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.


17501


From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:05pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
>
> this has been fun to read.
>
> Glad to hear Gabe so enthusiastic about Royston Tan's 15:

Yes and no. It's a more interesting film than MARIA, but the two
shouldn,t be compared. At the time, I had to write the review very
fast say from 10:45 to 11, just to help kick off our web coverage;
but it,s not a review I like, i may ask to remove it even. (yes, it
feels much better to get that off my chest.)

> re: MARIA (NOT SO) FULL OF GRACE. Gabe, what do you think of VERA
> DRAKE?

I love VERA DRAKE. May I note too that it had been several months
since I saw MARIA.

My encounter with Mathieu Amalric will be posted soon i hope. I am a
little more proud of that one.

I,ll write more when I return home. I,m having keyboard trouble if
you haven,t noticed.

Gqbe

17502


From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:39pm
Subject: Re: Hollywood, Propaganda (was: Fipresci site alert)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:

"I confess I'm mystified by the purported connection between
Hollywood, imperialism, etc. This connection seems to be treated as
gospel by many people. Time for a reality check!

"In the US we are drowning in genuine right-wing propaganda.
Conservative radio talk shows are available round the clock - many
people listen to them constantly while they drive or work. The Fox
News Network, a far right wing propaganda TV channel masquerading
as "news", is the chief information source for around a third of the
country...the belief is that Hollywood films are brainwashing the
masses. Many people I know see around 12 films per year, if that
many. By contrast, they might watch Fox News 2 hours everyday. The
Hollywood films they do see tend to be fairly harmless politically.
Where are the evil poltical values in films such
as 'Twister', 'Shrek' or 'Daredevil'?"

The connection between Hollywood and imperialism has not been
precisely defined, and I agree that by and large Hollywood films are
conceived as propaganda in the way that Fox News Network is. Nor
does
Straub calling Fassbinder a facist clarify anything. Having said
that, Hollywood as a conglomeration of corporate business entities
does contribute to US imperialism through its advocacy of "free
trade" policies, its out-sourcing of animation jobs for example, and
its pre-emption of non-Hollywood culture specific film production in
other countries (and this is a conundrum for anti-imperialists
because Hollywood films are hugely popular in those countries.) No
doubt there are other examples of Hollywood's economic imperialism.

It seems to me that Hollywood films function as imperialist
propaganda when they portray other cultures (and usually there's no
concious propagandizing involved; the filmmakers are recyclicing
received information)for domestic consumption. Hollywood has a long
history of "white man's burden" adventure films for example.

The question of Hollywood and imperialism certainly merits a nuanced
discussion, something on the order of Edward Said's book "Culture and
Imperialism" which I recommend to anyone interested in this issue.

Richard
17503


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 4:42pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Andy Rector"
wrote:
>
> pcg wrote:
> it's admirable that Straub and Huillet remain
> > anti-imperialists when so many –- Godard notably -- have
changed
> > sides.
>
> You'll have to account for this provocation...or is there an essay
I
> should read? Godard's Notre musique was one of the only films I
> saw in Vienna that directly dealt a blow to imperialism. No one else
> (from what I saw) so much as showed a newspaper in their film.

Godard has consistently demonized Serbia over the past ten years, so
he has played a small role in the construction of the ideology of
"humanitarian intervention." Notre Musique seems to acknowledge this:
Paradise depends on US troops. And it presents a distorted view of
Bosnia. Godard has been an enthusiastic supporter of the trial of
Milosevic. I haven't seen any indication that he's spoken against any
American or French military action in the past few decades. I have
seen no blows to imperialism whatsoever. On the contrary, given his
friendship with Jean-François Revel, and his work with André
Glucksmann denouncing the Russians in Chechnya, I think the simplest
explanation is that he holds views similar to theirs -- though I'd
make some qualifications to this. I'd characterize Notre Musique as a
call away from politics toward a particularly bourgeois morality; in
place of a concrete analysis, there is sentimentalism and the
spectacle of suffering.

Paul
17504


From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 6:36pm
Subject: Re: Hollywood, Propaganda Correction (was: Fipresci site alert)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:

"The connection between Hollywood and imperialism has not been
precisely defined, and I agree that by and large Hollywood films are
conceived as propaganda in the way that Fox News Network is."

Correction to the above:"...Hollywood films are NOT
conceived as propaganda in the way that Fox News Network is."

Richard
17505


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:15pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
> it's admirable that Straub and Huillet remain
> anti-imperialists when so many –- Godard notably -- have changed
> sides.

Has he? (I haven't seen Notre musique.) What do you mean, Paul?
17506


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:16pm
Subject: Re: Experiment in Terror (was Dante's "Explorers")
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
>
> I saw EXPERIMENT years ago but recall the tight closeup of Red
Lynch
> threatening one of the women, whispering in her ear - it's the most
> striking and extreme shot in Edwards' whole oevre.
>
> And I think it bears strong comparison with that
> uncomfortable "Say 'Fuck me'" scene in WILD AT HEART

Bingo!
17507


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:40pm
Subject: The Death of Television (Was: Hollywood, Propaganda
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
Support for Bush and conservative politics comes
> from the huge network of radio and TV propaganda outlets run by
> conservatives. It has nothing to do with whether Fassbinder or
Wenders supported Hollywood
> norms. This whole discussion seems totally out of touch with
reality to me.
>
> Mike Grost

I remember at the height of CdC's anti-imperialism they spoke to a
Chilean filmmaker who explained to them that the most important
medium in the hands of the Chilean fascists who overturned Allende
was the radio. And it has been of enormous importance here.

At the same time, there are right-wing and militarist ideas in H'wd
films, particularly the kind Schwarzenneger used to make, and Gibson
has been making lately -- based on what I saw of his last film, he's
also anti-Semitic. But the major propaganda tools are the right-wing
radio pundits and Fox News.

In my journey thru Lurking Marvin's old mags I came across a
fascinating suggestion by MacLuhan: that when one medium "encircles"
another (a la the suburbs encircling the old cities), the encircled
medium dies or becomes an artform. And it's true that the recognition
of America film as an artform, and its transformation into an
artform, coincides with its "encirclement" by tv (just as those
decaying city centers are being turned into theme parks for
historical preservation and tourism).

And yeah, I know that film was an artform from the get-go,
particularly in Europe, etc. You never get much out of MacLuhan if
you go into "yes but" mode right off. Hear me out.

We're seeing something analogous happening now with tv and radio, the
traditional media. Radio, which used to be a rich medium of
enetertainment, information and art, has dwindled into a medium for
transmitting music (extinction of radio as a medium with its own
mission), and beginning in the 70s, has been reborn as a propaganda
machine for the right and for evangelical Christianity -- not its
original function. Because of tv. And now we're seeing the same thing
happening to tv. On the one hand, HBO and Showtime -- the vanguard of
tv production -- have become the artiest film studios in town
(something Canal + has been in France for years), and on the other
hand, tv news has become increasingly a medium for propaganda,
starting with Fox, but with the others following suit -- because IMO
people are increasingly going to be getting their news from the
Internet, the medium which is currently encircling all its
predecessors.

Look at what happens now when a story like the 320 tons of explosives
breaks: NBC (GE) runs a government denial, claiming that the stuff
was stolen before our invasion. Within sceonds, the Net starts
putting out critiques, with an NBC reporter weighing in, and in 24
hours there's footage of the sealed exlosives days after our soldiers
passed through on twenty sites. Now the traditional press is
scrambling to keep up, harrumphing that no "conclusive" proof has
been found one way or the other, when all I have to do is click on a
site and I can see the proof. Same thing with the sites about no
airplane hitting the Pentagon, and the amazingly slick no-narration
video circulated 2 months ago on the Net raising all the questions
about that you won't hear on the evening news.

Television and newspaper journalism have a few choices as they watch
their authority leaking away -- two stark ones: become real news,
which they never will be and in truth rarely have been, or become
propaganda, which they are in the process of doing. "Reality
televison" is also increasingly replacing traditional programming
modes, and shows no sign of letting up. I know that started in 89,
but look at what it has turned into!

We're watching another medium die (and transform) from encirclement.
Too bad MM isn't here to explain to us what's happening.
17508


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:42pm
Subject: Re: New York Subway (And RAW MEAT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:

>
> I don't know if the film is all that thematically tight, but I
liked it a
> lot - it defintely put me on the watch for other Gary Sherman
films. - Dan

The two I've seen is Dead and Buried, with a script Dan O'Bannon had
a hand in (not as much as the credits claim) and Vice Squad: the
origin of the phrase Eastwood appropriated in Sudden Impact: "Make my
day!" Both recommended.
17509


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:44pm
Subject: Re: New York Subway (And RAW MEAT)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
Maybe Bill's serial killer book will set me
> straight. But sheesh - I can't even stomach CSI.
>
Neither can I.
17510


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:45pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:

>
> Straub and Huillet's use of "western tradition" is evident:
Corneille,
> the Bible, Schoenberg, Mallarmé, Kafka, Hölderlin, Cézanne,
> Sophocles. It would have been interesting to question the audience.
>
> >
> > Someone asked Jean-Marie to be more "concrete" (a word
> > Straub/Huillet have an affinity and right to use) about
Fassibinder
> > being a fascist. Straub mumbled a bit, something I don't entirely
> > remember but something about his "fantasies" and his lack
> > of "figures".

Are we sure Tag wasn't talking about "westerns"?
17511


From: hotlove666
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 7:58pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
> Godard has consistently demonized Serbia over the past ten years, so
> he has played a small role in the construction of the ideology of
> "humanitarian intervention." Notre Musique seems to acknowledge
this:
> Paradise depends on US troops. And it presents a distorted view of
> Bosnia. Godard has been an enthusiastic supporter of the trial of
> Milosevic.

Biette told me that when Straub has "had a few whiskeys" he is prone,
these days, to "utter enormities," like refering to Milosevic as "my
friend Milosevic."

I'm prejudiced about that conflict because of my friendship with Oja
Kodar, a Croatian and something of a heroine in her native country
for her role in the struggle to get the Serbs out. She made a film
during the war -- Gary Graver told me that they saw bodies by the
road every day when they went out to shoot -- called "A Time to
Love," a love story between a Croatian woman and a Serbian soldier.
Most of what I know about the Serbs' activities in Croatia I heard
firsthand from Oja, and it jibes with what Goadrd portrays in For
Ever Mozart.

I also listened while a filmmaker who had come from beseiged Sarajevo
described the situation to a rapt audience at Locarno, the year
Godard premiered Histoire(s) 3a and 3b there. Again, I didn't hear
anything that made me anything but glad when the US belatedly
intervened.

That said, I'm not anti-war, because there are unfortunately reasons
to wage it sometimes, but I am against bombing from the air,
something I know the Straubs are very opposed to in all cases. I
don't care if it saves soldiers lives -- it massacres civilians. And
its efficacy has never been proven, except in the minds of generals
who want to believe in it.
17512


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 8:58pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"

> wrote:
> >
> > it's admirable that Straub and Huillet remain
> > anti-imperialists when so many –- Godard notably -- have
changed
> > sides.
>
> Has he? (I haven't seen Notre musique.) What do you mean, Paul?

Well, to be anti-imperialist he would have to acknowledge the
existence of imperialism, which I don't think he has done for a very
long time. I'd propose it's mainly his anti-Zionism that obscures that
his politics are now mainly mainstream.

In an earlier discussion I mentioned a book by Dominique Lecourt.
There's a review here.
http://pubs.socialistreviewindex.org.uk/isj96/wolfreys.htm
I think there are some similarities between the New Philosophers and
Godard's 1990's films. "'ornamental pathos'... pessimism -- man is
powerless to change the course of history... This call to retreat from
politics, since any attempt to change the world will end in terror,
made New Philosophy a pretext for political abdication... In place of
politics they offered ethics, the contemplative judgement of the world
based on the choice between good and evil."

Paul
17513


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sat Oct 30, 2004 10:16pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

> Biette told me that when Straub has "had a few whiskeys" he is
prone,
> these days, to "utter enormities," like refering to Milosevic as
"my
> friend Milosevic."
>
> I'm prejudiced about that conflict because of my friendship with
Oja
> Kodar, a Croatian and something of a heroine in her native country
> for her role in the struggle to get the Serbs out. She made a film
> during the war -- Gary Graver told me that they saw bodies by the
> road every day when they went out to shoot -- called "A Time to
> Love," a love story between a Croatian woman and a Serbian soldier.
> Most of what I know about the Serbs' activities in Croatia I heard
> firsthand from Oja, and it jibes with what Goadrd portrays in For
> Ever Mozart.

What did she have to say about Tudjman or the invasion of Krajina?

> I also listened while a filmmaker who had come from beseiged
Sarajevo
> described the situation to a rapt audience at Locarno, the year
> Godard premiered Histoire(s) 3a and 3b there. Again, I didn't hear
> anything that made me anything but glad when the US belatedly
> intervened.
>

You agree with Godard's position. But even if Godard is correct, the
question was how to classify his politics. If he considers the role of
the US, Germany, and NATO humanitarian rather than imperialist, then
he isn't anti-imperialist.

Paul
17514


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 2:24am
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
> What did she have to say about Tudjman or the invasion of Krajina?

You mean, how does Oja feel about ethnic cleansing operations carried
out by Croatians? I know she was there when they were going on, but
we've had little chance to discuss these things since on her rare
trips here, which are always devoted to business. I'll ask her if I
have the chance, but based on the little I know about her film, I
doubt if she was for them. My recollection is that there was an
effort to prosecute those crimes in the Hague. Did the US attempt to
block the prosecutions? I'm asking -- I really don't know.

> You agree with Godard's position. But even if Godard is correct, the
> question was how to classify his politics. If he considers the role
of
> the US, Germany, and NATO humanitarian rather than imperialist, then
> he isn't anti-imperialist.

What stigmatizes those countries' role in the conflict as imperialist
rather than humanitarian -- the fact that American business
subsequently invested there? We invested in Germany and Japan, too --
was WWII an imperialist war? I believe that in the aftermath of WWII
the US acted as an imperial power, and very successfully. That's what
capitalists do, unfortunately. We profited from the position we were
left in after the war; I don't consider our reasons for fighting it
to be imperialistic.

Incidentally, I also don't consider Clinton to have been a great
foreign policy president, something I haven't seen in my lifetime.
His humanitarian -- and politically motivated -- decision not to
recognize the Taliban because 100,000 feminists signed a petition was
a catastrophe for Afghanistan, the US and the world. But it seems to
be within the ballpark of trying to do the right thing, even if it
was done under pressure. The Bush administration is an imperialist
administration whose actions in Afghanistan have always been
motivated by the classic aims of any imperialist power. I do see
differences between them. I don't think Bush would have lifted a
finger to try to improve the situation in ex-Yugoslavia, for instance.

As I have written before, one of my best friends, and the most
effective humanitarian I know, is probably in the CIA. He's spent
most of the last 20 years of his life helping displaced populations
and preventing genocides. I certainly don't agree with him on every
issue -- his work with the Indians of Nicaragua after (not before)
the Sandanistas were overturned, for example, probably entailed
working with people, American and Nicaraguan, that I would spit on if
I met them. He loves Capra's films, which he says taught him
everything he knows, but was never very fond of Godard. Personally, I
have usually found Godard's political postions ill-founded, as
Truffaut did, but I think he's gotten better lately.
17515


From: Hadrian
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 4:41am
Subject: Re: The Death of Television (Was: Hollywood, Propaganda
 
What a remarkable critique bill. I guess I should read some MacCluhan...nah.

As for the suburbs encircling the cities, perhaps part that explains part of L.A.'s
remarkable dominance in the late 20th century (oh how that short sentence could start a
long argument). While other cities have decayed, L.A.'s resilience as a metropolis could be
due to its suburban density --many of us have heard the Dorothy Parker crack about L.A.
not being a city, but "92 suburbs in search of a city". That very non-city quality that
annoys culture snobs may be what's made it practical.

I think classic American cities that have survived like New York are increasingly become
amusement parks for the rich (San Fransisco increasinigly seems to me more like San
FransiscoLand!), and work primarily because people just WANT an old-style city.

>
> In my journey thru Lurking Marvin's old mags I came across a
> fascinating suggestion by MacLuhan: that when one medium "encircles"
> another (a la the suburbs encircling the old cities), the encircled
> medium dies or becomes an artform. And it's true that the recognition
> of America film as an artform, and its transformation into an
> artform, coincides with its "encirclement" by tv (just as those
> decaying city centers are being turned into theme parks for
> historical preservation and tourism).
>
> And yeah, I know that film was an artform from the get-go,
> particularly in Europe, etc. You never get much out of MacLuhan if
> you go into "yes but" mode right off. Hear me out.
>
> We're seeing something analogous happening now with tv and radio, the
> traditional media. Radio, which used to be a rich medium of
> enetertainment, information and art, has dwindled into a medium for
> transmitting music (extinction of radio as a medium with its own
> mission), and beginning in the 70s, has been reborn as a propaganda
> machine for the right and for evangelical Christianity -- not its
> original function. Because of tv. And now we're seeing the same thing
> happening to tv. On the one hand, HBO and Showtime -- the vanguard of
> tv production -- have become the artiest film studios in town
> (something Canal + has been in France for years), and on the other
> hand, tv news has become increasingly a medium for propaganda,
> starting with Fox, but with the others following suit -- because IMO
> people are increasingly going to be getting their news from the
> Internet, the medium which is currently encircling all its
> predecessors.
>
> Look at what happens now when a story like the 320 tons of explosives
> breaks: NBC (GE) runs a government denial, claiming that the stuff
> was stolen before our invasion. Within sceonds, the Net starts
> putting out critiques, with an NBC reporter weighing in, and in 24
> hours there's footage of the sealed exlosives days after our soldiers
> passed through on twenty sites. Now the traditional press is
> scrambling to keep up, harrumphing that no "conclusive" proof has
> been found one way or the other, when all I have to do is click on a
> site and I can see the proof. Same thing with the sites about no
> airplane hitting the Pentagon, and the amazingly slick no-narration
> video circulated 2 months ago on the Net raising all the questions
> about that you won't hear on the evening news.
>
> Television and newspaper journalism have a few choices as they watch
> their authority leaking away -- two stark ones: become real news,
> which they never will be and in truth rarely have been, or become
> propaganda, which they are in the process of doing. "Reality
> televison" is also increasingly replacing traditional programming
> modes, and shows no sign of letting up. I know that started in 89,
> but look at what it has turned into!
>
> We're watching another medium die (and transform) from encirclement.
> Too bad MM isn't here to explain to us what's happening.
17516


From: Noel Vera
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 5:06am
Subject: Re: Bride of Frankenstein
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
>
> In a message dated 10/30/04 1:34:44 AM, noelbotevera@y... writes:
>
> > Just thought I'd toss this in, as a kind of Halloween special:
> >
> > http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/468
> >
> This was a (fine) review of CELLULAR. No BRIDE OF FRANKENSTEIN,
though.

My mistake (thanks for the kind word tho). Here it is:

http://movies.groups.yahoo.com/group/noelmoviereviews/message/467
17517


From: Noel Vera
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 6:01am
Subject: The Exorcist, special whatever
 
Looked at the new edition of The Exorcist. Pretty much disliked all
the tweaks and additions except perhaps Karras listening to Regan's
phone calls and the final scene, a lift from Casablanca that helps
confirm my suspicions that Blatty unintentionally wrote the movie as
a comedy.

Interesting note; the young 'un I saw this with pretty much thought
Ringu was much more frightening. I thought about it, and I think I
can see where she's coming from: The Exorcist is pretty much a
series of pop-up horrors, where Ringu generates suspense on an
impending deadline. Will need to check this theory on her, tho.
17518


From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:09am
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

"What stigmatizes those countries' role in the conflict as
imperialist rather than humanitarian -- the fact that American
business subsequently invested there? We invested in Germany and
Japan, too -- was WWII an imperialist war? I believe that in the
aftermath of WWII the US acted as an imperial power, and very
successfully. That's what capitalists do, unfortunately. We profited
from the position we were left in after the war; I don't consider our
reasons for fighting it to be imperialistic."

Take a look at Chomsky's "The New Military Humanaism: Lessons from
Kosovo." The motives for intervention were mixed and he persuasively
argues that there were alternatives.

As for WWII, it was part of a larger imperial competition being
played out by Japan and the US in the Pacific and Germany and the WWI
victors in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. The Allies' professed
reasons for fighting can't be taken at face value. In WWII,the
Allies were the good imperialists and the Axis powers were the bad
imperialists , and on the US side planning for the post-war world
order began in 1944 when victory over the Axis was assumed (the
Pentagon recognized the inevitable defeat of Japan after Midway in
1943.)

Concerning US imperialism in general it began as soon as the the
nation decided to expand beyond the 13 states and expel the
indigenous people living there (and within the 13 states there was
the Indian Removal Act, which resulted in the Trail of Tears,talk
about ethnic cleansing.) Then there's the seizure of the Philipines
and the overthrow and annexation of the Kingdom of Hawai'i. It
wasn't in anticipation of a post-WWII imperial America that the Anti-
Imperialist League was founded in 1898 (the League's most illustrious
member was Mark Twain.)

So in my view the US was part of the industrialized nations' drive
toward empire beginning in the 19th century, and it's involvement in
WWII was an episode in that enterprise, allbeit the most furious and
destructive episode(so far.) The historians Gaberial and Joyce Kolko
advanced this thesis in the 1970s and since then the evidence in
support of it has accumulated as more and more US planning documents
from the WWII period have become declassified.

Richard
17519


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:36am
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>
> "What stigmatizes those countries' role in the conflict as
> imperialist rather than humanitarian -- the fact that American
> business subsequently invested there? We invested in Germany and
> Japan, too -- was WWII an imperialist war? I believe that in the
> aftermath of WWII the US acted as an imperial power, and very
> successfully. That's what capitalists do, unfortunately. We
profited
> from the position we were left in after the war; I don't consider
our
> reasons for fighting it to be imperialistic."
>
> Take a look at Chomsky's "The New Military Humanaism: Lessons from
> Kosovo." The motives for intervention were mixed and he
persuasively
> argues that there were alternatives.

I will -- with a measure of distrust. Chomsky's pronouncements have
been increasingly dogmatic since the Vietnam War ended. A theory that
linguistic structures preexist in the brain is not a good foundation
for thinking on your feet about anything, and he sure hasn't been
when it comes to politics, IMO.

> As for WWII, it was part of a larger imperial competition being
> played out by Japan and the US in the Pacific and Germany and the
WWI
> victors in Eastern Europe and the Middle East. The Allies'
professed
> reasons for fighting can't be taken at face value. In WWII,the
> Allies were the good imperialists and the Axis powers were the bad
> imperialists , and on the US side planning for the post-war world
> order began in 1944 when victory over the Axis was assumed (the
> Pentagon recognized the inevitable defeat of Japan after Midway in
> 1943.)

I was being a bit vague in distinguishing postwar, prewar and
wartime, but my point was -- my belief is -- that our entry into the
war was done for the stated reasons. Then we took advantage of the
situation we found ourselves in, whenever you date it from.
>
> Concerning US imperialism in general it began as soon as the the
> nation decided to expand beyond the 13 states and expel the
> indigenous people living there (and within the 13 states there was
> the Indian Removal Act, which resulted in the Trail of Tears,talk
> about ethnic cleansing.)

I know. Why not date it from the founding of the colonies? I wasn't
dating the beginning of imperialism from WWII; I was trying to make
distinctions within the span of time from the beginning of the war in
Europe to the point when we announced, for example, that we were just
going to hold onto all the gold that had been deposited in Fort Knox.
>
> So in my view the US was part of the industrialized nations' drive
> toward empire beginning in the 19th century, and it's involvement
in
> WWII was an episode in that enterprise, allbeit the most furious
and
> destructive episode(so far.) The historians Gaberial and Joyce
Kolko
> advanced this thesis in the 1970s and since then the evidence in
> support of it has accumulated as more and more US planning
documents
> from the WWII period have become declassified.

It's a revisionist theory then, one I guess I should be better
acquainted with before dismissing it, especially if there are all
those documents to prove that we cooked it up for economic reasons.

Straub, by the way, started our most recent conversation (post-9/11)
by asking me if I thought Ford knew that "FDR knew" that Pearl Harbor
was coming. I said I didn't know, but that I thought WWII so altered
his perception of the world that he wouldn't have been surprised to
hear it. His favorable portrait of FDR predates the War. I don't know
what he thought about him afterward.
17520


From: Craig Keller
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:41am
Subject: Halloween and Bathos
 
What an interesting/disappointing All Hallow's Eve Eve --

Boarding-sort-of at a friend's house, in the company of out-of-state swing-state-canvassers for the Kerry Cause (I watched 'Stray Dog' this afternoon instead), I was asked to pick a scary movie for midnight viewing -- the choices I put forth were 'Carnival of Souls,' 'A Nightmare on Elm Street,' 'The Testament of Dr. Mabuse' (turns out Mabuse is Rove), 'Eyes Without a Face,' and 'Twin Peaks: Fire Walk with Me' -- my choice was the Lynch. Two besides myself remained awake an hour and forty in -- one remarked it made no sense, the other, furrow-browed, that it wasn't "scary," only "legitimately disturbing." This despite myself having, in the dark and so certainly secretly, welled up three times, on account of being so moved. Finally, the remainders retired, and I went outside for a cigarette -- literally mist-shrouded American classical-suburb, cul de sacs and oak trees, rustles and creaks and diffused garage floods abundant amid fallen autumn scrub; earlier in the night, 11 p.m., the ouija board spelled out, in answer to "What of Craig?", "Oui NY awb" -- static in the ether, no doubt -- but this played to glee and acceptance, whereas the Lynch went over like egg on paint. Too bad.

off to Tod Browning now, and Happy Halloween -- (my favorite holiday) --

craig.
17521


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:41am
Subject: Re: The Death of Television (Was: Hollywood, Propaganda
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Hadrian" wrote:

>
> As for the suburbs encircling the cities, perhaps part that
explains part of L.A.'s
> remarkable dominance in the late 20th century (oh how that short
sentence could start a
> long argument).

There was a great scifi short str=ory in Magazine of Fantasy and
Science Fiction when I was growing up that postulated the discovery
that LA was a virus that was creeping east and transforming the whole
country into versions of itself.

> I think classic American cities that have survived like New York
are increasingly become
> amusement parks for the rich (San Fransisco increasinigly seems to
me more like San
> FransiscoLand!), and work primarily because people just WANT an old-
style city.

As you know, San Francisco is much on my mind lately. It's peculiar
status as a movie city may be related to what you're talking about.
In point of fact, the flight to the suburbs happened in SF when it
happened everywhere. The "inner city" has a very different population
than it used to.

I don't suggest you read MacLuhan (sp?) -- although I will take your
tip when we talked tonight and read "The Tipping Point." But Macluhan
(sp?) is stimulating about some things. I don't think it's too early
to speculate what the effect of the Internet's growing dominance will
be on tv.
17522


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:47am
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
.
>
> > You agree with Godard's position. But even if Godard is correct,
the
> > question was how to classify his politics. If he considers the
role
> of
> > the US, Germany, and NATO humanitarian rather than imperialist,
then
> > he isn't anti-imperialist.
>
> What stigmatizes those countries' role in the conflict as
imperialist
> rather than humanitarian -- the fact that American business
> subsequently invested there?

No. There's a lot of material online on these topics.

> We invested in Germany and Japan, too --
> was WWII an imperialist war?

Yes -- don't you at least think the Axis was imperialist?

> As I have written before, one of my best friends, and the most
> effective humanitarian I know, is probably in the CIA. He's spent
> most of the last 20 years of his life helping displaced populations
> and preventing genocides. I certainly don't agree with him on every
> issue -- his work with the Indians of Nicaragua after (not before)
> the Sandanistas were overturned, for example, probably entailed
> working with people, American and Nicaraguan, that I would spit on
if
> I met them. He loves Capra's films, which he says taught him
> everything he knows, but was never very fond of Godard. Personally,
I
> have usually found Godard's political postions ill-founded, as
> Truffaut did, but I think he's gotten better lately.

I'm can't change anybody's political beliefs. I just made the point
that Godard is no longer on the anti-imperialist left, but seems to
have more or less mainstream liberal views. You more or less agree
with Godard's position, so you find it find it completely
unremarkable. I suppose people usually only notice politics when they
diverge markedly from their own beliefs.

I'm curious what Godard thought of the US invasion of Iraq, but I
think he's made no statement on it. His friend André Glucksmann has
supported the invasion. Romain Goupil made a film in support of the
war.

Paul
17523


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:59am
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:

> I don't understand that. I'll have to find out the context of the
Jump
> Cut comments. Even if Fassbinder were "unpolitical" and
> "irresponsible," he would hardly be alone in having these
> characteristics.

I had forgotten about the "Garbage, the City, and Death" controversy
in 1985, after Fassbinder death. As was noted, the same people who had
no problem with the Bitburg visit were a few months later outraged by
the alleged anti-semitism of Fassbinder's play. In any case the
Frankfurt Jewish community stopped the premiere of the play, and it
became an international controversy. The play depicts the struggles
over housing and real estate speculation in Frankfurt as a background
to the story of the "Rich Jew," based partly on a real person, Ignaz
Bubis.

I recommend this article:
http://66.108.51.239/fassbinder-garbage-city-death.pdf
Moishe Postone's comments are interesting: "Anyone who is familiar
with Fassbinder's work knows the extent to which he, probably more
than any other post-war German artist, wrestled with the problems of
Germany's immediate past and the interpenetration of past and present,
normality and abnormality, in German society and in himself."

Postone comments on the role of "Sponti" in the German left and its
role in the "Hauserkampf" against real estate speculation in
Frankfurt. It was known that many of the speculators were Jewish;
also, unlike similar struggles in Italy, the "Hauserkampf" was
isolated from other issues.

Sheila Johnston in the New German Critique, No. 24/25
( http://66.108.51.239/johnston-fassbinder.pdf ) lists complaints
against Fassbinder:

"This leads us straight to a question at the core of the Fassbinder
phenomenon, that of his political impact. Is he, as he repeatedly
maintains, a truly subversive voice? Or is he a harmless court jester,
consolidating the very social order he believes himself to undermine?
The growing ambivalence, or in some cases downright disenchantment
with which his recent work has been greeted by the German left would
seem to suggest the latter, but some discretion is called for in
evaluating the weight of these criticisms. The accusals, noted by one
journalist not unsympathetic to Fassbinder, that he has allowed
himself to become 'the pampered pet of the established media, the
alibi ... of the culture industry' are tinged with a distinct flavor
of sour grapes...

"With Fassbinder, though, there are other elements in play. Much of
the disillusion with his work grew up in the early 1970's, in the wake
of his move away from the shoestring budgets and fringe aesthetic of
the anti-theater film and stage productions, and his gradual turn to a
new strategy: collaboration with the 'culture industry,' use of
conventional outlets and sources of finance and the exploitation of
the art-form par excellence of (in the words of Wim Wenders) 'U.S.
imperialism.' His 'discovery' of Sirk, announced in a now celebrated
article and subsequent nostalgic infatuation with Hollywood came more
than coincidentally at a moment of wide-spread reaction against the
impenetrably elitist-esoteric work coming out of the New German
Cinema. It was thus in many ways a necessary gambit (Fassbinder was by
no means alone in reappraising the tactics of an oppositional art by
that time), but a gambit that was inevitably seen by the left and the
avant-garde as signaling opportunism and compromise.

"His function has been further complicated by a persistent refusal to
align himself with any political party or faction, or even with a
minority group, a refusal that has at various moments exposed his work
to charges of anti-communism (Mutter Küsters Fahrt zum Himmel /
Mother Küsters' Trip to Heaven), misogynism (Die Bitteren
Tränen der Petra von Kant /The Bitter Tears of Petra von Kant,
Martha) or anti-gay sentiments (Faustrecht der Freiheit /Fox). A
policy of constant provocation from a non-sectarian position has
tended to isolate him, laying him open to attacks on every flank.

"Appearing bent on pursuing a career as his country's bad conscience,
Fassbinder has consistently done his best to outrage and offend, in a
seemingly non-stop series of scandals far too numerous to detail here.
In this respect, too, he could be (and indeed has been) seen as
trapped in an especially invidious double bind: however many wounds he
manages to inflict, the very fact that he is allowed to continue to
hit out is, one might feel, ipso facto proof of his failure to do any
real or lasting damage. It is easy, then, to dismiss him as the
ineffectual angry young man, desperately trying to smash through the
liberal consensus, only to be continually reabsorbed within it. Yet
there is increasing evidence to suggest that his practices have become
embarrassing or even, finally, unacceptable, rather than mildly
amusing. The storm which broke over the alleged anti-Semitism of his
1976 play Der Mull, die Stadt and der Tod / The Refuse, the City and
Death indicated that in the Jewish question he had succeeded in
locating an issue that was still very much a raw nerve..."
17524


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:17am
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:

> Take a look at Chomsky's "The New Military Humanaism: Lessons from
> Kosovo." The motives for intervention were mixed and he
persuasively
> argues that there were alternatives.
>
Michael Parenti wondered why, if it was motivated by humanitarian
concerns, the US was not considering launching humanitarian bombings
against France for its role in Rwanda.

Paul
17525


From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:19am
Subject: Re: New York Subway (And RAW MEAT)
 
Sherman's POLTERHEIST sequel (III?) is disappointing, though there's
some good mirror-play in it.

I like DEAD AND BURIED but feel it falls apart in the expository
ending.

DEATH LINE (RAW MEAT) I think is terrific, mainly for Donald
Pleasence's sarcastic copper. British cops ARE extremely sarcastic.
There's a fair bit of improvising from DP and the excellent Norman
Rossington, and apparently the script is by Sherman under a pseudonym
(to qualify DL as a British film he invented a fictitious Welsh
screenwriter).

The idea of a man trapped in the underground so long he can only
say "Mind the doors" is so strong it's well worth basing a movie on!

This is one of Guillermo Del Toro's faves, referenced in MIMIC, BLADE
II and HELLBOY.
17526


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 1:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- Paul Gallagher wrote:


>
> I had forgotten about the "Garbage, the City, and
> Death" controversy
> in 1985, after Fassbinder death. As was noted, the
> same people who had
> no problem with the Bitburg visit were a few months
> later outraged by
> the alleged anti-semitism of Fassbinder's play. In
> any case the
> Frankfurt Jewish community stopped the premiere of
> the play, and it
> became an international controversy. The play
> depicts the struggles
> over housing and real estate speculation in
> Frankfurt as a background
> to the story of the "Rich Jew," based partly on a
> real person, Ignaz
> Bubis.
>

"The Garbage The City and Death" -- which was filmed
by Daniel Schmid as "Shadow of Angels" -- was written
by Fassbinder during a trip to Los Angeles. He stayed
at the Tropicana Motel in West Hollywood -- on view in
all its decayed spendorin Paul Morrissey's "Heat,"
long torn down and replaced by the ultra-slick Ramada
Inn. Fassbinder(who was either being courted or
considered courting Corman to make a U.S. film) spent
the better part of his time at a rather extrordianry
"Googie's" -style coffee shop that used to stand at
the cormer of Santa Monica and Highland. It looked
from the outside perfectly ordinary -- brightly lit
and candy-colored place with nice matronly waitresses.
But it was tough as nails as the clientele consisted
of hustlers and drug addicts (who were taken to
scoring in the men's room.) He sat at the counter and
wrote the play in, what I've been informed, was a
highly literary style of German verse.

Fassbinder loved playing Peck's Bad Boy, but his films
are of considerable importance anyway -- particularly
"Berlin Alexanderplatz" and "In a Year of 13 Moons."

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
17527


From: Richard Modiano
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 4:29pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

"It's a revisionist theory then, one I guess I should be better
acquainted with before dismissing it, especially if there are all
those documents to prove that we cooked it up for economic reasons."

There's no suggestion that the war was cooked up for economic reasons
and there's no question that Germany and Japan were the agressor
nations in WWII. The US fought the war to stop Hitler and check
Japan, not to bring democracy the world. That's what the theory is
about, and that's what the internal planning documents show (and they
also show that a progressive minority of planners really did want to
democratize the liberated areas, but they were overruled.)

"Straub, by the way, started our most recent conversation (post-9/11)
by asking me if I thought Ford knew that 'FDR knew' that Pearl Harbor
was coming. I said I didn't know, but that I thought WWII so altered
his perception of the world that he wouldn't have been surprised to
hear it. His favorable portrait of FDR predates the War. I don't know
what he thought about him afterward."

There isn't much evidence that FDR or the War Dept. knew that Pearl
Harbor would be attacked, but he did know that sooner or later the US
would be drawn into the conflict. Gordon Prange and his associates
have written a three volume history of Pearl Harbor and Henry
Clausen's later volume corrects a few minor errors but comes to the
same conclusion: FDR, his advisers and the War Department did not
know that Pearl Harbor was the target. Nor have the "FDR knew"
theorists convincingly shown that the 3 seperate Congressional
investigations were a cover up.

To get somewhat back on topic, since it's well known that Ford was a
student of history he very likely would have judiciously weighed the
evidence of the conspiracy books (which like to exhonorate Kimmel and
Short and blame FDR) against Prange and Clausen and drawn his own
conclusions. Perhaps he would have regarded Kimmel and Short the way
he regarded Col. Thursday. Possibly Thursday was inspired by
officers he knew during WWII. Anyway, it's to be regretted that he
didn't get to direct the American sequences of TORA,TORA,TORA
(Kurosawa was lead to believe that Ford would be the co-director.)

Richard
17528


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 7:39pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> > Take a look at Chomsky's "The New Military Humanaism: Lessons
from
> > Kosovo." The motives for intervention were mixed and he
> persuasively
> > argues that there were alternatives.
>
> Michael Parenti wondered why, if it was motivated by humanitarian
> concerns, the US was not considering launching humanitarian bombings
> against France for its role in Rwanda.
>
> Paul

To get the correct quote, go to
http://www.michaelparenti.org/articles.html

Also, www.counterpunch.org/serbia.html
Also,
http://www.zmag.org/Sustainers/content/1999-03/mar24johnstone.htm
http://www.monthlyreview.org/699ali.htm
http://www.monthlyreview.org/0203herman.htm
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/Yugo1.html
http://emperors-clothes.com/articles/Johnstone/SerbMedi.html

http://www.monthlyreview.org/200rosen.htm
addresses the WWII comparisons.

Obviously, one could find vastly many more articles with very
different viewpoints, advocating intervention in Yugoslavia.

I'm not actually particularly interested in all this! In fact one of
my closest friends was from Croatia, and we never discussed it.

I haven't read Chomsky's article, but these other articles might
provide some useful balance to Chomsky's perspective. My impression (I
could be wrong!) is that some weaknesses in Chomsky's work derive from
his anarchist background and from his rationalism. His anarchist
background leads him to the position that "war is the health of the
state" -- war is just what states do -- instead of trying to examine
how wars further material interests; his rationalism leads him to the
position that political elites lack knowledge or are behaving
irrationally, instead of "the real is rational."

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
>I will -- with a measure of distrust. Chomsky's pronouncements have
>been increasingly dogmatic since the Vietnam War ended. A theory that
>linguistic structures preexist in the brain is not a good foundation
>for thinking on your feet about anything, and he sure hasn't been
>when it comes to politics, IMO.

Although he hasn't developed the idea, Chomsky has said he thinks
humans have an innate moral sense: essentially everyone has the same
moral beliefs in the same way that everyone has knowledge of grammar.
This relates to the idea that people would make the right choices if
they only had the right information. Politics is presented as an
intellectual problem.

In contrast, people who are more influenced by Marxism tend to
emphasize how the real reasons for state actions are hidden and in the
final analysis material, and individuals' values and perceptions
are distorted by material factors. For example, Oja Kodar is entirely
sincere in her convictions, Clinton and Blair and Kohl might be
entirely sincere in theirs, your friend in the CIA may well be a great
humanitarian, but the motivations and ideals of individuals obscure
the real basis of human action: "men and their circumstances appear
upside-down as in a camera obscura."

To keep things on topic, the question arises whether the cinema, and
art in general, show "men and their circumstances" as they really are,
or distorted through the lens of ideology, or something else.

Paul
17529


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:10pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> As I have written before, one of my best friends, and the most
> effective humanitarian I know, is probably in the CIA.

> He loves Capra's films, which he says taught him
> everything he knows, but was never very fond of Godard.

One CIA agent I met was named George Bailey! He was a field agent in
the Middle East. He died recently.

George Bailey the Spy sounds like it has possibilities. I read that
Jimmy Stewart wanted the lead in "North by Northwest" and Ian Fleming
considered Stewart to play James Bond. (Brian Smith suggested he did
this just to get Hitchcock to take notice. He wanted Hitchcock as
director.)

Paul
17530


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:28pm
Subject: Re: The Death of Television (Was: Hollywood, Propaganda
 
It's McLuhan, Bill.

very perceptive and stimulating post, especially from someone who
doesn't have a TV.
17531


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 8:51pm
Subject: December on TCM
 
Jaime asked me to look at the December TCM schedule and post any films
that might not be on everyone's radar:

http://www.turnerclassicmovies.com/Schedule/Print/0,,12-2004|0|,00.html

I'm skipping the obvious stuff. - Dan

----------------

2 Thursday

1:00 PM Money and the Woman (1940)

I am not wild about the William K. Howard film, but I believe Everson
was a fan.

4 Saturday

6:00 PM The Wonderful Country (1959)

Again, I wasn't moved by this film on my one viewing years ago, but so
many auteurists think it's a masterpiece that I want to see it again.

2:30 AM What's New, Pussycat? (1965)

My favorite Clive Donner film, well worth a look.

7 Tuesday

2:00 AM Parlor, Bedroom And Bath (1931)

To my mind, the best of the MGM Keaton sound films.

8 Wednesday

6:15 AM The Vanishing Virginian (1942)

The one 40s Borzage I haven't seen.

9 Thursday

7:30 AM Night Unto Night (1949)

One of a handful of Don Siegel films I haven't seen.

11:00 AM Five Came Back (1939)

A strong John Farrow film, a good place to start with him.

3:30 PM The Strange Love Of Martha Ivers (1946)

A good Milestone film. I'm more kindly disposed to Milestone than most
auteurists, but this film has a decent little rep.

1:00 AM Splendor In The Grass (1961)

If you don't think Kazan is a stylist, see this film.

13 Monday

10:00 PM Bell, Book and Candle (1959)

Not Quine's best, but it has some of his good qualities.

15 Wednesday

8:00 PM Two Arabian Knights (1927)
9:30 PM The Racket (1928)
2:45 AM The Front Page (1931)

Speaking of Milestone...THE FRONT PAGE is one of his best. I've never
seen the first two, but they both have good reputations, and they're rare.

4:30 AM Morning Glory (1933)

Very nice film. I'm a Lowell Sherman fan in general, but this is the
one with a little extra.

16 Thursday

10:00 AM Pork Chop Hill (1959)

More Milestone. This film is pretty good, and should be reevaluated.

1:30 PM Monkey On My Back (1957)
3:30 PM Gold For The Caesars (1964)

Geez. Two De Toth films I haven't seen.

8:00 PM The Outlaw (1943)

Some of this is directed by Hawks and is pretty good. Some of it is
awful, too.

10:00 PM His Kind Of Woman (1951)

This is one of the best-liked Farrow films, but I'm very so-so on it.

17 Friday

10:45 PM Bombshell (1933)

A pretty good Fleming film with some funny stuff.

2:00 AM June Night (1940)

Edgardo Cozarinsky really likes Per Lindberg. I think this is the one I
saw and didn't care for.

21 Tuesday

5:30 PM Crime Of Passion (1957)

Back in the old days, this was the Gerd Oswald film with the highest
reputation, seemed to me. I'm not a big fan, though.

23 Thursday

1:00 PM Divorce, Italian Style (1962)

A strong film by Pietro Germi, of whom I have a high opinion in general.
This is the beginning of his good period.

3:00 AM Hell's Heroes (1930)

A good Wyler film - a version of the THREE GODFATHERS story.

24 Friday

4:15 PM Bell, Book and Candle (1959)

See above.

25 Saturday

4:00 AM The Miracle Woman (1931)

Very good Capra early sound film.

28 Tuesday

12:30 PM The Thin Man (1934)

This film is quite good. I make modest claims for Van Dyke.

29 Wednesday

1:15 PM Imitation Of Life (1934)

Stahl's version, quite nice.
17532


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 9:17pm
Subject: Re: December on TCM
 
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:

>
> 4 Saturday
>
> 6:00 PM The Wonderful Country (1959)
>
> Again, I wasn't moved by this film on my one viewing
> years ago, but so
> many auteurists think it's a masterpiece that I want
> to see it again.
>

Mitchum is an auteur in many ways.

> 2:30 AM What's New, Pussycat? (1965)
>
> My favorite Clive Donner film, well worth a look.
>

One of the key films of the 60's.It was to have
starred Warren Beatty as the title was his line du
jour. Paula Preintiss ACTUALLY attempted suicide
during the making of this film. Capucine is amazing.


> 9 Thursday
>
> 7:30 AM Night Unto Night (1949)
>
> One of a handful of Don Siegel films I haven't seen.
>
It stars Vivica Lindfors, who he married.

> 11:00 AM Five Came Back (1939)
>
> A strong John Farrow film, a good place to start
> with him.
>
And it was written by Nathaniel West.

> 3:30 PM The Strange Love Of Martha Ivers (1946)
>
> A good Milestone film. I'm more kindly disposed to
> Milestone than most
> auteurists, but this film has a decent little rep.
>

Lots of fun. Kirk Douglas plays a spineless weakling.
Lizabeth Scott plays a good girl.

> 1:00 AM Splendor In The Grass (1961)
>
> If you don't think Kazan is a stylist, see this
> film.
>

If you don't think William Inge is a great writer see
this film. Warren Beatty begins his career AS A STAR.
The ending (cribbed by Demy for "The Umbrellas of
Cherbourg") may well have you weeping buckets.

> 13 Monday
>
> 10:00 PM Bell, Book and Candle (1959)
>
> Not Quine's best, but it has some of his good
> qualities.
>

Oh I disagree. I think it's first-rate Quine, and the
cast is fabulous. I'd love to see it double-featured
sometime with "Vertigo."


>
> 23 Thursday
>
> 1:00 PM Divorce, Italian Style (1962)
>
> A strong film by Pietro Germi, of whom I have a high
> opinion in general.
> This is the beginning of his good period.
>
Essential Mastroianni! You can't imaine how big a hit
this was in 1962. Broke right out of the art houses
into regular theaters.

Germi deserves intense re-evaluation. He's known for
this comedy and "Seduced and Abandoned" but his early
dramas are teriffic as is his startling rendition of
Gadda's "That Awful Mess on Via Merulana."







__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
17533


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:39pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"

> wrote:
>
> > Take a look at Chomsky's "The New Military Humanaism: Lessons
from
> > Kosovo." The motives for intervention were mixed and he
> persuasively
> > argues that there were alternatives.
> >
> Michael Parenti wondered why, if it was motivated by humanitarian
> concerns, the US was not considering launching humanitarian bombings
> against France for its role in Rwanda.
>
> Paul

Not a head-scratcher, really.

BTW, the last time I talked to my presumed CIA friend he was en route
to Rwanda to do what he could for the refugees. His very detailed on-
the-ground report on an early massacre was one of the first red flags
sent up within our government about what was going on there -- I have
a copy of it. Actually, besides not being a fan of Godard, he's not a
big fan of French foreign policy in Africa. But I've never heard him
suggest we bomb them.
17534


From: Damien Bona
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:45pm
Subject: Re: December on TCM
 
Preminger's amazing "Fallen Angel" is on the Fox Movie Channel, this
Saturday at 8 pm E.S.T.
17535


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 10:56pm
Subject: Ford after WWII (Was Fipresci site alert)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
> "It's a revisionist theory then, one I guess I should be better
> acquainted with before dismissing it, especially if there are all
> those documents to prove that we cooked it up for economic reasons."
>
> There's no suggestion that the war was cooked up for economic
reasons
> and there's no question that Germany and Japan were the agressor
> nations in WWII. The US fought the war to stop Hitler and check
> Japan, not to bring democracy to the world.

But we did play an important postwar role in introducing more
democratic institutions (recent experience w. American politics
inclines me never to use the word "democratic" as a term in a binary
opposition with "non-democratic") in Japan, didn't we? Anyway, I
agree with your analysis of our reasons for getting into that war.
And I think that the fact that we turned around and aggrandized
ourselves -- the Fort Knox caper being no small example! -- still
doesn't make it retrospectively a war waged for imperialistic
motives, any more than whatever good we did in Japan makes it a war
for democracy.

I would apply the same analysis to ex-Yugoslavia, with the difference
that we clearly did take sides in the civil war when we intervened
there. But I do have the impression that some Croatian war criminals
were subsequently indicted in the Hague as well. Cosmetics? I'm sure
it can be argued that way.

> "Straub, by the way, started our most recent conversation (post-
9/11)
> by asking me if I thought Ford knew that 'FDR knew' that Pearl
Harbor
> was coming. I said I didn't know, but that I thought WWII so
altered
> his perception of the world that he wouldn't have been surprised to
> hear it. His favorable portrait of FDR predates the War. I don't
know
> what he thought about him afterward."
>
> There isn't much evidence that FDR or the War Dept. knew that Pearl
> Harbor would be attacked, but he did know that sooner or later the
US
> would be drawn into the conflict.

I'm such a paranoid that I assumed that where there was smoke there
was fire. But cutting off petroleum supplies to the Japanese is at
least arguably a provocative move -- which would make Prescott Bush,
who kept selling Japan oil AFTER Pearl Harbor, a misunderstood man of
peace, I guess...
>
> To get somewhat back on topic, since it's well known that Ford was
a
> student of history he very likely would have judiciously weighed
the
> evidence of the conspiracy books (which like to exhonorate Kimmel
and
> Short and blame FDR) against Prange and Clausen and drawn his own
> conclusions. Perhaps he would have regarded Kimmel and Short the
way
> he regarded Col. Thursday. Possibly Thursday was inspired by
> officers he knew during WWII.

An amazing film, and an interesting idea -- Fort Apache certainly
seems to refelect a changed Ford post-war, as does My Darling
Clementine, where the treatment of the prostitute is so coarse in
comparison with the treatment of the prostitute in Stagecoach.

Anyway, it's to be regretted that he
> didn't get to direct the American sequences of TORA,TORA,TORA
> (Kurosawa was lead to believe that Ford would be the co-director.)

You can say that again!
>
> Richard
17536


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:05pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> >
> > As I have written before, one of my best friends, and the most
> > effective humanitarian I know, is probably in the CIA.
>
> > He loves Capra's films, which he says taught him
> > everything he knows, but was never very fond of Godard.
>
> One CIA agent I met was named George Bailey! He was a field agent in
> the Middle East. He died recently.
>
> George Bailey the Spy sounds like it has possibilities. I read that
> Jimmy Stewart wanted the lead in "North by Northwest" and Ian
Fleming
> considered Stewart to play James Bond. (Brian Smith suggested he did
> this just to get Hitchcock to take notice. He wanted Hitchcock as
> director.)
>
> Paul

Stewart was always AH's second choice for Roger. His comments on what
the Bond series ended up being are on view in the underrated Torn
Curtain and the mutilated Topaz.
17537


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:27pm
Subject: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
> To keep things on topic, the question arises whether the cinema, and
> art in general, show "men and their circumstances" as they really
are,
> or distorted through the lens of ideology, or something else.
>
> Paul

A good question. I still ask it of myself. In general I tend to agree
with Kracauer that it works both ways -- ideology also has effects on
the infrastructure, if that's the right word. Otherwise there
wouldn't be much point in debating about the ideology of a given
film, and IMO there is.

In a discussion I had with "George Bailey" concerning a book about a
fellow relief worker who was more high-profile and ended up dead in
Chechnya, he said "The difference between Fred and me is that he's a
liberal, I'm a conservative" -- actually I think he
said "Republicam" -- "so I don't believe that 'one man makes a
difference.'" [The book about Fred is called The Man Who Wanted to
Save the World.] "Democrats like Clinton believe that one man can
make a difference; Republicans like me [he voted against Bush 1 --
don't know about Bush 2] believe that larger circumstances enable or
retard desired change."

An example: When he was starting off his work in Guatemala, he
noticed that Peace Corps programs to help the Mayans increase their
potato crop yield had wrecked their already precarious economy by
driving the price of potatoes down. Common sense, but not to the
Peace Corps. I've always thought the fact that he modelled his early
projects on Deeds and Wonderful Life showed that Capra wasn't all
that idealist, or all that liberal.

As far as Godard goes, I would be absolutely amazed if he weren't as
anti-imperialist as ever. His analysis of our intervention in ex-
Yugoslavia just doesn't identify it as an imperialist adventure.

For me one of the most direct and potent Communist films ever made is
History Lessons. Brecht's demystification of the imperial myth of
Caesar and the dispositif the Straubs created to film it are as close
to perfection as I've seen when it comes to "making political films
politically," followed by Class Relations, which ostensibly starts
from a non-political text and makes it Marxist by how they film it.

For me the Straubs are the filmmakers who have been doing most
successfully what Godard has been trying to do, but I don't discount
the extraordianry formal experimentation in films like Pravda, which
has not finished yielding fruit. As far as a Godard film that applies
the lessons of Brecht to concrete analysis of a concrete situation,
the one that succeeds for me is La Chinoise, which I don't see as
bourgois or defeatist at all.

I'm sure people here could suggest other Marxist double bills, but if
I were teaching filmmakers or film students this topic, I'd start off
with History Lessons and La Chinoise.
17538


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:30pm
Subject: Re: The Death of Television (Was: Hollywood, Propaganda
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
>
>
> It's McLuhan, Bill.
>
> very perceptive and stimulating post, especially from someone
who
> doesn't have a TV.

Thanks, JP! Lurking Marvin keeps me pretty well posted about the tube.
17539


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:34pm
Subject: Re: December on TCM
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Jaime asked me to look at the December TCM schedule and post any
films
> that might not be on everyone's radar:
> Back in the old days, this was the Gerd Oswald film with the
highest
> reputation, seemed to me. I'm not a big fan, though.

It's just the only one anyone had seen, I suspect. But I like it --
think of it as a meta-film about Double Indemnity!
17540


From: Aaron Graham
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:34pm
Subject: Re: December on TCM
 
> 10:00 PM His Kind Of Woman (1951)
>
> This is one of the best-liked Farrow films, but I'm very so-so on
it.

This could partially be considered a Richard Fleischer film as well;
there's a long detailed account of his involvement in his
autobiography. He shot most of the boat stuff near the end of the
film.

-Aaron
17541


From: Aaron Graham
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:35pm
Subject: Re: December on TCM
 
> 10:00 PM His Kind Of Woman (1951)
>
> This is one of the best-liked Farrow films, but I'm very so-so on
it.

This could partially be considered a Richard Fleischer film as well;
there's a long detailed account of his involvement in his
autobiography. He shot most of the boat stuff near the end of the
film.

-Aaron
17542


From: hotlove666
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:37pm
Subject: Re: December on TCM
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
>
> Preminger's amazing "Fallen Angel" is on the Fox Movie Channel,
this
> Saturday at 8 pm E.S.T.

This is the one to see if for whatever reason you're dubious about
Preminger. Not Laura. This one.
17543


From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Sun Oct 31, 2004 11:47pm
Subject: HUMAN ACTION silence means consent
 
Even more fundamental than a moral sense, is an individual's tendency
to act or not to act. Some of us must do things when we morally
disagree; others are not necessarily in passive agreement, but let
things play out even if we morally disagree. There is something to the
level of activity (impulsivity -- reflectivity) of an individual that
may supersede one's morality.

Interesting that cinema requires so much 'human activity.'

In A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, Thomas More felt he could get a pass by
silence, as "silence means consent."


Elizabeth



> Although he hasn't developed the idea, Chomsky has said he thinks
> humans have an innate moral sense: essentially everyone has the same
> moral beliefs in the same way that everyone has knowledge of grammar.
> This relates to the idea that people would make the right choices if
> they only had the right information. Politics is presented as an
> intellectual problem.
>
> In contrast, people who are more influenced by Marxism tend to
> emphasize how the real reasons for state actions are hidden and in the
> final analysis material, and individuals' values and perceptions
> are distorted by material factors. For example, Oja Kodar is entirely
> sincere in her convictions, Clinton and Blair and Kohl might be
> entirely sincere in theirs, your friend in the CIA may well be a great
> humanitarian, but the motivations and ideals of individuals obscure
> the real basis of human action: "men and their circumstances appear
> upside-down as in a camera obscura."
>
> To keep things on topic, the question arises whether the cinema, and
> art in general, show "men and their circumstances" as they really are,
> or distorted through the lens of ideology, or something else.
>
> Paul
17544


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 2:02am
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> > Michael Parenti wondered why, if it was motivated by humanitarian
> > concerns, the US was not considering launching humanitarian bombings
> > against France for its role in Rwanda.
> >
> > Paul
>
> Not a head-scratcher, really.

Well, it might be worth giving some thought to the question: putting
aside the imprudence of attacking a country with a large nuclear
arsenal, which countries does the US have the right to bomb?

>
> BTW, the last time I talked to my presumed CIA friend he was en route
> to Rwanda to do what he could for the refugees. His very detailed on-
> the-ground report on an early massacre was one of the first red flags
> sent up within our government about what was going on there -- I have
> a copy of it.

I read it was no secret. "The slaughter was planned and organized at
the top, and was systematically carried out. Lists of people to be
killed were drawn up. Every Hutu was encouraged to take part. Hundreds
of thousands did. The preparations for the coming slaughter were well
known and reported many times in the foreign press. Repeated warnings
were sent to the Belgian, French, and U.S. governments, and later also
to the UN." So your friend didn't have to do much spying.

I've also read the Rwanda government probably would have been
overthrown by the Rwandan Patriotic Front (RPF) before all this
happened had Mitterrand not come to its rescue by sending troops in 1993.

> Actually, besides not being a fan of Godard, he's not a
> big fan of French foreign policy in Africa. But I've never heard him
> suggest we bomb them.

That's good, I guess.

I hope it's clear that Michael Parenti wasn't calling for bombing
France or anywhere else. He was attempting a refutation of the
humanitarian intervention argument. The quote is here:
http://www.michaelparenti.org/yugoslavia.html


Paul
17545


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 2:54am
Subject: Re: HUMAN ACTION silence means consent
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
> Even more fundamental than a moral sense, is an individual's tendency
> to act or not to act. Some of us must do things when we morally
> disagree; others are not necessarily in passive agreement, but let
> things play out even if we morally disagree. There is something to the
> level of activity (impulsivity -- reflectivity) of an individual that
> may supersede one's morality.
>
> Interesting that cinema requires so much 'human activity.'
>
> In A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, Thomas More felt he could get a pass by
> silence, as "silence means consent."
>
>
> Elizabeth

It's interesting that the moral of a film I've been posting about
lately, Rohmer's "Triple Agent," might be, don't take sides. I doubt
Rohmer would phrase it that way, but I did get the message: tend to
your art; politics will get you and your loved ones killed.

There are no shortage of examples where the movies favor action, often
violent action; but there are also many examples encouraging passivity
and inaction. We can cite John Milius films encouraging fighting, or
Ozu films encouraging quiet resignation. Films that conceals their
aims are especially interesting in this respect: a while back it was
noted how "It's a Wonderful Life" presents George Bailey's abandonment
of his hopes and ambitions as a vindication.

Paul
17546


From: Patrick Ciccone
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 3:47am
Subject: Re: December on TCM
 
> I'm skipping the obvious stuff. - Dan
This would be an amazing schedule even without the obvious stuff. (I
haven't looked at the grid, so I don't what the obvious stuff even is.)

I assume there's no method, at least a cost effective one, of
subscribing to cable only to get TCM, right?

PWC
17547


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 4:40am
Subject: Totally OT - Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:

> Well, it might be worth giving some thought to the question: putting
> aside the imprudence of attacking a country with a large nuclear
> arsenal, which countries does the US have the right to bomb?
>
None. Bombing inhabited areas from the air is a crime against
humanity. When we finally emerge from the state of barabarity that
takes the practice for granted, it will have the added advantage of
checking the wholesale military adventures of countries who use
aerial bombardment while spinning lies about "surgical strikes" and
bragging about how few casualties they sustain in the process,
because those governments (ours first and foremost) will be obliged
to commit ground troops instead, and that's a much tougher decision
to implement than bombing enemy civilians. Aerial bombardment of
cities, as far as I'm concerned, is a form of state terrorism. No
difference.

I'll repeat something else OT that I said recently that just lay
there afterward: The American people owe the Iraqis a debt of
gratitude, as we did before to the Vietnamese, for resisting our
invasions of their countries. I guess having seen how easy it was
to "shock and awe" Americans on 9/11 into cowed submission to any
authority that promised protection, George W. Bush figured it would
be just as easy to do the same to Arabs. But the only Arabs he has
dealt with are the rich ones his father introduced him to, and they
aren't typical -- fortunately for us, or the election on Tuesday
wouldn't even be a contest.
17548


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 4:42am
Subject: Re: HUMAN ACTION silence means consent
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
> There are no shortage of examples where the movies favor action,
often
> violent action; but there are also many examples encouraging
passivity
> and inaction.

The second Star Wars trilogy is against violence.
17549


From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 0:13pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
> > George Bailey the Spy sounds like it has possibilities. I read
that
> > Jimmy Stewart wanted the lead in "North by Northwest" and Ian
> Fleming
> > considered Stewart to play James Bond. (Brian Smith suggested he
did
> > this just to get Hitchcock to take notice. He wanted Hitchcock as
> > director.)

> Stewart was always AH's second choice for Roger. His comments on
what
> the Bond series ended up being are on view in the underrated Torn
> Curtain and the mutilated Topaz.

Cary Grant was certainly mooted as a Bond, but wasn't interested.

According to Lehman, N by NW was written with both Stewart and Grant
in mind, and at a certain point he said to Hitch "I think we'd better
go for Grant 'cause if Jimmy Stewart has to say this dialogue the
film's gonna be three hours long."

That movie was my parents' first date. I always felt a debt to Hitch
for that, along with a slight grudge against Bergman, whose THE
VIRGIN SPRING is NOT a good date movie, as my folks found out.
17550


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 0:45pm
Subject: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

> A good question. I still ask it of myself. In general I tend to
agree
> with Kracauer that it works both ways -- ideology also has effects
on
> the infrastructure, if that's the right word. Otherwise there
> wouldn't be much point in debating about the ideology of a given
> film, and IMO there is.

One source of confusion is the various usages of "ideology": ideology
as false consciousness, ideology as lived experienced, ideology as
political doctrine. Rodowick's "The Crisis of Political Modernism" is
a good guide to some of these issues.

> An example: When he was starting off his work in Guatemala, he
> noticed that Peace Corps programs to help the Mayans increase their
> potato crop yield had wrecked their already precarious economy by
> driving the price of potatoes down. Common sense, but not to the
> Peace Corps. I've always thought the fact that he modelled his
early
> projects on Deeds and Wonderful Life showed that Capra wasn't all
> that idealist, or all that liberal.

A CIA agent in Guatemala, among Mayans?

>
> As far as Godard goes, I would be absolutely amazed if he weren't
as
> anti-imperialist as ever. His analysis of our intervention in ex-
> Yugoslavia just doesn't identify it as an imperialist adventure.

I don't want to define anti-imperialism too narrowly. Obviously most
of the people in the anti-war movement weren't Marxists. But it
generally means an understanding of the existence of a particular kind
of world system. It's not merely a matter of moral disapproval of
certain military actions.

I suppose someone could ask Godard. I saw Colin MacCabe on Ed Grant's
TV program, where he was asked about Godard's current politics, but
MacCabe's answer was uninformative. If Godard's views really haven't
changed in the past thirty years, then he chooses to express himself
in a peculiar way. People that hold imperialism responsible for
national oppression, war, genocide, underdevelopment, poverty, and
starvation usually have other complaints besides the fallen nature of
man and how bad Putin and Milosevic are. But people have strange
values; there's no accounting for personal eccentricity.

>
> I'm sure people here could suggest other Marxist double bills, but
if
> I were teaching filmmakers or film students this topic, I'd start
off
> with History Lessons and La Chinoise.

They might be bored or amused. If the students and the teacher don't
know or care what Marxism is, the category of Marxist film doesn't
have much meaning; maybe it becomes another variety of formalism.

Paul
17551


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 1:31pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
> Cary Grant was certainly mooted as a Bond, but wasn't interested.
>
> According to Lehman, N by NW was written with both Stewart and Grant
> in mind, and at a certain point he said to Hitch "I think we'd better
> go for Grant 'cause if Jimmy Stewart has to say this dialogue the
> film's gonna be three hours long."

I just can't picture Stewart in North by Northwest. In the same way I
can't picture Warren Beatty in What's New, Pussycat? -- which I didn't
know about until now. Grant and O'Toole are perfect in their roles.
Thornhill is too complicated to describe in a sentence, but doesn't he
embody charming glib shallowness -- he "stands for nothing" -- how
could Stewart play that? And O'Toole's appeal to women is always over
the top, a demented fantasy, it's said he's irresistible to women only
when the light hits him in a certain direction, otherwise he's a
nebbish; with Warren Beatty, the movie would just turn into a documentary.

>
> That movie was my parents' first date. I always felt a debt to Hitch
> for that, along with a slight grudge against Bergman, whose THE
> VIRGIN SPRING is NOT a good date movie, as my folks found out.

Think of all the dates Bergman ruined in Sweden!

Paul
17552


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 2:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
--- Paul Gallagher wrote:


> >
> > I'm sure people here could suggest other Marxist
> double bills, but
> if
> > I were teaching filmmakers or film students this
> topic, I'd start
> off
> > with History Lessons and La Chinoise.
>
> They might be bored or amused. If the students and
> the teacher don't
> know or care what Marxism is, the category of
> Marxist film doesn't
> have much meaning; maybe it becomes another variety
> of formalism.
>

It does indeed. Far more effective politically are
films like "Force of Evil" and "The Big Night" -- not
to mention my all-time favorite political film "The
Devils." The Straubs' marxism exists by and large
under a bell jar. As for Godard, he's changed quite a
lot over the years. Raymond Durgnat saw "Breathless"
as purely fascist -- and to some degree he's correct.
The leftist upsurge in Godard proceeds fromhis
opposition to the Algerian war (best expressed in 'A
Woman is a Woman") and then Vietnam. "La Chinoise" was
a once-in-a-lifetime capturing to the zeitgeist of the
student movement that exploded in '68 (never forget -
it was made in 1967) Godard was never able to live up
to that all-time high, drifting off into muddles
Maoism and then out of it again into the vague leftism
that characterizes his work today.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
17553


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 2:20pm
Subject: Re: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- Paul Gallagher wrote:

with Warren Beatty, the movie would just
> turn into a documentary.
>

And the title of that documentary is "Shampoo."



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail Address AutoComplete - You start. We finish.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
17554


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 2:23pm
Subject: Totally OT - Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> > Well, it might be worth giving some thought to the question:
putting
> > aside the imprudence of attacking a country with a large nuclear
> > arsenal, which countries does the US have the right to bomb?
> >
> None. Bombing inhabited areas from the air is a crime against
> humanity.

Bombing comes with the package of humanitarian intervention.

> I'll repeat something else OT that I said recently that just lay
> there afterward: The American people owe the Iraqis a debt of
> gratitude, as we did before to the Vietnamese, for resisting our
> invasions of their countries.

Gratitude, sure. But for electing Nixon, or electing Bush by a smaller
margin than otherwise? Four million Vietnamese were killed, but it got
a Democrat in the White House -- what a good deal! But seriously, I
don't wish to get into an argument over politics, although I'll admit
many of my pet peeves have been riled.

Paul
17555


From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 3:11pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
> with Warren Beatty, the movie would just
> > turn into a documentary.
> >
> And the title of that documentary is "Shampoo."

You said it! Maybe that's why SHAMPOO never struck me as funny.
There's nothing inherently comic about Beatty as stud - the only
irony is for a hairdresser to have such an unattractive coiff.

If memory serves, Beatty was the role model for the character in
WHAT'S NEW, but one should never cast the actual source of
inspiration - automatic typecasting.

Agree that Grant is a much better choice for N BY NW - I think as the
writing shped the character this was increasingly clear. Probably
every Hitch film at this point started off as a vehicle, ideally, for
either Grant or Stewart and as the script and budget were more
defined, the choice was made: Stewart for VERTIGO, Grant for NORTH,
Rod Taylor for THE BIRDS (so they could save money for the effects
work).

Wish somebody would publish the screenplays for KALEIDOSCOPE FRENZY
and MARY ROSE!

Re Bergman's influence on the Swedish dating scene, I suspect
Scandinavians would overrun the world if he hadn't kept them in check
with his excellently contraceptive films! (I know, I know, he IS a
great filmmaker...grumble grumble...)
17556


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 4:22pm
Subject: Re: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- cairnsdavid1967 wrote:


>
> You said it! Maybe that's why SHAMPOO never struck
> me as funny.
> There's nothing inherently comic about Beatty as
> stud - the only
> irony is for a hairdresser to have such an
> unattractive coiff.
>

It wasn't unattractive in period. Remember, it takes
place in '68. Moreover"Shampoo" is only situationally
funny. It's a deadly serious film about politics and
power.

> If memory serves, Beatty was the role model for the
> character in
> WHAT'S NEW, but one should never cast the actual
> source of
> inspiration - automatic typecasting.
>

True. See also "Toby Dammit" where Terence Stamp was
cast after Peter O'Toole discovered that the script
was a little too close for comfort.

__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
17557


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 5:40pm
Subject: Germi (Was: December on TCM)
 
> Germi deserves intense re-evaluation. He's known for
> this comedy and "Seduced and Abandoned" but his early
> dramas are teriffic as is his startling rendition of
> Gadda's "That Awful Mess on Via Merulana."

I'm a big Germi fan, but I think I'm a bit less impressed with his pre-60s
work than you are. THE RAILROAD MAN is strong, and I kind of like some of
the others, including THE STRAW MAN - but, on the whole, I think he came
into his own in the 60s. (I saw ALFREDO ALFREDO a few years ago, which
had such a non-reputation when it came out, and was really startled by it
- I think it may be my favorite Germi.) - Dan
17558


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 5:43pm
Subject: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
> For me one of the most direct and potent Communist films ever made is
> History Lessons. Brecht's demystification of the imperial myth of
> Caesar and the dispositif the Straubs created to film it are as close
> to perfection as I've seen when it comes to "making political films
> politically," followed by Class Relations, which ostensibly starts
> from a non-political text and makes it Marxist by how they film it.

I just saw CLASS RELATIONS, and I think that maybe I liked it (a typical
reaction when I see Straub-Huillet films - liking seems almost beside
the point). Do you have any thoughts on how the filming expressed
Marxism? - Dan
17559


From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 5:52pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
> It wasn't unattractive in period. Remember, it takes
> place in '68.

Impossible to forget it, with Sgt Peppers playing at every party! A
nice touch which I'm assured is accurate.

> > If memory serves, Beatty was the role model for the
> > character in
> > WHAT'S NEW, but one should never cast the actual
> > source of
> > inspiration - automatic typecasting.
>
> True. See also "Toby Dammit" where Terence Stamp was
> cast after Peter O'Toole discovered that the script
> was a little too close for comfort.

Although - Fellini is an exception, his cartoonist's view of the
world almost DEMANDS type-casting. He would cast purely on appearance
then struggle to get the performance he required - and succeed. I
tell my students he's a really bad example to learn from, but his
example is good in that he encourages thinking out of the box, and
shows that seemingly impractical techniques can be more than
effective.

So, to sum up - there's an alternative world where Albery Finney is
Laurence of Arabia, Peter O'Toole is Toby Dammit, Terence Stamp is
Thomas in BLOW UP...so where does that leave David Hemmings?
17560


From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 5:56pm
Subject: Re: Ford after WWII (Was Fipresci site alert)
 
> Anyway, it's to be regretted that he
> > didn't get to direct the American sequences of TORA,TORA,TORA
> > (Kurosawa was lead to believe that Ford would be the co-director.)
>
> You can say that again!

Donald Ritchie says (in the documentary Akira Kurosawa: The Last
Emperor by Alex Cox) that it was David Lean whom Kurosawa expected to
be shooting the US half of TTT.

That would have been quite a production - could any studio have borne
the strain?

If they'd wanted to make an exciting film at a tenth the cost, they
shoudl have gone for Sam Fuller and Seijun Suzuki.
17561


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 6:29pm
Subject: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> I'm sure people here could suggest other Marxist double bills, but
if
> I were teaching filmmakers or film students this topic, I'd start
off
> with History Lessons and La Chinoise.

History Lessons might relate to Elizabeth Nolan's comments about human
action, in that in shows how Julius Caesar -- a great man of action if
ever there was -- disappears as an agent of history on closer
analysis. At the same time the narrators lose control of the narrative
and of the history they're trying to write. The great men of history
are less important than they seem, while the observer's conscious role
is more important than it seems.

Straub and Huillet's comments are maybe relevant.
STRAUB: ... I think the deception comes about when one gives people
the impression that something is happening in the moment the film is
running, something they call "action." It isn't true; when a film is
running which doesn't rest on deception, nothing is happening,
absolutely nothing. That can only happen in the spectator, whatever
happens. And that can only come about through the combination of the
images and sounds ...
HUILLET: That is, of forms ...
STRAUB: ... of forms that go through the ears and the eyes and through
the minds of the spectator and into his reflections.

Incidentally, just like Straub with "Othon," Brecht reported getting a
much better response from workers than from intellectuals. According
to Barton Byg, "Only after Books I through III of the novel had been
shown to some German workers was Brecht encouraged enough to go on.
'They understood everything, even the details.' The audience easiest
to reach was not sympathetic. Ten months earlier Brecht had noted,
'Benjamin and Sternberg, very highly qualified intellectuals, didn't
understand it and urgently suggested including more human interest,
more of the old novel!'"

I'm very curious how people reacted to the Straub retrospective at the
Anthology Film Archives in New York last month.

Paul
17562


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 6:33pm
Subject: Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
> wrote:
> > Cary Grant was certainly mooted as a Bond, but wasn't interested.
> >
> > According to Lehman, N by NW was written with both Stewart and
Grant
> > in mind, and at a certain point he said to Hitch "I think we'd
better
> > go for Grant 'cause if Jimmy Stewart has to say this dialogue the
> > film's gonna be three hours long."
>
> I just can't picture Stewart in North by Northwest.

I can't either, but he was AH's number 2 choice. It would certainly
have highlighhted the parallels to Vertigo, which was shot while
Lehman was finishing the NBNW script, at the end, where Roger saves
Eve -- who did, after all, send him to his death at the crossroads --
from falling from a great height.
17563


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 6:39pm
Subject: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > For me one of the most direct and potent Communist films ever
made is
> > History Lessons. Brecht's demystification of the imperial myth of
> > Caesar and the dispositif the Straubs created to film it are as
close
> > to perfection as I've seen when it comes to "making political
films
> > politically," followed by Class Relations, which ostensibly starts
> > from a non-political text and makes it Marxist by how they film
it.
>
> I just saw CLASS RELATIONS, and I think that maybe I liked it (a
typical
> reaction when I see Straub-Huillet films - liking seems almost
beside
> the point). Do you have any thoughts on how the filming expressed
> Marxism? - Dan

I'd have to look at it carefully -- it's not one big thing they did;
rather, it's how every scene is shot and played. To me it's agitprop,
with no need for pointers from the critics. But maybe they're right
and Kafka was a Marxist. Did you see Thom Andersen at the end?
17564


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Germi (Was: December on TCM)
 
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:


>
> I'm a big Germi fan, but I think I'm a bit less
> impressed with his pre-60s
> work than you are. THE RAILROAD MAN is strong, and
> I kind of like some of
> the others, including THE STRAW MAN - but, on the
> whole, I think he came
> into his own in the 60s.

I couldn't disagree more. "The Way of Hope"

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0042301/

is a crucially important neo-realist film. In point of
fact I would argue that Germi is more important to
neo-relaism than Rossellini -- who abandoned it when
he met Ingrid Bergman.

He is also a superb actor-director, right up there
with Skolimowski and Sydney Pollack. His performance
in the Gadda adaptation, "A Degree of Murder" is
amazing -- particularly in the way it intersects with
his stars, Claudia Cardinale and Nino Castelnuovo.


(I saw ALFREDO ALFREDO a
> few years ago, which
> had such a non-reputation when it came out, and was
> really startled by it
> - I think it may be my favorite Germi.) - Dan
>

In that mode I prefer "Seduced and Abandoned," a black
comedy of relentless savagery, in which the chief
protagonist must die in order to maintain a sense of
"family honor" that is nothing more than "keeping up
appearances" before neighbors who are all too aware of
the truth.



__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
17565


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 6:45pm
Subject: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
> Incidentally, just like Straub with "Othon," Brecht reported
getting a
> much better response from workers than from intellectuals. According
> to Barton Byg, "Only after Books I through III of the novel had been
> shown to some German workers was Brecht encouraged enough to go on.
> 'They understood everything, even the details.' The audience easiest
> to reach was not sympathetic. Ten months earlier Brecht had noted,
> 'Benjamin and Sternberg, very highly qualified intellectuals, didn't
> understand it and urgently suggested including more human interest,
> more of the old novel!'"

I hadn't heard that the Straubs actually screened Othon for workers --
they said they made it for that audience, though. There's nothing in
the text of History Lessons that German workers of that time wouldn't
have thoroughly understood -- they were already educated politically.
The big obstacle re: the film is the driving sequences. If I had a
chance to show my dream double bill to an audience seeking
instruction, I'm not sure how to prepare them for those. Don Skoller
would probably just show it and discuss -- that's what he reports
doing in the Bresson article you found. At UT, of all places!
17566


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 7:18pm
Subject: Totally OT - Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:

Four million Vietnamese were killed, but it got
> a Democrat in the White House -- what a good deal!

I heard three, but I heard it from Milius when I interviewed him for
l'Huma. Anyway, Vietnam became free, and eventually the horrors in
Cambodia ended too -- those were the main benefits. Think what would
have happened here if we'd won. And even more so in Iraq, whoever
lands in the White House. Imperialists become voracious when they
win, and local resistance to imperialist occupation has been known to
topple regimes: The defeat in Afghanistan played a role in the
collapse of the USSR.

But seriously, I
> don't wish to get into an argument over politics, although I'll
admit
> many of my pet peeves have been riled.

Sorry. Actually, your usual approach to these matters, which is of
exemplary finesse, is like what Daney said about Godard's approach
during his militant period: "It consists of taking note of what is
said...and then looking immediately for the other statement, the
other sound, the other image which would counterbalnce this
statement, this sound, this image."
17567


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 7:31pm
Subject: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

> I hadn't heard that the Straubs actually screened Othon for workers
--
> they said they made it for that audience, though.

Here's something from Barton Byg's book.
"Martin Schaub, writing in 1976, takes the most extreme position
against Straub/Huillet's claim to political relevance for their
aesthetic method. 'With Othon (1969) Straub and Huillet lost their
footing in the base that sustained them. No matter how much they
insist they have shown Othon in French factories and that it was the
workers who best understood the revolutionary message of this film (in
form and content), I have trouble believing it. And Moses and Aaron
(1975) also seems to me to be more of a demonstration of method than a
lever in the political struggle Straub still maintains he is waging.'"

I loved "Othon," but I didn't notice a revolutionary message... I
should look up the literature on it, or find a French factory worker
to ask.

Paul
17568


From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 8:18pm
Subject: Re: Ford after WWII (Was Fipresci site alert)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:


"Donald Ritchie says (in the documentary Akira Kurosawa: The Last
Emperor by Alex Cox) that it was David Lean whom Kurosawa expected to
be shooting the US half of TTT."

A 1968 issue of Kinema Jumpo had an item stating that John Ford would
co-direct TTT. McBride's Ford biography says Ford wanted to direct
the US half. Apparently Elmo Williams vetoed the idea and told
Kurosawa that Ford was ill, but that Fox would find someone of
comparable stature, "like David Lean." Lean was never even
approached about it. It was the beginning of a lot of double dealing
on the part of Williams and company that eventually resulted in
Kurosawa's dismissal after K found out that Fleischer was going to
direct and decided to treat the Americans as a second unit while he
worked from his own script. He also wanted final cut of the entire
picture.

"If they'd wanted to make an exciting film at a tenth the cost, they
shoudl have gone for Sam Fuller and Seijun Suzuki."

Ford could have shot the movie as cheaply as Fuller, but a Fuller-
Suzuki version is certainly an intriguing alternate universe idea.

There's an interesting Japanese post-war version of the Pearl Harbor
story called in the West I BOMBED PEARL HARBOR and shown dubbed and
cut by about 20 minutes. I can recommend the Japanese version, a big
Toho production with an all star cast.

Richard
17569


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 9:00pm
Subject: Totally OT - Re: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"

> wrote:
>
> Four million Vietnamese were killed, but it got
> > a Democrat in the White House -- what a good deal!
>
> I heard three, but I heard it from Milius when I interviewed him
for
> l'Huma.

47,378 Americans, 223,748 South Vietnamese ARVN, 4,407 South Koreans,
469 Australians, 351 Thais, and 55 New Zealanders were killed.
According to Vietnam's estimates, released on April 3, 1995, a total
of 1,100,000 North Vietnamese Army and Viet Cong combatants and four
million civilians were killed in the war. 600,000 NVA/VC were
wounded. I suppose one could add to the dead the victims of the French
war in Indochina from 1946 to 1954, which led to, according to various
estimates, from 600,000 to 2 million dead. And then there are the
excess deaths from all the social disruption and environmental damage.
And also the dead in Laos and Cambodia. "War is not healthy for
children and other living things," they use to say.

> Anyway, Vietnam became free, and eventually the horrors in
> Cambodia ended too -- those were the main benefits. Think what
would
> have happened here if we'd won.

Vietnam would be covered with Nike and Reebok sweatshops!

>
> But seriously, I
> > don't wish to get into an argument over politics, although I'll
> admit
> > many of my pet peeves have been riled.
>
> Sorry.

No, no need to be sorry! I like having the opportunity to complain. I
never get the opportunity to talk about politics in the offline world.
If anything, I should apologize to you for always arguing with you!

> Actually, your usual approach to these matters, which is of
> exemplary finesse, is like what Daney said about Godard's approach
> during his militant period: "It consists of taking note of what is
> said...and then looking immediately for the other statement, the
> other sound, the other image which would counterbalance this
> statement, this sound, this image."

Thank you. That's high praise.

Paul
17570


From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 11:10pm
Subject: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>
> > I hadn't heard that the Straubs actually screened Othon for
workers
> --
> > they said they made it for that audience, though.
>
> Here's something from Barton Byg's book.
> "Martin Schaub, writing in 1976, takes the most extreme position
> against Straub/Huillet's claim to political relevance for their
> aesthetic method. 'With Othon (1969) Straub and Huillet lost their
> footing in the base that sustained them. No matter how much they
> insist they have shown Othon in French factories and that it was the
> workers who best understood the revolutionary message of this film
(in
> form and content), I have trouble believing it. And Moses and Aaron
> (1975) also seems to me to be more of a demonstration of method
than a
> lever in the political struggle Straub still maintains he is
waging.'"

This may be garbling of something they siad in the Cahiers interview
at the time. I never actually heard of it being shown in factories.

> I loved "Othon," but I didn't notice a revolutionary message... I
> should look up the literature on it, or find a French factory worker
> to ask.

It's like History Lessons, which is about economics and politics;
Othon describes a coup d'etat. The call for revolution is only in the
title: "Les yeux ne veulent pas en tout temps se fermer, Ou peut-etre
qu'un jour Rome se permettra de choisir a son tour." The lines are
taken from two different parts of the play.
17571


From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 2:38am
Subject: Chion's Babies
 
Mention was made during the Kubrick discussion of Michel Chion's slightly
strange (and strained) analysis of the role of the (in his opinion)
to-be-born child in EYES WIDE SHUT - an odd moment in an otherwise rather
terrific book, in my opinion.

The other day I finally watched a movie that had been on my shelf for 15
years: Tati's PARADE. What a film! Anyhow, I leafed through the English
edition of Chion's THE FILMS OF JACQUES TATI, originally written 1987, for
illumination, and found this:

"At first sight, Tati's films tell the story of a child that never comes to
life. And this is so because a man and a woman, though they come close,
never meet ... [in] public places where men and women should normally pair
off - so that a child may later be born, a little being, be it male or
female ... No child is ever born of this meeting. Or if one does come alive,
it actually resembles a smuggling of sorts" (p. 91)

Chion clearly has quite an obsession with the possibility of baby-making in
cinema!!!

Adrian
17572


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 1:42am
Subject: Re: HUMAN ACTION silence means consent
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

>
> The second Star Wars trilogy is against violence.

That's an interesting idea. It makes "Attack of the Clones" more
interesting, because most of the sympathetic characters, Amidala,
Obi-Wan, Yoda, the Jedi, are for violence. Amidala is at first against
violence, then later on she supports the war with the Trade
Federation, then the war against the secession, and finally, at the
end, she doesn't seem too troubled when Anakin Skywalker goes on a
crazed killing spree... And it's the Jedi, the forces of justice, who
request the Clone Army, which would be evil in most other science
fiction movies -- and was in the first trilogy. And Yoda and the Jedi
are all for the War to defend the Republic, but they've fallen into a
trap. They're completely deceived. The odd thing is we never have any
reason to question the Jedi's judgment or values, and the audience's
sympathies are with them all the time, even though we're given
all the information we need to know that the Jedi are pursuing a
disastrous course and Anakin is on his way to becoming Darth Vader.
So, George Lucas may have written himself into a corner, or he may
have strange, values, or he may be more sophisticated than I thought.
I guess we'll find out in Episode III.

Pau
17573


From:
Date: Mon Nov 1, 2004 8:49pm
Subject: Re: Chion's Babies
 
Adrian Martin wrote:

>Chion clearly has quite an obsession with the possibility of baby-making
>in
>cinema!!!

Interesting find, Adrian! I'm so glad you saw and appreciated "Parade." I'm
willing to concede that "Playtime" is perhaps the greater film, but I'm just
partial to the later film. As I've written here before, I want to connect it
with Welles' unfinished "The Magic Show": they are both late films in which
their respective directors go back to the days of circus and vaudeville. The
major difference between the two, of course, is that there's a fascinating
interplay between the performers and the audience in "Parade" (something Jonathan
has written very perceptively about), while there's nary a shot of an audience
member (except for a few stock ones) in "The Magic Show"! Nevertheless, this
comparison makes sense in my own mind. Certainly one can see the joy both
Welles and Tati take in performing and filming the routines on display in these
beautiful late works.

Peter
17574


From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 7:28am
Subject: Revenge of the Sith
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:

When Obi-wan kills Darth Maul, and the audience cheers, he leaves a
slot open in the universe that will be filled by Annikin when he
become Darth Vader -- "There can only be two Sith Lords - not more,
not less," says Yoda. An 18-yr-old security guard explained that part
to me.

Amidalia's politicking to save her planet puts the Senate in the
hands of Darth Maul's co-Sith Lord, who will become the Emperor. This
leads to the creation of the Clone Army -- I don't think the Jedi had
anything to do with it.

When Liam Neeson -- against Yoda's advice -- saves Annikin from
slavery and mkes him a Jedi, he is starting him on the path that
filling that soon-to-be-empty slot and becoming a Sith Lord.

Lucas told interviewers (cue the snickers) that he read history and
philosophy to understand how a Republic becomes an Empire while
writing the new trilogy: that's the subject of the trilogy. I
certainly thought of Afghanistan when Annikin slaughtered the sand
dwellers -- "even the women and children" -- although I have to
assume it was written before we semi-obliterated that country after
9/11. Other topical references are clearly deliberate, like naming
the trout-headed bad guys in Phantom Empire Trout Lott and Newt
Raygun.

Everyone thought it was corny when Lucas changed the title of Revenge
of the Jedi to Return of the Jedi (shitty film, good decision), but I
notice that this time he's going with "revenge," because, as he said
in 1982, "revenge is bad." And Revenge of the Sith theoretically ends
with the triumph of evil -- that's the logic of the two trilogies.
We'll see if he fluffs it.

I love New Hope, Phantom Empire and Attack of the Clones. Lucas was
supposed to direct Apocalypse Now in 1967 -- Thom Andersen, who went
to film school with him, says he regrets that he didn't -- and New
Hope has a lot of imagery from Milius's first draft of that film.
Lucas is obviously no Marxist -- he's a Zen-popping Marin County
liberal and, IMO, no war lover. But the war in the second trilogy,
which is a necessary war, is a revolutionary struggle...against us,
if the business about the Empire once being a Republic, and the
Vietnam resonances, are taken into account. Or else it's all just an
excuse to sell toys....
17575


From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 7:31am
Subject: Re: Chion's Babies
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:

>
> Chion clearly has quite an obsession with the possibility of baby-
making in
> cinema!!!
>
> Adrian

Wasn't there a piece in Diacritics that saw the Starchild in 2001 as
some kind of anti-abortion statement? Michel also wrote a book on
that film, which I disposed of after reading, so I can't go back and
check, but I think he may have touched on that.

Michel is a genius when he writes about sound, and very cranky and
uneven when he writes about Lynch, Tati (disappointing book!) and
Kubrick.
17576


From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 5:05pm
Subject: Re: Ford after WWII (Was Fipresci site alert)
 
> A 1968 issue of Kinema Jumpo had an item stating that John Ford
would
> co-direct TTT. McBride's Ford biography says Ford wanted to direct
> the US half. Apparently Elmo Williams vetoed the idea and told
> Kurosawa that Ford was ill, but that Fox would find someone of
> comparable stature, "like David Lean." Lean was never even
> approached about it.

Thanks for that - will quote you in my Kurosawa lecture on Friday.
There's a lot of conflicting stories about that movie - I mean to
watch the History Channel doc on its making to get the enemy
viewpoint from Richard Zanuck et al. God, that man has the cold dead
eyes of a shark.
17577


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 5:07pm
Subject: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
> > I just saw CLASS RELATIONS, and I think that maybe I liked it (a
> typical
> > reaction when I see Straub-Huillet films - liking seems almost
> beside
> > the point). Do you have any thoughts on how the filming
expressed
> > Marxism? - Dan
>
> I'd have to look at it carefully -- it's not one big thing they
did;
> rather, it's how every scene is shot and played. To me it's
agitprop,
> with no need for pointers from the critics. But maybe they're right
> and Kafka was a Marxist. Did you see Thom Andersen at the end?

Fieschi quoted Brecht: "the dramatic aspect ... none of this can be
envisioned or conveyed separately from the functioning of society." My
guess is that each scene is some way reflects on the functioning of
society, sometimes explicitly on class relations -- for example, the
opening scenes with the Porter and the Senator, and the talk about
"justice," and of course the relationships among Karl and Robinson,
and in the hotel, and with Brunelde -- pretty much the entire film!

I suppose one role for the critic is to point out the role of tracking
shots and symbols like windows. I thought the scene with Therese and
Karl in front of the window was extraordinary (but it was very hard to
read the subtitles, unfortunately). Barton Byg writes about it. It's a
long quote, but I think it's a great scene, and Byg understands it.

"Karl and Therese stand at a white window, beyond which is supposedly
snow. Therese looks out, while Karl looks somewhat more toward her and
the camera. As Therese begins her story, the camera tracks in from the
shot of them both to a close-up of Karl listening. As the story is
completed, the process is reversed: the camera tracks out from Karl to
the initial shot of both figures together.

"This sequence sums up the narrative lines of the film and reveals the
possibility of freedom beyond them. First, the story Therese tells is
simple, linear, and hopeless, and it is given an unforgettable
delivery by Libgart Schwarz, counterbalancing the bombastic rhetoric
of Mario Adorf earlier in the film. After a night without shelter in
winter, Therese's mother goes with her child to a building site where
she is to obtain work. Immediately she climbs a scaffold and walks
along it with miraculous agility to its end, where she topples over a
pile of bricks and falls to her death. The physical separateness of
Therese and Karl can also be described in terms of straight lines,
since they face at oblique angles across the axis of the camera. Yet
two devices imply a connection. In the only such shot in the film, the
tracking camera has indeed set up a coherent narrative space that they
share on equal terms. The use of reverse cuts during the story,
although implying separateness, are nonetheless an acknowledgment of
communication and are all the more powerful for their rarity in the
work of Straub/Huillet. At the end of the sequence, the camera tracks
out to rejoin Karl and Therese, again on equal terms in the
composition.(so freely exploited in the empty promises of commercial
cinema) to suggest unlimited possibility.

"Whatever solidarity Karl and Therese achieve in this scene produces
no concrete change in their fates as characters, but it is profoundly
significant for the viewer. Nothing is visible in this white window,
but as the mediating space between Therese speaking (remembering) and
Karl listening (perhaps understanding), it stands as a potential realm
where the justice Karl originally spoke of could truly be located. The
Father and the Law, represented by Uncle Jacob and the captain in 'The
Stoker' sequence, are nowhere to be seen. Recalling Benjamin's utopian
vision, the realm of freedom is outside the space the film can
construct but is still a construction of the cinema."

Also, I thought the uncertainty about whether the film is in the past
or the present, and the fact that the film is obviously in Germany but
everyone repeatedly insists they're in New York City were both amusing
and unsettling -- I'd say Kafkaesque, but I haven't actually read any
of Kafka's books. (It was a very different experience than I had with
Welles' "The Trial.") I wouldn't be surprised if this is how
immigrants often feel...

One detail that struck me as funny was the poster for the circus. I'll
accept that ads looking for workers for the circus are in German, but
in Gothic script? Maybe I'm too easily amused...

Paul
17578


From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 5:35pm
Subject: Re: Ford after WWII (Was Fipresci site alert)
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:

>
> Thanks for that - will quote you in my Kurosawa lecture on Friday.
> There's a lot of conflicting stories about that movie - I mean to
> watch the History Channel doc on its making to get the enemy
> viewpoint from Richard Zanuck et al. God, that man has the cold
dead
> eyes of a shark.

Preminger hated him. Fuller loved him.
17579


From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 5:40pm
Subject: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
In the only such shot in the film, the
> tracking camera has indeed set up a coherent narrative space that
they
> share on equal terms.

There's also the two-shot of Karl with the worker on the train at the
end.

> One detail that struck me as funny was the poster for the circus.
I'll
> accept that ads looking for workers for the circus are in German,
but
> in Gothic script? Maybe I'm too easily amused...

Added amusement: One of the two people who hire Karl for the Theatre
of Oklahoma is Thom Andersen -- the skinny guy with the white hair.
Ford once told him, "If I were still making pictures I could make you
a star."
17580


From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 5:43pm
Subject: Re: Ford after WWII erratum
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"

> wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks for that - will quote you in my Kurosawa lecture on
Friday.
> > There's a lot of conflicting stories about that movie - I mean to
> > watch the History Channel doc on its making to get the enemy
> > viewpoint from Richard Zanuck et al. God, that man has the cold
> dead
> > eyes of a shark.
>
> Preminger hated him. Fuller loved him.
17581


From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 5:46pm
Subject: Re: Ford after WWII erratum
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"

> wrote:
>
> >
> > Thanks for that - will quote you in my Kurosawa lecture on
Friday.
> > There's a lot of conflicting stories about that movie - I mean to
> > watch the History Channel doc on its making to get the enemy
> > viewpoint from Richard Zanuck et al. God, that man has the cold
> dead
> > eyes of a shark.
>
> Preminger hated him. Fuller loved him.

As Jaime quickly pointed out to me, I'm talking about Darryl, you're
talking about Richard...who fired his own Dad when he (Richard) was
head of 20th! Maybe Spielberg used his producer as a model for the
Great White in Jaws.
17582


From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 6:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
> I'd have to look at it carefully -- it's not one big thing they did;
> rather, it's how every scene is shot and played. To me it's agitprop,
> with no need for pointers from the critics. But maybe they're right
> and Kafka was a Marxist. Did you see Thom Andersen at the end?

Yeah, I realized who it was when I saw the credits.

In answer to Paul's question: I caught only a few films in the Anthology
series. Straub-Huillet tend to bemuse me more than excite me - I'm
intrigued by MACHORKA-MUFF, NOT RECONCILED, A. M. BACH, BRIDEGROOM etc.,
and CLASS RELATIONS, but on a cool, analytic level. Maybe what they
subtract from cinema is thought-provoking to me: each moment of the early
films plays in a relatively straightforward way, but by not using dramatic
emphasis to shape audience response, they make the films seem positively
lunar in the long view.

I'm not quite sure what Straub-Huillet are really after, though. I wonder
if their aesthetics aren't really politics in some way that I can't
comprehend or go along with. - Dan
17583


From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 6:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ford after WWII erratum
 
--- hotlove666 wrote:


>
> As Jaime quickly pointed out to me, I'm talking
> about Darryl, you're
> talking about Richard...who fired his own Dad when
> he (Richard) was
> head of 20th! Maybe Spielberg used his producer as a
> model for the
> Great White in Jaws.
>
>
Abraham Polonsky liked Daryll too. Said he was one of
the few people in the business who would give him a
straight answer about stuff.




__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Check out the new Yahoo! Front Page.
www.yahoo.com
17584


From: samfilms2003
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 7:14pm
Subject: Totally OT - Re: Fipresci site alert
 
-> And then there are the
> excess deaths from all the social disruption and environmental damage.

Like Dioxin from Agent Orange and other "agents" in the water table.


> And also the dead in Laos and Cambodia. "War is not healthy for
> children and other living things," they use to say.

They *still* are being killed by unexploded Americn ordinance, usually
cluster bombs ("bombi's") sometimes every day.

> Vietnam would be covered with Nike and Reebok sweatshops!

Nike has a shop or two there, or did (don't they tend to move around ?)
Ford Motor co. also.
The tallest building in Ho Chi Minh City is the Prudential building,...
I would see the Prudential sign glow out night out my window.

But then again pics of Nokia cell phones outnumber pics of
Uncle Ho about 500:1

US and Vietnam have a complex relationship, I could go on, but...

-Sam
17585


From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 10:09pm
Subject: re: Fipresci updates?
 
Charles or Andy, if you're out there - what happened to the Viennale updates
on the Fipresci site post Oct 27? Are there any summings-up of the event
coming from you? To echo Peggy Lee, 'is that all there is?'

Adrian
17586


From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 9:07pm
Subject: Re: Ford after WWII erratum
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

"As Jaime quickly pointed out to me, I'm talking about Darryl, you're
talking about Richard...who fired his own Dad when he (Richard) was
head of 20th! Maybe Spielberg used his producer as a model for the
Great White in Jaws."

I guess Renoir didn't get along with Darryl either judging by his
famous "15th Century Fox" quip. On the other hand, Darryl was the
only major producer to take an interest in a joint US-Japan co-
production when it was proposed by CIE (Civil Information and
Education , which monitored motion picture production and also
functioned as a censor) during the Occupation in 1947. The initial
project was to have been about Townsend Harris with Spencer Tracy as
Harris (if available.) The script was to be co-written by Japanese
and American writers, but all mention of Harris's Japanese mistress
Okichi was forbidden. CIE was told that Japanese audiences wouldn't
believe a movie about Harris that eliminated Okichi, and the project
was dropped. Apparently Zanuck retrained some interest in the story
since Fox produced Huston's THE BARBARIAN AND THE GEISHA with Wayne
as Harris.

As to Richard Z, he may have been using Elmo Williams as a cat's paw
to veto Ford and flim-flam Kurosawa, and he may have been the one
who orchestrated the smear campaign against Kurosawa after he was
fired. Of course in an ironic reversal Fox put half the money for
RAN with prodding from Lucas.

Richard
17587


From: Charles Leary
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 9:58pm
Subject: Re: re: Fipresci updates?
 
Hi Adrian,

First, thanks for alerting everyone to the writing on the FIPRESCI
site. To answer your question, I think there are a few uploads onto the
Viennale website that haven't made it to the FIPRESCI site yet. There's
a few new articles: one by Gabe on Mathieu Amalric and Kings and Queen
[Rois et Reine], Hans-Christian Leitich on the two award winners (Down
to the Bone and Los Muertos), and an account of a panel on film
criticism by Dana Linssen. To find these, go to www.viennale.at and, at
the bottom right hand corner, click on the purple dog that says
'FIPRESCI talent daily.'

As for a wrap-up, I don't think anything was formally planned - but
maybe I should go get a copy of Peggy Lee's "Black Coffee" and try to
write one. It was a uniquely productive experience and I learned so
much about writing, and the place of writing, from the aforementioned
and Andy as well as other critics we met at the festival (including
another a_film_by member, Jonathan).

Charley

On Nov 2, 2004, at 5:09 PM, Adrian Martin wrote:

> Charles or Andy, if you're out there - what happened to the Viennale
> updates
> on the Fipresci site post Oct 27? Are there any summings-up of the
> event
> coming from you? To echo Peggy Lee, 'is that all there is?'
>
> Adrian

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
17588


From: peckinpah20012000
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 10:19pm
Subject: Re: Ford after WWII erratum
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>vie - I mean to
> > > watch the History Channel doc on its making to get the enemy
> > > viewpoint from Richard Zanuck et al. God, that man has the
cold
> > dead
> > > eyes of a shark.
> >
> > Preminger hated him. Fuller loved him.

Some years ago when I enquired about James Jones's screen
contributions to THE LONGEST DAY (1962) I had the usual threatening
letter from a studio lawyer concerning my interests in researching
this issue.

I believe it was from Richard Zanuck's mouthpiece.

How difficult it is to get anything done in these days of paranoid
litigration!

Tony Williams
17589


From: George Robinson
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 10:56pm
Subject: LISA Newsletter XIII/3.3, Subtitling: Changing Standards for New Media?
 
Something a little off-beat; I was looking for something totally unrelated
when I came across this story. At the very least, it answers the question:
what were they thinking when they wrote those subtitles?

g

http://www.lisa.org/archive_domain/newsletters/2004/3.3/carroll.html
17590


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Nov 2, 2004 11:01pm
Subject: Re: Revenge of the Sith
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> I love New Hope, Phantom Empire and Attack of the Clones. Lucas was
> supposed to direct Apocalypse Now in 1967 -- Thom Andersen, who went
> to film school with him, says he regrets that he didn't -- and New
> Hope has a lot of imagery from Milius's first draft of that film.

Was Milius's first draft similar to the film that was eventually made?
There was a discussion on rec.arts.movies.past-films about Milius's
draft, but I don't know if it's accurate.
http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=36C93E3B.60B5%40geocities.com

Paul
17591


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 3, 2004 1:02am
Subject: Re: Revenge of the Sith
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
The short answer is that Milius's draft for Lucas was quite
different. I'll try to send you as an attachment an article I wrote
for Torino two years ago on this subject. I saw Milius's draft for
Lucas, the rewrites he did for Coppola 12 years later, and the first
draft Coppola wrote himself, collated against the long version of AN
that was shown at Cannes. I had interviewed Milius about that version
and the making of the film for l'Humanite, which is where I got my
quotes. Most of it is based on the scripts. The only important scene
from the first draft that made it intact into the film, as I recall,
is Colonel Kurtz (Robert Duvall), which made it verbatim, except that
I believe Coppola made the intelligent decision to translate what the
guy with the loudspeaker is saying to the people in the village that
is being moved when they first encounter Kurtz -- Milius had it in
Vietnamese, which is realistic, but not too helpful for understanding
what he was portraying.
17592


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 3, 2004 1:05am
Subject: Re: Revenge of the Sith
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
> Was Milius's first draft similar to the film that was eventually
made?
> There was a discussion on rec.arts.movies.past-films about Milius's
> draft, but I don't know if it's accurate.
> http://groups.google.com/groups?threadm=36C93E3B.60B5%
40geocities.com
>
> Paul

I wrote you a long response based on my research for a an article I
wrote for Torino in 2002, where I looked at all of Milius's drafts
and Coppola's first draft, which became the shooting script. Stinking
Yahoo lost it, so I'll just try to send you the article as an
attachment.
17593


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 3, 2004 1:12am
Subject: Re: Ford after WWII erratum
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
>
> "As Jaime quickly pointed out to me, I'm talking about Darryl,
you're
> talking about Richard...who fired his own Dad when he (Richard) was
> head of 20th! Maybe Spielberg used his producer as a model for the
> Great White in Jaws."
>
> I guess Renoir didn't get along with Darryl either judging by his
> famous "15th Century Fox" quip. On the other hand, Darryl was the
> only major producer to take an interest in a joint US-Japan co-
> production when it was proposed by CIE (Civil Information and
> Education , which monitored motion picture production and also
> functioned as a censor) during the Occupation in 1947. The initial
> project was to have been about Townsend Harris with Spencer Tracy
as
> Harris (if available.) The script was to be co-written by Japanese
> and American writers, but all mention of Harris's Japanese mistress
> Okichi was forbidden. CIE was told that Japanese audiences
wouldn't
> believe a movie about Harris that eliminated Okichi, and the
project
> was dropped. Apparently Zanuck retrained some interest in the
story
> since Fox produced Huston's THE BARBARIAN AND THE GEISHA with Wayne
> as Harris.
>
> As to Richard Z, he may have been using Elmo Williams as a cat's
paw
> to veto Ford and flim-flam Kurosawa, and he may have been the one
> who orchestrated the smear campaign against Kurosawa after he was
> fired. Of course in an ironic reversal Fox put half the money for
> RAN with prodding from Lucas.
>
> Richard

Interesting stuff, Richard. Zanuck subsequently came up with the idea
for House of Bamboo and sold Fuller on it. In that one Stack and
Shirley Yamaguchi end up together.

Fuller reports that when Zanuck called him -- he was supposed to be
making a film about autism for two indie producers who were
squabbling in front of him at that very moment -- Zanuck told him the
idea, and he replied: "I like it, but if you don't mind, I'd like for
the head man to be a little on the homo side." "Down," said
Zanuck. "Keep that down."
17594


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 3, 2004 1:14am
Subject: Re: Ford after WWII erratum
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "peckinpah20012000"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >vie - I mean to
> > > > watch the History Channel doc on its making to get the enemy
> > > > viewpoint from Richard Zanuck et al. God, that man has the
> cold
> > > dead
> > > > eyes of a shark.
> > >
> > > Preminger hated him. Fuller loved him.
>
> Some years ago when I enquired about James Jones's screen
> contributions to THE LONGEST DAY (1962) I had the usual threatening
> letter from a studio lawyer concerning my interests in researching
> this issue.
>
> I believe it was from Richard Zanuck's mouthpiece.

Speaking of contributions, Gerd Oswald directed the Red butons
sequence.
17595


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 3, 2004 1:26am
Subject: Re: Revenge of the Sith erratum
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:

> I wrote you a long response based on my research for a an article I
> wrote for Torino in 2002, where I looked at all of Milius's drafts
> and Coppola's first draft, which became the shooting script.
Stinking
> Yahoo lost it

No they didn't, apparently. Send me your full address at
kaybarr35@a..., Paul, if you'd like to see the article. I don't
seem to be able to do attachments when e-mailing from this site.
17596


From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Nov 3, 2004 2:07am
Subject: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:

> I'm not quite sure what Straub-Huillet are really after, though. I
wonder
> if their aesthetics aren't really politics in some way that I can't
> comprehend or go along with. - Dan

Well, I think David Ehrenstein's comment is fair: "The Straubs'
marxism exists by and large under a bell jar," and maybe everything
they do is "under a bell jar," but I'm glad they're doing whatever
they're doing.

This is a revealing interview:
http://www.ejumpcut.org/archive/onlinessays/jc12-13folder/moses.int.html
Straub makes it clear that his aesthetics are always means to an end:
"And in HISTORY LESSONS the film does not consist really of those
parts of it that would interest someone like Michael Snow for example.
Above all, the film has a subject."

I think the explanation about OTHON and the factory workers is here.
"And I also said that I would like to have OTHON seen by workers in
Paris. They've never been told that Corneille is impossible to
understand, nor that he has an 'obsession' with politics. They know
nothing of Corneille, nor how the French bourgeois intellectuals would
like to present Corneille, or depict him in the theater. I think also
that OTHON is a film that threatens not just a class but a clique of
power, and that the French bourgeoisie recognizes this and is
threatened by it. Workers, having no interest that would be attacked,
could watch the film more calmly, more serenely."

Jean-Andre Fieschi comments on how presenting a Corneille play can be
a political act: "This would be the stake: to speak to those who have
neither heard nor read ... and to say to them: 'Here, this too belongs
to you, and is worth being read, heard or looked at; this violence is
yours, and this desire.' ... When resorting to the forms of the past,
whether of Bach or Corneille, or Brecht or Schoenberg, the only
nostalgia which can be read will be that -- and it too will be violent
-- for a future for which these forms are still a summons." But this
is a little utopian. There's the familiar quote: "A revolution is
not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or
doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle, so
temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous."

Paul
17597


From: jpcoursodon
Date: Wed Nov 3, 2004 2:37am
Subject: Re: LISA Newsletter XIII/3.3, Subtitling: Changing Standards for New Media?
 
Very interesting link, George. Welcome change in the recent
threads of discussion, which I have found so dry I can hardly keep
awake. My fault, of course, no doubt.


--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "George Robinson"
wrote:
> Something a little off-beat; I was looking for something totally
unrelated
> when I came across this story. At the very least, it answers the
question:
> what were they thinking when they wrote those subtitles?
>
> g
>
>
http://www.lisa.org/archive_domain/newsletters/2004/3.3/carroll.html
17598


From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Nov 3, 2004 3:14am
Subject: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
>
There's the familiar quote: "A revolution is
> not a dinner party, or writing an essay, or painting a picture, or
> doing embroidery; it cannot be so refined, so leisurely and gentle,
so
> temperate, kind, courteous, restrained and magnanimous."
>
> Paul

They did dedicate Moses and Aaron to Holger Meins, which I believe
kept ZDF, the tv station that financed it, from showing it. Daney
told me he thought the Straubs were mystics in 1977. I asked him
about their support for terrorists, and he said: "Mystics like
destruction."

If you've ever attended a q&a with Straub, you know that courtesy
isn't one of his strong points!

On the other hand, when we asked them about animal rights in 1975,
Danielle cited Rosa Luxemborg as having said something like: "When we
have finished making the revolution, we will have to look at the
relations between people and animals."

Gee, I don't find these topics dry at all!
17599


From: Andy Rector
Date: Wed Nov 3, 2004 5:32am
Subject: Re: Making political films politically (Was: Fipresci site alert
 
> They did dedicate Moses and Aaron to Holger Meins, which I believe
> kept ZDF, the tv station that financed it, from showing it. Daney
> told me he thought the Straubs were mystics in 1977. I asked him
> about their support for terrorists, and he said: "Mystics like
> destruction."
>
> If you've ever attended a q&a with Straub, you know that courtesy
> isn't one of his strong points!
>
> On the other hand, when we asked them about animal rights in 1975,
> Danielle cited Rosa Luxemborg as having said something like: "When
we
> have finished making the revolution, we will have to look at the
> relations between people and animals."
>
> Gee, I don't find these topics dry at all!

Me neither...damnit, I'm seldom able to follow these threads as much
as I'd like to.

Huillet was probably repeating what J-Ro (in FILM: THE FRONT LINE)
quoted them as quoting in 1983 at the living cinema :
"THE FATE OF INSECTS IS NOT MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE REVOLUTION"

This above quote is even more radical as a confrontation to
revolutionaries to consider every type of living thing in the making
of revolution. In the 2001 interview with Huillet and Straub from
the Viennale catalog, Huillet points out that Eisenstein's faith in
tractors (from General Line) has at least one flaw: the devastating
effect of tractors on the environment. These relationships are hard
to reconcile for some. Straub even says:

"We are in an emergency situation: it's the outcome of the system
that invented gas chambers. The current emergency comes from French
and British social democracies: the point is not to slaughter Jews
anymore but hundreds of thousands of animals as a preventive measure
to maintain market values. Some Jewish people may resent what I'm
saying but I see no difference between this slaughter and the
Holocaust; it's the same spirit, the same industrial system. (...)
After all there is no need to be a Hindu to figure out that a living
being is a living being, whether its a Jew or a sheep. In fact Jews
know this very well since they're the ones who invented the Easter
Lamb."


yours,
andy
17600


From: Andy Rector
Date: Wed Nov 3, 2004 6:04am
Subject: Re: Fipresci updates?
 
I also wanted to thank Adrian for hipping everyone to what Gabe,
Charles, Dana, H.C. and myself were doing out there in Vienna.
I would like to echo Charles in saying that for me the experience
was a complete revelation; in writing, thinking, seeing
movies...altogether newly. The experience was invaluable (even if
I'm a little embarrassed now about what I wrote, especially
the "Iranian Masks" piece....Gabe basically spoke for me too in his
reservations about his piece, but I didn't even have a formula).

Right now I'm writing a wrap up of sorts, more about the non-
FIPRESCI films, but I'd don't know what I'll do with it.


I would like to read what ANYBODY has to write about Los Muertos as
my
own piece is far from even piercing its surface, if not altogether a
throwaway piece. However it continues to haunt me.

I think Dana was going to write a summation of the experience from
her point of view.

(Thanks Jonathan for talking to us! It was a highlight of my
experience there.)

yours,
andy


--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Charles Leary wrote:
>
> Hi Adrian,
>
> First, thanks for alerting everyone to the writing on the FIPRESCI
> site. To answer your question, I think there are a few uploads
onto the
> Viennale website that haven't made it to the FIPRESCI site yet.
There's
> a few new articles: one by Gabe on Mathieu Amalric and Kings and
Queen
> [Rois et Reine], Hans-Christian Leitich on the two award winners
(Down
> to the Bone and Los Muertos), and an account of a panel on film
> criticism by Dana Linssen. To find these, go to www.viennale.at
and, at
> the bottom right hand corner, click on the purple dog that says
> 'FIPRESCI talent daily.'
>
> As for a wrap-up, I don't think anything was formally planned -
but
> maybe I should go get a copy of Peggy Lee's "Black Coffee" and try
to
> write one. It was a uniquely productive experience and I learned
so
> much about writing, and the place of writing, from the
aforementioned
> and Andy as well as other critics we met at the festival
(including
> another a_film_by member, Jonathan).
>
> Charley
>
> On Nov 2, 2004, at 5:09 PM, Adrian Martin wrote:
>
> > Charles or Andy, if you're out there - what happened to the
Viennale
> > updates
> > on the Fipresci site post Oct 27? Are there any summings-up of
the
> > event
> > coming from you? To echo Peggy Lee, 'is that all there is?'
> >
> > Adrian
>
> [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

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