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.


14401


From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 6:58am
Subject: Re: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)
 
Damien Bona wrote:

>... this description does sound like the MGM soft-focus house style of the 30s and 40s, which can be found in almost all of the studio's black-and-white releases...
>
And the description definitely does *not* apply to two Borzages maade a
few years after he left MGM, "Till We Meet Again" and "Moonrise." So
even though I think of myself as some sort of uber-autuerusit, I think
Damien is right here.

Fred Camper
14402


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:02am
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video & Hitchcock's Marnie (was Smilin' Through)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"

> > wrote:
> > I'll skip over self-induced bad viewings -- viewing under the
> > influence
> > > (e.g. Bill K's experience of watching INDIA SONG while high).
> >
> > That was a GOOD viewing, JP!
>
>
> It was a feel-good viewing, I'm sure, but if it made the film
seem
> hilarious wasn't there something slightly wrong about the viewing?

But the film IS hilarious viewed from one angle. It's camp --
remember the thread as long as the Grand Canyon on this subject a few
months back? Another example of humor in Duras -- the appearances of
Depardieu in Nathalie Granger. The way he enters the hushed stillness
of the langorous slow-mo two-woman household trying to sell washing
machines is hilarious, particularly when he finds out they already
have one. The langorous promenades of the aristos in IS are also very
funny, unless you insist on taking them solemnly. They're beautiful,
and can be appreciated in hushed silence, but they are also very
silly!
14403


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:04am
Subject: Re: curious how many times you see a film -- (NEW ROSE HOTEL - spoilers)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:

> Of course, not many films are as complex and tightly organized as
NEW
> ROSE HOTEL, but it's worth bearing in mind that, when dealing with
a
> work of any distinction, we will always be one viewing away from
> total understanding.

That's what I realized, a bit awe-struck at the phenomenon, working
on Hitchcock: the films are inexhaustible. I think great films are.
And I agree that NRH is one of those.
14404


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:05am
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> Dmytryk made Christ In Concrete in 1949 (in England) the year
before
> going to prison and two years before he ratted out to HUAC.
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> > >
> > >
> > > Damien Bona wrote:
> > > "...after he did an about face and beamer a friendly HUAC
witness
> > following his prison stint as a member of the Hollywood Ten
there's
> > little but bloated dross."
> > >
> > I don't consider Christ in Concrete bloated dross, but the last
> time
> > I looked it was an impossible film to see for legal reasons.

Correction taken. How about The Sniper?
14405


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:09am
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:

> ("Minority Report" would have been SO much better with
> Eddie Deezen in the lead.)

Almost any film would.
14406


From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:12am
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
Well, along the lines of Kevin's warning, this post is really really
long. My feelings will not be hurt if few read it. I felt it was a
necessary reply, not necessarily me at my most, um, brilliant.

Kevin, I'm sorry that I apparently misread your statement as indicating
a final view of "Smilin' Through," and am glad to know that you'll see
it again if you can. You can stick to your position of not discussing
the form in which you've seen it if you like, but this is in my view not
a very "responsible" position in the context of our exchange. I would
never presume to comment seriously on poetry I had read only in
translation without admitting to this, to use one analogy, and would
want to hear from people able to read it in the original what the
limitations of the translation I read were (which will often be
discussed in translator's notes in the volume), and I've never written
on a painting seen only in reproduction -- and have never intentionally
written on a film intended to be shown on film that I've seen only on
video. (There were a couple of times when an exhibitor misinformed me
about the intended format.) It doesn't seem to me to be all that radical
to suggest that you haven't really "seen" a painting if you've only seen
it in reproduction, and I don't see why it should seem like "bullying"
to assert the same is true of videos of films. I'm not saying one has to
agree with me, only that my position shouldn't seem all that weird.

My point about "Smilin' Through" is that I think it's actually a great
example of my case. Now this is not to say that some people who get to
compare might not agree with me, or might even prefer it on video, but
I'll bet that the majority of the members of this list who already
really like Borzage will agree that a *lot* is lost on video.

I'm also sorry that you translate all this into questions of
"authority." I may be an "authority" but I sure as hell don't have any
power. I'm not an editor; I'm not a professor or administrator; I can't
hire and fire people. If someone gave me some power (let's say, in the
hope that Warren Buffet or Bill Gates are reading this list, about $300
million to found the "Camper Art Cinema Archive" -- do note the acronym,
self-deprecating pun intended) I'd make a zillion great prints of my
favorite movies and show and rent them, not use the money to try to shut
down people who watch films on video.

Dan: "What's to be gained, intellectually speaking, from establishing
authority? I don't see why we can't all just throw out ideas from a
position of non-authority, and go on revising them for the rest of our
lives."

I like this very much. I'm trying to be an "authority" only to the
extent that I, like many who are passionate about subjects, speak as if
I'm trying to bring others to my way of seeing. I hope the things I say
about cinema will help others see things "my way." To some extent, we
all do this. I don't expect to succeed with very many people, I'd be
horrified if I succeeded with everyone and we all saw things the same
way, and I'm not trying to use authority to convince or bully people --
I'm only trying to use arguments about specifics, however vaporous and
transcendental my specifics are. So in that sense I absolutely want to
speak from Dan's "position of non-authority," and hope that someone who
reads my arguments might then see "Smilin' Through" differently, not
because they think they should, but because my arguments help them
refocus their attention.

It's not that you can't have an opinion of a film seen only on video. I
would have thought my comments on seeing "Strange Cargo" for the first
time on video made it clear that I sure as hell did have an opinion.
It's that I think the opinion should be qualified, and that to some
extent you should gauge what degree to qualify it by the type of film it
was, its original format, the conditions of your video viewing.

When I wrote, "It bothers me that many will not make effort to resee
films seen only video on film," I was certainly not thinking of you. I
do remember that you prefer to see films on film when you can. Nor do I
think that the context of that statement implies it was directed at you.
I think you're taking all this way too personally. Remember it started
with your directly querying me about "Smilin' Through," and my feeling
that the things that made it really great, the things you missed, are
precisely those things that were lost on video. It doesn't strike me
that this is a bullying position, nor even an unreasonable one, though
it's surely one that others who have seen the film both ways might
disagree with. But you asked me and I replied, and the way you're taking
my query about video seems to me way out of proportion. When I wrote it
I certainly wasn't conceiving of what I wrote as an attack on you, more
as a suggestion to keep seeing it on film in mind if you haven't, that
seen that way the film might grow greater. If you had seen it on video,
you could have just replied, "great, I'll keep it in mind to try to see
a print if I ever get the chance." I don't see that you would lose any
"authority" by doing so, and don't understand the virulence of your
reaction here.

Speaking of virulence, I find your reference to "this heart warming
story about the 18 year old" to be, well, dripping with sarcasm. I don't
see how it represents "big city bigotry." He was not from a big city; as
far as I can tell he was working at minimum wage "McJobs" when he wrote
me. I doubt his family is wealthy, though they helped him with the
trips. And I certainly didn't mean to contrast him with you -- I know
you've come to Chicago to see films too. And I don't think anything in
my telling of his story suggests I meant to contrast him with you. I
wasn't thinking about you when I wrote it. What I was thinking about was
how I've changed my position on the acceptability of putting many
avant-garde films on DVD as a result of my encounter with him, a
position change you ought to be pleased with -- and it was hardly an
encounter; I don't think I've exchanged more than a few sentences with
him at the two screenings. On the other hand, I know from a few emails
that the DVD has, well, changed his life, and the film viewings added to
that change. As for him being "privileged enough to get into film
school," the last I heard, Columbia College Chicago was open admission.

The screening, by the way, was announced at the public screening of
Brakhage's "Trilogy" at Chicago Filmmakers, so anyone who cared enough
about Brakhage to want to go to that (a Chicago premiere) and was able
to attend heard about it, and also in an email I sent to a number of
people, basically everyone in Chicago who I knew to be interested in
Brakhage. In that sense it was "public" - anyone who knew about it could
come. And it was free. It was at Chicago Filmmakers, and the projection
was kindly provided by the tireless Patrick Friel. I can't remember but
I think there were maybe 30 or 35 people there at the beginning. Not
everyone stayed for four hours of Brakhage films, but a lot stayed for
most of it. My intention is to do one of these every couple of years, so
if anyone reading this wants to be informed of another one, write me
offlist.

Kevin: "Your insistence that one cannot say what they think of a film
until they see it on film implies a host of privileges that you
continually ignore."

Did I actually "insist" on this in this group? I certainly didn't tell
you you couldn't say what you thought of "Smilin' Through" if you had
seen it on video, only that you might like it more than you did if you
could see it on film. I don't interfere in the numerous discussions here
based on video viewings. But if you ask me a question about a film I
love, the issue may well come up.

Anyway, if I did "insist" on this, I hereby retract it, and more or less
endorse Zach's posts on the subject. I think one can always have
opinions, and one should always qualify them too. I would myself say
something like, taking an extreme case, "I've seen Sirk's "All That
Heaven Allows" on film perhaps 15 times, and at least six or so of them
in a great 35mm original Technicolor IB print, and I've seen all Sirk's
American films, some many times though two only on video, and five of
his European features and all the late shorts, and I've read and written
about him and spent two and a half hours with him in person once, alone,
and I certainly have opinions on 'All That Heaven Allows,' but it could
be that I'll change them when I resee it, or read another view, or see
some of the European Sirks I'm missing, or resee one of the American
ones, or change my views on film and art and the world." All views of
aesthetic matters are necessarily provisional. And I admit to the
possibility that some youth who has only seen "All That Heaven Allows"
only on video might come up with a brilliant argument about it that
would change my mind.

Kevin: "These people whose chances of seeing any Brakhage or Smilin'
Through are slim indeed, can they ever say what they think about them,
Fred? Don't you think lording this imperative...."

Of course they can say what they think. Just as I can say, where it
seems relevant, why seeing a print might change their views. Just as
they can say, where relevant, why if I had read all of Kant and
Heidegger I might understand Brakhage much better than I do now, and in
what ways. If one of us has more experience than the other, we should
share it. That's how we learn. And that's how our judgments, which we
can always make but should never finalize, can change.

But my point about the 18 year old is that it's not always as impossible
to see films on film as one thinks. Certainly when I lived in Cambridge,
Massachusetts, during my most intense film viewing period, during some
of which time I was supporting myself at a job that paid only a little
over minimum wage ($1.75 an hour in 1966, the equivalent of maybe $6 an
hour today), I managed trips to New Haven, and New York, and Montreal,
to see films. The train or bus wasn't that expensive, and sometimes a
friend was driving.

Kevin: "....one of the ways (not the only one and not necessarily the
best one) to establish authority is through age. And by this I don't
necessarily mean a particular number but a body of work or a variety of
experiences built up over time (not even necessarily a long time). The
goal, then, is to locate someone who we perceive to be an authority and
prove our own authority to them."

Again, I'm not comfortable with the language of "authority" here. I
don't want people to see me as an authority. Perhaps my views on
Brakhage will be considered more worth listening to than some others',
based on my long involvement with his work, but they should only be
considered useful if they "test" well in the process of viewing his films.

I'm also very aware that in art criticism, famous critics have tended to
understand a particular period very well and fail to "get" anything that
came after. Clement Greenberg and Abstract Expressionism is a primo
example. So I'm not sure age is always a virtue. Could it be that the
youths on this list are right and that Steven (barf) Spielberg (retch)
is actually a good artist whose works will prove as meritorious as, oh,
say, Fuller's (though I don't recall anyone claiming this specifically),
to future generations? As much as I can't see how this can be, I have to
admit that it *could* be -- that perhaps I just don't get his work.

Kevin: "Your idea that we should dive into the unique filmworlds of
directors instead of perpetually trying to find our absorbed selves in
films has honestly moved me. But the shortcomings inherent in that idea
(namely, it implies an

already fully-formed self with which to venture forth into those unique
filmworlds and ignores all those selves in desperate need of some sort
of validation) spill over in this damn goddamn film/video debate."

Well, of all my friends, one who did this really well is the late Kirk
Winslow (I put my own obit of him up at
http://www.fredcamnper.com/B/Winslow.html ) He had the weakest ego of
anyone I've ever known, and that "weakness" made him incredibly open to
great art, though it caused him some real troubles in his personal life.
I don't think there's any particular kind of personality required to get
out of oneself. John Keats spoke of it in terms of "negative
capability," but it's not clear how fully formed his self was,
especially since he died at 25.

About your "Imitation of Life" story, I'm sure the archives of this
group and of FrameWorks (an avant-garde film discussion group, for those
here who don't know it; see http://www.hi-beam.net/fw.html ) contain
statements by me that if a video is not the film, a terrible print is
surely not the film either. I agree completely that in many cases a
video may be better than a horrible print. My point is that in most
cases neither "are" the film.

Kevin: "A few years ago on Frameworks, I mentioned the placement of
Sarah Jane in the frame of Sirk's Imitation of Life, which remains my
favorite classical Hollywood film. You vehemently fired back something
along the lines of 'How could you possibly talk about the placement of
Sarah Jane when you've only seen the film on video?' I don't recall my
response but inside, I was embarrassed and resolved to see the film on
film.... YOU told me I couldn't pronounce on Sarah Jane's placement
until I had seen the film on film. "

This occurred in November 1999. It was part of a long thread that seems
to have started around the question of whether it was OK to view
"Wavelength" on video. I believe Kevin was arguing that since he can't
see it on film in Milwaukee, why shouldn't he be allowed to see it on
video. But here we have a living artist, Michael Snow, the maker of
"Wavelength," who as always refused to release it on video, I believe
because he feels it simply will not translate. Should not an artist's
view of how to see his work be respected, especially since any video
copies of it (and I suspect there are many) will be illegal dupes?

Snow is an amazing artist who has worked in many media: film, video,
painting, drawing, sculpture, slide shows, holograms, installations, and
artist's books among them. I saw them in most media because I was
"privileged" to be able to attend the great 1994 retrospective of his
work in Toronto. I was so "privileged' because I had a friend there who
would put me up and no regular job. I had an incredibly low income that
year, $11,000 (don't worry, it's a lot higher now), in my first year of
trying to survive as a writer fulltime, and I also had no place to live,
having just lost my apartment and put my things into storage, so going
to Toronto seemed like a great idea at the time. At the Detroit/Winsor
border at 7 AM, I got thrown out of Canada because I wouldn't give the
nasty woman in immigration the phone number of the friend I was going to
stay with at that early hour -- said nasty woman had somehow sniffed out
that I had little money. I had to wait a few hours until I was sure z
phone call wouldn't wake my friend up before trying again. Anyway,
Snow's work tends to be highly medium-specific, and about the nature of
the specific medium. It really will not reproduce. He recently released
a DVD "version" of some of the footage in "Wavelength," " WVLNT:
Wavelength for Those Who Don't Have the Time," which is in fact reworked
for video in ways that reflects that medium's different nature. It's
great on its own.

Your actual question about "Imitation of Life" from 1999 was:

"If I'm at a conference or a party or wherever and the discussion turns
to the use of pop music in Scorpio Rising or Sarah Jane's place in the
mise-en-scene of Sirk's Imitation of Life, should I not engage in the
discussion because I've only seen 'video reproductions' of those two
films?"

I replied:

"You can talk about the pop music in 'Scorpio Rising' from only having
seen it on video, I suppose -- or can you? Does the full fetishistic
power of Anger's use of light and dark come through on video? This is a
complex film that is partly a parody of its subject, partly a
self-parody, and partly a thoroughly erotic worship of its subject. I
wonder if video doesn't reduce the power of the last 'theme' to a
degree. Sarah Jane's place in the mise-en-scene of Sirk's Imitation of
Life' is certainly falsified on video. For one thing the film was meant
to be projected in an aspect ratio of 1.85:1, and for this film video
chops off the sides (for some other 1.85 films video shows too much);
how can you presume to talk about a character's placement in the
mise-en-scene of a film that when you have seen only the middle 72 per
cent of the image -- or more likely even less, depending on the form of
video display used? There are many other problems with Sirk on video as
well. The complicated tension between depth effects and flatness in his
compositions is lost, or greatly reduced. The intense and subtle color
contrasts are wrecked. The awesome power of Annie's appearance in the
background of the Moulin Rouge, seen from the point of view of the
performers revolving on stage (of which Sarah Jane is one), is greatly
effaced."

So perhaps this is the source of Kevin's long-festering impression that
I wish to deny people the right to talk about films they've seen only on
video. But most of my response is questioning or at least provisional
("can you?"; "lost, or greatly reduced"); my only real prohibition has
to do with talking about character placement in a film that you haven't
seen the full images of, which hardly seems like a ridiculous argument,
even if one doesn't agree with it. Kevin didn't mention in his original
FrameWorks post that he saw it on "letterboxed" video, as he does here,
which would have changed my reply. I certainly would have allowed that
you can "presume to talk about" the placement of a character in the
frame of a film that you'd seen the full frame of, even if on video.

But I do think film art is a subtle thing, and that the parts of a great
film are more interdependent than one would think. The power and meaning
of a performance, of a line of dialogue, or the placement of a character
in the frame, can be affected by how we are responding to subtleties of
light, color, and space. This is what I was trying to get at in the part
of my reply to you that I just quoted above.

Kevin, you raised the Mona Lisa question in that FrameWorks thread too.
My reply today would be similar to my reply then. I have been to the
Louvre, I waited until I got as close as I could to the Mona Lisa, and I
still don't think I've seen it. It wasn't the glass that was the problem
-- I do think you can "get" paintings that are under glass, if the
reflections aren't too bad -- it's that I couldn't get close enough.
(Perhaps Richard's eyesight is much better than mine, or perhaps he's
talking in general about paintings under glass, not the current
installation of the "Mona Lisa" in the Louvre." And there's no rule here
either: Michelangelo's "Pieta" is under glass and distant in St.
Peter's, but I felt like I was seeing enough of it to "get" its
greatness.) Perhaps if I'd brought binoculars, as I have on a later trip
to Italy, I would have thought differently. As of now, I think I've seen
"more" of it in reproductions. But there are other Leonardos in the
Louvre that one can get close to, and most of those are incredibly
great. About the "Mona Lisa," I can't have a strong opinion. From what I
could see in person, and in reproductions, it looks pretty wonderful,
but I feel that I cannot be sure.

And in general, I do not think I have seen any paintings that I have
seen only in reproductions in books, slides, or videos. This is why I
travel whenever I can. I might make inferences from reproductions, but
can't have a definitive opinion. One of my favorite painters is
Grünewald. I've seen exactly one painting, the one in Washington. From
reproductions of that painting seen alongside reproductions of the ones
in Europe, I gather that some of the ones in Europe are going to be
unbelievably great.

But you never know. Another of my top ten painters is Georges de la
Tour. There was an exhibit in Washington, and I went (and before you
start going on and on about "privilege," let me tell you about trying to
see an art show after taking an overnight 16 hour ride on Greyhound, or
about the dangers of staying in the one motel I could afford there,
where a huge guy saw me walking through a desolate area on my way back
and picked up an empty bottle and broke it against the pavement; Luckily
he moved very slowly, probably drunk, and I got away). I went to it
twice. It was unbelievably moving. And one of the paintings included,
from a museum in Lvov, I had guessed from reproductions would be one of
the best, but in person it was pretty disappointing. Others were much
greater than I had guessed.

Many films, including, as someone mentioned, many recent films,
translate to video just fine. I don't want to be rigidly dogmatic about
this. From the portion of it that I saw on TV, "Shoah," a film I love
and saw on film twice, seems to translate pretty well, and I've
recommended to more than one person viewing it on video. But as I see it
I am being attacked for taking a perfectly reasonable position, one that
has ample precedents in other fields. It's considered something of a
scandal when an art critic is caught "reviewing the catalogue" of a show
he's not seen, but totally normal for film critics to write only from
videos of films. I lose income and annoy editors because of my refusal
to do this. I'm not saying that other film critics are wrong for doing
so, just because I don't; only that each of us should be aware of what
we are doing, and the limitations of what we are doing.

Kevin, on seeing "Imitation of Life" only in a good video and a bad
print: "Had I not told you or anyone else this story, would it have been
my moral duty in any published essay on the film to alert readers of my
pathetic viewing conditions? Or even in face-to-face communication?"

It's pretty much a convention in film writing that no one says if
they've only seen the film on video. Given that this *is* a convention,
I don't think it's your "moral duty" to say it, because an intelligent
reader will assume that it might be the case. And depending on what you
were writing on it for, you might not be able to get your long story
about viewing conditions, or even a short version, past an editor
anyway. I also don't want to presume to tell you what your "moral duty"
is. I'd much rather that you become even more convinced yourself (I know
you already are to some degree) of the existence of the film-specific
subtleties I'm arguing for, because you discover them for yourself in
prints, and are moved by them.

Fred Camper
14407


From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:17am
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper (Correction)
 
Well, of all my friends, one who did this really well is the late Kirk
Winslow (I put my own obit of him up at
http://www.fredcamnper.com/B/Winslow.html )

should have been

http://www.fredcamper.com/B/Winslow.html
14408


From:   Jack Angstreich
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:42am
Subject: Re: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
I don't see how whether you saw a film on video or not is not relevant
to the discussion of the film or why you wouldn't acknowledge what
format you saw the film in. Why the secrecy? Shouldn't one always say
what format they have seen the film in when discussing it in evaluative
terms especially?

Jack Angstreich




On Aug 23, 2004, at 12:57 AM, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:


In a message dated 8/22/04 11:07:35 PM, sallitt@p...
writes:


>
> What's to be gained, intellectually speaking, from establishing
authority?
> I don't see why we can't all just throw out ideas from a position of
> non-authority, and go on revising them for the rest of our
> lives. - Dan
>
Perhaps nothing. But we don't throw out ideas in a social vacuum. And
that's
the reason why we can't all just throw out ideas from any kind of
position.
There are authorities who (try to) place restrictions on what ideas we
can throw
out and when we can throw them. Fred was basically telling me that I
had to
tell the list when and/or if I had seen Smilin' Through on film before
I could
throw out ideas on it. And the same goes for Imitation of Life. Fred
was
telling me that I couldn't throw out any ideas on Sarah Jane's
placement until I
had seen it on film. How can I being to revise my ideas when I'm not
even
allowed to express them in the first place?

Kevin John



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14409


From:   Jack Angstreich
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:49am
Subject: Re: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)
 
I'm afraid I have to disagree about the recent print of "The Fall of
the Roman Empire": although the print had some damage, and was also cut
by over twenty minutes, this was an original IB Technicolor print and
in this regard it was extraordinary and very instructive as compared to
the Eastmancolor (?) version of "El Cid". (This was, incidentally,
Martin Scorsese's print.)


Jack Angstreich




On Aug 23, 2004, at 1:16 AM, Jaime N. Christley wrote:

Relatable to the film vs. video discussion, I "sort of liked" THE FALL
OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE on letterboxed laserdisc, squashed but a very,
very good video transfer...but I *loved* it on film, even though the
print was quite bad and seemed warped in places.

-Jaime




[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14410


From:
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 4:21am
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
Ok, I admit that couching all this in terms of authority and privilege is, to
some extent, my own baggage and I need to examine that. And, to some extent,
I already have (see below).

But Fred, I didn't miss those things that make Smilin' Through great. Again,
I thought I made that clear when I was talking about how the vegetation
functioned as a sort of dissolve. I did not miss those textural qualities. Honest, I
didn't.

And for the record and from this point forward, I never need to say "Great,
I'll keep it in mind to try to see a print if I ever get the chance" because I
want you to know that that is always implied. I do strain to see every film
ever made in a pristine film print. But my virulence stems from the social
inequities of access to pristine film prints. And that is why I am so stubborn
about not confessing my viewing situations. Yes, I have already tempered my
viewpoint after reading your very unglamorous tales of trying to see this film or
that painting. But inequities still exist and I remain passionately against the
imperative to qualify my opinions in this manner.

As for city bigotry, I was referring to Chicago not the home town of the 18
year old. I know he came from a small town. And my statement was dripping with
sarcasm because I honestly thought you were contrasting him with me.

I'm sorry but I forgot that I didn't mention in the Frameworks post that I
had seen a letterboxed print of Imitation of Life. But now that I think of it, I
may not have seen that letterboxed print by the time I wrote that post. And
I'm way too exhausted at the moment to reflect on the ramifications of the fact
that my opinion on Sarah Jane's placement hasn't changed (nor on how a
pristine film print could possibly change it). But Fred, that phrase "how can you
presume to talk" really carried a lot of weight with me and I couldn't help but
couch it in terms of authority and privilege. Not that I read it again, it
doesn't seem so vehement. But that's only because I have resolved some of those
issues surrounding what I perceive to be authority and privilege.

Kevin John


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14411


From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:49am
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
Kevin,

I appreciate you qualifications. And I understand that you "got" some of
what I like about "Smilin' Through." But you also didn't see it as
anywhere near as great as I did If you saw it on film, my suggestion
would be to see it again if and when you can. And if you saw it on
video, all I'm saying is that I didn't think it was anywhere near the
best Borzage when I saw it on video, and this was after I had seen most
of the great ones. As Peter and others have said, the full power of a
work often simply doesn't come through on video.

I still don't see the "city bigotry" in my writing. If I knew of a
Brakhage collector who lived on a farm near the 18 year old, I would
have tried to connect the two of them.

Finally, about my "presume to talk," please consider the context. More
of the context is in my earlier post, but here's a little: "

"...how can you presume to talk about a character's placement in the
mise-en-scene of a film that when you have seen only the middle 72 per
cent of the image -- or more likely even less, depending on the form of
video display used..."

Taken on its own "presume to talk" sounds harsh. You certainly made it sound harsh in your citing of our exchange from memory in your initial post in this thread. What I was trying to hint at gently in my long post I'll now say explicitly: you have, I believe, seriously mischaracterized what I wrote to you five years ago, and have apparently misunderstood it all these years. This has caused you to misunderstand my positions.

My statement above is not some abstraction of the type I am also prone to, such as "you won't get all the transcendent glories of the light that have brought me to ecstasy so many times when you watch a film on video." It is, rather, close to being tautological. All I really said is that you can't presume to talk about the placement of characters in compositions when you're only seeing 72 per cent, or possibly much less, of said compositions. This should be rather self-evident, I should think. If your opinions of Sarah Jane's placement were not changed between seeing the film at 1.37:1 and seeing it in the correct ratio, fine, but you can't know that in advance. Imagine that you see a 1.85:1 painting with the sides cropped to 1.37:1. Would you "presume to talk" about the placement of characters in the composition? If you later saw the whole thing and your preliminary opinion was unchanged, fine again, but as with the film you can't know that in advance. Also, there's the phenomenon of being biased by one's first viewing: perhaps your opinion wasn't changed by seeing the film in the right ratio because you were now seeing it through the filter of your previously formed opinion.

These things are complicated, that's my main point here.

Fred Camper
14412


From: Hadrian
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:52am
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
In my assessment this particular debate is based on a fairly
subjective principle anyways.

Personally, I think the film experience is just BETTER than the
video experience --but that's almost irregardless of the film. I
could watch any piece of crap thrown on a big screen, and enjoy
the feeling of complete enrapture that movie theatres (nice
ones) can induce....i just liked seeing celluloid. I enjoy feeling a
crowds responses. Something funny seems funnier with
laughter in my ears, and details, even unintentional ones, can
be made out and enjoyed like on a trip to a foreign country.

Though as home entertainment centers get better (I love my
video projector), and the differences lessen, video just isn't the
same --but my relative enjoyment of a film usually is. There's
some minor exceptions; some films arre on the tipping points of
accessibility or credibility and just take the little push a big
screen can make. But generally the difference of film vs. video
seems no greater than how much sleep i'd had, what mood i
was in, or what stage of life i was at.
14413


From: Hadrian
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:17am
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)
 
This thread really does hark back to the earlier Bad Acting
thread, one that's stayed with me since. Bill's comments about
films as actor-centric to the general populace have stayed with
me in particular. Once I began to accept that the general public
look first to the actors to determine whether they are interested in
the film (or , to be what in my opinion would be more exact, a
kind of internal formula of star * genre/concept), I couldn't help
but think about why some stars "cut it" while others don't.

The real sign of a movies cheapness can often be the lack of a
"star" --which I'm defining as someone you can watch almost
regardless of the quality of the film. Chipmunk boy has it. It's not
always good, and sometimes it's terrible, but a frame can rest on
him comfortably. He's simply interesting to watch behave, even if
i sometimes hate him.

Let's examine possible criteria for good acting again: range,
energy, charisma (i.e. star power), naturalness. There's a lot of
ways to judge. But you could simplify it a bit and say that all
actors appeal in one of two ways: 1) in their ability to be one
specific persona, usually "themselves" ("I can only play Cary
Grant; but I can play him perfectly"),or 2) create a range of
personas, demonstrating both their interpretive skills and
creativity.

Actors can do a bit of both, but most modern actors, particularly
movie actors, and ESPECIALLY movie stars lean heavily towrds
the first. Which leads to the real problems i have with many
movie stars. Casting.

Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, heck, Brittany Murphy, all can vividly
and dynamically perform the tour-de-force performances of Tom
Cruise, Julia Roberts, and Brittany Murphy. The problem is
should they be doing it in that movie? For that script? In my view
of reality, coiffed prettyboy Tom Cruise seems ridiculous as a
battle-worn veteran of the Civil War ("Last Samurai") or a brilliant
law student recruited by all the top firms ("The Firm"). But a smart
director like Paul Thomas Anderson --who by the way has a true
genius for casting-- can harness his energy perfectly as a
misogynistic, "speed seduction" selling t.v. personality.
Cameron Crowe also used him well in Jerry Maguire and Vanilla
Sky. The same case could be made for many movie stars. I
often think we dismiss the star for the vehicle.
14414


From: Hadrian
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:17am
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)
 
This thread really does hark back to the earlier Bad Acting
thread, one that's stayed with me since. Bill's comments about
films as actor-centric to the general populace have stayed with
me in particular. Once I began to accept that the general public
look first to the actors to determine whether they are interested in
the film (or , to be what in my opinion would be more exact, a
kind of internal formula of star * genre/concept), I couldn't help
but think about why some stars "cut it" while others don't.

The real sign of a movies cheapness can often be the lack of a
"star" --which I'm defining as someone you can watch almost
regardless of the quality of the film. Chipmunk boy has it. It's not
always good, and sometimes it's terrible, but a frame can rest on
him comfortably. He's simply interesting to watch behave, even if
i sometimes hate him.

Let's examine possible criteria for good acting again: range,
energy, charisma (i.e. star power), naturalness. There's a lot of
ways to judge. But you could simplify it a bit and say that all
actors appeal in one of two ways: 1) in their ability to be one
specific persona, usually "themselves" ("I can only play Cary
Grant; but I can play him perfectly"),or 2) create a range of
personas, demonstrating both their interpretive skills and
creativity.

Actors can do a bit of both, but most modern actors, particularly
movie actors, and ESPECIALLY movie stars lean heavily towrds
the first. Which leads to the real problems i have with many
movie stars. Casting.

Tom Cruise, Julia Roberts, heck, Brittany Murphy, all can vividly
and dynamically perform the tour-de-force performances of Tom
Cruise, Julia Roberts, and Brittany Murphy. The problem is
should they be doing it in that movie? For that script? In my view
of reality, coiffed prettyboy Tom Cruise seems ridiculous as a
battle-worn veteran of the Civil War ("Last Samurai") or a brilliant
law student recruited by all the top firms ("The Firm"). But a smart
director like Paul Thomas Anderson --who by the way has a true
genius for casting-- can harness his energy perfectly as a
misogynistic, "speed seduction" selling t.v. personality.
Cameron Crowe also used him well in Jerry Maguire and Vanilla
Sky. The same case could be made for many movie stars. I
often think we dismiss the star for the vehicle.
14415


From: Hadrian
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:23am
Subject: The Matthew McConaughey Syndrome (Acting)
 
The performance vs. vehicle issue alse reminds me of a
conversation I had with a friend about how much I wished Ethan
Hawke wasn't in "Before Sunrise". He said Linklater would
always use Hawke, because Hawke would do anything for him,
and it's hard to get cheap star power to be in the kinds of movies
Linklater made.

He said it's the "Keanu Reeves Syndrome": Bad Actor With Good
Taste. Or, The Worst Thing About the Movie is the Only Reason it
Got Made. Keanu Reeves apparently is a very open guy who
was willing to use his star power to make arthouse films, hence
Bertolucci, Coppola, etc., which lead to his often ridiculous
miscasting.

This lead also the contrary problem. Good Actor With Bad Taste.
This he dubbed Matthew McConaughey Syndrome for obvious
reasons. I agreed completely McConaughey is extraordinarily
natural and charismatic, and makes nothing but shit.
14416


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:19pm
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)
 
--- Damien Bona wrote:

> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein

>
> I think the reason Bridges would have worked so well
> is that he
> brings his likability with him into the film, making
> the
> subsequent "zombie-ness" of the character that much
> more unsettling.

If EWS were a Hitchcock film. But it's a Kubrick film
and therefore an emotional connection between the
audience and the characters is a VERY optional extra.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
14417


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)
 
--- Craig Keller wrote:


>
> I think your hatred for Tom Cruise is blinding your
> judgment. Calling
> him "competent" would be a stretch? That would make
> him a step away
> from Justin Guarini, if I'm tracking correctly.
>

For Cruise that would be a step up.


The hickory-dickery-jokery of publicly outing
> Tom Cruise is right
> up there with "let the French take Jerry Lewis" and,
> for that matter,
> "the French don't bathe," in my book.
>

Now THAT'S one I've never heard (having bathed with
several Frenchmen)

And as I've pointed out in a previous post anyone who
questions Mr. Mapother's sexual orientation is risking
a lawsuit. Nothing "hickory-dickery-jokery" about
that.




_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14418


From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:29pm
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> I'm afraid I have to disagree about the recent print of "The Fall of
> the Roman Empire": although the print had some damage, and was also cut
> by over twenty minutes, this was an original IB Technicolor print and
> in this regard it was extraordinary and very instructive as compared to
> the Eastmancolor (?) version of "El Cid". (This was, incidentally,
> Martin Scorsese's print.)

How so?

-Jaime
14419


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 1:48pm
Subject: Re: The_Matthew_McConaughey Syndrome_(Acting)
 
--- Hadrian wrote:


>
> He said it's the "Keanu Reeves Syndrome": Bad Actor
> With Good
> Taste. Or, The Worst Thing About the Movie is the
> Only Reason it
> Got Made. Keanu Reeves apparently is a very open
> guy who
> was willing to use his star power to make arthouse
> films, hence
> Bertolucci, Coppola, etc., which lead to his often
> ridiculous
> miscasting.
>

Keanu is no more "miscast" than Maria Montez was
"miscast." In fact I would goso far as to argue that
Keanu is the male "beat" Maria Montez. His beauty is
so blinding it's rather churlish to ask him to act as
well. Moreover his apparent conviction that he "can"
act creates spectacular results - particularly in
"Bram Stoker's Dracula."

The wise director is the one who "Let's keanu Be
Keanu" as Bertolucci did in "Little Buddha" (keanu at
his most maxfield Parrish gorgeous) and Gus in "My Own
Private Idaho."



> This lead also the contrary problem. Good Actor With
> Bad Taste.
> This he dubbed Matthew McConaughey Syndrome for
> obvious
> reasons. I agreed completely McConaughey is
> extraordinarily
> natural and charismatic, and makes nothing but shit.
>

I find nothing natural or charismatic about him --
save for his off-screen nude bongo playing escapades.
He hasn't gotten much work lately.





__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14420


From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 2:57pm
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:

> example. So I'm not sure age is always a virtue. Could it be that the
> youths on this list are right and that Steven (barf) Spielberg (retch)

I think I've read just about enough from you, Fred. It goes to show,
one doesn't have to be an "authority" to be petulant and condescending.

-Jaime
14421


From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
You apparently missed the intended mix of humor, self-parody, and self
abnegation in my statement about Spielberg. I was parodying my dislike
of him, and I was sincere in suggesting that I could be wrong about his
films.

Fred


>
>
14422


From: Fred Camper
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
Fred Camper wrote:

>You apparently missed the intended mix of humor, self-parody, and self
>abnegation
>
My previous post was addressed to Jaime. For further evidence of my
intent, look at the context of my Spielberg statement. Kevin was
suggesting that age can confer authority, and in the context of my
remarks about Clement Greenberg (who failed to appreciate the great art
in movements, including pop and mimalism/conceptualism, that came after
abstract expressionism) I was trying to indicate that age can have its
problems, that you can get stuck in one aesthetic or aesthetics and fail
to see others.

For example, perhaps a new art is emerging in acting-based TV-parody
postmodern indies, and because of my love of more formal films I'm just
not appreciating them properly. I'm willing to try, time permitting.
When I'm assigned such things to review, I really *do* try. But my time
is limited, and this doesn't mean that faced with a choice of seeing
Anthony Mann's "Men in War" this Thursday or seeing some Spielberg I
haven't seen, I'm not going to choose the Mann. But I'm sincere about
admitting to my own possible limitations.

Fred Camper
14423


From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:52pm
Subject: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
I've already said a lot (probably too much) on Hero, but relevant to
a discussion that's been prominent on this board over the weekend,
I'd like to report that I saw Hero on the big screen after three
viewings at home on VCD, and my opinion of it now stands as it's a
masterpiece, possibly the most complex film Zhang Yimou has ever
made. I maintain that it is no less ambiguous in its sentiment and
treatment of authoritarian rule, and a close viewing will reveal the
cracks in the pro-totalitarian facade that both advocates and
detractors of the film continue to insist is what the film is about.
Zhang Yimou slips away again.

Anyway I've grown tired of countless critics comparing Hero to
Rashomon, when I think that Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible is a far
more fitting point of comparison in terms of what this film is up to
both ideologically and stylistically. I don't know nearly as much
about the historical context (both regarding the subject and the
production) of Eisenstein's IVAN THE TERRIBLE, but it strikes me as a
film that could similarly be conveniently criticized as pro-Stalinist
(at least the first installment), but like HERO, has a lot of
discernible elements that seem to run counter to the ostensible
propaganda. I think Zhang and Eisenstein are in comparable
positions of having to make films within repressive censorial
conditions, forcing them to "encode" whatever subversive or
complicating meanings they may bear underneath the surface. This
purposeful ambiguity makes defending the films on ideological grounds
problematic. Of course both films have tremendous formal and
aesthetic virtues as well -- though both seem to create new genres
whose strangeness can be easily derided as over-exaggerated or
unintentional camp. So even on aesthetic grounds both films present
interpretive challenges.

Anyway, I would appreciate it if people could offer their insights on
Eisenstein's film along these lines. Would you also recommend Yuri
Tsivian's BFI monograph?

Kevin


--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Hadrian" wrote:
> AT the time of my store's newsletter, I asked my brother to do the
> review. He is not really a "film person", but he is very interested
> in Chinese culture. He went to visit, and ended up going native --
> he's been living there the last couple of years. So when he visits
I
> love to get his take on all things Chinese...I'll skip the film
> parts of his review, but here was a paragraph he had on context:
>
> "If your Chinese or a student of Chinese history, the story may
> alienate you with its blatant political slant and extravagant
> glorification of China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang Di. A
ruthless
> tyrant, more cruel than Ghengis Khan, he beat the other 6 kingdoms
> into submission and introduced a harsh legal system to keep the
> people in line. He lived a life of seclusion as he trusted no one
> and was subjected to numerous assasination attempts on his life.
The
> plot of this movie concerns one such imaginary attempt and paints
> the emperor as a scholar and poet who only wants to unify China for
> the good of the people. Under his wise and benificent rule, peace
> will finnally spread through the land. China must be (re)unified
and
> all will be well. Much of the imagery, while rife with metaphor,
> someone more intimate with the genre may find it tired and
> hackneyed. "
14424


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:54pm
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:

> Spot on, Peter. Many of the films I've seen in the recent Anthony
> Mann series I've already seen and either liked or loved on video. But
> seeing them on film has allowed each of them to blossom in a way I'd
> not anticipated: BEND OF THE RIVER, THE MAN FROM LARAMIE, WINCHESTER
> '73, EL CID, and DEVIL'S DOORWAY literally explode when projected
> large and with the detail of at least a halfway-decent print.
> Relatable to the film vs. video discussion, I "sort of liked" THE FALL
> OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE on letterboxed laserdisc, squashed but a very,
> very good video transfer...but I *loved* it on film, even though the
> print was quite bad and seemed warped in places.

Those films are magnificent on the big screen. Unfortunately,
I wasn't able to see several films. I spoke with some people
outside the theater who named as their favorites, "Railroaded"
and "Bamboo Blonde" -- which surprised me since Mann dismissed his
films prior to "T-Men."

I've only seen one of the pre-"T-Men" films, "The Great Flamarion,"
which Mann thought had only Dan Duryea going for it. However,
I thought it was a terrific film.

Maybe this relates to the "good bad acting" thread -- I liked
Erich von Stroheim's performance in "The Great Flamarion," but
Mann didn't think Stroheim could act.

On the other end of Mann's career, I also regret not getting to see
"The Fall of the Roman Empire" again. I liked the film, and I was
in particular curious because the Cahiers du Cinema, which had so
enthusiastically supported Mann in the 1950's, turned against Mann
sharply at the time of "El Cid" and "Roman Empire." Was "Fall of the
Roman Empire" really so bad? Godard's comment was, "Anthony Mann...
was a great director when he was paid by the week and under contract.
Now he makes 'The Fall of the Roman Empire.'"

Incidentally, is "The Fall of the Roman Empire" -- apart
from "Gladiatior..." -- the only Hollywood film to depict a Roman
Emperor, in this case Marcus Aurelius, sympathetically?

Paul
14425


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)
 
Damien Bona wrote:

> I haven't seen Flight Command so I can't say for sure, but this
> description does sound like the MGM soft-focus house style of the 30s
> and 40s, which can be found in almost all of the studio's black-and-
> white releases, whether it's Camille or Tarzan's New York Adventure.

Fred Camper wrote:

> And the description definitely does *not* apply to two Borzages maade a
> few years after he left MGM, "Till We Meet Again" and "Moonrise." So
> even though I think of myself as some sort of uber-autuerusit, I think
> Damien is right here.

Well, there's no doubt that MOONRISE would be a screaming exception to
this rule - I was tempted to say so in my original post. I've seen TILL
WE MEET AGAIN only once: my memory there is of darker images as well,
but I don't recall if it is as contrast-y as MOONRISE.

CAMILLE doesn't have that look, to my mind - my memory is of almost
glittery black and white contrast at times (maybe I'm thinking of Robert
Taylor's suit...but in general I don't find that film to be
un-contrast-y). And the lighting I'm talking about isn't just in
Borzage's MGM films: I think of LITTLE MAN, WHAT NOW?, for instance.
I'd need to think more about the MGM idea before forming an opinion, though.

This is the sort of theorizing that is very hard to do from memory: one
could be thinking of the 5% of a movie that left an impression, and
neglecting the evidence of the other 95%. - Dan
14426


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 3:58pm
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
> But my virulence stems from the social
> inequities of access to pristine film prints. And that is why I am so stubborn
> about not confessing my viewing situations. Yes, I have already tempered my
> viewpoint after reading your very unglamorous tales of trying to see this film or
> that painting. But inequities still exist and I remain passionately against the
> imperative to qualify my opinions in this manner.

Of course, getting to see a particular film at all is a privilege. And
yet we would be forced to qualify the opinions of someone who has not
been privileged to see the film in any form. Maybe there is no good way
to level the playing field here. - Dan
14427


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 4:01pm
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)
 
> But you could simplify it a bit and say that all
> actors appeal in one of two ways: 1) in their ability to be one
> specific persona, usually "themselves" ("I can only play Cary
> Grant; but I can play him perfectly"),or 2) create a range of
> personas, demonstrating both their interpretive skills and
> creativity.
>
> Actors can do a bit of both, but most modern actors, particularly
> movie actors, and ESPECIALLY movie stars lean heavily towrds
> the first.

By "modern," are you referring to today's Hollywood as opposed to the
old studio system? Because I don't think that old Hollywood was less
likely than today's Hollywood to cast in terms of persona. - Dan
14428


From:   Jack Angstreich
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 4:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)
 
There's a complexity of detail, of depth in the colors and in the space
which is visible in original IB prints but which cannot be found in the
Eastmancolor versions of IB films — this aspect of IB may be easier for
anyone to see if they try to pay special attention to discovering what
is distinctive about these prints. Unfortunately, original IB prints
are rarely shown, but I've seen several dozen over the last fifteen
years or more. Also, the colors are (usually) correct: these are the
actual colors the filmmaker was working with - when reproduced in
Eastmancolor, they are almost inevitably somewhat distorted, as was the
case with "El Cid". Martin Scorsese has an IB print of "El Cid" as well
and, at some point in the future, you may get a chance to compare it; I
would expect MoMA or the Walter Reade to eventually show this, or
others of his IB prints considering their relationship with him. You
probably saw his IB print of "Vertigo" at the MoMA recently. MoMA also
has IB prints of "The Godfather" parts I & II, which do get shown.
(Actually some of the release prints of these films still in
distribution are IB.) The inks used in IB Technicolor also don't seem
to fade, so when you see a collector's IB original-release print of one
of the 50s color Sirks for Ross Hunter, you are seeing the actual
colors as preserved across fifty years or so. (Kodachrome - not a
dye-transfer process - is also remarkable in this respect: original
Kodachrome prints also occasionally turn up, especially at Anthology
Film Archives and with some of the prints at the Filmmakers' Co-op.
Anthology has Kodachrome prints of several Markopoulos films although
they have a policy not to show them at present, and some of the early
George Kuchar films like "Hold Me While I'm Naked" have turned up in
Kodachrome.) Fred Camper has spoken more eloquently than I about IB and
its special qualities and I invite him to say more about it. I would
imagine that David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson in their useful "Film
Art: An Introduction" talk about the distinctiveness of IB and
dye-transfer color processes - they also have an invaluable account in
mathematical terms of the inadequacies of video as a reproduction of
film in relation to such variables as range of contrast, amount of
information, and so forth. Be sure to consult the 7th edition.

Jack Angstreich





On Aug 23, 2004, at 9:29 AM, Jaime N. Christley wrote:

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jack Angstreich
wrote:
> I'm afraid I have to disagree about the recent print of "The Fall of
> the Roman Empire": although the print had some damage, and was also
cut
> by over twenty minutes, this was an original IB Technicolor print and
> in this regard it was extraordinary and very instructive as compared
to
> the Eastmancolor (?) version of "El Cid". (This was, incidentally,
> Martin Scorsese's print.)

How so?

-Jaime




Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

ADVERTISEMENT
<81804_0804_c_300250a.gif>


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]
14429


From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Film and Video
 
> As I've said before the Brakhage DVD has opened an
> entirely new audience to his work -- much larger than
> the one he had in his lifetime. Moreover there's
> something rather marvelous about having a Brakhage
> work in this intimate form to look at over and over
> again. I can't help but think it won't aide Brakhage
> appreciation immeasurably.

I'm sympathetic with everything David says here; to put in another way,
what's the conflict, really ?

Sometimes, it has to be looked at on a case by case basis, "video" is
a fluid definition at this point in the technology. I've said before I've
seen "The Dante Quartet" in 35, 16 reduction, and I have the DVD.
35mm trumps all, but *my* experience, not neccessarily someone
elses - of the DVD is equal in what I get from it to the 16mm.

It can depend on the film. I saw the magnificent "The God of Day Had
Gone Down Upon Him" @ Anthology twice last week. This film would
have a hard time on DVD, because the use of space and spatial depth
was so amazing (& in some respects turns over old ideas about
Brakhage in this respect - it would've played quite well with "The
Naked Spur" uptown I suspect) and also because the printstock
technology *at this point* allows the extreme use of dark tones to
be reproduced (he's on the very edge of exposure so often in that
film). Indeed, the screen in the Maya Deren never looked so "big"
to me.

So I would say "God of Day" like the nitrate print of "Day of Wrath"
or the Technicolor IB of "The Conformist" is / would be a torture test for
any electronic system. (But good, we have models to aspire to).

I suspect most of the SRO crowd there Sat night own or have seen the DVD.
No conflict.

>only seeing a video version leaves me with the uneasy feeling that I might be
>missing something crucial.

Having recently switched from cutting a film on film workprint to cutting
on NLE, I've very aware of the "missing something" issue. I can only say
that in some respects I *see more* on the Macintosh than I did on
film editing gear. And although film workprint *projection* gives the
fullest envisioning of photographic intention, A: It's hard to work analytically
& edit with just that ! and B: (FWIW) with a high end telecine, you can actually
capture more of the camera negative's dynamic range than you can with a
contact print.

One might say projection is the experiential tool, computer is the analytical
tool.

Finally, I don't want to sound like a Mac proselytizer but try viewing DVDs
on a Mac TFT display, like the 23" Cinema or the new 30" - with the Mac's
gamma especially, this is a *much* different experience than watching DVD
on a TV.....

-Sam
14430


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:19pm
Subject: Re: The_Matthew_McConaughey Syndrome_(Acting)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Hadrian wrote:
>
> >
> > This lead also the contrary problem. Good Actor With
> > Bad Taste.
> > This he dubbed Matthew McConaughey Syndrome for
> > obvious
> > reasons. I agreed completely McConaughey is
> > extraordinarily
> > natural and charismatic, and makes nothing but shit.

I don't think he's too bright. He really could use a Hawks.
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14431


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:26pm
Subject: Re: Re:_The_Matthew_McConaughey Syndrome_(Acting)
 
--- hotlove666 wrote:


>
> I don't think he's too bright. He really could use a
> Hawks.
> >
> >
>
But he's got a Schumacher.



_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14432


From: samfilms2003
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:31pm
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)
 
I agree Jack.

I have Kodachrome prints of my films from the 70's that look
identical to the way they looked when I picked them up & screened
them at the lab at the time tey were made.

I could've cited Godfather I & II as well as "The Conformist" as "gold
standard" for Tech IB prints.

Re Markopoulos, I haven't seen any of Robert Beaver's restorations but
as for Robert's own work, the 35mm blowups from his 70's material,
shot on Eastman ECO (which I think the Markopoulos films of the 60's
were) are beautiful prints.....35 IN and prints done by John Allen

> they also have an invaluable account in
> mathematical terms of the inadequacies of video as a reproduction of
> film in relation to such variables as range of contrast, amount of
> information, and so forth.

Contact printing and any use of lenses in printing e.g. optical
printing can also effect contrast - lenses especially. As for ammount
of information, *contact* printing looses information as opposed to
high resolution scanning, this has been proven.

All in all, I think that optical blowups etc an still be sharper (see "Monsoon
Wedding" - ignoring the 10% of it done digitally due to Xray damage) but
the gap is closing *very* fast.

Again as I said before, at the contrast of camera negative stocks (perhaps
not true yet for projection contrast reversal materials like Kodachrome -
actually I'm hoping to test this soon) the state of the art in Telecine
transfer not to mention laser scanning yields a greater range dynamic range
than a film print.

I'd like to read their comments though, I'll look out for the book.

-Sam
14433


From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:31pm
Subject: Re:_The_Matthew_McConaughey Syndrome_(Acting)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I don't think he's too bright. He really could use a
> > Hawks.
> > >
> > >
> >
> But he's got a Schumacher.
>

Ouch !
14434


From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:04pm
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
My first two recommendations would be (a) the elaborate audiovisual
essays by Tsivian and Joan Neuberger done for the Criterion DVD--the
best DVD historiography in existence ever done by anyone, in my
opinion, (b) Neuberger's own recently published paperback monograph
on the film. After those two, I'd include Yuri's BFI paperback.


--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
> I've already said a lot (probably too much) on Hero, but relevant
to
> a discussion that's been prominent on this board over the weekend,
> I'd like to report that I saw Hero on the big screen after three
> viewings at home on VCD, and my opinion of it now stands as it's a
> masterpiece, possibly the most complex film Zhang Yimou has ever
> made. I maintain that it is no less ambiguous in its sentiment and
> treatment of authoritarian rule, and a close viewing will reveal
the
> cracks in the pro-totalitarian facade that both advocates and
> detractors of the film continue to insist is what the film is
about.
> Zhang Yimou slips away again.
>
> Anyway I've grown tired of countless critics comparing Hero to
> Rashomon, when I think that Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible is a far
> more fitting point of comparison in terms of what this film is up
to
> both ideologically and stylistically. I don't know nearly as much
> about the historical context (both regarding the subject and the
> production) of Eisenstein's IVAN THE TERRIBLE, but it strikes me as
a
> film that could similarly be conveniently criticized as pro-
Stalinist
> (at least the first installment), but like HERO, has a lot of
> discernible elements that seem to run counter to the ostensible
> propaganda. I think Zhang and Eisenstein are in comparable
> positions of having to make films within repressive censorial
> conditions, forcing them to "encode" whatever subversive or
> complicating meanings they may bear underneath the surface. This
> purposeful ambiguity makes defending the films on ideological
grounds
> problematic. Of course both films have tremendous formal and
> aesthetic virtues as well -- though both seem to create new genres
> whose strangeness can be easily derided as over-exaggerated or
> unintentional camp. So even on aesthetic grounds both films present
> interpretive challenges.
>
> Anyway, I would appreciate it if people could offer their insights
on
> Eisenstein's film along these lines. Would you also recommend Yuri
> Tsivian's BFI monograph?
>
> Kevin
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Hadrian" wrote:
> > AT the time of my store's newsletter, I asked my brother to do
the
> > review. He is not really a "film person", but he is very
interested
> > in Chinese culture. He went to visit, and ended up going native --
> > he's been living there the last couple of years. So when he
visits
> I
> > love to get his take on all things Chinese...I'll skip the film
> > parts of his review, but here was a paragraph he had on context:
> >
> > "If your Chinese or a student of Chinese history, the story may
> > alienate you with its blatant political slant and extravagant
> > glorification of China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang Di. A
> ruthless
> > tyrant, more cruel than Ghengis Khan, he beat the other 6
kingdoms
> > into submission and introduced a harsh legal system to keep the
> > people in line. He lived a life of seclusion as he trusted no one
> > and was subjected to numerous assasination attempts on his life.
> The
> > plot of this movie concerns one such imaginary attempt and paints
> > the emperor as a scholar and poet who only wants to unify China
for
> > the good of the people. Under his wise and benificent rule, peace
> > will finnally spread through the land. China must be (re)unified
> and
> > all will be well. Much of the imagery, while rife with metaphor,
> > someone more intimate with the genre may find it tired and
> > hackneyed. "
14435


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:06pm
Subject: Re:_The_Matthew_McConaughey Syndrome_(Acting)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
>
> >
> > I don't think he's too bright. He really could use a
> > Hawks.
> > >
> > >
> >
> But he's got a Schumacher.

Actually, he was the last of ten or fifteen young actors Budd
Boetticher envisioned to play Cheyenne in A Horse for Mr.
Barnum -- he is a horseman, I gather, and that would have been
(to use Budd's favorite word) a "spectacular" combination.
14436


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:10pm
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
> >
> > Anyway, I would appreciate it if people could offer their
insights
> on
> > Eisenstein's film along these lines. Would you also
recommend Yuri
> > Tsivian's BFI monograph?
> >
> > Kevin
> >
The script is readily available, and the definitive article in French,
if you can find/read it, is by Jean-Pierre Oudart, a long study
published in CdC in 1970, where Lang is discussed in a very
interesting way as an ancestor.
14437


From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 7:57pm
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
Thank you Jonathan, I will definitely seek these out. In the
meantime, do you recall any observations made by Tsivian or Neuberger
relevant to what I've been describing? Was IVAN reviled as Stalinist
propaganda when it first came out? How did its critical reception
evolve over time?

I'm also curious to hear your thoughts on IVAN THE TERRIBLE, since
you put it on your recent top ten list. How do you or how have you
approached such a film as this, and has your approach changed over
the years?

Kevin

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
> My first two recommendations would be (a) the elaborate audiovisual
> essays by Tsivian and Joan Neuberger done for the Criterion DVD--
the
> best DVD historiography in existence ever done by anyone, in my
> opinion, (b) Neuberger's own recently published paperback monograph
> on the film. After those two, I'd include Yuri's BFI paperback.
>
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
> wrote:
> > I've already said a lot (probably too much) on Hero, but relevant
> to
> > a discussion that's been prominent on this board over the
weekend,
> > I'd like to report that I saw Hero on the big screen after three
> > viewings at home on VCD, and my opinion of it now stands as it's
a
> > masterpiece, possibly the most complex film Zhang Yimou has ever
> > made. I maintain that it is no less ambiguous in its sentiment
and
> > treatment of authoritarian rule, and a close viewing will reveal
> the
> > cracks in the pro-totalitarian facade that both advocates and
> > detractors of the film continue to insist is what the film is
> about.
> > Zhang Yimou slips away again.
> >
> > Anyway I've grown tired of countless critics comparing Hero to
> > Rashomon, when I think that Eisenstein's Ivan the Terrible is a
far
> > more fitting point of comparison in terms of what this film is up
> to
> > both ideologically and stylistically. I don't know nearly as
much
> > about the historical context (both regarding the subject and the
> > production) of Eisenstein's IVAN THE TERRIBLE, but it strikes me
as
> a
> > film that could similarly be conveniently criticized as pro-
> Stalinist
> > (at least the first installment), but like HERO, has a lot of
> > discernible elements that seem to run counter to the ostensible
> > propaganda. I think Zhang and Eisenstein are in comparable
> > positions of having to make films within repressive censorial
> > conditions, forcing them to "encode" whatever subversive or
> > complicating meanings they may bear underneath the surface. This
> > purposeful ambiguity makes defending the films on ideological
> grounds
> > problematic. Of course both films have tremendous formal and
> > aesthetic virtues as well -- though both seem to create new
genres
> > whose strangeness can be easily derided as over-exaggerated or
> > unintentional camp. So even on aesthetic grounds both films
present
> > interpretive challenges.
> >
> > Anyway, I would appreciate it if people could offer their
insights
> on
> > Eisenstein's film along these lines. Would you also recommend
Yuri
> > Tsivian's BFI monograph?
> >
> > Kevin
> >
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Hadrian" wrote:
> > > AT the time of my store's newsletter, I asked my brother to do
> the
> > > review. He is not really a "film person", but he is very
> interested
> > > in Chinese culture. He went to visit, and ended up going
native --
> > > he's been living there the last couple of years. So when he
> visits
> > I
> > > love to get his take on all things Chinese...I'll skip the film
> > > parts of his review, but here was a paragraph he had on context:
> > >
> > > "If your Chinese or a student of Chinese history, the story may
> > > alienate you with its blatant political slant and extravagant
> > > glorification of China's first emperor, Qin Shi Huang Di. A
> > ruthless
> > > tyrant, more cruel than Ghengis Khan, he beat the other 6
> kingdoms
> > > into submission and introduced a harsh legal system to keep the
> > > people in line. He lived a life of seclusion as he trusted no
one
> > > and was subjected to numerous assasination attempts on his
life.
> > The
> > > plot of this movie concerns one such imaginary attempt and
paints
> > > the emperor as a scholar and poet who only wants to unify China
> for
> > > the good of the people. Under his wise and benificent rule,
peace
> > > will finnally spread through the land. China must be (re)
unified
> > and
> > > all will be well. Much of the imagery, while rife with
metaphor,
> > > someone more intimate with the genre may find it tired and
> > > hackneyed. "
14438


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:03pm
Subject: Re: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- hotlove666 wrote:


> > >
> The script is readily available, and the definitive
> article in French,
> if you can find/read it, is by Jean-Pierre Oudart, a
> long study
> published in CdC in 1970, where Lang is discussed in
> a very
> interesting way as an ancestor.
>
>
It's indeed quite interesting as Oudart compares and
contrasts "Ivan I and II" to Lang's great diptych "The
Tiger of Eschnapur" and "The Hindu Tomb."

In the past when film critics spoke of Eisenstein they
were talking about "Battleship Potemkin." Few knew
quite what to say when his style changed after sound
came in. But talking about Eisentein at all is
difficult. He was Stalin's favorite filmmaker, and the
fact that he was able to make a film as massive and
expensive as "Ivan" during the war is proof of that.
He wasn't able to complete it because Stalin wasn't
pleased with Part II, we're told -- presumably because
Ivan starts acting like Uncle Joe. But that's
questionable. Being a psychopath, Stalin could have
been set off by anything.

"Ivan" is Eisenstein's best work. But who he was and
what he was doing have been lost to time and history.
Until we have a more thorough accounting of life under
Stalin we have only the myth of the artist. And
Eisentein was an artist and an opportunist.

I wonder what would have happened had he been able to
get a contract with Paramount. Would Stalin have put a
price on his head the way he did Trotsky?

This in turn inspires a Gore Vidal-like daydream of
Alain Delon advancing on Eisenstein with an icepick.





_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Win 1 of 4,000 free domain names from Yahoo! Enter now.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/goldrush
14439


From: Robert Keser
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:07pm
Subject: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, > Damien Bona wrote:
>
> > I haven't seen Flight Command so I can't say for sure, but this
> > description does sound like the MGM soft-focus house style of >
> the 30s and 40s, which can be found in almost all of the studio's
> > black-and-white releases, whether it's Camille or Tarzan's New >
> >York Adventure.

Dan Sallitt wrote:

> CAMILLE doesn't have that look, to my mind - my memory is of
>almost glittery black and white contrast at times (maybe I'm
>thinking of Robert Taylor's suit...but in general I don't find that
> film to be un-contrast-y). And the lighting I'm talking about
> isn't just in Borzage's MGM films: I think of LITTLE MAN, WHAT
>NOW?, for instance.

As I recall, MGM's cinemtaography department was pre-flashing its
film stock with a pearl-like effect starting from the early 1930s,
about the time that Harold Rossen signed on and designed the ultra-
white "look" for Jean Harlow's movies. Someone needs to study this
and find out exactly what years it was used, who could decide to use
plain stock, and such questions.

Camille was largely shot by William Daniels, who was much given to
low contrast (see the even look of Garbo's scene with Lionel
Barrymore, for instance, or the pleasing grays of the death scene).
However, when Daniels took sick, the more adventurous Karl Freund
took over, which might explain the rich blacks of the darkened
bedroom in Taylor's first scene at the party, or the firelit shots
when she visits Taylor in his top-floor digs. The lighting here
looks much more like Freund's work in The Good Earth than Daniels's
work in Anna Karenina.

Norbert Brodine (who also often worked at MGM during the 30s)
photographed Little Man, What Now? and generally seemed to favor a
LOT of light (much more than the significant night sequences Borzage
fashioned in A Farewell to Arms, History Is Made at Night, and
Moonrise).

--Robert Keser
14440


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:21pm
Subject: Re: Re: Borzage, film, video (was Smilin' Through)
 
> Norbert Brodine (who also often worked at MGM during the 30s)
> photographed Little Man, What Now? and generally seemed to favor a
> LOT of light

Yeah, the film has a luminous feeling at times.

>(much more than the significant night sequences Borzage
> fashioned in A Farewell to Arms, History Is Made at Night, and
> Moonrise).

HISTORY has a lot of night sequences, but I don't think of it as a dark
or contrast-y film. One of the things I love about that film is that
the villainous ups and downs of the plot almost demand a certain amount
of expressionism and suspense, and yet Borzage works against that,
moving our focus toward the positive aspirations of the characters. I
can't think of any other movie offhand that uses melodrama in quite the
same way.

In MOONRISE, Borzage seems to be going for expressionist effects more
directly. I've never known quite what to do with the film, maybe for
that reason. - Dan
14441


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:33pm
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> >
> >
> It's indeed quite interesting as Oudart compares and
> contrasts "Ivan I and II" to Lang's great diptych "The
> Tiger of Eschnapur" and "The Hindu Tomb."

Not a comparison that occurs frequently in the Eisenstein
literature, but highly apt.
>

> "Ivan" is Eisenstein's best work.

Welles told some people he hated it, but Dick Wilson was sitting
with hoim at the screening when he first saw it and says he
loved it. I believe he later put it on his ten best list of all time.

>But who he was and
> what he was doing have been lost to time and history.
> Until we have a more thorough accounting of life under
> Stalin we have only the myth of the artist. And
> Eisentein was an artist and an opportunist.

Kevin, if yuou can fight your way upstream to an early thread, I
summarized extensively Pascal Boinitzer's interpretation of The
General Line as a film that renders the truth of Stalinism in the
form of a "delirium" -- "delirer le stalinisme." The isssue of CdC
with all rthe articles on General Line -- Bonitzer, Narboni, Aumont
-- is worth seeking out. It appeared in 1979. I have always
thought that the idea of "delirating" an ideology was a very
interesting approach not only to Eisenstein, but to -- well -- the
German Lang, for instance. A scotch more sophisticated and
director-friendly than Kracauer's.
14442


From: Hadrian
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:35pm
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)
 
> By "modern," are you referring to today's Hollywood as
opposed to the
> old studio system? Because I don't think that old Hollywood
was less
> likely than today's Hollywood to cast in terms of persona. - Dan

I suppose by "modern" i was just being pointlessly wordy, since
to me 20th century is modern. Just bad prose.
14443


From: Hadrian
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:43pm
Subject: Re:_The_Matthew_McConaughey Syndrome_(Acting)
 
> > >
> > > I don't think he's too bright. He really could use a
> > > Hawks.
> > > >
> > > >
I do know he more or less improvised the part in Dazed and
Confused as the 20-somthing still chasing high school skirts,
and it's one of the highlights of the movie...at the time, i
remember thinking, "that guys gonna be a star". i also heard he
was a law student, but I don't really know much about him as a
person.

And yes, I think the best place for him, would be a Hawks
comedy.
14444


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:47pm
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:

>
> In the past when film critics spoke of Eisenstein they
> were talking about "Battleship Potemkin." Few knew
> quite what to say when his style changed after sound
> came in. But talking about Eisentein at all is
> difficult. He was Stalin's favorite filmmaker, and the
> fact that he was able to make a film as massive and
> expensive as "Ivan" during the war is proof of that.
> He wasn't able to complete it because Stalin wasn't
> pleased with Part II, we're told -- presumably because
> Ivan starts acting like Uncle Joe. But that's
> questionable.

There's a translation of Stalin's meeting with Eisenstein
here, from Mar'iamov's "Kremlevskii tsenzor."

http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/ivant.htm

Paul
14445


From: Michael Worrall
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:57pm
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:


"I think Zhang and Eisenstein are in comparable
positions of having to make films within repressive censorial
conditions, forcing them to "encode" whatever subversive or
complicating meanings they may bear underneath the surface."

Though not under conditions of such a degree, could this not also
apply to filmmakers working under the Hayes code?

Michael Worrall
14446


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 8:57pm
Subject: Re: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- Paul Gallagher wrote:


>
> There's a translation of Stalin's meeting with
> Eisenstein
> here, from Mar'iamov's "Kremlevskii tsenzor."
>
>
http://www.revolutionarydemocracy.org/rdv3n2/ivant.htm
>


Truly hilarious. I'd love to see this scene (its
dialogue "fact-based" as they say on TV these days)
performed by a trio of actors.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14447


From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:14pm
Subject: new art is emerging
 
How real is this perhaps? I'm content with older (more formal) films,
but do appreciate that cinema may be undergoing a change. It is
more than of passing interest when considering how to write a
screenplay.



Garden State has gotten a variety of reviews, mostly positive (40-100
on METACRITIC. I found the film representative of TV slice of the
moment story-telling and pointed out to a friend that inside the
book-ends,
many of the scenes could have occurred in any order and the story
would not have changed much.

GARDEN STATE is a major achievement for the film-makers in that it
was made on a rather small budget.

Interesting that the local AMC is offering screenings of EVERGREEN
(an INDIE movie) with a $2.00 discount. I know nothing about this
movie,
EVERGREEN, but this is the first time I have seen differential pricing
for
a screening (other than the usual student, senior, matinee discounts).

>>> AMC is proud to present a special Labor Day weekend sneak
>>> preview of Evergreen, an official selection of the 2004 Sundance
>>> Film Festival Dramatic Competition... you'll receive a special $2.00
>>> discount on every Evergreen ticket purchased.


> From Fred
> For example, perhaps a new art is emerging in acting-based TV-parody
> postmodern indies, and because of my love of more formal films I'm just
> not appreciating them properly. I'm willing to try, time permitting.
14448


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:15pm
Subject: Re: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- Michael Worrall
wrote:


>
> Though not under conditions of such a degree, could
> this not also
> apply to filmmakers working under the Hayes code?
>

Not to the saem degree. Sex can be finessed in any
number of subtle ways. History is far more cumbersome.






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - 100MB free storage!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14449


From: Kevin Lee
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:17pm
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
I'm certainly open to the idea, but can you think of instances that
would be particularly useful to compare to either of these films?

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Worrall"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
> wrote:
>
>
> "I think Zhang and Eisenstein are in comparable
> positions of having to make films within repressive censorial
> conditions, forcing them to "encode" whatever subversive or
> complicating meanings they may bear underneath the surface."
>
> Though not under conditions of such a degree, could this not also
> apply to filmmakers working under the Hayes code?
>
> Michael Worrall
14450


From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:25pm
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE
 
In case you are not familiar with this wonderful web site

http://myweb.tiscali.co.uk/filmdirectors/Eastwood-Eustache.htm

has some Eisenstein's reference available on the net.

I always go to criterion as some of their essays are available on the
net also.
14451


From: Michael Worrall
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:30pm
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
> I'm certainly open to the idea, but can you think of instances
that
> would be particularly useful to compare to either of these films?

I was only suggesting that situations in which filmmakers have to
encode their images have existed outside of the model you are
speaking of. Not that they have to be considered or compare to the
two films.

And David, I think the Hayes code supressed more than sex and that a
lot more was "coded" than sex.

Michael Worrall
14452


From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: IVAN THE TERRIBLE
 
> Thank you Jonathan, I will definitely seek these out.

Just as a side-note, I want to second Jonathan's pointing you toward
the Tsivian/Neuberger analyses on the Criterion discs. They're
incredibly illuminating, and reinforce the fact that it helps to see a
film four, five, ten times and more before you crack the surface. For
myself, it pointed out the fact that for this grand director of
"gesture" (these films tie in neatly with the discussion re: 'Hero' and
some of the Hu / Chang films discussed here about a week or so back,
probably as the apotheosis of the idea), it was foolish of me not to
pay more attention to the bodily expression and blocking than I had
previously done the first two times I saw the films. These analyses
(and even Bordwell's commentary on the 'Aleksandr Nevsky' disc) taken
together really serve to underscore the idea that in the later films,
Eisenstein had moved on to a new kind of "memory montage."

craig.
14453


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- Michael Worrall
wrote:


>
> And David, I think the Hayes code supressed more
> than sex and that a
> lot more was "coded" than sex.
>

What were you thinking about precisely in this regard?
Sex covers a LOT of territory.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14454


From: Michael Worrall
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:56pm
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
>
>
> What were you thinking about precisely in this regard?
> Sex covers a LOT of territory.


Well, to you it does. I wish I would have trusted my gut instinct
and not have responded to you defining the encoding of images
specifically to sex, because I fear a backlash coming. (Even posting
this I believe will get a damning comment.)
14455


From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 9:57pm
Subject: Re: The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial (was Further Reading...)
 
> I looked it was an impossible film to see for legal reasons.
>
> Correction taken. How about The Sniper?

Christ in Concrete is now out on DVD with audio-commenatry by Norma
Barzman and others.

Tony Williams
14456


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:09pm
Subject: TRAFIC #50
 
The Summer 2004 issue of TRAFIC (#50) is a huge 600 page volume,
dealing -- loosely -- with the "question" "Qu'est-ce que le cinema?"I
recommend it highly to those in the Group who read French. By the
way, no less than four of the members of "a_film_by" contributed
articles: Tag Gallagher, Bill Krohn, Adrian Martin and Jonathan
Rosenbaum (all too modest to brag about it here, I'm sure). Some of
the articles , including Jonathan's, have some relevance to the great
over-the-weekend video controversy.
14457


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- Michael Worrall
wrote:


>
>
> Well, to you it does. I wish I would have trusted
> my gut instinct
> and not have responded to you defining the encoding
> of images
> specifically to sex, because I fear a backlash
> coming. (Even posting
> this I believe will get a damning comment.)
>
>

No damnation scene (a la "The band Wagon") coming from
this quarter. The Hays code was specifically about
sex. Many other things about life as it's lived by
actual people were kept out of Hollywood movies as
well. But was this the result of specific codes or
part of a shared ideology? What do you think?






__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14458


From: Michael Worrall
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:23am
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> No damnation scene (a la "The band Wagon") coming from
> this quarter. The Hays code was specifically about
> sex. Many other things about life as it's lived by
> actual people were kept out of Hollywood movies as
> well. But was this the result of specific codes or
> part of a shared ideology? What do you think?


Okay, your reference made me smile -- I love that film -- but I never
thought of the Hayes Code as exclusively concerned about sex. I know
violence and language was mixed in there, I have always though that
violence replaces sex in American cinema. (Ken Russell said: "You can
be as violent as you want in films in this country, but the minute you
talk about sex everyone reaches for their chastity belt.") Being a
lapsed Catholic, I know the church is interested in more than just
suppressing sex, but I digress-- so I may need to take a look at the
Hayes code itself.

Your question about codes and shared ideology is very interesting for
me, but I am right in a middle of a move so further discussion will
have to wait. I'd like to suggest that perhaps Hollywood is the best
censor of itself --it doesn't need a dictator or fascist regime-- in
regards to politics. "Forest Gump", a product of the Clinton era, and
"Mississippi Burning" jump to my mind as "whitewashes of history while
playing to please the American public read: whites.

I am bringing this up because what Kevin is talking about in "Hero" and
"Ivan the Terrible" happens with other filmmakers and their films, but
not under those specific circumstances.

Michael Worrall
14459


From: Michael Worrall
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:27am
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael Worrall"

Sorry this part should read:
I'd like to suggest that perhaps Hollywood is the best
censor of itself --it doesn't need a dictator or fascist regime-- in
regards to history. "Forest Gump", a product of the Clinton era, and
"Mississippi Burning" jump to my mind as "whitewashes of history while
playing to please the American public read: whites.

Michael Worrall
14460


From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:40am
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
Although the Production Code was more about sex and vulgarity than
anything else, it also was pretty bent out of shape about violence
and the Criminal Element:

General Principles

1. No picture shall be produced that will lower the moral standards
of those who see it. Hence the sympathy of the audience should never
be thrown to the side of crime, wrongdoing, evil or sin.

2. Correct standards of life, subject only to the requirements of
drama and entertainment, shall be presented.

3. Law, natural or human, shall not be ridiculed, nor shall sympathy
be created for its violation.

Particular Applications

I. Crimes Against the Law
These shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy
with the crime as against law and justice or to inspire others with a
desire for imitation.

1. Murder

a. The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not
inspire imitation.

b. Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail.

c. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified.

2. Methods of Crime should not be explicitly presented.

a. Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines,
buildings, etc., should not be detailed in method.

b. Arson must subject to the same safeguards.

c. The use of firearms should be restricted to the essentials.

d. Methods of smuggling should not be presented.

3. Illegal drug traffic must never be presented.

4. The use of liquor in American life, when not required by the plot
or for proper characterization, will not be shown.

--------------------------
It also dealt with Religion:
No film or episode may throw ridicule on any religious faith.

Ministers of religion in their character as ministers of religion
should not be used as comic characters or as villains.

Ceremonies of any definite religion should be carefully and
respectfully handled.

And "National Feelings":
The use of the Flag shall be consistently respectful.

The history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry of other
nations shall be represented fairly.
--------------------------------
There was also a catch-all category of "Repellent Subjects":
The following subjects must be treated within the careful limits of
good taste:
1. Actual hangings or electrocutions as legal punishments for crime.
2. Third degree methods.
3. Brutality and possible gruesomeness.
4. Branding of people or animals.
5. Apparent cruelty to children or animals.
6. The sale of women, or a woman selling her virtue.
7. Surgical operations.

You can see it in its entirety at
http://www.artsreformation.com/a001/hays-code.html



--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- Michael Worrall
> wrote:
>
>
> >
> > And David, I think the Hayes code supressed more
> > than sex and that a
> > lot more was "coded" than sex.
> >
>
> What were you thinking about precisely in this regard?
> Sex covers a LOT of territory.
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
> http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14461


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:44am
Subject: Re: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- Michael Worrall
"Forest Gump", a product of
> the Clinton era, and
> "Mississippi Burning" jump to my mind as
> "whitewashes of history while
> playing to please the American public read: whites.
>

Those are great examples.

According to "Forrest Gump" anti-war protest caused
promiscuity and AIDS.

"Mississippi Burning" is even more egregious in that
it makes the FBI the heories of the CivilRightts
movement. The fact is Hoover was a racist and there is
considerable eveidence of collusion between the FBI
and the Klan -- especially as relating to the
assassination of Martin Luther King.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail is new and improved - Check it out!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14462


From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:02am
Subject: Re: The Matthew McConaughey Syndrome (Acting)
 
-- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Hadrian" wrote:
> The performance vs. vehicle issue alse reminds me of a
> conversation I had with a friend about how much I wished Ethan
> Hawke wasn't in "Before Sunrise". He said Linklater would
> always use Hawke, because Hawke would do anything for him,
> and it's hard to get cheap star power to be in the kinds of movies
> Linklater made.

You're kidding, right? Ethan Hawke is an incredibly accomplished and
versatile actor – I don't think anyone else could have quite brought
off the mixture of sensitivity, ego, longing, self-awareness, pride
and humor that he conveys in Before Sunset. And haven't you seen him
as the amoral druggy sleaze in Linklater's Tape? An astonishingly
convincing performance, and amazingly this is the same actor who was
the painfully shy preppy in Dead Poets Society, the emblematic 90s
slacker in Reality Bites, and the incurable romantic of Great
Expectations and Snow Falling On Cedars (no one plays romance
yearning these days like Hawke). In terms of pure acting ability,
just think of his tour de force scene in Training Day when he's being
held at gunpoint in the bathtub about to lose his life. Comedy? --
his boisterous performance in Linklater's Newton Boys is a joy to
behold -- especially compared to the reptilian Matthew McConaughey
dour presence. (There's a reason why Linklater has worked again and
again with Hawke and not McCanofpeas.) The only actor of his
generation who can compare to Hawke in terms of range and ability is
Christian Bale – I hope that someday they play brothers in a movie.
14463


From:
Date: Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:14pm
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
Yes, Fred, I did take the hint that you think I have seriously
mischaracterized what you wrote (gulp!) five years ago. But I still don't think I have that
much because I still feel defensive after reading your last post. Take this
sentence:
" If you later saw the whole thing and your preliminary opinion was
unchanged, fine again, but as with the film you can't know that in advance."

It's that "in advance" that gets under my skin and recalls Coursodon's "how
long are you going to suspend judgment?" In advance of what, Fred? What is "the
whole thing?" The letterbox video? The crappy print I saw in Montréal? That
damn goddamn collector (oh reading that word just positively boiled my blood!)
IB TVC15 frozen with Disney Technicolor print 99% of us schleps are never
going to get to see? (And all I'm saying with the term "city bigotry" is that we
all have to visit if not move to a Chicago or a Paris to see one or improve our
chances that we will see one.) Presume. Advance. Suspension. Do you get the
language here? They all suggest a time in the future, an obstacle I have to
overcome.

Before what, though? That's the fundamental question here. Before I "talk,"
of course, before I engage in some sort of discourse on Imitation of Life. In
1999, I admit that I didn't have the confidence or the authority or whatever to
presume to talk about it. And that's no doubt why I took your post so hard.
But since then, I have gained at least confidence in my engagement with film
discourse and that screening in Montréal played no small role in that
development. I half expected the film print to place Sarah Jane clear on the other side
of the frame. Needless to say, that didn't happen. But oddest of all, I just
looked at my crappy non-letterboxed video and Sarah Jane's placement isn't
really changed. So perhaps I should have written "Sarah Jane's placement in
relation to other characters." Because that's what I'm concerned with and that just
hasn't changed that much if at all. Letterbox merely allowed me to see a tad
more of the set. But sheesh, even some production stills maintain the kind of
relationship I'm talking about. And thus I find it damn near impossble to
believe that a collector scum print has such gorgeous textures that it's going to
even partially shift Sarah Jane's spatial relationship to the other characters.


So, in sum, I could have presumed all along to talk about Sarah Jane etc.
which I know is my baggage, not yours. And in the end, I look at all the things
that needed to be in the place, the privileges if you will, for me to see a
film print IOL in Montréal and all the things that need to be place for me to see
the collector jerk-off print and conclude that seeing film on film just
cannot ever be an imperative with me. If I do get that chance to see a pristine
print of IOL, will I pass it up? Of course not. But I'm not going to place that
much significance on the matter.

See, if I saw a rare pristine print of any film and it changed my view of the
film, I would almost not want to air my opinions to colleagues or this list
or friends or whoever. And if I did, my mourning their inability to share the
experience with me would necessarily overshadow any transcendence I received
myself. For what good would it do to instill this sense that they missed out on
a once in a lifetime experience?

And really, how useful would my conclusions about this pristine print be?
Since crappy prints and videos and reproductions circulate more than the auratic
originals or pristine prints, shouldn't we concentrate on these "unreal" and
devalued forms more? I'm not saying a confrontation with the original or the
pristine print can tell us nothing nor that I never want to hear about them. I
enjoyed your story about how you arrived early and ran ahead of the crowd to
see the Sistine Chapel (I think - I may have butchered all that). But I'm not
sure what to "do" with that information. I'm inevitably going to have to turn
back to the reproduction.

Kevin John


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14465


From: iangjohnston
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:37am
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
> My first two recommendations would be (a) the elaborate
audiovisual
> essays by Tsivian and Joan Neuberger done for the Criterion DVD--
the
> best DVD historiography in existence ever done by anyone, in my
> opinion, (b) Neuberger's own recently published paperback
monograph
> on the film. After those two, I'd include Yuri's BFI paperback.

The Neuberger book is in a series of books ("KinoFiles") devoted to
Russian/Soviet cinema which I haven't come across before. Anyone
have any further recommendations from this series?

Ian
14466


From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:41am
Subject: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> I think your hatred for Tom Cruise is blinding your judgment.
>Calling him "competent" would be a stretch? That would make him a
step away from Justin Guarini, if I'm tracking correctly.

I've never heard of Justin Guarini, but I would say that among actors
of his generation (born in the early-to-mid 60s) Cruise is of the
same pedigree as Judd Nelson rather than Johnny Depp or John Cusack.

My dislike for Tom Cruise is not coloring my judgment. You have it
backwards -- it's his one-note acting and oleaginous screen presence
that has made me dislike him over the years.


> What facet of the character am I overlooking that will illuminate
>me on the matter of Stanley Kubrick miscasting his lead?

Well, number one is that on screen Cruise never seems lie someone who
has lived life or felt any deep emotions. I also never bought him as
a rich, society doctor. I don't know the back story of Eyes Wide
Shut but I would imagine that Kubrick's casting of Mr. and Mrs. C.
was primarily to help ensure financial backing.

>And how can you adore the film and find it mesmerizing, but find
>serious, incompetent
> fault in the lead actor who graces almost every scene?

You've never loved a film without recognizing certain flaws in it,
including casting? The most-cited example is Martine Carrol in Lola
Montes. Mann's Devil's Doorway is a great film despite have totem
pole Robert Taylor as a centerpiece. Robert Cummings is no one's idea
of a great leading man, but there he is in Saboteur and there it is a
wonderful movie. All About Eve would have worked better with a less
hard-edged Eve than Anne Baxter (Jeanne Crain perhaps)

>
> Frank DeCaro knows fuck-all about cinema. Plus he's one of those
> "everything is for me to poop on" comedians that go for cheap
laughs
> and play up to audience prejudices and predispositions -- who
enrage
> me.

One man's opinion. But I will mention that Kent Jones -- who does
know "fuck-all about cinema" was a co-writer of De Caro's, including
if memory serves, on the show from which I quoted.

>The hickory-dickery-jokery of publicly outing Tom Cruise is right
> up there with "let the French take Jerry Lewis" and, for that
matter,
> "the French don't bathe," in my book.
>
As David has pointed out, it is Cruise who has made a big deal of the
outing jokes. Other actors who have been treated in a similar vein
just shrug it off: Richard Gere, Keanu Reeves, Jack Elam, even
fellow Scientologist John Travolta.
14467


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:58am
Subject: Re: Re: The Matthew McConaughey Syndrome (Acting)
 
> You're kidding, right? Ethan Hawke is an incredibly accomplished and
> versatile actor

I must admit that I too have a lot of trouble with Hawke, and have heard
a lot of negative comments about his acting style from others. But I do
appreciate his taste. Another worthy film that he allegedly helped to
get made is Almereyda's HAMLET. - Dan
14468


From: iangjohnston
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:08am
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> "Ivan" is Eisenstein's best work. But who he was and
> what he was doing have been lost to time and history.
> Until we have a more thorough accounting of life under
> Stalin we have only the myth of the artist. And
> Eisentein was an artist and an opportunist.
>
Given the system he was working within (with constraints and demands
far more severe than Chinese directors have to cope with today) I'm
not sure how apt it is to call Eisenstein an "opportunist",
especially as his "opportunism" didn't seem to lead to any kind of
smooth career as a filmmaker. The likes of, say, Mikhail Romm and
Mark Donskoy had a far smoother time of it.

Zhang Yimou is a different matter. Why else, after almost 20 years
of filmmaking BUT in the wake of the Western success of CROUCHING
TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, does he turn for the first time to making
wuxiapian? A pretty strong case of career opportunism, I'd say.

Yes, Eisenstein was an artist; maybe an opportunist; but also very
definitely an intellectual who thought long and hard over the
meaning of Cinema. A comparison with Zhang and HERO seems to me to
be a bit overdetermined.

Ian
14469


From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:10am
Subject: Ethan Hawke SNOW FALLING on CEDARS
 
I agree with your comment about EH

I thought Snow Falling on Cedars was the sequel to
TO KILL A MOCKINGBIRD. Ethan's character is
JEM FINCH all growed up, (even with a lame arm as I
remember it) trying to be Atticus... even to the point of
saying something like "half the man my father was."

> Damien Bona wrote
> the incurable romantic of Great Expectations and Snow
> Falling On Cedars (no one plays romance yearning these
> days like Hawke).
14470


From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:58am
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
Kevin, I'm not sure that we disagree all that much. I thought I made it
clear that I *do* think you can comment on the placement of Sarah Jane
in relation to the other characters in "Imitation of Life" from watching
a letterboxed video, and that my response of five years ago was based on
my notion that you were watching a cropped video. And as I also recently
wrote, in "normal" film discourse, including much of what is written on
this board, people don't assume they even have to mention that whether
they've seen something on film or on video. I understand, as Zach does,
that the things I most value in film are not most valued by others, and
therefore others don't care about this as much as I do As I've also
said, many films come through strongly on video; many times my viewings
of pristine prints have been imperfect or ruined due to a bad mood,
inattention, whatever. At the extremes -- the 1.33TV version of the
'Scope film "The Tarnished Angels" I once saw, with cuts where there
were no cuts to keep characters centered -- the film is virtually
destroyed. For the majority of films, something of them, including some
things that I like about them, survives video. If my attitudes about
this bother you so much, just ignore them; very few people agree with me
anyway.

As to what you're to do with "that information," traveling isn't all
that impossible. If you're in a really low income situation, maybe you
can think about ways to improve your income in the long term. You don't
have to move to Paris, but most Americans earning a middle-of-the-road
income could afford a few weeks there, by saving on other things. Rome
(and you do remember my Sistine Chapel story right), likewise, though
the film viewing situation there isn't so great. And Chicago is much
cheaper. And by the way, that Brakhage screenings you asked me about,
assuming it was private, in Chicago? Your query sounded vaguely
resentful, at least to my ears. I remembered that in fact it was
announced to this group, and everyone was invited, 19 days in advance of
the actual event, to give people time to plan. And it was on a Saturday
night, so that people could have attended.

I think you do have a point, though, if you're being made to feel
unequal in the discourse, at least by me, for not having seen things on
film. I'll try to be more careful in the future. But this is also an
issue I care about. On the other hand, very few others care about it as
much as I do, so I don't think you should let it bother you all that
much. In time you'll get to compare more films you love in good prints
and in video, and decide even better for yourself (the bad print of
"Imitation" is not a fair comparison) whether I'm full of bull or not.

Fred Camper
14471


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:15am
Subject: Kevin vs Fred
 
I have been following this thread with fascinated interest, not only
because the subject is central to what is happening to "cinema" these
days, but because, in a somewhat off-topic way, it is so richly
revealing about the psychological, emotional subtext of intellectual
exchanges such as the ones going on here. I don't want to take sides
in the debate, I think Fred is basically right the way purists often
are, but I also understand Kevin's mounting and constantly refuelled
rage -- it is the rage (keeping things in perspective) of the
downtrodden, the underdog, the underprivileged, and Fred's responses,
no matter how well-meaning, tend to sound like "Let them eat cake"
(or wait for cake to be available). Having lived the first 30 years
of my life in Paris and the next 25 or so in New York, I was always
acutely aware of being privileged in many ways culturally, and
especially as far as access to film was concerned. Few, if any, of
the books I have written could have been written without such access.
And of course "American Directors" and before it "30 ans", and the
Keaton book and others, were exclusively based on the viewing of 35mm
or sometimes 16mm prints, not video (which did not exist at the time,
except TV) although we did watch a lot of films on video later
for "50 ans". I suspect that if I were in Kevin's shoes I'd probably
feel as frustrated as he does at Fred's attitude.

Just a remark on Fred's "poetry int translation" analogy. I don't
think it is appropriate, because reading poetry in translation is not
at all like watching film on video -- it's more like reading a
synopsis of the film's plot instead of seeing the film. If the
translator is very talended the result may be a different work of
art, but it has hardly anything to do with the original work, aside
from subject matter. What you miss in translated poetry is about 99%
of the original. I don't think you could say that of film on video.

JP
14472


From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:04am
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)
 
> I've never heard of Justin Guarini, but I would say that among actors
> of his generation (born in the early-to-mid 60s) Cruise is of the
> same pedigree as Judd Nelson rather than Johnny Depp or John Cusack.

And I would disagree -- but to each his own. (I think Cusack's okay,
but Cruise is much better. Depp -- I would like to see him in
different roles and movies, but he's very good. Judd Nelson -- no.)

If you haven't heard of Justin Guarini, you are lucky. But if you're
ready to come face to face, clicken Sie hier:

http://www.justinguariniweb.com/

> Well, number one is that on screen Cruise never seems lie someone who
> has lived life or felt any deep emotions. I also never bought him as
> a rich, society doctor. I don't know the back story of Eyes Wide
> Shut but I would imagine that Kubrick's casting of Mr. and Mrs. C.
> was primarily to help ensure financial backing.

Kubrick had financial backing from WB no matter what film he wanted to
make next (Kubrick's relationship with Warner Bros. was unique, even
upon surveying the whole history of American big studio-director ties
-- the closest comparison would be Welles and 'Citizen Kane' with RKO)
-- however, he himself wanted to do big box-office. He considered the
Cruise-Kidman-Kubrick combo a superstar package, and by all rights, it
should have been (even was, if we don't forget the film's first-week
business -- not stellar, but still #1 with a bullet, and of course it
made its money back and went on to gross even more overseas). But he
wasn't about to cast Cruise just for his name -- he thought he'd be
perfect for the part and, to my mind, he was. (Footnote: The "Cruise /
Kidman / Kubrick" trailer/spot campaign was Kubrick's design -- he
controlled the marketing campaigns of all his films post-'Lolita,'
which again, is unprecedented in this neck of the woods. Quiz
Question: What film has the greatest trailer of all time? Answer: 'The
Shining.')

> You've never loved a film without recognizing certain flaws in it,
> including casting? The most-cited example is Martine Carrol in Lola
> Montes. Mann's Devil's Doorway is a great film despite have totem
> pole Robert Taylor as a centerpiece. Robert Cummings is no one's idea
> of a great leading man, but there he is in Saboteur and there it is a
> wonderful movie. All About Eve would have worked better with a less
> hard-edged Eve than Anne Baxter (Jeanne Crain perhaps)

If you say you love it despite Cruise, I believe you. And of course
I've loved certain films while recognizing their flaws -- take Rod
Taylor in 'The Birds' for example. He's good, but he's not great --
but it's still a masterpiece. In regard to 'Lola Montès'/'Lola
Montez,' I don't have a problem with Martine Carol in that film. I'm
with you about Anne Baxter in 'Eve' though.

> One man's opinion. But I will mention that Kent Jones -- who does
> know "fuck-all about cinema" was a co-writer of De Caro's, including
> if memory serves, on the show from which I quoted.

Well, I love Kent Jones (not literally, folks!!), but 'Il mio viaggio
in Italia' is pretty crap, in my opinion.

As a side-note -- someone mentioned their seeing 'Vertigo' for the
first time and their movie-mate being disappointed at the abruptness of
the ending. My similar recent experience, springboarding from 'Il mio
viaggio,' is that I've watched 'La Strada' (on DVD!) on two separate
occasions, once with each of my parents. At the end of both viewings,
the present parent said, "That's the end?" I believe my mother's
reaction was (verbatim) -- "That's it, that's the end? ... She
should've poisoned him." (then got up and walked away)

> As David has pointed out, it is Cruise who has made a big deal of the
> outing jokes. Other actors who have been treated in a similar vein
> just shrug it off: Richard Gere, Keanu Reeves, Jack Elam, even
> fellow Scientologist John Travolta.

I don't care what Cruise thinks (though I find his trigger-hair
litigiousness in[s]ane), I think it's a dumb, cliché, easy
laugh-subject. But that's how comedians work their way up the
nightclub ladder to tele-stardom in this business, by coddling the
audience instead of fighting them -- make the audience feel like
they're "in this together" with the comedian, big invisible group hug.
What would be really radical is if DeCaro made everyone who wanted to
high-five each other at the proclamation "Cruise is probably a fag!"
feel like an idiot.

cmk.
14473


From:
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:12am
Subject: R.I.P. Daniel Petrie
 
I just read that Daniel Petrie has passed away:

http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5800934/

I still can't claim to have seen anything like a majority of this director's
films, but I have seen a few on the recommendation of our own Dan Sallitt. Of
those, the quite excellent feature "Lifeguard" is the finest. At his best,
it seems to me that Petrie was a distinctive filmmaker.

Peter
14474


From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:20am
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
In the
> meantime, do you recall any observations made by Tsivian or
Neuberger
> relevant to what I've been describing? Was IVAN reviled as
Stalinist
> propaganda when it first came out? How did its critical reception
> evolve over time?
>
> I'm also curious to hear your thoughts on IVAN THE TERRIBLE, since
> you put it on your recent top ten list. How do you or how have
you
> approached such a film as this, and has your approach changed over
> the years?
>
> Kevin

An important distinction has to be made between Parts I (approved by
Stalin) and II (banned by Stalin). Both parts were widely reviled as
Stalinist in the west when they came out, but part of what's so eye-
opening about the DVD material by Tsivian and Neuberger is to show
so many different and relevant influences and aspects that
calling "it" simply Stalinist or anti-Stalinist is quite inadequate.
Personally, I've always loved the film--even though I partly love it
as something monstrous and campy (let's call it the greatest Flash
Gordon movie ever made). But thanks to this new scholarship, I now
view it as one of the most courageous and audacious ever made, and
certainly a far cry from the capitulation and self-abnegation that
Noel Burch accused it of being in Roud's CRITICAL DICTIONARY OF THE
CINEMA. I also think it's a textually rich as late Joyce, and
calling attention to references to specific artworks, Eisenstein's
own autobiography, and contemporary events as well as history--as
well as intricate internal rhymes--are part of what's so strong and
convincing in the Criterion commentaries. In short, I think it's a
work we're only just beginning to properly appreciate and
understand.
14475


From: J. Mabe
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:56am
Subject: Re: L' Avventura, was: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)
 
--- Craig Keller wrote:
> As a side-note -- someone mentioned their seeing
> 'Vertigo' for the
> first time and their movie-mate being disappointed
> at the abruptness of
> the ending. My similar recent experience,
> springboarding from 'Il mio
> viaggio,' is that I've watched 'La Strada' (on DVD!)
> on two separate
> occasions, once with each of my parents. At the end
> of both viewings,
> the present parent said, "That's the end?" I
> believe my mother's
> reaction was (verbatim) -- "That's it, that's the
> end? ... She
> should've poisoned him." (then got up and walked
> away)

I don’t have anything to say about these actors
really, except that I can’t stand John Cusack, but
love his sis. But this reminds me of one of my
favorite movie screening (on badly projected video, LD
specifically) stories. I was showing L' Avventura for
a film club I started at the first college I attended
(a small Southern university). I filled out some
paperwork so the screening got counted as a ‘cultural
event,’ a certain number of which freshman are
required to attend. Because of this, I had a number
of folks in the audience who wouldn’t have come
otherwise. As the movie ends, one of the students
pops out of his seat and shouts in a high pitched,
very Southern accent, “What the fuck! Is there a La
Avventura 2?” I talked to him for a while about it,
and it turns out he liked the flick, but he’s still
probably really pissed about that ending to this day.

Josh Mabe



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 50x more storage than other providers!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14476


From: Aaron Graham
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:18am
Subject: Re: R.I.P. Daniel Petrie
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I just read that Daniel Petrie has passed away:
>
> http://msnbc.msn.com/id/5800934/

This is some sad news indeed. I'm actually from the same hometown as
he and would pass by the house he lived in nearly everyday on my way
to school. He came back in 1984 to film "The Bay Boy", literally
across the street from my parent's home.

I'm a big fan of "Fort Apache, The Bronx", now I'll have to check
out "Lifeguard" upon Peter's recommendation.

=Aaron
14477


From: Hadrian
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:19am
Subject: Re: The Matthew McConaughey Syndrome (Acting)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > You're kidding, right?

No, I wasn't kidding at all. In fact, while I'm not surprised someone likes his
performances, I'm surprised you haven't heard from many people who haven't. In my small
circle of friends, his acting was just generally accepted as affected and poor--so i just
assumed he wasn't too well thought of in general (as Dan Sallitt seems to remember too).
He always very much reminds me of an actor. It's hard to imagine him doing much else
(though he did write a book...that i didn't think was very good). Yes, i've heard the
occasional contrary opinion, but it's much like someone defending Keanu Reeves --they
kind of knew the crowd was against them. Protesting too loudly, and such. I accept Hawke
as a sincere actor, who tries, even if i don't much care about the results --in Before
Sunrise, I just didn't believe those words were his. This is often the case for me.
14478


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:32am
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
-- In --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> Although the Production Code was more about sex and vulgarity than
> anything else, it also was pretty bent out of shape about violence
> and the Criminal Element:
>

There's an amusing article in the Dec. 1963 Cahiers du Cinema that
lists movies that got around the code.

> a. The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will >
> not inspire imitation.
Irving Lerner's "Murder by Contract."
>
> b. Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail.
"Psycho."

> c. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified.
"Underworld U.S.A."
The modern times provision is funny! In 1963 a new clause was added
stating that euthanasia cannot be endorsed.

> a. Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains,
mines,
> buildings, etc., should not be detailed in method.
"House of Bamboo," "Asphalt Jungle."
>
> c. The use of firearms should be restricted to the essentials.
"Baby Face Nelson," "Scarface."

> 3. Illegal drug traffic must never be presented.

In reaction to Preminger's "The Man with the Golden Arm"
in 1955, the code was changed to state that drug use and
trafficking could be shown if they are not endorsed, do not
create curiosity about drugs, and do not show the effects
of drugs in detail. Cahiers pointed noted that "Touch of Evil"
and "The Connection" were films that followed the change in
the Code.

> 4. The use of liquor in American life, when not required by the
plot
> or for proper characterization, will not be shown.

This was the 1956 version of the code, but this clause was removed
in 1963.

In 1963 a clause was added that kidnapping could be depicted
if treated with discretion, avoiding details, and the child is
unharmed.

The Cahiers article refers to another clause forbidding cruel
and inhuman acts, including torture. "The Big Combo,"
"The Big Operator," "Party Girl," and "One-Eyed Jacks" are some films
that nonetheless show torture.


>1. Adultery, sometimes necessary plot material, must not be
>explicitly treated, or justified, or presented attractively.

"Strangers When We Meet," "From the Terrace."

>2. Scenes of Passion
> a. They should not be introduced when not essential to the plot.
"Pickup on South Street."
> b. Excessive and lustful kissing, lustful embraces, suggestive
>postures and gestures, are not to be shown.
In 1963 a clause was added forbidding open-mouth kissing.

> a. They should never be more than suggested, and only when
>essential for the plot, and even then never shown by explicit method.

"Blackboard Jungle," "Rancho Notorious," "Something Wild," "Last
Train from Gun Hill," "Town Without Pity."

> 4. Sex perversion or any inference to it is forbidden.

Cahiers noted that since homosexuality was considered a perversion
by the code, Losey's "M," "Suddenly Last Summer," "Advise and
Consent," "Rope," and "Nobody's perfect" from "Some Like It Hot"
got around the code.

> 5. White slavery shall not be treated.
"Sanctuary," "Walk on the Wild Side," "Mamie Stover," "Elmer Gantry."

In 1963 this was changed so that prostitution could be depicted if
contrasted with a honest way of life, but it was advised not to
depict brothels.

>6. Miscegenation (sex relationships between the white and black
>races) is forbidden.
"Kings Go Forth", "Island in the Sun".
However, this clause was removed from the Code in 1956, after
which the Code treated miscegnation as a "special topic" to be
treated without overstepping the boundaries of "good taste."

>8. Scenes of actual child birth, in fact or in silhouette, are never
>to be presented.

"The Savage Innocents" and "Hemingway's Adventures of a Young Man."
The Cahiers article speculates that these were permitted because
they showed Eskimos and Indians; geographic remoteness provided
an excuse. Similarly, the Caribbean setting of "Island in the Sun"
and Natalie Wood's character's French background in "Kings Go
Forth" made the relationship between black and white people
acceptable, according to the article.


> 9. Children's sex organs are never to be exposed.

In 1963 an exception was made for babies.

The 1956 Code forbids mention of abortion. However, "The Best
of Everything" and "Sweet Bird of Youth" refer to it. The 1963
Code indicates that it may be only referred to by suggestion, and
when it is, it must be condemned. The word "abortion" could never
be spoken.

>IV. Obscenity
>Obscenity in word, gesture, reference, song, joke, or by suggestion
>(even when likely to be understood only by part of the audience) is
>forbidden.

Cahiers responds, "Jane Russell in almost all her films, and
especially 'French Line,' 'Gentleman Prefer Blondes,' and 'Fox
Fire.'"

The article also notes that Gene Tierney types a naughty word in
"The Ghost and Mrs. Muir."

In 1963 a clause was added forbidding vulgar expressions and
double entendres.

>V. Profanity
>Pointed profanity (this includes the words, God, Lord, Jesus, Christ
>- unless used reverently - Hell, S.O.B., damn, Gawd), or every other
>profane or vulgar expression however used, is forbidden.

The 1963 list of forbidden words and phrases included alley cat, bat,
broad, bronx cheer, chippie, cocotte, cripes, fanny, fairy, finger,
cries of fire, gawd, to goose, hold your hat, hot,
in your hat, louse, lousy, Madame, nance, nerts, nuts, pansy,
razzberry, slut, S.O.B., son of a bitch, tart, toilet gags, tom
cat, traveling salesman and farmer's daughter jokes, whore.

In addition, Christ, Jesus, and God were forbidden when used
irreverently, and damn and hell were forbidden except where
essential to the action.


>VI. Costume
>1. Complete nudity is never permitted. This includes nudity in fact
>or in silhouette, or any lecherous or licentious notice thereof by
>other characters in the picture.

"Hallelujah the Hills," "The Angry Hills," "Spartacus," "Cleopatra."
"Something's Got to Give."

>2. Undressing scenes should be avoided, and never used save where
>essential to the plot.
"Paul Newman undresses, for good reasons, in 'Rally, Round the
Flag Boys.'"

>3. Indecent or undue exposure is forbidden.

A clause was added to permit filming in foreign countries of native
peoples provided that the film is a documentary or travelogue and the
scene is not intrinsically deplorable.


>X. National Feelings
>2. The history, institutions, prominent people and citizenry of other
>nations shall be represented fairly.

"The Great Dictator," "Satan Never Sleeps," "Silk Stockings,"
"No Time for Flowers."

> There was also a catch-all category of "Repellent Subjects":
> The following subjects must be treated within the careful limits of
> good taste:
> 1. Actual hangings or electrocutions as legal punishments for crime.
"I Want to Live."
> 2. Third degree methods.
Parrish's "The Mob."
> 3. Brutality and possible gruesomeness.
Many films, Fuller, Lee Marvin, "The Grapes of Wrath."
> 4. Branding of people or animals.
> 5. Apparent cruelty to children or animals.
> 6. The sale of women, or a woman selling her virtue.
"Band of Angels"


--
Paul
14479


From: Michael Worrall
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 6:42am
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:

> I. Crimes Against the Law
> These shall never be presented in such a way as to throw sympathy
> with the crime as against law and justice or to inspire others with a
> desire for imitation.
>
> 1. Murder
>
> a. The technique of murder must be presented in a way that will not
> inspire imitation.
>
> b. Brutal killings are not to be presented in detail.
>
> c. Revenge in modern times shall not be justified.
>
> 2. Methods of Crime should not be explicitly presented.
>
> a. Theft, robbery, safe-cracking, and dynamiting of trains, mines,
> buildings, etc., should not be detailed in method.
>
> b. Arson must subject to the same safeguards.
>
> c. The use of firearms should be restricted to the essentials.
>
> d. Methods of smuggling should not be presented.
>
> 3. Illegal drug traffic must never be presented.
>
> 4. The use of liquor in American life, when not required by the plot
> or for proper characterization, will not be shown.

Geez, no wonder why Burch thinks Lang died when he set foot in
Hollywood! (BTW, I actually do not agree with this assessment
of Lang's American work.)

Thanks for the info and the link, Damien.

Michael Worrall
14480


From: Michael Worrall
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:11am
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:

> As to what you're to do with "that information," traveling isn't all
> that impossible. If you're in a really low income situation, maybe you can think about ways to improve your income in the long term.

Fred,

I do not mean to be disrespectful, but the above statement is a bit
much for me. (And reflects JP's comment about letting them eat
cake till then.) It reminds of a story about how working class and
lower wage earners were getting kicked out of SF due to the
dot-com explosion here in SF during the mid to late 90's.

A friend of mine went to a neighborhood meeting in the Mission
district --at the time everyone was getting booted out of the
Mission because it was THE place to be for the Yuppies-- and at one
point a restaurant owner got up and told everybody how much
better the Mission will be because of all the upscale merchants and
tenants coming in. My friend raised his hand and asked her
where everyone else was supposed to go in order to facilitate this
"revitalization" of the neighborhood. The owner looked at my
friend and said: "who are you?! I have a never seen you at my
restaurant!" "Lady," he replied. "I cannot afford to go your
restaurant." Her reply? "Then you should find a better paying job!"

I am not saying you support this type of thinking, but telling someone
to think of ways to improve their income --to be able to travel
and see better prints?!-- comes a bit close.

Respectfully,

Michael Worrall
14481


From: Michael Worrall
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 7:22am
Subject: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper (correction)
 
I am sorry to do this again --there's more melodrama going on in the
building I live in then the collected works of Sirk and Minnelli,
and it has warped my concentration-- but I misquoted JP.

So part of my response should read: (And reflects JP's comment about
waiting for cake to be available)

Michael Worrall
14482


From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 8:25am
Subject: Re: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
Michael Worrall wrote:

>...telling someone to think of ways to improve their income --to be able to travel and see better prints?!-- comes a bit close. ...
>
I see your point, and I apologize to Kevin. Thank you for raising this.
People's income, and the choices they make about how to live, and those
aspects of their lives that they can't choose are their own business.

Per JPC's post, and Kevin's comments, I can also understand his anger:
it seems as if I'm telling him he can't have an opinion. But he can have
an opinion, even according to me; the statement of five years ago was
narrowly drawn and referred to character placement and cropped versions.
And that doesn't mean that you can't have an opinion about anything
after seeing a cropped version. I've seen films in the wrong aspect
ratio and had all sorts of opinions. l I wrote a very long essay once on
"The Tarnished Angels" based only on multiple viewings of a too dark
16mm 'Scope print. 16mm 'Scope prints lose a bit at the top and bottom,
they're 2.66:1 rather than 2.35:1. Simply based on that fact, I clearly
worded my statement of five years ago too harshly. And as I and others,
including Kevin, have tried to say, there are many qualifications of the
viewing situation: bad prints, bad projection, noisy audience, poor
attention on the part of the individual viewer.

Now I'd like others to try to see my point. The things I value most in
cinema, the things that I'm convinced are what most often raise a great
film to the level of great art in music or painting, are for most films
things that translate less well to video than, well, other things. Most
of my life I've fought the battle for "those" things, the things that
are, per Peter's comments on Welles, not necessarily destroyed on video,
but often greatly adumbrated. It's hard enough fighting this battle when
others can see the films in good prints, because these visual elements
are subtle, and with narrative films most people pay more attention to
story, acting, script, pacing, and so on, and this even seems to be true
of many or most people in our group. Now comes (well, 25 years ago came)
video, and it seems to me that most discussions on film talk about those
things that survive video best, perhaps because that's how many people
are seeing the films they're talking about. But in those great films,
particularly pre-1967 or so, that I think are worthy of, say, Bach, it's
the whole deal, it's the interconnection between all the parts. Acting
and script and pacing and story are in there too, but everything
modifies everything's else, and the aesthetic effect is made most vivid
in the textures of objects and light, and the way shapes and light
objects make a space, make a world, that's expressive of a way of
seeing. This is why, in the portion of my five-year-old to reply to
Kevin that I quoted, I was implying that the effect of the music in
"Scorpio Rising" might be different if you saw it on video. The kind of
image you see affects the way you take every other element. Your (or at
least my) perception of a performance can be changed by cathode ray tube
light as opposed to projected light

If I think I could only get, say, 30 per cent of the full effect of this
by seeing "Smilin' Through" on video, based on my own viewing. why
shouldn't I be able to say it? Why can't I express disagreement with the
idea that we should just accept the bad prints and bad videos that are
out there? Others don't have to listen, others don't have to agree, but
to me questioning whether one has seen the film under discussion on film
or video would be like, say, questioning how many other films you've
seen by Samuel Fuller of someone who has just seen "Shock Corridor" and
found it crude, socially backward, and totally worthless. That's how I
might begin talking about "Shock Corridor" with such a person, by
suggesting that there's a language to be found across Fuller's work that
might help one see more in his films than is apparent at first.

This doesn't mean Kevin should abandon his decision not to say what
format he's seen a film in. We can just talk past each other on this
issue if it comes to that. But I fail to see what I'm doing wrong in
raising the question again and again (other than, perhaps, boring the
pants off people here who don't care about it).

Fred Camper
14483


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 1:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: Actors of Today (was: The Reiners)
 
--- Craig Keller wrote:


> What would be really radical is if DeCaro made
> everyone who wanted to
> high-five each other at the proclamation "Cruise is
> probably a fag!"
> feel like an idiot.
>


What would be "radical" about that?



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
New and Improved Yahoo! Mail - Send 10MB messages!
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
14484


From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:06pm
Subject: New York Film Festival lineup announced
 
from http://www.indiewire.com/onthescene/onthescene_040823nyff.html

NEW YORK FILM FESTIVAL LINEUP

Opening Night: "Look At Me," directed by Agnès Jaoui (France)

Centerpiece: "Bad Education," directed by Pedro Almodóvar (Spain)

Closing Night: "Sideways," directed by Alexander Payne (USA)


"The 10th District Court: Judicial Hearings," directed by Raymond
Depardon (France)

"The Big Red One," directed by Samuel Fuller (USA) 1980 (Restored
2004)

"Cafe Lumiere," directed by Hou Hsou-Hsien (Japan/Taiwan)

"The Gate Of The Sun," directed by Yousry Nasrallah (France/Egypt)

"The Holy Girl," directed by Lucrecia Martel (Argentina)

"House Of Flying Daggers," directed by Zhang Yimou (China)

"In The Battlefields," directed by Danielle Arbid (Lebanon/France)

"Keane," directed by Lodge Kerrigan (USA)

"Kings And Queen," directed by Arnaud Desplechin (France)

"Moolade," directed by Ousmane Sembene (Senegal)

"Notre Musique," directed by Jean-Luc Godard (Switzerland/France)

"Or (My Treasure)," directed by Keren Yedaya (Israel)

"Palindromes," directed by Todd Solondz (USA)

"Rolling Family," directed by Pablo Trapero (Argentina)

"Saraband," directed by Ingmar Bergman (Sweden)

"Tarnation," directed by Jonathan Caouette (USA)

"Triple Agent," directed by Eric Rohmer (France)

"Tropical Malady," directed by Apichatpong Weerasethakul (Thailand)

"Undertow," directed by David Gordon Green (USA)

"Vera Drake," directed by Mike Leigh (UK)

"Woman Is The Future Of Man," directed by Hong Sang-Soo (South
Korea/France)

"The World," directed by Jia Zhangke (China)



SPECIAL SCREENINGS AND PROGRAMS

"Infernal Affairs Trilogy," Andrew Lau and Alan Mak (Hong Kong)

"Macunaima," Joaquim Pedro De Andrade (Brazil)

"Miles Electric: A Different Kind Of Blue," Murray Lerner (USA)

"Selling Democracy: Films Of The Marshall Plan," 1947-55

"Elegance, Passion, And Cold Hard Steel: A Tribute To Shaw Brothers
Studios"

"Unforgivable Blackness: The Rise And Fall Of Jack Johnson," Ken
Burns (USA)

"Views From The Avant-Garde"
14485


From: Gary Tooze
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 2:35pm
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
At 02:14 PM 8/24/2004 +0000, you wrote:
>Zhang Yimou is a different matter. Why else, after almost 20 years
>of filmmaking BUT in the wake of the Western success of CROUCHING
>TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, does he turn for the first time to making
>wuxiapian? A pretty strong case of career opportunism, I'd say.

Maybe, but I don't think he should be condemned for it... true aficionados
of the genre would state that the two films have very little in common,
except perhaps the genre itself. It would be like saying "Because of the
success of 'Austin Powers' he decided to make a comedy (Happy Times)". I
rather think he is excited by the challenge and all that Crouching Tiger,
Hidden Wires was NOT as an Art film - Hero was able to impart some of that
in its drive. Zhang is a real contradiction, (not unlike the idiosyncratic
protagonists of Anthony Mann!) and that is another reason I like him... and
like discussing him.

Luckily, I live in Toronto and will imminently see "House of Flying
Daggers" at the festival. What can I expect ? NO IDEA - isn't that
wonderful in itself?!

Cheers,
Gary
14486


From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:29pm
Subject: Ethan Mordden: THE HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS
 
Hollywood Studios: Spring 2002:
Ethan Mordden: The Hollywood Studios
(I don't have the book but found a web page which
includes the following type info for each of the
7 major studios.

http://yorty.sonoma.edu/filmfrog/archive/Mordden.html


Any comments on the book?

Â

"Paramount: The Sophisticate": Adolph Zukor: the directors' studio
• TROUBLE IN PARADISE (1932): uniquely Paramount film:
â—¦ 3 stars: Herbert Marshall, Miriam Hopkins, Kay Francis
â—¦ Lubitsch: director: German-born & trained
â—¦ Raphaelson: writer: sophisticated raconteur
â—¦ European accent of film: set in Venice & Paris
• b/g of story: rich folks set upon by thieves
â—¦ society comedy: droll sexuality; boudoir satire
â—¦ amused view of various transactions of sex: courtship, marriage,
infidelity
â—¦ agile camera
â—¦ gently radiant lighting
• Paramount's respect for directors:
â—¦ Ernst Lubitsch: sophisticated comedy w/sexual overtones
â—¦ Cecil B. DeMille: self-willed, independent: given lifetime tenure
at Paramount
â—¦ Joseph Von Sternberg: Dietrich: exoticism
â—¦ Preston Sturges: witty comedies:
â–ª PALM BEACH STORY, SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS
â—¦ Billy Wilder: noir: DOUBLE INDEMNITY set style; SUNSET BLVD.
• New York talent: vaudevillians: comedy: Marx Bros., W.C. Fields,
Mae West
• Paramount's prestige: not in big casts, spectacle
â—¦ in elegance, imagination, beauty
14487


From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:36pm
Subject: Nicholas Ray on BBC2
 
In the UK, BBC2 are screening an excellent season of Nicholas Ray
films next week. Here's the schedule:

Saturday August 28th

THEY LIVE BY NIGHT (1.50 PM)

BIGGER THAN LIFE (3.25 PM)

Monday August 30th

A WOMAN'S SECRET (11.25 AM)

BITTER VICTORY (12.55 PM)

THE TRUE STORY OF JESSE JAMES (2.30 PM)

Wednesday September 1st

ON DANGEROUS GROUND (11.50 PM)

BITTER VICTORY is playing in a 95 minute time slot, which means that
it's likely to be the longest version available (which would run 100
minutes at 24 fps). Unfortunately, I have a horrible feeling that
this will be the same pan-and-scan transfer BBC2 last screened in
1986 - I hope I'm wrong (Channel 4 screened BITTER VICTORY
letterboxed during 1992, but in the 82-minute version). The BBC have
shown THE TRUE STORY OF JESSE JAMES several times over the last few
years, always panned-and-scanned: perhaps this time will be an
exception.
14488


From: Brandon
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 3:32pm
Subject: Re: New York Film Festival lineup announced
 
>NEW YORK FILM FESTIVAL LINEUP

Whew... sounds terrific. I'm a regular film buff in Atlanta... not a
critic, filmmaker or student, so no special discounts for me. I've got
some vacation time and I'd sure love to hit the NYFF for a week... but I
know practically nothing about the way major festials work. If I plan
ahead and buy tickets early, do I stand a good chance of seeing the more
popular films, like "Bad Education", "House of Flying Daggers", and
(especially) "The Big Red One"? How much can I expect to pay for one solid
week of movies? I looked online but I can't even find pricing for the 2003
festival.
14489


From: Robert Keser
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 4:25pm
Subject: Re: Ethan Mordden: THE HOLLYWOOD STUDIOS
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> Hollywood Studios: Spring 2002:
> Ethan Mordden: The Hollywood Studios
> Any comments on the book?

Mordden's book is an entertainingly written popular historical
overview of the big studios during the classical period, with a
number of shrewd judgments and not inconsistent with auteurist
concerns. A couple of years ago I used the book as a supplementary
resource for one course, but I'd also recommend Ronald Davis's "The
Glamour Factory" (which shows how a production was actually put
together by covering the contributions of writers, editors, design
and costume departments, etc.) and Thomas Schatz's "The Genius of
the System" (which also takes a studio by studio approach).

The more scholarly and theoretical work would be "The Classical
Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960" by
David Bordwell and Janet Staiger.

--Robert Keser
14490


From: Nick Wrigley
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 5:21pm
Subject: The Classical Hollywood Cinema
 
> The more scholarly and theoretical work would be "The Classical
> Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of Production to 1960" by David
> Bordwell and Janet Staiger.

This was one of my main textbooks at university ten years ago. It was
presented to us *as gospel*, and received, unquestioningly, *as
gospel*. I wish I'd been a bit less wet behind the ears at the time.

Last year, Tag pointed out to me what I had already begun to realise
but hadn't thought about in relation to this book (which I'd forgotten
about). He said, "There is no such thing as "classical" Hollywood, nor
do the conventions exist.  You were led astray."

The book sets out to decree the existence of a genre or set of
conventions as if they are omnipresent Platonic Ideas. To illustrate
it, they cite Ford (the least generic and conventional of filmmakers if
you really look at his oeuvre) and I think their sample of 1930s films
was less than 30 pictures - all of them in the U. Wisconsin collection.

Tag calls it "academic charlatanism". His blistering email - which was
like a splash of water to the face - ended with:

"When the day comes when someone sits down and watches not the 10 or 20
most auteuristic movies of each year, but the 600 poorest movies of
each year, 1930-1960, and catalog all the supposed conventions and
camera angles and cutting relationships, then perhaps we shall migrate
out of pure bull."

-

btw. I love Bordwell & Thompson's FILM ART and FILM HISTORY *a lot*.
The new edition of the latter, is a particularly major feat.

-Nick>-
14491


From: Robert Keser
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 10:27pm
Subject: Re: The Classical Hollywood Cinema
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Nick Wrigley
wrote:
> >"The Classical Hollywood Cinema: Film Style and Mode of
> > Production to 1960" by David Bordwell and Janet Staiger.
>
> This was one of my main textbooks at university ten years
>ago. ... Last year, Tag pointed out to me... "There is no such
> thing as "classical" Hollywood, nor do the conventions exist.
You
>were led astray."

> The book sets out to decree the existence of a genre or set of
> conventions as if they are omnipresent Platonic Ideas. To
>illustrate it, they cite Ford (the least generic and conventional
> of filmmakers if you really look at his oeuvre) and I think their
>sample of 1930s films was less than 30 pictures - all of them in
> the U. Wisconsin collection.

> Tag calls it "academic charlatanism". His blistering email - which
> was like a splash of water to the face - ended with:
> "When the day comes when someone sits down and watches not the 10
> or 20 most auteuristic movies of each year, but the 600 poorest
>movies of each year, 1930-1960, and catalog all the supposed
>conventions and camera angles and cutting relationships, then
>perhaps we shall migrate out of pure bull."

Tag is a visionary (that's a great thing!) and I remember that, in
this very group, he argued that no one had ever been able to produce
a definition of a Western that all could agree on. That's an
interesting point, but it still seems useful to describe tendencies
toward plots and settings (and what themes they often accomodated),
also in light of contemporary constraints like the MPAA Production
Code. Films were products, and they still are, but under very
different conditions now.

To me, what's "classical" about the period is that filmmaking was
generally organized in one distinctive system of production, based
on ownership of large-scale real estate and resources (huge
inventories of costumes and furniture and props) plus exclusive
contracts with stars, house producers and directors, and
screenwriters and technicians (and of course heavy investment in
exhibition). I think Tag is right that anyone looking to expound
definitively on conventions and cutting and studio style is going to
be standing on shaky ground.

Certainly examining the 600 poorest films made under this mechanism
would tell us something valuable, but it seems equally valid to
examine the twenty or fifty or a hundred films we would call
auteurist landmarks to understand how the directors (or other
auteurs) weaseled around the studio's policies and were able to
craft their material into personal statements.

The problem with Tag's 600 poorest films idea is: who the hell wants
to do it? Maybe, when unmined material for dissertation topics
shrivels to near-zero, some film student may want to immerse
him/herself in the relative merits of Christy Cabanne, William Nigh,
and Ray Enright, but realistically I wouldn't count on it!
>
> btw. I love Bordwell & Thompson's FILM ART and FILM HISTORY *a
> lot*. The new edition of the latter, is a particularly major feat.

Thanks for the tip! I haven't read either one yet.

--Robert Keser
14492


From:
Date: Tue Aug 24, 2004 11:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
Fred, please feel free to bring up the question again and again. As long as
we can talk past it, as you say, I am fine with that.

Best,

Kevin John


[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
14493


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 4:58am
Subject: Re: The Classical Hollywood Cinema
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> >
> Certainly examining the 600 poorest films made under this mechanism
> would tell us something valuable, but it seems equally valid to
> examine the twenty or fifty or a hundred films we would call
> auteurist landmarks to understand how the directors (or other
> auteurs) weaseled around the studio's policies and were able to
> craft their material into personal statements.

Classical cinema is an abstraction, but so are a lot of useful
concepts whose value depends on how they were arrived at and how they
hold up when tested against more and more facts.

The CdC critics began using the term classical cinema during the
68-72 period, and these were people who had seen a LOT of films.
Oudart's examples of classical film plots in Un discours en defaut,
about which he generalizes to define modernist cinema (Bresson, but
also Ken Loach's Kes) as a reshuffling of the elements of the
classical model, were Fred Niblo's The Temptress and John Ford's The
Iron Horse -- one film by a journeyman director, one film by an
auteur.

Tag is right that bad films supply great material for this kind of
exercise, and as someone who is of a philophical, analytical and
political cast of mind, seeing bad films doesn't scare me in the
least. My own Eureka moment as I struggled to understand the famous
collective text on Young Mr. Lincoln came while watching James
Cruze's Sutter's Gold -- a bad film which certainly expresses
bourgeois ideology differently than Ford's masterpiece. In fact, I
think we can enrich the auteur theory by studying films by bad
auteurs. This was the topic of a very early thread here.
14494


From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:22am
Subject: Re: Re: Ok, you asked for it, Camper
 
Kevin, Good, and perhaps this thread as reached its end. I think airing
all this has been healthy -- including tracking down that statement of
mine from five years ago that bothered you -- even if we don't
completely agree.

Best,
Fred Camper

LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:

>Fred, please feel free to bring up the question again and again. As long as we can talk past it, as you say, I am fine with that.
>
>Best,
>
>Kevin John
>
>
14495


From: Adam Hart
Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:29am
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
In short, I think it's a
> work we're only just beginning to properly appreciate and
> understand.


As the two films progress and Ivan starts to look more and more like
a caricature, he really, really starts to resemble (for me, anyway -
maybe I need to watch all this again one more time) the wizard in
Fantasia. And of course the popular legend is that the wizard is a
cartoon version of Walt Disney. I know that Eisenstein and Disney
knew each other fairly well. So I find this connection (which,
again, probably exists only in my head) bizarrely interesting.

Also, on a note that doesn't come out of far left field, discussing
the films or Ivan the character strictly in political terms, as most
mainstream publications seem to, does not give the film nearly
enough credit. I mean, I do understand if some find the political
stuff to be the movies' most interesting aspect. Eisenstein was an
ardent Freudian. If Stalin was a model for Ivan, then so too was the
filmmaker.
14496


From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 5:57am
Subject: Movie character tyrants as directions (was: Requesting info on Ivan...)
 
Adam Hart wrote:

> .... If Stalin was a model for Ivan, then so too was the filmmaker.

Has anyone written on this? If not, there ought to be something interesting one could say about it. Some obvious examples: Scottie in his "makeover Judy" phase in "Vertigo" (casting, wardrobe, makeup, camera, then a retake when the hair is wrong); Napoleon in Gance's "Napoleon," Norman Mayne in one part of "A Star is Born" (though as befits Cukor he's the opposite of a tyrant), the donkey in "Au Hasard, Balthazar" (and I'm not completely kidding on that one). I haven't read Tom Gunning's Lang book yet, but surely Mabuse in the last one is an example, especially because of the film's greatest cut, one of the greatest cuts in film history (you know it if you've seen it, and if not I don't want to spoil the surprise). I know there are many others. I don't think every tyrant plays the director -- some of Nicholas Ray's personality is surely in the Mason character in "Bigger Than Life," but I don't think it really has filmmaking references. What interests me here is the way that the process of making, aspiration behind making and/or attitude toward the making of, a particular film is revealed in a filmmaker-surrogate character who the director places among the cast.

Fred Camper
 
14497


From: iangjohnston
Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 6:08am
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Gary Tooze wrote:
> At 02:14 PM 8/24/2004 +0000, you wrote:
> >Zhang Yimou is a different matter. Why else, after almost 20 years
> >of filmmaking BUT in the wake of the Western success of CROUCHING
> >TIGER HIDDEN DRAGON, does he turn for the first time to making
> >wuxiapian? A pretty strong case of career opportunism, I'd say.
>
> Maybe, but I don't think he should be condemned for it... true
aficionados
> of the genre would state that the two films have very little in
common,
> except perhaps the genre itself. It would be like saying "Because
of the
> success of 'Austin Powers' he decided to make a comedy (Happy
Times)". I
> rather think he is excited by the challenge and all that Crouching
Tiger,
> Hidden Wires was NOT as an Art film - Hero was able to impart some
of that
> in its drive. Zhang is a real contradiction, (not unlike the
idiosyncratic
> protagonists of Anthony Mann!) and that is another reason I like
him... and
> like discussing him.
>
> Luckily, I live in Toronto and will imminently see "House of
Flying
> Daggers" at the festival. What can I expect ? NO IDEA - isn't that
> wonderful in itself?!
>
> Cheers,
> Gary

I wasn't meaning to condemn Zhang as such; it was more of a case
of "If you can accuse Eisenstein of opportunism, what about
Zhang...?" To be honest, I've always been pretty indifferent to
Zhang's work - quite liked NOT ONE LESS for example, but hated THE
ROAD HOME; even from his early found films like RED SORGHUM and
JUDOU rather simplistic vulgarisations of the far more exciting and
complex work Chen Kaige had done in YELLOW EARTH and KING OF THE
CHILDREN.

HERO, as you say, is one for the aficionados. Personally, I was
repelled by the politics and irritated by the chocolate-box
aesthetics, but then this is not an area of Chinese film that
particularly attracts me. I'm far more interested in Jia Zhangke and
his associates - PLATFORM seems to me an absolute masterpiece, the
best Chinese film I've since the eighties; and Yu Lik-Wai's ALL
TOMORROW'S PARTIES and Diao Yinan's UNIFORM are two of my favourite
films from the last 12 months.

From what I've heard, HOUSE OF THE FLYING DAGGERS might be even more
successful - for the aficionados - than HERO. Certainly, without the
problematic politics.

Ian
14498


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:25am
Subject: Re: Requesting info on IVAN THE TERRIBLE (was: Some more on Hero)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Adam Hart" wrote:
> In short, I think it's a
> > work we're only just beginning to properly appreciate and
> > understand.
>
>
> As the two films progress and Ivan starts to look more and more
like
> a caricature, he really, really starts to resemble (for me, anyway -

> maybe I need to watch all this again one more time) the wizard in
> Fantasia.

Of course. But Eisenstein wrote that Fantasia marked a major esthetic
downturn in Disney's production, because it eliminated the
dialectical form of the earlier cartoons.
14499


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 9:27am
Subject: Re: Movie character tyrants as directions (was: Requesting info on Ivan...)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Fred Camper wrote:
>
>
> Adam Hart wrote:
>
> > .... If Stalin was a model for Ivan, then so too was the
filmmaker.
>
> Has anyone written on this? If not, there ought to be something
interesting one could say about it. Some obvious examples...

Jeck 'Awkins in Land of the Pharoahs.
14500


From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Aug 25, 2004 11:26am
Subject: Re: Movie character tyrants as directions (was: Requesting info on Ivan...)
 
How about R. Lee Ermey in Kubrick's FULL METAL JACKET?

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