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.
20801
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:45pm
Subject: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> Dan, this is where I part with many of you guys on this
> list. "Rich and Famous" is just about my least favorite Cukor; I
> found it unbearably vulgar. Maybe I should try again, but I'm not
> looking forward to the experience (last night I watched "Heller in
> Pink Tights" for the umpteenth time. That's great late Cukor! In
> spite of everything).
*****
No, I'm with you on this one, JP. You're correct about "Rich and
Famous". Vulgar it may be (I've seen films commit worse offenses), but
I just found it unbearable. I know it's George Cukor's last film and
therefore warrants a kind of reflexive respect among us, but . . . I
just can't bring myself to honor it. On the whole it's a poor
production. The acting is shrill, and Cukor's 'mise-en-scene' is
thoroughly exhausted. This is something, by the way, you could not say
about Cukor's lesser works; even the recent ones ("The Bluebird" has
immense problems, but I'm not sure how much of its failings I would
attribute to Cukor). I'm convinced that, had it not been his final
film, it would not have the auteurist cachet it currently enjoys in
some quarters.
There's something about these Last Works that drives us auteurists
plain batty sometimes.
Tom "A Distant Trumpet" Sutpen
20802
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:54pm
Subject: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> No one mentioned any of several of my favorite American films of
> 1981: "True Confessions", "Four Friends", "Prince of the
> City", "Pennies from Heaven", "Reds"... Does that make me as bad as
> or worse than AS?...
Except for Four Friends, that makes you identical to AS - take a look
back at the original post of his list.
As far as foreign films, two Truffaut were
> released in the US in 1981 (Last Metro and The Woman Next Door)
Sarris listed Femme
and I
> would definitely have included "La Femme de l'aviateur," one of
> Rohmer's best.
So did Sarris.
Two other very good French films released that year
> here: Doillon's "La Drolesse" (1979) and Beraud's "La Tortue sur le
> dos".
Not on Sarris's list
Let's not forget "Scanners".
Sarris didn't.
And I just found out that "India Song" (1975) was belatedly released
in the USA in 1981! It was a pretty good year...
He missed it. He must have been at that Lincoln Center screening I
ruined...
20803
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:57pm
Subject: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> God, I wish I could see the Beraud. Did that actually get a
theatrical
> release in the US? I greatly admire his PLEIN SUD - it looks as if
he
> mostly worked in TV after that.
His sister Agnes is a friend of mine - I only learned that he was
her brother a few weeks ago. She says he has been exclusively doing
tv for some time. Paul Auster is a big fan of Tortue. He's writing an
American remake of Monsieur Hire for Agnes' longtime significant
other, Patrice Leconte.
20804
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 5:57pm
Subject: Re: 1981 (WAS: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh)
If you look at the 10 Best Lists in the Files section of this Board,
you'll find seven lists that are infinitely more interesting than
Sarris's and which indicate what a strong year 1981 actualy was.
20805
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:00pm
Subject: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> > >
> My 1981 list:
>
> "Palermo oder Wolfsburg" -- Werner Schroeter's
> neo-realist German expressionist masterpiece (Visconti
> meets Murnau)
Shown once at UCLA. What a waste.
>
> "Bloody Kids" -- Stephen Frears' mot important early
> film, the key to such later developments as "My
> Beautiful Laundrette," "Sammy and Rosie Get laid" and
> "Dirty Pretty Things."
>
> "City of Women" -- Fellini's most neglected film.
Sarris got it.
>
> "Second-Hand Hearts" -- The prosecuation should show
> this to the jurors at Blake's trial!
>
> "Atlantic City" -- "Teach me stuff."
Ditto
>
> "So Fine" -- The greatest brainy screwball comedy
> since Sturges.
>
> "Ms. 45"
Amen to that.
>
> "S.O.B."
Amazing how well it holds up.
>
> "Memoirs of a Survivor" -- Julie Christie and Leonie
> Mellinger in David Gladwell's superb adaptation of
> Doris Lessing.
>
> "Simone Barbes ou la Vertu" -- produced by Paul
> Vecchiali and directed by Marie-Claude Treihlou.
> beauitfully observed slice of lesbian life about a
> sad-eyed ticket taker, finishing her shift then going
> to a sapphic night club whose floor show (girls in
> armor) is hilarious. Anathema to the Gaspard Noe
> school of sensationalism. A very tender film about
> solitude.
Aanother important Vecchiali protege. I hope we get to see PV's CNC
serial killer film that was at Cannes.
David, you omitted Reds - I know you love it.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
> http://my.yahoo.com
20806
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:01pm
Subject: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
> "Bloody Kids" -- Stephen Frears' mot important early
> film, the key to such later developments as "My
> Beautiful Laundrette," "Sammy and Rosie Get laid" and
> "Dirty Pretty Things."
Your list must have included festival screenings, because I don't think
this ever got a theatricl release. I agree, it's a great film.
Other Filmex films that wowed me that year were Breillat's TAPAGE NOCTURNE
and the wonderful East German movie THE FIANCEE, by Reisch and Rucker.
> "Memoirs of a Survivor" -- Julie Christie and Leonie Mellinger in David
> Gladwell's superb adaptation of Doris Lessing.
I don't think I ever met anyone else who liked this film. It starts out
kind of amorphous, but by the time it was over I found it really
affecting. - Dan
20807
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
--- Tom Sutpen wrote:
Vulgar it may be (I've seen films commit
> worse offenses), but
> I just found it unbearable. I know it's George
> Cukor's last film and
> therefore warrants a kind of reflexive respect among
> us, but . . . I
> just can't bring myself to honor it. On the whole
> it's a poor
> production. The acting is shrill, and Cukor's
> 'mise-en-scene' is
> thoroughly exhausted.
Cukor was exhausted too, by all accounts. No Manoel de
Oliviera he frequently dozed during takes. He didn't
get on with Bissett at all -- though not as poorly as
he did with Anouk Aimee during "Justine." He loved
Bergen, of course, but that's because he knew her
sicne she was n rompers. This jump-started her comedy
career but it took Alan J. Pakula to get out of her
what was really there in "Starting Over."
"The Bluebird" is quite odd. A "fim maudit" to the
manner born.
"Love Among the Ruins," by contrast is a "last film"
that really cooks. Cukor, Hepburn and Olivier are all
at the top of their game with that one.
20808
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
>
> David, you omitted Reds - I know you love it.
> >
> >
Oh yeah that's right. Thanks for reminding me.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20809
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
> Cukor was exhausted too, by all accounts. No Manoel de
> Oliviera he frequently dozed during takes. He didn't
> get on with Bissett at all -- though not as poorly as
> he did with Anouk Aimee during "Justine." He loved
> Bergen, of course, but that's because he knew her
> sicne she was n rompers.
And yet I think that Bisset gives the most Cukorian performance in the
film - at least the one that shares the most characteristics with other
Cukor performances. - Dan
20810
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:18pm
Subject: Re: 1981 (WAS: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
>
> If you look at the 10 Best Lists in the Files section of this
Board,
> you'll find seven lists that are infinitely more interesting than
> Sarris's and which indicate what a strong year 1981 actualy was.
Thanks, Damien - very interesting, although as with many such lists,
they're all over the place w. regard to what was actually released
that year.
I revisited bios and learned things I never knew about three members -
it is VERY IMPORTANT that people post their bios.
20811
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: Sallitt on not showing (Was: OT: Sade)
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 12:36:22 -0200, Ruy Gardnier
wrote:
>
> Was Bill kidding or just mixing everything? Henry and June is a Philip
> Kaufman film, and a very bad one, and not a bit similar to Verhoeven's
> mise-en-scene strategies. Ask Rivette, he's got it all right.
Rivette dismissed John Woo's "Face/Off" as pornography in the same
interview in which he praises Verhoeven. Personally I like the line, "Hou
Hsiao-Hsien, James Cameron...same problem" (or something like that,
referring to their inability to direct).
Jonathan Takagi
20812
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:34pm
Subject: Re: Contracampo/Odeon (was: "Salo" On Tour)
When I was in the film society at UC Irvine, there were subsidies available
from the French Consulate to show French films, but only certain ones on
their list - usually recent, more mainstream titles. They were not free, just
discounted.
Jonathan Takagi
20813
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:45pm
Subject: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Takagi
wrote, referencing a Rivette interview:
> Hsiao-Hsien, James Cameron...same problem" (or something like that,
> referring to their inability to direct).
Actually, Rivette was plenty withering, but didn't say that either of
these directors were unable to direct:
"For example, Hou Hsiao-hsien really irritates me, even though I liked
the first two of his films that appeared in Paris. I find his work
completely manufactured and sort of disagreeable, but very politically
correct. The last one [Goodbye South, Goodbye, 1996] is so systematic
that it somehow becomes interesting again but even so, I think it's
kind of a trick. Hou Hsiao-hsien and James Cameron, same problem."
I rather think Rivette (who I revere) is completely off the mark --
with regards to HHH, at any rate.
MEK
Boston
20814
From: Samuel Bréan
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 6:50pm
Subject: Marker's The Last Bolshevik out on DVD
From Arte Vidéo (France):
Coffret 2 DVD documentaire : Le bonheur de Alexandre Medvekine (1934) - Le
Tombeau d'Alexandre de Chris Marker (1993) (Arte)
Bande son : français mono et muet
Image : Format respecté 1.66 et 1.33 16/9 compatible 4/3
Bonus : Livret de Bernard Eisenchitz, Alexandre Ivanovitch Medvekine, les
années ciné-train, Interview de Medvekine, 3 reconstitutions animées de
Nikolaï Izvolov de films de Medvekine.
Date de sortie : 22 mars 2005
20815
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:09pm
Subject: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
Don't ask Rivette, he's got it all wrong
----- Original Message -----
From: "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Takagi
> wrote, referencing a Rivette interview:
> Actually, Rivette was plenty withering, but didn't say that either of
> these directors were unable to direct:
> "For example, Hou Hsiao-hsien really irritates me, even though I liked
> the first two of his films that appeared in Paris. I find his work
> completely manufactured and sort of disagreeable, but very politically
> correct. The last one [Goodbye South, Goodbye, 1996] is so systematic
> that it somehow becomes interesting again but even so, I think it's
> kind of a trick. Hou Hsiao-hsien and James Cameron, same problem."
> I rather think Rivette (who I revere) is completely off the mark --
> with regards to HHH, at any rate.
> MEK
20816
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:32pm
Subject: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier" wrote:
> Don't ask Rivette, he's got it all wrong
Well I must say, I don't understand his reference to "politically
correct" in connection with HHH at all. The other slaps are value
judgments ("manufactured", "disagreeable"), but this criticism makes
no sense absent some sort of legitimate factual context.
MEK
20817
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:38pm
Subject: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Ruy Gardnier"
wrote:
>
> > Don't ask Rivette, he's got it all wrong
>
> Well I must say, I don't understand his reference to "politically
> correct" in connection with HHH at all. The other slaps are value
> judgments ("manufactured", "disagreeable"), but this criticism makes
> no sense absent some sort of legitimate factual context.
*****
Agreed. It comes so far out of left field that you wonder if he's
talking about the same filmmaker you're thinking of. Also, I can't
tell if Rivette intends it to be a criticism or not. Does he provide
*any* context for this, legitimate or no?
Tom Sutpen
20818
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:41pm
Subject: Gone With the Wind
A little while ago I watched GONE WITH THE WIND for the first time since I
was 17. It's so incoherent from a directorial point of view that you
would think mass audiences would notice. But apparently not. The film
still feels a bit daring, not just in terms of the sexual mores it was
willing to flout, but also in terms of the many objectionable traits of
the protagonists. For a blockbuster, it's really quite quirky.
I had no solid info on who directed what, so I played the guessing game
while I was watching, armed only with a list of the many directors. I've
made mistakes in the past with such games, but I did pretty well this
time: the two scenes that I was willing to bet were Cukor's (the Melanie
childbirth scenes, and Scarlett and Melanie shooting the intruding Yankee
soldier) turned out to be his.
I like Victor Fleming, too, though less than Cukor. Some decent scenes
appear to me to be his, like the scene with Ward Bond, where Rhett
Butler's charade helps throw the army off the scent of the Ku Kluxers. I
haven't checked the authorship of this scene, though.
The interesting thing is that I find Fleming's visual style rather more
distinctive and identifiable than Cukor's. He favors a certain kind of
composition, with crowding of people and objects in the foreground, a
slightly low camera angle, and a path of entry or exit leading into the
background of the shot.
And the way to tell that Cukor was directing was simply that everything in
the movie suddenly became more complex and multidimensional.... The
characters started behaving in counterpoint to their motives, gestures and
words took on some mystery, the scenes started to have peaks and valleys
instead of holding on to a fixed rhythm. Reality held back some of its
meaning.
This is direction, in my opinion. It pulled everything in the film
together, like a magnetic field. And yet the visuals weren't as
distinctive as elsewhere. - Dan
20819
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:44pm
Subject: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
> Agreed. It comes so far out of left field that you wonder if he's
> talking about the same filmmaker you're thinking of. Also, I can't
> tell if Rivette intends it to be a criticism or not. Does he provide
> *any* context for this, legitimate or no?
I think I provided pretty much all the context there was. You can
check out the original:
http://www.sensesofcinema.com/contents/01/16/rivette.html
Once you get there, find the section of "Happy Together" and read on. ;~}
MEK
20820
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 7:55pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
"A little while ago I watched GONE WITH THE WIND for the first time
since I was 17. It's so incoherent from a directorial point of view
that you would think mass audiences would notice. But apparently
not."
I saw the dye transfer re-release of 7 or 8 years ago and I second
you on the the evident directoral incoherence. I'm inclined to
attribute such coherence that it does have to William Cameron Menzies.
"...the way to tell that Cukor was directing was simply that
everything in the movie suddenly became more complex and
multidimensional.... The characters started behaving in
counterpoint to their motives, gestures and words took on some
mystery, the scenes started to have peaks and valleys instead of
holding on to a fixed rhythm. Reality held back some of its meaning."
According to the AMERICAN MASTERS episode on Cukor, Leigh and de
Haviland sought out Cukor for coaching after he'd been removed from
the picture.
Richard
20821
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Gone With the Wind
> According to the AMERICAN MASTERS episode on Cukor, Leigh and de
> Haviland sought out Cukor for coaching after he'd been removed from
> the picture.
Yes, isn't that interesting? All the commentary is at pains to say that
Cukor's initial conception of the characters continued to influence the
actors after he left.
All I can say is that it didn't work! Leigh and de Havilland were all
over the place in that film. They changed from scene to scene, and they
were mostly pretty unnuanced. My impression is that they were overwhelmed
by other advice and/or instincts whenever Cukor wasn't standing on the
set. - Dan
20822
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:23pm
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Michael E. Kerpan, Jr."
wrote:
> Once you get there, find the section of "Happy Together" and read
on. ;~}
*****
Before I got to the bit about Hou Hsiao-hsien (I still don't know what
the hell he's talking about there), I found this:
"Home from the Hill (Vincente Minnelli, 1959)
I'm going to make more enemies...actually the same enemies, since the
people who like Minnelli usually like Mankiewicz, too. Minnelli is
regarded as a great director thanks to the slackening of the
"politique des auteurs." For François, Jean-Luc and me, the politique
consisted of saying that there were only a few filmmakers who merited
consideration as auteurs, in the same sense as Balzac or Molière. One
play by Molière might be less good than another, but it is vital and
exciting in relation to the entire oeuvre. This is true of Renoir,
Hitchcock, Lang, Ford, Dreyer, Mizoguchi, Sirk, Ozu... But it's not
true of all filmmakers. Is it true of Minnelli, Walsh or Cukor? I
don't think so. . . . In Minnelli's case, he was meticulous with the
sets, the spaces, the light...but how much did he work with the
actors? I loved Some Came Running (1958) when it came out, just like
everybody else, but when I saw it again ten years ago I was taken
aback: three great actors and they're working in a void, with no one
watching them or listening to them from behind the camera."
Forgetting for the moment that Rivette did not address the matter of
"Home from the Hill" (and also leaving aside his referencing the
'politique' as though it weren't just something that flickered for a
minute, then it vanished and was gone), I find this as strange as his
"politically correct" comment with regard to Hou. I don't know what
he's on about. I'll agree that Vincente Minnelli had an absorbing
interest in the formal components of his work, but for Rivette to
conclude on the basis of one viewing of "Some Came Running" . . . not
"Kismet" or "Yolanda and the Thief", where his contention might find
some foundation . . . that it crowded out all interest in the work of
his actors is almost mind-boggling to me. If the interview hadn't been
conducted by someone so clearly starry-eyed in his presence; someone
who might have dared to formulate a question or two, then we could
have gotten some clarity as to these statements.
Look, I love Jacques Rivette; no one has more regard for him than I.
But this interview borders on the embarassing (also, can he drop
enough names?). He sounds like one of those garralous superannuated
cinephiles I used to see annoying the staff at the Brattle Theater
while they were trying to clear the auditorium before the next herd
arrived.
Tom Sutpen
20823
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 8:35pm
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- Tom Sutpen wrote:
>
> Look, I love Jacques Rivette; no one has more regard
> for him than I.
> But this interview borders on the embarassing (also,
> can he drop
> enough names?). He sounds like one of those
> garralous superannuated
> cinephiles I used to see annoying the staff at the
> Brattle Theater
> while they were trying to clear the auditorium
> before the next herd
> arrived.
>
I know what you mean. It's a strange interview --
especially if you don't know that much about Rivette
or the history of the politique. But i think what he
was responding too came from his experienee as a
diector -- whcih obviously alteredt the theories he'd
promulgated as a critic. He looked at"Some came
Running" and "saw" that Minnelli was doing "nothing"
with Shirley MacLaine. This comes on the heels of his
direction of Sandrine Bonnaire in "Jeanne la Pucelle"
and "Secret Defense" -- two very diffeent and verey
complex films.
The central section of "Secret Defense" fins Bonnaire
supposedly doing "nothing" -- riding trains. But it's
very elaborately directed. And not easily described.
In other interviews Rivette has spoken of Walters'
superiority to Minnelli as a director of actors. And
knowing what I now do as to the extensive role Walters
played at MGM, I can see what he means. Walters
choreographed "MeetMe in St. Louis" and 'staged" "A
Great Lady has an Interview" in "Ziegfeld Follies."
His direction of macLaine in "Ask Any Girl" (a film
Raymond Durgnat admired even more than I do) merits
close study.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20824
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:16pm
Subject: Re: 1981 (WAS: Sarris's 10 Best(s) - sigh)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> You're forgetting Newman's greatest late performance
> -- "Mr. and Mrs. Bridge."
I think Newman only started getting really interesting in the 80s, as
he seemed to find new depths. "Mr. and Mrs. Brudge" and "Blaze" are
two great (and very, very different) performances.
20825
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:32pm
Subject: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:45:43 -0000, Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
wrote:
> Actually, Rivette was plenty withering, but didn't say that either of
> these directors were unable to direct:
If I remember correctly, didn't he say that Cameron couldn't direct
his way out of a paper bag?
20826
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:34pm
Subject: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Takagi wrote:
> On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 18:45:43 -0000, Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
> wrote:
>
> > Actually, Rivette was plenty withering, but didn't say that either of
> > these directors were unable to direct:
>
> If I remember correctly, didn't he say that Cameron couldn't direct
> his way out of a paper bag?
*****
That he did, and when it comes to directing actors I think he's right.
Tom Sutpen
20827
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:36pm
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
>
> Look, I love Jacques Rivette; no one has more regard for him than I.
> But this interview borders on the embarassing (also, can he drop
> enough names?). He sounds like one of those garralous superannuated
> cinephiles I used to see annoying the staff at the Brattle Theater
> while they were trying to clear the auditorium before the next herd
> arrived.
>
> Tom Sutpen
I thought he sounded a bit like Ed Koch, former mayor of New York,
when he belatedly fancied himself a film critic....If there's any
conclusion to be reached about this, it might have something to do
with the ill effects of Rivette's self-imposed isolation--something I
believe has also harmed Godard, though in different ways.
20828
From: Michael E. Kerpan, Jr.
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:41pm
Subject: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Takagi wrote:
> If I remember correctly, didn't he say that Cameron couldn't direct
> his way out of a paper bag?
He does say that -- in another spot (while trashing "Titanic", earlier
in the interview). It's not clear to me that you can assume that this
comment carries over to the later comparison with HHH -- but who
knows. ;~{
MEK
20829
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
It's funny, a lot of these remarks were totally off the cuff and
surprising. Yet
I remember that in person he was very unwilling to speak poorly about another
film (particularly "Irma Vep", an audience member kept prodding him). But maybe
it's because he crosses paths with Assayas from time to time.
20830
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:57pm
Subject: Cameron (Was: Rivette trashing HHH)
>> If I remember correctly, didn't he say that Cameron couldn't direct
>> his way out of a paper bag?
>
> That he did, and when it comes to directing actors I think he's right.
More complicated than that, maybe? I've always found Cameron rather
uninspired when it comes to the romances that he so often builds his films
around; but I think he has a flair for dark humor. Most of
Schwartzenegger's best comic moments are in his films, for instance: like
his truth-serum-induced giving away of the story line to the bad guys in
TRUE LIES.
And Cameron certainly has some skill when it comes to directing action: he
may not be precise, but he can be forceful and suspenseful. - Dan
20831
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:08pm
Subject: Re: Cameron (Was: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> And Cameron certainly has some skill when it comes
> to directing action: he
> may not be precise, but he can be forceful and
> suspenseful. - Dan
>
True. I don't like his work as a whole but I greatly
enjoyed "titaic" which among other things was never
boring.
But Rivette's antipathy to Cameron, and dismissal of
Minnelli and Mankiewicz, surpises me less than the
high regard in which he holds Verhoeven. Now this I
cannot countenance at all.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
20832
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:14pm
Subject: Re: Cameron (Was: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >> If I remember correctly, didn't he say that Cameron couldn't direct
> >> his way out of a paper bag?
> >
> > That he did, and when it comes to directing actors I think he's right.
>
> More complicated than that, maybe?
*****
Hmmmmmm. No. I don't think it is.
> I've always found Cameron rather
> uninspired when it comes to the romances that he so often builds his
films
> around; but I think he has a flair for dark humor. Most of
> Schwartzenegger's best comic moments are in his films, for instance:
like
> his truth-serum-induced giving away of the story line to the bad
guys in
> TRUE LIES.
*****
But he does build his films around those hoary romances, doesn't he.
It's the kind of material he needs to stay the hell away from but he
can't let it go. And while there are errant sparks of humor in
Cameron's work, they're largely confined to punctuating scenes, no
more than that. His one and only extended foray into this material,
"True Lies", just didn't impress me. I actually thought he was
overreaching in that film more than he was in "Titanic".
> And Cameron certainly has some skill when it comes to directing
action: he
> may not be precise, but he can be forceful and suspenseful.
*****
Cameron's a fine filmmaker of action; and I think he has more than
just some skill at it. To me it's what he does best. That's why I
restricted my agreement with Rivette's position to his work with
actors. It's not something he has a facility for. Some directors do.
He doesn't. No big deal.
Tom Sutpen
20833
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 10:17pm
Subject: Re: Cameron (Was: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> But Rivette's antipathy to Cameron, and dismissal of
> Minnelli and Mankiewicz, surpises me less than the
> high regard in which he holds Verhoeven. Now this I
> cannot countenance at all.
*****
I wouldn't dismiss the possibility that Rivette is just trying to be
outrageous. You know, seasoned as he is, that old-time "Cahiers"
impulse could still be churning away mightily.
Tom Sutpen
20834
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:04pm
Subject: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Jonathan Takagi
wrote:
>
> > If I remember correctly, didn't he say that Cameron couldn't
direct
> > his way out of a paper bag?
>
>
Not having read the original interview in French I've been
wondering what the original French for "couldn't direct his way out
of a paper bag" might have been. Just curious. Does anyone know?
20835
From: Jonathan Takagi
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:14pm
Subject: Re: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
On Mon, 10 Jan 2005 23:04:53 -0000, jpcoursodon wrote:
> Not having read the original interview in French I've been
> wondering what the original French for "couldn't direct his way out
> of a paper bag" might have been. Just curious. Does anyone know?
I have the original interview at home, I'll try to find it and I'll
let you know.
Jonathan Takagi
20836
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 11:31pm
Subject: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" >
> Not having read the original interview in French I've been
> wondering what the original French for "couldn't direct his way
> out of a paper bag" might have been. Just curious. Does anyone
> know?
Unfortunately, he can't direct his way out of a paper bag
= (?)
Malheureusement, lui non plus n'est pas metteur en scène pour un
sou.
Titanic de James Cameron
Je suis entièrement d'accord avec Jean-Luc dans le Elle de cette
semaine (numéro du 2 mars, entretien avec Godard) : ce film est nul.
Cameron n'est pas un méchant, ce n'est pas une ordure comme
Spielberg. Cameron voudrait être le nouveau De Mille.
Malheureusement, lui non plus n'est pas metteur en scène pour un
sou. En plus, l'actrice est épouvantable, irregardable, c'est la
fille la plus débandante qu'on ait vue sur un écran depuis
longtemps. D'où le succès auprès des petites filles, surtout les
Américaines boutonneuses et un peu trop grosses qui y vont en
pèlerinage ; elles peuvent s'identifier et espérer tomber dans les
bras du beau Leonardo.
20837
From: Maxime Renaudin
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 0:11am
Subject: The courtship of Eddie's father, Minnelli
A kind of revelation. 3 hours ago, I was ready to come here in
defense of Rivette re: Minnelli. But I just came from the theater
(Minnelli full retro here). Right now, I'm not so sure about
anything. Such a pleasure was totally unexpected. The deceptively
neutral sequences follow on with a quiet assurance. The camera
explores the places with an absolute and modest mastery. The colors
are simply gorgeous. The sentiments – simple, tender or cruel – are
rare. I was so far from the bombastic psychodramas and the dull
canvas that I used to associate with Minnelli's name. The best
Minnelli I know, and the only one I really like. Did I change?
20838
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 0:37am
Subject: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
>
> > Not having read the original interview in French I've been
> > wondering what the original French for "couldn't direct his way
> > out of a paper bag" might have been. Just curious. Does anyone
> > know?
>
> Unfortunately, he can't direct his way out of a paper bag
> = (?)
> Malheureusement, lui non plus n'est pas metteur en scène pour un
> sou.
>
Thanks, Maxime. I'd call it a bit of an overtranslation, but it's
the general idea.
>
20839
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 0:49am
Subject: Re: The courtship of Eddie's father, Minnelli
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
>
> A kind of revelation. 3 hours ago, I was ready to come here in
> defense of Rivette re: Minnelli. But I just came from the theater
> (Minnelli full retro here). Right now, I'm not so sure about
> anything. Such a pleasure was totally unexpected. The deceptively
> neutral sequences follow on with a quiet assurance. The camera
> explores the places with an absolute and modest mastery. The
colors
> are simply gorgeous. The sentiments – simple, tender or cruel –
are
> rare. I was so far from the bombastic psychodramas and the dull
> canvas that I used to associate with Minnelli's name. The best
> Minnelli I know, and the only one I really like. Did I change?
We all change. Sarris did, Rivette did. Even dedicated auteurists
do it (to paraphrase Porter). And that's how films themselves
change. I haven't seen "Courtship" in a long time but it struck me
as much more durable than such flamboyant melodramas as "Home from
the Hill" or even "Some Came Running" which I used to admire ("like
everybody" as Rivette puts it) but which I later came to find a bit
too heavy-handed and obvious for my, I suppose, aging taste.
20840
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:03am
Subject: Re: Re: The courtship of Eddie's father, Minnelli
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> We all change. Sarris did, Rivette did. Even
> dedicated auteurists
> do it (to paraphrase Porter). And that's how films
> themselves
> change. I haven't seen "Courtship" in a long time
> but it struck me
> as much more durable than such flamboyant melodramas
> as "Home from
> the Hill" or even "Some Came Running" which I used
> to admire ("like
> everybody" as Rivette puts it) but which I later
> came to find a bit
> too heavy-handed and obvious for my, I suppose,
> aging taste.
>
>
"Courtship" was highly regarded by the auteurists of
"Movie." I still prefer "Some Came Running." But the
Minnelli that made the greatest impression on me was
"Two Weeks in Another Town." In 1962 it crystalized my
ideas about movies in ways that Losey's "The Servant"
confirmed the following year. particularly in regard
to the expressiveness of camera movement.
Stella Stevens is quite wonderful in "Courtship."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
20841
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:15am
Subject: Re: The courtship of Eddie's father, Minnelli
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> >
> "Courtship" was highly regarded by the auteurists of
> "Movie." I still prefer "Some Came Running." But the
> Minnelli that made the greatest impression on me was
> "Two Weeks in Another Town." In 1962 it crystalized my
> ideas about movies in ways that Losey's "The Servant"
> confirmed the following year. particularly in regard
> to the expressiveness of camera movement.
>
> You would have been kicked out of the MacMahon circle if you had
been there and made such a statement, David!
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
> http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
20842
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:30am
Subject: Re: Re: The courtship of Eddie's father, Minnelli
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
> > You would have been kicked out of the MacMahon
> circle if you had
> been there and made such a statement, David!
> >
> >
Don't I know it!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
20843
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:45am
Subject: Jacques Davila
I'm curious if any here have seen Jacques Davila's 'La Campagne de
Cicéron,' and what some impressions might be. I myself have not seen
it, but came across this letter from Eric Rohmer to Davila, in the
March 1990 edition of Cahiers, no. 429, which begins:
"Cher Jacques Davila,
"J'ai vu votre film. Ce fut un enchantement. Plus encore: un choc.
De même nature que celui que j'ai ressenti, un soir de 1946 ou 7, au
studio Raspail, à la projection des 'Dames du bois de Boulogne.' De
même que 'Les Dames' furent un film-phare des années 50, je suis
persuadé que 'La Compagne de Cicéron' sera celui des années 90."
And yet I've never read of it in -any- best-of-the-'90s list I can
recall!
craig.
20844
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:33am
Subject: Re: Jacques Davila
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> I'm curious if any here have seen Jacques Davila's 'La Campagne de
> Cicéron,' and what some impressions might be. I myself have not
seen
> it, but came across this letter from Eric Rohmer to Davila, in the
> March 1990 edition of Cahiers, no. 429, which begins:
>
> "Cher Jacques Davila,
> "J'ai vu votre film. Ce fut un enchantement. Plus encore: un
choc.
> De même nature que celui que j'ai ressenti, un soir de 1946 ou 7,
au
> studio Raspail, à la projection des 'Dames du bois de Boulogne.'
De
> même que 'Les Dames' furent un film-phare des années 50, je suis
> persuadé que 'La Compagne de Cicéron' sera celui des années 90."
>
> And yet I've never read of it in -any- best-of-the-'90s list I can
> recall!
>
> craig.
Very hard film to see today. Produced by Vecchiali. "splendide et
leger" according to Frodon. Davila died in October 1991, the year
his film was released.
20845
From:
Date: Mon Jan 10, 2005 9:49pm
Subject: Re: The courtship of Eddie's father, Minnelli
There is something especially heartening about Minnelli in today's world. I
have always liked Minnelli, but have been getting a much deeper appreciation of
his films recently. It is perhaps their full blown love of art and beauty -
there is something deeply encouraging about looking at the films of someone who
was an artist in every sense of the word. Someone who loved color and form
with a great passion.
So perhaps the time for Minnelli's magic is now. And perhaps why cinephiles
are discovering him again.
Mike Grost
20846
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:10am
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
Quoting Tom Sutpen:
Look, I love Jacques Rivette; no one has more regard for him than I.
>
> > But this interview borders on the embarassing (also, can he drop
>
> > enough names?). He sounds like one of those garralous superannuated
>
> > cinephiles I used to see annoying the staff at the Brattle Theater
>
> > while they were trying to clear the auditorium before the next herd
>
> > arrived.
>
Tom Sutpen
>
>
>
>
>
> I agree that the Rivette interview can come off as a little
strange and suspect, the biggest eye-roller for me was his comment:
"Kubrick is a machine, a mutant, a Martian. He has no human feeling
whatsoever. But it's great when the machine films other machines, as in
2001."
But for the most part, I was riveted (no pun intended). What many
find annoying and looney about his comments, are very similair to
what many found annoying and looney about the original Cahiers
du Cinema days, and there's more confident idiosyncratic opinions on
display here in just this one little interview than in the past years
of the current Cahiers du Cinema magazine lot. And I love the fact
that he is willing to carry the torch, where as is former collegues
(most notably "Jean-Luc", as Jaques always lovingly refers to him as)
seem less interested in tackling full on, today's current
cinematic landscape- at least that's what I get from recent
interviews. Rivette's dissidence towards the recent critical
tribalist monopoly of Hou Hsou Hsien and Kiarostami love (late
Kiarostami at the very least) is refreshing, as was his own
1950's tribe's distaste for the "cinema du papa." And while
Mr. Rivette's comments about Hou Hsou Hsien will anger that
director's fans, one shouldn't forget the comments that precede it:
"But I still think that the great Asian directors are Japanese,
despite the critical inflation of Asia in general and of
Chinese directors in particular." Cinephiles and critics tend
to cling to their darling artists so tightly, that when those
artists are supplanted in favour of others, the immediate reaction
is one of resentment, and protection "how dare he or she think that?"
A person should always defend their favourites with passion, but
that shouldn't stop the discovery of the other artists suggested:
okay, so you love Hou Hsou Hsien, but why not check out more Japanese
cinema to see what Rivette is talking about? It does extend far beyond
Kitano and Imamura (to Hirokazu Koreeda, Shunichi Nagasaki, Kenji Onishi,
and Kinji Fukasaku to name a few; and to Oshima's unfortunately
somewhat ignored "Gohatto"). Just to use a minor example,
overpraise for the Iranian and Tiwanese new waves,
though justified in some areas, often tended to bred ignorance towards other
exciting facts in cinema of the 90s, like the fact that France had no doubt its
best decade since the New Wave, and stacked up against even those days pretty
damn well (Techine,Carax,Denis,Chereau,Pialat,Assayas; My God I'm just
scimming the surface, and that's not even including the brilliant later
works of Resnais, Chabrol, Garrel, and of Rivette himself, or the
amazing contribution of outsiders working in France like De Oliveira
and Ruiz to name a few).
Furthermore, Rivette's defence of Paul Verhoeven, and "Showgirls"
in particular, is the kind of bold argument that jangles up critical
thinking, and extends it to discussions about national identity, and
social satire. Say what you will about Verhoeven, but there's no
doubt he offers a rare satirical bite on American society few
dare, and the fact that it's so often masked under layers of
standard Hollywood genre reflexes makes it all the more intersting
in debates (as a side note, for all of you "A.I." lovers, though
I concede it is probably Spielberg's best, my suggestion to the
Kubrick family would have been Verhoeven for the task). Also,
though not in the same league, Verhoeven accolades showered on
by Rivette remind me of the similairly scoffed at praise the
original Cahiers critics had for Frank Tashlin, Samuel Fuller,
and late Charlie Chaplin (what better indications of where America
was at than "Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?", "Shock Corridor",
and "A King in New York", and what an earfull you would have
recieved if you had expressed passion for those films on one
of these forums at the time of their release).
So, yes, the Jacques Rivette interview will cause heads to
shake, eyeballs to roll, and gasps of disbelief. But that's
just the kind of change from current critical cruise control
that we need offered more of, and that Rivette and his
old gang did offer more of. The fact that I disagree
whole heartedly with his Kubrick and Minnelli dismissals
is besides the point (even though I should have expected the
Kubrick slap, Godard's early review of "The Killing" was
extremely negative, and his later borderline acceptance of "Lolita"
was somewhat patronizing), Rivette is not only staying true to
himself and his old status as a Cahiers critic, he is
cutting lines and starting fresh arguemts, something
we all need more of. And he's still actively watching
films and talking about them with brio, not resting
on the bullshit "death of cinema" and "we'll always have Paris"
nostalgic pronouncements of "Jean-Luc".
Mathieu Ricordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
20847
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:43am
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
On Monday, January 10, 2005, at 10:10 PM, Mathieu Ricordi wrote:
> And he's still actively watching
> films and talking about them with brio, not resting
> on the bullshit "death of cinema" and "we'll always have Paris"
> nostalgic pronouncements of "Jean-Luc".
Well, Mathieu, this too is received-wisdom bullshit. Including the
words "death" and "cinema" in a film (say, 'JLG/JLG') does not equal
proclaiming "death of cinema." Contrary to popular belief, it's not
even "-the- main theme" (or -a- main theme) of the 'Histoire(s) du
cinéma' (there is no main theme). And Godard's never been out of touch
with the current cinematic landscape; if interviewers weren't
exclusively interested in asking him about the death of cinema, they
might find out who some of the modern filmmakers are that he rates
highly. In lieu of that, Godard programmed a series in November at Le
Volcan in Le Havre; no 'Viaggio in Italia,' but there -was-...
-'Demi-Tarif' by Isild Le Besco
-'The Brown Bunny' by Vincent Gallo
-'Mr. Klein' by Joseph Losey
-'Level Five' by Chris Marker
-'Du soleil pour les gueux' by Alain Guiraudie
-'Après la réconciliation' by Anne-Marie Miéville
-'Les Naufragés de la D17' by Luc Moullet
-'Saltimbank' by Jean-Claude Biette
-'Sib' [The Apple] by Samira Makhmalbaf
I'm also happy to announce there's no "death of cinema" in 'Notre
musique.'
craig.
20848
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:06am
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- Craig Keller wrote:
>
> -'Demi-Tarif' by Isild Le Besco
> -'The Brown Bunny' by Vincent Gallo
> -'Mr. Klein' by Joseph Losey
> -'Level Five' by Chris Marker
> -'Du soleil pour les gueux' by Alain Guiraudie
> -'Après la réconciliation' by Anne-Marie Miéville
> -'Les Naufragés de la D17' by Luc Moullet
> -'Saltimbank' by Jean-Claude Biette
> -'Sib' [The Apple] by Samira Makhmalbaf
>
> I'm also happy to announce there's no "death of
> cinema" in 'Notre
> musique.'
>
No need. He's programmed "The Brown Bunny"!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - What will yours do?
http://my.yahoo.com
20849
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:30am
Subject: Re: Rivette trashing HHH (was: Sallitt on not showing)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Maxime Renaudin"
wrote:
I'm surprised Maxime doesn't have any more than this to say about
Rivette's comments on HHH...
20850
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:33am
Subject: Re: Jacques Davila
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
Produced by Vecchiali.
Again!!
20851
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:34am
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
Quoting Craig Keller :
On Monday, January 10, 2005, at 10:10 PM, Mathieu Ricordi wrote:
> And he's still actively watching
> films and talking about them with brio, not resting
> on the bullshit "death of cinema" and "we'll always have Paris"
> nostalgic pronouncements of "Jean-Luc".
>Well, Mathieu, this too is received-wisdom bullshit. Including the
> words "death" and "cinema" in a film (say, 'JLG/JLG') does not equal
> proclaiming "death of cinema." Contrary to popular belief, it's not
> even "-the- main theme" (or -a- main theme) of the 'Histoire(s) du
> cinéma' (there is no main theme). And Godard's never been out of touch
> with the current cinematic landscape; if interviewers weren't
> exclusively interested in asking him about the death of cinema, they
> might find out who some of the modern filmmakers are that he rates
> highly. In lieu of that, Godard programmed a series in November at Le
> Volcan in Le Havre; no 'Viaggio in Italia,' but there -was-...
> -'Demi-Tarif' by Isild Le Besco
> The Brown Bunny' by Vincent Gallo
> 'Mr. Klein' by Joseph Losey
> Level Five' by Chris Marker
> 'Du soleil pour les gueux' by Alain Guiraudie
> 'Après la réconciliation' by Anne-Marie Miéville
> Les Naufragés de la D17' by Luc Moullet
> Saltimbank' by Jean-Claude Biette
> Sib' [The Apple] by Samira Makhmalbaf
>I'm also happy to announce there's no "death of cinema" in 'Notre
> musique.'
> craig.
>
>
>
>
> I never once spoke of Godard's recent cinema when speaking
of his "death of cinema" pronouncements. If anything, I think
he's sometimes kept it much more vibrant than a lot of directors.
I apologize if I haven't kept up with more recent interviews with the
man, but you can't deny that in the late 90s, and around the time of
his "elogie de l'amour", he was often quoted as saying that he wasn't
as keen a cinephile, and that cinema (at least as he knew it) was dying.
Again, if recently he has expressed large interest in new films
(although "Mr. Klein" is from 1976) I apologize for missing those
writings. I'm also sorry if the skim Godard comments were all that
you got out of my Rivette interview defence. And I find it noteworthy
to point out that just as I have missed recent Godard quotes,
you misinterpreted what I said and went of on a tangent explaining
some of Godard's recent films: "Contrary to popular belief, it's not
> even "-the- main theme" (or -a- main theme) of the 'Histoire(s) du
> cinéma' (there is no main theme)." Why you felt the need to do this
is strange, and ironic, considering that was almost one of my
main points concerning the Rivette interview: that cinephiles will
read just a few insulting words aimed at their personal faves, and
immdediately jump in to defend without reading onwards, or backwards.
Sure I said Godard may not be as avid a film fan today as Rivette,
and there's a possibility I may have been wrong (though I'm still
skeptical about that), but why you took that as an attack on Jean-Luc's
films is beyond me. Now I guess all I have to do is wait for
Hou and Kiarostami fans to line up and give me a reveiw of their films,
or Verhoeven haters to offer a hundred reasons why he's no good
(which would, of course, ignore the fact that I was only stating
I found Rivette's dissedence towards the formers and his passion for
the latter refreshing, and a pathway for new discussions).
Granted, certain words and comments will always stick more than others
in messages or reviews, but ignoring the context in which they are
placed is as insulting to the writer as I guess it was insulting
to you that I hadn't read recent Godard interviews when making
my comments. But you can't be insulted about me not "getting"
Godard's recent films because that information was just plainly
not there.
Mathieu Ricordi
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
20852
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:53am
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:
Bravo, Mathieu - I agree 100% with everything you say. The Rivete
interview is a breath of fresh air. And by the way, the argument
about Minnelli didn't start yesterday anymore than the one about
Kubrick. Courtship was an important crux - Mardore panned it in CdC,
and Skorecki wrote a beautiful defense.
I think these things do go in generations. At a certain point, for
auteurists of a certain generation (the example of Sarris springs to
mind), looking at the people who came out of Corman's workshop, or at
people making cheesy horror movies (I consider Mommy Dearest to be a
cheesy horror movie), or at extremists like Oliveira or Straub, was
simply not a possibility. We have seen repeatedly how quickly critics
lose their bearings sitting in that big chair at the Times. Don't
forget that before being the worst critic who ever lived Bosley
Crowther, in the days of neorealism, was on the cutting edge - he
just had no notion what the New Wave was up to, as critics or as
filmmakers. Vincent Canby was very good on Fassbinder-Scorsese-
Herzog, as I recall, but at a certain point he had no hope of keeping
up with what came next. That happens particularly to people who are
in the bear-pit day in and day out - they don't have the luxury of
rethinking their esthetics.
I'd say that there hasn't been much energy on Minnelli in France for
awhile now, but people Maxime's age are being blown away by the
Beaubourg retro. Friends like Emmanuel Burdeau and Clelia Cohen were
already rapt admirers, but the Beaubourg experience exceeds that of
discovering the films on tv - I've been geting e-mails about it. The
problem of Minnelli, when critics worth reading, like Rivete, dump on
him, as they do periodically, is the uncertainty about where he
starts and MGM leaves off. He wasn't a writer, and the people who
lauded him, coming after Godard-Rivete-Truffaut, were in fact
rewriting auteurism - no question about it. For that "moment" in the
history of auteurism, which is perennial, Minnelli will always be a
crux.
20853
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:06am
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:
> Sure I said Godard may not be as avid a film fan today as Rivette,
>
Few are. I'm told he still "sees everything."
I know that Kubrick also "saw everything" and suspect that Hitchcock,
within the limits of an intensely active professional life, did too.
As someone who sees almost nothing, I defer automatically to the
opinions of someone who still even tries to "see everything." They
may be wrong on the details, but if they have an eye and a brain, I
listen in hopes of getting the overview I sadly lack.
On Godard's choices, I was pleased when he recently listed Distant
Voices, Still Lives among the films that "film" instead
of "projecting."
On the other hand, I always tended to find Truffaut's choices after
becoming a filmmaker - Berri, Sautet - rather frightening.
To finish w. the NV, it was Chabrol who tipped me off about Fred
Walton. When we talked about Gerd Oswald, his personal discovery back
in the day, he started off defensively saying that Oswald "only made
one good film," but after a more in-depth discussion (we were in a
motorboat) I realized he had "seen everything," including the Outer
Limits.
20854
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:17am
Subject: Sarris and Mommie Dearest (Was: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too)
> At a certain point, for
> auteurists of a certain generation (the example of Sarris springs to
> mind), looking at the people who came out of Corman's workshop, or at
> people making cheesy horror movies (I consider Mommy Dearest to be a
> cheesy horror movie)
I just checked, and MOMMIE DEAREST was on Sarris's runners-up list in
1981. - Dan
20855
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:19am
Subject: Re: Sarris and Mommie Dearest (Was: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > At a certain point, for
> > auteurists of a certain generation (the example of Sarris springs
to
> > mind), looking at the people who came out of Corman's workshop,
or at
> > people making cheesy horror movies (I consider Mommy Dearest to
be a
> > cheesy horror movie)
>
> I just checked, and MOMMIE DEAREST was on Sarris's runners-up list
in
> 1981. - Dan
Got it. But it's an "A" cheesy horror movie. I'm going to go watch
Rich and Famous.
20856
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:38am
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
On Monday, January 10, 2005, at 11:34 PM, Mathieu Ricordi wrote:
>> I never once spoke of Godard's recent cinema when speaking
> of his "death of cinema" pronouncements.
> If anything, I think
> he's sometimes kept it much more vibrant than a lot of directors.
> I apologize if I haven't kept up with more recent interviews with
> the
> man, but you can't deny that in the late 90s, and around the time of
> his "elogie de l'amour", he was often quoted as saying that he
> wasn't
> as keen a cinephile, and that cinema (at least as he knew it) was
> dying.
Apologies for suggesting you were deriving an idea of his attitude from
the films, I guess, but what good does characterizing any practicing
filmmaker's worldview (and in the case of Godard,
film/video-critique-maker) with regard only to his interviews do?
Keeping up with both his films and his interviews as I do, for he is
one of my darling artists, I find what he's saying in the films to be
of more interest than what he's saying in interviews (although I'm
never less than entertained by the latter). What am I to make of him
saying the cinema-at-least-as-he-knew-it was dying, when he's making
the kind of cinema whose very existence proves the cinema is
living/breathing? And, note: the cinema that had been made "as he knew
it" when he and The Rest were writing about it, is not being made any
more, and thus extinct.
But back to JLG-interview bons mots, note that he also once said, "As a
French militant, I'm for the pollution of the American air," and that
Truffaut's brain-tumor came "from reading so many bad books."
> Again, if recently he has expressed large interest in new films
> (although "Mr. Klein" is from 1976) I apologize for missing those
> writings. I'm also sorry if the skim Godard comments were all that
> you got out of my Rivette interview defence. And I find it
> noteworthy
> to point out that just as I have missed recent Godard quotes,
> you misinterpreted what I said and went of on a tangent explaining
> some of Godard's recent films: "Contrary to popular belief, it's not
>> even "-the- main theme" (or -a- main theme) of the 'Histoire(s) du
>> cinéma' (there is no main theme)." Why you felt the need to do this
> is strange, and ironic, considering that was almost one of my
> main points concerning the Rivette interview: that cinephiles will
> read just a few insulting words aimed at their personal faves, and
> immdediately jump in to defend without reading onwards, or backwards.
I read your entire message, but only felt like responding to the
following passage at the end: "not resting
on the bullshit 'death of cinema' and 'we'll always have Paris'
nostalgic pronouncements of 'Jean-Luc'." If by responding to the
quoted portion I'm somehow proving your dictum that cinephiles ignore
everything except their pet-causes (btw, what more did you require from
my response; or, what did I ignore? the afore-quoted seems like a
separate, discrete point, to my eyes, in relation to the rest of your
post, which I largely agreed with), then let me posit the notion that a
common tactic among any cinephile with a keyboard is to tack juicy bait
at the end of a screed to provoke argument and discussion, which you've
proven a priori. It's probably not a bad thing, either.
Another personal fave of mine in the artist-zodiac, the fave of my
faves, is Kubrick. I'll respond to another section of your original
message by stating that, contrary to most of the regulars on this list,
I wish Christiane Kubrick hadn't allowed -anyone- to film it. As it
stands, I hate Spielberg's rendition like few other films I've ever
seen. This might be a subjective stance, but it's one that derives
from the fact that in lieu of a final Kubrick, I saw a Hollywood film,
or, "pretty sentiments filmed."
> Granted, certain words and comments will always stick more than
> others
> in messages or reviews, but ignoring the context in which they are
> placed is as insulting to the writer as I guess it was insulting
> to you that I hadn't read recent Godard interviews when making
> my comments. But you can't be insulted about me not "getting"
> Godard's recent films because that information was just plainly
> not there.
There was no "context" earlier in your message for the specific part I
was responding to, except for the following: "[Rivette's] former
colleagues...most notably [Godard] ... seem less interested in tackling
full on, today's current cinematic landscape- at least that's what I
get from recent interviews." What difference do interviews make? And
how does one tackle the cinematic landscape by way of an interview?
Godard tackles the current cinematic landscape by contributing to it.
When you state that cinephiles and critics tend to cling to their
"darling artists" so tightly, I might ask: What's so wrong with that?
Likewise, cinephiles and critics change their minds rather frequently
with regard to any number of once-loathed or once-favored filmmakers.
craig.
20857
From: Craig Keller
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Sarris and Mommie Dearest
On Tuesday, January 11, 2005, at 12:19 AM, hotlove666 wrote:
> Got it. But it's an "A" cheesy horror movie. I'm going to go watch
> Rich and Famous.
Jean-Claude Brialy's list for the best films of the '80s --
-'Fanny and Alexander'
-'Once Upon a Time in America'
-'The Marriage of Maria Braun'
-'The Last Métro'
-'Rich and Famous'
-'Amadeus'
-'Intervista'
-'The Purple Rose of Cairo'
-'The Sacrifice'
-'Black Eyes' / 'Les Yeux noirs' (? - Dennis Potter miniseries??)
-'Le Grand bleu'
-'Les Liaisons dangereuses'
20858
From:
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:15am
Subject: Re: Sarris and Mommie Dearest
Craig Keller:
>
> Jean-Claude Brialy's list for the best films of the '80s --
> ...
> > -'Black Eyes' / 'Les Yeux noirs' (? - Dennis Potter miniseries??)
>
I bet this is Nikita Mikhalkov's DARK EYES, starring Marcello
Mastroianni, which was a pretty big hit in Europe.
-Bilge
20859
From: Noel Vera
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:18am
Subject: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
For the record, it wasn't a bad year for Philippine cinema. Among
the very best I remember were Kidlat Tahimik's "Turumba," an offbeat
comedy about a little town invaded by German investors, who turn
their economy upside down to manufacture gaudy toys; Joey
Gosengfiao's "Temptation Island," about a bevy of beauty contestants
marooned on an island and forced to wander about looking for food,
shelter, and an outlet for their hairdryers (as camp, I think it's
superior to anything Almodovar has cooked up since); and Mario
O'Hara's "Bakit Bughaw ang Langit?" (Why is the Sky Blue) a lovely
little movie about a woman who cares for and ultimately falls in
love with a retarded man.
20860
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 6:50am
Subject: Re: Cameron (Was: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> I greatly
> enjoyed "titaic" which among other things was never
> boring.
>
I like "Titanic" as well. Mind you, it came out when I was twelve (!)
and, for some time afterwards, I found myself partaking in the
inevitable backlash towards it. But you're right, David, it's never
boring – it makes for good, unchallenging rainy day viewing.
20861
From: Mathieu Ricordi
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:15am
Subject: Re: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
Quoting Craig Keller :
> On Monday, January 10, 2005, at 11:34 PM, Mathieu Ricordi wrote:
>
Keeping up with both his films and his interviews as I do, for he is
>
> one of my darling artists, I find what he's saying in the films to be
>
> of more interest than what he's saying in interviews (although I'm
>
> never less than entertained by the latter). What am I to make of him
>
> saying the cinema-at-least-as-he-knew-it was dying, when he's making
>
> the kind of cinema whose very existence proves the cinema is
>
> living/breathing?
Well, let's just say that I'm tired of the double-faced artist routine
as witnessed formerly with Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock, Lang, and
sometimes our own beloved Kubrick. Often enough, ironically, it
was the Cahiers critics trying to get a certain admittance from their
films out of some of them (witness the Truffaut on Hitchcock exchanges).
It's great to follow the credo "let the film speak for itself", and
to apply it to someone whose films make you think and feel so much.
But these artist's words are still vital to the film community,
and when they agree to speak about films, whether others or there own,
they should keep some consistance with their cinematic vision
(by the way, Godard being a former film critic turned filmmaker
doesn't mean he's automatically exempt from the former profession;
he was a great critic and his comments till matter). So, I'm glad
that Godard's films are enough for you, they should be, but that
doesn't mean that one should just switch off when he talks in an
interview because his films are still important. On the contrary,
it's because his films are still vital that he should remain
interested in what words he speaks (again, I'm not saying he
isn't, it's just what I got from a few past interviews).
>And, note: the cinema that had been made "as he knew
>
> it" when he and The Rest were writing about it, is not being made any
>
> more, and thus extinct.
I may be misinterpreting you, but some films today can be said
to be offspring from those days. To name a few: Tashlin to Dante,
Lubitch and some Renoir to Wes Anderson, and I won't even get
started on the Hitchcock traces.
> then let me posit the notion that a
>
> common tactic among any cinephile with a keyboard is to tack juicy bait
>
> at the end of a screed to provoke argument and discussion, which you've
>
> proven a priori. It's probably not a bad thing, either.
Yes, it is a common tactic,although not one I was
thinking of at the time, and as you've said not a harmful one
either (I was, after all defending Rivette on the grounds that
provoking debate is a good thing in film culture); however to
"provoke argument and discussion" does not mean that the argument
and discussion should center around that juicy bait, rather that
bait should spark interest on the message that preceeded it.
> Another personal fave of mine in the artist-zodiac, the fave of my
>
> faves, is Kubrick. I'll respond to another section of your original
>
> message by stating that, contrary to most of the regulars on this list,
>
> I wish Christiane Kubrick hadn't allowed -anyone- to film it.
Well, you're talking to the biggest Kubrick lover here, so all I can
say to that is I'm happy everytime I meet another one. Although, I'm
always in search of a good argument on his work, something I find is lacking
because his detractors always fall back on the useless "cold-hearted",
"perfectionist", and "isolated" arguments, needles to say that has
nothing to do with films. For more of that bullshit, read the entry on him
in David Thompson's disgusting Biographical Dictionary on Film.
I can sympathize with your feelings that it would have been better for nobody
to proceed ahead with "A.I." after Kubrick's death, but I wonder
if it would have been productive to stop the ideas and musings
of that movie even if not told as well as Kubrick might have done it.
That is why I have often spoke of Verhoeven directing it, because I think
he would have pushed those ideas in a more provocative matter than Spielberg
could ever dream of.
There was no "context" earlier in your message for the specific part I
>
> was responding to, except for the following: "[Rivette's] former
>
> colleagues...most notably [Godard] ... seem less interested in tackling
>
> full on, today's current cinematic landscape- at least that's what I
>
> get from recent interviews."
Exactly, that should have been enough evidence that it was
not a very big part of my message.
>What difference do interviews make? And
>
> how does one tackle the cinematic landscape by way of an interview?
>
> Godard tackles the current cinematic landscape by contributing to it.
Well, I tackled this question earlier in this post, but I would
add that while Godard's "director's hat" may be adding
to the current cinematic landscape, his "interview subject hat",
"former film critic hat", and "respected political director hat",
have the power to also add or sully the current cinematic landscape.
Just as a prominent film critic takes away from current cinema
culture by writing a bone-headed review (and I don't mean one
that happens to disagree with my tastes, I mean one that shows
no thought, individuality, or honest viewing effort), a vital
film director takes away from cinema culture if he shows a lackluster
attitude towards his passion (again, not pointed towards Godard).
Watch the John Ford interview in Martin Scorsese's "Journey Through
American Cinema" and tell me you haven't lost just a little respect
for him. I am fully behind artists who don't want to give away
the discoveries their films contain, but can't condone ones who
show absolutely no passion for anything concerning the art when
interviewed.
> When you state that cinephiles and critics tend to cling to their
>
> "darling artists" so tightly, I might ask: What's so wrong with that?
Well, in my original post, I did state: " A person should always defend their
favourites with passion, but that shouldn't stop the discovery of the other
artists suggested". So, I think it's evident I see absolutely nothing
wrong with that. But I just think that part of clingling to your
darling artists requires discovering everything you can so that they
become your favourites in an even larger context.
>Likewise, cinephiles and critics change their minds rather frequently
>
> with regard to any number of once-loathed or once-favored filmmakers.
Hey your not kidding, you're talking to a huge Michael Mann fan
whose had to reconsider a lot after the large dissapointment
of "Collateral". And "Femme Fatale" may have slightly sweetened
me to Brian De Palma, slightly. Overall, however, sticking
with a director through thick and thin builds character for
critics and cinephiles alike. But not realizing when one has
clearly run out of steam/ideas/passion can be suspect.
Luckily for you "Notre Musique" seems to be receiving
a lot of favourable notices. I've unfortunately not been
able to see it yet, it hasn't appeared in my quarters yet.
Mathieu Ricordi
20862
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 7:27am
Subject: Re: the 80s
Craig conjectured:
"'Black Eyes' / 'Les Yeux noirs' (? - Dennis Potter miniseries??)"
Probably DARK EYES by Mikhalkov (1987)?
PORKY'S was on my 'best of '81' list! It was a good time for teen
movies ... and MOMMIE DEAREST, to echo Kevin J, most definitely: to me,
the superior remake of RAGING BULL! There are many striking affinities
between these two movies: both biopics are about a 'professional' realm
defined by media spectacle - boxing/filmmaking - that is rarely shown
in the film itself, and both are about the displacement/eruption of
violence within the domestic sphere, both times predicated on a
control-complex. And Joan replacing his daughter on the TV soap already
encapsulates the identity-abduction-on-TV of KING OF COMEDY!!
Adrian
20863
From:
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:04am
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
I haven't seen "Gone With the Wind" in a long time, but Dan's breakdown of
its various directorial styles is one of the most perceptive I've read.
Has there ever been a definitive account of who shot what on another film
credited to Fleming, "The Wizard of Oz"? I've read that King Vidor directed
most, if not all, of the Kansas sequences (by far my favorite scenes in the film)
and Tag wrote in his Vidor article that he directed that film's most famous
moment: "Somewhere Over the Rainbow."
Peter
20864
From:
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:14am
Subject: Re: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
Here are some of my very favorites of 1981, in my estimation a fine year for
movies.
"They All Laughed" (Peter Bogdanovich)
This is, as you all know, one of my favorite films of all-time.
"Buddy Buddy" (Billy Wilder)
In tone, it's the anti-"Avanti!" It's challenging and difficult to warm up
to, but ultimately very fascinating and absolutely impeccably shot and acted.
"...All the Marbles" (Robert Aldrich)
A great Aldrich, I think.
"S.O.B." (Blake Edwards)
Well, I love Edwards and I love "S.O.B." For the record, I don't have a
problem at all with Edwards' moralizing or whatever you want to call it. Stuart
Byron made a good case in his amazing "Darling Lili" essay for Edwards as "the
last conservative" or something to that effect.
"Knightriders" (George A. Romero)
An absolutely key Romero film.
"Rich and Famous" (George Cukor)
You guessed it, JPC - sucker for late films that I am, I'm a fan of this one
(though not as much as "Love with the Proper Stranger" and "The Corn is
Green").
And there were a lot of other films released in '81 that I liked.
Peter
20865
From:
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:27am
Subject: Re: Ford's last works (Was: Re: Their Last Film)
Richard Modiano wrote:
>The long version seemed to be
>padded by repeating some stock footage that I think Ford took
>himself. I didn't realize that there was more Ford (aside from the
>repeated stock footage that Ford may have shot) in the long version,
>memory for details between the two viewings had failed by then.
I've seen both versions as well. As I recall, in the long version there's
simply more of the parade review for Chesty which concludes the film. The stock
footage wasn't bad (it doesn't surprise me that it was shot by Ford), but the
"new" stuff which Ford shot specifically for this project is staggering and
is to be cherished. As I wrote earlier, the scenes of Chesty visiting a
monument devoted to Stonewall Jackson and Robert E. Lee's tomb are just classic Ford
moments. Even John Wayne's narration is pretty good here!
>Even so, I'm grateful for CHESTY.
I'm glad to find another fan of it! Seeing both it and "The Sun Shines
Bright" for the first time this past year certainly deepened my appreciation for
this American master.
Peter
20866
From:
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:32am
Subject: Hawks (Was: Their Last Film)
Bill Krohn wrote:
>You should track down Shootout at Rio Lobo, George Plimpton's
>delightful tv doc about being an extra in that film.
I've been wanting to see this documentary for ages. (Plimpton, of course,
has a small role in "Rio Lobo.") I've seen glimpses of it in several OTHER
Hawks documentaries and it looks like a wonderfully insightful portrait of the man
at work. I was hoping that Paramount would include it on their DVD of "Rio
Lobo," but no such luck.
Why doesn't somebody publish Hawks' final script, "When It's Hot, Play It
Cool" (or whatever he ended up calling it)? As I recall, Todd McCarthy's bio of
Hawks indicated that later drafts were authored mainly by Hawks (correct me if
I'm wrong), making it of great interest to auteurists. I'd certainly love to
read it, an unofficial reworking of "A Girl In Every Port."
Peter
20867
From: Samuel Bréan
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 8:32am
Subject: Knightriders (was: Some of my 1981 favorites)
>"Knightriders" (George A. Romero)
>
>An absolutely key Romero film.
While I love most films by Romero, I was a bit baffled by this one, its main
flaw being for me its excessive length. Incidentally, a friend of mine
recently subtitled it for French cable TV, but it's in a version that is 115
minutes long (if I remember it right). I couldn't find any information about
this version (maybe I'll watch it), and I wondered if anyone knew about it?
IMdB lists a 102-minute German cut, but that's all.
Samuel.
20868
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 10:28am
Subject: Re: Hawks (Was: Their Last Film)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Bill Krohn wrote:
>
> >You should track down Shootout at Rio Lobo, George Plimpton's
> >delightful tv doc about being an extra in that film.
>
> I've been wanting to see this documentary for ages. (Plimpton, of
course,
> has a small role in "Rio Lobo.") I've seen glimpses of it in
several OTHER
> Hawks documentaries and it looks like a wonderfully insightful
portrait of the man
> at work. I was hoping that Paramount would include it on their DVD
of "Rio
> Lobo," but no such luck.
*****
I saw that documentary in the late-80s on a local television station
so bereft of other programming that they were down to scheduling old
Paramount films (no other studio; just Paramount) from the 30s and 40s
pretty much 'round the clock; supplementing the rotation with
television documentaries covering all manner of subject, including the
one cited above. My memory of it (and I not only watched it twice, but
taped it) is that Hawks came off as an extremely weary soul; certainly
possessing none of the life-force his films (even "Rio Lobo" to a
small extent) embodied. Since I was still in my Hero Worship stage
when it came to Movie Directors . . . and I'm someone who went around
for years saying Howard Hawks was God, and insisted that "Red Line
7000" was one of his three greatest works (I still think that) . . . I
remember being somewhat saddened by it.
I expected to see a tireless storytelling spirit darting about the set
with phenomenal intention making IT (whatever IT was) happen. Instead
I saw someone more or less burned out. Reading Todd McCarthy's
biography of Hawks and seeing Kevin McDonald's documentary a few years
back only confirmed what I'd then surmised: He just didn't have the
energy anymore.
> Why doesn't somebody publish Hawks' final script, "When It's Hot,
Play It
> Cool" (or whatever he ended up calling it)? As I recall, Todd
McCarthy's bio of
> Hawks indicated that later drafts were authored mainly by Hawks
(correct me if
> I'm wrong), making it of great interest to auteurists. I'd
certainly love to
> read it, an unofficial reworking of "A Girl In Every Port."
*****
My only guess as to the persistence of its unpublished status is that
it's probably a thoroughgoing embarassment that no amount of auteurist
perspective can rescue.
But that's just a guess.
Tom Sutpen
20869
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 1:52pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I haven't seen "Gone With the Wind" in a long time,
> but Dan's breakdown of
> its various directorial styles is one of the most
> perceptive I've read.
>
Up to a point as he eidles the central auteur, david
O. Selznick.
Iknow it's against the religion of " a film by," but
Selznick, a man who never directed a foot of film
himself, but gave exhaustive notes to directors he
hired to execute his scripts, is a filmmaker.
A somewhat crippled one in that he couldn't deal with
actors -- hence his reliance on Cukor, Wood, Cromwell,
Fleming et. al. But "Gonw with the Wind" is a film by
David O. Selznick and there's no way of avoiding that
fact.
> Has there ever been a definitive account of who shot
> what on another film
> credited to Fleming, "The Wizard of Oz"? I've read
> that King Vidor directed
> most, if not all, of the Kansas sequences (by far my
> favorite scenes in the film)
> and Tag wrote in his Vidor article that he directed
> that film's most famous
> moment: "Somewhere Over the Rainbow."
>
Again the most important musical talent at MGM, Roger
Edens, is being ignored in favor of a director who was
merely clocking in.
Roger Edens is one of the central architects of Judy
Garland. He created "Dear Mr. Gable" for her and
guided her career right through til almost the very
end.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Helps protect you from nasty viruses.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
20870
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:01pm
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi wrote:
> Well, let's just say that I'm tired of the double-faced artist routine
> as witnessed formerly with Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock, Lang, and
> sometimes our own beloved Kubrick. Often enough, ironically, it
> was the Cahiers critics trying to get a certain admittance from their
> films out of some of them (witness the Truffaut on Hitchcock exchanges).
*****
I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the "double-faced artist
routine". If you're referring to these artists reticence to discuss
their work then you're not talking about a mere routine; you're
talking about a rigidly observed credo; a matter of great principle.
Exactly why, specifically, was it necessary for artists of their
stature to seriously discuss their work with a bunch of small-time
film critics? Because those critics revered them? That's not even a
bad reason for doing it. These men were professionals. They didn't
talk about it, they did it. They played their cards close to the vest
at all times and kept their mystery (for the most part). And no one,
certainly not a pack of dewey-eyed, Hero-worshipping wannabe
filmmakers, was ever going to pry their secrets loose without one king
hell of a fight.
> It's great to follow the credo "let the film speak for itself", and
> to apply it to someone whose films make you think and feel so much.
> But these artist's words are still vital to the film community,
> and when they agree to speak about films, whether others or there own,
> they should keep some consistance with their cinematic vision
> (by the way, Godard being a former film critic turned filmmaker
> doesn't mean he's automatically exempt from the former profession;
> he was a great critic and his comments till matter).
*****
A great critic is just about the last thing Godard was. But that's of
no moment here.
I don't understand your insistence that filmmakers must pay some sort
of heed to a mere Social construct called "the film community"; as
though it were a living, breathing animal that needed constant care
and feeding; or some 'pukka sahib' demanding undying fealty from a
servant. Jean-Luc Godard doesn't have to answer to critics and
schoolteachers simply because they've reduced Cinema to one big
session of Show & Tell. He never had to acknowledge such a
responsibility before and he shouldn't have to do it now. If he wants
to be a cockeyed optimist and declare an end to Cinema, then that's
fine with me. If he wants to be inconsistent, then that's also a-okay.
If he wants to say nothing, then he's god damn well earned that right.
And we'll all just need to grow up and live with it. Who are we . . .
cinephiles who've accomplished *nothing* in our lives the equal to his
most modest achievements . . . to demand anything from Jean-Luc
Godard? It's time we started to accept the fact that a filmmaker, like
any artist, owes his audience nothing but his best work.
> So, I'm glad
> that Godard's films are enough for you, they should be, but that
> doesn't mean that one should just switch off when he talks in an
> interview because his films are still important. On the contrary,
> it's because his films are still vital that he should remain
> interested in what words he speaks (again, I'm not saying he
> isn't, it's just what I got from a few past interviews).
*****
Again, why should he remain interested? Because we want him to? This
might surprise you, but interviews are not what filmmakers are
supposed to be doing for a living. Ford and the rest of those old
Pirates were correct in seeing journalists as adversaries, no matter
how outwardly fawning they may have been. To them, interviews were
what you did for fun; to burnish your legend before a recording angel
just credulous enough to swallow anything you said; and so reverential
that no matter how many times you slapped them around they still kept
coming back asking for more.
> > then let me posit the notion that a
> >
> > common tactic among any cinephile with a keyboard is to tack juicy
bait
> >
> > at the end of a screed to provoke argument and discussion, which
you've
> >
> > proven a priori. It's probably not a bad thing, either.
>
> Yes, it is a common tactic,although not one I was
> thinking of at the time, and as you've said not a harmful one
> either (I was, after all defending Rivette on the grounds that
> provoking debate is a good thing in film culture); however to
> "provoke argument and discussion" does not mean that the argument
> and discussion should center around that juicy bait, rather that
> bait should spark interest on the message that preceeded it.
*****
Forgive this intrusion from my Inner Sociologist, but . . . what is
"film culture"? I mean, what is it specifically? What does it consist
of? Who determines its topography? In what meaningful respect does it
differ from other pocket cultures like, say, High School?
I'm all for provoking debate. After all, what would we cinephiles use
for social intercourse if not that? And that Rivette interview,
demented though it is in many respects, was fun to read . . . although
it's seriously abusing the word to call that thing an interview. I
mean, they could just as easily have sent a three-by-five card with a
list of titles and a stenographer into the room and gotten the same
result. But much as I truly love Rivette as a filmmaker, I can't take
much of what he says seriously. If all he's trying to do is feed the
beast by inspiring debate, then that's fine, I guess. I just can't
look at getting us all to start chattering as any kind of meaningful
accomplishment.
> That is why I have often spoke of Verhoeven directing it, because I
think
> he would have pushed those ideas in a more provocative matter than
Spielberg
> could ever dream of.
*****
But Paul Verhoeven, who I agree might have made something more
intriguing out of "AI" than Steven Spielberg did, does not possess
great commercial standing in the film industry; he never had the clout
that Stanley Kubrick's estate felt sufficient to getting the project
done. Only Spielberg has that. That's how he landed the assignment
(and please, spare me the one about his lifelong love affair with
Kubrick; I'm not in the market for any retrospective clambroth today).
> > Godard tackles the current cinematic landscape by contributing to it.
>
> Well, I tackled this question earlier in this post, but I would
> add that while Godard's "director's hat" may be adding
> to the current cinematic landscape, his "interview subject hat",
> "former film critic hat", and "respected political director hat",
> have the power to also add or sully the current cinematic landscape.
*****
Once again, why should that be of any value to him? If he wants to
make statements that might tend to sully the cinematic landscape of
our dreams, then why should we want to stop him? I know I can live
with the results. Is our morale as cinephiles THAT important that we
have to deny filmmakers their inalienable right to be perverse?
> Just as a prominent film critic takes away from current cinema
> culture by writing a bone-headed review (and I don't mean one
> that happens to disagree with my tastes, I mean one that shows
> no thought, individuality, or honest viewing effort), a vital
> film director takes away from cinema culture if he shows a lackluster
> attitude towards his passion (again, not pointed towards Godard).
*****
Essentially what you're saying is that there's no value in an artist's
passion for their work lest it be demonstrated publicly; on the record
for all to see and read. Where do you GET these ideas? I have news for
you: the role of a filmmaker in life is not to go out of their way to
support the interests and the morale of an intellectual sewing circle
(I was going to use another phrase pertaining to circles, but this is
a Family forum, I'm told) called "cinema culture" by making a public
spectacle of their passion for their art; their role is to get IT
(whatever IT is) ON FILM. Period.
Listen, if our own love and passion for Cinema is really dependent on
how an artist behaves during some interview they've granted because
they couldn't think of anything more amusing or diverting to do that
day, then we cinephiles are in deep deep trouble. Film Cutture needs
to be more about film; less about culture (in that communal sense).
But somehow I think our interest is resilient enough to withstand
filmmakers giving us the cold shoulder every once in a while; we can
probably deal with their sometimes justifiable contempt for us without
losing too much sleep. I know I can.
> Watch the John Ford interview in Martin Scorsese's "Journey Through
> American Cinema" and tell me you haven't lost just a little respect
> for him. I am fully behind artists who don't want to give away
> the discoveries their films contain, but can't condone ones who
> show absolutely no passion for anything concerning the art when
> interviewed.
*****
Yes. I not only condone it, I encourage it. I have a copy of that John
Ford documentary Peter Bogdanovich made (actually, 'ejaculated' might
be a better word for it) and, oh man, you'd be amazed how much worse
that interview gets as it goes along. Ford is utterly dismissive,
almost cruelly irreverant throughout; and not only that, he's openly
disrespectful towards Bogdanovich (for where will a cinephile ever
find respect but in the community of other cinephiles?) and his
excruciatingly ernest questions (has journalistic masochism ever been
recorded so definitively?). Bogdanovich clearly thought that if he
could tear Pappy away from the liquor cabinet for a couple of hours,
drag him out to Monument Valley for a day (the sight of which after
all those years must have inspired God-only-knows what kind of hideous
memories in Ford), then the Great Man might yet open up in a swell of
reverie and nostalgia and reveal to us the matter of his Art;
explicate his 'pensees' to the awaiting hordes. Sewll. Instead, Ford
turns the whole thing into a joke and he gives away NOTHING. He
refuses to feed the tributary and to me it's damn near heroic. He
knows all too well what those of us, you AND me (I don't separate
myself from any of this one bit), who linger on matters other than The
Work are really doing: making an intellectual fetish of HIS art; using
HIS art as a social instrument. He SEES right through us and he will
deny us everything. Why? Because he can.
Now the way I look at it, if you can watch that interview and still
regard Ford as one of the greatest artists this country has produced,
then you're officially a grown-up.
A side note: If Bogdanovich had been at all equal to the task he might
have found it profitable to go hardcore reportorial on the old
buzzard; fire a vast number of oblique, confusing and downright
insulting questions at him; practically aiming them right at his head.
Only then might Ford have been bewildered and even respectful enough
to get serious with him for a second or two. But this is something
film journalists have never learned. They conduct interviews as though
they were apostles receiving The Word, not as reporting jobs where the
objective is to Get The Story at all costs. They don't see the
Interview as an adversarial process at all. I'm not saying they should
abandon all respect for these artists, but they would do their cause
justice by dropping the reverence. It gets in the way of the story.
That's why a General Assignment reporter could have gotten more out of
Ford by asking a lot of nuts and bolts questions than Bogdanovich ever
could by getting all gooey-cinephile on him while the cameras turned.
Those journalists, like Ford and all the rest of them, are
Professionals too.
I will admit, there was a time when I would have found Ford's conduct
on that occasion beneath contempt, just like you. But when you've been
a cinephile for a couple of decades your respect for the Art becomes
so all-consuming that all you really want out of a filmmaker in the
end is to just shut up and keep making Cinema. What you don't want is
for them to waste their time and yours talking about it.
After all, anybody can do that.
Tom Sutpen
20871
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:11pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
>> I haven't seen "Gone With the Wind" in a long time,
>> but Dan's breakdown of
>> its various directorial styles is one of the most
>> perceptive I've read.
>
> Up to a point as he eidles the central auteur, david
> O. Selznick.
I never attributed the film to Cukor, Fleming or anyone else.
Selznick is presumably responsible for a lot of the eccentricities that
keep GWTW from being just another bloated superproduction. And I think
one could do an author analysis on the film on those terms. I was struck,
not only with the film's transgressiveness, but also with the peculiar
(and ultimately endearing) way that it used the almost unendurable
character of Melanie as a counterweight to the transgressiveness,
showering her with undeserved screen time and one encomium after another
from the other characters.
Now, if you think the film coheres under Selznick's watch, then you have a
different aesthetic approach than I do.
To me, there's no point in looking for the most influential person on a
film and calling him or her the auteur. I'd rather look for the sources
of the good and interesting stuff in a film. - Dan
20872
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:23pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> > I haven't seen "Gone With the Wind" in a long time,
> > but Dan's breakdown of
> > its various directorial styles is one of the most
> > perceptive I've read.
> >
>
> Up to a point as he eidles the central auteur, david
> O. Selznick.
>
> Iknow it's against the religion of " a film by," but
> Selznick, a man who never directed a foot of film
> himself, but gave exhaustive notes to directors he
> hired to execute his scripts, is a filmmaker.
>
> A somewhat crippled one in that he couldn't deal with
> actors -- hence his reliance on Cukor, Wood, Cromwell,
> Fleming et. al. But "Gonw with the Wind" is a film by
> David O. Selznick and there's no way of avoiding that
> fact.
*****
(Giving David Ehrenstein a much deserved standing ovation for that one)
Hear hear.
In the vast panoply of "non-director auteurs" it's impossible to
ignore Selznick, who virtually defines the term. In those productions
most important to him . . . and "Gone With the Wind" was nothing if
not one of them . . . he supervised everything; personally re-wrote
the script relentlessly, and stayed on the set so much you couldn't
blast him off of it with a case of dynamite. And, he *did* direct on
occasion; usually when he was up a creek. In the case of GWTW, he took
over a unit at a point in the production when they were trying to get
the picture finished and you couldn't have enough units working
simutaneously. Also, Selznick took over the direction of "Duel in the
Sun" for a short time after King Vidor walked off in disgust over his
recidivist meddling. It's impossible to tell in either case if
anything he shot wound up in the finished product, of course, but it
still constitutes standing behind a camera and calling the shots.
I can't imagine why anyone would call an analysis of who was or was
not the auteur of "Gone With the Wind" "perceptive" if it completely
overlooks David O. Selznick. You can't read the history and not see
him as the connective tissue throughout the entire production.
Tom Sutpen
20873
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:52pm
Subject: Re: Re: Gone With the Wind
> In those productions
> most important to him . . . and "Gone With the Wind" was nothing if
> not one of them . . . he supervised everything; personally re-wrote
> the script relentlessly, and stayed on the set so much you couldn't
> blast him off of it with a case of dynamite.
Yes, and the film is *completely incoherent*!
Case A: you agree with me that the film is a mess. In which case GWTW
becomes evidence for auteurism, not against it.
Case B: you think Selznick makes GWTW work in the same way that (good
director of your choosing) makes (good film by chosen director) work. In
which case, we have an aesthetic difference, and can shake hands on it.
- Dan
20874
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:53pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> Now, if you think the film coheres under Selznick's
> watch, then you have a
> different aesthetic approach than I do.
>
BINGO!
> To me, there's no point in looking for the most
> influential person on a
> film and calling him or her the auteur. I'd rather
> look for the sources
> of the good and interesting stuff in a film.
Calling Selznick the "most influential person" is
insane. Doing the film was his idea. No aspect of the
production was executed without his say-so. This is
why Cukor was fired. They had excellent relations in
the past, but Selznick was no longer an RKO employee.
This was his film in every way. And Cukor's commanding
presence (this really can't be emphasized strongly
enough -- he was an enormously powerful force on the
set in a way very few directors are ) that got
Selznick's goat. GWTW was HIS film, and he didn't want
Cukor sharing any of the glory.
Obviously Vidor made an enormous contribution to "Duel
in the Sun," but the engine driving it was it's
producer AND SCREENWRITER, one David O.
And that's David O's wife driving Gregory Peck wild
with desire. And it was David O's idea to cast Peck
wildly against type.
It's high time everybody wooke up and smelled the mise
en scene.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
20875
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 2:59pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
>> Now, if you think the film coheres under Selznick's
>> watch, then you have a
>> different aesthetic approach than I do.
>
> BINGO!
>
> It's high time everybody wooke up and smelled the mise
> en scene.
But, if you agree that we have different aesthetic approaches, then what
should I wake up to? Your approach won't address my concerns.
Out of the dripping mess of this film, I thought there were two strong
scenes, and the same director did them both. What good would it do me to
think about the film the way you do? It would rob me of the tools I need
to understand my own pleasure. - Dan
20876
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:18pm
Subject: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Here are some of my very favorites of 1981, in my estimation a
fine year for
> movies.
>
> "They All Laughed" (Peter Bogdanovich)
>
> This is, as you all know, one of my favorite films of all-time.
>
> "Buddy Buddy" (Billy Wilder)
>
> In tone, it's the anti-"Avanti!" It's challenging and difficult
to warm up
> to, but ultimately very fascinating and absolutely impeccably shot
and acted.
>
"Difficult to warm up to" indeed! I disliked it as much as "Rich and
famous." But there you are.
> "...All the Marbles" (Robert Aldrich)
>
> A great Aldrich, I think.
One of the best of his late period!
20877
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:20pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> >> Now, if you think the film coheres under
> Selznick's
> >> watch, then you have a
> >> different aesthetic approach than I do.
> >
> > BINGO!
> >
> > It's high time everybody wooke up and smelled the
> mise
> > en scene.
>
> But, if you agree that we have different aesthetic
> approaches, then what
> should I wake up to? Your approach won't address my
> concerns.
>
Welcome to the Wonderful World of Existential Anguish,
Dan.
> Out of the dripping mess of this film, I thought
> there were two strong
> scenes, and the same director did them both. What
> good would it do me to
> think about the film the way you do? It would rob
> me of the tools I need
> to understand my own pleasure.
Sorry to be the one to have to break this to you but
--
There is no Santa Claus.
There is no Easter Bunny.
There is no Tooth Fairy.
There is no God.
"Gone with the Wind" is a film by David O. Selznick
executed with the assistance of Victor Fleming, George
Cukor, Sam Wood and William Cameron Menzies. It's big,
it's lumpy, it's often incoherent -- but it works.
No it doesn't establish a new level of artistic
achievement. It's just a very interesting working out
certain ideas inherent in Hollywood filmmaking,
relating to women and spectacle. After all these years
it still manages to be enormously entertaining. And
that's not nothing.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
20878
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 3:52pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>.
>
> It's high time everybody wooke up and smelled the mise
> en scene.
I have always considered GWTW a Selznick film, not a Fleming
film, not a Sam Wood film, not a Cukor film. I agree with David but
I don't think our view is at all unusual. The evidence of DOS's
auteurship is all over the place. The film is incoherent, as Dan
stated, it's messy, it's bloated, and, to me at least, it's
immensely boring (I never could understand why it became so
incredibly popular)but this is the mark of its auteur. The same
adjectives could be applied to "Duel in the Sun" (except that I
don't find "Duel" boring). JPC
20879
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:19pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon" wrote:
> I have always considered GWTW a Selznick film, not a Fleming
> film, not a Sam Wood film, not a Cukor film. I agree with David but
> I don't think our view is at all unusual. The evidence of DOS's
> auteurship is all over the place. The film is incoherent, as Dan
> stated, it's messy, it's bloated, and, to me at least, it's
> immensely boring (I never could understand why it became so
> incredibly popular)but this is the mark of its auteur. The same
> adjectives could be applied to "Duel in the Sun" (except that I
> don't find "Duel" boring).
*****
I never found "Gone With the Wind" boring. It's all the other things
you call it (to which I'd add histrionic and bereft of subtelty), but
the narrative moves at a pace that was altogether new for big-deal
Hollywood epics. It might have been a lumbering beast that couldn't
get out of its own way . . . in fact, one of the chief complaints
Selznick had with Cukor's work on it was that his pacing was so
languid the final film would probably have turned out to be 6 hours
long . . . but it has an energy to it that, for me, remains one of the
film's saving graces (I have a theory as to why that is, but I won't
waste anyone's time with it).
"Duel in the Sun", another Selznick-auteured work, is too insane to
ever be boring. There's a feverishness of expression in that film
which is missing from "Gone With the Wind". David Thomson, with
characteristic insight, speculates that it was nothing more than
Selznick's, um, ardor for Jennifer Jones at work. But that's far too
simple (even for him). I think if anything was responsible for the
madness which so often grips that film it was that part of Selznick
which had always wanted to direct; the part that was driving King
Vidor up the wall on a minute-by-minute basis; asserting itself, or at
least trying to. All the directorial impulses which he could never
carry through on (hence his reliance on so many others) were boiling
over on that project and insisting they be addressed without any
argument from a mere Director. His administrative instinct was finally
no match for the creative ones, and he was more or less driven to pry
himself into everything; as untenable as that turned out to be in the end.
That's just a theory, though.
Tom Sutpen
20880
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
The film is
> incoherent, as Dan
> stated, it's messy, it's bloated, and, to me at
> least, it's
> immensely boring (I never could understand why it
> became so
> incredibly popular)but this is the mark of its
> auteur.
I would say that of its second half. The first part of
GWTWis relentlessly paced and exciting. But as soon as
Rhett and Scarlett get hitched the air goes right out
of the movie. Part two lurches this was and that
before recovering via the deaths of two pivotal
characters (Melanie and Bonnie) Still Leigh's power
pushes it over the finish line.
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
20881
From: Tom Sutpen
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:27pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> Yes, and the film is *completely incoherent*!
*****
Not *completely* incoherent, but largely. I'll agree there.
>
> Case A: you agree with me that the film is a mess. In which case GWTW
> becomes evidence for auteurism, not against it.
*****
I agree its a mess. And that does support a case for auteurism. But
it's Selznick's auteurism which is established by the essential chaos
of expression in the film; not anyone else's. The man was notorious
for changing his mind every 5 minutes. "Gone With the Wind" reflects
this.
> Case B: you think Selznick makes GWTW work in the same way that (good
> director of your choosing) makes (good film by chosen director)
work. In
> which case, we have an aesthetic difference, and can shake hands on it.
*****
Not unless the "good film by chosen director" is McCarey's "An Affair
to Remember"; another somewhat loony work (much as I admire it) that
doesn't know what it wants to be when it grows up.
Tom Sutpen
20882
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:57pm
Subject: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
> I wish Christine Kubrick hadn't allowed -anyone- to film it. As it
> stands, I hate Spielberg's rendition like few other films I've ever
> seen.
I like AI, but Craig's blast suggests a game:
SK dies in the late 90s and his Eyes Wide Shut script is filmed
by_____
SK dies in the early 80s and his Full Metal Jacket script is filmed
by_____
SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is filmed by _____
SK dies in the early 70s and his Barry Lyndon script is filmed by____
Not a thought exercise (= cd. happen):
SK dies in 1999 and his Napoleon script (soon to be published) is
eventually filmed by ______
20883
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:58pm
Subject: Documentary about Alfred Hitchcock's ghost!
Just noticed that a documentary about the search for Alfred
Hitchcock's ghost is playing next week on UK television. See:
http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-
19669/epid-382722/
The auteurist implications are staggering!
Maybe the interviewers will take the opportunity to ask Mr H what he
thinks of Robert A. Harris' restoration of VERTIGO. That would be
even better than the Marshall McLuhan scene in ANNIE HALL.
20884
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 4:58pm
Subject: Re: Sarris and Mommie Dearest
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> On Tuesday, January 11, 2005, at 12:19 AM, hotlove666 wrote:
> > Got it. But it's an "A" cheesy horror movie. I'm going to go watch
> > Rich and Famous.
>
> Jean-Claude Brialy's list for the best films of the '80s --
>
> -'Black Eyes' - Mikhalkov
20885
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:00pm
Subject: Re: Some of my 1981 favorites (was: 1981)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Noel Vera"
wrote:
>
> For the record, it wasn't a bad year for Philippine cinema. Among
> the very best I remember were Kidlat Tahimik's "Turumba," an
offbeat
> comedy about a little town invaded by German investors, who turn
> their economy upside down to manufacture gaudy toys;
Sounds great!
Joey
> Gosengfiao's "Temptation Island," about a bevy of beauty
contestants
> marooned on an island and forced to wander about looking for food,
> shelter, and an outlet for their hairdryers
Sounds like the Fox Network!
20886
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:01pm
Subject: Re: The courtship of Eddie's father, Minnelli
> The best
> Minnelli I know, and the only one I really like. Did I change?
It's not the only Minnelli film I like, but I too am a bit cool on
Minnelli in general, and yet admire COURTSHIP. - Dan
20887
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:08pm
Subject: Godard-Truffaut feud (Was: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too)
> But back to JLG-interview bons mots, note that he also once said...that
> Truffaut's brain-tumor came "from reading so many bad books."
Ouch. Didn't Truffaut once say that JLG had read the first and last pages
of more books than anyone in history? - Dan
20888
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:11pm
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:
"Notre Musique" seems to be receiving
> a lot of favourable notices. I've unfortunately not been
> able to see it yet, it hasn't appeared in my quarters yet.
Which is where, Mathieu? I'm obliged to ask these questions online
because no one is bothering to write bios, something I did the minute
I joined.
I have said what I believe to be the case w. Godard: I think Eloge
d'amour (pace Andy R.) is a dead end and Notre Musique is a new
beginning. I'll resee both soon, however - they're pretty complex
films, and I've just seen each once.
Rivette remains a critical iconoclast, which is a rare thing these
days. Any critical orthodoxy sooner or later makes us feel like
Groucho being introduced to Margaret Dumont - "They oughta tear you
down and put up a building!" - especially if the people profiting
from the orthodoxy seem to us to be corrupt.
20889
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:12pm
Subject: Re: the 80s
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Adrian Martin wrote:
> Craig conjectured:
> "'Black Eyes' / 'Les Yeux noirs' (? - Dennis Potter miniseries??)"
>
> Probably DARK EYES by Mikhalkov (1987)?
>
> PORKY'S was on my 'best of '81' list! It was a good time for teen
> movies ... and MOMMIE DEAREST, to echo Kevin J, most definitely: to
me,
> the superior remake of RAGING BULL! There
"RAGING BULL with cheekbones"
20890
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:15pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
I was struck,
> not only with the film's transgressiveness, but also with the
peculiar
> (and ultimately endearing) way that it used the almost unendurable
> character of Melanie as a counterweight to the transgressiveness,
> showering her with undeserved screen time and one encomium after
another
> from the other characters.
An approach that wrecked The Paradine Case when DOS recut it.
20891
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:20pm
Subject: Re: Gone With the Wind
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
His administrative instinct was finally
> no match for the creative ones, and he was more or less driven to
pry
> himself into everything; as untenable as that turned out to be in
the end.
>
> That's just a theory, though.
Not a bad one. Don't forget that he had just been through a very
trying experience of trying to direct "through" a major auteur,
Hitchcock. Fuynny anecdote: Pat H. was in a Catholic school that
demonstrated against Duel when it opened, and she was out there
carrying a sign.
20892
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Documentary about Alfred Hitchcock's ghost!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> Just noticed that a documentary about the search for Alfred
> Hitchcock's ghost is playing next week on UK television. See:
>
> http://www.tvtome.com/tvtome/servlet/GuidePageServlet/showid-
> 19669/epid-382722/
>
> The auteurist implications are staggering!
Crikey!
Couldn't open the link, The Brad - just post the damn thing.
20893
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
.
>
> I like AI, but Craig's blast suggests a game:
>
> SK dies in the late 90s and his Eyes Wide Shut script is filmed
> by_____Jacques Rivette
>
> SK dies in the early 80s and his Full Metal Jacket script is
filmed
> by_____ Alex Joffe
>
> SK dies in the late 70s and his Shining script is filmed by
_____David Cronenberg
>
> SK dies in the early 70s and his Barry Lyndon script is filmed
by____Robert Bresson
>
> Not a thought exercise (= cd. happen):
>
> SK dies in 1999 and his Napoleon script (soon to be published) is
> eventually filmed by ______ Oliver Stone
20894
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:24pm
Subject: Re: The courtship of Eddie's father, Minnelli
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > The best
> > Minnelli I know, and the only one I really like. Did I change?
>
> It's not the only Minnelli film I like, but I too am a bit cool on
> Minnelli in general, and yet admire COURTSHIP. - Dan
Great film. Bogdanovich was v. influenced by it in Texasville. I'm
ready to pardon Ron Howard for everything he's done since for that
performance alone.
20895
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:28pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> .
> >
> > I like AI, but Craig's blast suggests a game:
> >
> > SK dies in the late 90s and his Eyes Wide Shut script is filmed
> > by_____Jacques Rivette
And it's 6 hours long. Jeanne Balibar plays the wife, Matthieu
Almaric plays the husband. Where do I buy my ticket?!
20896
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:29pm
Subject: Re: Documentary about Alfred Hitchcock's ghost!
> Couldn't open the link, The Brad - just post the damn thing.
"Gail Porter and Chris Fleming take a spirited road trip through the
West Coast of America looking for the ghostly locations where the
legends of stage and screen reside.
She is a self-confessed sceptic, he is a "sensitive" able to detect
paranormal events beyond the range of the five senses. Together their
mission is to investigate the "Dead Famous"!
What will Gail and Chris uncover? And will Gail lose her scepticism
during some of the show's most intriguing paranormal experiences?
In this week's episode:
Gail and Chris investigate the spirit of Alfred Hitchcock in the
séance room of The Winchester Mystery House in Santa Cruz, the creepy
old schoolhouse from The Birds and a forbidding tunnel deep beneath a
San Francisco hotel that featured in Hitchcock's thriller Vertigo."
20897
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:37pm
Subject: Re: Kubrick by... (was:Rivette Trashing Minnelli)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> >
> > --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> > wrote:
> > .
> > >
> > > I like AI, but Craig's blast suggests a game:
> > >
> > > SK dies in the late 90s and his Eyes Wide Shut script is
filmed
> > > by_____Jacques Rivette
>
> And it's 6 hours long. Jeanne Balibar plays the wife, Matthieu
> Almaric plays the husband. Where do I buy my ticket?!
Bill, you have a brilliant career opened to you as a casting
director! What about the Sydney Pollack character? Patrice Chereau,
maybe? No,, no, Claude Chabrol!
20898
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:38pm
Subject: Re: Hawks (Was: Their Last Film)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
> I saw that documentary in the late-80s
My memory of it (and I not only watched it twice, but
I think he was always like that.
> > Why doesn't somebody publish Hawks' final script, "When It's Hot,
> Play It
> > Cool" (
My only guess as to the persistence of its unpublished status is that
> it's probably a thoroughgoing embarassment that no amount of
auteurist
> perspective can rescue.
Or simple lack of interest. If I ever speak to Todd again I'll ask
him if he has it and see if he remembers the things I did to help him
when he was writing the book. Anyone want to place a bet?
20899
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:39pm
Subject: Re: Documentary about Alfred Hitchcock's ghost!
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
>
> Gail and Chris investigate the spirit of Alfred Hitchcock in the
> séance room of The Winchester Mystery House in Santa Cruz, the
creepy
> old schoolhouse from The Birds and a forbidding tunnel deep beneath
a
> San Francisco hotel that featured in Hitchcock's thriller Vertigo."
Footsteps in the Fog II! I love it!
20900
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Jan 11, 2005 5:39pm
Subject: Rivette Trashing Minnelli, Too (was Re: Rivette trashing HHH)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Tom Sutpen" wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Mathieu Ricordi
wrote:
>
"Well, let's just say that I'm tired of the double-faced artist routin
as witnessed formerly with Ford, Hawks, Hitchcock, Lang, and
sometimes our own beloved Kubrick. Often enough, ironically, it
was the Cahiers critics trying to get a certain admittance from their
films out of some of them (witness the Truffaut on Hitchcock
exchanges).
*****
"I'm not entirely sure what you mean by the "double-faced artist
routine". If you're referring to these artists reticence to discuss
their work then you're not talking about a mere routine; you're
talking about a rigidly observed credo; a matter of great principle.
....Ford and the rest of those old Pirates were correct in seeing
journalists as adversaries, no matter how outwardly fawning they may
have been. To them, interviews were what you did for fun; to burnish
your legend before a recording angel just credulous enough to swallow
anything you said; and so reverential that no matter how many times
you slapped them around they still kept coming back asking for more."
Right on, brother. I always enjoyed Sternberg's non-interviews. The
one with Bogdanovich is reprinted in "Who the Devil Made It?", and
there's also the interview-portarit in "The Parade's Gone By" and an
interview published in Film Quarterly in 1990 I think, supposedly his
last(I'm quoting from memory):
Int: ANATAHAN is very diffeent from your other films.
Sternberg: How is it different? I used a camera, lights, there was a
script, actors.
And Mizoguchi in his interviews claimed never to have made a good
film at all: "I lost my way on that one...the studio ruined it...I
failed to get what I wanted...I suppose it was alright, but it could
have been better...etc."
Not to mention directors who tailored their answers to suit the
interviewer's expectations.
"...I have a copy of that John Ford documentary Peter Bogdanovich
made (actually, 'ejaculated' might be a better word for it) and, oh
man, you'd be amazed how much worse that interview gets as it goes
along. Ford is utterly dismissive,almost cruelly irreverant
throughout; and not only that, he's openly disrespectful towards
Bogdanovich..."
McBride has an interesting account of that interview in his Ford
biography and of Ford's relations with Bogdanovich over the years.
And there's his own interview with Ford, also very funny with Ford
feigning deafness when it suited him.
Even so, I find some of these interviews entertaining and sometimes
revealing. What did the Major say in THE OX BOW INCIDENT, "There's
truth in lies if you can get enough of them."
Richard
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact