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.
8101
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 2:56am
Subject: Re: Duh Passion (On a Lighter Note)
HOLLYWOOD, CA-After watching Mel Gibson's The Passion Of The Christ
Monday, Our Lord and Savior Jesus Christ announced that He will
demand creative control over the next film based on His life.
"I never should have given Mel Gibson so much license," said Christ,
the Son of God. "I don't like to criticize a member of the flock, but
that close-up of the nails being pounded into My wrists-that was just
bad"
Our Lord did not limit His criticisms to Gibson's Passion; He
expressed frustration with historical inaccuracies in numerous film
adaptations of His life.
"There have been a lot of films based on My life, and pretty much all
of them have gotten it wrong," Christ said. "Just look at Godspell-
what the heck was going on there? It's time I reclaim My image."
Christ said He considered returning to the physical world to make an
accurate film depiction of His life for years, but seeing The Passion
prompted Him to finally descend from heaven, meet with His agent
Ronald Thatcher, and demand that He be attached as a producer on any
future projects.
"Ron has a history of telling Me that the filmmakers 'totally
understand' the Word Of God, and that the project is going to
be 'fabulous,'" Christ said. "But when it comes out, it's all wrong,
and Ron claims everything fell apart in post-production. At that
point, there's nothing left for Me to do but say, 'Okay, fine. I
forgive you all.' Well, next time, I'll be shepherding the project
through from casting to final edit to marketing."
Describing one of His biggest complaints, Christ said that no film
about His life has ever "made the apostles pop."
"In The Greatest Story Ever Told, the 12 are basically
interchangeable," Christ said. "Directors get the piety, but they
don't bring out the personalities behind the agape love. Some of
those guys were real cut-ups, you know. Simon Peter could make you
laugh until you cried tears of blood."
In order to bring these and other truths to light, Christ teamed up
with screenwriter Ron Bass, who wrote both Snow Falling On Cedars and
My Best Friend's Wedding. The two have been co-writing a high-concept
script, temporarily called Untitled Jesus Project.
"We're still hammering out the treatment, but I'm really excited
about where it's headed," Christ said. "It really beefs up My
relationship with John the Baptist, something all of the other movies
missed. They always put in the beheading, but they leave out the
quiet moments when John and I would hang out, eat locusts and honey,
and talk about the redemption of Man. I think our friendship will
really resonate with a lot of viewers."
Christ said He is also working on a heist film based loosely on the
loaves-and-the-fishes incident, but that the project is currently
stuck in development.
"I tend to have problems pitching to studio executives," Christ
said. "Last week, I appeared in a vision before a D-girl at Sony, and
I said, 'Be not afraid, for I am Jesus-I have written a treatment and
Matthew McConaughey is interested in the role of Herod.' Apparently,
she was a little freaked-out by the vision and she ended up passing
on the idea. Ron said that next time I should just schedule a lunch
meeting like everyone else."
Returning to film adaptations about His life and Word, Christ said
some inaccuracies can be traced back to the source material, the New
Testament.
"Remember, at the time the Good Book was written, I was running
around saving souls like a madman," Christ said. "I couldn't focus on
a writing project, too. I basically gave My team of writers the broad
strokes and hoped inspiration would fill in the cracks. Now, I'm not
saying the New Testament isn't good-it is. It's great! But by the
time I got around to reading the galleys, the monks had already
finished the first printing."
The Lord Jesus did have positive things to say about Martin
Scorsese's The Last Temptation Of Christ.
"Not only is Marty a fantastic director, but the story isn't the same
old, same old," Jesus said. "It's like The Gospel of Mark filtered
through an episode of The Twilight Zone. I love it. My one problem is
with the casting of Willem Dafoe. He's good, but I think John
Turturro would have made a better Me."
In spite of His love for Scorsese, Christ said He has no plans to
simply make "the next Last Temptation."
"My movie about My life will be the greatest movie ever shown,"
Christ said. "It should be the last Word on Me. No more animated
versions, no more musicals, and no more movies where the scourging
scene is so violent, you could put it in Fangoria. I mean, yes, being
crucified is very painful. But I can't see devoting more than, say,
three minutes of film to it."
Jesus added: "My version will have it all: drama, laughter, a
spiritual message, and a couple of twists that will surprise even the
most devout. The best part is that it'll be 100 percent accurate."
Continued Christ: "Even with the top-notch screenplay Ron and I are
writing, I'll still need a great director to make the script shine.
Unfortunately, Gore Verbinski is already committed to Pirates Of The
Caribbean 2. If only he'd see that this movie is truly the career
path for the righteous, I'd be able to get a firm commitment from
Johnny Depp, too. Let us pray."
8102
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 4:29am
Subject: Re: Re: Night and Fog
--- hotlove666 wrote:
I've always
> wondered if the total cinematic repression of the
> RFK assassination,
> an event which happened in Hollywood, hasn't had
> more muffled and
> unhealthy consequences (e.g. Nashville...) Welles
> was preparing a
> film on the subject at one point, I know, and Renny
> Harlin, of all
> people, includes a very pointed reference to it in
> The Long Kiss
> Goodnight (anybody spot it?), but that's secret
> code.
Not unhealthy at all. The key RFK film is "Bulworth."
Warren Beatty was largely responsible for turning RFK
from an aide to Seantor Joseph McCarthy (leave us not
forget!) into Liberal. A real flesh and blood liberal
who MEANT IT.
Which was why he was killed.
In "Bulworth" Warren creates a "mourning work" which
expiates his guilt for having lived while Bobby died.
(Death is central to Beatty's cinema, in all his key
films, save "Shampoo," he dies.) In the process he
mourns the death of Liberal politics in America
itself.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
8103
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 5:24am
Subject: Re: Night and Fog
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> I'll do my homework, Paul.
Unfortunately, I haven't. I'm really not prepared to back up
my opinions.
>
> Re: the extermination of the Native Americans: Did Hitchens mean he
> was in FAVOR of it????
I got the quote from Finkelstein, but I remember reading Hitchen's
article in The Nation back in 1992. I also found this passage
online, quoted from "The Politics of Genocide Scholarship" by
David Stannard:
And in the person of Christopher Hitchens, writing in the
Nation, the political left then sounded its voice. To
Hitchens, anyone who refused to join him in celebrating "with
great vim and gusto" the annihilation of the native peoples
of the Americas was (in his words) self-hating, ridiculous,
ignorant, and sinister. People who regard critically
the genocide that was carried out in America's past,
Hitchens continued, are simply reactionary, since such
grossly inhuman atrocities "happen to be the way history is
made". And thus "to complain about[them] is as empty as
complaint about climatic, geological, or tectonic shift".
Moreover, he added, such violence is worth glorifying since it
more often than not has been for the long-term betterment
of humankind - as in the United States today, where
the extermination of the Native Americans - the American
Indians - has brought about "a nearly boundless epoch
of opportunity and innovation".
>
> That brings up another French viewpoint on showing/not showing vis a
> vis historical memory: Jacques Ranciere. He once argued that American
> cinema is able to produce what he calls geneaological fictions (like
> Birth of a Nation or Milestones, the latter being hugely admired in
> France) because H'wd was able to produce images - through the
> western - of the extermination of the Native Americans; whereas "[il
> est] impossible de vouloir unir les regards dans la fiction 'voila
> d'ou nous venons' sans buter sur Juin 1848 ou la Commune, images de
> la lutte de classes malaisees a representer, en fonction meme du
> destin de cette lutte...depuis la Troisieme Republique....
>
I should look that up. Incidentally, it seems to me almost
the opposite of the claim in Eloge de l'amour that the US lacked
stories...
>
> I wonder if the French obsession with not letting the Shoah become a
> black hole in the national memory doesn't have to do with the feeling
> that such black holes inhibit the representational impulse, making a
> French Milestones impossible, and condemning their cinema to
> producing scale models of society that work like swiss toys suspended
> in a void - Renoir's films, say.
That's interesting -- to that end wouldn't something like
The Sorrow and The Pity be more useful than footage of the camps?
>
> My point: NOT showing can be a bad thing, too, if it means simple
> repression, which is what seems to have happened to Mel G's poor
> noggin. Maybe Duh Passion is the return of the repressed, who knows?
> (Still haven't seen it.)
I'm not precisely sure what my position should be. I think Rouch
gets the story of the camp survivor right in Chronicle of a Summer.
Ferrara seems to get the role of atrocity footage right in The
Addiction. But is editing camp footage next to Elizabeth Taylor
in A Place in the Sun right? (Stevens had earlier filmed the
camps.) It's affecting -- like a memento mori in a painting. But
does it tell us anything about the Holocaust or the
cinema's complicity in it? I don't really think of the cinema
as complicit -- I don't think history works that way.
The photos of a exhumed corpse in Bosnia in The Old Place
works better, since -- if I remember correctly -- the photo
were enlarged and presented as art works in a gallery,
and Godard questions whether this is the right thing to do, but
shows it anyway and notes formal similarities
to images of the Pieta. This tells us something about art, but
very little about Bosnia -- and I'm more suspicious of it morally
than I am of tracking shot in Kapo...
>
> A second point, in response to Paul: All of Godard's pseudo-scientism
> in interviews to the contrary notwithstanding, should we really
> assume that art has a responsibility to be rational? Criticism,
> maybe - but films?
Well, I have expected only the best from Godard. I don't think
there's any other artist I'd hold to a comparable standard.
Paul
8104
From: Raymond P.
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 5:44am
Subject: Re: Hong Kong International Film Festival 2004
Infernal Affair is OK - It's been out in Hong Kong for a while, and while i=
t is a well-crafted
film I still feel it is overly "showy" for my taste. The sequel is also goo=
d, but the third one
is disappointing and convoluted.
"Green Tea" I already missed at a previous Chinese Film Festival :( Sometim=
es there are just
too many films showing!
I am really considering to include Rivette's "The Story of Marie and Julien=
" somehow,
especially after the good reviews. I found "Va Savoir!" rather light, but I=
've been assured
that the new one is quite brilliant.
"Roads to Koktebel" is another that I'm not too happy skipping. As for "The=
Story of the
Weeping Camel", based upon the reviews I've read, it does not seem like a m=
ust-see to
me.
Thanks for your brief ratings though :)
Raymond
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Elizabeth Anne Nolan" wrote:
> Raymond,
> I've seen these at the Palm SPRINGS International FF; the **** I would
> like to see again.
> If you have a chance to see GREEN TEA or INFERNAL AFFAIRS, they
> were two of my favorites. Have already seen INFERNAL AFFAIRS again.
> OASIS, from last year, is also quite good.
> Elizabeth
>
> >
> > The Kite ***
> > Osama ****
> > Spring, Summer, Fall, Winter…and Spring ****
> > Twentynine Palms (many did not like this, felt a waste of time)
> > Crimson Gold ****
> > Distant ****
> > Since Otar Left ****
> > The Return ****
> > The Barbarian Invasions ** (too much philosophical dialogue
> for a subtitled movie for me; I would be glad to see it dubbed, so
> I could 'watch' the movie)
> > That Day ***
> > Elephant ****
> > Tokyo Godfathers ***
> > Goodbye Dragon Inn ****
>
> >
> > Unfortunately missing these:
> >
> > A Thousand Months ***
> > The Story of Marie and Julien ****
> > Roads to Koktebel ****
> > Bon Voyage **
> > The Story of Weeping Camel ****
8105
From: Raymond P.
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 5:46am
Subject: Re: Hong Kong International Film Festival 2004
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> Personally, I endorse A Talking Picture as one of the year's best,
> both fascinating and exhilarating.
>
> --Robert Keser
Is it anything like "The Uncertainty Principle"? I'm not a big fan of de Oliveira, and his
previous film grated on my nerves to no end.
- Raymond
8106
From: Raymond P.
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 5:49am
Subject: Re: Hong Kong International Film Festival 2004
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > I've just booked the tickets, and here's the films I'll be seeing:
>
> Looks like a good set of choices. SHARA is one of those rare modern
> movies that I think is going to belong to the auteurists: for some
> reason we seem to be the only ones responding heavily to it. I'd be
> interested to hear your comments on VIBRATOR, which I was very sorry to
> have missed at Toronto.
>
> Among the films you couldn't fit, I definitely found THE FLOWER OF EVIL
> worthy, though its dramaturgy was as unsatisfying to me as that of MERCI
> POUR LE CHOCOLAT. I wonder whether Chabrol is a few steps ahead of me,
> or whether he's simply getting careless with something that he is able
> to do very well. - Dan
I have also heard wonderful things about "Shara". As one of the few minorities who was
blown away by Kore-Eda's "Distance" (not to talk about his previous films), I've been told
that this would be right up my alley.
I am nowadays quite apprehensive of spending my time with Chabrol. His recent works
have been very uneven, and frankly he seems to not have advanced much since his
heydays. Plus, Isabelle Huppert is not in this one, and she's always one of the main
reasons why I watch Chabrol :p
- Raymond
8107
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 7:29am
Subject: Re: Night and Fog
David, thanks for the brilliant reading of Bulworth, one of my
favorite recent H'wd films. (Getting it greenlighted inside Murdoch's
media empire was apparently a whole story in itself.) The answer to
the Long Kiss Good Night riddle is: Look at the license plate on the
car with the dead Arab in it who is going to be the scapegoat for the
bombing.
Paul, I hold Godard to high standards, too - which is why I'm not
crazy about his last film - but that doesn't include taking his
statements in films as statements of the same kind one would expect
to find in a work of history. They aren't "pseudo-statements" (a New
Critical term I never use); I'm not sure what to call them. Take the
bald misstatement in Letter to Jane about Henry Fonda in Young Mr.
Lincoln looking at the slaves the same way Jane is looking at the
North Vietnamese. That's one look Fonda/Lincoln never gives in Young
Mr. Lincoln, and I'm pretty sure Godard was aware of that. So what
kind of statement is that? Or what kind of statement is it in
Contempt (hope I'm remembering this right) when he quotes Mourlet on
the nature of cinema and attributes the quote to Bazin, who held
diametrically opposed views?
By the way, on Godard and statements: Some writer is suing him - or
has sued him successfully - for plagiarizing her work (in Nouvelle
Vague, maybe? That's the one that's all quotes...) Should be an
interesting case to follow!
8108
From: Samuel Bréan
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 7:43am
Subject: Godard and statements
>By the way, on Godard and statements: Some writer is suing him - or
>has sued him successfully - for plagiarizing her work (in Nouvelle
>Vague, maybe? That's the one that's all quotes...) Should be an
>interesting case to follow!
The case about Godard's plagiarism concerns his use of writer Viviane
Forrester's text in "King Lear", only released two years ago in France. I
read this information in this month's "Cahiers," although it's more than a
month old. No French newspaper, to the best of my knowledge, has said
anthing about it so far. Here is an article from AFP about the case (sorry,
I haven't got the time to translate it right now):
Jean-Luc Godard condamné pour contrefaçon [01/22/04]
PARIS (AFP) - Le tribunal de grande instance de Paris a condamné mardi
Jean-Luc Godard pour contrefaçon, le cinéaste ayant utilisé dans son film
"King Lear" un texte de l'écrivain Viviane Forrester sans son autorisation,
a-t-on appris mercredi.
"En reproduisant et en diffusant dans ce film un paragraphe du livre +La
violence du calme+ sans l'autorisation de l'auteur et de l'éditeur, M.
Godard et la société Bodega Films ont commis des actes de contrefaçon
portant atteinte au droit moral de Mme Forrester et aux droits patrimoniaux
des éditions du Seuil", selon le jugement.
Le tribunal a interdit à Bodega Films de poursuivre la diffusion du film
tant qu'il ne sera pas fait mention au générique du fait que le texte est
extrait du livre de Viviane Forrester. Il a condamné le cinéaste et la
société de production à payer à Mme Forrester et à la maison d'édition 5.000
euros chacune à titre de dommages et intérêts. Le jugement devra être publié
dans deux journaux ou revues aux frais de M. Godard et Bodega Films.
(...)
Auteur du livre à succès "L'horreur économique" (1996), membre du jury
Femina, Viviane Forrester a exprimé à l'AFP sa "complète satisfaction
d'avoir gagné sur toute la ligne".
http://fr.news.yahoo.com/040121/202/3lp8e.html
_________________________________________________________________
Hotmail : un compte GRATUIT qui vous suit partout et tout le temps !
http://g.msn.fr/FR1000/9493
8109
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 2:21pm
Subject: Re: Godard and statements
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Samuel Bréan wrote:
> >By the way, on Godard and statements: Some writer is suing him - or
> >has sued him successfully - for plagiarizing her work (in Nouvelle
> >Vague, maybe? That's the one that's all quotes...) Should be an
> >interesting case to follow!
>
> The case about Godard's plagiarism concerns his use of writer Viviane
> Forrester's text in "King Lear", only released two years ago in
France. I
> read this information in this month's "Cahiers," although it's more
than a
> month old.
The case was discussed on the Godard mailing list.
I'll translate the court's statement: "By reproducing and
by distributing in this film a paragraph from the book,
La violence du calme, without the authorization of the
author and the editor, Mr. Godard and the company Bodega
Films committed acts of counterfeiting infringing on the
moral right of Mrs. Forrester and the property rights
of the publishers."
Here's an article from Variety.
THE PAY'S THE THING
Thu Jan 22, 7:00 PM ET
LIZA KLAUSSMANN
PARIS (Variety) --- A Paris court found Gallic helmer Jean-Luc
Godard guilty Tuesday of copyright infringement, after the
director used text by writer Viviane Forrester without
her authorization in his troubled production of "King
Lear."
"In reproducing and diffusing in this film a paragraph of
the book 'The Violence of the Calm' without the authorization
of the author and the editor, M. Godard and the company Bodega
Films have committed acts of copyright infringement against
Mme. Forrester and against Editions du Seuil," the court said.
The tribunal forbade Bodega to continue distribution of the
film, which was penned by Godard, Norman Mailer and Richard
Debuisne ("C'est le bouquet!"), until the passage is credited
to Forrester.
Furthermore, the helmer and the French distrib were ordered
to pay the author and the publisher E5,000 ($6,350) each in
damages and interest.
The verdict must also be published at the expense of Godard
in two newspapers or magazines.
The court's judgment is one in a long line of problems
"King Lear" has faced since its conception. Godard agreed
to do an adaptation of the Shakespeare play at Cannes in 1986,
signing a deal on a napkin with producers Menahem Golan
and Yoram Globus, of the now-defunct production outfit Cannon Films.
But when Godard showed a work print of the pic the following
year at the fest, the film was so far from the Bard's original
that the producers threatened to sue the helmer. Godard,
however, escaped a legal battle when Cannon folded a
month later.
Pic, which stars Godard, Woody Allen (news), Peter Sellers
(news), Burgess Meredith (news), Mailer, Leos Carax,
Julie Delpy (news) and Molly Ringwald (news), was later
bought by Bodega from Hollywood Classics. The distrib
finally released "King Lear" on a handful of screens in 2002,
15 years after it was first lensed.
Copyright © 2003 Reed Business Information, a division
of Reed Elsevier Inc.
I'll note that my posting the above might be copyright
infringement, but, if I understand correctly, Godard was
accused of something different -- passing off Forrester's work
as his own.
The discussion on the Godard list indicated how French law
was different from US law in this case. John Maguire wrote:
... unless the court is willing to accept evidence
on audience reception; unless the court is willing to accept
evidence that appropriationist-citationist art enjoys
certain rights as free-speech acitivity, then JLG's
nonattribution becomes subject to the description--
roughly accurate--afforded by the American terminology.
At worst, JLG's nonattribution is: implied, reverse
passing off.
... the French terminology licenses the
court to speak of "counterfeiting," a term that has--who
would deny it?-- a criminal connotation, and yes, a term
that, flashed across the Internet, constitutes a
grave and insupportable injury to Monsieur Godard's right to a
good name.
Padraig Trehy commented:
Copyright infringment is Godard's current political activity.
In an age dominated by fewer and fewer media conglomerates,
this disregard for corporate ownership is a powerful and
brave statement... In legal terms Godard indeed may be out
of line, but in moral and artistic terms he has done
nothing wrong. His quotations are indeed similar to the
ways in which writers steal from everyday life, all
creativity involves a certain amount of theft...
Paul
8110
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 2:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Night and Fog
--- Paul Gallagher wrote:
, anyone who refused to join him in
> celebrating "with
> great vim and gusto" the annihilation of the
> native peoples
> of the Americas was (in his words) self-hating,
> ridiculous,
> ignorant, and sinister. People who regard
> critically
> the genocide that was carried out in America's
> past,
> Hitchens continued, are simply reactionary, since
> such
> grossly inhuman atrocities "happen to be the way
> history is
> made". And thus "to complain about[them] is as
> empty as
> complaint about climatic, geological, or tectonic
> shift".
> Moreover, he added, such violence is worth
> glorifying since it
> more often than not has been for the long-term
> betterment
> of humankind - as in the United States today,
> where
> the extermination of the Native Americans - the
> American
> Indians - has brought about "a nearly boundless
> epoch
> of opportunity and innovation".
>
Thus supplying proof, as if any more were needed, that
Hitchens was never part of the left, but rather a
simple fascist in liberal clothing.
His antipathy to Gibson is simply part and parcel of
his dislike of Catholicism, coupled with bisexual
self-loathing.
But is editing camp footage next to
> Elizabeth Taylor
> in A Place in the Sun right? (Stevens had earlier
> filmed the
> camps.) It's affecting -- like a memento mori in a
> painting. But
> does it tell us anything about the Holocaust or the
> cinema's complicity in it? I don't really think of
> the cinema
> as complicit -- I don't think history works that
> way.
>
Godard'spoint was that the confrontation of the camps
led Stevens towards the beauty ofElizabeth Taylor in
"A Place in the Sun" -- carrying with it an aura of
shock and horror. Stevens was a comedy director before
the war. Afterwards-- drama all the way, save for the
melancholy romance of "The Only Game in Town."
For me the Stevens film most marked by his
confromntation with the camps is "I Remember Mama."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
8111
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 4:33pm
Subject: The Simpsons and the X-Files weigh in on art and truth
While reading these threads, I was watching TV, and the Simpsons
and the X-Files offered some comments that might (or might
not) provide some insight.
First, from the Simpsons, Leonard Nimoy introduces the episode:
Hello. I'm Leonard Nimoy. The following tale of alien
encounters is true. And by true, I mean false. It's all lies.
But they're entertaining lies. And in the end, isn't that
the real truth? The answer is: No.
Then, from the X-Files, an episode in which a silly Hollywood
film is made of the agents' encounter with the resurrection of the
dead.
Mulder: No, no, it's just beginning. Hoffman and O'Fallon were
these complicated, flawed, beautiful people and now they'll just be
remembered as jokes because of this movie. The character based on
O'Fallon is listed in the credits as Cigarette-Smoking Pontiff. How
silly is that?
Scully: Pretty silly.
Mulder: Yeah, what about us? How are we going to be remembered now
'cause of this movie?
Scully: Well, hopefully, the movie will tank.
Mulder: What about all the dead people who are forever silent and
can't tell their stories any more? They're all going to have to rely
on Hollywood to show the future how we lived and it'll all become...
oversimplified and trivialised and Cigarette-Smoking Pontificised and
become as plastic and meaningless as this stupid plastic Lazarus Bowl.
Scully: I think the dead are beyond caring what people think about
them. Hopefully we can adopt the same attitude. You do know that there
aren't real dead people out there, right? That this is a movie set?
Mulder: The dead are everywhere, Scully.
8112
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Mon Mar 8, 2004 10:08pm
Subject: Spalding Gray
His body was found in the East River over the weekend. This is quite
unfortunate, I really enjoyed his monologue films and felt he had a
powerful, inimitable screen presence in other films. This makes me
very sad, as I was quietly hoping he'd just gone off to a shack in
Montana or something, grown his hair down to his ankles, etc.
Damn.
-Jaime
8113
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 1:57am
Subject: The Vatican Film List of 1995
I was reading about THE SEVENTH SEAL and came across this listing.
The Vatican Film List
Article by Steven D. Greydanus and Jimmy Akin
I was reading about THE SEVENTH SEAL and came across this listing.
In 1995, to mark the hundredth anniversary of the motion picture,
the Pontifical Council for Social Communications issued a list of
forty-five noteworthy films, each of which is distinguished by
special religious, artistic, or moral worth. The films are
listed under the three headings of Religion, Art, and Values, with
fifteen films in each category.
Titled simply "Some Important Films," this document is not
meant to offer a set of definitive or magisterial "top
fifteen" lists, nor to establish these particular films as
definitely more worthwhile than any film that was not included.
"Not all that deserve mention are included," the pontifical
council acknowledged in releasing the list.
Furthermore, in recognizing the merits of these particular films,
the council by no means endorsed everything these films contain,
or gave them any kind of imprimatur or blanket ecclesiastical
approval. Movies, like other works of culture, are seldom if ever
perfect. Even with good or important ones, the viewer must be
able to think critically and sort out the good from the bad.
Thus, the films listed in, for instance, the "Values"category
do possess special moral worth, but that doesn't mean that they
are perfect even with respect to moral content — and certainly
not with respect to religious or artistic significance, which are not
endorsed in any way. Likewise, there is no endorsement of the
religious or moral ideas of the "Art" films; these films were
included because they were landmarks in the art of
cinematography, not because of religious or moral values.
For example, Kubrick's landmark film 2001: A Space Odyssey is
rightly recognized as an extraordinary cinematic achievement,
but the council in no way endorses the secular worldview
underlying that film's non-theistic ascent-of-man mythology.
The pontifical council also recognized the religious significance of
Pier Paolo Pasolini's The Gospel According to Matthew even
though Pasolini himself was a Marxist.
Below are the forty-five films named on the Vatican film list, with
their dates and countries of origin as listed in the Internet Movie
Database (IMDb).
A few of these films have been reviewed by the Decent Films Guide
(with more to come, God willing, in the months to come); those titles
are linked to the appropriate reviews on this site. Additionally, an
asterisk (*) after each title links to that movie's entry in
the IMDb .
Dubbed or subtitled versions for almost all of the foreign films are
available for English speakers, and you will be surprised how many of
them the major American video chains will have in stock.
So, what would you like to watch tonight?
© 2000 Steven D. Greydanus and Jimmy Akin. All rights reserved.
"Some Important Films" for the 100th Anniversary of Cinema
Pontifical Council for Social Communications
1995
Religion
Andrei Rublev *Andrei Tarkowsky (1969, USSR)
The Mission *Roland Joffé (1986, UK)
La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (The Passion of Joan of Arc )*Carl T.
Dreyer (1928, France)
La vie et la passion de Jésus Christ (Life and Passion of Christ)*
Ferdinand Zecca and Lucien Nonguet (1905, France) Identified
on the Vatican film list as La Passion Pathé
Francesco, giullare di Dio (The Flowers of St. Francis /Francis,
God's Jester )*Roberto Rossellini (1950, Italy)
Il vangelo secondo Matteo (The Gospel According to Matthew )*
Pier Paolo Pasolini (1964, France/Italy)
Thérèse *Alain Cavalier (1986, France)
Ordet (The World )*Carl T. Dreyer (1955, Denmark)
Ofret (The Sacrifice )*Andrei Tarkowsky (1986, Sweden/UK/France)
Francesco (St. Francis of Assisi )*Liliana Cavani (1989,
Italy/Germany)
Ben-Hur *William Wyler (1959, USA)
Babettes gæstebud (Babette's Feast )*Gabriel Axel (1987,
Denmark)
Nazarín *Luis Buñuel (1958, Mexico)
Monsieur Vincent *Maurice Cloche (1947, France)
A Man for All Seasons *Fred Zinnemann (1966, UK)
Values
Gandhi *Richard Attenborough (1982, UK/USA/India)
Intolerance *D. W. Griffith (1916, USA)
Dekalog (Decalogue )*(Note: Dekalog is a ten-part series of one-hour
films. The asterisk links to the IMDb entry for the first episode.)
Krzysztof Kieslowski (1988, Poland) Identified on the Vatican film
list as Il Decalogo
Au Revoir, Les Enfants (Goodbye, Children )*Louis Malle (1987,
France)
Dersu Uzala *Akira Kurosawa (1974, Japan)
L'albero degli zoccoli (The Tree of the Wooden Clogs )*Ermanno
Olmi (1978, Italy/France)
Roma, città aperta (Open City )*Roberto Rossellini (1946, Italy)
Smultronstället (Wild Strawberries )*Ingmar Bergman (1957, Sweden)
Det sjunde inseglet (The Seventh Seal )*Ingmar Bergman (1957, Sweden)
Chariots of Fire *Hugh Hudson (1981, UK)
Ladri di biciclette (The Bicycle Thief )*Vittorio de Sica (1948,
Italy)
It's a Wonderful Life *Frank Capra (1946, USA)
Schindler's List *Steven Spielberg (1993, USA)
On the Waterfront *Elia Kazan (1954, USA)
Biruma No Tategoto (The Burmese Harp )*Kon Ichikawa (1956, Japan)
Art
2001: A Space Odyssey *Stanley Kubrick (1968, UK/USA)
La Strada *Federico Fellini (1954, Italy)
Citizen Kane *Orson Welles (1941, USA)
Metropolis *Fritz Lang (1927, Germany)
Modern Times *Charlie Chaplin (1936, USA)
Napoléon *Abel Gance (1927, Italy)
8 1/2 *Federico Fillini (1963, Italy)
La grande illusion (Grand Illusion )*Jean Renoir (1937, France)
Nosferatu *F. W. Murnau (1922, Germany)
Stagecoach *John Ford (1939, USA)
Il Gattopardo (The Leopard )*Luchino Visconti (1963, Italy/France)
Fantasia *(1940, USA)
The Wizard of Oz *Victor Fleming (1939, USA)
The Lavender Hill Mob *Charles Crichton (1951, UK)
Little Women *George Cukor (1933, USA)
8114
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 5:36am
Subject: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
Elizabeth Nolan wrote: > I was reading about THE SEVENTH SEAL and
came across this listing. > The Vatican Film List
1995: "a list of forty-five noteworthy films, each of which is
distinguished by special religious, artistic, or moral worth. The
films are listed under the three headings of Religion, Art, and
Values, with fifteen films in each category."
>
> Religion
>
> Andrei Rublev *Andrei Tarkowsky (1969, USSR)
> The Mission *Roland Joffé (1986, UK)
> La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (The Passion of Joan of Arc )*Carl T.
> Dreyer (1928, France)
> La vie et la passion de Jésus Christ (Life and Passion of Christ)*
> Ferdinand Zecca and Lucien Nonguet (1905, France) Identified
> on the Vatican film list as La Passion Pathé
> Francesco, giullare di Dio (The Flowers of St. Francis /Francis,
> God's Jester )*Roberto Rossellini (1950, Italy)
> Il vangelo secondo Matteo (The Gospel According to Matthew )*
> Pier Paolo Pasolini (1964, France/Italy)
> Thérèse *Alain Cavalier (1986, France)
> Ordet (The World )*Carl T. Dreyer (1955, Denmark)
> Ofret (The Sacrifice )*Andrei Tarkowsky (1986, Sweden/UK/France)
> Francesco (St. Francis of Assisi )*Liliana Cavani (1989,
> Italy/Germany)
> Ben-Hur *William Wyler (1959, USA)
> Babettes gæstebud (Babette's Feast )*Gabriel Axel (1987,
> Denmark)
> Nazarín *Luis Buñuel (1958, Mexico)
> Monsieur Vincent *Maurice Cloche (1947, France)
> A Man for All Seasons *Fred Zinnemann (1966, UK)
>
Nazarin? That goes in my Bunuel book. Thanks, ER!
8115
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 6:06am
Subject: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
I wonder: is the Vatican more auteurist than all the other list-making
organizations in the world? Or is it just hard to make a list of films
about religion without including a bunch of auteurist classics? - Dan
> Below are the forty-five films named on the Vatican film list, with
> their dates and countries of origin as listed in the Internet Movie
> Database (IMDb).
>
> Religion
>
> Andrei Rublev *Andrei Tarkowsky (1969, USSR)
> The Mission *Roland Joffé (1986, UK)
> La passion de Jeanne d'Arc (The Passion of Joan of Arc )*Carl T.
> Dreyer (1928, France)
> La vie et la passion de Jésus Christ (Life and Passion of Christ)*
> Ferdinand Zecca and Lucien Nonguet (1905, France) Identified
> on the Vatican film list as La Passion Pathé
> Francesco, giullare di Dio (The Flowers of St. Francis /Francis,
> God's Jester )*Roberto Rossellini (1950, Italy)
> Il vangelo secondo Matteo (The Gospel According to Matthew )*
> Pier Paolo Pasolini (1964, France/Italy)
> Thérèse *Alain Cavalier (1986, France)
> Ordet (The World )*Carl T. Dreyer (1955, Denmark)
> Ofret (The Sacrifice )*Andrei Tarkowsky (1986, Sweden/UK/France)
> Francesco (St. Francis of Assisi )*Liliana Cavani (1989,
> Italy/Germany)
> Ben-Hur *William Wyler (1959, USA)
> Babettes gæstebud (Babette's Feast )*Gabriel Axel (1987,
> Denmark)
> Nazarín *Luis Buñuel (1958, Mexico)
> Monsieur Vincent *Maurice Cloche (1947, France)
> A Man for All Seasons *Fred Zinnemann (1966, UK)
>
> Values
>
> Gandhi *Richard Attenborough (1982, UK/USA/India)
> Intolerance *D. W. Griffith (1916, USA)
> Dekalog (Decalogue )*(Note: Dekalog is a ten-part series of one-hour
> films. The asterisk links to the IMDb entry for the first episode.)
> Krzysztof Kieslowski (1988, Poland) Identified on the Vatican film
> list as Il Decalogo
> Au Revoir, Les Enfants (Goodbye, Children )*Louis Malle (1987,
> France)
> Dersu Uzala *Akira Kurosawa (1974, Japan)
> L'albero degli zoccoli (The Tree of the Wooden Clogs )*Ermanno
> Olmi (1978, Italy/France)
> Roma, città aperta (Open City )*Roberto Rossellini (1946, Italy)
> Smultronstället (Wild Strawberries )*Ingmar Bergman (1957, Sweden)
> Det sjunde inseglet (The Seventh Seal )*Ingmar Bergman (1957, Sweden)
> Chariots of Fire *Hugh Hudson (1981, UK)
> Ladri di biciclette (The Bicycle Thief )*Vittorio de Sica (1948,
> Italy)
> It's a Wonderful Life *Frank Capra (1946, USA)
> Schindler's List *Steven Spielberg (1993, USA)
> On the Waterfront *Elia Kazan (1954, USA)
> Biruma No Tategoto (The Burmese Harp )*Kon Ichikawa (1956, Japan)
>
> Art
>
> 2001: A Space Odyssey *Stanley Kubrick (1968, UK/USA)
> La Strada *Federico Fellini (1954, Italy)
> Citizen Kane *Orson Welles (1941, USA)
> Metropolis *Fritz Lang (1927, Germany)
> Modern Times *Charlie Chaplin (1936, USA)
> Napoléon *Abel Gance (1927, Italy)
> 8 1/2 *Federico Fillini (1963, Italy)
> La grande illusion (Grand Illusion )*Jean Renoir (1937, France)
> Nosferatu *F. W. Murnau (1922, Germany)
> Stagecoach *John Ford (1939, USA)
> Il Gattopardo (The Leopard )*Luchino Visconti (1963, Italy/France)
> Fantasia *(1940, USA)
> The Wizard of Oz *Victor Fleming (1939, USA)
> The Lavender Hill Mob *Charles Crichton (1951, UK)
> Little Women *George Cukor (1933, USA)
8116
From: Fred Camper
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 6:38am
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
hotlove666 wrote:
>Nazarin? That goes in my Bunuel book. Thanks, ER!
>
Do I remember right that "Nazarin" incurred the wrath of Catholics,
including perhaps the Catholic Church itself, when it was first released?
- Fred
8117
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 7:51am
Subject: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
> Do I remember right that "Nazarin" incurred the wrath of Catholics,
> including perhaps the Catholic Church itself, when it was first
released?
>
> - Fred
Not according to My Last Sigh: "Of all the films I made in Mexico,
Nazarin is one of my favorites. Despite the misunderstandings about
its real subject, it was reasonably successful. At the Cannes
Festival, however, where it won the Grand Prix International, it
almost received the Prix de l'Office Catholique as well." [I love
that 'however'!] "Three members of the jury argued passionately for
it, but happily, they were in them minority. Also, Jacques Prevert,
an adamant anticleric, regretted that I'd given a priest the leading
role. 'It's ridiculous to worry about THEIR problems,' he told me,
believing as he did that all priests were thoroughly reprehensible.
"The misunderstanding, which some people referred to as my 'attempt
at personal rehabilitation,' went on for quite some time. After the
election of Pope John XXIII, I was actually invited to New York,
where the abominable Spellman's successor, Cardinal Somebody-or-
Other, wanted to give me an award for the film."
The "real theme" I assume he JB referring to is also that of his
ppreceding Mexican film, La fievere monte a El Pao (aka Republic of
Sin), where it is treated in a purely Marxist-Freudian fashion. He
mentions in the memoir that the episode of the dying woman in the
scene of the plague in Nazarin was interpolated from Sade's Dialogue
entre un pretre et un moribond.
Dan, the really shocking omission in the Vatican's list - which
generally beats the AFI list and others like it all hollow, I agree -
is Diary of a Country Priest. Zinnemann but no Bresson? Lord, forgive
them.
8118
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 9:26am
Subject: Origins of THE DREAMERS
In Zouzou's recently published autobiography (what a life!: Brian Jones,
Garrel, Bob Dylan, Rohmer ... ) there is some information that casts an
intriguing light on the origin of Bertolucci's THE DREAMERS. She says that
in 1964 - 40 years ago! - Bertolucci proposed a project to her about a
brother and sister and their male friend in a triangular relationship. And
with a dream radical-60s cast: Zouzou, Jean-Pierre Léaud and Lou Castel, all
of of course extremely young and wild and beautiful at the time (and for a
long time thereafter!). It was to be a film about 'homosexuality and incest'
- and as Zouzou drolly adds, it fell over as a project because (I am
paraphrasing from memory) 'it was hard enough to get a film about one of
these subjects accepted and made, let alone both'.
How happy Bertolucci must have been to eventually stumble upon Gilbert
Adair's book THE HOLY INNOCENTS, which has something like that 1964
storyline - although of course both Bertolucci and Adair were likely working
from the inspiration of the same basic source, Cocteau's ENFANTS TERRIBLES.
It was fascinating to read on this list about how Michael Pitt has declared
that there was a gay sex scene in the script, but that it was dropped. Now
the big question is: is this the same scene Adair alludes to his SIGHT AND
SOUND account of the shoot, where he indicates that a certain key scene (he
doesn't say what's in it) was thrown out on the day it was to be shot
BECAUSE THE THREE YOUNG ACTORS TOOK A STAND AGAINST IT, arguing that their
characters simply would not do this? Whatever happened, and why - whose
squeamishness was it, really, in play? - the film lost what I feel could
have been a key dimension.
Adrian
8119
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 2:38pm
Subject: Re: Origins of THE DREAMERS
The project you're referring was called "Natura Contra
natura." And in addition to Leaud and Castel it would
have starred. . . .Allen Midgette. Zouzou's
participation is news to me -- though not surprising.
--- Adrian Martin wrote:
It was to be a film about
> 'homosexuality and incest'
> - and as Zouzou drolly adds, it fell over as a
> project because (I am
> paraphrasing from memory) 'it was hard enough to get
> a film about one of
> these subjects accepted and made, let alone both'.
>
.
>
> It was fascinating to read on this list about how
> Michael Pitt has declared
> that there was a gay sex scene in the script, but
> that it was dropped. Now
> the big question is: is this the same scene Adair
> alludes to his SIGHT AND
> SOUND account of the shoot, where he indicates that
> a certain key scene (he
> doesn't say what's in it) was thrown out on the day
> it was to be shot
> BECAUSE THE THREE YOUNG ACTORS TOOK A STAND AGAINST
> IT, arguing that their
> characters simply would not do this? Whatever
> happened, and why - whose
> squeamishness was it, really, in play? - the film
> lost what I feel could
> have been a key dimension.
>
>
I'm sure Pitt is telling the truth and Gilbert is
lying.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
8120
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 3:17pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
> Dan, the really shocking omission in the Vatican's list - which
> generally beats the AFI list and others like it all hollow, I agree -
> is Diary of a Country Priest. Zinnemann but no Bresson? Lord, forgive
> them.
Yeah, how'd they miss that?
I wonder if they used Rohmer or somebody as a consultant.
I was going to write, "And yet, they managed to honor, not only BEN-HUR
and A MAN FOR ALL SEASONS, but also the 80s equivalents of these
anti-auteurist landmarks, BABETTE'S FEAST and AU REVOIR, LES ENFANTS."
Then I remembered that we would surely not arrive at a consensus here
about the vices of any film from that period. It's kind of humbling
that the unified auteurist front of the 50s and 60s dissolved as soon
as...as soon as what? The classical Hollywood cinema went away? Sarris
became an unreliable narrator?
I do remember, though, how Gary Drucker and I were so relieved to
discover that we both hated AU REVOIR (a lonely opinion at the time)
that we gleefully trashed the film for hours. Felt like the old days. - Dan
8121
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 3:27pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
>
> I do remember, though, how Gary Drucker and I were
> so relieved to
> discover that we both hated AU REVOIR (a lonely
> opinion at the time)
> that we gleefully trashed the film for hours. Felt
> like the old days. - Dan
>
What do you guys hate so much about "Reservoir Dogs,"
Dan?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
8122
From:
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 3:38pm
Subject: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
"The Tree of Wooden Clogs" (Olmi) is one of my all-time favorite films. Has anybody ever seen his "A Man Named John", about Pope John? Keep hoping this will show up somewhere.
On "Babette's Feast". I did not not like this much when seen in the theater. But in later years, watching it again on TV, it looked much more interesting. Now am fond of it.
This is the only "food movie" have ever really liked. These movies just keep showing up in our local art houses, and always draw big crowds, despite having subtitles. People in the audience clearly love them. They are inoffensive, but never really excite me. Fell asleep in the middle of "Like Water for Chocolate"... "Big Night", "Eat Drink Man Woman", "1001 Recipes of a Chef in Love", "Mostly Martha"... am the only one in the audience not interested. They tend not to show up on the Film Lists of a_film_by posters, either.
Mike Grost
8123
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 3:47pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
> What do you guys hate so much about "Reservoir Dogs,"
We'll know the church is really keeping up with the times when they put
RESERVOIR DOGS on their all-time list.
"Tarantino's landmark film is rightly recognized as an extraordinary
cinematic achievement, but the council in no way endorses its morals,
views on religion, or anything else about it."
- Dan
8124
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 3:51pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
Methinks you missed the reference, Dan.
You know where the title "Reservoir Dogs" comes from,
right?
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > What do you guys hate so much about "Reservoir
> Dogs,"
>
> We'll know the church is really keeping up with the
> times when they put
> RESERVOIR DOGS on their all-time list.
>
> "Tarantino's landmark film is rightly recognized as
> an extraordinary
> cinematic achievement, but the council in no way
> endorses its morals,
> views on religion, or anything else about it."
>
> - Dan
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
8125
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 3:52pm
Subject: Food Films (was: The Vatican Film List of 1995)
Mike wrote:
> On "Babette's Feast". I did not not like this much when seen in the
theater. But in later years, watching it again on TV, it looked much
more interesting. Now am fond of it.
> This is the only "food movie" have ever really liked. These movies
just keep showing up in our local art houses, and always draw big
crowds, despite having subtitles. People in the audience clearly love
them. They are inoffensive, but never really excite me. Fell asleep
in the middle of "Like Water for Chocolate"... "Big Night", "Eat
Drink Man Woman", "1001 Recipes of a Chef in Love", "Mostly
Martha"... am the only one in the audience not interested. They tend
not to show up on the Film Lists of a_film_by posters, either.
Very interesting observations. I wasn't really aware of the genre,
but now that you mention it, I recall being dragged by a former
middlebrow friend named Beverly to see A Scent of Green Papaya, where
part of the ticket was a dinner after the movie at which the dishes
in the film were served. As I recall, the film was quite well shot
and the dinner very tasty, but I was hungry again two hours after
both.
8126
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 3:54pm
Subject: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
> >
> > We'll know the church is really keeping up with the
> > times when they put
> > RESERVOIR DOGS on their all-time list.
> >
> > "Tarantino's landmark film is rightly recognized as
> > an extraordinary
> > cinematic achievement, but the council in no way
> > endorses its morals,
> > views on religion, or anything else about it."
Actually I consider all of Tarantino's films highly moral, but I
wouldn't expect the Pontiff to agree.
8127
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 3:56pm
Subject: Y Tu Mama Tambien
While we're temporarily not talking about Lola Montez, I have a
question: How come the two boys are premature ejaculators with Luisa
when we've seen one of them have to practically kill himself to
ejaculate in his gf before she has to catch her plane at the
beginning? I hate stuff like that in movies that doesn't add up....
8128
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 4:03pm
Subject: Re: Y Tu Mama Tambien
Those ejaculations were FAR from premature.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> While we're temporarily not talking about Lola
> Montez, I have a
> question: How come the two boys are premature
> ejaculators with Luisa
> when we've seen one of them have to practically kill
> himself to
> ejaculate in his gf before she has to catch her
> plane at the
> beginning? I hate stuff like that in movies that
> doesn't add up....
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
8129
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 4:21pm
Subject: Re: Y Tu Mama Tambien
Different strokes for different folks.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Those ejaculations were FAR from premature.
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
> > How come the two boys are premature
> > ejaculators with Luisa
> > when we've seen one of them have to practically kill
> > himself to
> > ejaculate in his gf before she has to catch her
> > plane at the
> > beginning? > >
> >
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search - Find what you're looking for faster
> http://search.yahoo.com
8130
From: Doug Cummings
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 4:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
>hotlove666 wrote:
>
>>Nazarin? That goes in my Bunuel book. Thanks, ER!
>>
>Do I remember right that "Nazarin" incurred the wrath of Catholics,
>including perhaps the Catholic Church itself, when it was first released?
I believe it did, but we should remember that there is a difference
between "Catholic groups" and the Vatican, too. What's the Catholic
group that opposed "Dogma" and all? I can't remember their name, but
I know they're an independent orgnization and not "official" in any
way.
This Vatican list has been floating around the 'Net for some time and
I think it's admirable. If it is an auteurist approach, Bresson is a
striking omission.
"Nazarin" is a wonderful film, much more serious in tone and dramatic
than many of Bunuel's other films. I highly recommend it, especially
as an antidote to Gibson's film in many ways. Carlos Fuentes wrote a
good essay on the film in the new _Hidden God_ book published by MoMA.
Doug
8131
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 4:33pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
Doug Cummings wrote:
> "Nazarin" is a wonderful film, much more serious in tone and dramatic
> than many of Bunuel's other films.
Yeah, that's my favorite Bunuel.
David Ehrenstein wrote:
> Methinks you missed the reference, Dan.
>
> You know where the title "Reservoir Dogs" comes from,
> right?
I did miss the reference. Don't keep me in suspense! - Dan
8132
From: filipefurtado
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 4:40pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
> Then I remembered that we would surely not arrive at a conse
nsus here
> about the vices of any film from that period. It's kind of
humbling
> that the unified auteurist front of the 50s and 60s dissolve
d as soon
> as...as soon as what? The classical Hollywood cinema went a
way? Sarris
> became an unreliable narrator?
>
I guess the question is: did it ever was that unified?
As for Au Revoir is average Malle, which I guess means it's
so easy to beat it´s not even worthy it.
Filipe
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
8133
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 4:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
--- Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I did miss the reference. Don't keep me in
> suspense! - Dan
>
>
In his days as a video store clerk the incident that
stood out most in his mind was a customer asking him
for "The 'Reservoir Dogs' movie." After going back and
forth a bit Tarantino realized the movie being
requested was . . ."Au Revoir les Enfants."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
8134
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 5:00pm
Subject: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "filipefurtado"
wrote:
> > Then I remembered that we would surely not arrive at a conse
> nsus here
> > about the vices of any film from that period. It's kind of
> humbling
> > that the unified auteurist front of the 50s and 60s dissolve
> d as soon
> > as...as soon as what? The classical Hollywood cinema went a
> way? Sarris
> > became an unreliable narrator?
> >
>
> I guess the question is: did it ever was that unified?
>
> > > That may be the question, as Hamlet would say. Even in France
there were terrible battles about the relative merits of directors
Sarris put in the same categories, and big disagreements between
Positif and Cahiers, and within both magazines (Douchet contra Bazin
on Bunuel, for example, later recanted): Take a look at Robert
Benayoun's 10 Best List for 1968 sometime, and compare it to Michel
Ciment's! It may be that Sarris's gift for synthesis permitted the
united front Dan is talking about, which collapsed as soon as Sarris
went...whatever he went...and everyone was thrown back on his own
devices. Also, as Sarris points out in the introduction to The
American Cinema, he was writing about the past in that book. The
present is much messier: no soone rdid that book appear than we were
dealing with the American New Wave and a near revolution over
Vietnam. Lastly, we needed and still need more categories than just
auteur/non-auteur to deal with people like Malle, who made at least
one great film, and had his themes etc., but didn't cut the mustard
most of the time.
8135
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 5:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
--- hotlove666 wrote:
Lastly, we needed and still need more
> categories than just
> auteur/non-auteur to deal with people like Malle,
> who made at least
> one great film, and had his themes etc., but didn't
> cut the mustard
> most of the time.
>
>
I find more than sufficient mustard in "Le Feu
Follet," "Zazie dans le Metro," "Atlantic City" and
"Vanya on 42nd Street."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
8136
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 5:57pm
Subject: Re: Y Tu Mama Tambien
I like YTMT, but what I did not like was having twenty plus year olds playing older
teen characters acting like young teenage boys. I don't know the exact ages but the
behavior in the pool area was like young adolescent boys.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> While we're temporarily not talking about Lola Montez, I have a
> question: How come the two boys are premature ejaculators with Luisa
> when we've seen one of them have to practically kill himself to
> ejaculate in his gf before she has to catch her plane at the
> beginning? I hate stuff like that in movies that doesn't add up....
8137
From: filipefurtado
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 5:57pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
>
> I find more than sufficient mustard in "Le Feu
> Follet," "Zazie dans le Metro," "Atlantic City" and
> "Vanya on 42nd Street."
Actually, David I think all these films (with the exception
of Zazie which I haven´t seen) are very worthy. The problem
is that the guy is also responsible for Elevator to the
Gallows, Pretty Baby, My Dinner with Andre, Au Revoir, Les
Enfants, May Fools... to mention only the ones that came to
my mind.
Filipe
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
> http://search.yahoo.com
>
>
> ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor -------------
--------~-->
> Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP, Epson, Canon
or Lexmark
> Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or more to the
US & Canada.
> http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/b5IolB/TM
> ------------------------------------------------------------
---------~->
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
8138
From: monis9@m...
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 6:13pm
Subject: RE: Re: Y Tu Mama Tambien
hotlove666 wrote:
> > How come the two boys are premature
> > ejaculators with Luisa
> > when we've seen one of them have to practically kill
> > himself to
> > ejaculate in his gf before she has to catch her
> > plane at the
> > beginning? > >
> >
It's been awhile since I've seen this film, but if I recall I found the
film to be a lot about desires. As sex goes one cannot climax easily in an
undesirable place or situation. Could it be that sex with his girlfriend
at the beginning had become mundane to him? and that even the thought of
sex with this women made him very excited ... must remember also that this
excitment would be building up and kept internal in fantasies, making the
desire much great, making him want to get to that point much quicker. I
think there is an interesting parallel there, though I may be missing
something, again it's been awhile since seeing the film.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
8139
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 6:22pm
Subject: Re: Duh Passion
I know, I know... A very good comment on the Gospels, if not the
film, was in last week's NYorker by Elaine Pagels, who puts the
writing of those books in historical context. To which I add my
own two cents, and voila: All four were written after the
destruction by the Romans of the Second Temple in Jerusalem,
so any and all "prophecies" of God's wrath being visited on the
Jews for killing Him are on par with scenes in movies set in, say,
1763 where a British statesman played by Ian Holm murmurs, "I
wager these colonials - these 'Americans' - will be heard from
again...." That kind of after-the-fact futurology plus a desire to
curry favor with the Romans, who were then top dog in the region
and eventually became the Christian Church's main sponsor,
explain the bizarre apportioning of responsibility for the
crucifixion in the Good Book. Other accounts of Pontius Pilate (by
Josephus, for example) describe him as a vicious gangster.
Still haven't seen it.
8140
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 7:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
Thanks for reminding me. I'd also include "Pretty
Baby" and "Elevator to the Gallows."
--- filipefurtado wrote:
>
> Actually, David I think all these films (with the
> exception
> of Zazie which I haven´t seen) are very worthy. The
> problem
> is that the guy is also responsible for Elevator to
> the
> Gallows, Pretty Baby, My Dinner with Andre, Au
> Revoir, Les
> Enfants, May Fools... to mention only the ones that
> came to
> my mind.
>
> Filipe
>
> >
> >
> > __________________________________
> > Do you Yahoo!?
> > Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for
> faster
> > http://search.yahoo.com
> >
> >
> > ------------------------ Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> -------------
> --------~-->
> > Buy Ink Cartridges or Refill Kits for your HP,
> Epson, Canon
> or Lexmark
> > Printer at MyInks.com. Free s/h on orders $50 or
> more to the
> US & Canada.
> > http://www.c1tracking.com/l.asp?cid=5511
> >
>
http://us.click.yahoo.com/mOAaAA/3exGAA/qnsNAA/b5IolB/TM
> >
>
------------------------------------------------------------
> ---------~->
> >
> >
> > Yahoo! Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
> >
>
>
> ---
> Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
> AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
> http://antipopup.uol.com.br
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
8141
From: Robert Keser
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 10:25pm
Subject: Peter Watkins Gives Up, Cites Critical Abuse
The following is from today's the Globe and Mail (Toronto):
Watkins throws in the towel
By GAYLE MacDONALD
UPDATED AT 5:22 PM EST Tuesday, Mar. 9, 2004
Peter Watkins, the groundbreaking filmmaker whose works include
Culloden and The War Game, has announced he's had it with unduly
harsh critics in the media, and is calling it quits.
The final straw, the British-born film artist said Sunday night
through a spokesman at a Toronto screening, was a recent article
about a retrospective, called Uncomfortable Truth: The Cinema of
Peter Watkins, which just concluded at Cinematheque Ontario. The
piece, written in early February by John Bentley Mays in The Globe
and Mail, was largely complimentary, calling Watkins "one of the
most extraordinary film artists of the late 20th century," but added
the filmmaker's "very bleak, stark world-view as a problem worth
noting, and arguing about." That "world-view," the journalist noted,
is more "simple and simplistic than his art at its best."
That was one of the triggers that apparently set off Watkins, who
moved with his wife to Hamilton two years ago to reportedly seek a
safe haven for his art.
At the Sunday-night screening, the artist's spokesman told a packed
theatre who had come to see Watkins's six-hour La Commune (Paris,
1871) that he can no longer bear what has been 40 years of
unrelenting, critical abuse, which has marginalized his art.
Last night, the Cinematheque tribute was to conclude with a public
discussion about Watkins's work. It had to be cancelled since the
director declined to attend.
In a seven-page open letter, Watkins wrote yesterday he is throwing
in the towel on a four-decade-long career because he's had it
with "the new era of (media) McCarthyism" and "many other attempts
by the mass audiovisual media to marginalize my work." He called The
Globe and Mail article "extremely unpleasant and disrespectful."
"I have been wondering what to do since the publication of The Globe
and Mail article," Watkins wrote. "I realize that a public statement
that I will withdraw from filmmaking is now meaningless, since I no
longer make films anyway. . . . What I know for sure, is that I do
not have a thick enough skin to continue in the present media
environment; that assaults and systematic blockings have become a
kind of toxic overload in terms of my emotional and physical health."
Yesterday, Mays said Watkins's decision to commit hari-kari in our
midst "very distressing."
"I have great respect for his art. And this is not lethal criticism.
I do not feel like I'm part of a mass media conspiracy to destroy
Peter Watkins," Mays added. "I feel it's deeply presumptuous of him
to presume that.
"If anything, Peter Watkins's criticism of mass media needs to be
more fully heard. I believe that. And it saddens me greatly, even if
I weren't involved, to hear an artist has decided the criticism of
his art is such that he can't continue."
In the sixties, Watkins was commissioned by the BBC to make two
feature-length docudramas that used a newsreel style and non-
professional actors. The second, The War Game (1965), portrayed the
nightmare of nuclear war and was banned from broadcast. It was later
released in theatres and won a best documentary Oscar in 1966.
This newspaper was not the only target for Watkins's ire. He also
heaped criticism on the CBC, "whose kind of programming policy
forces documentary filmmakers in Canada to reduce complex themes to
a 42-minute time slot," as well as the Banff TV Foundation and Hot
Docs film festival, both of whom "damage the integrity of the
documentary movement by endorsing the practice of 'pitching,' which
forces filmmakers to publicly grovel for funding to panels of TV
commissioning editors." Watkins also criticized Canadian
universities, who took no interest in his work and critical ideas,
and the National Film Board, "who has indicated in a very pointed
way (silence) over the past two years, that it does not want me
involved in the education or training of young Canadian filmmakers."
Piers Handling, director of the Toronto International Film Festival,
said yesterday it is "sad to think that his distinctive and unique
voice will not be making new work, harder in light of the fact that
his last work -- La Commune -- showed he had lost none of his power
as a filmmaker; indeed I thought it was one of his strongest pieces."
8142
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 10:51pm
Subject: Re: Night and Fog
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein wrote:
>
> Godard's point was that the confrontation of the camps
> led Stevens towards the beauty ofElizabeth Taylor in
> "A Place in the Sun" -- carrying with it an aura of
> shock and horror. Stevens was a comedy director before
> the war. Afterwards-- drama all the way, save for the
> melancholy romance of "The Only Game in Town."
>
I ought to see the Histoire(s) again and read what others have written
about them before attacking Godard. There's a lot I may misremember
or misunderstand.
By biggest objections have been to For Ever Mozart, but I may
be misunderstanding Godard's intentions. For example, it seemed
to be both demonizing Serbs and associating Serbian war crimes
with the French revolution (This is in fact a prevalent position:
the idea is that all was well in the time of Mozart, then the
French revolution introduced the germ of totalitarianism, or the
ideal of egalitarianism, which led, because of the natural
inequality of man, to inequality's reemergence in the form of
racism -- I got this at second hand through Louis Dumont's
Homo Hierarchicus. Another argument links genocide to the
ideal of instrumental rationality.)
Concerning Hitchens, I like this essay:
http://www.normanfinkelstein.com/id138.htm
In a roundabout way that brings me back to Godard. Like
Hitchens, François Furet knew the joy of apostasy. I put this
open letter from Furet to Godard online a while back:
http:/cs.nyu.edu/m-pg0123/godard-furet.html
I worry Godard has drifted to the Center in the same way.
It's an easy move to make, a "lazy" move, and I had grown
accustomed to Godard taking the road "less travelled by."
Paul
8143
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 11:29pm
Subject: Re: Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
> Also, as Sarris points out in the introduction to The
> American Cinema, he was writing about the past in that book. The
> present is much messier
But films like AU REVOIR LES ENFANTS are reasonably far into the past
now - further than KISS ME DEADLY and BRIDGE ON THE RIVER KWAI were when
Sarris made his categories. It must be something else that has
prevented an auteurist consensus.
> Lastly, we needed and still need more categories than just
> auteur/non-auteur to deal with people like Malle, who made at least
> one great film, and had his themes etc., but didn't cut the mustard
> most of the time.
I think the reason that I resist the proliferation of categories a
little bit is that a good moment in a Fleischer or Negulesco film feels
a lot like a good moment in a Hawks film: I get the aesthetic kick,
sense a creator's personality. etc. True, the good moments happen less
often; and in some cases they're less intense. But it all feels like
the same phenomenon, albeit in different doses: someone has grabbed hold
of the medium and done something artistic with it. I don't mind ranking
and grouping directors in terns of overall effectiveness, but I'd like
to avoid the implication that some good directors give a different kind
of pleasure from others.
What's the great Malle film? I don't think I like him very much even on
his best day. - Dan
8144
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 11:30pm
Subject: is there a great malle film? (was: Vatican etc.)
I was gonna ask that same question. I like Vanya, Zazie and Ascenseur pour
l'echafaud, I find them good but not great. Not fond at all of Le Feu
follet, Les Amants, Millou en Mai or Bye-bye Children. And what about Black
Moon? One of the worst movies ever. No sense of wonderment at all.
William-Wyler-gone-surrealist-esque.
ruy
----- Original Message -----
From: "Dan Sallitt"
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 8:29 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Re: The Vatican Film List of 1995
>
> What's the great Malle film? I don't think I like him very much even on
> his best day. - Dan
8145
From: monis9@m...
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 11:59pm
Subject: DC
I'm sorry to bring this up, but I'm looking for as much information as I
can get. I'm going to be in Washington DC over the summer and have been
trying to get any internships of summer jobs associated with Video, Film,
or communications. I've been submitting my resume to several different
places in DC, but I was wondering if anyone knew of specific people or
places that could better help.
I appreciate any help, and I apologize for writting a post that doesn't
directly relate to the topics.
--------------------------------------------------------------------
mail2web - Check your email from the web at
http://mail2web.com/ .
8146
From:
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 7:00pm
Subject: an auteurist consensus
Like Dan Sallitt, I too long for an auteurist consensus.
One thing that is preventing it is poor film distribution. Sallitt's
fascinating lists of recommended films (on his web site) are full of films that are
very difficult to see. He went to film festivals for decades, and has seen lots
of films that a non-film festival goer like myself just never sees. I am not
proud of my non-going - to put it mildly. I should have been there! Still, in
an ideal world, one would be able to rent a lot of these films on video or DVD,
and just watch them. This still has not happened. At least 80% of his
post-1970 choices are essentially "unseeable" for the averge moviegoer.
There are other problems. "Realism" is a major issue. Much of the cinephile
community only wants to see films about "ordinary people in everyday modern
life". They do not enjoy, and rarely watch, historical films, commercial genre
films such as comedies, action pics, mysteries or sf, anything made for
television, whether American or British or French. They also do not watch
documentaries abourt science, nature or the arts, or film versions of plays, opera or
ballet. Much of post-1970 cinema is "off limits", officially forbidden to many
cinephiles.
"Isamu Noguchi: Stones and Paper" (Hiro Narita, 1997) is one of the major
films of recent years. It is an admiring documentary about Noguchi, a major
abstract artist. Because it is not about an "ordinary person", it is not a film one
is permitted to admire or discuss. Films about great artists like Noguchi are
beyond the pale.
Mike Grost
8147
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 0:04am
Subject: Malleheur
> What's the great Malle film?
'L'Inde fantôme' (1969)
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8148
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 0:48am
Subject: Re: an auteurist consensus
> Much of the cinephile
> community only wants to see films about "ordinary people in everyday
> modern
> life". They do not enjoy, and rarely watch, historical films,
> commercial genre
> films such as comedies, action pics, mysteries or sf, anything made for
> television, whether American or British or French. They also do not
> watch
> documentaries abourt science, nature or the arts, or film versions of
> plays, opera or
> ballet. Much of post-1970 cinema is "off limits", officially forbidden
> to many
> cinephiles.
> "Isamu Noguchi: Stones and Paper" (Hiro Narita, 1997) is one of the
> major
> films of recent years. It is an admiring documentary about Noguchi, a
> major
> abstract artist. Because it is not about an "ordinary person", it is
> not a film one
> is permitted to admire or discuss. Films about great artists like
> Noguchi are
> beyond the pale.
This is a broad generalization -- many cinephiles enjoy popular
manifestations of visual-audio work and make a push in writing to get
worthy pieces canonized or at least 'considered'. "They do not watch
documentaries about science, nature or the arts, or film versions of
plays, opera or ballet." It's obvious from your posts that you're a
pretty consistent "telephile," and I'm understanding much of what
you're saying to be a reactionary expression of the feeling that "not
enough cinephiles watch teleplays and/or for-TV productions." Don't
worry about this -- if cinephiles aren't paying enough attention, you
can take solace in the fact that the majority of the (American)
population are tuning in regularly.
As a cinephile, I believe I've seen and then championed some pretty
extra-"ordinary" people and things on that silver-screen to which you
(patronizingly) ascribe, for "much of the cinephile community," an
apparently baffling and misdirected passion for watching the daily
activities of "ordinary people" (how condescending). How can you speak
for the very individual tastes of "much of the cinephile community"?
How can you speak for me (a little metonymy here), or what my interests
are in terms of "ordinary / extraordinary people-as-subjects"? How can
you speak so vaguely and assuredly of a line that implicitly, and
self-satisfyingly, demarcates some people (characters/subjects) as
"ordinary" and others as "worthy" of a filmed portrayal and (for good
measure) an "extraordinary" label? Does this all go back to Tsai
Ming-liang and Hou Hsiao-hsien and Abbas Kiarostami and long takes, and
which filmmakers are master-manipulators of the time-space within their
sequences, and how you don't like any of these films, and how their
large contingent of cinephilic admirers must be bitter
anti-magic-realist near-rabid sexless po-mo-theorists looking to shake
up the canon such that no-one ever gets to see a John Frankenheimer
film again -- "if we can help it at least!!!"? (Note: Tsai Ming-liang
& Abbas Kiarostami = magic-realists.) And who is forbidding you to
discuss, let alone admire, the Isamu Noguchi portrait? Instead of
flailing against what you perceive as some slight born out of
cinephile-snobbery, why not simply introduce it to this cinephile and
the others on the list who maybe haven't seen or heard of the film, one
that I'm presuming is a made-for-television documentary based on the
60-even-minutes runtime listed on IMDB?
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8149
From: Elizabeth Anne Nolan
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:10am
Subject: Re: LOLA MONTEZ literature complete site
When I clicked on the site, I couldn't get to it but found it elsewhere
... need to use the complete site
http://www.mip.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cine_doc_detail.pl/cine_img?20240?20240?1
is the complete site.
You need to copy and paste, clicking on it does not pick up
the complete site
You can enlarge the site by using your enlargement icon or clicking
on the loaded page
Elizabeth
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Robert Keser" wrote:
> The whole BFI Ophuls issue, with two pieces on Lola Montes,
> is online at:
> http://www.mip.berkeley.edu/cgi-bin/cine_doc_detai
> l.pl/cine_img?20240?20240?1
>
> This is just a scan of the issue, so be prepared for some eyestrain,
> but at least it's there.
>
> --Robert Keser
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
> wrote:
> > The BFI's "Ophuls" monograph, edited by Paul Willemen
> > and published back in 1978 has "For and Archaeology of
> > Lola Montes" by Masao Yamaguchi. It's pretty good...
8150
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:32am
Subject: Re: Malle
Calcutta is a great film; Phantom India isn't. There you have the
two sides of Malle. But Calcutta is a very great film.
8151
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:43am
Subject: Re: Re: Malle
> Calcutta is a great film; Phantom India isn't. There you have the
> two sides of Malle. But Calcutta is a very great film.
Is 'Calcutta' a shorter version/edit of the 'Phantom India' footage?
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8152
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:49am
Subject: Re: Re: Malle, fiction/documentary
> Calcutta is a great film
Haven't seen it. I often find, though, that my favorite fiction
directors make documentaries that I don't like, and vice versa. I have
an old-fashioned dislike of almost all Huston's fiction films, but I
think his docs are generally pretty good, especially THE BATTLE OF SAN
PIETRO. And Herzog, whose fiction film career I find checkered, is
surely one of the cinema's best documentary makers.
However, I tend to make more of a distinction between fiction and
documentary than most auteurists do. - Dan
8153
From: jaketwilson
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 1:59am
Subject: Re: an auteurist consensus
Craig Keller wrote:
> This is a broad generalization -- many cinephiles enjoy popular
> manifestations of visual-audio work and make a push in writing to
get worthy pieces canonized or at least 'considered'. "They do not
watch documentaries about science, nature or the arts, or film
versions of plays, opera or ballet." It's obvious from your posts
? that you're a pretty consistent "telephile," and I'm understanding
much of what you're saying to be a reactionary expression of the
feeling that "not enough cinephiles watch teleplays and/or for-TV
productions." Don't worry about this -- if cinephiles aren't paying
enough attention, you can take solace in the fact that the majority>
of the (American) population are tuning in regularly.
It's true, though, that TV programs of this kind rarely get written
about seriously -- I've never heard of the Noguchi portrait myself.
Probably many of us would brush them off on grounds resembling Fred's
distinction between films that are interesting aesthetically and
those that are interesting for the information they provide -- the
same way not all worthwhile non-fiction books are "literature". But
this isn't always an easy distinction, partly for reasons pointed to
by the NIGHT AND FOG discussion -- the problems of dealing with
loaded material are always, in a sense, aesthetic.
Footnote on Holocaust films: I was extremely moved, when I saw it
last year, by the documentary PRISONER OF PARADISE, about Kurt
Gerron, though it's very conventionally made. As presented there,
Gerron's biography has a dimension of pathos, even melodrama, which
would seem contrived if it didn't happen to be true -- in this sense
the film is LIKE a work of art, and I think that's why I found it so
affecting. I still wouldn't call the filmmakers artists, but the
question troubles me a bit.
> How can you speak so vaguely and assuredly of a line that
implicitly, and self-satisfyingly, demarcates some people
(characters/subjects) as "ordinary" and others as "worthy" of a
> filmed portrayal and (for good measure) an "extraordinary" label?
This is interesting. I'd say the traditional auteurist canon is not
short on admiring portrayals of "extraordinary" individuals (e.g. in
Ford). But many "sophisticated" viewers, not only auteurists, do tend
to be suspicious of contemporary films that unambiguously celebrate
heroes, whether action movies or art documentaries. Of course, there
are arguably good reasons for this. I'm trying to think of counter-
examples...
JTW
8154
From: jaketwilson
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:03am
Subject: Re: fiction/documentary
> However, I tend to make more of a distinction between fiction and
> documentary than most auteurists do. - Dan
How do you square this with being "the last Bazinian"?
JTW
8155
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:17am
Subject: the Jack Smith estate (dispute re:)
Here's an interesting article on the avant-garde pioneer you all know
and love:
http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0410/carr.php
-Jaime
8156
From:
Date: Tue Mar 9, 2004 9:25pm
Subject: speaking for yourself
Craig Keller's point is well taken: I can't speak for the cinephile community.
It can only speak for itself.
Question:
How many films with scientists, artists or creative thinkers as protagonists
have been widely praised by the cinephile community since 1985?
How many filmed operas or ballets have been widely embraced by this group?
How many films whose principle subject is science are admired by the
cinephile community?
I can only think of "Crumb" (about an artist) and "A Brief History of Time"
(about science).
The ordinary/extraordinary people dimension is another issue. Documentaries
about celebrated artists like Noguchi ignored. Hundreds of such films are made.
They are shown in art museums and public television and cable TV all the
time. Am I a snob to suggest that Noguchi is "extraordinary"? Isn't Noguchi a role
model: someone whose behavior we should all admire and strive to emulate?
Mike Grost
8157
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:59am
Subject: Re: Re: fiction/documentary
>>However, I tend to make more of a distinction between fiction and
>>documentary than most auteurists do. - Dan
>
> How do you square this with being "the last Bazinian"?
Ha! This is such a difficult topic that I hesitate to start on it. I
do indeed believe that the documentary aspect of the recording apparatus
is intrinsic to cinema, and I often value individual fiction films for
having "documentary" qualities, for blurring the line, so to speak. And
yet I think fiction and documentary are separable concepts. And I don't
think my auteurism extends to the documentary, really.
Here's one thought. When I watch TV news (one form of documentary), I'm
almost always repelled by the way that stylistic elements imported from
dramatic fiction are applied to the reportage of real situations. I
seem to feel that the realness of the material mandates that the medium
create the conditions necessary for clear thinking on the subject. This
is a pretty narrow requirement, but it's the one I make of all
philosophical activity (including film criticism). And it would never
occur to me to make this demand of fiction, or to ask for anything so
narrow and specific. In this case, I seem to feel that the unrealness
of the material gives the creator license to suggest all sorts of
attitudes and viewpoints to me.
Maybe I'll stop there for now, coz that's close to the heart of the
matter for me. I freely admit to a big gray area, to films that mix
fiction and documentary in ways that make me suspend the rules above. - Dan
8158
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:01am
Subject: Re: the Jack Smith estate (dispute re:)
I'm with Irving on this all the way.
Penny Arcade is a control freak to the manner born.
But then Jack was a control freak too in his own
anarchic way.
Jack and Irving had their differences, but Irving is
America's greatest living writer and Penny Arcade is
just a lower east side Phoebe.
I can't imagine what his family would do with his
stuff other than throw in the garbage -- from whence
it came.
--- "Jaime N. Christley"
wrote:
> Here's an interesting article on the avant-garde
> pioneer you all know
> and love:
>
> http://www.villagevoice.com/issues/0410/carr.php
>
> -Jaime
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
8159
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:03am
Subject: Re: is there a great malle film? (was: Vatican etc.)
--- Ruy Gardnier wrote:
And what about Black
> Moon? One of the worst movies ever. No sense of
> wonderment at all.
> William-Wyler-gone-surrealist-esque.
How could a film co-starring Joe Dallesandro and
Alexandra Stewart possibly be bad?
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Search - Find what you’re looking for faster
http://search.yahoo.com
8160
From: Jess Amortell
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 3:09am
Subject: Re: speaking for yourself
> How many films with scientists, artists or creative thinkers as protagonists
> have been widely praised by the cinephile community since 1985?
Some artists that come to mind for starters (although I'm not sure what this proves): Van Gogh (Pialat);
La Belle Noiseuse (Rivette); Chihwaseon (Im) ...
8161
From: Frederick M. Veith
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:07am
Subject: Re: the Jack Smith estate (dispute re:)
This article contains a serious error in the lead paragraph. The judge
ruled no such thing. She ruled against a motion to dismiss the suit
against the Plaster Foundation. Which isn't even remotely the same thing.
Irving may or may not be America's greastest living writer, but he seems
to have questionable taste in friends/associates. Without dwelling unduly
on the character of those involved (juvenile), I would point to the
contradiction involved in claiming that the work is worth millions and
suffers only from neglect on the part of the Plaster Foundation on the one
hand and the fact that Jordan et al. are really just upset that the
Plaster Foundation had the nerve to charge them for access to the work,
which is precisely the sort of thing which is attendant on it being
"worth" anything in the first place. Check their price against the Warhol
fee, which by comparison would be $240,000.
These people actually claim that the fact that Flaming Creatures isn't on
the shelf at every video store in America is the fault of the Plaster
Foundation. But they don't think the work is valuable enough for them to
have to pay for access to it.
The Plaster Foundation may or may not be the ideal repository for Jack
Smith's work, but from where I stand they've done an admirable job
promoting it and providing access to it. The idea that there was always
some white knight waiting in the wings to provide free public access under
archival conditions (seriously suggested by the parties in this suit)
strikes me as particularly absurd. I believe Hoberman when he says that
he'd welcome this outcome. Unfortunately I think his skepticism is more
than well warranted.
I'm mystified that people continue to be taken in by these people. The
idea of them having any influence on the fate of Jack Smith's work should
be deeply alarming to anyone who cares about it regardless of Penny
Arcade's sexual proclivities.
Fred.
PS I believe the expression is 'to the manor born'.
On Tue, 9 Mar 2004, David Ehrenstein wrote:
> I'm with Irving on this all the way.
>
> Penny Arcade is a control freak to the manner born.
> But then Jack was a control freak too in his own
> anarchic way.
>
> Jack and Irving had their differences, but Irving is
> America's greatest living writer and Penny Arcade is
> just a lower east side Phoebe.
>
> I can't imagine what his family would do with his
> stuff other than throw in the garbage -- from whence
> it came.
8162
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:14am
Subject: Re: speaking for yourself
>
> How many films with scientists, artists or creative thinkers as
> protagonists
> have been widely praised by the cinephile community since 1985?
'Secret défense' by Jacques Rivette / 'Van Gogh' by Maurice Pialat /
'Rubik!' by Wayne Carr
> How many filmed operas or ballets have been widely embraced by this
> group?
I'm not a big fan of opera nor ballet, so none -- but if I were, I
reckon the answer would still be "none" because I would rather watch
both live than filmed. (Adaptations to the language of the cinema are
a different story.) Having said that, I have tickets to see 'Sweeney
Todd' at Lincoln Center in a week, and saw the James Sewell group about
two months ago here in New York and was pleasantly surprised to find it
two-thirds great. I have a decent documentary on Merce Cunningham on
DVD. The only reason I didn't see his piece with Radiohead and Sigur
Ros a couple months ago is because I couldn't get tickets. I haven't
seen 'The Company,' only because there's been so much to see that I
haven't gotten to it.
And filmed fly-fishing? What about films on the smoking out of
boll-weevils? And what about filmed marzipan?
> How many films whose principle subject is science are admired by the
> cinephile community?
I would ask how many films employ, as Jake eloquently put it, an
aesthetic method that is up to the grandeur of its specific scientific
subject? Take 'Bodysong' recently released in the UK (opening here
soon) -- a profound re-contextualization of the human body's
progression from birth through life to death, or vacuous new-age toss?
I'll be buying a ticket to find out. In the meantime, I watch
Brakhage's 'The Act of Seeing with One's Own Eyes.' So there.
> I can only think of "Crumb" (about an artist) and "A Brief History of
> Time"
> (about science).
>
> The ordinary/extraordinary people dimension is another issue.
> Documentaries
> about celebrated artists like Noguchi ignored. Hundreds of such films
> are made.
> They are shown in art museums and public television and cable TV all
> the
> time. Am I a snob to suggest that Noguchi is "extraordinary"? Isn't
> Noguchi a role
> model: someone whose behavior we should all admire and strive to
> emulate?
No-one suggested you were a "snob" to say that Noguchi is extraordinary
-- what I suggested was that your paranoid blanket condemnation of "the
cinephile community" as being biased against films on "great people"
has no basis in fact, and that you're just venting. The film about the
Iranian pizza-deliveryman on the bottom of the social ladder looking up
doesn't win points because it's about an ordinary, non-'Daredevil'
figure; it wins points because it's aesthetically and intellectually
solid. Likewise, the film about that incredible personage, The Christ,
isn't crap because it's about a great man -- it's crap because it's
aesthetically limp, intellectually flaccid, morbidly pretentious, and
bereft of any communication of notions of "grace" by aesthetic means;
many are pinning the "masterpiece" tail on the 'Christ'-donkey because
it's a portrayal of Christ, no more no less, and any portrayal of
Christ that doesn't make him out to be a homosexual or a mortal will
send the desperate, fill-a-hole-in-my-heart-PLEASE! flocks to no end of
weepy gratitude and bedazzlement. (cf. the New York Post front-page
60-point headline the day before its release: " ' I CRIED' ") Cinema
without aesthetic is just photography, or rather, iconography.
You're perfectly entitled to like your Noguchi documentary -- and I'm
not taking issue with you on the aesthetics of that particular piece,
because I haven't seen it. At the same time, "filmed dramaturgy" and
most American TV-portraits are pretty aesthetically uninteresting while
some are at least worthy of personal interest if nothing else -- the
South Bank Show with Björk -- is it a great film? No. But I like to
see Björk work and talk, and personally it's of more interest to me
than Hitchcock's 'Rebecca' -- which is easily the better film. All
that has to be made is a distinction.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8163
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:25am
Subject: Re: speaking for yourself
----- Original Message -----
From:
To:
Sent: Tuesday, March 09, 2004 11:25 PM
Subject: [a_film_by] speaking for yourself
> How many films with scientists, artists or creative thinkers as
protagonists
> have been widely praised by the cinephile community since 1985?
HAYNES's Poison
CRONENBERG passim
JARMAN's Wittgenstein
LEE's Mo' Better Blues
EASTWOOD's Bird
CARPENTER's In The Mouth Of Madness
VAN DER KEUKEN's Prolonged Vacations
JARMUSCH's Year Of The Horse
> How many filmed operas or ballets have been widely embraced by this group?
SYBERBERG's Parsifal
BERGMAN's The Magic Flute
> How many films whose principle subject is science are admired by the
> cinephile community?
Now you got me. Name a dozen films like that that were seen by a good number
of a_film_by members.
ruy
8164
From: jaketwilson
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 4:45am
Subject: Re: fiction/documentary
Dan Sallitt wrote:
> I do indeed believe that the documentary aspect of the recording
apparatus is intrinsic to cinema, and I often value individual
fiction films for having "documentary" qualities, for blurring the
> line, so to speak. And yet I think fiction and documentary are
separable concepts. And I don't think my auteurism extends to the
> documentary, really.
> Here's one thought. When I watch TV news (one form of
documentary), I'm almost always repelled by the way that stylistic
elements imported from dramatic fiction are applied to the reportage
> of real situations. I seem to feel that the realness of the
material mandates that the medium create the conditions necessary for
> clear thinking on the subject. This is a pretty narrow
requirement, but it's the one I make of all philosophical activity
>(including film criticism).
I guess I'd argue that dramatic conventions are inevitably used in
narrating any series of events, but the difference between art and
philosophical activity is certainly far too large a topic to pursue
here. Maybe the immediate issue becomes clearer if we distinguish
between two senses of "documentary": first, the sense in which
Bertolucci (?) said that all films are documentaries about their
actors, and second, as a specific film and TV genre, which may not in
fact include directly captured moving images of its subject-matter
(e.g. Ken Burns' Civil War series).
The defining feature of this second kind of documentary is that it
provides factual information, and if we value it for that reason
only, we don't grant it aesthetic status, since in theory we could
have obtained the same information somewhere else. The reason I
don't watch many documentaries is that I don't find them a
particularly convenient way of learning new facts as such –- I prefer
to see things written down, though that's just me.
But we can also be interested in documentaries for the direct images
they show us from a particular time and place, which by definition
are unique –- they can't be superseded. The South Bank Show footage
of Björk which Craig mentioned would be that category, though I
wonder if he would continue to find it more interesting than REBECCA
if he saw them both ten times. Anyway, where this interest exists and
is not purely personal (the family album) I would call it aesthetic –-
I don't know what else to call it.
JTW
8165
From: Craig Keller
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 5:59am
Subject: Re: Re: fiction/documentary
> But we can also be interested in documentaries for the direct images
> they show us from a particular time and place, which by definition
> are unique –- they can't be superseded. The South Bank Show footage
> of Björk which Craig mentioned would be that category, though I
> wonder if he would continue to find it more interesting than REBECCA
> if he saw them both ten times.
Although I can't vouch for ten, I've probably seen both somewhere
around seven or eight times. The Hitchcock film is of course
objectively greater and consciously artistic (though I've recently
entered a new phase of my relationship with the film in which I no
longer believe it's "one of the best Hitchcocks" -- which is why I
happened to pluck this movie for the -highly- subjective comparison),
but I get a more visceral/organic/quasi-poetic kick out of Björk's hair
in the South Bank episode, or the single image of her clomping on the
beach with the DAT-sampler, than from the satiety of any intellectual
conclusions I might draw from the aesthetic at play in 'Rebecca,' or
the calculated sensuousness of 'Rebecca' 's images. (Joan Fontaine,
and Hitch's direction of Joan Fontaine, are the two best things about
the film [in my opinion].) Surely we all have some filmed or video'd
relics which on their own don't qualify as great art but which capture
great art being made, or show the flash of some "great person's"
inimitable soul -- and personally, in our own heads, we might value for
idiosyncratic reasons these recordings much more than certain other
aesthetically rich avant-garde / narrative / documentary / essay films
or videos. These relic-recordings have little Bashô moments. It is
necessary that I defend 'Rebecca,' or Lanzmann's 'Shoah,' against The
South Bank Show, or PBS American Masters, on moral and objective
grounds, but in the silence of my spirit I don't -need- to value either
of the former over either of the latter. Yet if I openly diagnose
malaise in modern trends of cinephilia and cinema-canons on the basis
that these portrayal-relics aren't getting their due, it's your duty to
remind me of certain standards.
craig.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
8166
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:04am
Subject: Re: Malle
> Is 'Calcutta' a shorter version/edit of the 'Phantom India' footage?
>
> craig.
>
>
> Calcutta is a different film. When Malle and his small crew landed
in Calcutta, they started filming as soon as they got off the boat,
with no idea where they were headed or, in some cases, what they were
looking at. Their journey was an increasingly traumatic one, for them
(one senses) and certainly for the spectator. And constantly during
the film the people are looking at the camera looking at them. It's
an amazing film, maybe 2 hours long.
Then Malle started filming the sseries Phantom India, which is
increasingly buredened with his voiceover musings: erudite and very
French. The result is French tv; Calcutta is a mind-blowing film. And
when I look at a film like Au revoir les enfants, I HEAR the
voiceover even though there isn't one. Both the absence of an audible
commentary and the insistence of a commentary that functions via
connotations (which the spectator reads and murmurs under his breath,
feeling intelligent) are part of what keeps Malle's fiction films
from punching through the screen and scoring a knockout, no matter
how traumatic the subject matter may be in theory (child
prostitution, mother-son incest, etc.). It doesn't keep some of them
from being lovely, cultivated meditations on their subjects. I'm
actually a fan of My Dinner with Andre! But Calcutta, as far as I
know, is the only time he ever dropped his defenses like that.
8167
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:20am
Subject: Re: Godard and Statements
Paul: Since you have put it in terms of the last two films, let me
begin by talking a bit about this last Godard period.
I love For Ever Mozart and don't much like Eloge d'Amour, which looks
to me like a "save" of a film where he stretched and didn't make it,
whereas FEM is in the mainstream of what he's been doing since Sauve
Qui Peut and works all the way through for me.
Films in the mainstream: Detective, Soigne ta Droite, Prenom: Carmen,
Passion (my favorite of this group), For Ever Mozart. All (but one?)
set in hotels, all about a film being made while the World and
Politics claim their rights.
Films where he stretched and generally made it: Sauve Qui Peu (la
Vie), Je Vous Salue Marie, Nouvelle Vague, Allemagne Neuf Zero.
The latter are my favorites, and I'm not uniformly crazy about all
the mainstream efforts: Prenom Carmen has never been a film I could
warm up to. But they are a solid group where he is in the process of
evolving something, and by and large I really like them a lot, too.
Then there are the essays: Six fois deux, Tour Detour Deux Enfants,
Les enfants jouent a la Russie, the UNESCO film, Histoire(s), JLG par
JLG, 2x50 Ans, Puissance de la Parole. Again, these aren't uniformly
successful - I agree with Biette that JLG is "white elephant art" and
2x50 is "termite art," hence better - but I love the Histoire(s), Six
fois deux and the UNESCO film (about ex-Yugoslavia, like the World
sections in FEM).
Maybe I just feel he has more cause to speak about ex-Yugoslavia, a
genuinely horrific situation in the middle of Europe at the time
those two films were made, than to dredge up the Camps again in Eloge
d'Amour.
(to be continued)
8168
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 6:27am
Subject: Re: Re: fiction/documentary
> I guess I'd argue that dramatic conventions are inevitably used in
> narrating any series of events
Yeah, maybe it's inevitable, but there are systems of narration - like
logic, or the scientific method - the aim of which are to reduce the
contributions of (might as well call it) drama. I don't think that
scientists and philosophers would deny that drama, or something like
that, intrudes into the narration of their stories too. But less
distortion seems better than more in those cases. I feel that way about
documentary too.
> first, the sense in which
> Bertolucci (?) said that all films are documentaries about their
> actors
I am completely down with what Bertolucci, or whoever, said. It's very
Bazinian!
> But we can also be interested in documentaries for the direct images
> they show us from a particular time and place, which by definition
> are unique –- they can't be superseded. The South Bank Show footage
> of Björk which Craig mentioned would be that category, though I
> wonder if he would continue to find it more interesting than REBECCA
> if he saw them both ten times. Anyway, where this interest exists and
> is not purely personal (the family album) I would call it aesthetic –-
> I don't know what else to call it.
I don't deny that there's a lot of space in documentaries to be filled
by aesthetics, and I don't think that's always a bad thing. Maybe I
should just break down and say that all documentaries are hybrids of
philosophy and aesthetics. But I still care that real things are being
treated, and the aesthetic angle is not in my mind a form of diplomatic
immunity. I suppose I'm saying that. for me, aesthetics are a
subordinate element in a typical documentary. - Dan
8169
From: hotlove666
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 7:08am
Subject: Re: fiction/documentary
Dan: there are systems of narration - like
> logic, or the scientific method - the aim of which are to reduce
the
> contributions of (might as well call it) drama.
Thanks to a member of the group I just saw my first subtitled Biette
film, Trois ponts sur la riviere, where I could finally be sure what
was me (still not speaking French well enough) and what was the
films. It's the films. They wring the neck of drama, but not in the
easy ways we're used to. Very off-putting, and if it hits you right,
exhilarating. The only thing a bit like it are certain Moullets, but
they are more deliberately graceless (unless you see Les
contrabandieres on the same killer hash John Hughes and I smoked
before viewing New Yorker's print).
aesthetics are a
> subordinate element in a typical documentary
Well, I think Calcutta, for one, is beautiful, and on the same
subject, so is Rossellini's India, IMO. There are a lot of beautiful
documentaries. I saw some great documentaries when I was on the
documentary jury at the San Francisco festival - I've mentioned some
of them here. Rivers and Tides is about an artist and is esthetic as
hell - it has broken records for success with a documentary. The Edge
of Time: Male Domains in the Caucasus makes almost all contemporary
features look like children's literature.
Finally, I find Mike's formulation provocative. Sure there are some
recent films we embrace about larger than life people, but they make
their heroes life-sized - that's part of the esthetic of a film like
Van Gogh. (Esther Kahn, on the other hand, portrays a character who
is wonderfully abnormal as well as gifted: a monster.) Is there
something about contemporary auteurism and, say, life-sized subject
matter, not to put a negative spin on it with terms like "ordinary"?
Or is that more a description of contemporary art in general,
especially drama and literature?
8171
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:16am
Subject: Re: Godard and Statements
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
> Then there are the essays: Six fois deux, Tour Detour Deux Enfants,
> Les enfants jouent a la Russie, the UNESCO film, Histoire(s), JLG par
> JLG, 2x50 Ans, Puissance de la Parole. Again, these aren't uniformly
> successful - I agree with Biette that JLG is "white elephant art" and
> 2x50 is "termite art," hence better
Godard seemed like a bitter old man in 2x50. Godard has no right to
grow old. I take the side of the maid who hasn't heard of Dita
Parlo and likes Madonna.
- but I love the Histoire(s), Six
> fois deux and the UNESCO film (about ex-Yugoslavia, like the World
> sections in FEM).
The parts I've seen of Six fois deux are very worthwhile, but that
was a long time ago, and the compassion evident there seems to
have withered. I haven't seen the UNESCO film.
>
> Maybe I just feel he has more cause to speak about ex-Yugoslavia, a
> genuinely horrific situation in the middle of Europe at the time
> those two films were made, than to dredge up the Camps again in Eloge
> d'Amour.
Here, I disagree with Godard's analysis of what was occuring in
Yugoslavia. Does it matter that I disagree? I disagree with
Scorsese's position on the same issue, but it affects not at
all my judgment of his films. With Godard it's something more:
a disappointment, maybe.
Godard brings up ex-Yugoslavia in Eloge. If I remember correctly
(I may not), a quotation indicates that Croatian atrocities occured
because the Serbians forced the Croatians to become like
the Serbians -- a questionable kind of apologetics, and one that
forgets a lot of history. It might be appropriate to call
For Ever Mozart just a tiny cog in what Claude Lanzmann called
the "new Dreyfus affair." In addition, I think the Juan
Goytisolo quote in For Ever Mozart distorts the history of
Europe not only of the 1990's but of the 1930's: the western
European powers didn't fail to stop the rise of Nazi Germany
because of pacifism, instead they colluded with it.
Since I'm fond of posting web links, here's one that might
be useful: http://www.counterpunch.org/serbia.html
Now, Godard can take whatever position he wants. In fact
he might be right, and I'm wrong. And Godard's account has an
aesthetic appeal. But I am a little disappointed by Godard's
laziness, in that he doesn't even bother to question the
official line.
Paul
8172
From: Andy Rector
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 9:19am
Subject: Moullet
Does anyone in the place know where I can get information, essays,
etc. on or by Moullet, preferrably in english? I was surprised to
learn from one of J Rosenbaum's pieces that Moullet is still active as
a critic, are any pieces on the web? He is scarcely represented in the
Hillier CDC volumes, (though I don't really know his output there at
CDC) and there are two or three small but marvelous pieces in the big
D.A.P. FRENCH NEW WAVE book, but is there more to be found? I've not
found much through google.
( Of course I'm looking for the films too )
Best to all,
andy
8173
From: Samuel Bréan
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 10:17am
Subject: RE: Moullet
>Does anyone in the place know where I can get information, essays,
>etc. on or by Moullet, preferrably in english?
I don't think much of Luc Moullet's writing is available in English, but I
may be wrong. I can only think about two pieces right now: an article on
Jean Eustache written specially for Film Comment (Sept-Oct 2000) and another
one in "That Magic Moment", published by the Vienna Film Festival in 1998,
but I only know the reference to that book.
I'm pretty familiar with his writing in French. He compiled the first
filmography of Edgar G. Ulmer and interviewed him (with Bertrand Tavernier)
in Cahiers, and wrote a text about him in a very good book (still in French)
about this director, "Edgar G. Ulmer, le bandit démasqué", two years ago. He
wrote regurlarly in Cahiers between 1956 and 1965, and occasionally
afterwards, especially in the 1990's. He wrote an article in the November
2003 issue, on Elia Kazan.
My favorite articles by him in Cahiers would be his long article on Fuller
(n° 93), his review of "North by Northwest" (n° 102), and his text in the
special issue on John Ford (1990).
Moullet wrote in other publications such as La Lettre du Cinéma or Trafic --
one of his articles, about Cecil B. DeMille's "The Road to Yesterday" (1925)
is tremendous. He also teaches film in a university in Paris, if I'm right.
He wrote two books, one about Fritz Lang in 1963 (published by Seghers;
that's the one Brigitte Bardot is reading while taking a bath in Le Mépris),
and the other one about four American actors: John Wayne, James Stewart,
Gary Cooper and Cary Grant. It's called "Politique des acteurs" and it's
really good. (Published by "Cahiers" in 1993.)
As for his films, he is the author of seven full-length movies and quite a
few shorts. I have seen "Brigitte et Brigitte", "Une aventure de Billy le
Kid" (a western starring Jean-Pierre Léaud!), "Anatomie d'un rapport", an
astonishing film, and his latest, "Les naufragés de la D17", alongside some
of his shorts, which are often very funny. Moullet is not very well-known in
France, although he is a kind of a cult figure among certain cinéphiles. His
films are sometimes shown in Paris and almost never on TV (except for the
work he does directly for television). Sadly, they are not available in DVD.
About Moullet, I've read articles and interviews, but they are all in
French.
>I was surprised to learn from one of J Rosenbaum's pieces that Moullet is
>still active as
>a critic, are any pieces on the web?
I found his list of the 1990's best films on Film Comment's page:
http://filmlinc.com/fcm/fcm122000.htm
And an interview, but it's in French.
http://www2.bifi.fr/cineregards/article.asp?sp_ref=198&ref_sp_type=2&revue_ref=22
- Samuel
_________________________________________________________________
Trouvez l'âme soeur sur MSN Rencontres ! http://g.msn.fr/FR1000/9551
8174
From: filipefurtado
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 11:59am
Subject: Re: Moullet
> are any pieces on the web?
It's not in english, but if you want to read by translation,
we have an article by Moullet (originally published in
cahiers in the mid 90's) on Mario Bava here:
http://www.contracampo.he.com.br/41/omedoeoestupor.htm
It's pretty good.
Filipe
He is scarcely represented in the
> Hillier CDC volumes, (though I don't really know his output
there at
> CDC) and there are two or three small but marvelous pieces i
n the big
> D.A.P. FRENCH NEW WAVE book, but is there more to be found?
I've not
> found much through google.
>
> Best to all,
> andy
>
>
>
>
>
> Yahoo! Groups Links
>
>
>
>
>
>
---
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br
8175
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Wed Mar 10, 2004 2:18pm
Subject: Moullet in English
Andy: there is about two thirds of Luc Moullet's long TRAFIC essay on Raúl
Ruiz translated in the latest issue (no. 2) of ROUGE - www.rouge.com.au -
and coming in no. 4 is a piece on Moullet's films by the brilliant young
French critic Fabien Boully, plus a translation of Moullet's hilarious
commentary on Deleuze's cinema books.
Of the films - which are, alas, pretty hard to get - I love the features THE
COMEDY OF WORK (an inspired fable about employment and unemployment) and
PARAPILLON (about 500 gags concerning bicyclists riding up a moun