can't imagine
that doing multiple camera set-ups on the rocky, windy isle of
'L'Avventura,' for what amounts to something like thirty minutes of the
film, was any easy task.
craig.
14160
From: Andy Rector
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 0:21am
Subject: Professione: (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
-
> The Passenger is a great film which for some reason has vanished
> from view and is never mentioned. Among other things it has this
mind-
> blowing closing long take sequence with the camera getting out of
a
> room through a window and continuing a 180 degrees pan of a
> courtyard. Extremely difficult shot, and Bergman says Antonioni
> wasn't a technician! I wish I could see it again.
I second that. Passenger is my favourite Antonioni (next to the
short N.U. and his contribution to Love in the City--I love hearing
that he is returning to the short form).
I would give up all road movies for that one shot of Maria Schneider
standing up in the convertible car...
I too am curious about his film on China, any opinions? Jonathan?
yours,
andy
14161
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 0:32am
Subject: Re: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> The Passenger is a great film which for some reason
> has vanished
> from view and is never mentioned. Among other things
> it has this mind-
> blowing closing long take sequence with the camera
> getting out of a
> room through a window and continuing a 180 degrees
> pan of a
> courtyard. Extremely difficult shot, and Bergman
> says Antonioni
> wasn't a technician! I wish I could see it again.
>
>
I heartily concur. I've been thinking about it a lot
lately in ight of our middle eastern misadventures. It
would make a great REALLY LONG double feature with
"The Sheltering Sky" (it's very Bowles-esque) and it
features Nicholson's least pumped-up performances.
Maria Schneider's really good too. Plus you get to see
a lot of Gaudi architecture.
"China" is lovely but minor.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14162
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 0:34am
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- Damien Bona wrote:
> >
>
> The only things I remember about The Big Street --
> which I saw in the
> early 70s -- is how mean Lucy's character was to the
> masochisticly
> adoring Fonda, and the mouth-dropping absurdity of a
> sequence in
> which he pushes her in her wheelchair all the way
> from (as I recall)
> New York to Florida -- its worthy of Bunuel.
>
>
>
The ending, in which Fonda carries Lucy, who has just
died in his arms after realizing he's the only person
who ever really loved up, up a large flight of stars
is worthy of Cocteau.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14163
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:04am
Subject: Re: Professione: (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
You can count me in on "The Passenger" list also.
I thought I was in a minority of one until now !
So, I'll take back my Frameworks Y2K remark... :)
-Sam
14164
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:33am
Subject: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
"The Passenger is a great film which for some reason has vanished
from view and is never mentioned."
Five or six years ago the American Cinematheque announced a screening
of THE PASSENGER and then cancelled it. When I asked why it was
cancelled a programer told me that Jack Nicholson controls US
distribution rights and wouldn't allow it to be screened. Discounting
unsubstaniated speculation, no one had any idea why Nicholson kept
the picture out of circulation. There is a faded 16mm print that
sometimes shows up in the Los Angeles area at private screenings.
Richard
14165
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:15am
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
One can block actors in a frame without much concern for expression or
expressiveness, line-readings, and so forth: this would still be
mise-en-scene in the classic, formalist sense.
On Aug 16, 2004, at 6:37 PM, jpcoursodon wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> Is anyone else aware of a received idea among auteurists that
Preminger
> was usually indifferent to performance, as Fred Camper said to me?
>
>
> Jack Angstreich
>
>
> I'm not, and some of my best friends are auteurists... But
really, received or not, it's an absurd idea. No director can be
indifferent to performance. It's just like saying that he is
indifferent to directing. Mise en scene is primarily directing
actors. How can you be indifferent to their performance?
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14166
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:17am
Subject: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
>
> >
> > The Passenger is a great film which for some reason
> > has vanished
> > from view and is never mentioned.
I wish I could see it again.
>
> I heartily concur. I've been thinking about it a lot
> lately in ight of our middle eastern misadventures. It
> would make a great REALLY LONG double feature with
> "The Sheltering Sky" (it's very Bowles-esque) and it
> features Nicholson's least pumped-up performances.
> Maria Schneider's really good too. Plus you get to see
> a lot of Gaudi architecture.
>
> "China" is lovely but minor.
Insofar as I remember the China film, I agree. One tenative theory
about Nicholson holding back The Passenger: spite. The reason?
Antonioni's relative lack of interest in actors (with the notable
exceptions of Monica Vitti and, in his latest film, himself). I
believe this is why Orson Welles hated his work so much--consciously
or unconsciously it was because of Antonioni dissing actors. Despite
the fact that, in my opinion, Delon's best performance is in
ECLIPSE.
__________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14167
From:
Date: Mon Aug 16, 2004 10:45pm
Subject: Re: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
Jean-Pierre Coursodon wrote:
> Peter loves late everybody. He is a true blue auteurist.
Thanks, Jean-Pierre! My standard joke about this is that one could say I
don't like late Vidor because "Solomon and Sheba" is, save for several truly
astounding sequences, probably one of his weakest films... and yet I LOVE late
Vidor because "Solomon" is merely his last *Hollywood narrative film*, not his
last film. I am a huge fan of his later "Truth and Illusion" (64) and
"Metaphor" (80), and I'm sure his unfinished film about Paso Robles is great.
I appreciate the enthusiastic words about "The Passenger"!
Peter
14168
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:03am
Subject: Re: Preminger & Acting (was: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?)
Jack Angstreich wrote:
>....now the question must be posed to Fred Camper about the "received view" that Preminger was not especially concerned with performances.
>
>
Hey, I don't want to be held to account for a casual remark made in a
personal conversation years ago that I don't even remember! Probably I
was just repeating some view I'd read, perhaps Sarris's, perhaps some of
the "Movie" critics. As to whether Perming was or was not especially
concerned with performances, I don't have a strong opinion one way or
the other. A good case has been made that he was, and some of the
performances cited -- all the majors in "Bonjour Tristesse," actually --
are superb. I dunno about the performances in "Skidoo!," but those in
"In Harm's Way" are terrific.
I agree with JPC that acting is part of mise en scene, but I strongly
disagree that mise en scene is "primarily directing actors." It's also
directing the light, and the camera angles, and the movements, and the
placement of lamps. That green lamp in the early scene between the
elderly mission leader and the Sue Lyons character "Seven Women" was the
pivot point on my first viewing: looking at it was when I started to
realize how great a film this was going to be.
Fred Camper
14169
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:05am
Subject: Re: They Hate Spike - Erratum
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> They don't offer solutions, that's for sure: Do the Right Thing,
> Malcolm X, Crooklyn, Get on the Bus, He Got Game, 25th Hour.
>
I left out one of my favorites: Summer of Sam.
14170
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:23am
Subject: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
> I heartily concur. I've been thinking about it a lot
> lately in ight of our middle eastern misadventures. It
> would make a great REALLY LONG double feature with
> "The Sheltering Sky" (it's very Bowles-esque) and it
> features Nicholson's least pumped-up performances.
> Maria Schneider's really good too. Plus you get to see
> a lot of Gaudi architecture.
>
> Great idea, david. I love SHELTERING SKY..
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14171
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:30am
Subject: i shot my computer (off-topic)
Forgive the off-topic posting, but since I'm in touch with several of
you privately, this kills many, many birds with one stone:
My hard-drive is dead, and my comp is committed, at least for the
next two weeks, until I can recover any data. Fortunately, I had
back-ups of everything up to July, but if you remember or have
kept any emails I have sent or you have sent to me in the last
month, please please kindly forward them to me. Thanks.
Gabe
P.S. Since I am virtually useless without my computer, I might go
nuts and just hit the road.... thinking maybe San Diego. Or Nick
Ray's burial spot in Wisconsin. Probably both. If anyone has a
desire to meet in between (or at either destination), let me know.
14172
From:
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:33am
Subject: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
David Ehrenstein:
>
> [THE PASSENGER}
> would make a great REALLY LONG double feature with
> "The Sheltering Sky" (it's very Bowles-esque)
>
That might be because it's an informal adaptation of THE SHELTERING
SKY. Mark Peploe (who would go on to write brother-in-law
Bertolucci's film) says that he desperately wanted to adapt the
Bowles book but was unable to because the Aldriches still had the
rights. Can't remember where I read that, though; I might have seen
it in the "Making Of" for the Bertolucci film.
>
> "China" is lovely but minor.
>
Minor perhaps only in the sense that it doesn't fit into Antonioni's
oeuvre in any significant way. By any other standards, I'd say it's
a staggeringly beautiful work.
-Bilge
14173
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:34am
Subject: Re: Preminger & Acting (was: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> "In Harm's Way" are terrific.
>
> I agree with JPC that acting is part of mise en scene, but I
strongly
> disagree that mise en scene is "primarily directing actors." It's
also
> directing the light, and the camera angles, and the movements, and
the
> placement of lamps. That green lamp in the early scene between the
> elderly mission leader and the Sue Lyons character "Seven Women"
was the
> pivot point on my first viewing: looking at it was when I started
to
> realize how great a film this was going to be.
>
> Fred Camper
"Primarily" doesn't mean exclusively. Of course you're right, but
that green lamp wouldn't mean anything without the characters. Same
about the lighting, camera angles etc...
14174
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:41am
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> One can block actors in a frame without much concern for expression
or
> expressiveness, line-readings, and so forth: this would still be
> mise-en-scene in the classic, formalist sense.
>
>
> Sure one can, but what kind of director does it? A hack.
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2004, at 6:37 PM, jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
> wrote:
> > Is anyone else aware of a received idea among auteurists that
> Preminger
> > was usually indifferent to performance, as Fred Camper said to
me?
> >
> >
> > Jack Angstreich
> >
> >
> > I'm not, and some of my best friends are auteurists... But
> really, received or not, it's an absurd idea. No director can be
> indifferent to performance. It's just like saying that he is
> indifferent to directing. Mise en scene is primarily directing
> actors. How can you be indifferent to their performance?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14175
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- Jonathan Rosenbaum I
> believe this is why Orson Welles hated his work so
> much--consciously
> or unconsciously it was because of Antonioni dissing
> actors. Despite
> the fact that, in my opinion, Delon's best
> performance is in
> ECLIPSE.
>
It's certainly one of them, and the reason why is he's
perfectly castas a go-getting smoothie. I would think
that because of this Antonioni felt no need to
"direct" Delon at all, and spent the bulk of his time
and attention on Vitti -- with whom, as I'm sure we
all know, was intensely romantically involved.
Delon, being the testy, pampered character that he is,
undoubtedly took offense. But the result is up on the
screen -- a masterpiece.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14176
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:16am
Subject: Re: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
Has anyone here seen Vitti's directorial effort, 'Scandalo segreto'
(Secret Scandal) (1989)? And why the long lapse between 'Red Desert'
and 'Oberwald' in terms of her collaborations with M.A.? Is it because
the romantic relationship cooled off..?
14177
From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:21am
Subject: Re: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
> Jonathan wrote:
> One tenative theory about Nicholson holding back The Passenger: spite.
> The reason? Antonioni's relative lack of interest in actors (with the
> notable exceptions of Monica Vitti and, in his latest film, himself).
> I believe this is why Orson Welles hated his work so much--consciously
> or unconsciously it was because of Antonioni dissing actors.
But Jack talks so fondly of Antonioni on the Criterion L'AVVENTURA
set....
-
Maybe Jack's too busy with his rom-coms, surrounded by yes-men, to do
anything about it. I wonder when Jack last thought of THE PASSENGER?
Maybe Criterion have made a move? It would be ideal, if he's willing,
especially after the L'AVVENTURA involvement.
-
btw. there's a perfectly watchable, but OOP, Japanese DVD of THE
PASSENGER, entitled PROFESSIONE: REPORTER. It has a dodgy tunnel effect
sound problem for the first reel but sorts itself out.
-Nick>-
14178
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:35am
Subject: Re: Professione: (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector" wrote:
>
> I too am curious about his film on China, any opinions? Jonathan?
>
> yours,
> andy
There are some interesting comments concerning Antonioni's "China" here:
http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/jc12-13folder/yukongmovedmt.html
The descriptions of Antonioni's practice might reflect Antonioni's
indifference to actors.
Paul
14179
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:13am
Subject: Re: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
I wouldn't call "Shivers" or "Rabid" "hackwork" although I don't recall
the direction of actors being striking; of course, Cronenberg later
became a distinguished director of actors. Similarly, I think "The Way
to Shadow Garden" remains an extraordinary film regardless of how one
evaluates the lead performance. I thought Patricia Arquette was
uninteresting in "Beyond Rangoon" - except as a physical presence - but
this did not diminish the film for me. Similarly, I find Keanu Reeves
ludicrous - although enjoyably so - in "Point Break" but the
mise-en-scene would remain impressive even if Patrick Swayze were less
impressive in the film than he is. There are countless other examples,
aren't there (and probably much better ones)?
Jack Angstreich
On Aug 16, 2004, at 11:41 PM, jpcoursodon wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> One can block actors in a frame without much concern for expression
or
> expressiveness, line-readings, and so forth: this would still be
> mise-en-scene in the classic, formalist sense.
>
>
> Sure one can, but what kind of director does it? A hack.
>
>
>
>
> On Aug 16, 2004, at 6:37 PM, jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
> wrote:
> > Is anyone else aware of a received idea among auteurists that
> Preminger
> > was usually indifferent to performance, as Fred Camper said to
me?
> >
> >
> > Jack Angstreich
> >
> >
> > I'm not, and some of my best friends are auteurists... But
> really, received or not, it's an absurd idea. No director can be
> indifferent to performance. It's just like saying that he is
> indifferent to directing. Mise en scene is primarily directing
> actors. How can you be indifferent to their performance?
>
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
ADVERTISEMENT
Yahoo! Groups Links
• To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
• To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
• Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of
Service.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14180
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:42am
Subject: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
Nicholson was also the one who presented Antonioni with his Honorary
Oscar at the 1994 Academy Awards, so I really don't think spite is a
factor.
-- Damien
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Nick Wrigley wrote:
> > Jonathan wrote:
> > One tenative theory about Nicholson holding back The Passenger:
spite.
> > The reason? Antonioni's relative lack of interest in actors
(with the
> > notable exceptions of Monica Vitti and, in his latest film,
himself).
> > I believe this is why Orson Welles hated his work so much--
consciously
> > or unconsciously it was because of Antonioni dissing actors.
>
>
> But Jack talks so fondly of Antonioni on the Criterion L'AVVENTURA
> set....
>
> -
> Maybe Jack's too busy with his rom-coms, surrounded by yes-men, to
do
> anything about it. I wonder when Jack last thought of THE
PASSENGER?
> Maybe Criterion have made a move? It would be ideal, if he's
willing,
> especially after the L'AVVENTURA involvement.
>
>
14181
From: Andy Rector
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:14am
Subject: Re: Professione: (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
> There are some interesting comments concerning Antonioni's "China"
here:
> http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/jc12-
13folder/yukongmovedmt.html
>
> The descriptions of Antonioni's practice might reflect Antonioni's
> indifference to actors.
>
> Paul
Thank you Paul!
14182
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:39am
Subject: Re: i shot my computer (off-topic)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
> Gabe
>
> P.S. Since I am virtually useless without my computer, I might go
> nuts and just hit the road.... thinking maybe San Diego. Or Nick
> Ray's burial spot in Wisconsin. Probably both. If anyone has a
> desire to meet in between (or at either destination), let me know.
There's a futon in the salon if you need one.
14183
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Miramax monopolism
This reminds me--is anyone as excited as I am about these Shaw Bros.
DVDs from IVL? They're doing a fantastic job, and cranking them out at
something like 10 per month. Finally, a way to enjoy the films of Chang
Cheh, King Hu, Sun Chung, Lau Kar Leung, etc. in at least some of their
glory...
So Miramax owns the rights to some/all of these films?
-Matt
>I have the R3 'Come Drink with Me' -- beautiful stuff. You absolutely
>must get a region-free player, it's the only way to go in amassing a
>DVD library --
>
>
14184
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 1:31pm
Subject: Re: Re: Fooey (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> Has anyone here seen Vitti's directorial effort,
> 'Scandalo segreto'
> (Secret Scandal) (1989)? And why the long lapse
> between 'Red Desert'
> and 'Oberwald' in terms of her collaborations with
> M.A.? Is it because
> the romantic relationship cooled off..?
>
>
Haven't seen that film. But yes it cooled off because
Vitti fell in love with "Red Desert" cinematographer
Carlo Di Palma (who passed away very recently) and he
encouraged her to do comedy -- at which she was wildly
sucessful.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14185
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 2:31pm
Subject: Re: Professione: (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
> > There are some interesting comments concerning
Antonioni's "China"
> here:
> > http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/jc12-
> 13folder/yukongmovedmt.html
> >
> > The descriptions of Antonioni's practice might reflect
Antonioni's
> > indifference to actors.
> >
There was a long interview with MA about "The
Passenger"/"Professione Reporter" in FILMMAKERS NEWSLETTER of July
1975 in which he talked at length about his relationship to actors in
general, and Nicholson and Schneider in particular. I don't know if
that's available on line but its worth checking out (I have a copy).
The interview is complemented by a text by Antonioni explaining
the technical problems of shooting the seven minute take that ends
the film (going out of a small room through the window, panning
across the piazza outside and coming back to the window)and there are
seven photographs of the shooting and the equipment. It's quite
fascinating. As much effort and inventiveness (both technical and
aesthetic) involved as in Welles's opening crane shot in TOUCH (it
took eleven days to complete satisfactorily)yet it seems to have been
largely forgotten, mostly I guess because the film has been
unavailable for so long.
JPC
14186
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 3:54pm
Subject: Re: Professione: (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> The interview is complemented by a text by Antonioni explaining
> the technical problems of shooting the seven minute take that ends
> the film (going out of a small room through the window, panning
> across the piazza outside and coming back to the window)and there
are
> seven photographs of the shooting and the equipment. It's quite
> fascinating. As much effort and inventiveness (both technical and
> aesthetic) involved as in Welles's opening crane shot in TOUCH (it
> took eleven days to complete satisfactorily)yet it seems to have
been
> largely forgotten, mostly I guess because the film has been
> unavailable for so long.
>
> JPC
I didn't realize "The Passenger" was unavailable. My college film
society showed it in 16mm, but that was 20 years ago...
Here's a description of the seven minute take from Sam Rohdie's
book, "Antonioni."
The shot sequence is seven minutes long and took eleven days to set up
and complete. The shot -- this is a bare description -- begins as a
track from inside the hotel room towards the window facing the
square at the Hotel de la Gloria where Locke/Robertson is lying
on the bed. The shot moves to the bars on the exterior side of
the window, seems to pass through the bars, and then pans 180
degrees around the square until it returns to the window looking
inside from the outside through the bars at Locke/Robertson, now dead,
murdered, during the time the camera accomplished its itinerary
around the square.
There were a number of reasons why the shot proved so difficult and
took so much time to accomplish. Light was a factor. The shot needed
to be taken in the evening towards dusk to minimise the light
difference between interior and exterior; since the shot was
continuous it was not possible to adjust the lens aperture at the
moment when the camera passed from the room to the square. The
problem of time of day -- the scene could only be shot between
5.00 and 7.30 in the evening -- was compounded by atmospheric
conditions: the weather was unsettled, windy, nearly cyclonic.
For the shot to work the atmosphere needed to be still to ensure
that the movement of the camera would be smooth; Antonioni
tried to encase the camera in a sphere to lessen the impact
of the wind, but then it couldn't get through the window.There were
further technical problems. The camera ran on a ceiling track in
the hotel room; when it emerged outside the window it was
picked up by a hook suspended on a giant crane, nearly
thirty metres high. A system of gyroscopes had to be
fitted to the camera to mask the change from a smooth
track to the less smooth and more mobile crane. The bars on the
outside of the window were fitted on hinges. As the camera
came up to the bars they were swung away at the same time
as the hook of the crane attached itself to the carnera as
it left the tracks. The whole operation was co-ordinated by
Antonioni from a van by means of monitors and microphones to
assistants who, in turn, communicated his instructions to
the actors and the operators. As things turned out the camera
could only take a spool of 120 metres which was insufficient
for the length of the shot; the camera needed to be modified
and the gyroscopes readjusted for a larger 300 metre spool.
The people of the town had watched all the preparations for the shot;
when at last it was completed they cheered 'as if a goal had been
scored at a football match.'
14187
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Professione: (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
> I didn't realize "The Passenger" was unavailable. My college film
> society showed it in 16mm, but that was 20 years ago...
It's had a few NYC screenings in recent years. I revisited it at
Anthology in Aug. 1998, and it also played at the American Museum of the
Moving Image in Jul. 2002.
I admire Antonioni, but THE PASSENGER isn't one of my favorites. The
script seems to me somewhat blocky and overt in its ideas. And, I
dunno, the seven-minute take, which is indeed magically beautiful, is
rendered a little gimmicky to me when it turns out to be an indirect way
of showing a death. - Dan
14188
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 4:41pm
Subject: Re: Professione: (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > I didn't realize "The Passenger" was unavailable. My college film
> > society showed it in 16mm, but that was 20 years ago...
>
> It's had a few NYC screenings in recent years. I revisited it at
> Anthology in Aug. 1998, and it also played at the American Museum
of the
> Moving Image in Jul. 2002.
>
> I admire Antonioni, but THE PASSENGER isn't one of my favorites.
The
> script seems to me somewhat blocky and overt in its ideas. And, I
> dunno, the seven-minute take, which is indeed magically beautiful,
is
> rendered a little gimmicky to me when it turns out to be an
indirect way
> of showing a death. - Dan
I was unaware of those NY screenings. Does that invalidate
Jonathan's information that Nicholson owns the rights and refuses to
show the film?
JPC
14189
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:02pm
Subject: Re: Re: Professione: (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> I admire Antonioni, but THE PASSENGER isn't one of
> my favorites. The
> script seems to me somewhat blocky and overt in its
> ideas. And, I
> dunno, the seven-minute take, which is indeed
> magically beautiful, is
> rendered a little gimmicky to me when it turns out
> to be an indirect way
> of showing a death.
Actually all this discussion of "The Passenger" has
only served to remind me of how truly great it is. I
taped it off of Z channel eons ago. Must dig it up.
The ending doesn't show a death, but rather a
disappearance. Remember, Jenny Runacre says "I never
knew him" when shown the body.
I've never seen "Profession: Reporter," but I
understand that in that cut Schneider runs away from
Nicholson at one point in the story and he pursues her
and brings her back.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14190
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:15pm
Subject: re: Miramax monopolism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Matt Teichman wrote:
> This reminds me--is anyone as excited as I am about these Shaw Bros.
> DVDs from IVL? They're doing a fantastic job, and cranking them out at
> something like 10 per month. Finally, a way to enjoy the films of Chang
> Cheh, King Hu, Sun Chung, Lau Kar Leung, etc. in at least some of their
> glory...
All year long I have avoided going to video stores in Chinatown or Flushing
because I can't afford to blow $50 on DVDs every visit. Until the library starts
stocking these titles or I win the lottery, I have to exercise restraint. But the
one Shaw DVD I own, Chor Yuen's KILLER CLANS, is a masterpiece, every
bit as good as the other Chor Yuen film I've seen, INTIMATE CONFESSIONS
OF A CHINESE COURTESAN. It has everything: an ultra-baroque subterfuge
plot of quadruple-crossings that would have Robert Towne scratching his
head, beautifully catacombish interiors, stunning fights featuring inventive
weaponry, gratuitous sex and torture scenes, and a pair of goody-goody
parents who poison themselves and their two little kids out of loyalty to their
master. I place Chor (whose social determinist worldview seems to value
Nietzsche and Machiavelli over Confucius) alongside Chang and Hu as the
best of the Shaw-teurs (I'm still not quite convinced of Lau Kar Leung). The
KILLER CLANS DVD also has a very emphatic commentary by Bey Logan
(sort of a Brit ex-pat hyperventilating Tarantino type), who gives a feature-
length "who's who in Shaw Studios" monologue that's quite a trip to listen to.
Smashing!
What other Shaw DVDs have you seen and what do you like most?
Kevin
14191
From:
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:19pm
Subject: Re: Professione: (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
JPC:
>
> I was unaware of those NY screenings. Does that invalidate
> Jonathan's information that Nicholson owns the rights and refuses
to
> show the film?
>
I don't know if any of this invalidates it (it's possible Nicholson
is just preventing a DVD release, and allowing for rare screenings),
but THE PASSENGER was available on VHS for a long time, until
relatively recently. In fact, for many years, it was one of the
small handful of Antonioni films (along with ZABRISKIE and BLOW UP)
available on video in the US. If you go to an auction site such as
Amazon or eBay I'm sure you can find dozens of copies available for
relatively reasonable prices.
Of course, that doesn't mean that a nice new DVD release -- or
better yet, a respectable stint in a few revival houses -- wouldn't
be more than welcome. I've always wanted to see it on a big screen.
Antonioni just wasn't made for the tube.
-Bilge
14192
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:33pm
Subject: Re: Professione: (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ebiri@a... wrote:
> JPC:
In fact, for many years, it was one of the
> small handful of Antonioni films (along with ZABRISKIE and BLOW UP)
> available on video in the US.
I picked it up for 5 bucks at a 20/20. Being ar-challenged I can't
comment on how much of the image is there, but what's there is cherce.
14193
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:53pm
Subject: Re: Preminger & Acting (was: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?)
> "Primarily" doesn't mean exclusively. Of course you're right,
but
> that green lamp wouldn't mean anything without the characters. Same
> about the lighting, camera angles etc...
Am always keen to stress the importance of the underlying values of
story and character, but mise-en-scene as I understand it describes
the filmmaking choices made in bringing the script to the screen
(excepting unscripted or experimental work for the moment). So of
course the characterisation is a central point that helps motivate
all these decisions, but I've never understood mise-en-scene to be
concerned especially with directing actors, except as far as the
blocking goes.
To explain - I think the director's work with the actors is important
enough that it doesn't fit neatly into a term like mise-en-scene,
which seems to usefully describe "the arrangement of elements within
a shot". Where the actors stand is obviously key to mise en scene,
but beyone that... -- of course on can certainly argue that the
expression in a performer's eyes is an element within the shot, but
I'd be tempted to separate the director's job out into at least four
roles:
Perfecting of script, casting and crewing.
Mise en scene: arrangement of elements of each shot, including
design, lighting, framing, blocking, camera movements.
Perfecting of performances of actors.
Montage of sound and image, the arrangement of shots and sounds to
create the finished film.
The casting and directing of the actors are very possibly of primary
importance overall, but I'm loathe to view them as the primary part
of mise-en-scene as I think it's clearer to separate them from that
altogether. Perhaps because when i'm directing I feel i'm very
definitely using two separate parts of my brain for this work. In
arranging a shot to reveal character I don't necessarily communicate
with the actor much of my intent - telling an actor that a low-angle
shot will reveal something of his chaarcter doesn't particularly help
him. I was interested to see that Sirk avoided talking to his actors
about whether their roles were intended to be sympathetic or not -
it's a part of the director's job the actor may be best insulated
from. And when I'm talking to an actor about their goal in a scene
and the emotions of it, I'm not thinking about the framing at the
same time, although these things have to be integrated in the end.
I'd be interested to know if others here have always considered the
directing of actors under the heading of mise-en-scene, as of course
I'm not going to be able to redefine the term single-handedly!
14194
From: Michael Worrall
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:52pm
Subject: Re: Miramax monopolism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
>
>
> All year long I have avoided going to video stores in Chinatown
or Flushing
> because I can't afford to blow $50 on DVDs every visit.
Celestial Pictures has also released the films in VCD, and they
are the best VCD I have seen. You can find them for as low as
7.50 Chinatown here in SF, but I have yet to find an Asian video
store here that rents them. ( Ihear that there is going to be a
Shaw Brothers retrospective in NYC which I hopes makes it over
to SF or the PFA)
I think Chor Yeun is quite strong, "Death Duel" I think can stand
besides "Confessions", but I have only seen one Lau Kar-leung,
"The Eight Diagram Pole Fighter" and I was totally affected by the
film's searing intenisty and may be cinematically more
accomplished than anything I have seen by Chor Yuen. (Though
if we get into a more lengthy discussion Kevin, I think we are
appreciating the films for different reasons.)
Here's what I have seen from the catalog:
The Empress Dowanger
Clans of Intrigue
The Magic Blade
Intimate Confessions of a Chinese Courtesan (both versions)
The Monkey Goes West
Legend of the Bat
Killer Clans
Princess Iron Fan
Cave of the Silken Web
Death Duel
The Emperor's Brother
The Sentimental Swordsman
I know I am leaving out others that I have seen- there are some
titles by Lee Han Hsiang that I haven't written down.
14195
From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:58pm
Subject: Re: Professione: (Was: Antonioni short in Chicago)
Thanks so much for posting that, Paul !
The beauty of the shot is that you don't "see 'em sweat" to achieve it.
-Sam Wells
p.s. I'm puzzled too as to why Jack Nicholson would hold back exhibition
of the film; I remember an interview where he said he did it essentially to
have the experience of working with Antonioni. I mean, I don't think his
agent talked him into it like "Jack ! Baby ! This'll ramp up your career in
the Art-Houses !"
14196
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 5:58pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
> I wouldn't call "Shivers" or "Rabid" "hackwork" although I don't
recall
> the direction of actors being striking;
Nevertheless, it was, quite literally, striking: Cronenberg resorted
to slapping an actress (with her consent) to get her to cry. Think
this shows that he was prepared to go to considerable pains (her's)
to get the best performances possible under the circumstances.
While I'm certain Cronenberg has improved over the years as a
director of actors, perhaps helped by his own experience as a very
able performer, I'm equally sure his early work is marred more by the
limitations of the casts available to him than by indifference on his
part. As his career has progressed he has been able to attract the
finest actors to work with him, so naturally he has been able to get
more out of them.
14197
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 6:16pm
Subject: Re: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?
> Maybe
> it's not even a matter of whether the director has control or not,
> but what *kind* of control he exerts. I feel a different kind of
> director orchestrating the free-wheeling, anarchic SOME LIKE IT HOT
> than the one calling the shots behind DOUBLE INDEMNITY.
Anecdotal evidence tells us that Wilder was at least as hard a
taskmaster with actors, and just as controlled and methodical, on the
miserable, acrimonious set of SOME LIKE IT HOT, as he was on DOUBLE
INDEMNITY. The method is the same, only the results differ. I can
agree that SLIH feels more spontaneous and freewheeling, but this
seems to be actually a successful illusion created by good filmmaking.
On of the characteristics of noir is a sense of fatalism, and the
more rigid qulaities of performance in DOUBLE INDEMNITY help bring
this out. I find a strange disjunction in your writing on this film,
where you point out all the flaws in the characters (yes, Neff is
sleazy, amoral, grasping) and seem to cite them to back up a theory
that the performances are in some way bad.
You accept that this badness might be something the director wants,
but to me it seems that the characters' weaknesses are certainly
something the director wants -- and the performance qualities which
would certainly be misguided in a screwball comedy are desirable and
effective in a noir.
> but I still feel there's
> something leaden and overdetermined about the performances in
DOUBLE INDEMNITY. And yet those qualities play perfectly into the
film's
> dehumanizing, objectifying vision of humanity as reflected in the
> story itself.
And this is a vision which can be found through much of the noir
genre, a product of the complex interpaly between the artists'
intentions and the mood of the times. What you seem to be saying
could be translated as "The performances have a quality which in
another film would be bad, but which here work to bring out a strong
feeling the film has." Which to me is the very definition of well-
judged performances.
> How many of us consider the
> possibility of unintended results revealing as much about artists
as
> intended ones?
The history of the discussion between auteurs and auteurists is
littered with cases where, to paraphrase hawks, "The French would ask
me why I did something in a picture, and I'd say 'I felt like it.'"
Most of the many decisions I make when i'm directing are motivated by
unconscious thought - there isn't time for anything else. I think
consciously about the film a long time before I shoot it, and I hope
that when the film and I are working well together, the decision
that "feels right" will be the correct one - there will be some deep-
seated reason, socio-political or psychological, but I couldn't tell
you what it is at the time.
> When I first presented my case of DOUBLE INDEMNITY (on another
board)
> as a vision of dysfunctional, dehumanized 20th century modernity,
> someone laughed me off and said that "Wilder just wanted to make a
> great film, not a sociological tract".
I think you're both right. And there's no such thing as a "straight
film" - what makes the film great is the to do with its relationship
with reality, with society, with human psychology, even if it is a
thriller. Wilder, concentrating on making as many of the right
decisions as possible to make the best possible film, revealed his
feelings about many things - and while this was not his open
intention, I'm sure he's accept (if you caught him on a good day)
that a great film reveals something to us about the artist and his
world.
14198
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 7:38pm
Subject: Re: Miramax monopolism
Kevin Lee wrote:
>All year long I have avoided going to video stores in Chinatown or Flushing
>because I can't afford to blow $50 on DVDs every visit.
>
I haven't tried it yet, but there seems to be a website out there in the
vein of Netflix which features a good selection of HK DVDs:
http://www.nicheflix.com/
>I place Chor (whose social determinist worldview seems to value
>Nietzsche and Machiavelli over Confucius) alongside Chang and Hu as the
>best of the Shaw-teurs (I'm still not quite convinced of Lau Kar Leung).
>
Re: CC -- Not quite in a class with King Hu, but a truly wonderful
filmmaker in his own right. My favorites: _The Water Margin_, _The
Heroic Ones_, _The Five Venoms_, _Crippled Avengers_, _Invincible
Shaolin_, _Killer Army_, _Masked Avengers_, _Two Champions of Shaolin_,
_Chinese Super Ninja_. I am eager to see _One-Armed Swordsman_, now
that it's finally been released. There's something particularly
striking about Chang's use of faces and costumes that recalls Cocteau,
Anger, Genet, Fassbinder... Certainly a major contributor to the gay
aesthetic, if there is such a thing, though I have no idea whether he
was gay.
Re: CY -- I still haven't managed to see any of his films (gasps from
the crowd). A gaping lacuna, yes. Especially during a time when the
world needs to be reminded that Ang Lee didn't invent wuxia pien. Your
description makes his films sound even more tantalizing than before.
Re: LKL -- You're right, overall he's probably among the weaker of the
bunch -- he has done a number of real clunkers. I admire him more as a
performer than as a director; he has the reflexes of a rattlesnake and
an astounding onscreen presence. But there are a few masterpieces in
his filmography, notably _Mad Monkey Kung Fu_ and _Disciples of the 36th
Chamber_ (both of which feature Hsiao Ho, who has to be the most
incredible aerialist ever to step before a camera). _Heroes of the
East_ is also pretty fantastic, and _Executioner from Shaolin_ certainly
isn't bad (neither are the first two films of the _36th Chamber_
trilogy, for that matter).
I often feel as though the art of gesture in cinema died with Griffith,
to make only the occassional attempt at resurrecting itself (in the work
of Eisenstein, Maya Deren, Riefenstahl, King Hu, and a few others). One
can only imagine what wonders Deren might have spun had she a virtuoso
like Hsiao Ho at her disposal...
-Matt
14199
From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 8:17pm
Subject: Fw: Sort of, kind of, well almost off-topic but not really
> Well, it is a film question but it's also a Broadway theater question
> really.
>
> Last night I was watching a 1958 kinescope of some of the original B'way
> cast of Kiss Me Kate (mainly, Alfred Drake and Patricia Morison, whose
voice
> had aged badly in decade) and my wife and I got to speculating on why
> Drake, who was a huge star on B'way, never made it to Hollywood. He is in
> one film -- Tars and Spars -- during his prime and that's it. Instead we
get
> Howard Keel, definitely a poor man's Drake even at his best. What the heck
> happened? It can't be because he looks like the young Orson Welles, so I'm
> assuming either he had a major skeleton in his closet or just didn't want
to
> go west.
>
> Can any of you enlighten me?
>
> George (In the Dark in Washington Heights) Robinson
>
>
> He that would make his own liberty secure
> must guard even his enemy from oppression;
> for if he violates this duty he establishes
> a precedent that will reach to himself.
> --Thomas Paine
>
>
>
>
>
>
14200
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Aug 17, 2004 9:45pm
Subject: Re: Preminger & Acting (was: So no one else believes in "good bad acting"?)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
>
> The casting and directing of the actors are very possibly of
primary
> importance overall, but I'm loathe to view them as the primary part
> of mise-en-scene as I think it's clearer to separate them from that
> altogether.
Is such a separation at all possible?
Perhaps because when i'm directing I feel i'm very
> definitely using two separate parts of my brain for this work. In
> arranging a shot to reveal character I don't necessarily
communicate
> with the actor much of my intent - telling an actor that a low-
angle
> shot will reveal something of his chaarcter doesn't particularly
help
> him. I was interested to see that Sirk avoided talking to his
actors
> about whether their roles were intended to be sympathetic or not -
> it's a part of the director's job the actor may be best insulated
> from.
Many great film directors were/are reluctant to discuss their
intentions with the actors; or to just tell them what to do. Ford
said something to the effect that "I cast an actor because I think he
fits the character and can play it well, so why would I have to tell
him what to do?" This doesn't mean that directing actors is not part
of mise en scene. You can direct by not giving any "direction" to the
actor. Wyler (I know, auteurists, including myself, don't care much
for him, but for the sake of example...) would make some thirty takes
of a shot before being satisfied but hardly told the actors anything.
I don't think he would have agreed to the concept that working on the
performances is somehow not part of mise en scene. What he was doing
take after take was working on them -- his way.
Antonioni (since we were discussing him) said (in the interview on
THE PASSENGER I mentioned earlier)"Sometimes if you explain too much
you run the risk that the actors become their own directors, and this
doesn't help the film. Nor the actor. ... What i try to do is provoke
them, stimulate rather than teach, put them in the right mood. And
then I watch them through the camera and at that moment tell them to
do this or that. But not before. I have to have my shot, and they are
an element of the image -- and not always the most important element."
I think that last sentence puts it in a nutshell: they are an
element of the image (ie. they are part of the mise en scene). They
may not always be the most important element (just like the scenery,
say, may be more or less important -- sometimes more important than
the actors, sometimes not important at all), we all agree on that.
The actors are the least important element in the opening shot of
TOUCH OF EVIL, and the 7 minute shot at the end of THE PASSENGER
includes no character, except for a dead body at the very end.
>
> I'd be interested to know if others here have always considered the
> directing of actors under the heading of mise-en-scene, as of
course
> I'm not going to be able to redefine the term single-handedly!
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact