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.
16801
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:10am
Subject: Re: Rene Cl. (Was: Wyler and auteurist taste)
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> I think you might have switched from Rene Clair to
> Rene Clement in
> mid-sentence there.... - Dan
>
That'sright. I was about to bring up "Joy House" but
was taken aback.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16802
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:17am
Subject: Re: Peter B's New Book
David, you have posted an entire article. Everyone please note that we
have asked members not to do this, and it's prohibited by our Statement
of Purpose (http://www.fredcamper.com/M/Aboutafb.html):
"And members shall not post copyrighted material beyond the short
excerpts permitted under fair use.'"
"Fair use" has never been precisely defined but it has been made clear
that in most cases it does not consist of placing an entire copyrighted
article on the 'Net.
Yahoo! has been known to delete entire groups for copyright violations.
We cannot take a chance on this, especially in cases such as this one,
where the entire article can be read on the Web. In such cases, please
don't post the article, post the url.
Also, from the point of view of writers, we should all understand that
doing this is a bad idea. Commercial publications such as the Washington
Post want people to read articles on their own Web sites, where they
might be exposed to advertising. That's the whole logic behind posting
content on the Web for free, and we should be encouraging publications
to post their content, not discouraging it.
Again: if the article is on the Web, post the url, not the article. If
the article is otherwise unavailable and it seems like copyright might
be questionable or the author won't object (an old article from Cahiers
in one of our member's translation, for example), you might want to take
a chance; in such cases we're adding to available knowledge.
We have deleted David's post; you can read the article he posted (and
his post was just the article without comment) on the Washington Post
site for now, at
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A4790-2004Oct3.html; if
you want to be able to read it in the future, copy it to your own computer.
Fred and Peter
Your co-moderators
16803
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:22am
Subject: Re: Rene Cl. (Was: Wyler and auteurist taste)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >> P.S. I like postwar Clair, especially LES GRANDES MANOEUVRES.
> >
> > I was stunned by Grandes Manoeuvres when I saw it a few years
ago. I
> > also like Monsieur Ripois (Freddy Francis at the lens) and Purple
> > Noon. Should see more.
>
> I think you might have switched from Rene Clair to Rene Clement in
> mid-sentence there.... - Dan
Any Rene Cl will do, as long as they're French.
16804
From:
Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:43pm
Subject: Re: Akerman
In a message dated 10/12/04 5:47:44 PM, gcklinger@y... writes:
> Where's the love guys? I'm surprised.
>
JEANNE DIELMAN... is my fourth favorite film of all-time.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16805
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:59am
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
> Is this 5+ hour version some sort of rough cut or is it actually
> Cimino's
> preferred version? My understanding is that the currently extant long
> version -
> the one which was savaged by Canby after its New York premiere and
> which is
> available on American DVD today (albeit with color instead of sepia
> during the
> roller-skating scene) - was Cimino's final cut, and it's only the
> subsequent,
> shorter edit that he disowns.
I was away in New York for a few days, so apologies if this has already
been mentioned by someone in one of the 204 messages I have yet to read
-- but I saw 'Heaven's Gate' at the Monday afternoon Film Forum
screening and indeed, there is no sepia shift on this print. (Which,
it's also worth mentioning, though it might be common knowledge, has
not been restored -- in fact, there's evidence on most of the reels of
color-emulsion RGB shrinkage -- sorry, I'm at a loss for the technical
term for this.)
In response to David's singling out the circular motion motif, this was
really the only evidence I saw in the film of there being a planned-out
aesthetic structure. I found many of the sequences hypnotic, a few
moments overwhelming, but overall, like you said David, I'll be damned
if I could find any coherent raison d'être except "the pleasure of
staging set-pieces." If that was meant as an end in and of itself, I
see no reason why $40 million had to be spent on it. As far as editing
and rhythm in the variations of portrayal of space in the final battle
scene goes (which among many regards is incredible and incredibly
ridiculous), it doesn't match the climax (in terms of rhythm, pacing,
space, gesture, and power-of-image) of 'Seven Samurai,' although it's
clear Cimino wants it to. (Match the climax of 'Seven Samurai' and, I
should say, the stand-off in the second half of 'Red River.')
Can I also ask -- what's the purpose, plot-wise, of mounting an attack
by running a circle of horses pell-mell around a fully-armed stationary
caravan?
> For what it's worth, I think "Heaven's Gate" is a complete
> masterpiece, as
> are "The Deer Hunter," "Year of the Dragon," and "The Sunchaser."
> "Thunderbolt
> and Lightfoot," "The Sicilian," and "Desperate Hours" are all
> wonderful also.
> That's his entire filmography. He's like Welles!
Oh come now. He is not. I'd be interested to hear why you think
'Heaven's Gate' is a complete masterpiece. I don't think it's one, but
I did like it.
craig.
16806
From:
Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: Film textbooks are OT? (WAS: BIRTH OF A NATION - 1st anything?)
In a message dated 10/12/04 6:38:42 PM, bufordrat@v... writes:
> Hmm...in that case I don't really know what you mean by an illusion of
> wholeness.
>
If film textbooks foster the illusion that Film Studies is a homogenous
discipline, to paraphrase you, Bazin fosters the illusion that the ontology of the
photographic image is a homogenous idea. He doesn't introduce doubt, he
doesn't provide counter arguments, etc. This is not a negative critique of his
writing. Rather, as I've been trying to say, most, if not all, writing fosters
these kinds of illusions.
<>
And again, I said his essay is methodically argued. I never pointed to a
method. Dictionary.com defines methodical as "arranged or proceeding in regular,
systematic order." That is the sense in which I was using the word. Surely, you
don't deny that Bazin wrote in that way, right? And, just in case you forgot,
why do I bring this up? See above. I bring it up because methodical arguments
fosters the illusion of wholeness, of objectivity. Film textbooks cannot
escape this; neither can Bazin.
<
things like deconstruction, or orientalism, or psychoanalysis, or
Marxism, or whatever, and very little to discussion of anything
particularly cinematic.>>
No, actually, I haven't. Any titles in particular?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16807
From:
Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
Craig:
"Oh come now. He is not. I'd be interested to hear why you think
'Heaven's Gate' is a complete masterpiece. I don't think it's one, but
I did like it."
As I clarified to David, my comparing Cimino to Welles was entirely a
personal point, probably one of little interest: I meant that neither director ever
made something which I flat-out disliked, even though there are obviously major
and minor works in each filmography.
I don't know where to begin with "Heaven's Gate." Maybe I'll start at a
purely visceral level. I love the opening Harvard dance and the way it mirrors
Jim and Ella's dancing later in the film (with the cinematography even more
ecstatic, more kinetic in the later scene.) I love the way the tragic events of
the film come to dilute the Reverend Doctor's speech (and how great is Joseph
Cotten in that role?) I love Billy remembering graduation day - with the Blue
Danube creeping in on the soundtrack - in the billiards room fairly early in
the film, surely one of the great elegiac moments in Cimino's filmography. I
love that haunting, haunting ending, the perfect poetic decision that Averill
is now married to the woman we glimpse at the beginning of the film. And "the
pleasure of staging set-pieces" - this seem as fine a reason as any to do a
movie, as Cimino's pleasure in showing action, choreographing movement,
photographing people in relation to places is one of his major attributes. If I
remember correctly, he trained as an architect and one can see that training in his
intuitive feel for spaces.
I'm sure this doesn't sufficiently answer your question, but I think it will
probably take me the next ten or twenty years to write about why I love
"Heaven's Gate."
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16808
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:26am
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> > For what it's worth, I think "Heaven's Gate" is a complete
> > masterpiece, as
> > are "The Deer Hunter," "Year of the Dragon," and "The
Sunchaser."
> > "Thunderbolt
> > and Lightfoot," "The Sicilian," and "Desperate Hours" are all
> > wonderful also.
> > That's his entire filmography. He's like Welles!
>
> Oh come now. He is not. I'd be interested to hear why you think
> 'Heaven's Gate' is a complete masterpiece. I don't think it's
one, but
> I did like it.
>
> craig.
It's an immensely flawed and immensely fascinating film. Calling
it a masterpiece may not be appropriate, but it's an extraordinary
movie experience. I'll never forget that first showing in New York
(I still have the ticket stub somewhere!). I also remember how UA
absolutely refused to let me have stills for my article -- which was
probably the first to praise the film and discuss it seriously and
at length.
JPC
16809
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:42am
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
I love the opening Harvard
> dance and the way it mirrors
> Jim and Ella's dancing later in the film (with the
> cinematography even more
> ecstatic, more kinetic in the later scene.)
"The Leopard"
Also Adirana Asti and Francesco Barelli dancing to the
Ennio Morricone pop tune in "Before the Revolution"
I love
> the way the tragic events of
> the film come to dilute the Reverend Doctor's speech
> (and how great is Joseph
> Cotten in that role?)
Jean-Louis Trintignant's "fuck you!" diatribe at the
climax of "Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train."
I love Billy remembering
> graduation day - with the Blue
> Danube creeping in on the soundtrack - in the
> billiards room fairly early in
> the film, surely one of the great elegiac moments in
> Cimino's filmography.
Annie Lennox's rendition of "Ev'ry Time You Say
Goodbye" in "Edward II"
I
> love that haunting, haunting ending, the perfect
> poetic decision that Averill
> is now married to the woman we glimpse at the
> beginning of the film.
The end of "Before the Revolution" with Adrianna Asti
hysterically kissing the younger brother outside
church as Ennio Morricone goes in for the kill on the
soundtrack bringing all five of the film's musical
themes together as Bertolucci heads fot eh frezze
frame.
And "the
> pleasure of staging set-pieces" - this seem as fine
> a reason as any to do a
> movie, as Cimino's pleasure in showing action,
> choreographing movement,
> photographing people in relation to places is one of
> his major attributes.
"Les Amants du Pont-Neuf"
If I
> remember correctly, he trained as an architect and
> one can see that training in his
> intuitive feel for spaces.
>
"Eclipse"
> I'm sure this doesn't sufficiently answer your
> question, but I think it will
> probably take me the next ten or twenty years to
> write about why I love
> "Heaven's Gate."
>
Get crackin'
>
>
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16810
From:
Date: Tue Oct 12, 2004 10:57pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
Yes, David, "Before the Revolution," "The Leopard," "Eclipse," "Les Amants du
Pont-Neuf"... great films all! But one can love them and love "Heaven's
Gate" even with some overlaps in terms of what they achieve.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16811
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:13am
Subject: Re: Re: 'Boom mike in shot'
> Of course in order to show the camera you have to use another
> camera (unless you show it in a mirror) which itself cannot be shown
> unless you use a third camera and so on ad infinitum. A true
> deconstructive conondrum.
Godard once said (or did not -- the source is unknown and the whole
thing could be apocryphal) that a camera filming itself in a mirror
"would be the ultimate movie."
craig.
16812
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:13am
Subject: Re: CAFE FLESH (WAS: Re: The Piano Teacher)
> That's true, but my recollection of Joanna is that it contains the
> only scene where an individual on whom fellatio is being performed
> actually comes in the other individual's mouth and not on her face.
This also occurs in 'Ai no corrida' / 'In the Realm of the Senses.'
craig.
16813
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:15am
Subject: Re: Akerman
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
> Since no one has spoken up for Akerman, I think Je, tu, il, elle,
> Jeanne Dielman, D'est, Akerman by Akerman, News from Home,
> and Rendez-Vous avec Anna are all great films, and Tout une
> nuit and The Eighties are masterpieces and among my favorite
> movies ever...
>
> Where's the love guys? I'm surprised.
Actually, DEMAIN ON DEMENAGE is my favorite movie in this year's
Chicago Film Festival (out of the ten I've seen so far, with ten
more to go), and I'm a big fan of LA CAPTIVE too (though I haven't
had a chance to see the ones mentioned above).
--Robert Keser
16814
From: Robert Keser
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:32am
Subject: CAFE FLESH (WAS: Re: The Piano Teacher)
--- Craig Keller wrote:
"That's true, but my recollection of Joanna is that it contains the
only scene where an individual on whom fellatio is being performed
actually comes in the other individual's mouth and not on her face".
>This also occurs in 'Ai no corrida' / 'In the Realm of the Senses.'
For what it's worth, that's also the high point in Bertrand
Bonello's fairly dull LE PORNOGRAPHE.
--Robert Keser
16815
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:44am
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Yes, David, "Before the Revolution," "The Leopard,"
> "Eclipse," "Les Amants du
> Pont-Neuf"... great films all! But one can love
> them and love "Heaven's
> Gate" even with some overlaps in terms of what they
> achieve.
>
Well then let me put it this way. "Heaven's Gate"
(unlike his other films) is not without a certain
morbid fascination.
But it's no "1941."
At is best it's remindful of a bloated "Party Girl"
>
>
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16816
From: Matt Teichman
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:56am
Subject: Re: Film textbooks are OT? (WAS: BIRTH OF A NATION - 1st anything?)
Kevin John wrote:
>If film textbooks foster the illusion that Film Studies is a homogenous
>discipline, to paraphrase you, Bazin fosters the illusion that the ontology of the
>photographic image is a homogenous idea.
>
What is a homogeneous idea?
>He doesn't introduce doubt, he
>doesn't provide counter arguments, etc.
>
>
Sure, Bazin doesn't need to slip on the analytic philosopher hat for his
ideas to have any go. But what does this have to do with the image of
Film Studies that I was saying should be avoided?
><>
>
>And again, I said his essay is methodically argued. I never pointed to a
>method.
>
Fine, but your claim that his essay was methodically argued was
presumably in response to my original plaint, which had to do with the
pretense of method in introductory film textbooks. Of course I wouldn't
disagree that Bazin's article is "methodically" argued in the sense of
being carefully or deliberately argued. He's often very unjustly
written off as an incoherent thinker.
>No, actually, I haven't. Any titles in particular?
>
>
How about Rick Altman's _Film/Genre_? He mentions films from time to
time, but they're really pretty extraneous to the book.
-Matt
16817
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:14am
Subject: The Winner is ...
"I'm fully expecting someone sooner or later to
wax rhapsodic about Michael Winner."
Damien, now that you mention it ... Winner deserves some attention! One has
to have a serious taste for trashy stuff, perhaps. Recently I saw his
Olympics movie THE GAMES - a real curiosity in the world cinema of 1970, in
that one of its stars is an Aboriginal Australian!
A CHORUS OF DISAPPROVAL is a good, well-crafted film that can stand with
theatrical-farce things like NOISES OFF. Anthony Hopkins has some of his
finest comedic moments here. The bit where he argues that such and such a
play "has the same relevance today as it had in 1752" - I've heard a hundred
theatre directors in real life say exactly that with the same inflection and
earnestness.
Winner, for good and for ill, gets a bit into the 'cinema of hysteria'
tradition that has been discussed on this list ages ago. In this vein, my
favourite Winner - does anyone have a rare video copy of it? - is the crazy
'intimacy thriller' SCREAM FOR HELP (1984).
Underestimate no one, not even Michael Winner!
Adrian
16818
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:14am
Subject: re: Fuller
"I think there's something about Fuller's art that's a lot more conceptual,
and a lot less about space and time, than people usually talk about. A
lot of the wow moments in Fuller's films have almost the same impact in
conversation, or in the mind."
A brilliant intuition, Dan. I tend to think of Fuller, like (on a lesser
level of artistic achievement) Larry Cohen, as people who conceive scenes in
broad strokes, like jokes or anecdotes - just the sort of 'conceptualism'
which, as you say, works well in conversation. Like in BIG RED ONE
(unreconstructed version!): a guy has one ball blown off, but he's still got
the other one, so they throw the dud away ... I don't think Fuller or Cohen
think about this scene-ideas, in the first place, in terms of framings,
cuts, etc. Perhaps, as I think of it, Cassavetes also would fit in to this
'scene concept' approach. Also (again lesser down the artistic
accomplishment scale) Toback. Of course, the cuts and framings that actually
arise in the execution of these scenes by these diverse directors may indeed
turn out to be indelible, etc. But it's very different from say, how I feel
Lang or Michael Mann dream up cinematic ideas - with the cuts, geometric
frames, choices of decor, etc, leading!
Adrian
16819
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:14am
Subject: re: Akerman
"Where's the love guys?"
Gabe, do you mean "where's the love, guys?" or "where are the 'love
guys''??? A comma makes all the difference!
If the latter, no comment !!!
If the former, I second your emotion. Akerman for me is among the greatest
living directors. She seems to be unfairly a victim, at various cycles, of
being deemed out-of-fashion. Many of her films rank very highly for me,
including all the ones you list, Gabe. NIGHT AND DAY is one of her enduring
great films - wonderful to study very closely, moment by moment, it is so
stylistically rich and 'of a piece'.
COUCH IN NEW YORK is an odd fish, but I defended it in the Australian
magazine CINEMA PAPERS - and so did Dominique Paini in TRAFIC. Raymond
Bellour makes the interesting comment in MOVIE MUTATIONS about how Anglo
critics tend to over stress the 'corporeal' side of her work - the singing,
dancing, sensuality, materiality, etc - but downplay the conceptual side.
Will Janet Bergstrom's book on Akerman ever see the light of day, does
anyone know?
Akerman has done many kinds of things, and is a truly experimental artist. I
love some of her zany shorts, comedies, more 'throwaway' things. But I love
the 'monumental' stuff too, like JEANNE DIELMAN, and LA CAPTIVE which is of
course among the cinema's most fascinating 'remakes' of VERTIGO.
Fittingly, I am soon to see her recent TOMORROW WE MOVE at the local Jewish
Film Festival!
Adrian
16820
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:18am
Subject: Re: re: Akerman
Jeanne Dielman is a key film of the past 30 years. The Golden Eighties is a
very pleasant experiment. Night and Day is delightful and a personal
favorite of mine. I didn't find A Couch in New York that bad, it has a
certain goofy charm. And the other early features are incredibly significant
works in any canon of films on/by lesbians.
She's a very important and, I think, great director.
Is that enough love?
g
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
16821
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:20am
Subject: Re: The Winner is ...
Oy.
Michael Winner, huh?
Actually, The Stone Killer has a certain loopy wit. But the rest -- and I
specifically include A Chorus of Disapproval -- is crap.
And in the case of the Death Wish films, fascistic crap at that.
g
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
----- Original Message -----
From: "Adrian Martin"
To: "A Film By"
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 12:14 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] The Winner is ...
>
> "I'm fully expecting someone sooner or later to
> wax rhapsodic about Michael Winner."
>
> Damien, now that you mention it ... Winner deserves some attention! One
has
> to have a serious taste for trashy stuff, perhaps. Recently I saw his
> Olympics movie THE GAMES - a real curiosity in the world cinema of 1970,
in
> that one of its stars is an Aboriginal Australian!
>
> A CHORUS OF DISAPPROVAL is a good, well-crafted film that can stand with
> theatrical-farce things like NOISES OFF. Anthony Hopkins has some of his
> finest comedic moments here. The bit where he argues that such and such a
> play "has the same relevance today as it had in 1752" - I've heard a
hundred
> theatre directors in real life say exactly that with the same inflection
and
> earnestness.
>
> Winner, for good and for ill, gets a bit into the 'cinema of hysteria'
> tradition that has been discussed on this list ages ago. In this vein, my
> favourite Winner - does anyone have a rare video copy of it? - is the
crazy
> 'intimacy thriller' SCREAM FOR HELP (1984).
>
> Underestimate no one, not even Michael Winner!
>
> Adrian
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
16822
From: Fred Camper
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:21am
Subject: Re: Re: Greatest cut (Was: Blier, editing)
ptonguette@a... wrote:
> .....in "Clara's Heart,"
> the cut from alternating close-ups to a long shot as David reaches over to Clara
> in the film's climactic scene....
Isn't there a very similar cut in Mulligan's "The Man in the Moon"? Two
characters are standing next to a truck, and just as they embrace, we
cut to a different angle and a longer shot. Or something like that.
Fred Camper
16823
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:25am
Subject: Robert Guedigian
Anybody with a strong feeling about Guedigian?
TV5 is showing three of his earlier films this month; I like Marius et
Jeanette a great deal and admire La ville est tranquille quite a lot too.
I'm wondering if anyone here has a strong sense of his career trajectory.
g
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
16824
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:44am
Subject: Re: CAFE FLESH (WAS: Re: The Piano Teacher)
>For what it's worth, that's also the high point in Bertrand
>Bonello's fairly dull LE PORNOGRAPHE.
>
>--Robert Keser
There's also a scene of that sort in Brass, Guccione and Vidal's CALIGULA.
--
- Joe Kaufman
16825
From:
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:06am
Subject: Re: Fuller
"I think there's something about Fuller's art that's a lot more conceptual,
and a lot less about space and time, than people usually talk about. A
lot of the wow moments in Fuller's films have almost the same impact in
conversation, or in the mind."
Also am impressed with this concept of Dan's!
Fuller reminds me of von Stroheim. Both are writer-directors who feature very
strong plot ideas at the center of their film work.
Mike Grost
16826
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:46am
Subject: Re: The Winner is ...
"I'm fully expecting someone sooner or later to wax rhapsodic about
Michael Winner."
THE MECHANIC is a great film, but its greatness is clearly
attributable to Monte Hellman, who supervised the writing of the
screenplay - it's virtually a Monte Hellman film by default.
But I may have carved out my own little corner of auteurist hell by
finding a few positive things to say about...John Derek!
16827
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:55am
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
> I love the opening Harvard
> > dance and the way it mirrors
> > Jim and Ella's dancing later in the film (with the
> > cinematography even more
> > ecstatic, more kinetic in the later scene.)
>
> "The Leopard"
>
> Also Adirana Asti and Francesco Barelli dancing to the
> Ennio Morricone pop tune in "Before the Revolution"
>
> I love
> > the way the tragic events of
> > the film come to dilute the Reverend Doctor's speech
> > (and how great is Joseph
> > Cotten in that role?)
>
> Jean-Louis Trintignant's "fuck you!" diatribe at the
> climax of "Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train."
>
> I love Billy remembering
> > graduation day - with the Blue
> > Danube creeping in on the soundtrack - in the
> > billiards room fairly early in
> > the film, surely one of the great elegiac moments in
> > Cimino's filmography.
>
> Annie Lennox's rendition of "Ev'ry Time You Say
> Goodbye" in "Edward II"
>
> I
> > love that haunting, haunting ending, the perfect
> > poetic decision that Averill
> > is now married to the woman we glimpse at the
> > beginning of the film.
>
> The end of "Before the Revolution" with Adrianna Asti
> hysterically kissing the younger brother outside
> church as Ennio Morricone goes in for the kill on the
> soundtrack bringing all five of the film's musical
> themes together as Bertolucci heads fot eh frezze
> frame.
>
> And "the
> > pleasure of staging set-pieces" - this seem as fine
> > a reason as any to do a
> > movie, as Cimino's pleasure in showing action,
> > choreographing movement,
> > photographing people in relation to places is one of
> > his major attributes.
>
> "Les Amants du Pont-Neuf"
>
> If I
> > remember correctly, he trained as an architect and
> > one can see that training in his
> > intuitive feel for spaces.
> >
>
> "Eclipse"
>
> > I'm sure this doesn't sufficiently answer your
> > question, but I think it will
> > probably take me the next ten or twenty years to
> > write about why I love
> > "Heaven's Gate."
> >
>
>
> Get crackin'
Why does listing these films somehow negate the points Peter was
making? At first, I thought you were implying that Cimino had simply
imitated these films (which, in the case of THE LEOPARD, is probably
true), but three of them were made after HEAVEN'S GATE, and, in the
case of LES AMANTS DU PONT-NEUF, by a director who lists HEAVEN'S
GATE as one of his favorite films!
Do yourself a favor and read Robin Wood's detailed defence of the
film in HOLLYWOOD FROM VIETNAM TO REAGAN.
16828
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:08am
Subject: Re: Re: The Winner is ...
A few years ago I had the flu -- not "flu-like symptoms" as the
sportswriters put it, but full-blown influenza with a 104-degree temp and
agonizing pain -- and I couldn't sleep at night, when it was worst. I picked
a terrible month to be ill (two months really) because the TCM "Director of
the Month" was Edward L. Cahn. Of course I missed "Law and Order," his first
and best feature. But I spent hours in a hallucinatory haze watching
masterpieces like The Music Box Kid, Operation Bottleneck, The Four Skulls
of Jonathan Drake (which scared the crap out of me when I was eight), Curse
of the Faceless Man and Dragstrip Girl.
And the amazing thing was, after I had seen a dozen of Cahn's films I could
actually identify a thematic/formal link between them. Almost every Cahn
film TCM showed featured extraordinarily loquacious and utterly redundant
voiceover narration that told you exactly what was already on the screen.
Does this make him an auteur or merely an idiot?
g
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
----- Original Message -----
From: "thebradstevens"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 6:46 AM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: The Winner is ...
>
> But I may have carved out my own little corner of auteurist hell by
> finding a few positive things to say about...John Derek!
>
>
16829
From:
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:22am
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
In a message dated 10/13/04 6:03:20 AM, bradstevens22@h... writes:
>
> Do yourself a favor and read Robin Wood's detailed defence of the
> film in HOLLYWOOD FROM VIETNAM TO REAGAN.
>
I like Timothy Corrigan's take on it from his book A CINEMA WITHOUT WALLS.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16830
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:45pm
Subject: Re: The Winner is ...
> "I'm fully expecting someone sooner or later to
> wax rhapsodic about Michael Winner."
For me, Winner's a fine example of how someone can be an auteur
without actually being any good.
His films certainly have common themes and stylistic approaches, but
these are nearly all negatives - a persistent tone of nastiness, even
in the comedies, where there's little or no human sympathy, a use of
stylistic devices to be "interesting" without any further meaning...
Must admit, his films have gotten So bad as to exert a certain
hypnotic power - attended a screening of PARTING SHOTS with a couple
of friends, though we did accoutre ourselves with wigs and false
beards for the outing.
An elderly friend once told me he'd signed Winner's papers to get him
admitted to the union. "I remembered how difficult it had been for me
to join, and not knowing anything about him, i signed. And it wasn't
until some years later that I thought, "My God, what have i done?""
I remember enjoying the one with Oliver Reed and the elephant, but I
doubt it holds up.
16831
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 1:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
>
> Why does listing these films somehow negate the
> points Peter was
> making? At first, I thought you were implying that
> Cimino had simply
> imitated these films (which, in the case of THE
> LEOPARD, is probably
> true), but three of them were made after HEAVEN'S
> GATE, and, in the
> case of LES AMANTS DU PONT-NEUF, by a director who
> lists HEAVEN'S
> GATE as one of his favorite films!
>
I was simply citings scenes similar in nature that I
found vastly superior to Cimino. As originally listed
the qulity of the Cimino scenes was implied to be
self-evident. I disagree.
> Do yourself a favor and read Robin Wood's detailed
> defence of the
> film in HOLLYWOOD FROM VIETNAM TO REAGAN.
>
>
You think I haven't?
BTW re "sepia." I think everyone's mistaking the dust
in the air and the predominantly brown tones of the
sets and costumes in the skating scene for sepia.
It is NOT like the opening of "The Wizard of OZ." THAT
was sepia.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
16832
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:13pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
"I was simply citings scenes similar in nature that I found vastly
superior to Cimino. As originally listed the qulity of the Cimino
scenes was implied to be self-evident. I disagree."
Fine. But surely you are implying that the superiority of your
counter-examples is self-evident. This is not the case (as far as the
Jarman film is concerned, it is quite blatantly not the case).
>
> > Do yourself a favor and read Robin Wood's detailed
> > defence of the
> > film in HOLLYWOOD FROM VIETNAM TO REAGAN.
> >
> >
>
> You think I haven't?
So, in what way do you think Wood's reading is incorrect?
>
> BTW re "sepia." I think everyone's mistaking the dust
> in the air and the predominantly brown tones of the
> sets and costumes in the skating scene for sepia.
> It is NOT like the opening of "The Wizard of OZ." THAT
> was sepia.
No, honestly. In the original prints, the scene begins in color as
David Mansfield skates while playing the violin, and stays in color
as the band begin to play, and the dance begins. Then it suddenly
shifts to sepia (just like THE WIZARD OF OZ), and stays that way even
when Averill and Ella walk outside.
16833
From: joe_mcelhaney
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:23pm
Subject: Re: Akerman
For what it's worth, I would also place myself firmly in the pro-
Akerman camp.
In addition to all of the films already cited here, I would also want
to draw attention to a major work almost completely neglected and
rarely shown: HISTOIRES D'AMERIQUE, the film she made after she was
unable to get the rights to Singer's THE MANOR AND THE ESTATE. The
text of the film takes its inspiration from letters written to a New
York Yiddish newspaper, THE JEWISH FORWARD, the letters often
rewritten and fictionalized by Akerman. The original letters were
usually filled with jokes, stories, news, etc., making them perfect
raw material for Akerman's fascination with language and monologue,
while the content of the material also allowed her, for the first
time, to more fully connect to her Jewish roots in a way that she was
never able to do within her own family life. The film is comprised
mainly of vignettes in which actors face the camera and recite this
material. (I may be making the film sound more schematic than it
actually is.) Virtually all of the film was shot at night in
Brooklyn, under the Williamsburg Bridge, which at the time that the
film was made was a remote and sparsely inhabited region but which
she said created the effect of both a natural setting and a film
studio. The film has a structure which takes us from early evening up
through early morning, as the sun rises, and Akerman wanted to create
a type of ghost story, of these figures out of New York's Jewish past
emerging from this past and from the darkness to tell their stories
before fading with the light of the present day. The area in which
she was filming has since been gentrified and so the film also
unwittingly captures another lost or destroyed bit of New York
history. (Both Janet Bergstrom and Ivone Margulies have written some
on this film but I don't know of anything else.)
JEANNE DIELMAN may be a more "perfect" Akerman work. But HISTOIRES
D'AMERIQUE is, for me, the most beautiful and moving of all her films.
16834
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:28pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- thebradstevens wrote:
."
>
> Fine. But surely you are implying that the
> superiority of your
> counter-examples is self-evident. This is not the
> case (as far as the
> Jarman film is concerned, it is quite blatantly not
> the case).
>
Sez you.
>
> So, in what way do you think Wood's reading is
> incorrect?
>
This would call for an exceedingly lengthy discussion
of "Heaven's Gate" and why while certainly
"interesting" doesn't work at all. That seems to be
the direction these posts are heading so I guess I'm
putting off the inevitable. Do you want to get down to
it?
Why do you think this film is any good?
>
> No, honestly. In the original prints, the scene
> begins in color as
> David Mansfield skates while playing the violin, and
> stays in color
> as the band begin to play, and the dance begins.
> Then it suddenly
> shifts to sepia (just like THE WIZARD OF OZ), and
> stays that way even
> when Averill and Ella walk outside.
>
Well I don't recall this at all, and I saw the
original version.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
16835
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:34pm
Subject: Re: Robert Guedigian
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> Anybody with a strong feeling about Guedigian?
> TV5 is showing three of his earlier films this month; I like
Marius et
> Jeanette a great deal and admire La ville est tranquille quite a
lot too.
> I'm wondering if anyone here has a strong sense of his career
trajectory.
>
> g
> The ones you mentioned are probably his two best films -- I love
them both, although the latter tends to go a bit too much over the
top toward the end -- but the earlier ones are hard to see
especially in the US. He's made eleven or twelve films since 1980
and he is this very rare exception in French cinema: a filmmaker
based in the provinces -- all his films are made in or around
Marseille, and he works with a stock company of actors, some of them
from his very first film. The wonderful Ariane Ascaride, Jean-Pierre
Daroussin, Gerard Meylan, among others, have been in most of his
films. They were again in "Marie-Jo et ses deux amours" in 2002. I
wish that one was distributed in the US.
JPC
>
16836
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:35pm
Subject: Re: Akerman
> Will Janet Bergstrom's book on Akerman ever see the light of day,
does
> anyone know?
It's beginning to look doubtful--despite the fact that she insisted
to me that the book was virtually done when I saw her in Bologna in
July, emphasized that she had only a couple of finishing touches to
add while she was in Paris. But she didn't turn it in as (or when)
promised, hasn't said anything to the publisher, and, from my
experience, I've sadly come to conclude that anyone with a writing
block who's in denial about having a writing block isn't apt to
deliver. (Another case, even more worrisome, is Catherine Benamou,
who's finally completed her brilliant book about Welles'S IT'S ALL
TRUE, against all the odds, but has subsequently been devising all
sort of delaying tactics to prevent the book from ever coming
out...or so it would seem!)
16837
From: Programming
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:42pm
Subject: Notre Musique - Aspect Ratio
Hi All,
Can someone re-cap for me the evidence that Notre Musique should be shown at
1:1.33 (particularly if Godard has said what the ratio should be)?
And did someone say that Wellspring had been notified?
The Chicago International Film Festival showed it some weird way - certainly
not 1.33. (I think the theater couldn't find a 1.66 plate and used a 1.85
instead). But a friend who works for the fest brought down one of the head
leaders for me to see and it is labeled 1.66. I'm no expert, but the image
on the leader sure looked 1.33.
I complained about it and want to make sure I have my information correct
and have a leg to stand on (or, if it was ultimately determined that 1.66 is
right, then I owe an apology).
The Chicago festival certainly didn't know about 1.33 and the print they
received is labeled 1.66, so I'm not faulting them.
(I didn't stay, by the way)
Thanks,
Patrick F.
16838
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:00pm
Subject: re: Notre Musique - aspect ratio
The ratio info came from within this group - Paul posted a link to a scan he
did of Godard's own diagrams and notes on the matter, published in CAHIERS
DU CINEMA earlier this year.
I suspect the print you are speaking of is the same one shown in Melbourne -
which, as I too was told, has definitely the wrong aspect ratio info written
on it. This is obviously someone's mistake which is travelling the world and
causing havoc in projection booths everywhere!! But I sent along the CAHIERS
piece to the Festival director and projectionist here in Melbourne, and that
categorically solved the issue. All thanks to the militant efforts of A FILM
BY!
Adrian
16839
From: Programming
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:04pm
Subject: Re: re: Notre Musique - aspect ratio
I was having trouble searching past posts and synthesizing the evidence
(didn't see Paul's link).
I read here somewhere that someone (Paul?) contacted Wellspring and, wrongly
obviously, assumed they would notify future exhibitors. I should have been
pro-active and notified the festival beforehand.
Paul, can you re-post that link if your scans are still up?
My loss.
Patrick
On 10/13/04 11:00 AM, "Adrian Martin" wrote:
> The ratio info came from within this group - Paul posted a link to a scan he
> did of Godard's own diagrams and notes on the matter, published in CAHIERS
> DU CINEMA earlier this year.
>
> I suspect the print you are speaking of is the same one shown in Melbourne -
> which, as I too was told, has definitely the wrong aspect ratio info written
> on it. This is obviously someone's mistake which is travelling the world and
> causing havoc in projection booths everywhere!! But I sent along the CAHIERS
> piece to the Festival director and projectionist here in Melbourne, and that
> categorically solved the issue. All thanks to the militant efforts of A FILM
> BY!
>
> Adrian
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
>
> ADVERTISEMENT
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
> * To visit your group on the web, go to:
> * http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
> *
> * To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
> * a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
> <mailto:a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com?subject=Unsubscribe>
> *
> * Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/> .
>
>
>
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16840
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:04pm
Subject: Re: Notre Musique - Aspect Ratio
>
> I complained about it and want to make sure I have my information
> correct
> and have a leg to stand on (or, if it was ultimately determined that
> 1.66 is
> right, then I owe an apology).
I just forwarded your email to Ryan Werner at Wellspring. I'm going to
send you (off-list) the Cahiers essay by Godard from the June issue
which should obliterate any instructions on the head leader that the
film is 1.66. It's absolutely 1.37/1.33:1.
craig.
16841
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:06pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
"This would call for an exceedingly lengthy discussion of "Heaven's
Gate" and why while certainly "interesting" doesn't work at all. That
seems to be the direction these posts are heading so I guess I'm
putting off the inevitable. Do you want to get down to it?
Why do you think this film is any good?"
I'm basically in complete agreement with Robin Wood. That's why I
suggested you read (or reread) his piece. If you feel that Robin has
misread the film, or that his interpretation is somehow invalid, you
should say so.
16842
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> I'm basically in complete agreement with Robin Wood.
> That's why I
> suggested you read (or reread) his piece. If you
> feel that Robin has
> misread the film, or that his interpretation is
> somehow invalid, you
> should say so.
>
OK, fine. The film is not what he says it is -- though
it probably wants to be at some vague level. It
doesn't deal with American history -- only American
furniture. It doesn't criticize or analyze or even
comment on any of the things he claims. it's just a
lot of hot pretty air. It contains not so much
characters as identikit figures to b posed against one
scenic vista after another. The sound, mixed for
maximum "realistic" effect is ridiculous.
I rather like the score.
Do you have anything to add about it of your own?
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
16843
From: Travis Miles
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
> At is best it's remindful of a bloated "Party Girl"
>>
>>
For me, it's a bloated "Hungarian Rhapsody/Allegro Barbaro", with which it
shares frightening similarities, although Kristofferson ain't no Gyorgy
Cserhalmi (and HR was a success). I don't suppose Zsigmond would have known
anything about Hungarian cinema though...
16844
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:41pm
Subject: Re: Rene Cl. (Was: Wyler and auteurist taste)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > >> P.S. I like postwar Clair, especially LES GRANDES MANOEUVRES.
> > >
> > > I was stunned by Grandes Manoeuvres when I saw it a few years
> ago. I
> > > also like Monsieur Ripois (Freddy Francis at the lens) and Purple
> > > Noon. Should see more.
> >
> > I think you might have switched from Rene Clair to Rene Clement in
> > mid-sentence there.... - Dan
>
> Any Rene Cl will do, as long as they're French.
Oops! So what else do I like by Clair? I really do like GM.
16845
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 4:45pm
Subject: CAFE FLESH (WAS: Re: The Piano Teacher)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Kaufman wrote:
> >For what it's worth, that's also the high point in Bertrand
> >Bonello's fairly dull LE PORNOGRAPHE.
> >
> >--Robert Keser
>
> There's also a scene of that sort in Brass, Guccione and Vidal's CALIGULA.
> --
>
> - Joe Kaufman
And in some Brigitte Lahaye film whose title I forget. These moments stand
out like beacons of sanity in a genre that is systematically twisted and life-
denying.
16846
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:42pm
Subject: Re: The Winner is ...
> But I may have carved out my own little corner of auteurist hell by
> finding a few positive things to say about...John Derek!
Would his "Childish Things" (aka "Confessions of Tom Harris") be one
of the films you mean? I thought this was just fantastic.
-Aaron
16847
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Greatest cut (Was: Blier, editing)
> LOL, and amen to that, Dan! There used to be so much shorthand
> auteurists could use among each other because there was a set of hard
> and firm tenets to which we all seemed to adhere, the lack of value
> in David Lean films looming large among them.
>
> In my gang, the same applied to then-contemporary A-listers Coppola,
> Friedkin, Schlesinger, each of whom I've seen over the months has
> admirers here.
And there goes our old-timer solidarity: I feel about Coppola and
Schlesinger as you do, but I'm a Friedkin fan. Oh, well - every man for
himself, I guess. - Dan
16848
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 5:54pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
"The film is not what he says it is -- though it probably wants to be
at some vague level. It doesn't deal with American history -- only
American furniture. It doesn't criticize or analyze or even comment
on any of the things he claims. it's just a lot of hot pretty air."
Whether or not you agree with what he's saying, Robin offers several
pages of detailed textual analysis to back up his reading. All you
are offering in response is a series of totally unsupported
assertions that he's wrong.
"Do you have anything to add about it of your own?"
See my piece on Cimino in CINEACTION 29.
16849
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:01pm
Subject: Re: The Winner is ...
"Would his "Childish Things" (aka "Confessions of Tom Harris") be one
of the films you mean? I thought this was just fantastic."
Haven't seen that one. ONCE BEFORE I DIE has some nice directorial
touches, and even GHOSTS CAN'T DO IT has a few good ideas, such as
consistently isolating Anthony Quinn in close-up, so that he occupies
a kind of off-screen space, separate from the other characters - it
anticipates his eventual fate, since, after he dies, he continues to
address Bo Derek from the spirit world (a literal off-screen space).
By the way, does anyone agree that Tom Laughlin is a remarkably
underrated director?
16850
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:13pm
Subject: Re: Akerman
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum" <
jrosenbaum2002@y...> wrote:
>
>
> > Will Janet Bergstrom's book on Akerman ever see the light of day,
> does
> > anyone know?
>
>
> It's beginning to look doubtful--despite the fact that she insisted
> to me that the book was virtually done when I saw her in Bologna in
> July, emphasized that she had only a couple of finishing touches to
> add while she was in Paris. But she didn't turn it in as (or when)
> promised, hasn't said anything to the publisher, and, from my
> experience, I've sadly come to conclude that anyone with a writing
> block who's in denial about having a writing block isn't apt to
> deliver. (Another case, even more worrisome, is Catherine Benamou,
> who's finally completed her brilliant book about Welles'S IT'S ALL
> TRUE, against all the odds, but has subsequently been devising all
> sort of delaying tactics to prevent the book from ever coming
> out...or so it would seem!)
I'm not as skeptical as Jonathan. Last I heard Janet was shooting for end of
August and was almost done -- she's been Seldom Seen (film reference
anyone?) lately, and I assume is juggling finishing w. the start of school. I'm
not sure what Catherine's delaying tactics are, but she has been very busy
securing a collection of Welles papers for U Mich, which has involved lots of
negotiations, two trips to LA and putting things on her own credit card before
the deal kicked in, which it has, due to her heroic efforts. The boxes should be
at Michigan now. I saw Catherine godmother and translate 6 weeks of filmed
interviews in Brazil, often in very difficult locations, while on crutches, at no
small risk to her recovery. She tends to get things done -- like Welles.
16851
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:17pm
Subject: Re: Akerman
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum" <
jrosenbaum2002@y...> wrote:
>
>
> > Will Janet Bergstrom's book on Akerman ever see the light of day,
> does
> > anyone know?
>
>
> It's beginning to look doubtful--
PS on Janet and Catherine. There was an amusing article in the NY Times
Book Review about people whose book contracts were stretched to the
breaking point by delayed delivery. J and C, who know and like each other,
have written their own chapter of that saga, but I would note that all the tales
spoun in the Times piece ended happily, and were often crowned with
rewards, fame, money.
16852
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:26pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> Whether or not you agree with what he's saying,
> Robin offers several
> pages of detailed textual analysis to back up his
> reading. All you
> are offering in response is a series of totally
> unsupported
> assertions that he's wrong.
>
I really don't think this forum is a proper setting
for detailed textual analysis.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16853
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:30pm
Subject: Re: Rene Cl. (Was: Wyler and auteurist taste)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
wrote:
> > > >> P.S. I like postwar Clair, especially LES GRANDES
MANOEUVRES.
> > > >
> > > > I was stunned by Grandes Manoeuvres when I saw it a few
years
> > ago. I
> > > > also like Monsieur Ripois (Freddy Francis at the lens) and
Purple
> > > > Noon. Should see more.
> > >
> > > I think you might have switched from Rene Clair to Rene
Clement in
> > > mid-sentence there.... - Dan
> >
> > Any Rene Cl will do, as long as they're French.
>
> Oops! So what else do I like by Clair? I really do like GM.
I don't see much to be liked in Clair but I either haven't seen
Grandes manoeuvres or have completely forgotten it. I did love "Le
dernier milliardaire"(his biggest flop) when i saw it at the
Cinematheque maybe 50 years ago but would have to revisit
it. "Entracte" is mildly entertaining. His middle and late period is
tedious. I'd like to like his films more, he wrote me a nice letter
about an article of mine back in 1960... JPC
16854
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 6:34pm
Subject: Re: Notre Musique - aspect ratio
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Programming
wrote:
> Paul, can you re-post that link if your scans are still up?
>
> My loss.
>
> Patrick
Here it is. The comments by the editor state that Godard wanted "Notre
Musique" to be shown 1.37, and he submitted these frames and sketches
to show the effects of different aspect ratios.
http://godard.cjb.net//formats.gif
http://godard.cjb.net//formats.pdf
1.37 -- person
1.66 -- character
1.87 -- slave satellite
stained-glass window -- myth
window -- history
1.37 -- to be human
1.66 -- credit card
1.85 -- dollar
scope -- funeral
[Fritz Lang's remark in "Contempt" about Cinemascope being
good for only funerals and snakes.]
1.37 -- proof of Serb shelling
1.66 -- proof reduced by Europe/USA
1.85 -- extermination of the proof (Milosevic acquitted)
16855
From:
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 3:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Winner is ...
For what it's worth, one of the things I enjoy most about hanging around
auteurists is that you will every so often come across an enthusiastic comment
about a director you'd previously not paid attention to, written off, or simply
were unaware of. I'm proud that we have such discussions often on our group.
The recent reassessment of Robert Wise prompted me to see or re-see some of
his films, and now I'll have to do the same with Derek and Winner as well.
Also for what it's worth, I've noticed that Eastwood, Cimino, Bogdanovich,
and even Spielberg are more recent Hollywood directors who most auteurists my
age (I'm 21) seem to agree about and like a lot. So when I'm talking with
auteurists in my age group, I feel there are some shared tastes.
Peter
16856
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:23pm
Subject: Re: The Winner is ...
"For what it's worth, one of the things I enjoy most about hanging
around auteurists is that you will every so often come across an
enthusiastic comment about a director you'd previously not paid
attention to, written off, or simply were unaware of."
Try sampling some films by Zalman King, who has spent the last few
years turning out a series of masterpieces: BLUE MOVIE BLUE (aka WILD
ORCHID 2), SHAME SHAME SHAME, IN GOD'S HANDS, and perhaps his supreme
achievement, WOMEN OF THE NIGHT. Many of the RED SHOE DIARIES
episodes he directed are also superb.
16857
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:27pm
Subject: New Member
Hello,
My name is Kyle Westphal and I am the newest member of a_film_by.
I was born in raised in Sacramento, CA, but moved to Illinois a month
ago to attend The University of Chicago. I will be double-majoring in
Cinema and Media Studies/English Language and Literature. I am also
serving on the DocFilms programming board, so I will periodically be
posting tentative schedules for the next quarter's programming.
My interest in film developed about six years ago, so please excuse
any gaps in my sense of film history. While I subscribe to the basic
tenets of auteurism as outlined by Sarris in "Notes on the Auteur
Theory" and believe that a film is often enriched when viewed in the
context of the director's other work, I have yet to go on an auteurist
binge and view every Ford film I can get my hands on.
Some brief reviews of mine were published last year in the Sacramento
Bee. It was a generally fine experience, although my review of MASTER
AND COMMANDER was edited to remove the assertion that the picture was
conceived as tinsel for an elaborate DVD package with hours of
featurettes about costumes and effects.
Also, I co-directed a documentary about artists in the Sacramento area
that has yet to be completed.
Without further ado, the reason any might be reading this:
FAVORITE FEATURE FILMS.
VERTIGO, PASSION OF JOAN OF ARC, MAN WITH A MOVIE CAMERA, IKIRU,
PATHER PANCHALI, CITIZEN KANE, PERSONA, THE THIRD MAN, SOME LIKE IT
HOT, IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE, RIFIFI, L'ATALANTE, THE GENERAL, FLOATING
WEEDS, SUNRISE, EARTH, SANSHO DAYU, CITY LIGHTS, ADVENTURES OF PRINCE
ACHMED, ALPHAVILLE, NIGHT OF THE HUNTER, 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY, THREE
COLORS: BLUE.
FAVORITE SHORT FILMS.
LAND BEYOND THE SUNSET, POWERS OF TEN, L'ECOLE DES FACTEURS, COPS,
SILLY SYMPHONY: THE CHINA PLATE.
FAVORITE DIRECTORS.
Mizoguchi, Godard, Satyajit Ray, Murnau, Ozu, Hitchcock, Wong,
Griffith, Welles, Dreyer.
FAVORITE CRITICS (who don't post on this board as near as I can tell)
J. Hoberman, Manohla Dargis, Armond White, Mike D'Angelo, Godrey Chesire
Feel free to e-mail me at any time at kawest@u.... I hope I
can contribute to this community.
--Kyle Westphal
16858
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Winner is ...
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g012/zalmanking.html
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> "For what it's worth, one of the things I enjoy most
> about hanging
> around auteurists is that you will every so often
> come across an
> enthusiastic comment about a director you'd
> previously not paid
> attention to, written off, or simply were unaware
> of."
>
> Try sampling some films by Zalman King, who has
> spent the last few
> years turning out a series of masterpieces: BLUE
> MOVIE BLUE (aka WILD
> ORCHID 2), SHAME SHAME SHAME, IN GOD'S HANDS, and
> perhaps his supreme
> achievement, WOMEN OF THE NIGHT. Many of the RED
> SHOE DIARIES
> episodes he directed are also superb.
>
>
>
>
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16859
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:47pm
Subject: Re: The Winner is ...
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> "I'm fully expecting someone sooner or later to wax rhapsodic
about
> Michael Winner."
>
> THE MECHANIC is a great film, but its greatness is clearly
> attributable to Monte Hellman, who supervised the writing of the
> screenplay - it's virtually a Monte Hellman film by default.
>
> But I may have carved out my own little corner of auteurist hell
by
> finding a few positive things to say about...John Derek!
But let us not forget the contribution of composer Jerry Fielding
who wrote many scores for Michael Winner films. During a workshop on
Sound and Music at the Athens, Ohio Film Festival in Fall 79,
Fielding remarked that he knew Winner made bad films but the
important thing for him was that "he left me alone to do my own
musical compositions."
Tony Williams
16860
From: K. A. Westphal
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:48pm
Subject: Re: BIRTH OF A NATION - 1st anything?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> I should have explained why I asked this question in the first place.
>
> The textbook for the class I am teaching states uncategorically that
THE BIRTH OF A NATION was the first feature-length film. I'm no
devotee of "firsts" myself. But I think it's more than a tad suspect
(to use a nice word) to trot out that factoid as gospel, no?
>
> Kevin John
Forgive any hint of hucksterism (as well as the lateness of this
reply), but I wrote a paper of moderate length on just this topic for
my International Baccalaureate (IB) Diploma (http://www.ibo.org)
The paper had to be couched under the History syllabus, so the film
analysis is limited. The work here isn't intended to be exhaustive,
and I assume some will make argument for Feuillaude, Edison,
Sjorstrom, et al.
Relevant portions excerpted below:
D. W. Griffith's work on "The Birth of a Nation" is often regarded as
pioneering and visionary in its scope, conception, and technical
mastery. Not only is this perspective historically incorrect, the view
precludes investigation of Griffith's true mastery. Succinctly,
Griffith did not invent cinematic technique; he perfected it.
Several prominent feature-length films had been released prior to
Birth. The Italians produced epic national pageants such as "Cabiria"
(1913) and "Quo Vadis?" (1912). Even earlier, the French had
formulated Film d'Arte, a company devoted to releasing hoary canned
theatre productions; the reign of Film d'Arte culminated in the
release of the four-reel "Queen Elizabeth" (1912), starring Sarah
Bernhardt.
While these films successfully attracted a more sophisticated audience
to the movie theatre, they were admittedly crude in their
construction. Elizabeth was essentially a filmed stage play with every
scene composed around a single long shot. Cabiria was more developed
cinematically, but its camera still impeded the players' acting more
than it elevated it, never offering the close-ups needed to
successfully emote.
...
Its forcefulness derives from Griffith's conviction, his love of the
subject matter, and the inspired technique. It is a film filled with
beautiful close-ups, rhythmic montage, and careful plot
construction—all adapted, improbably enough, from Thomas Dixon's
race-baiting literary diatribe The Clansmen. Again, analyzing
Griffith's contributions to film art is a complicated matter. During
his later years, Griffith had a hobby of exaggerating his own legend,
perpetuating misconceptions about his cinematic contributions. Roger
Ebert claims that "Birth's" Ku Klux Klan rescue finale was the first
use of cross-cutting. Though a notable sequence, it was hardly the
first such attempt; Edwin S. Porter's "The Great Train Robbery" (1903)
can be said to have such an instance in a cut from the fleeing robbers
to the trapped telegraph operator glimpsed in a previous scene.
Griffith himself further developed the technique in "The Lonely Villa"
(1909), fittingly during another of his last-minute rescue sequences.
The full shot, too, was purportedly a Griffith innovation, though one
from many years earlier, in "For Love of Gold" (1908). (Some
historians again cite Porter and "Robbery" for its use of the shot.)
The moving camera, used so powerfully in "Birth," found its origins in
Griffith's 1911 short "The Lonesdale Operator" when, not content to
simply pan with the camera on its tripod, Griffith rigged it to a
moving truck. Admittedly, "Birth" did contain some technical
innovations all its own, primarily night photography—an advancement of
minor significance.
"Birth" is best examined as a culmination of a film technique rather
than as a sourcebook of discoveries. More important than any singular
element of Birth is the film's cumulative commitment to a celluloid
art. The foremost element is Griffith's careful attention to shot
composition. In a scene of emotional turmoil—for example, Elsie's
tryst with Ben—Griffith splits the action across two or more shots, an
impossible construction on stage. Elsie and Ben begin the scene in the
same frame, but after she confronts him about his Klan activities, she
runs off—into a shot all her own. Whereas previous directors saw the
camera as an instrument capable only of capturing a large tableau,
Griffith saw that by relegating different actors to different shots,
the frame became an instantaneous register of emotional distance.
There are other such instances of this frame construction: Stoneman
attempting to save his daughter from Lynch, the Stoneman boys leaving
for combat, Ben in rapture delivered unto him via Elsie's picture.
More significant than the fact that Griffith's shot composition is
dramatically effective is the inherent realization that the cinema is
a complex art requiring great editorial sensitivity.
...
"Birth's" additional nuances have been examined with great depth
elsewhere. The historian Gerald Mast writes, for example, that by
illustrating the declining fortunes of Piedmont through the activities
on main street, "Griffith successfully renders human feeling rather
than a parody of feeling, as in Queen Elizabeth." Dave Kehr argues
that the film achieves its thematic depth through sexual subtext. And
Seymour Stern contends the film was revolutionary in that it
"introduced to the screen the use of line as a dominant graphic
element in the composition of the image."
...
Yet greater than any singular technique is "Birth's" lasting
impression—its conception as a work of art. By viewing every aspect of
the production as an element that could and must be manipulated
towards a cumulative effect, Griffith elevated the motion picture from
haphazard assemblage to genuine art. Following the controversy
generated by the film, Griffith resorted to adding the following
introductory title:
A PLEA FOR THE ART OF THE MOTION PICTURE
We do not fear censorship, for we have no wish to offend with
improprieties or obscenities, but we do demand, as a right, the
liberty to show the dark side of wrong, that we may illuminate the
bright side of virtue—the same liberty that is conceded to the art of
the written word—that art to which we owe the Bible and works of
Shakespeare.
Additionally, every intertitle was stamped with Griffith's name in the
upper left and right corners—a move signaling film as art produced by
a creator rather than entertainment produced by no one—the de facto
anonymity mandated by the Motion Picture Patents Company prior to
Griffith's rabble-rousing. It should then not be surprising that
Griffith became the prototypical filmmaker—the medium's first auteur.
Notes amateur film historian Scott Smith:
Many of the stereotypical conventions of the Hollywood director were
modeled after his eccentricities: shouting instructions to actors
through a megaphone; giving direction from a folding chair; wearing
flamboyant hats and riding pants to the set; throwing temper tantrums;
handing down orders to set crews through assistants; using experts to
lend authenticity to scenery and costumes. The position has never
escaped these influences.
Misconceptions over "innovations" aside, Griffith's influence cannot
be overestimated.
NOTE: the plain text format removes footnotes. Citations were as follows:
Gerald Mast, A Short History of the Movies 4h ed. (New York:
Macmillan Publishing Company, 1986), 46 – 48.
Robert Sklar, Movie-Made America: A Cultural History of American
Movies (New York: Vintage, 1975), 55.
Arthur Knight, The Liveliest Art: A Panoramic History of the Movies
(New York: The New American Library, Inc., 1957), 34
Richard Schickel, D.W. Griffith: An American Life (New York: Simon
and Schuster, 1984), 196.
Sklar, Movie-Made, 53 –54.
Stanley J. Solomon, The Film Idea (New York: Harcourt Brace
Jovanovich, Inc., 1972), 103 – 107.
Knight, Liveliest Art, 32.
Lewis Jacobs, "D. W. Griffith: New Discoveries," The Emergence of
Film Art, ed. Lewis Jacobs (New York: Hopkinson and Blake, 1969), 42.
Ibid., 52.
Seymour Stern, "The Birth of a Nation: The Technique and Its
Influence," The Emergence of Film Art, ed. Lewis Jacobs (New York:
Hopkinson and Blake, 1969), 60.
Mast, Short History, 67.
Dave Kehr, "The Birth of a Nation (1915)" The A List: The National
Society of Film Critics' 100 Essential Films, ed. Jay Carr
(Cambridge: Da Capo Press, 2002), 32 – 34.
Stern, "Technique Influence," 68 – 69.
Schickel, American Life, 281.
Stern, "Technique Influence," 59.
Schickel, American Life, 282.
Sklar, Movie-Made, 55.
Scott Smith, The Film 100: A Ranking of the Most Influential People
in the History of the Movies (Secaucus, New Jersey: Carol Publishing
Group, 1998), 32.
Hope this is helpful (if a tad long)
--Kyle Westphal
16861
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:50pm
Subject: Re: The Winner is ...
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g012/zalmanking.html
Cool!
But does this mean you're a fan as well?
16862
From: thebradstevens
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:52pm
Subject: Re: The Winner is ...
"But let us not forget the contribution of composer Jerry Fielding
who wrote many scores for Michael Winner films. During a workshop on
Sound and Music at the Athens, Ohio Film Festival in Fall 79,
Fielding remarked that he knew Winner made bad films but the
important thing for him was that "he left me alone to do my own
musical compositions."
Didn't Brando say something similar? About how Winner was his
favorite director, since he never tried telling Brando how to act.
16863
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:57pm
Subject: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> > >
>
> I really don't think this forum is a proper setting
> for detailed textual analysis.
>
Like many readers in this group, I'm finding the HEAVEN'S GATE
debate fascinating. But while I'd agree that a "detailed textual
analysis" of this film in article form running over several pages
may be inappropriate as David says, I feel the film deserves more
than the (always fascinating) short responses that have appeared in
the debate.
May I suggest a compromise? If David does not feel "the forum is a
proper setting" for the responses Brad (and many others?) desire,
perhaps we can all be directed to the Ehrenstein archive for any
past and future detailed comments he may care to make.
Tony Williams
>
>
>
> _______________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
> http://vote.yahoo.com
16864
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:58pm
Subject: Re: Notre Musique - aspect ratio
> > I suspect the print you are speaking of is the same one shown in Melbourne -
> > which, as I too was told, has definitely the wrong aspect ratio info written
> > on it. This is obviously someone's mistake which is travelling the world and
> > causing havoc in projection booths everywhere!!
The print shown at NYFF began with a (letterboxed) 1.66:1 Wellspring logo, so I would suppose its chances of being projected properly are not very good unless the logo is replaced.
16865
From: Programming
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 8:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: Notre Musique - aspect ratio
On 10/13/04 2:58 PM, "jess_l_amortell" wrote:
>
>>> > > I suspect the print you are speaking of is the same one shown in
>>> Melbourne -
>>> > > which, as I too was told, has definitely the wrong aspect ratio info
>>> written
>>> > > on it. This is obviously someone's mistake which is travelling the world
and
>>> > > causing havoc in projection booths everywhere!!
>
> The print shown at NYFF began with a (letterboxed) 1.66:1 Wellspring logo, so
> I would suppose its chances of being projected properly are not very good
> unless the logo is replaced.
>
>
>
My friend at the Chicago festival says he called Wellspring today to ask
about aspect ratio and they said, yes 1.33 - we forgot to tell you.
Patrick F.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16866
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 9:31pm
Subject: An Auteur-Friendly University Press?
Dear Colleagues,
A contact is trying to find a University Press for his first book on
Kubrick and is looking for one which is "auteur-friendly" and not
committed to a cultural studies "death of the author" discourse.
Suggestions (which I'll pass on) will be most welcome.
Thank You.
Tony Williams
16867
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:24pm
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
--- peckinpah20012000
>
> May I suggest a compromise? If David does not feel
> "the forum is a
> proper setting" for the responses Brad (and many
> others?) desire,
> perhaps we can all be directed to the Ehrenstein
> archive for any
> past and future detailed comments he may care to
> make.
There's no need to go that far. If the film's
defenders were willing to isolate a specific thematic
concern or scene of piotal interest to discuss I would
be more than happy to comment. But I'm not about to
wrestle with an entire Robin Wood essay.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
16868
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:26pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Winner is ...
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g012/zalmanking.html
>
> Cool!
>
> But does this mean you're a fan as well?
>
Not exactly. He interests me -- an actor whose career
was heading nowhere who managed to re-invent himself
into a new career with great success.
_______________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Declare Yourself - Register online to vote today!
http://vote.yahoo.com
16869
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:28pm
Subject: Re: An Auteur-Friendly University Press?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>
>
> Dear Colleagues,
>
> A contact is trying to find a University Press for his first book on
> Kubrick and is looking for one which is "auteur-friendly" and not
> committed to a cultural studies "death of the author" discourse.
>
> Suggestions (which I'll pass on) will be most welcome.
>
> Thank You.
>
> Tony Williams
But Kubrick IS dead, Tony!
16870
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:39pm
Subject: Re: Re: Akerman
Having just gotten my third extension on the contract for my current book
for Schocken, I'm entirely sympathetic. My agent informed me quite bluntly,
"This is the last extension, George. Finish the damn book already."
g
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
----- Original Message -----
From: "hotlove666"
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 2:17 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: Akerman
>
> PS on Janet and Catherine. There was an amusing article in the NY Times
> Book Review about people whose book contracts were stretched to the
> breaking point by delayed delivery. J and C, who know and like each other,
> have written their own chapter of that saga, but I would note that all the
tales
> spoun in the Times piece ended happily, and were often crowned with
> rewards, fame, money.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
16871
From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:53pm
Subject: Re: An Auteur-Friendly University Press?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
> wrote:
> >
> >> But Kubrick IS dead, Tony!
Sure Bill. But is the "auteur" dead? Otherwise, why are we all in
this discussion group in the first place?
16872
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:55pm
Subject: Re: No one is 21. [was Re: The Winner is ...]
21?
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 3:06 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Re: The Winner is ...
> Also for what it's worth, I've noticed that Eastwood, Cimino, Bogdanovich,
> and even Spielberg are more recent Hollywood directors who most auteurists
my
> age (I'm 21) seem to agree about and like a lot. So when I'm talking with
> auteurists in my age group, I feel there are some shared tastes.
>
> Peter
>
>
16873
From:
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:02pm
Subject: Re: No one is 21. [was Re: The Winner is ...]
I just turned 51 last Sunday!
Celebrated by watching "Michael" (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1924).
Now I have my own movie! (To borrow a phrase from my friend Dave Barton when
"Dave" came out in 1993).
Mike Grost
PS Have been watching lots of silent movies recently. "The Flag" (Arthur
Maude, 1927) and "Salt for Svanetia" (Mikhail Kalatozv) are also good.
16874
From:
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:04pm
Subject: Re: An Auteur-Friendly University Press?
Isn't Johns Hopkins the publisher of Chris Fujiwara's Tourneur book and
Jonathan Rosenbaum's "Essential Cinema"? Sounds pretty auteurist to me!
Mike Grost
16875
From: George Robinson
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:09pm
Subject: Re: No one is 21. But many are 51
Cool -- I turn 51 on November 11, so I'm right behind you.
I can't recall a movie named George, but I'm not overly disappointed by the
gap.
What is "The Flag?" That title and director are new to me.
g
Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
never the victim. Silence encourages the
tormentor, never the tormented.
--Elie Wiesel
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 7:02 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] Re: No one is 21. [was Re: The Winner is ...]
>
> I just turned 51 last Sunday!
> Celebrated by watching "Michael" (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1924).
> Now I have my own movie! (To borrow a phrase from my friend Dave Barton
when
> "Dave" came out in 1993).
>
> Mike Grost
> PS Have been watching lots of silent movies recently. "The Flag" (Arthur
> Maude, 1927) and "Salt for Svanetia" (Mikhail Kalatozv) are also good.
>
16876
From: Aaron Graham
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:25pm
Subject: Re: The Winner is ...
> By the way, does anyone agree that Tom Laughlin is a remarkably
> underrated director?
I've only seen Laughlin's Billy Jack series, so I don't feel
confident in commenting too much. I love the first Billy Jack
picture, BORN LOSERS, which also co-stars one of my favorite lesser-
known directors (and Laughlin's friend), Jack Starrett.
-Aaron
16877
From:
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:26pm
Subject: Re: The Flag (was No one is 21. But many are 51)
"The Flag" is a 20 minute short film drama, about Betsy Ross and the creation
of the US flag during the revolutionary war. It is in a color process, which
may or may not be 2-color Technicolor (it looks a bit different from other
2-color films I've seen). Color silent films are a passion of mine. Those folks
back then liked color a lot, and were creative with it.
Arthur Maude was a British actor who directed a fair number of silent films
in the States. I had never heard of him either - but the silent era is full of
prolific directors who have fallen out of the cracks of film history. The film
is unusually sympathetic to the British for an American Revolution pic.
TCM keeps showing this as a "one reel wonder". It is nice, but not a lost
masterpiece. Still, I enjoyed it!
Mike Grost
PS "Big George" by Virgil Partch was a one-panel, surrealist comic strip of
the 1960's. It is clearly the ancestor of The Far Side, which it resembles in
its nutty events. It is wonderful!
16878
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:42pm
Subject: Re: An Auteur-Friendly University Press?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
> wrote:
> >
> >
> > Dear Colleagues,
> >
> > A contact is trying to find a University Press for his first
book on
> > Kubrick and is looking for one which is "auteur-friendly" and
not
> > committed to a cultural studies "death of the author" discourse.
> >
> > Suggestions (which I'll pass on) will be most welcome.
> >
> > Thank You.
> >
> > Tony Williams
>
> But Kubrick IS dead, Tony!
Not only that, but he was white and male. Triple threat.
16879
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 11:51pm
Subject: No one is 21. [was Re: The Winner is ...]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> 21?
>
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHH
> HHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
> Take sides. Neutrality helps the oppressor,
> never the victim. Silence encourages the
> tormentor, never the tormented.
> --Elie Wiesel
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From:
> To:
> Sent: Wednesday, October 13, 2004 3:06 PM
> Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Re: The Winner is ...
>
>
>
>
> > Also for what it's worth, I've noticed that Eastwood, Cimino,
Bogdanovich,
> > and even Spielberg are more recent Hollywood directors who most
auteurists
> my
> > age (I'm 21) seem to agree about and like a lot. So when I'm
talking with
> > auteurists in my age group, I feel there are some shared tastes.
> >
> > Peter
> >
Well, I'm 69 and I love Eastwood, Cimino (not everything though),
some Bogd. (esp. St Jack) a lot of Spielberg. And I have written
very enthusiastically about some of their films. So I don't think
it's so much a matter of age, although age does play a part -- it
always does. There's even one Winner film I liked when I saw it a
long long time ago before Peter was born: "Chato's Land." JPC
16880
From:
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 7:59pm
Subject: Re: No one is 21. [was Re: The Winner is ...]
Jean-Pierre Coursodon wrote:
"Well, I'm 69 and I love Eastwood, Cimino (not everything though),
some Bogd. (esp. St Jack) a lot of Spielberg."
And I think the same could certainly be said for many of our group members
who aren't in their 20s. But there does seem to be more disagreement about
these filmmakers among older auteurists than the younger auteurists I know, which
ties in with the point Dan always makes about how none of "us" (auteurists of
any age) have really agreed on just who the great filmmakers are after the
fall of the studio system.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16881
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 0:08am
Subject: Re: An Auteur-Friendly University Press?
Tony - don't you think there are quite a few university and/or
serious-minded presses that are really quite auteurist at this period in
time? In fact, I think of it - for better and for worse - as a
'neo-auteurist' period in publishing.
Look at the evidence (cue Rivette: the evidence is on the page, all you have
to do is read it ... ): there's the BFI World Cinema Directors series.
There's the Illinois University Press directors series (both of those, it
must be said, restricted to LIVING directors, alas). There's Faber & Faber,
resolutely director-centred in almost all of its many film books, and in
PROJECTIONS. The overwhelming majority of BFI Classics and Modern Classics
emphasise the auteur above all else. Then we have Brad's books on Hellman
and Ferrara, Chris' book on Tourneuer and his forthcoming works on Preminger
and Jerry Lewis, reprints coming from Columbia of ALL Robin Wood's director
studies, the Cambridge series which is director-centred, the excellent
Wallflower Press in UK which does a lot of director books, etc ... down to
things like the woeful 'Pocket Essentials' series and many non-academic
things.
I think it is currently harder to get a book published on film genre! Or
certain unfashionable kinds of film theory. Or many pockets of film history.
Getting a good book on Kubrick published should be, in this context, a
bloody snap!
Opinions, anyone?
Adrian
16882
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:35am
Subject: Re: Re: The Winner is ...
I believe John Boorman reported in his latest memoir that Brando said
this.
Jack Angstreich
On Oct 13, 2004, at 3:52 PM, thebradstevens wrote:
"But let us not forget the contribution of composer Jerry Fielding
who wrote many scores for Michael Winner films. During a workshop on
Sound and Music at the Athens, Ohio Film Festival in Fall 79,
Fielding remarked that he knew Winner made bad films but the
important thing for him was that "he left me alone to do my own
musical compositions."
Didn't Brando say something similar? About how Winner was his
favorite director, since he never tried telling Brando how to act.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16883
From: Jack Angstreich
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:38am
Subject: Re: Re: Heaven's Gate
wouldn't this board benefit from detailed discussion rather than the
usual brief assertions of likes and dislikes?
Jack Angstreich
On Oct 13, 2004, at 3:57 PM, peckinpah20012000 wrote:
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> > >
>
> I really don't think this forum is a proper setting
> for detailed textual analysis.
>
Like many readers in this group, I'm finding the HEAVEN'S GATE
debate fascinating. But while I'd agree that a "detailed textual
analysis" of this film in article form running over several pages
may be inappropriate as David says, I feel the film deserves more
than the (always fascinating) short responses that have appeared in
the debate.
May I suggest a compromise? If David does not feel "the forum is a
proper setting" for the responses Brad (and many others?) desire,
perhaps we can all be directed to the Ehrenstein archive for any
past and future detailed comments he may care to make.
Tony Williams
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16884
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 1:44am
Subject: CAFE FLESH (WAS: Re: The Piano Teacher)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Joseph Kaufman wrote:
> There's also a scene of that sort in Brass, Guccione and Vidal's
CALIGULA.
>
> - Joe Kaufman
I thought it was funny that CALIGULA started out as one of
Rossellini's many unfilmed projects. According to Tag Gallagher,
Rossellini originally proposed a film, MESSALINA, to David O. Selznick
in 1947, and CALIGULA grew from this. In the 1970's he commissioned a
script for CALIGULA from Jean Gruault (who wrote for Resnais, Rivette,
Triffaut, Akerman, etc.), "that had too much sex for television." It's
reprinted in Pio Baldelli's "Roberto Rossellini." It was to be an
American production, but the producers insisted on casting Dustin
Hoffman as Caligula, and Rossellini objected on principle to giving up
control of casting. He passed on the idea to his nephew, Franco
Rossellini, who eventually produced CALIGULA along with Bob Guccione
and Tinto Brass, using a new script.
Paul
16885
From:
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:34pm
Subject: Re: Re: An Auteur-Friendly University Press?
In a message dated 10/13/04 7:09:20 PM, apmartin@n... writes:
>
> Getting a good book on Kubrick published should be, in this context, a
> bloody snap!
>
> Opinions, anyone?
>
I agree. Also check out whoever published Gunning's Lang book.
Perhaps it's indicative of the anti-academia bent I frequently detect on this
list that there's this idea that the death of the author still reigns supreme
in ivory towers. Feminists, in particular, have thought it was a suspect
notion almost since the publication of Foucault's "What Is An Author?" if not
Barthes' canonical essay itself. In the graduate course I am currently enrolled
in, we're reading tons of academic essays that tear it to shreds. Two that come
to mind are Andy Medhurst's piece on BRIEF ENCOUNTER and Alexandra Juhasz's
compelling essay on realist feminist documentary (both from early 1990s issues
of SCREEN).
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16886
From:
Date: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:45pm
Subject: Zalman King (WAS: The Winner is ...)
In a message dated 10/13/04 2:27:28 PM, bradstevens22@h... writes:
> Try sampling some films by Zalman King, who has spent the last few
> years turning out a series of masterpieces: BLUE MOVIE BLUE (aka WILD
> ORCHID 2), SHAME SHAME SHAME, IN GOD'S HANDS, and perhaps his supreme
> achievement, WOMEN OF THE NIGHT. Many of the RED SHOE DIARIES
> episodes he directed are also superb.
>
And Brad, I trust you are aware that Zalman King stars in SOME CALL IT
LOVING, the very greatest film of all-time. More than any other film he's starred in
(that I've seen, natch), SCIL unquestionably influenced his directorial
efforts the most.
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
16887
From: Damien Bona
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:48am
Subject: No one is 21. [was Re: The Winner is ...]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> 21?
>
AAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAARRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRRGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHH
HHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!
Come on, George. I knew you when you were 21 -- precious memories of
Carl Hovde's 1890s American literature class and Zooprax . . .
16888
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:54am
Subject: Re: Akerman
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> Having just gotten my third extension on the contract for my
current book
> for Schocken, I'm entirely sympathetic. My agent informed me quite
bluntly,
> "This is the last extension, George. Finish the damn book already."
>
The Serial Killer in the Cinema is now officially into overtime.
What's yours about, George?
16889
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:57am
Subject: No one is 21. [was Re: The Winner is ...]
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> I just turned 51 last Sunday!
> Celebrated by watching "Michael" (Carl Theodor Dreyer, 1924).
> Now I have my own movie! (To borrow a phrase from my friend Dave
Barton when
I love Libras -- my mother was one, my second gf, my best friend at
Fox... Great people.
16890
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 4:58am
Subject: Re: An Auteur-Friendly University Press?
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
> > wrote:
> > >
> > >> But Kubrick IS dead, Tony!
>
> Sure Bill. But is the "auteur" dead? Otherwise, why are we all in
> this discussion group in the first place?
Auteurism is everywhere victorious, and everywhere in chains.
16891
From: hotlove666
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 5:02am
Subject: Re: Zalman King (WAS: The Winner is ...)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/13/04 2:27:28 PM, bradstevens22@h... writes:
>
>
> > Try sampling some films by Zalman King, who has spent the last few
> > years turning out a series of masterpieces: BLUE MOVIE BLUE (aka
WILD
> > ORCHID 2), SHAME SHAME SHAME, IN GOD'S HANDS, and perhaps his
supreme
> > achievement, WOMEN OF THE NIGHT. Many of the RED SHOE DIARIES
> > episodes he directed are also superb.
My friend Joelle was writing one of those, New Year's Eve, about a
couple who meet once a year for anonymous hanky-panky, and I gave her
the ending -- the girl wakes up, sees that the guy has written his
phone number on her body in lipstrick, and washes it off in the
shower. Then the damn director -- not Zalman -- left it out. As
usual, the only person who really got fucked was the writer.
16892
From:
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 3:44am
Subject: Eastwood, Cimino, Bogdanovich, Spielberg (was: The Winner is)
Some brief impressions on these directors named by Peter as consistently
admired by 21 year old auteurists.
Bogdanovich seems like a genuine auteur, a director with a high track record
of success, creative use of film, and a consistent personality.
Spielberg has made some very absorbing films: Amistad, Catch Me If You Can,
Schindler's List. My trouble with Spielberg is that I have never been able to
detectect the slightest consistency of approach in his work. Had Catch Me If
You Can and Minority Report had been released without credits, I would have
sworn that they were directed by two different people. The relentless action
sequences of Minority Report are just plain exhausting to watch. It is a draining
and unpleasant experience. But Spielberg can also show the calm of Catch Me,
with real characters and story. I have absolutely no idea who this man is. He
seems to be 20 different filmmakers, each with a different movie and
personality. This is not nescessarily a Bad Thing - perhaps I am just showing an
auteurist prejudice, hoping for an Author with consistent themes and techniques.
Spielberg definitely seems talented.
Eastwood. Have seen five films over the years: Firefox, Heartbreak Ridge,
Bronco Billy, Play Misty for Me, Midnight in the Garden of Good and Evil. Always
found Eastwood's work utterly without merit on any level - terminally dull,
visually dead, with no entertainment value at all, let alone any signs of
artistry. But since joining a_film_by, have gradually realized that I'm the only
auteurist on Earth who does not think Eastwood is a great master! Clearly
something is wrong here. I am really Not Getting It. It might be a matter of
personality clash. I really dislike the characters in Eastwood's films. I would dread
spending any time with these people in real life, and do not enjoy seeing them
on screen. Eastwood is also my least favorite actor in the modern cinema.
Cimino. All I know about him is pan-and-scan TV versions of Thunderbolt and
Lightfoot and The Desperate Hours, seen long ago. These seemed uninteresting,
but pan and scan is such an atrocity that I know that this is a worthless base
of judgment. Am startled to see a_film_by-ers consider him a major visual
stylist on the order of Visconti, no less! Here I am just plain ignorant. Will
have to try to see a good screening of Heaven's Gate.
The Desperate Hours was not helped by its now dated casting of Anthony
Hopkins as a timid middle class man, cringing in terror at the sight of hood Mickey
Rourke! I kept waiting for Hopkins to eat Rourke, with some fava beans...
Mike Grost
16893
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 8:38am
Subject: More Big Red One
At the screening in Chicago I brought up the crappy-looking
image to Richard Schickel in the Q&A.
I am feeling a little demoralized and need to get this off my chest:
I was attacked by a few audience members for even bringing it
up, like a totally ungrateful cretin, who, after all the hard labor put
into the new restoration, dares to say something is still not quite
right...
But what troubled me most wasn't the audience; it was that
Schickel seemed deliberately sketchy in his initial response
("The print in the NYFF is much better"), which led me to make
three follow-up questions -- much to the dismay of everyone
around me -- that didn't bring the matter at hand any closer to
being resolved.
The version of THE BIG RED ONE that we have does not belong
to the time when THE BIG RED ONE was made. We have
brought it into the digital age, and I find this kind of disturbing.
Rarely do I participate in post-screening discussions, and the
amount of vitriol I had to face after the screening -- nothing new,
really, considering how young I look, and all of the lonely
psychotic ageists who flock to movie theaters -- made me
almost want to throw up my arms and forget that I've ever
experienced 35mm film in its full beauty.
And then reading back the posts on the subject, especially Bill
on how the cinematography by Adam Greenberg is really great,
makes me even more depressed... because I know this is not
how the film is supposed to look on the big screen!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Patrick Ciccone"
wrote:
> >
> > About THE BIG RED RED ONE:
> > I, and at least a couple others here, were bothered by the
image
> > quality of the restoration. The image was very clearly a video
> > transfer retransferred to film, and with the size of Alice Tully
> > Hall's screen, the full weight of film didn't come off with the
> > blocky, transpar. I'm sure it looks fine on DVD, but I was
> > dissappointed after having weighted to see this. I guess the
Warner
> > Home Video logo at start was a warning sign.
> >
> > PWC
>
> They went back to the camera neg, which had been stored,
and
> telecined from that to edit on an Avid. After that they should
have
> spit out a list that would permit finishing on film. That's what all
> films do today, although not all telecine from the negative. (We
did
> on It's All True. I know that Sky Captain did, for example.) If they
> skipped finishing on film and transferred from the Hi Def
master,
> Adam Greenberg's beautiful cinematography (natural lighting,
an
> amazingly subtle palette that enhanced Sam's bold,
stripped-down
> graphics) would indeed have been degraded in the process. I
can't
> think why they would do it that way, unless they were simply
rushed.
> Were all the scenes cruddy looking, or just the new ones?
16894
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:33am
Subject: Re: More Big Red One
Sorry you had such a hard time, but glad you stuck up for the film.
Schickel deserves to be asked some really hard questions about
this "reconstruction" - even if i'm more concerned about the
inclusion of the VO and geographical captions, I'm glad you took him
to task. While I'm glad somebody restored all this missing footage,
turning a good film into a great one, I'm incandescent with rage that
they fumbled the ball in so many important ways.
16895
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:47am
Subject: Re: Eastwood, Cimino, Bogdanovich, Spielberg (was: The Winner is)
> Bogdanovich seems like a genuine auteur, a director with a high
track record
> of success, creative use of film, and a consistent personality.
I LOVE his early work but have failed to get to grips with the later
ones. Have seen a few on TV, but where my first viewing of PAPER MOON
on TV as a liyttle kid is a treasure memory, the later work hasn't
made much impression. But I need to see more and I don't want to
write him off - he has made at least three films I adore.
> My trouble with Spielberg is that I have never been able to
> detectect the slightest consistency of approach in his work.
There definitely is in everything after SUGARLAND EXPRESS and before
SCHINDLER'S LIST. That's where I see the true Spielberg - as a very
talented kid. His work since Schindler's has been aimed at
establishing artistic credibility and maintaining commercial success
in turn, with varying degrees of success. Some of the later films are
good, but the earlier work shows his true self.
Also, almost everything since SCHINDLER seems to have about five
endings, each more redundant than the last...
> Eastwood. Have seen five films over the years: Firefox, Heartbreak
Ridge,
> Bronco Billy, Play Misty for Me, Midnight in the Garden of Good and
Evil.
Of the films you cite, those I've seen are not good examples. Ithink
UNFORGIVEN is very good. But it's a terrific script. With a good
script and obvious photographic possibilities, Eastwood can make a
good film. But I don't rate him as an auteur at all. He's like a
right-wing Robert Redford. I'd really love to read an actual analysis
of a moment in any film where Clint uses the mechanics of cinema in
an interesting way because I can't think of any strong examples. And
I don't think he's a master of conventional mise-en-scene in a way
that would put him far ahead of the average soap opera hack.
Wait: I remember a grotesque rack-focus in PLAY MISTY FOR ME which
was sort of effective in a disturbing scene - but that was a while
ago.
> Cimino. All I know about him is pan-and-scan TV versions of
Thunderbolt and
> Lightfoot and The Desperate Hours, seen long ago.
You do need to see more. I think he's hopelessly confused, and his
interviews do not reveal a great capacity for analytical thought. He
decsribes his approach to big scenes as a combination of planned
camera moves and free-floating improvised camerawork, and I see the
same contradiction in every level of his filmmaking. this makes it
often interesting, sometimes rewarding, but never quite satisfactory.
I think HEAVEN'S GATE illustrates his virtues and vices at their most
extreme and so is the most interesting.
This isn't my last word on the guy, I probably need to see more too,
but I don't think I'll ever be a huge fan.
This is all just opinion, really. I suspect that these guys might
appeal to the young as much because of some of their weaknesses as
their virtues, but I'm a cynical, wizened 37-year-old (as of Sunday)
so am not to be trusted on this.
16896
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:50am
Subject: Re: The Winner is ...
> Not exactly. He interests me -- an actor whose career
> was heading nowhere who managed to re-invent himself
> into a new career with great success.
Where, exactly, is his directing career heading? :)
And I view the nature of King's "success" with a skeptical, and
slightly bloodshot, eye.
Ah, good luck to him. Anyone with a face like that who can even talk
his way to in front of a movie camera must have some smarts.
16897
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 9:59am
Subject: Re: Rene Cl. (Was: Wyler and auteurist taste)
>I'd like to like his films more, he wrote me a nice letter
> about an article of mine back in 1960...
He seems to have been a real gent. That's partly what distresses me
in those auteurist attacks - Truffaut was so RUDE. OK, his films
don't appeal to you, but don't take it as a personal affront.
Actually, I totally relate to the desire to trash those of the older
generation of filmmakers you don't like, since I've said the odd rude
thing about James Ivory and Richard Attenborough myself. But I think
the modern auteurist needs to bear all this in mind when looking at
Clair, Duvivier, Carne, etc. For instance, the idea that all Carne's
later work is lacking in merit - not true.
For anyone looking to see more Clair, I'd recommend THE CRAZY RAY,
which has moments reminiscent of Fieulliade, LE MILLION, which is
incessantly funny and inventive, the Sturges-co-authored I MARRIED A
WITCH, the witty AND THEN THERE WERE NONE, and LES BELLES DE NUIT.
Even if you don't like the latter, you get to look at Gerard Phillipe
and Gina Lollobrigida.
16898
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:04am
Subject: Re: Greatest cut (Was: Blier, editing)
> > There used to be so much shorthand
> > auteurists could use among each other because there was a set of
hard
> > and firm tenets to which we all seemed to adhere, the lack of
value
> > in David Lean films looming large among them.
As a filmmaker in my own small way, I'm in awe of Lean. As a viewer
of films for pleasure, likewise. I find some shortcomings from the
point of view of hardcore academic analysis, but I'm not a hardcore
academic so that doesn't bother me so much. I don't think Lean had a
great deal to say, but he said it brilliantly.
I'm convinced a viewing of, say, OLIVER TWIST, would reveal to any
alert person the workings of a mind prodigiously gifted at bringing
sequences to filmic life, regardless of what one thought of the piece
as a whole.
> And there goes our old-timer solidarity: I feel about Coppola and
> Schlesinger as you do, but I'm a Friedkin fan. Oh, well - every
man for
> himself, I guess.
I think that's healthier! We should celebrate difference.:)
16899
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:09am
Subject: Re: New Member
A happy coincidence - wasn't Murnau born in Westphalia?
16900
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Thu Oct 14, 2004 10:15am
Subject: Re: 180 (Was: Greatest cut)
> Right on. Who cares about the 180-degree rule? At last year's Ozu
retro,
> I gradually realized that Ozu broke the rule more than he honored
it,
> which is pretty cool.
As with the Pirate's Code, "they're more guidelines than actual
rules."
Cocteau wrote about how the rule didn't matter. I think it CAN lead
to confusion if broken carelessly - but if broken with care, it's
great!
Ozu tends to cut at exactly 180 between two characters looking
straight into the lens. And then his master shot can be filmed from
either side of the eyeline. Am keen to use this approach in a film
soon as I hate long protracted discussions about matching eyelines.
This gets to be a pain in the ass when you have four characters and
six eyelines, five characters and ten eyelines, etc...
Kubrick and Kurosawa both play fast and loose with the 180 rule too.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact