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.
18501
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 10:56pm
Subject: Re: Curtis Harrington's experimetnal shorts (was: Curtis Harrington's USHER)
ptonguette@a... wrote:
> "Have you seen any of his early short
> films like "Fragment of Seeking" ?"
I saw several of his experimental shorts, including that one, long ago,
and at least at the time didn't like them much. They seemed to lack the
visual imagination and suppleness of "Night Tide." I'd be curious to
hear what David and any others think.
Fred Campeer
18502
From: Fred Camper
Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 11:06pm
Subject: Re: Oliveira's "The Satin Slipper" (was: An Oliveira Video Surprise)
David Ehrenstein wrote:
> Good grief! Complete?
>
> As some of us may remember part of it was shown at the
> NYFF several years back -- though a complete version
> was advertised.
>
> It's a play by Paul Claudel that when performed is
> about 5 - 6 hours long.
>
I've had the privilege of seeing this film twice. It is seven hours
long, and best seen without a break, though it is divided into several
parts for exhibition.
It's a tremendously great film, and I think remains my favorite de
Oliveira, though I've not seen all the recent ones. The use of obviously
fake theatrical backdrops (rolling waves with leaping fish, for example)
should appeal to Sirkians, as should the stunning sensuous colors,
though the effect is somewhat (but not totally) different. It's a
monumental paean to failure and impossibility, in which the failure of
Spain's grand quest to conquer the world for Christ (Philip II's
reaction the defeat of the Armada is a fantastically powerful scene,
though we don't see any ships -- and here it helps to know at least a
little history) is paralleled by the failure of the lovers to, er, get
it on. For those who know de Oliveira this shouldn't really be a
spoiler, but stop reading here if you prefer):
It's a seven hour film in which the lovers encounter each other only
three times, never touch, and at the end part in an incredible long take
on the deck of a ship against a painted rust-red sky that, as I said in
an old "Reader" review, left me collapsed in tears.
Fred Camper
18503
From:
Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 6:20pm
Subject: Re: Bitchun Flick Alert
<< Not for the squeamish, by the way. >>
Whenever anyone says this, they might as well add, "This means you, Mike!"
I've never even seen "Jaws".
So I will probably pass on this one :)
Mike Grost
18504
From:
Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 6:35pm
Subject: Romantic Comedies
Best film seen here recently:
Lady Windemere's Fan (Ernst Lubitsch, 1925)
This seems even better than when I last saw it in 1971.
Two modern romantic comedies that might not be Lubitsch, but which are above
average:
All Over the Guy (Julie Davis, 2001)
A Boyfriend for Christmas (Kevin Connor, 2004)
Both of these just turned up on TV, and were watched at random.
"All Over the Guy" is a rare example of someone trying to do a cheerful
romantic film about two gay men. It shows unexpected richness in characterization
and dialogue.
"A Boyfriend for Christmas" is a made-for-TV movie on the Hallmark Channel. A
kind hearted social worker is chased by her two yuppie boyfriends, rivals for
her affection. It is unexpectedly sweet and enjoyable.
Mike Grost
PS A random thought: John Waters put "The Dreamers" (Bertolucci) on his Ten
Best list (in Artforum). His comment: "Everyone always looks sexy in a
left-wing riot".
Words of Wisdom from The Pope of Trash!
18505
From:
Date: Sun Dec 5, 2004 6:48pm
Subject: Re: Curtis Harrington's experimetnal shorts (was: Curtis Harrington's USHER)
Fred Camper wrote:
>ptonguette@a... wrote:
>
>
>> "Have you seen any of his early short
>> films like "Fragment of Seeking" ?"
>
>I saw several of his experimental shorts, including that one, long ago,
>and at least at the time didn't like them much.
Just for the record, David E. wrote the snippet you refer to above, not me; I
was quoting David in a reply, hence the quotation remarks.
But thanks for the opinion of the shorts, Fred. On the topic of Harrington,
maybe you'll find this interview I did with him interesting; it's mainly about
his memories of Welles, but we got to touch briefly on some of his own work.
http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/44/curtis.htm
Peter
18506
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 1:05am
Subject: Re: Curtis Harrington's experimetnal shorts (was: Curtis Harrington's USHER)
--- Fred Camper wrote:
>
> I saw several of his experimental shorts, including
> that one, long ago,
> and at least at the time didn't like them much. They
> seemed to lack the
> visual imagination and suppleness of "Night Tide."
> I'd be curious to
> hear what David and any others think.
>
I would say you're correct in some ways. But it
shouldn't be forgotten that making short films like at
all at that time was an uphill struggle. More money
and time would doubtless have improved them. I haven't
seen the "Usher" film as yet, and I'm most curious to
do so. Harrington is an extremely interesting figure.
Someone who has always been "in" Hollywood but never
"of" it.
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - 250MB free storage. Do more. Manage less.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
18507
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 1:13am
Subject: Re: Romantic Comedies
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> "All Over the Guy" is a rare example of someone
> trying to do a cheerful
> romantic film about two gay men. It shows unexpected
> richness in characterization
> and dialogue.
It was written by and stars Dan Bukatinsky
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/g001/b_danbucatinsky.shtml
who is Don Roos' boyfriend.
I rather enjoyed it too.
John Waters put "The Dreamers"
> (Bertolucci) on his Ten
> Best list (in Artforum). His comment: "Everyone
> always looks sexy in a
> left-wing riot".
> Words of Wisdom from The Pope of Trash!
>
John Waters RULES!
"The Dreamers" is indeed a supremely odd film. I can't
imagine what it would mean to anyone who didn't know
about how the uproar over the firing of Henri Langlois
from the Cinematheque was a curtain-raiser to May '68.
It's a film only Bertolucci could have made, and
deeply flawed though it may be, its singularity is
pleasant reminder of the fact that he hasn't sunk
entirely into the epic impersonality of "The Last Emperor."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
18508
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 2:58am
Subject: Re: Aviator
Ferrara is anguished because
> everything is important to him, everything matters. He exists at
the
> opposite end of the scale from those those 'cool' directors (the
> Coens, Soderbergh, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Hartley,
> Jarmusch) to whom nothing matters, so there's really nothing for
them
> to get worked up about.
Nothing matters to the Jarmusch of DEAD MAN (or GHOST DOG, or even
COFFEE AND CIGARETTES)? Forgive me, Brad, but you haven't seen those
films. And something tells me that you didn't get that much out of
RUSHMORE either. Writing these films off as mannerist or equating
them with the commercial drivel of hacks like Soderbergh is
tantamount to putting Lubitsch and Nichols in the same camp (or Dave
Brubeck and Mike Nichols, for that matter, to cross-reference this
with Bill's post--which is extravagantly unfair to Brubeck). If
massive quantities of Catholic guilt is the only legitimate way to
be humanist, I'll settle for James L. Brooks any day, periodic
phoniness and all.
I'm willing to concede that BAD LIEUTENANT may be a great film, but
that's due to understanding, not compassion. They're not the same
thing. It's understanding that makes all three of the comic Brookses
(Albert, James, and Mel) worth bothering with as well, at least at
their best.
18509
From:
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 1:09am
Subject: Re: Re: Aviator
Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
> It's understanding that makes all three of the comic Brookses
>(Albert, James, and Mel) worth bothering with as well, at least at
>their best.
I'm a holdout on Mel, but Albert is a great director. "Modern Romance" is, I
think, a flat-out masterpiece and I like virtually everything else he's ever
done. While I must concede that his last, "The Muse," was my least favorite
to date, the one before that, "Mother," is among his best.
And, yes, unfashionable as he may be, there's a lot to admire in James L.
Brooks as well. I just wish I could see the musical version of "I'll Do
Anything"! Incidentally, Jonathan, have you seen "Spanglish" yet? And I was also
curious if you ever warmed up to "Terms of Endearment"? (I got the sense from
your review of "As Good As It Gets" that it's your least favorite JLB picture.)
Peter
18510
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:02am
Subject: Re: Aviator
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Jonathan Rosenbaum"
wrote:
>
> Ferrara is anguished because
> > everything is important to him, everything matters. He exists at
> the
> > opposite end of the scale from those those 'cool' directors (the
> > Coens, Soderbergh, Paul Thomas Anderson, Wes Anderson, Hartley,
> > Jarmusch) to whom nothing matters, so there's really nothing for
> them
> > to get worked up about.
>
> Nothing matters to the Jarmusch of DEAD MAN (or GHOST DOG, or even
> COFFEE AND CIGARETTES)? Forgive me, Brad, but you haven't seen
those
> films. And something tells me that you didn't get that much out of
> RUSHMORE either. Writing these films off as mannerist or equating
> them with the commercial drivel of hacks like Soderbergh is
> tantamount to putting Lubitsch and Nichols in the same camp (or
Dave
> Brubeck and Mike Nichols, for that matter, to cross-reference this
> with Bill's post--which is extravagantly unfair to Brubeck). If
> massive quantities of Catholic guilt is the only legitimate way to
> be humanist, I'll settle for James L. Brooks any day, periodic
> phoniness and all.
The reason I equated Brubeck and Nichols is that they're both arch
mannerists who were embraced as hip and cutting edge early on but
whose subsequent worka -- while not without their pleaures -- are
generally mechanical and fairly soul-less.
James L. Brooks, though, is -- except for moments in Broadast News --
worthless, with "As Good As It Gets," among the very worst movies of
the 90s. It's a film in which not a single moment rings true,
starting with the opening scene in which we are asked to believe
that obsessive-compulsive Nicholson with his pathological attitude
towards germs and uncleanliness would pick up a urinating dog and
throw it down a dirty garbage chute. Everything about the movie --
and Brooks himself -- is phony, including Greg Kinnear's queer circle
of friends who drop him the second he faces adversity and its
ludicrous portrayal of what's supposed to be the day-to-day feel of
New York City life. Brooks's musical equivalent is Kenny G. (JP
assigned Mr. G to R.G. Springsteen, but I would group Springsteen
with Fred Waring and the Pennsylvanians.)
I love Wes Anderson, but I think Brad is spot on about Paul W.
Anderson, the most godawful and puerile filmmaker to emerge in the
last decade. His musical counterpart would be Johnnie Ray.
18511
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:22am
Subject: Re: Bitchun Flick Alert
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > Actually, I
> > think of May as a female version of Martin, probably my favorite
> > Romero film. Martin is Dracula; May is Dr. Frankenstein. (The copy
> > line is "If you don't have any friends, make one.") Not for the
> > squeamish, by the way.
>
> I'm on the squeamish side, but MARTIN is my favorite Romero film
too - I
> can brace myself for the squeamish stuff because the film is aware
of the
> horror of it. When I feel as if a film is having fun with things
that
> make me squeamish, I often flee - I don't have a moral issue with
that
> approach, but it's a painful way to be out of sync with a
filmmaker's
> desires. How does MAY compare to MARTIN in that regard? The
trailer
> would scare me off without your recommendation. - Dan
May is definitely post-Romero, in that it cites Argento and has more
fun with the gore than you would probably be able to stomach. On the
other hand, there isn't any until the last 2 reels. Up till then it's
a character study.
18512
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:30am
Subject: Re: Bitchun Flick Alert
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
Also, to round out my last post, the last shot of May is rather
touching.
18513
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 10:39am
Subject: re: Ferrara
David wrote:
"to get down to brass tacks I
don't find "Bad Lieutenant" or "The Addiction" (to
mention my two favorite Ferraras) to be the work of a
humanist of any recognizable stripe. They are the
"apologia pro vita sua" of a hardcore heroin addict"
Brad - David has made a very strong 'brass tacks' statement here, and I'm
interested to hear you refute it, or at least respond to it! Your Ferrara
book is extremely quiet/discreet/reticent on the topic of Ferrara's
drug-taking; in fact, to read it without any other gossip in one's ear, one
would not imagine Abel ever took a single drug of any kind! I assume this
was a deliberate decision on your part; what was the logic of it? Did you
think it was irrelevant to an appreciation of Ferrara's work? - well, that
issue, of what in a director's personal life is strictly relevant to the
work, has often been debated here on A FILM BY, and I have mixed feelings
about it myself.
But in Ferrara, it is more than a lifestyle epiphenomenon - if along with
the drugs comes (as David is suggesting) a whole attitude, philosophy,
and/or politics. And here I wonder about this 'humanist' tag - I understand
your reasons for saying this, but surely part of what drives Ferrara is a
kind of POST-humanist sensibility; after all, so many of his films are
literally about transformations/mutations beyond the human state. I don't
entirely relate to this kind of statement you make about him 'filming people
with love' - I share Jean-Pierre's doubt about establishing the 'evidence'
of this, although Bill has ably defended the position to a point - as I am
as profoundly involved with Ferrara's films as you are, but my engagement
almost never goes through a humanist frame of 'engagement with the humanity
of characters', which is pretty much the main frame of your book. NEW ROSE
HOTEL, THE ADDICTION, even THE FUNERAL are a million miles away from my idea
of what a humanist film is. But there is a lot to think through and debate
here ...
Adrian
18514
From: Matthew Clayfield
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 10:12am
Subject: Re: Aviator
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
> I love Wes Anderson, but I think Brad is spot on about Paul W.
> Anderson, the most godawful and puerile filmmaker to emerge in the
> last decade. His musical counterpart would be Johnnie Ray.
Wrong Paul Anderson; Brad mentioned Paul Thomas Anderson, not Paul
W. Anderson (who, needless to say, I agree with you on).
As far as PTA goes, I have to agree with JPC. "Irony" and "cool
detachment" aren't things he concerns himself with at all; he loves
his characters as much as Ferrara supposedly does -- more so, in my
opinion.
18515
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 11:27am
Subject: Re: Ferrara
I'm really quite baffled as to why so many people think that Abel's
drug-taking habits are important to a discussion of his work. I'm not
trying to be difficult here. I really don't get it. I half-suspect
that it's an excuse used by lazy critics who want to find an alibi
for not rising to the challenges of the work - one prominent critic
(whom I won't name), refused to enter into serious discussion of NEW
ROSE HOTEL, since he insisted that the lack of narrative coherence
was entirely due to Abel's drug-addled state of mind. Yet a close
analysis of NEW ROSE HOTEL (which I offer in my book) easily refutes
such accusations - it's among the most carefully and meticulously
constructed films I've ever seen.
But I know that Adrian isn't among those looking for alibis for
laziness when it comes to analyzing Ferrara - so, like I said, I just
don't get it. Why doesn't anyone make similar comments about studies
of Scorsese's work that fail to take into account the director's
apparently quite impressive amounts of drug-taking? Or Nicholas Ray's
alcoholism?
18516
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 0:04pm
Subject: Re: Aviator
"Nothing matters to the Jarmusch of DEAD MAN (or GHOST DOG, or even
COFFEE AND CIGARETTES)?"
I have to confess to feeling a twinge of guilt about listing
Jarmusch. I used to associate him with those 'too cool for school'
directors who represented everything I hated the most about
contemporary American cinema. But it was always obvious that he was
the most talented of them. Then DEAD MAN (along with several defences
of Jarmusch by his admirers, most notably Jonathan) came very close
to convincing me that I had been wrong. Then I saw GHOST DOG, and
decided I'd probably been right in the first place.
"Forgive me, Brad, but you haven't seen those films. And something
tells me that you didn't get that much out of RUSHMORE either.
Writing these films off as mannerist or equating them with the
commercial drivel of hacks like Soderbergh is tantamount to putting
Lubitsch and Nichols in the same camp"
It's a question of what I regard as most important. And in a world
that includes Ozu, Mizoguchi, Ophuls, Cassavetes, Hou and Renoir,
I'd say that Lubitsch and Nichols are 'in the same camp'. I have a
certain amount of sympathy with people who claim that we should not
compare films in this way, rejecting filmmaker A because we consider
her/him less important than filmmaker B. But, at a far deeper level,
I believe that to see RUSHMORE or GHOST DOG (or, to really approach
the bottom of the food chain, AMERICAN BEAUTY) as somehow superior to
THE BLACKOUT or NEW ROSE HOTEL is to simply be ungrateful for
Ferrara's achievement. This may sound like romantic bullshit, but for
me RUSHMORE is stone cold dead: it's 'perfect' in the way that a dead
fish on a slab is perfect. It's the ideal film for a 'discerning'
post-Reagan audience which regards art as a kind of frivolous game in
which nothing is really at stake. THE BLACKOUT and NEW ROSE HOTEL and
SNAKE EYES are films in which everything is on the line - it's cinema
as a journey in which the filmmaker has no clear end point in sight,
and no idea if he will even be in a position to return once his
destination is reached. Romantic bullshit? Perhaps. But I think that
even Ferrara's detractors will undersatnd what I am getting at, and
why these kinds of comments could not possibly be applied to the
Andersons, James L. ("would you like this film more with a happier
ending?") Brooks, Coen, or even Jarmusch.
The difference seems incredibly obvious to me. Isn't it clear to
everyone that Jarmusch, Coen, and the Andersons, whatever the
differences between them, all share a stylistic 'coolness'? That
their characters are ultimately subordinate to their aesthetic games?
That their stylistic perefection is popular because it allows viewers
to share the filmmakers' sense of superiority to their characters?
And isn't it obvious that Ferrara's films offer none of these
dubious 'pleasures'?
"If massive quantities of Catholic guilt is the only legitimate way
to be humanist, I'll settle for James L. Brooks any day, periodic
phoniness and all."
As I hope I made it clear in my book, I regard Ferrara's Catholicism
as one of the least imporatnt things about his work (in any case, he
now regards himself as an atheist).
18517
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 0:12pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara
"I don't entirely relate to this kind of statement you make about
him 'filming people with love' - I share Jean-Pierre's doubt about
establishing the 'evidence' of this...NEW ROSE HOTEL, THE ADDICTION,
even THE FUNERAL are a million miles away from my idea of what a
humanist film is."
From my book:
"In The Addiction, the cruelty of Kathleen and her fellow vampires is
measured on the one hand against those genocides which defined the
twentieth century, on the other against that simple humanity
displayed by the doctor who holds Kathleen's hand, the taxi driver
who attempts to help her, the passers-by who rush to her aid when she
collapses in the street, the nurse who tells her "nobody's gonna let
you die", and the priest who administers last rites. Like Chaplin's
Monsieur Verdoux, Kathleen sees her actions as inconsequential in the
context of mankind's propensity for mass destruction, but remains
unaware of something she encounters every day: the disinterested,
almost instinctual need to comfort a fellow human being in distress.
If Peina is correct in his assumption that "it takes a special person
to see pain and do something about it", the world he occupies would
appear to be full of 'special' people. While Kathleen inisists "some
things are more important than others", Ferrara believes the precise
opposite: for him, nothing is more important than anything else, no
individual more valuable than another, this shot neither more nor
less significant than that shot. The proposition that the Holocaust
leaves one with little option but to abandon faith in humanity,
seeing virtually any atrocity as trivial by comparison, is denied by
individual images, such as the sequence-shot depicting Kathleen's
first hospital visit: Ferrara begins this shot by showing an old
woman with a walking-stick proceeding through the corridor, moves his
camera to reveal a policeman talking to Kathleen, then follows
Kathleen as she sits down next to a woman and an injured man. The
implicit answer to Kathleen's philosophy can be found in Ferrara's
mise-en-scene, the woman walking past and the injured man being
granted a stature equal to that of the protagonist. Ferrara usually
focuses on individuals who are marginal to America's mainstream, and
his films often end up privileging characters who are marginal to
their own narratives (Could This Be Love, Cat Chaser): whereas
Kathleen believes herself to be the only important person in her
world, relationships with other people inevitably involving "the
violence of my will against theirs", Ferrara reminds us of the many
other human beings with whom she regularly comes into contact, and
whose pain is as important as hers - as he told Gavin Smith, "You got
to get outside yourself, you can't just walk round thinking, 'The
only thing that counts is me'. You got to think about something other
than yourself" (15). If the filmmaker is represented by a single
character, it is surely the priest, played by Father Robert Castle,
who insists on greeting everyone he passes."
I should add that I find this hospital shot, which I offer as the
(non-Rivettian) proof of Ferrara's humanist impulses, to be typical
of Ferrara's work rather than exceptional.
18518
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 1:23pm
Subject: re: Ferrara
Here is an instant response to one part of your fascinating and important
post, Brad. It seems to me that there ARE some studies of directors that
take things like drug use and alcohol consumption into account. A bunch of
good analyses of Cassavetes discuss the category of 'alcoholic perception' -
which doesn't mean JC filmed while drunk, or simply that his characters are
often drunk, but rather that a whole perceptual way of
seeing/feeling/sensing comes into play into his work, arising from the lived
experience of (plenty of) alcohol. (Jousse, for instance, is good on this.)
I think it could be said that Eisenchitz's book on Nick Ray does in some
sense relate the drug/drink/sex habits of this auteur to the aesthetic of
'risk visible within the work', which is really the main theme of that book.
Garrel, of course, has often been talked about in terms of the 'hard drug
aesthetic' - partly because Garrel himself has 'authorised' this discussion
by talking openly about it - as opposed to Ferrara and Scorsese, who I guess
have more to lose within the American industry by gabbing about it. (They
have Biskind to do it for them, pruriently!!!)
Don't misunderstand me: I am not saying that alcoholic/drug perception, as
worked into an aesthetics, philosophy or politics, is any lesser (or
greater) than any other perceptual system. I am not saying it need be any
less thought out, formal or rigorous: because I completely agree with you,
NEW ROSE HOTEL is an incredibly accomplished experimental work, not a 'drug
addled' mess. But there is - possibly - a connection between the
life-experience (especially if it is constant, obsessive, addictive, etc)
and the art. How could there NOT be?
But just switching this a little: Bill Has discussed Sam Fuller's work in
terms of a working through of 'combat trauma' - and, of course, the kind of
aesthetic of perception etc that results from it. What's the difference
between talking about this, and a director's drug/alcohol use? It seems to
me there is a 'thin red line' here etched by a moral queasiness towards
certain subjects. Maybe!
Adrian
18519
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 0:41pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara
Don't get me wrong. I never denied the possibility that analyzing a
director's concerns in the context of their personal lives could
potentially be productive of meaning. What I don't get is why it is
implied that this is somehow the only approach that can be taken
towards Ferrara, and that I have made a fundamental error in not
taking it.
I can sort of see how Sam Peckinpah's problems with drink and drugs
might have contributed towards the partial (and always fascinating)
incoherence of his later work. But in Ferrara, I just don't see it.
He sometimes deals with the drug world, but always with absolute
coherence - there isn't an incoherent moment in any of his films.
18520
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 2:21pm
Subject: re: Ferrara
Brad - On several points here, we are not arguing. Of course, I agree with
you: talking about drugs is obviously NOT the only valid way to analyse
Ferrara's films. And I am not saying, either, that you made any fundamental
error in not addressing it. Rather, as in many situations, it is a delicate
matter of genre: your director books so far exist in that murky space (which
more and more writer/critics are stepping into) between 'textual analysis',
'director study', 'critical biography' and outright biography. So, if for
example in your Ferrara book, you are going to excavate his childhood and
formative years, then I expected you somewhat to also excavate his
adulthood, like an investigative reporter!
The Catholicism question, by the way, is an interesting one in the case of
Ferrara. It's not enough, I believe, to wave this away by saying (whoever
truly) 'now he regards himself as an atheist'. It's the formative
structures, the internalised ones, that often count (and cut) the deepest in
a person's psyche! As a critic, you may yourself find a 'Catholic approach'
to his films uninteresting or unhelpful - as some critics also find it
unhelpful in relation to Scorsese, or even Rossellini. But the extremely
Catholic input, on the deepest level, of Nicholas St John into these films
is massive - THE ADDICTION is one of the supreme Catholic movies, ask any
cinephile priest or nun, I know a few!! - and is not so easily discounted in
favour of some more 'materialist' Marxo-Freudian framework (Robin
Wood-style).
But, as I say, each 'genre' of writing creates its own terms and
definitions. There is never 'one, true' way of going at anything. Thank God
or whichever drug has replaced Him for that !!!!
Adrian
18521
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 1:34pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara
"in your Ferrara book, you are going to excavate his childhood and
formative years, then I expected you somewhat to also excavate his
adulthood, like an investigative reporter!"
Well, I emphasised what I felt was important. Thought that the stuff
about Abel's childhood was interesting in its own right, even if it
didn't tell you much about the films. But the drug-taking...I mean,
okay, the guy sometimes takes drugs. What else, really, is there to
say on that subject?
"The Catholicism question, by the way, is an interesting one in the
case of Ferrara. It's not enough, I believe, to wave this away by
saying (whoever truly) 'now he regards himself as an atheist'. It's
the formative structures, the internalised ones, that often count
(and cut) the deepest in a person's psyche! As a critic, you may
yourself find a 'Catholic approach' to his films uninteresting or
unhelpful - as some critics also find it unhelpful in relation to
Scorsese, or even Rossellini. But the extremely Catholic input, on
the deepest level, of Nicholas St John into these films is massive"
AF's Catholicism is obviously important, and I did try to deal
carefully with this in my book. But it seems to me that Ferrara chose
(or was led to choose through his relationship with Nicodemo
Oliverio/Nicholas St John) to discuss the things that most concerned
him in the language of Catholicism. I think Abel eventually realized
that he could no longer pursue his concerns in this language, and I
would guess that this is one of the reasons why he stopped
collaborating with Nick. THE ADDICTION reveals the most fundamental
split between the concerns of its screenwriter and the concerns of
its director - anyone who reads this film as expressing an orthodox
Catholic viewpoint is simply not paying attention to what's on screen.
18522
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 2:25pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ferrara
--- thebradstevens wrote:
>
> I'm really quite baffled as to why so many people
> think that Abel's
> drug-taking habits are important to a discussion of
> his work. I'm not
> trying to be difficult here. I really don't get it.
And that's because you haven't "been there" or 'around
there." Laziness has nothing to do with it. It's an
aesthetic. It's a (drumrool please)"lifestyle." ( Zoe
Lund wasn't giving herself Vitamin B-12 shots you
know.)
It's what ties a narrative filmmaker like Ferrara to a
by-and-large non-narrative one like Garrel
-- especially in films like "Le Berceau de Cristal"
> I half-suspect
> that it's an excuse used by lazy critics who want to
> find an alibi
> for not rising to the challenges of the work - one
> prominent critic
> (whom I won't name), refused to enter into serious
> discussion of NEW
> ROSE HOTEL, since he insisted that the lack of
> narrative coherence
> was entirely due to Abel's drug-addled state of
> mind. Yet a close
> analysis of NEW ROSE HOTEL (which I offer in my
> book) easily refutes
> such accusations - it's among the most carefully and
> meticulously
> constructed films I've ever seen.
>
Heroin is a very coherent drug. Consider Trocchi. Even
Burroughs. See also Matt Dillon's major speech about
it in "Drugstore Cowboy."
> But I know that Adrian isn't among those looking for
> alibis for
> laziness when it comes to analyzing Ferrara - so,
> like I said, I just
> don't get it. Why doesn't anyone make similar
> comments about studies
> of Scorsese's work that fail to take into account
> the director's
> apparently quite impressive amounts of drug-taking?
> Or Nicholas Ray's
> alcoholism?
>
I actually spoke with Scorsese about his drug-taking
for my book. Not a question -- he volunteered it. "The
King of Comedy" was made when he was trying to kick
cocaine. He appears to have largely succeeded.
(Think about an asmahtic addicted to cocaine for a
moment won't you?)
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
18523
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 2:36pm
Subject: Re: Re: Bitchun Flick Alert
> May is definitely post-Romero, in that it cites Argento and has more
> fun with the gore than you would probably be able to stomach. On the
> other hand, there isn't any until the last 2 reels. Up till then it's
> a character study.
Sounds more and more as if CARRIE is the chief inspiration. - Dan
18524
From:
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 11:06am
Subject: Re: Re: Ferrara
In a message dated 12/6/04 8:29:47 AM, cellar47@y... writes:
>
> (Think about an asmahtic addicted to cocaine for a moment won't you?)
>
I have never snorted coke nor do I know how it works (apart from the fact
that it's an upper). Would it alleviate asthmatic symptoms or exacerbate them?
Kevin John
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18525
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 4:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ferrara
--- LiLiPUT1@a... wrote:
> I have never snorted coke nor do I know how it works
> (apart from the fact
> that it's an upper). Would it alleviate asthmatic
> symptoms or exacerbate them?
>
Exacerbate them -- especilly for someone as dependent
upon an inhaler as Marty is.
He can flip it out and use it so quickly now you can
barely see the motion.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
18526
From:
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 11:12am
Subject: Jarmusch (was: Ferrara)
Jarmusch’s films are full of enormous pictorial beauty. This is especially
found in the landscape shots that fill his work. This is landscape in the broad
sense, including cityscapes and street scenes. They are highly atmospheric
too. They constantly create a sense of feeling, convey emotions, and bathe the
drama in a world of evoked sensation, mental experience and sensory richness. In
short, the landscapes create mise-en-scène.
The landscapes reach their peak in his color films: Mystery Train, Night on
Earth, and Ghost Dog. But they are also found in his black & white work, such
as the long final water journey to the tribal lands in the last sections of
Dead Man. One of the best landscape sequences is the ride on the freeway around
15 minutes into Ghost Dog, one of the most hypnotic passages in modern cinema.
Jarmusch’s use of color harmonies adds a lot to his landscape sequences. They
tend to be full of reds, greens, blues, and other bright, glowing primary or
secondary colors. The various patches of color tend to form geometric figures.
There are two ways to see Jarmusch. If you ignore his landscapes, he can be
seen as a maker of somewhat minimalist comedies, inoffensive, with sympathetic
characters, but not a whole lot of substantive events. If you open your eyes
to the landscapes, he becomes a major filmmaker, a pictorialist in the
tradition of Sternberg.
Jarmusch’s work reminds one of a quote from Virginia Woolf. Woolf was
describing the gorgeous, ornate prose of Joseph Conrad. She suggested Conrad’s prose
was like the young Helen of Troy, looking into a mirror, and realizing that
she would never, ever be a plain woman.
Discussions of Jarmusch’s “personality”, such as the recent ones on
a_film_by, seem almost irrelevant. Mr. Jarmusch, with whom I am not acquainted, clearly
does like to present himself as being hip. And a “hip” stream does flow
through the comedy in his pictures, with rock and roll being a subject in Mystery
Train, and literature and philosophy being discussed in Ghost Dog. Jarmusch’s
comments are lively and stimulating, and add another factor to the mix of these
films. They also tend to prop up the films’ structure. I tend to find this
element pleasant and enjoyable, without seeing it as the core of Jarmusch’s
achievement.
Mike Grost
18527
From:
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 11:32am
Subject: Catholicism (was: Ferrara)
The Roman Catholic religion is hugely diverse, with an endless number of
cultural strands weaving through the thought, religious and artistic practise it
has influenced. Think of all the painters of Catholic subjects. Or the
thousands of Catholic composers who have written classical music. In film history, the
Catholic background has been strong in the creation of the film thriller
(Feuillade, Lang, Hitchcock), and in the realist tradition (Stroheim, Bresson,
Rossellini, Fellini, Olmi, Wajda).
One welcomes the discussion of Catholic themes in films. But realistically,
they should recognize the diversity of Catholic experience, and take a broad
approach to the possible implications of Catholic art and thought.
Mike Grost
18528
From: Damien Bona
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:03pm
Subject: Re: Aviator
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Matthew Clayfield"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
> wrote:
>
> > I love Wes Anderson, but I think Brad is spot on about Paul W.
> > Anderson, the most godawful and puerile filmmaker to emerge in
the
> > last decade. His musical counterpart would be Johnnie Ray.
>
> Wrong Paul Anderson; Brad mentioned Paul Thomas Anderson, not Paul
> W. Anderson (who, needless to say, I agree with you on).
>
Whoops. I, of course, meant Paul Thomas Anderson, the worst poseur
working in films today. I've never seen any of Paul W's work, but
some people whose taste I respect do admire him.
18529
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:08pm
Subject: Re: Catholicism (was: Ferrara)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
"The Roman Catholic religion is hugely diverse, with an endless
number of cultural strands weaving through the thought, religious
and artistic practise it has influenced."
Absolutely true. There are national inflections of Catholicism as
well, and the Catholic eductaion Ferrara recieved is quite different
than, for example, the one Hitchcock received. Nor has Catholic
doctrine and dogma remained fixed and unchanged; consider the changes
wrought by Vatican II. In Ferrara's case the Catholicism of his
formative years was post-Vatican II, a humanist and "progressive"
Catholicism.
It's hard to say to what extent any given individual has been
indoctrinated into a given faith, but if one finds compassion in
Ferrara's pictures then perhaps he took inspiration from the
compassion of Vatican II's "preferential option for the poor" despite
his transition to atheism. Anyway, Brad's book on Ferrara and the
Ferrara thread here is the best stuff I've ever read on him.
Richard
18530
From: Craig Keller
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:16pm
Subject: Re: Re: Aviator
> Whoops. I, of course, meant Paul Thomas Anderson, the worst poseur
> working in films today. I've never seen any of Paul W's work, but
> some people whose taste I respect do admire him.
What does "the worst poseur" even mean? What's the pose? What was at
stake?
As always, I suspect to be young and bold is criminal. Damien, where
were -you- when punk broke?
(As I'm off to New York for a day or two to see 'Notre musique,' I
predict a response that has to do with overbearing'ness of the PTA
soundtrack and other criminal offenses, -- in my absence, I'll respond
in advance asking what filmmakers under 37 in American movies you can
tolerate.)
craig.
18531
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:16pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara
Brad:
> But the drug-taking...I mean,
> okay, the guy sometimes takes drugs. What else, really, is
there to
> say on that subject?
I have not yet read your Ferrara book, Brad, but I'm curious if you
took the approach of interviewing his collaborators. I have three
more or less disparate accounts of Ferrara from three
acquaintances. One, an actor in NEW ROSE HOTEL, lamented
his experience on the film and said it was "too bad" what
happened -- referring to Ferrara's drug problem. The second is a
producer on 'RXMAS, who said Ferrara has a wild lifestyle but is
a "pro" on the set. And the third is from a guy -- whom we both
know -- who did a documentary on Ferrara, and said that Ferrara
goes through phases of addiction, often in the same period of
shooting, and that these ups and downs clearly affect the works
from the result of others -- assistants, actors, etc. -- having to
complete the work for him.
Since Ferrara is still an active director who needs financing for
his films it may be important to dispel with notions of his drug
use, but wouldn't it be wrong to say that this has NOT been a
major factor in the production (not just conception) of nearly all
his films?
Gabe
18532
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:50pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara
"the third is from a guy -- whom we both know -- who did a
documentary on Ferrara, and said that Ferrara goes through phases of
addiction, often in the same period of shooting, and that these ups
and downs clearly affect the works from the result of others --
assistants, actors, etc. -- having to complete the work for him."
I sincerely doubt that Rafi said anything of the kind. That whole
thing about Abel abandoning films, leaving them to be completed by
others is complete bullshit. I've heard lots of rumors about Ken
Kelsch directing parts of NEW ROSE HOTEL, but Ken unambiguously
denied this to me, as did Asia Argento. Asia was very open about the
problems she had with Abel, but she still insisted that it was unfair
to imply that he wasn't there for the film, because he was there 100
percent, twenty four hours a day (and I mean that literally - he can
apparently go for days without sleeping).
18533
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 5:53pm
Subject: Re: Catholicism (was: Ferrara)
> The Roman Catholic religion is hugely diverse, with an endless
> number of cultural strands weaving through the thought, religious
> and artistic practise it has influenced.
Sure. And Ferrara used to belong (however problematically) to one of
these traditions. But he has now matured to the point where he no
longer needs the crutch of Catholicism.
18534
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 6:17pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> "the third is from a guy -- whom we both know -- who did a
> documentary on Ferrara, and said that Ferrara goes through
phases of
> addiction, often in the same period of shooting, and that these
ups
> and downs clearly affect the works from the result of others --
> assistants, actors, etc. -- having to complete the work for him."
>
> I sincerely doubt that Rafi said anything of the kind. That whole
> thing about Abel abandoning films, leaving them to be
completed by
> others is complete bullshit.
EVen SNAKE EYES?
18535
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 6:19pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara
"an actor in NEW ROSE HOTEL, lamented his experience on the film and
said it was "too bad" what happened -- referring to Ferrara's drug
problem."
I seem to recall that Willem Dafoe (whom I've never spoken to) was
going around saying things like that. I gather he thought the set was
being run in a chaotic manner. But I have to say that the results
speak for themselves - NEW ROSE HOTEL is a masterpiece (I'm starting
to believe that it may be the greatest film ever made), Dafoe has
never been better, and Ferrara brought the whole thing in on time and
on budget. So what's there to complain about?
I guess that much of Dafoe's problem stems from the fact that a lot
of what Abel does while filming involves the creation of a certain
atmosphere: Isabella Rossellini said that on the set of THE FUNERAL,
she would see people fighting and have no idea if it was a real fight
or part of a scene. And that's the kind of thing Abel encourages: it
prevents the actors from relaxing and phoning in a performance, since
they are constantly being asked to react to the unexpected. Look at
the scene in NEW ROSE in which Asia Argento is trying to make Dafoe
face up to the moral implications of what he is doing, asking him
difficult questions to which he has no ready answers. Dafoe looks
very uncomfortable, and it's right that he should look uncomfortable,
since his character is supposed to be uncomfortable. But that whole
scene was improvised: Asia was firing questions at Dafoe, and he had
no idea what she was going to ask him, let alone how he was supposed
to respond. So Dafoe's discomfort is genuine - like his character, he
had no script to fall back on. This is why there's so much great
acting in Abel's films - because it isn't all acting!
It's a shame Dafoe felt negatively about the experience, but just
because he perceived Abel's method as chaotic doesn't make this a
fact.
18536
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 6:25pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara
"EVen SNAKE EYES?"
Of course, But don't get confused. There are parts of certain of
Abel's films which he wasn't present for the filming of. This isn't
the same thing as abandoning the films - it's part of the plan. On
THE BLACKOUT, for example, Abel wasn't there during the filming of
the scenes with Matty talking to his psychiatrist - Matthew Modine
and Christ Zois simply went off with a video camera and improvised
the whole thing. Same thing on NEW ROSE for the scenes showing Asia
in an art gallery, on the street and in a cafe - Asia and Jim Mol
simply ran around with a video camera shooting footage. In both
cases, Abel's actual presence would have been irrelevant at best, an
active nuisance at worst. But he would discuss everything with the
actors beforehand, so they knew exactly what he wanted.
18537
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 6:38pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ferrara
--- thebradstevens wrote:
There are parts
> of certain of
> Abel's films which he wasn't present for the filming
> of. This isn't
> the same thing as abandoning the films - it's part
> of the plan.
And it's not without precedent. On Jarman's "War
Requiem" Tilda Swinton had an idea of how she wanted
the "Sanctus" shot ( and amazing medium-close shot of
her swaying back and forth to the music) so she told
Derek and he said "Great. Go ahead and do it. That
will give me time to do some other things I need to do
right now."
He likewise allowed collaborators like John Maybury a
free hand in supplying footage they had shot for both
"War Requiem" and "The Last of England."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
18538
From: Jonathan Rosenbaum
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 6:48pm
Subject: Re: Aviator
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> Jonathan Rosenbaum wrote:
>
> > It's understanding that makes all three of the comic Brookses
> >(Albert, James, and Mel) worth bothering with as well, at least at
Incidentally, Jonathan, have you seen "Spanglish" yet? And I was
also
> curious if you ever warmed up to "Terms of Endearment"? (I got the
sense from
> your review of "As Good As It Gets" that it's your least favorite
JLB picture.)
>
> Peter
I'm seeing "Spanglish" Thursday night. And no, I'm not very partial
to "Terms of Endearment," apart from an enduring partiality to Debra
Winger.
18539
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:27pm
Subject: Re: Aviator
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> "If massive quantities of Catholic guilt is the only legitimate way
> to be humanist, I'll settle for James L. Brooks any day, periodic
> phoniness and all."
>
> As I hope I made it clear in my book, I regard Ferrara's
Catholicism as one of the least imporatnt things about his work (in
any case, he now regards himself as an atheist).
Nicky's the one who still goes to Mass. Anyway, Hitchcock suffered
from Catholic guilt and certainly put it in his films.
Since many names are now in play under the indecipherable rubric of
The Aviator, let me just add that Abel Ferrara is the best practicing
American filmmaker, as far as I'm concerned; I turned off Rushmore
after 20 minutes (but am seeing the new WA tonight, with hope in my
heart); I like both Paul Andersons, but like the serious one more; I
take James L. Brooks seriously, and am looking forward to Spanglish
(ALBERT Brooks, it goes without saying, is one of H'wd's wonders, and
Mother is one of the great films of recent years); I like Scorsese,
but look to him for something different than do many here (hence my
preference for Casino over Raging Bull); I like the Coens, although
they sometimes let me down; and my opinion of Jarmusch, previously
stated at length and probably too baldly, hasn't changed.
One more time: I don't give a damn what a filmmaker thinks of his/her
characters, who don't exist. Repeat: who don't exist.
And please, everyone: THE CoenS. They co-direct, whatever it says on
the screen (and starting w. Ladykillers that seems to be changing).
Love 'em or hate 'em, but let's get it right.
Also, I think we've overreacted a bit to Spielberg's hitting a home
run with AI. He had a lot of help! Let's see how the Black September
film turns out before jumping to any conclusions. In the meantime, my
inner 12-year-old is looking forward wildly to War of the Worlds.
18540
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:32pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
Superb analysis, Brad. We'll have to agree to disagree about what to
call the inclusivenesss of Ferrara's vision. I wholeheartedly agree
with him about the need to get outside yourself, and would be
inclined to call those shots emblems of enlarged consciousness,
rather than expressions of love. And since anecdotal evidence from
mankind's past overwhelmingly suggest that the two end up going hand
in hand when they hit a certain level, it may be senseless to quibble
over the words.
18541
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:40pm
Subject: Re: Bitchun Flick Alert
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > May is definitely post-Romero, in that it cites Argento and has
more
> > fun with the gore than you would probably be able to stomach. On
the
> > other hand, there isn't any until the last 2 reels. Up till then
it's
> > a character study.
>
> Sounds more and more as if CARRIE is the chief inspiration. - Dan
It's an inevitable reference, and as Aaron pointed out, Angela Ellis
later played Carrie on tv. But May is more like Martin than she/it is
like Carrie.
18542
From: thebradstevens
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:41pm
Subject: Don't bogart that Pagnol film (was Re: Jack Webb's DRAGNET)
Monday, December 6th, 7.35 pm
Just watched one of the notorious narcotics-themed episodes of
DRAGNET: 'The Big Seventeen', from 1952. Joe Friday is summoned to a
cinema where a riot has broken out. A gang of teenagers started
teraring the place up and attacking the staff. Friday doesn't have to
look far to find the reasons for this apparently unmotivated
violence - a matchbox dropped by one of the rioters
contains...marijuana!
But what struck me was the scene in which Friday arrives at the
cinema. According to a poster prominently displayed in the lobby, the
film currently being shown there was "Marcel Pagnol's THE PRIZE -
From a Novel by Guy de Maupassant"! According to the IMDB, THE PRIZE
is the American-release title of Jean Boyer's LE ROSIER DE MADAME
HUSSON (1950), written by Pagnol.
It's a shame that this episode wasn't made in the 60s, when a French
film would have been all that was needed to provoke a riot in a
cinema.
18543
From: filipefurtado
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: Ferrara
Wow! That’s a great discussion!
>I really don't get it. I half-suspect
>that it's an excuse used by lazy
critics who want to find an alibi
>for not rising to the challenges of
the work - one prominent critic
>(whom I won't name), refused to enter
into serious discussion of NEW
>ROSE HOTEL, since he insisted that
the lack of narrative coherence
>was entirely due to Abel's
drug-addled state of mind. Yet a close
>analysis of NEW ROSE HOTEL (which I
offer in my book) easily refutes
>such accusations - it's among the
most carefully and meticulously
>constructed films I've ever seen
Every time someone tells me how much
he/she hates New Rose Hotel, I answer
joking “that’s because you haven’t
seen it high”. I hope nobody never
took me serious, but this film (and
also Blackout and R X Mas) images have
a very subjective dreamy nature (sorry
I never manage to find a way to
describe them) and I can imagine that
Ferrara’s drug experience played a
part in inspire him to find them.
Which is very different to say that he
was high throughout the whole shooting
and the film is a incoherent mess
because of it. Actually, I totally
agree with you on how perfectly
structured New Rose Hotel is. The
problem with the “Ferrara is a drug
addict” thing is that it makes for a
very limited way of seeing his films,
especially if it is overplayed as it
very often is (to get an example from
Adrian, the chapter on alcohol in
Jousse’s very fine Cassavetes book is
great, but is one chapter in a book
that deals with its subject in many
different directions, which is very
different by the way Ferrara is often
reduced).
>THE ADDICTION reveals the most
fundamental
>split between the concerns of its
screenwriter and the concerns of
I>ts director - anyone who reads this
film as expressing an orthodox
>Catholic viewpoint is simply not
paying attention to what's on screen.
Or the person is overplaying the
elements that he has decide before
hand to be “important” in Ferrara’s
cinema. Auteurism is always suffering
the risk of standardize a filmmakers
work. I have wrote before that the
relative cold reaction to Kiarostami’s
recent work has to do with it not
always as easy to recognize as typical
of him, and the same happens very
often (as with Ferrara’s wonderful
recent films). A filmmaker friend of
mine who is a huge Ferrara fan,
loathes both New Rose Hotel and
Blackout and I’m quite sure that’s
because neither one of these films can
be read by the catholic lens he seem
to have imposed on Ferrara’s work.
There’s some really funny interviews
with Cinema Novo directors in the late
60’s/early 70’s with them complaining
about European critics (poor Louis
Marcorelles was always the culprit)
paternalistic tendencies toward them;
which could always be read (ignoring
the “first world intellectual who
believes to know third world problems
better than us” framework) as “they
want us to make the same movie over
and over”. And I guess we are all
guilty of doing that on occasion.
>This may sound like romantic
bullshit, but for
>me RUSHMORE is stone cold dead: it's
'perfect' in the way that a dead
>fish on a slab is perfect. It's the
ideal film for a 'discerning'
>post-Reagan audience which regards
art as a kind of frivolous game in
>which nothing is really at stake. THE
BLACKOUT and NEW ROSE HOTEL and
>SNAKE EYES are films in which
everything is on the line - it's cinema
>as a journey in which the filmmaker
has no clear end point in sight,
>and no idea if he will even be in a
position to return once his
>destination is reached.
…
>The difference seems incredibly
obvious to me. Isn't it clear to
>everyone that Jarmusch, Coen, and the
Andersons, whatever the
>differences between them, all share a
stylistic 'coolness'? That
>their characters are ultimately
subordinate to their aesthetic games?
I can agree with you that the stakes
are higher with Ferrara than with Wes
Anderson or Jamursch, on the other
hand I’d say that there’s more at
stake in Fassbinder’s films than in
the Straubs’ but I still like the
Straub’s a lot more.
I do think Wes Anderson and Jamursch
cares for theirs characters, but I do
agree that they subordinate them to
certain aesthetic, as for Paul Thomas
Anderson, he seems to like his while
writing them, but is more them whiling
to turn them into garbage for a cool
shot (something I doesn’t think is
true to either Wes or Jamursch). But
them I can see someone trying to
downgrade Bresson by saying he does
something similar.
Filipe
__________________________________________________________________________
Acabe com aquelas janelinhas que pulam na sua tela.
AntiPop-up UOL - É grátis!
http://antipopup.uol.com.br/
18544
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:51pm
Subject: Re: Ferrara
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "thebradstevens"
wrote:
>
> "EVen SNAKE EYES?"
>
> Of course, But don't get confused. There are parts of certain of
> Abel's films which he wasn't present for the filming of.
The doctor who directed Le Moindre Geste was sometimes sitting in the
car while the cameraperson worked alone with the actor. After that -
two years after that - somewone else edited it, getting input from
the director, although Chris Marker probably had more. It's a
limiting case for auteurism because it really is a film without an
author, unless you want to assign authorship to the main actor, who
is insane.
18545
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 7:59pm
Subject: Re: Re: Aviator
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> Since many names are now in play under the
> indecipherable rubric of
> The Aviator, let me just add that Abel Ferrara is
> the best practicing
> American filmmaker, as far as I'm concerned
And as far as I'm concerned the best practicing
American filmmaker is the guy on the right --
http://www.bonusround.com/book3-10/images/outfest04-45.jpg
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
18546
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:05pm
Subject: Re: Aviator
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> --- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> And as far as I'm concerned the best practicing
> American filmmaker is the guy on the right --
>
> http://www.bonusround.com/book3-10/images/outfest04-45.jpg
Who's the guy on the right? Anyway, the guy on the left is much
sharper looking.
>
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________________________
> Do You Yahoo!?
> Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
> http://mail.yahoo.com
18547
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:16pm
Subject: Tibet (OT) (Re: Aviator)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
> wrote:
>
>
> " suppose this has little to do with movies, even with 'Kundun.'"
>
> True, but very informative and useful to Asia watchers like myself.
> Over and out (and back to topic.)
>
> Richard
To get back to movies -- the discussion over the historical accuract
of "Gangs of New York" is interesting.
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0320_030320_oscars_gangs.html
18548
From: hotlove666
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:19pm
Subject: Re: Aviator
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> Who's the guy on the right? Anyway, the guy on the left is much
> sharper looking.
Oops! Todd Haynes. Not the best, IMO, but definitely a comer.
18549
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 8:35pm
Subject: Re: Re: Aviator
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
>
> wrote:
> >
> > --- hotlove666 wrote:
> >
> > And as far as I'm concerned the best practicing
> > American filmmaker is the guy on the right --
> >
> >
>
http://www.bonusround.com/book3-10/images/outfest04-45.jpg
>
> Who's the guy on the right? Anyway, the guy on the
> left is much
> sharper looking.
> >
> >
Here he is again:
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g001/haynes.html
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - now with 250MB free storage. Learn more.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
18550
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 9:23pm
Subject: Tibet (OT) (Re: Aviator)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
> To get back to movies -- the discussion over the historical accuract
> of "Gangs of New York" is interesting.
>
>
http://news.nationalgeographic.com/news/2003/03/0320_030320_oscars_gangs.html
Some more on the same subject:
http://hnn.us/comments/6212.html
http://godard.cjb.net//smithsonian.txt
http://godard.cjb.net//mattie.pdf
Benjamin Justice in Social Education. (May/Jun 2003) was very critical
of the film, but I haven't seen the article, just this quote, so I
don't know his reasoning.
"Gangs of New York," like many historical films is accurate in detail,
but it is distorted and mistaken in its larger characterizations and
interpretations."
The production design seems stylized even if "Everything is built
to look precisely as it did."
The last article is interesting. It interprets "Gangs" as showing the
origins of American national identity out of the narrow ethnic
loyalties of Five Points and the self-interest of Tammany Hall --
which might be what Scorsese was thinking.
Paul
18551
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 9:57pm
Subject: Re: Aviator
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>> Who's the guy on the right? Anyway, the guy on the left is much
> sharper looking.
Bill, you must be kidding! David is practically guy-on-the-right's
PR man on this Group.
Of course I'm sure D.E always looks sharp.
18552
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Mon Dec 6, 2004 11:55pm
Subject: Re: Re: Aviator
--- jpcoursodon wrote:
>
> Bill, you must be kidding! David is practically
> guy-on-the-right's
> PR man on this Group.
>
> Of course I'm sure D.E always looks sharp.
>
>
As J-P well knows this is all part of my master plan
to (dare I says it? ) RULE THE WORLD !
All the important gay and lesbian filmmakers
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g001/gus.shtml
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g001/monika.html
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g001/maybury.html
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g001/hu.html
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g001/davies.html
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g003/greyson.html
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g003/kalin.html
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g003/condon.html
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g009/jonshear.html
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g010/olivierducastelandjacquesmartineau.html
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/g011/randalkleiser.html
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/g001/b_johncameronmitchell.html
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/g001/b_kennethanger.shtml
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/g001/b_jimfall.shtml
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/g001/b_robmarshall.shtml
and above all:
http://ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/g001/b_patricechereau.shtml
are well-acquainted with me.
My current project is to get Gus to do the Frank
O'Hara story and Todd to do Joe Brainard.
If I can pull this one off then you can call me David
O. Selznickstein!
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
18553
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 0:05am
Subject: Re: Re: Bitchun Flick Alert
> But May is more like Martin than she/it is
> like Carrie.
In what aspects, if it's not too much of a spoiler? - Dan
18554
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 0:59am
Subject: Historical Accuracy in Movies (was Tibet OT)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
"'Gangs of New York,' like many historical films is accurate in
detail, but it is distorted and mistaken in its larger
characterizations and interpretations.
"The production design seems stylized even if 'Everything is built
to look precisely as it did.'"
Interesting group of articles. I was surprised to learn that
Jonathan D. Spence, current doyen of China scholars, considers
Sternberg's SHANGHAI EXPRESS not only accurate in its period detail
but in its characterizations and interpertations as well. He
contributed an essay on it to a "Hollywood and history" volume(I
don't remember the title of the book, but it also has an article by
Gore Vidal on Karl Freund's THE MUMMY.)
Another re-working of history into art is Charles
Reznikoff's "Testimony: the United States (1885-1915) Recitative" an
epic free verse poem drawn from court records.
Richard
18555
From: Peter Henne
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 1:55am
Subject: Re: Oliveira's "The Satin Slipper" (was: An Oliveira Video Surprise)
The complete version is approximately seven hours. It screened about six years ago on a two-night program at the American Cinematheque in Los Angeles, in a "long film" series. The play is divided into four parts, "The First Day," "The Second Day," "The Third Day," "The Fourth Day." It is somewhat logical to divide the film into two screenings (and by extension the play into two performances, though I've never had the privilege to see Claudel's work acted on the stage). The first half of the film centers upon themes of renunciation, and the second upon worldly aspirations. There is a break in tone between the two halves. De Oliveira's colors are more limited and somber for the first three hours or so, up to the point when he introduces the fanciful, painted canvas backdrops which Fred Camper mentions. The color schemes of the last (approx.) four hours are bright, robust, simply gorgeous. Instead of tracing the familiar path of gaity to the grave, the material and the film's visual
style reverse this all-too-sermonizing thread, turning from sanctity toward this life's splendors. But it isn't all bubbly. The long takes become even more severe in the second half; I believe every shot is a sequence shot here, and as I recall most toward the end occupy an entire reel.
It is also worth noting that the film is book-ended by scenes which situate Claudel's text as a play. At the beginning, the camera aerially moves toward a stage performance and up to a movie screen at the back of the stage, entering the screen. At the end, an empty stage is depicted from a high angle, and voices whispering "Cinema" are heard on the soundtrack, as though coming from the eaves. That didn't work for me. I found de Oliveira's film schematic but ambitious. I think his previous film "Francisca" (1981), a self-reflexive film which makes commentary upon other self-reflexive films, remains his masterpiece. It's a shame to me it is hardly in anyone's canon, as it screens so seldomly, but if "The Satin Slipper" can make it to DVD then perhaps this one will too.
Fred Camper wrote:
I've had the privilege of seeing this film twice. It is seven hours
long, and best seen without a break, though it is divided into several
parts for exhibition.
It's a tremendously great film, and I think remains my favorite de
Oliveira, though I've not seen all the recent ones. The use of obviously
fake theatrical backdrops (rolling waves with leaping fish, for example)
should appeal to Sirkians, as should the stunning sensuous colors,
though the effect is somewhat (but not totally) different. It's a
monumental paean to failure and impossibility, in which the failure of
Spain's grand quest to conquer the world for Christ (Philip II's
reaction the defeat of the Armada is a fantastically powerful scene,
though we don't see any ships -- and here it helps to know at least a
little history) is paralleled by the failure of the lovers to, er, get
it on. For those who know de Oliveira this shouldn't really be a
spoiler, but stop reading here if you prefer):
It's a seven hour film in which the lovers encounter each other only
three times, never touch, and at the end part in an incredible long take
on the deck of a ship against a painted rust-red sky that, as I said in
an old "Reader" review, left me collapsed in tears.
Fred Camper
Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT
---------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/a_film_by/
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.
---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
All your favorites on one personal page – Try My Yahoo!
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18556
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 2:32am
Subject: Re: Aviator
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> >
> >
> As J-P well knows this is all part of my master plan
> to (dare I says it? ) RULE THE WORLD !
>
Well, there's nothing very difficult about ruling the world. But
making a good gay movie, that's something else.
> My current project is to get Gus to do the Frank
> O'Hara story and Todd to do Joe Brainard.
>
> If I can pull this one off then you can call me David
> O. Selznickstein!
>
> I hope you can get some dough out of it. Money is power.
>
>
>
>
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> Take Yahoo! Mail with you! Get it on your mobile phone.
> http://mobile.yahoo.com/maildemo
18557
From: Richard Modiano
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 4:40am
Subject: AVIATOR SCREENING AT THE ACADEMY
My landlord has invited me and any members of a_film_by to a
screening of AVIATOR tomorrow night at the Academy at 7:00 p.m.. You
have to RSVP by 3:00 p.m. tomorrow, so if any L.A. members are
interested please contact me off list before then.
Richard
18558
From: Paul Gallagher
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 7:38am
Subject: Re: Historical Accuracy in Movies (was Tibet OT)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Richard Modiano"
wrote:
>
> Interesting group of articles. I was surprised to learn that
> Jonathan D. Spence, current doyen of China scholars, considers
> Sternberg's SHANGHAI EXPRESS not only accurate in its period detail
> but in its characterizations and interpertations as well. He
> contributed an essay on it to a "Hollywood and history" volume(I
> don't remember the title of the book, but it also has an article by
> Gore Vidal on Karl Freund's THE MUMMY.)
>
I think that's Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies,
by Mark C. Carnes. I looked at a little of the book at the library.
It's fascinating.
I was interested in the articles on "Gangs of New York" in part
because I live not so far from what used to be Five Points, but also
because Scorsese seemed to be intending to make a big statement on New
York and American history, but what the statement was didn't seem
especially clear.
Paul
18559
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 7:42am
Subject: Re: Aviator
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
wrote:
>
> What does "the worst poseur" even mean? What's the pose? What was
> at stake?
Paul Thomas Anderson uses grandiloquent flourishes, grand camera
movements and would-be epic scope (well, long running times) in a
vain attempt to cover up the fact that he has nothing to say. He's a
child playing grown-up. He's in the odd-position of making character-
driven films when, on the basis of what's on the screen, he has very
little understanding of human nature or the essence of
relationships. Despite what Anderson thinks, high-pitched angst does
not equal truthfulness. The characterizations in his movies are just
plain silly. Despite his technical proficiency, the end result of
Anderson's pictures is vacuity.
I think that in his review of "Magnolia," Deeson Howe of the
Washington Post got it exactly right: ""Over the course of three
hours, these characters -- all residents of the San Fernando Valley
and few of them happy -- never stop flipping their lids, venting
their spleens and blowing head gaskets. Did California run out of
Prozac or something? . . . Anderson instructs his performers to go
long on the hot-button emotions. Most scenes -- or so it seems --
begin and conclude with anger, bitterness, yelling or shouting.
Anderson considers himself an actor's director, but he's something
far less romantic: a star-struck enabler." Howe's conclusion: "When
you strip away the surface intensity of this movie, nothing remains
but Anderson's desire to make a movie. Shouldn't there be something
more?"
Anderson's also the guy who said, ""Most people don't share my
morals sense which is I'll masturbate, but I have to clean it up very
quickly afterwards." No, thanks.
> As always, I suspect to be young and bold is criminal.
No, but to be self-indulgent, insipid and pompous is quite
unattractive.
>>Damien, where > were -you- when punk broke?
Umm, when punk broke in the mid-70s I was in college (Columbia),
listening to, and going to see, a wide range of music, most
particularly Old School Country, jazz, singer-songwriters (Eric
Andersen!), Texas swing, standards/classic pop and, yes, punk (Tom
Robinson rules!). And a few years later when punk had morphed into
New Wave, you could sometimes find me at the Mudd Club.
>
> (As I'm off to New York for a day or two to see 'Notre musique,' I
> predict a response that has to do with overbearing'ness of the PTA
> soundtrack and other criminal offenses, -- in my absence, I'll
respond in advance asking what filmmakers under 37 in American
movies you can tolerate.)
Wes Anderson, naturally, but I'm realizing I have no idea most of the
filmmakers are who emerged over the last 15 years. I would have
assumed that such directors I greatly admire such as Richard
Linklater and John Cameron Mitchell and the Farrellys met your
(arbitrary?) cut-off age of 37 but they are all in their 40s. In any
case, I don't pay attention to a director's age; it's his or her
sensibility that matters. After all, as they approach 80, Altman and
Shohei Imamura remains two of the most youthfully exuberant of all
filmmakers.
But do take a deep breath and try to calm down -- you used the
word "criminal" twice in your post. Artistic failure is not a crime,
even for someone who fails as completely and obnoxiously as Paul
Thomas Anderson.
18560
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 8:11am
Subject: Re: Aviator
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Craig Keller
where
> were -you- when punk broke?
By the way, what does Paul Thomas Anderson have to do with punk,
anyway. His fatuos bombast is akin to things like Electric Light
Orchestra, Pink Floyd, Chicago and Queen, the very groups to which
punk was responding. If you think that Anderson is in anyway
equivalent to Television, The Ramones, Richard Hell and the Voidoids
or The Clash, then you are sorely lacking in an understanding of the
essence of punk.
18561
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 8:32am
Subject: Re: Bitchun Flick Alert
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > But May is more like Martin than she/it is
> > like Carrie.
>
> In what aspects, if it's not too much of a spoiler? - Dan
She doesn't have powers, and she isn't simple-minded -- more like
simple-minded and very weird. No one would call Carrie a character
study, but that's what this film is. There was even more in it about
her childhood before the producers prevailed on the director to cut
it. And because it's about someone who thinks she's Dr. Frankenstein,
it's probably deliberately patterned on Martin, about a kid who
thinks he's a vampire. It's much more akin to the Romero than to the
DePalma, and also has similarities to to Larry Fessenden's Trilogy of
Horror - No Telling, Habit and Wendigo - which reimagine genre myths
in realistic contemporary stories. Also highly recommended.
18562
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 8:32am
Subject: Re: Bitchun Flick Alert
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt wrote:
> > But May is more like Martin than she/it is
> > like Carrie.
>
> In what aspects, if it's not too much of a spoiler? - Dan
She doesn't have powers, and she isn't simple-minded -- more like
simple-minded and very weird. No one would call Carrie a character
study, but that's what this film is. There was even more in it about
her childhood before the producers prevailed on the director to cut
it. And because it's about someone who thinks she's Dr. Frankenstein,
it's probably deliberately patterned on Martin, about a kid who
thinks he's a vampire. It's much more akin to the Romero than to the
DePalma, and also has similarities to to Larry Fessenden's Trilogy of
Horror - No Telling, Habit and Wendigo - which reimagine genre myths
in realistic contemporary stories. Also highly recommended.
18563
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 8:40am
Subject: Re: Oliveira's "The Satin Slipper" (was: An Oliveira Video Surprise)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne wrote:
I found de Oliveira's film schematic but ambitious. I think his
previous film "Francisca" (1981), a self-reflexive film which makes
commentary upon other self-reflexive films, remains his masterpiece.
It's a shame to me it is hardly in anyone's canon, as it screens so
seldomly, but if "The Satin Slipper" can make it to DVD then perhaps
this one will too.
I agree with both these estimates, which are complicated for me by
the fact that I have to read subtitles on Francisca, which is
Oliveira's masterpiece, and not on The Satin Slipper, which is
Claudel's masterpiece -- the poetry is sublime. Obviously these are
matters of degree in measuring an oeuvre that was carried out on a
very high level until the late period, when there was a falling of,
with a few knockouts: Party, Mon Cas and the film based on the
letters of the author of Francisca.
18564
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 8:41am
Subject: An Oliveira Video Surprise - Love Streams
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Peter Henne wrote:
By the way, whoever is releasing The Satin Slipper on DVD also has
access to Love Streams -- both were in the Cannon package that landed
at MGM.
18565
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 8:46am
Subject: Wes Anderson's New Film
...is magic. I'm a convert. Bill Murray has nothing to prove at this
point in his career, but he stretches here and proves it anyway. The
film is indescribably nutty and wonderful. Buckaroo Banzai fans
rejoice - this is Anderson's tribute to it, with Jeff Goldblum along
as a very funny reference point.
18566
From: Kevin Lee
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 1:38pm
Subject: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
as a point of reference, Bill, what did you think of THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS? That
was my first letdown with W Anderson -- I loved RUSHMORE and BOTTLE ROCKET had
moments of true originality. TENENBAUMS was the first instance I sensed he was
headed towards the cloying mannerist style some people accuse him of (most
recently last week on this board).
kevin
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666" wrote:
>
> ...is magic. I'm a convert. Bill Murray has nothing to prove at this
> point in his career, but he stretches here and proves it anyway. The
> film is indescribably nutty and wonderful. Buckaroo Banzai fans
> rejoice - this is Anderson's tribute to it, with Jeff Goldblum along
> as a very funny reference point.
18567
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 2:40pm
Subject: Welles at Work
Good news for Wellesians: I just heard about a new book coming out late next
year (in French), WELLES AT WORK. It is by François Thomas and Jean-Pierre
Berthomé, two very fine critics who have been associated with POSITIF; the
former did a great book on Resnais and the latter on Demy. François wrote to
me:
"Jean-Pierre and I have re-teamed to write a book called Orson Welles au
travail to be published by Cahiers du cinéma in October 2005. The book is
possible because of our former work on Welles, meaning interviews with
collaborators and the gathering of many archive sources. Cahiers du cinéma
already published Bill Krohn's Alfred Hitchcock au travail and Carole Le
Berre's François Truffaut au travail."
Yay!
Adrian
18568
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 2:07pm
Subject: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
Also "Modesty Bliase" (a lor of nifty spy/adventure
movie satire in the film's last half.)Add his fontal
compositions and and poker-faced protagonists and
you've got Peter Greenaway with a sense of humor.
When you think of just how difficult it is to film on
the water you've got quite a comic achivement -- in
what's turned out to be a very good year indeed.
--- hotlove666 wrote:
>
> ...is magic. I'm a convert. Bill Murray has nothing
> to prove at this
> point in his career, but he stretches here and
> proves it anyway. The
> film is indescribably nutty and wonderful. Buckaroo
> Banzai fans
> rejoice - this is Anderson's tribute to it, with
> Jeff Goldblum along
> as a very funny reference point.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The all-new My Yahoo! - Get yours free!
http://my.yahoo.com
18569
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 2:10pm
Subject: Re: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
Can't agree with you about TENENBAUMS at all.
Mannerist, hell yes. Cloying, no.
Same for the new one.
--- Kevin Lee wrote:
>
> as a point of reference, Bill, what did you think of
> THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS? That
> was my first letdown with W Anderson -- I loved
> RUSHMORE and BOTTLE ROCKET had
> moments of true originality. TENENBAUMS was the
> first instance I sensed he was
> headed towards the cloying mannerist style some
> people accuse him of (most
> recently last week on this board).
>
> kevin
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
> wrote:
> >
> > ...is magic. I'm a convert. Bill Murray has
> nothing to prove at this
> > point in his career, but he stretches here and
> proves it anyway. The
> > film is indescribably nutty and wonderful.
> Buckaroo Banzai fans
> > rejoice - this is Anderson's tribute to it, with
> Jeff Goldblum along
> > as a very funny reference point.
>
>
>
>
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
18570
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 2:27pm
Subject: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
> Add his fontal
> compositions and and poker-faced protagonists and
> you've got Peter Greenaway with a sense of humor.
Or the second coming of Richard Lester?
Finally got I HEART HUCKABEES in the UK, and loved it. The Payne-
Russell-Anderson axis is a cause for great rejoicing in modern
cinema, I think.
18571
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 3:30pm
Subject: Now you know ...
I swear I'm not making this up: a summary of an essay in a recent issue of
POETICS TODAY, gleaned from the Internet:
Cantor, Joanne. :
"I'll Never Have a Clown in My House"--Why Movie Horror Lives On
Abstract: To explore lingering effects of frightening media, 530 papers
written by students over a three-year period (1997-2000) were reviewed. The
students could write about their own fright reactions or about a response
they had witnessed in another person. Almost all students (93 percent) wrote
about their own experiences, and the overwhelming majority (91 percent)
described reactions to realistic fiction or fantasy content (depicting
impossible events) rather than to the news or a documentary. The ninety-one
papers about the four presentations cited most frequently Jaws,
Poltergeist, The Blair Witch Project, and Scream were content analyzed. Of
the papers, 46 percent reported an effect on bedtime behavior (e.g., sleep
disturbances) and 75 percent reported effects on waking life (e.g., anxiety
in related situations). Among the prominent effects on waking life were
difficulty swimming after Jaws (in lakes and pools as well as the ocean);
uneasiness around clowns, televisions, and trees after Poltergeist;
avoidance of camping and the woods following The Blair Witch Project; and
anxiety when home alone after Scream. More than one-third of the papers
reported effects continuing to the time of the study. These consequences
attest to the enduring power of emotional memory even when the viewer is
aware that the response is to a large extent irrational. Possible reasons
for these lingering effects are discussed.
18572
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 2:35pm
Subject: Re: Historical Accuracy in Movies (was Tibet OT)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Paul Gallagher"
wrote:
> > > Interesting group of articles. I was surprised to learn that
> > Jonathan D. Spence, current doyen of China scholars, considers
> > Sternberg's SHANGHAI EXPRESS not only accurate in its period
detail
> > but in its characterizations and interpertations as well. He
> > contributed an essay on it to a "Hollywood and history" volume(I
> > don't remember the title of the book, but it also has an article
by
> > Gore Vidal on Karl Freund's THE MUMMY.)
> >
> I think that's Past Imperfect: History According to the Movies,
> by Mark C. Carnes. I looked at a little of the book at the library.
> It's fascinating.
I have this out the local library at the moment and the Vidal piece
is on SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS. There's a short book where he talks about
THE MUMMY though.
SHANGHAI EXPRESS is cited as inspired by fact but large amounts of
poetic license have been used - the real hijacked train that inspired
the film was not bound for Shanghai, for instance. Von Sternberg
prided himself on never having visited China at the time and was
pleased to be told that his gun encrusted train in no way resembled
the real thing!
> I was interested in the articles on "Gangs of New York" in part
> because I live not so far from what used to be Five Points, but also
> because Scorsese seemed to be intending to make a big statement on
New
> York and American history, but what the statement was didn't seem
> especially clear.
He was attacked for falling into a right-wing view of history - the
idea of the area as irredeemably bad, that despite the efforts of
charitable workers the residents were addicted to every kind of vice.
As far as historiacal accuracy goes, a production designer I know had
to research glass eyes for a short film - he told me that a) they
didn't move about as you rolled your eye and b) you couldn't blink
and c) they weren't an exact match in terms of size, so D-Day Lewis'
little contact lens doesn't really fit the bill there.
I found the film improved on second viewing, personally. Which is
when things like dramatic sense, structure and logic seem less
important...it's like HAMLET only the main character isn't SUPPOSED
to be indecisive - but he seems to be. A bit unsatisfactory.
18573
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 2:48pm
Subject: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
"Finally got I HEART HUCKABEES"
Shouldn't the title be typed/pronounced as I LOVE HUCKABEES? Surely
the heart symbol means 'love' in the same way that an ampersand
means 'and'.
18574
From: cairnsdavid1967
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 3:22pm
Subject: Re: PT Anderson (was: Aviator)
Pardon the intrusion.
> I think that in his review of "Magnolia," Deeson Howe of the
> Washington Post got it exactly right: ""Over the course of three
> hours, these characters -- all residents of the San Fernando Valley
> and few of them happy -- never stop flipping their lids, venting
> their spleens and blowing head gaskets."
I'm not saying it's not a legitimate view, but even if all the above
is true, is it necessarily bad? Could the same description, with
altered geography, not be applied to KING LEAR?
The next bit -
> Prozac or something? . . . Anderson instructs his performers to go
> long on the hot-button emotions. Most scenes -- or so it seems --
> begin and conclude with anger, bitterness, yelling or shouting.
> Anderson considers himself an actor's director, but he's something
> far less romantic: a star-struck enabler."
- seems to be rather based on the assumption that, yes, it IS bad.
But to me it isn't necessarily so.
> "When
> you strip away the surface intensity of this movie, nothing remains
> but Anderson's desire to make a movie. Shouldn't there be something
> more?"
Well, maybe, but not necessarily. But of course we can point to many
themes that MAGNOLIA explores, and several overriding ones that link
it all together. To complain that they are not covered in meaningful
depth would be one thing, but we can't pretend that the film does not
look at the role of coincidence in human affairs, for instance. With
the surface intensity removed, that still remains.
Haven't decided is I rate PTA highly at all, but I find this attack
maybe a touch excessive.
18575
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 3:46pm
Subject: Re: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
--- cairnsdavid1967 wrote:
> Or the second coming of Richard Lester?
Closer to Joseph McGrath, actualy.
>
> Finally got I HEART HUCKABEES in the UK, and loved
> it. The Payne-
> Russell-Anderson axis is a cause for great rejoicing
> in modern
> cinema, I think.
>
>
I agree.
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - Find what you need with new enhanced search.
http://info.mail.yahoo.com/mail_250
18576
From: Charles Leary
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 4:16pm
Subject: Re: Now you know ...
Conclusion: poor taste in horror films.
On Dec 7, 2004, at 10:30 AM, Adrian Martin wrote:
> I swear I'm not making this up: a summary of an essay in a recent
> issue of
> POETICS TODAY, gleaned from the Internet:
>
> Cantor, Joanne. :
>
> "I'll Never Have a Clown in My House"--Why Movie Horror Lives On
>
> Abstract: To explore lingering effects of frightening media, 530
> papers
> written by students over a three-year period (1997-2000) were
> reviewed. The
> students could write about their own fright reactions or about a
> response
> they had witnessed in another person. Almost all students (93
> percent) wrote
> about their own experiences, and the overwhelming majority (91
> percent)
> described reactions to realistic fiction or fantasy content (depicting
> impossible events) rather than to the news or a documentary. The
> ninety-one
> papers about the four presentations cited most frequently Jaws,
> Poltergeist, The Blair Witch Project, and Scream were content
> analyzed. Of
> the papers, 46 percent reported an effect on bedtime behavior (e.g.,
> sleep
> disturbances) and 75 percent reported effects on waking life (e.g.,
> anxiety
> in related situations). Among the prominent effects on waking life
> were
> difficulty swimming after Jaws (in lakes and pools as well as the
> ocean);
> uneasiness around clowns, televisions, and trees after Poltergeist;
> avoidance of camping and the woods following The Blair Witch Project;
> and
> anxiety when home alone after Scream. More than one-third of the
> papers
> reported effects continuing to the time of the study. These
> consequences
> attest to the enduring power of emotional memory even when the viewer
> is
> aware that the response is to a large extent irrational. Possible
> reasons
> for these lingering effects are discussed.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18577
From: Ruy Gardnier
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 4:37pm
Subject: Re: Re: Aviator
M. Night Shyamalan
Jonathan Caouette
Wes Anderson
----- Original Message -----
From: "Craig Keller"
To:
Sent: Monday, December 06, 2004 3:16 PM
Subject: Re: [a_film_by] Re: Aviator
(As I'm off to New York for a day or two to see 'Notre musique,' I
> predict a response that has to do with overbearing'ness of the PTA
> soundtrack and other criminal offenses, -- in my absence, I'll respond
> in advance asking what filmmakers under 37 in American movies you can
> tolerate.)
> craig.
18578
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 4:43pm
Subject: Re: PT Anderson (was: Aviator)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
>
> Pardon the intrusion.
>
Allow me to intrude too.
>
> Haven't decided is I rate PTA highly at all, but I find this
attack
> maybe a touch excessive.
You can say that again. I completely agree with the objections to
Damien's diatribe against PTA (for anyone who has just joined the
exchange, this does not stand for Parents Teachers Association but
for Paul Thomas Anderson -- and not Wess Anderson or Paul W
Anderson). But when a person feels such intense hatred toward an
artist and his work, there's absolutely nothing one can do in
defense of the artist that will make the person change his/her
opinion even a fraction of one per cent. So why bother? I wrote long
reviews of MAGNOLIA and BOOGIE NIGHTS for POSITIF and praised both
films highly. I'm sure if Damien read those reviews they wouldn't
influence him the least bit; he'd just conclude that I am a total
fool. He might be right. After all Damien is a connoisseur of
essences, and that's quite intimidating. He knows what the essence
of punk is and, even more impressive, what "the essence of
relationships" is (whereas PTA doesn't have a clue). I wish I had
his wisdom.
JPC
18579
From:
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 11:50am
Subject: Re: Now you know ...
I confess I have no desire to see horror films at all. And do not understand
why people want to see the gross, frightening or disgusting.
A generalization: a lot of pre-1970 films tried to create a world of beauty
and joy on screen.
A lot of post-1970 commercial films try to show as much ugliness, horror,
cruelty and repulsive events as possible.
Who needs this stuff?
I also wonder if people are psychologically, politically and morally damaged
by seeing violence and horror. Would there be such support for the war in Iraq
among American voters, if their sensibilities had not been coarsened and
corrupted by years of films that glorify war and violence? This whole genre is
profoundly right-wing: it destroys people's character, then they support vicious
right wing policies.
It does not surprize me that people are still emotionally upset by horror
films they have seen, even years afterwards. These films are intended to attack
people emotionally, and they succeed.
I will continue to go to comedies instead, and films that try to show people
creating better lives.
Disgusted in Detroit,
Mike Grost
18580
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 4:55pm
Subject: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "hotlove666"
wrote:
>
> ...is magic.
Oh c'mon! It's a mess. I suppose I was charmed by parts of it
(how can you not be? -- it's true no one is makig films like Wes,
but should that be a blessing in itself?).
It's his least funny, most one-sided, most inside-jokey film (for
this reason I prefer OCEAN'S TWELVE), and I did not believe its
sincerity for one bit; in fact, I found it smug and catering to an
audience of already-fans.
Wes anderson has never brought out his inner-child as forcefully
as in this film. And maybe that's what I oppose in THE LIFE
AQUATIC: its immaturity. The film is about "play" and "pretend",
pretend adventures, pretend death, pretend emotions.
>
18581
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 5:08pm
Subject: Re: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
--- Gabe Klinger wrote:
The film is about "play"
> and "pretend",
> pretend adventures, pretend death, pretend emotions.
>
No it's about grief.
The film is bookended with deaths of important
characters. The more I think about it the more I like
it.
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! Mail - You care about security. So do we.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
18582
From: Gabe Klinger
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 5:09pm
Subject: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
re: Bill Murray -- I didn't think he was nearly as funny or
interesting as Gene Hackman in THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS.
Gabe
18583
From:
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 0:17pm
Subject: Re: PT Anderson (was: Aviator)
Have only seen Magnolia (PT Anderson), but did not like it. It seemed
nihilistic and despairing, looking at people who were largely monstrous.
Recently posted about two romantic comedies, which I enjoyed:
All Over the Guy (Julie Davis, 2001)
A Boyfriend for Christmas (Kevin Connor, 2004)
Both of these films try to make the viewer more civilized. They show refined
people, who are sensitive and full of noble and romantic feelings. They try to
lift the viewer up, and show him a deeper emotional life. Magnolia seemed
like the opposite: the characters (especially Tom Cruise's) seem degraded.
They idea of art as an enobling experience is in disarray today. I agree that
art can be made of anything, and this includes "good" and "bad" characters.
Yet we are in a full tilt boogie today in wallowing in bad characters, and are
ignoring artists who deal in good ones.
Some other points: Many viewers and critics today have very strong ideas what
they want out of the cinema. They want to see directors who 1) make feature
films for theaters and 2) deal with straight characters. PT Anderson fits this
bill. By contrast, "All Over the Guy" deals with gay men, and "A Boyfriend for
Christmas" was made for televison (the American TV cable "Hallmark Channel").
This makes these films a "lesser breed outside the law" (Kipling) in the eyes
of many of today's cineastes. There is a lot of cinema that does not fit the
"straight guys who make features for theaters" paradigm, that is SO important
to many of today's cineastes. We might actually find a higher grade of cinema
looking in such quarters. Both of these films are heirs of Lubitsch. They seem
better to me than Magnolia, which seems like low grade ore.
Mike Grost
18584
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 5:37pm
Subject: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
> The film is about "play" and "pretend",
> pretend adventures, pretend death, pretend emotions.
>
> >
One possible definition of "cinema," though...
18585
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 5:44pm
Subject: Re: Re: PT Anderson (was: Aviator)
--- MG4273@a... wrote:
> Some other points: Many viewers and critics today
> have very strong ideas what
> they want out of the cinema. They want to see
> directors who 1) make feature
> films for theaters and 2) deal with straight
> characters. PT Anderson fits this
> bill. By contrast, "All Over the Guy" deals with gay
> men, and "A Boyfriend for
> Christmas" was made for televison (the American TV
> cable "Hallmark Channel").
> This makes these films a "lesser breed outside the
> law" (Kipling) in the eyes
> of many of today's cineastes. There is a lot of
> cinema that does not fit the
> "straight guys who make features for theaters"
> paradigm, that is SO important
> to many of today's cineastes.
Well I get your point -- up to a point. For this past
season saw the debut of the biggest made-for-TV movie,
maybe ever, was "Angels in America" -- which as I'm
sure you recall wasn't written by a straight guy or
was terribly involved in straight concerns.
There are indeed many films which revel in
heterosexual privilege, but there are a growing number
that don't. And I'm not justtlaking about gay films "I
Heart Huckabees" and "Sideways" are both profoundly
critical of the sexual status quo.
Still the chances of anyone in the U.S. coming up with
a "Those Who Love Me Can Take the Train" aren't
particularly keen.
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Read only the mail you want - Yahoo! Mail SpamGuard.
http://promotions.yahoo.com/new_mail
18586
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 5:53pm
Subject: Re: Now you know ...
"I also wonder if people are psychologically, politically and morally
damaged by seeing violence and horror. Would there be such support
for the war in Iraq among American voters, if their sensibilities had
not been coarsened and corrupted by years of films that glorify war
and violence? This whole genre is profoundly right-wing: it destroys
people's character, then they support vicious right wing policies."
From your opening paragraph, I assume that 'this whole genre' refers
to the horror film rather than the war film. Yet all the great
American horror films of the 70s - the films of Romero, Lieberman,
Cohen and De Palma, as well as Oliver Stone's remarkable debut
feature QUEEN OF EVIL/SEIZURE - were explicitly left-wing, presenting
patriarchial 'normality' as a source of intolerable repression that
must be rejected. Anyone who has been 'influenced' by these films
will surely be opposed to everything the Bush government stands for.
Or is violence only acceptable in right-wing middlebrow pap such as
SAVING PRIVATE RYAN?
By the way, is there really 'such support' for the war in Iraq? Even
the mid-Westerners who reelected Bush seem to be pretty uneasy about
it.
18587
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 6:15pm
Subject: THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS
Last night, I watched Alan Rudolph's THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS
(2003), a film which has had absolutely no exposure in the UK. I
imported the American DVD - Rudolph's previous film, INVESTIGATING
SEX (2001), appears to have completely vanished (unless anyone knows
of a video/DVD release somewhere).
For the first two-thirds/three quarters, I was pretty bored - then I
started to have the strangest feeling that I was watching something
as beautiful and delicate as one of Ozu's masterpieces. It's not that
the film 'improved' or sprang to life - more that I suddenly 'got'
where Rudolph had been going, understood everything he had been
conveying to me without my realizing it. I think I started to feel
this way around the point that Denis Leary says "Marriage is
impossible". Because everything the film has been doing up to then
gives unexpected weight to this otherwise banal line - in exactly the
same way that the experience of watching TOKYO STORY allows us to
perceive "Life is disappointing" as a profound statement.
I'll have to watch the film again before I can be certain that the
conclusions I reached following my initial, rather odd viewing have
any real validity, but I'd be curious to know if there are any other
admirers out there.
18588
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 6:23pm
Subject: Re: PT Anderson (was: Aviator)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "cairnsdavid1967"
wrote:
>
> Pardon the intrusion.
>
> > I think that in his review of "Magnolia," Deeson Howe of the
> > Washington Post got it exactly right: ""Over the course of three
> > hours, these characters -- all residents of the San Fernando
Valley
> > and few of them happy -- never stop flipping their lids, venting
> > their spleens and blowing head gaskets."
>
> I'm not saying it's not a legitimate view, but even if all the
above
> is true, is it necessarily bad? Could the same description, with
> altered geography, not be applied to KING LEAR?
One could also apply the description to "Valley of the Dolls" - but
what's critical is the execution.
18589
From: Damien Bona
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 6:37pm
Subject: Re: PT Anderson (was: Aviator)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
wrote:
After all Damien is a connoisseur of
> essences, and that's quite intimidating. He knows what the essence
> of punk is and, even more impressive, what "the essence of
> relationships" is (whereas PTA doesn't have a clue). I wish I had
> his wisdom.
> JPC
Sheesh, J-P, I thought we were beyond the point where we had tpo
preface everything with "In my opinion . . ." In any case, it's not
as if you have ever been less than convinced about your very strong
opinions.
18590
From:
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 1:39pm
Subject: Re: THE SECRET LIVES OF DENTISTS
I love "The Secret Lives of Dentists," Brad. I think Rudolph has been on
something of a roll lately (as has his mentor and
brother-in-fly-on-the-wall-zooming, Altman, but that's another post.) Going back a few years, "Afterglow"
is, I think, a marvelous kind-of companion piece to "Dentists" in its portrait
of two married couples. "Breakfast of Champions" is one of two recent Kurt
Vonnegut adaptations (the other being Keith Gordon's "Mother Night") to receive
nowhere near the attention they deserve. "Trixie" I found just enjoyable for
Rudolph's aesthetics and for the performances. I haven't seen "Investigating
Sex," so I can't say that Rudolph is five for five among his films since 1997,
but I wouldn't doubt that he is.
Peter
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
18591
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 6:44pm
Subject: AVIATOR SCREENING AT THE ACADEMY
If that's the AFI screening, that's a nice invite... people should go!
>
> My landlord has invited me and any members of a_film_by to a
> screening of AVIATOR tomorrow night at the Academy at 7:00 p.m.. You
> have to RSVP by 3:00 p.m. tomorrow, so if any L.A. members are
> interested please contact me off list before then.
>
> Richard
>
18592
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 6:46pm
Subject: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Kevin Lee"
wrote:
>
> as a point of reference, Bill, what did you think of THE ROYAL
TENENBAUMS? That
> was my first letdown with W Anderson
I thought Royal Tannenbaums - announced on the cover of Film Comment
as "The Film of the Year" - was constipated. So did Anderson, who
told a friend of mine that he had gotten "too controlling" and would
fix that next time. THE LIFE AQUATIC is delightful first of all for
the freewheeling inventiveness of its style, in every way a
refutation of deserved fears that TRT marked the premature death of a
filmmaker. Tannebaums' characters were locked in a series of boxes;
TLA uses a Ladies Man-style boat set to do fluid crane shots between
boxes. The editing is often deliberately at odds with what was shot --
significantly, the ending refers to the ending of FOR EVER MOZART. I
gather Anderson did a lot of reshooting to make the damn thing work,
and it does, with scarcely a bobble. Ironically, the Film Society of
Lincoln Center (=Film Comment) turned down an unfinished cut they
were shown, but I rate the film I saw last night right up there with
I Heart Huckabees. I hope this one works as well (and unexpectedly)
as Huckabees did with young audiences who've had it with Hollywood
action crap, which is wonderfully sent up in all the sequences
involving the pirates, without ever making you feel that Anderson and
his actors aren't also having fun playing cowboys and Indians while
they're doing it.
18593
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 6:48pm
Subject: Re: Re: PT Anderson (was: Aviator)
--- Damien Bona wrote:
>
>
> One could also apply the description to "Valley of
> the Dolls" - but
> what's critical is the execution.
>
I'll plant my own tree, Damien -- and sure ain't a "Magnolia."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
Meet the all-new My Yahoo! - Try it today!
http://my.yahoo.com
18594
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 6:52pm
Subject: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Gabe Klinger"
wrote:
>
> re: Bill Murray -- I didn't think he was nearly as funny or
> interesting as Gene Hackman in THE ROYAL TENENBAUMS.
>
> Gabe
As a friend who saw it with me and David pointed out, Murray's gaze,
which was still turned outward in LOST IN TRANSLATION, is turned
inward for the first time in THE LIFE AQUATIC. And re: Gene Hackman,
I don't think he's given a fresh performance in anything for years.
18595
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 6:53pm
Subject: Re: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
--- hotlove666 wrote:
> TLA uses a Ladies Man-style boat set to do fluid
> crane shots between
> boxes.
I thought of that (it's a "Look Ma no walls!" tour of
the "Team Zissou" ship) but also of max Ophuls because
of the scene where Murray walks up to the prow of the
ship at night thats EXACTLY like Martine Carol walking
up to the prow of the ship at night in "Lola Montes."
__________________________________________________
Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around
http://mail.yahoo.com
18596
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 6:55pm
Subject: Re: PT Anderson (was: Aviator)
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Damien Bona"
wrote:
>
> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "jpcoursodon"
> wrote:
> After all Damien is a connoisseur of
> > essences, and that's quite intimidating. He knows what the
essence
> > of punk is and, even more impressive, what "the essence of
> > relationships" is (whereas PTA doesn't have a clue). I wish I
had
> > his wisdom.
> > JPC
>
> Sheesh, J-P, I thought we were beyond the point where we had tpo
> preface everything with "In my opinion . . ." In any case, it's
not
> as if you have ever been less than convinced about your very
strong
> opinions.
No, we don't have to preface everything (anything) with "In my
opinion." But when the opinion is as vituperative as yours, you
shouldn't be surprised to get some dissenting reaction.
My "very strong opinions"? I don't remember expressing strong
negative opinions that came anywhere near in intensity to your
loathing of PTA and his films. I don't feel THAT strongly about any
director. And it certainly never would occur to me to accuse
anybody of knowing nothing about the essence of relationships
(implying that I possess that sublime knowledge) -- a statement so
blithely arrogant and self-satisfied that it prompted my response.
JPC
18597
From: Robert Keser
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 7:11pm
Subject: Re: Aviator
This topic has probably passed its expiration date, but let me add a
few thoughts about the addictions and pleasures of our auteurs. Back
about a half million (or so) posts ago, I defended the value of
taking into account the various substances ingested by the
filmmaker. If we are seeking to understand an artist and the
aesthetic choices that artist has made, which can demonstrably be
affected by changes in the brain chemistry, how can we not be
interested in this? (Nevertheless, it should certainly be up to each
critic to determine if blatant enhancement of brain chemistry via
substances warrants notice).
Of course, the counterargument would say, "So what?" Just
about everything affects our brain chemistry. I remember reading a
finding that simply hearing one's name spoken causes an upsurge in
serotonin that engenders feelings of satisfaction and well-being (no
doubt why David gives the benefit of the doubt to Curtis
Bernhardt'sPossessed when the movie opens with Joan Crawford
repeating his name!). I don't know whether or not this finding
translates to reading your name in print, Bill, Adrian, Brad, Peter,
Fred, Gabe, and Mike. Presumably the context would play a
determining role, eliciting different responses when your name
appears in a love letter and on a wanted poster.
To me, the problem is that we need a biochemist-cinephile to develop
the fine-tuned tools necessary to determine how much influence
various brain-altering substances can have, and how these affect an
artist's production (as David suggests, heroin is a drug that
tends to produce coherence). Perhaps it's an extreme case, but
Scorsese's New York, New York only makes sense to me in the
context of its seemingly coke-addled production. Like anything
else, one might attribute to the drug use certain negative effects
(indulgence in abusive macho behavior, drift into incoherence) as
well as positive ones (grandly conceived setpieces, fearless
challenge to genre borders).
Incidentally, re feeling sorry for Scorsese: snorting cocaine
apparently actually *improves* the symptoms of asthma (if you
believe The Encyclopedia Britannica 2001, which states this
directly), thus validating Freud who originally proposed the use of
cocaine to *treat* asthma. The asthma emergencies that are connected
to cocaine use apparently come from smoking crack, not snorting the
drug, as well as from the associated risks of using alcohol and
pills at the same time. Is there a doctor in the house? Elizabeth?
--Robert Keser
18598
From: hotlove666
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 7:14pm
Subject: Re: Wes Anderson's New Film
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
>
> > TLA uses a Ladies Man-style boat set to do fluid
> > crane shots between
> > boxes.
>
> I thought of that (it's a "Look Ma no walls!" tour of
> the "Team Zissou" ship) but also of max Ophuls because
> of the scene where Murray walks up to the prow of the
> ship at night thats EXACTLY like Martine Carol walking
> up to the prow of the ship at night in "Lola Montes."
It's very referential. One of my favorite things is Willem Dafoe
playing the John Ireland part in Red River, which the film's plot
follows pretty closely. And speaking of not leaving a stick standing
re: sex-role stereotypes, Murray's oft-voiced homophobia
(particularly aimed at Cate Blanchett's character, who is playing the
Joanne Dru character) pretty much puts paid to the Hawks conventions
Steve Zisou so gracefully embodies, although last night I believe
David restrained his laughter until the payoff, when Hennessy (Jeff
Goldblum) says it was hard being a good husband to Eleanor (Anjelica
Huston) because he was "partially gay." It's just amazing how light-
hearted it all is -- this is real having-it-both-ways parody, which
still finds feelings in the conventions it's parodying. Hawks is all
over the place, including HATARI. (Blanchett is also Elsa
Martinelli.) In a sense THE LIFE AQUATIC is just Hawksian irony
flipped on its belly, with the laughs being openly solicited rather
than sneaked in, while the Hawksian values are reaffirmed and
updated. And did I mention that it's a feast for the eyes? It was
made at Cinecitta; the costumes are by Milena Canonero; the animation
is by Henry Sellick. And the songs... But I'm not going to spoil the
surprises in the end credits, except to say: Keep a sharp eye peeled
for a fine-print gag about studio errors and omissions practices. At
least I think it's a gag...
18599
From: thebradstevens
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 7:20pm
Subject: Re: Aviator
"Like anything else, one might attribute to the drug use certain
negative effects (indulgence in abusive macho behavior, drift into
incoherence) as well as positive ones (grandly conceived setpieces,
fearless challenge to genre borders)."
Any use such information might have is, in my opinion, vastly
outweighed by the potential dangers. It's only one short step
from 'taking drugs has encouraged the filmmaker to challenge genre
borders' to 'any filmmaker who challenges genre borders must be
taking drugs'. This, I'm sure, is why so many people think that Monte
Hellman is some kind of a drug addict, whereas the truth is that
Monte detests drugs, and won't even take an aspirin if he has a
headache.
18600
From: daveheaton2000
Date: Tue Dec 7, 2004 7:21pm
Subject: Re: PT Anderson (was: Aviator)
I don't get the good/bad characters dichotomy - in general or in
regards to "Magnolia". Even if by bad you mean angry, cynical,
arrogant, mean, selfish, etc.... in "Magnolia" that overlooks main
characters who wouldn't fit into any of those descriptions (john c.
reilly's character, most obviously) and also negates the idea that
characters can grow, change, or reveal more dimensions and feelings
than we (or other characters in the film) expect them to have. Most
or possibly all of the characters in "Magnolia" are more complicated
than they first appear, I think. How is a movie wallowing in
negativity when most of the main characters come to realizations,
many of them hopeful, by the film's end?
Moving beyond "Magnolia," though, do we only want to see films about
happy, smart, well-adjusted people? I don't get it. I haven't seen
the two films you mentioned, but the idea that films should "try to
make the viewer more civilized" certainly doesn't match my
expectations of a film. Because who defines "civilized"?
dave heaton
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, MG4273@a... wrote:
> Have only seen Magnolia (PT Anderson), but did not like it. It
seemed nihilistic and despairing, looking at people who were largely
monstrous. Magnolia seemed like the opposite: the characters
(especially Tom Cruise's) seem degraded. The idea of art as an
enobling experience is in disarray today. I agree that art can be
made of anything, and this includes "good" and "bad" characters. Yet
we are in a full tilt boogie today in wallowing in bad characters,
and are ignoring artists who deal in good ones.
a_film_by Main Page
Home Film
Art
Other: (Travel, Rants, Obits)
Links About
Contact