Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:29am
Subject: "Mixed" criticism
Addendum: I agree about the need for "sifting", which often means
incorporating some negative criticism into discussions of works we
like, or partly like. It's all very well to talk about accepting
great filmmakers faults and all, but criticism is more than just
vibing along with the object -- just as conversation involves some
measure of disagreement, in any encounter with an artwork there
always comes a point where we bump up against something we're bound
to reject or at least question. As the "flotsam" analogy implies,
maybe it's unfair to talk about "faults" here, because (like in
relationships with people) these kinds of ambivalent feelings are
part of the stimulation we take from encountering something outside
us, and the ongoing quarrel helps keep the movie living in our minds.
But this shouldn't mean bracketing off the disappointments and
frustrations that occur even in our experience of great art, as in
experience generally.
Manny Farber is great at this -- he never lets his liking for Fuller
or Hawks or whoever get in the way of lampooning all the aspects of
their movies which strike him as lame or obnoxious. Playing devil's
advocate like that is a basic part of critical integrity, and a way
of guarding against the psychic over-investment people were talking
about earlier.
JTW
3202
From: Peter Tonguette
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:53am
Subject: Re: "Mixed" criticism
Jake writes:
> But this shouldn't mean bracketing off the disappointments and
> frustrations that occur even in our experience of great art, as in
> experience generally.
This is a tricky point I'm trying to make, but, no, I don't think we
should bracket off disappointments or frustrations at all. They are
a completely valid part of our interaction with a work of art. I
don't consider any film perfect (well, maybe a handful, but I use the
term "perfect" not so much descriptively but as a way to express my
enthusiasm for those films.)
But what do I even mean by "perfect" in this context? I'd be
suspicious of a perfect art work if by "perfect" I meant that it was
free from challenges to my own sensibilities - challenges which
usually manifest themselves as disappointments and frustrations in my
filmgoing experience. For me, film is all about seeing through
someone else's vision; by definition, there are going to be points of
departure from MY vision and the filmmaker's vision. But becasue of
my commitment of seeing movies this way, I feel as though I have to
reckon with the idiosyncratic or even "bad" things in a great film.
I might end up concluding that, to paraphrase Hugo, those things are
inseparable from what's great about the movie and thus must be
tolerated. Or I might end up concluding that they are, indeed,
simply bad; pockmarks on the film's achievements.
But my philosophy is (and I'm not saying that Jake or anyone else is
writing anything to the contrary): don't dismiss the seemingly
problematic aspects of a great film out of hand.
Peter
3203
From: Peter Tonguette
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:19am
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
Dan writes:
> I think it's the same with politics as with film: negative
criticism is
> sometimes so incisive that you must agree with it, but positive
> criticism is the only kind can help you form an appreciation.
In a few words, Dan expresses my basic take on this with more
eloquence than I've managed in several posts on the topic. And, of
course, I very much agree with Tag that the ideal way to approach a
film is to be completely open to it.
Drifting back to our original topic...
The Farber/Patterson piece on "Taxi Driver" is, of course, a monument
in criticism. (And reading Farber can be inspiring on a very
tangible level: you read a piece by him, or written in collaboration
with Patterson, and you instantly want to go and write something. At
least I do.) Interestingly, the "Taxi Driver" essay is the textbook
example of how Farber would change positions, or make ambiguous his
positions, on a film in the middle of a piece. I believe that
Jonathan has written that Farber regarded judgment, as such, as the
least of his duties as a critic.
And yet I find myself very much agreeing with Bill that sifting is
the most basic of critical responsibilities. I can say this even as
someone sympathetic to the criticism of beauties tradition. I see a
lot of movies, like a few, love even fewer, and in general choose to
write about the ones in that last category. Maybe it's a
time/effort thing for me - so many of the movies I see are things
which I don't feel are worth the time and effort I put into writing a
piece (and I would maintain that exclusion on an institutional level
[i.e. "Movie" ignoring "Lawrence of Arbia"] can be as much of a
statement as anything).
And then there are things like "Irreversible." I can point to a mini-
"Irreversible" in my own brief career - I was really, really repelled
by a lot of the class attitudes in last year's "About Schmidt"
(attitudes very tied to Payne's mise-en-scene, which, as I recall,
used reaction shots as a way of establishing norms so the audience
would feel free to laugh at its many befuddled, physically imperfect
characters). I felt as compelled to write about this movie as I did
to write about "The Hunted" a few months later (a film I loved).
Maybe it was because of the praise "Schmidt" was getting that I felt
a need to present something like an opposing case - I'm not sure I
did a great job of it, but understand that I am simply talking about
the impulse to write about something other than one's favorite
films. It's one I've had.
Peter
3204
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:48am
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
> So I repeat: How can something like Irreversible just blow into
> town, get screened, get "reviewed" and go to video without
> provoking a single thought in anyone's head? Is that really the
> way it's supposed to be?
We don't discuss new movies too often here on A_Film_By, but on another
movie mailing list I'm on, IRREVERSIBLE generated scores, maybe hundreds
of posts, many of them thoughtful. One of the reasons for the problem
you cite is that there aren't that many magazines these days that would
print the 20 pages you want to see on IRREVERSIBLE; online, it's a
different game altogether.
By the way, Bill, where will your article on CRUISING appear? That film
is a great favorite of mine. - Dan
3205
From:
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:07am
Subject: Incidentally
I've been preoccupied with the discussion on negative criticism, but thank
you to those who offered comments on Lamont Johnson and late Walsh. On the
Lamont front, I managed to find a tape of "Paul's Case" from Amazon; I figured it
was as good a place as any to just dive in since I've already seen perhaps his
most famous, "The Last American Hero." On the Raoul front, I purchased the
new DVD of "Battle Cry" - simply because it was cheap and easy to find at my
local Virgin Megastore.
JPC - if you check Amazon, "Esther and the King" (unseen by me) appears to
have been released on R1 DVD several years ago. I find it completely weird how
these auteur titles manage to surface on DVD with such little comment.
Cukor's "The Marrying Kind" just came out on Tuesday; his "Justine" is due in
January. But who knows about these things unless you follow DVD release schedule
pages?
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
3206
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:19am
Subject: The Marrying Kind
That is such a great film, and Cukor may be the most neglected great
Hollywood filmmaker of all. To those who have not seen it and haven't
gone hogwild over Cukor yet, The Marrying Kind could give you the
needed push.
3207
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:54am
Subject: cheapo DVDs and Fox Movie Channel (was: Incidentally)
> JPC - if you check Amazon, "Esther and the King" (unseen by me)
appears to
> have been released on R1 DVD several years ago. I find it
completely weird how
> these auteur titles manage to surface on DVD with such little
comment.
> Cukor's "The Marrying Kind" just came out on Tuesday; his "Justine"
is due in
> January. But who knows about these things unless you follow DVD
release schedule
> pages?
Well, one reason (among many) why so many DVDs show up unannounced or
with little fanfare is that the DVD itself is a piece of shit. Now
that the DVD format is so prevalent, we're seeing a parallel increase
in bargain-basement DVD companies that will release anything at all,
without a thought towards quality - or even acceptable presentation.
I'm not talking about the New Yorker DVDs that people complain about
on Mobius and other DVD fansites. These are companies
like "Lightning Entertainment," "LaserLight Video" (responsible for
the horrifying ARKADIN disc and several wicked awful Hitchcock discs)
or "Brentwood Communications." I first saw MY DARLING CLEMENTINE on
a bottom-scraping Hong Kong DVD where movement was accompanied by
image "ghosting," as if I was watching the normal movie on ecstasy.
Mondo Kim's, my video store numero uno, has a section for DVDs like
this, the Clearance section, with discs selling for $5 or $10, rarely
more - and one look at the cover art will tell you that you'd be
paying about 10x too much.
Take a look at this:
http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005B7BL.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
This is a Hugo Fregonese film - Fregonese is a name that appears
several times on Dan Sallitt's lists (THE RAID, BLOWING WILD, BLACK
TUESDAY, others), and it was shot using a 70mm process called
Superpanorama. The DVD is pan & scan and the reviews on Amazon say
it looks like hell otherwise. Cinema, where art thou, etc.
===
You mentioned JUSTINE. The Fox Movie Channel airs that film,
letterboxed, fairly often. The next showtime is November 13. This
is a pretty nice channel for auteurists - since I've been following
their schedule, they've shown letterboxed versions of 'Scope movies
like Tashlin's WILL SUCCESS SPOIL ROCK HUNTER?, Fuller's HELL AND
HIGH WATER and McCarey's RALLY 'ROUND THE FLAG, BOYS! and SATAN NEVER
SLEEPS (I missed the latter, kicking myself for it). They're showing
FIXED BAYONETS four times in December.
Upcoming films, of interest to auteurists, also include (and FMC
isn't paying me for this, although they oughta!) SEVEN THIEVES
(Hathaway), THE MEPHISTO WALTZ (Wendkos), MAN ON A TIGHTROPE (Kazan),
THE FLIM-FLAM MAN (Kershner), THE OSTERMAN WEEKEND (Peckinpah),
STEAMBOAT 'ROUND THE BEND (Ford; 1935) DRUMS ALONG THE MOHAWK (Ford,
1939), SLATTERY'S HURRICANE (De Toth), SOLDIER OF FORTUNE (Dmytryk),
CARMEN JONES (Preminger), AN AFFAIR TO REMEMBER (McCarey) and many
many more.
-Jaime
3208
From: Damien Bona
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:05am
Subject: Re: Incidentally
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, ptonguette@a... wrote:
> I've been preoccupied with the discussion on negative criticism,
but thank
> you to those who offered comments on Lamont Johnson and late
Walsh. On the
> Lamont front, I managed to find a tape of "Paul's Case" from
Amazon; I figured it
> was as good a place as any to just dive in since I've already seen
perhaps his
> most famous, "The Last American Hero."
Johnson's great -- and very much maligned at the time -- Lipstick was
recently released on DVD. My college gang at Columbia -- the same
group that named Man In The Moon Best Picture of 1991 -- cited
Lipstick as the best film of 1976, in a tie with Rohmer's Marquise Of
O.
3209
From: Damien Bona
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:12am
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Peter Tonguette"
wrote:
I was really, really repelled
> by a lot of the class attitudes in last year's "About Schmidt"
> (attitudes very tied to Payne's mise-en-scene, which, as I recall,
> used reaction shots as a way of establishing norms so the audience
> would feel free to laugh at its many befuddled, physically
imperfect
> characters). I felt as compelled to write about this movie as I
did
> to write about "The Hunted" a few months later (a film I loved).
I felt the same exact way several years back about American Beauty.
To me it was so awful in so many obvious ways and yet it snookered
mainstream reviewers and I just couldn't contain my anger about how
objectionable the movie was and how idiotic the fawning press was.
3210
From:
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:31am
Subject: Re: cheapo DVDs and Fox Movie Channel (was: Incidentally)
"Esther and the King" does indeed look like a very cheapo release. But "The
Marrying Kind" (which I am very, VERY excited about seeing after reading
Bill's endorsement; I also believe it's Tag's favorite Cukor) is Columbia. Warners
released two Walshes last spring, "Objective, Burma!" and the aforementioned
"Battle Cry." Those are two big, generally high-quality DVD producers and yet
I wouldn't know about those movies' existence on DVD if I didn't do random
searches on Amazon from time to time for keywords like "George Cukor" and "Raoul
Walsh" and so on.
Jaime's also quite right about Fox Movie Channel.
Peter
http://hometown.aol.com/ptonguette/index.html
3211
From: Peter Tonguette
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:34am
Subject: Lamont Johnson
Damien writes:
My college gang at Columbia -- the same
> group that named Man In The Moon Best Picture of 1991 --
cited
> Lipstick as the best film of 1976, in a tie with Rohmer's
Marquise Of
> O.
Wow! I'll have to see this one soon as well (as I note that this
film has just come out on DVD from Paramount...)
Somehow I got the sense that maybe Johnson's TV work was
held in better auteurist regard than his theatrical features, but
that doesn't sound like the case.
Peter
3212
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 8:13am
Subject: Re: the lower 90%
Recently I've entertained the notion that our relationship with the
cinema is defined by what we do with "the rest of the movies,"
particularly those that trouble us, the ones that we can't quite say
we like but get under our skin regardless. One function of my list
page is to "not forget" the rest of the movies: in most cases, they
are coded by the color purple. I don't love any of them, and I'm not
100% sure that I even like some of them. But I can't dismiss them,
either, and the act of printing their titles for the world to see on
a list of films that I love (while at the same time they are grouped
apart from the real favorites).
The point, though, is this: what if the cinephile who loves the top
30% of cinema is better off than his colleague, who can only
acknowledge 10% or 5%, who can only acknowledge as "worthy" that
which enters some kind of ivory tower/canon of godlike perfection?
The first guy can perhaps see the "flaws," the problematic aspects,
of the second- and third- or even fourth-tier films, but nevertheless
he feels the urge to keep those films close to him, anyway. This
isn't a question of canons but of movie love, of one's hunger for the
cinema. (The reference to Pauline Kael is unintentional; she seemed
only to be interested in the top 0.005%.)
-Jaime
3213
From:
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:22am
Subject: Re: An Auteurist Adventure
My favorite Samuel Fuller films:
I Shot Jesse James
The Baron of Arizona
The Steel Helmet
Park Row
China Gate
Forty Guns
Run of The Arrow
The Crimson Kimono
Underworld USA
Shock Corridor
The Naked Kiss
Dead Pigeon on Beethoven Street
Otto Preminger
Laura
Fallen Angel
Whirlpool
River of No Return
The Man With the Golden Arm
The Cardinal
Bunny Lake is Missing
Such Good Friends
Mike Grost
3214
From: jaketwilson
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 11:59am
Subject: Re: the lower 90%
Jaime Christley wrote:
> The point, though, is this: what if the cinephile who loves the
top
> 30% of cinema is better off than his colleague, who can only
> acknowledge 10% or 5%, who can only acknowledge as "worthy" that
> which enters some kind of ivory tower/canon of godlike perfection?
> The first guy can perhaps see the "flaws," the problematic aspects,
> of the second- and third- or even fourth-tier films, but
nevertheless
> he feels the urge to keep those films close to him, anyway. This
> isn't a question of canons but of movie love, of one's hunger for
the
> cinema.
I used to feel that ALL live-action movies were infinitely valuable
and fascinating regardless of artistic quality, simply as records of
the faces, gestures, landscapes and so forth of a particular place
and time. (I'm talking about projected celluloid -- video doesn't
have the same automatic glamour and grandeur.)
I still believe this in a way, but I get bored a lot more easily. I
guess I've lost some of that primal hunger for the medium as such.
JTW
3215
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 0:57pm
Subject: Re: The Marrying Kind
It's a lovely film, comparable in many ways to Vidor's
a "The Crowd."
--- hotlove666
> That is such a great film, and Cukor may be the most
> neglected great
> Hollywood filmmaker of all. To those who have not
> seen it and haven't
> gone hogwild over Cukor yet, The Marrying Kind could
> give you the
> needed push.
>
>
3216
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 0:58pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
"By the way, Bill, where will your article on CRUISING
appear? That film
is a great favorite of mine. - Dan"
I find that statement utterly mystifying.
--- Dan Sallitt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3217
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:12pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
> I find that statement utterly mystifying.
Oops - I just read your article.
I don't expect this will change your mind, but when I saw the film I was
a 25-year-old straight kid with a lot of unquestioned discomfort with
homosexuality, and CRUISING was the first experience I remember that
broke down the rigid barriers between gay and straight in my mind. That
was an uncomfortable experience for me at the time, but I think I needed it.
The inscribed audience for CRUISING is straight. And Friedkin always
makes life uncomfortable for his inscribed audience. Your own
description of the plot makes it very clear how a straight male audience
member, identifying with Pacino, is led to a place where he has to
sacrifice some of his straightness to maintain identification.
The film is a nightmare, but that's Friedkin's stock in trade. He's
incredibly not interested in portraying anyone in a positive light, and
so his films are useless for social activist purposes. But I can't
imagine how anyone could come away from the film feeling good about
killing gays. (I do believe there are some good films that make use of
the excitement of violence, and so can be used in the wrong way by
careless audiences. DIRTY HARRY comes to mind. But I don't think
CRUISING is one of them.) - Dan
3218
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:14pm
Subject: Savage Pampas
> Take a look at this:
>
> http://images.amazon.com/images/P/B00005B7BL.01.LZZZZZZZ.jpg
SAVAGE PAMPAS is a good film, too. Too bad the DVD is bad, as it's
really hard to see. - Dan
3219
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:18pm
Subject: Re: Lamont Johnson, TV directors
> Somehow I got the sense that maybe Johnson's TV work was
> held in better auteurist regard than his theatrical features, but
> that doesn't sound like the case.
I'd say his best films were pretty evenly divided between TV and
theatrical. (Unlike, say, John Korty, whose work is so delicate that he
never seemed to get suitable theatrical-release projects.)
One thing for sure: TV directors of the 60s and 70s like Johnson,
Sargent, Petrie, and Korty got the most prestigious and visible projects
on TV while getting only B movies to direct for theaters. The TV
prestige didn't carry over. - Dan
3220
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: An Auteurist Adventure
Mike, it's not clear if you are leaving out certain titles because you
don't like them, or because you haven't seen them yet. Can you clarify?
Thanks.
MG4273@a... wrote:
> My favorite Samuel Fuller films:
>
> I Shot Jesse James
> The Baron of Arizona
> The Steel Helmet
> Park Row
> China Gate
> Forty Guns
> Run of The Arrow
> The Crimson Kimono
> Underworld USA
> Shock Corridor
> The Naked Kiss
> Dead Pigeon on Beethoven Street
>
> Otto Preminger
>
> Laura
> Fallen Angel
> Whirlpool
> River of No Return
> The Man With the Golden Arm
> The Cardinal
> Bunny Lake is Missing
> Such Good Friends
>
> Mike Grost
>
> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor
> ADVERTISEMENT
> click here
> <http://rd.yahoo.com/M=194081.4074964.5287182.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705021019:HM/A=1706996/R=0/SIG=11p5b9ris/*http://www.ediets.com/start.cfm?code=30509&media=atkins>
>
>
>
> 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
> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.
[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
3221
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:54pm
Subject: Re: Re: An Auteurist Adventure
My favorite Fullers:
Pickup On South Street
The Crimson Kimono
House of Bamboo
China Gate
The Naked Kiss
White Dog
My favorite Preminers:
Laura
Carmen Jones
Bonjour Tristesse
Anatomy of a Murder
--- Tag Gallagher
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3222
From: Adrian Martin
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 2:56pm
Subject: Irreversible/Cruising/hysterical cinema
Bill - don't you think there's an interesting connection between the film
you've been thinking about lately, IRREVERSIBLE, and the one you have just
finished writing on, CRUISING? (By the way, I join the chorus asking: when
and where will this piece appear?) Or, more generally, the works of Noe and
Friedkin?
CRUISING is a film I have written about closely on two occasions, almost
twenty years apart (the second time focusing on the sound design, which is
quite amazing). I still find it fascinating for many reasons, and watch it
often.
Bill, you indicated (if I followed the allusions correctly) that you are
addressing Robin Wood's famous notion of the 'incoherent text' in your
CRUISING piece - he coined that phrase (I think) in his piece on the film in
the '80s. This is something I have long pondered. I think it's an inadequate
concept on several levels.
On a general level, it's misguided in thinking of films as purely
'unconscious emanations' or pure symptoms, which is a very auteurist reflex
- as if films sprang straight out of their makers' heads and onto the screen
as a mental projection, without a thousand mediations, revisions and
'secondary elaborations' at every step of the way. I see your own work,
Bill, as trying to merge a certain cultural psychoanalysis (of drives, of
ideologies, etc) with a strong sense of the minute decision-making processes
that actually go into the making of a film.
In the particular case of CRUISING, there is a special, pointed inadequacy
to the 'incoherent text' concept. I believe that there are certain films and
filmmakers who very consciously (or at least intuitively) MANUFACTURE
incoherence - it's not something that just 'comes out' of them. Actually,
this kind of manufactured/contrived incoherence has become a staple of
routine horror films and thrillers since at least the '80s - and Friedkin
had a lot to do with fanning that trend in THE EXORCIST and CRUISING (not to
mention RAMPAGE, which is off the chart incoherence-wise).
I once started on a piece called "A Short History of Hysterical Cinema" on
some key films by Friedkin, Ridley Scott, Oliver Stone and some others -
Lars von Trier would probably make it onto the list these days - and now I
know how I would provisionally finish the piece, with Gaspar Noe. Here is a
bit of this project that I wrote in 1991:
"Putting William Friedkin at the head of a family tree of
Scott-Lyne-Parker-Figgis, and adding others including Oliver Stone, Ken
Russell, Martin Campbell (Criminal Law), Morton & Jankel (D.O.A.) and Zalman
King (Wild Orchid), one could hypothesise the existence of a certain
cinematic tradition: the cinema of hysteria. This is a cinema indeed
"saturated in significance", but in a wild, scattershot way - calculated to
press all buttons and have it all ways simultaneously. Robin Wood (in his
book Hollywood From Vietnam to Reagan) diagnosed in Friedkin's Cruising,
Scott's Bladerunner and Richard Brooks' Looking For Mr Goodbar an
involuntary 'breakdown' of meaning, a symptomatic formation of 'incoherent
texts' for our troubled times. What he perhaps did not see is that his
examples were films actively seeking the production of incoherence - mainly
for the sake of spectacular 'effect'.
Effect rules in hysterical cinema: the sudden gasp, the revelatory dramatic
frisson, the split-second turn-around of meaning or mood, the disorientating
gear-change into high comedy or gross tragedy. It is hardly surprising that
what links many filmmakers in this tradition is a background (and continued
employment) in TV advertising and music video - those areas of audiovisual
culture most governed by spectacular, moment-to-moment 'sell'.
It would be far too sweeping for me to now equate hysteria with
inauthenticity. There are many fascinating films in the hysterical mode,
some which have not only their own intensity, madness and inventiveness, but
also their own 'truth'. But hysterical cinema is sometimes certainly empty
and inauthentic cinema - entirely uninterested in its own material and the
issues it raises, merely exploiting it for its artfully spectacular
possibilities."
Adrian
3223
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:11pm
Subject: Re: Irreversible/Cruising/hysterical cinema
"It would be far too sweeping for me to now equate
hysteria with
inauthenticity. There are many fascinating films in
the hysterical mode,
some which have not only their own intensity, madness
and inventiveness, but
also their own 'truth'. But hysterical cinema is
sometimes certainly empty
and inauthentic cinema - entirely uninterested in its
own material and the
issues it raises, merely exploiting it for its
artfully spectacular
possibilities."
Actually equating it with inauthenticity is a good
place to start. This is especially true of Noe in that
his films always assume a posture of ebing more
"truthful" than others in the way they wallow in rape
and murder. He's that art house Herschel Gordon Lewis.
This sort of thing has so infested film discourse that
Gus Van Sant is accused of doing it in "Elephant" by
Charles Taylor today in "Salon." This review is itself
hysterical in that it makes claims what it is
appropriate for a gay filmmaker to do in a specified
context. The entire thrust of "Elephant" is to move
against the exploitation grain. The same can't be said
of "Cruising."
Or "Midnight Express" and "JFK" for that matter.
--- Adrian Martin
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3224
From: J. Mabe
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:41pm
Subject: Re: Re: Robert Breer
---"Jaime N. Christley"
I'm
> waiting for proper
> and good prints of Jack Smith and Stan Brakhage,
> others, to play at
> Anthology.
Sunday November 2, 5:30 pm
Jack Smith SCOTCH TAPE, FLAMING CREATURES
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3225
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:46pm
Subject: Re: Irreversible
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
"He's (Noé) that art house Herschel Gordon Lewis."
He is actually art house's answer to William Castle. Noé employed low
frequence bass to cause nausea in the audience, in some cases making
them vomit and in fewer cases leave the cinema.
Noé distracts by provocation, making himself out to be a leading avant
gardist (which the french press also calls him) who wants to create
cinema so provocative that no one will see it, yet at the same time he
employs famous actors and makes sure everyone knows about his film. In
many ways it reminds me of the Barnum freak shows, where an announcer
would advertise with the most grusome freaks possible and try to talk
people out of paying money to see them (Beware: The Alligator Boy.
Half Alligator, half human. No one can look at him without fainting.
Only 2 bits. Enter at your own risc...), likewise Irreversible also
reminds me classic explotationfilm (Big letter words warning people,
little value in itself); Noé actually warned the audience and allowed
them time to leave the theater. (Notes from my upcoming article about
"Irreversible")
Henrik
PS: Cheers everyone - Thank God it's Friday :)
3226
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:53pm
Subject: pseudo-scientism of the university
The audience is listening...sorry, couldn't resist that...it is one of
the lines in an advert at a local cinema.
Also, Boolah, Boolah! ... I went to Yale Medical.
I'd like to read your CRUISING article and might recommend a TASTE /
CULINARY article in SEED magazine a few weeks back by a friend, Jonah
Lehrer who also integrates a variety of disciplines.
Such borrowing from other disciplines reminds me of my Ph.D mentor at
Harvard, Jerome Kagan whose psychological papers often read like a
literary work. Makes me think that when a particular phenomenon is
hard to handle, we use whatever we can to communicate with a select
audience.
I'm not so much looking for a reductionist view of cinema as an
understanding of the RULES OF THE GAME...and since those rules are
often applied randomly or not at all, it is hard to grasp them. It may
be the case that a particular auteurist knows his/her own set and
applies them, another auteurist applies their own personal set, etc.
And an auteurist can change as he develops his own understanding and
technique, etc. Makes it hard for the beginner.
I've always been someone who learns by understanding broad patterns,
and comparing and contrasting. Contrasting may be a form of negative
criticism. Interesting that the child is often thought of as learning
through errors, ala Piaget's assimilation and accommodation.
Final note: what hope is there for cinema when the audience might be
listening, but not understanding. I was at a conference the other day
when a producer mentioned that a baseball movie that involved some
scenes with NUNS was just not getting to the screening audiences
because they did not know nuns. The producers resorted to voice-over
about nuns so the audience would get it.
I saw a movie from Singapore recently, I NOT STUPID, and their is a
scene about chewing gum; unless one knows about the fines for
littering, chewing gum in particular, the significance of the scene is
reduced.
> Message: 17
> Date: Thu, 23 Oct 2003 23:15:36 -0000
> From: "hotlove666"
> Subject: Re: Negative criticism
>
>
> A pan by Farber is more interesting - and makes
> the WORK more interesting - than a rave by Reed. Arguably
> Farber-Patterson's famous Taxi Driver piece is not as
> wholeheartedly favorable as some of the raves at the time, but
> which would you rather read? I used to learn a lot from Cahiers
> pans of films, because they analyzed and interpreted better than
> raves here. Etc.
>
>
> As for the pseudo-scientism of the university, if Elizabeth is
> listening, I just finished a piece I'm quite proud of on Cruising
> where I used everything I learned in the humanities at Yale:
> philology, art history, lit crit, history, philosophy. There is nothing
> scientific about what I wrote, although it's fact-grounded (based
> on lots of production archives). It's normal that Elizabeth would
> be looking for scientific certainty, because medicine is a
> science. It scares me to hear that kids in the humanities - or
> "cultural studies" - think they're studying a science. All the old
> disciplines in the humanities need to be kept, analyzed,
> critiqued, transformed and built on. You can't do critical thinking if
> you cut yourself off from those traditions and methods and
> pretend that there was an epistemological "coupure" (cut) in the
> 70s that made it all scientific, and what preceded is like alchemy!
3227
From: hotlove666
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 3:53pm
Subject: Cruising
Adrian,
I'll send you the Cruising piece once it's typo-free today. The Wood
piece cites you on the film, and I'd love to see what you wrote.
Actually, Wood calls Friedkin "deliberately incoherent," and I agree
with that. I think his incoherence is carefully constructed through
montage, which is his "axe" as a filmmaker. I also agree with you
that the aims of his incoherence are commercial (which of course is
not synonymous with "bad" in my book) In the case of Cruising, that
obviously didn't pan out.
And many thanks for the accurate description of what I'm doing. That
is definitely what the Birds chapter in HAW is about. It's useful to
posit unconscious processes at work in film, but it's a good idea to
make sure from time to time that what we're talking about is do-able,
and really happened - not so easy in a medium as cumbersome as this.
(The one case I cite as a true Freudian slip was Bogdanovich
unconsciously replicating Courtship of Eddie's Father in Texasville.
When I asked him, he didn't remember the scene in Eddie. And the next
time I saw the film, he had taken the "reference" out.) In the case
of Cruising I tracked the effects of incoherence through production,
but didn't really ask myself what was conscious and what wasn't. It
all seemed pretty deliberate to me, but there is also a large
unconscious component in the film.
As I told David, I didn't try to deal with the sexual politics
myself, at least this time around. I took Wood's interpretation as
axiomatic, in part because before rereading it I had with some
labor "discovered" some of what he was talking about, only to
discover that he had gotten it all when the film was still in
theatres. So I focused on deepening that and taking it further,
bracketing the sexual politics, which is often where commentary
starts. It's also a very complex, thorny set of issues where I don't
feel I can pronounce without a lot more thought - for me, not for
someone like David who HAS given them a lot of thought already.
Maybe it's no accident I saw the Noe finally when I had finally
wrapped the Cruising piece. But I think they're different kinds of
films and filmmaking.
3228
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:06pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
"The inscribed audience for CRUISING is straight."
Precisely. And that's highly presumptuous. No one
could get away with that today. In fact Charles
Taylor's review of "Elephant" in today's "Salon"
centers on his horror of the fact that he "male gaze"
in the film is gay.
I propose "L'Homme Blesse" as an "answer" to
"Cruising." It's a "negative" film about gay life that
was not only made by a gay man but one who was
directly inspired by the West Street scene. Chereau
hung at the "Purple Pit." He went on to direct the
plays of Bernard-Marie Koltes whose "West Pier" was
about the abandoned piers on the West Side.
--- Dan Sallitt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3229
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:08pm
Subject: Re: pseudo-scientism of the university
Elizabeth, there are no Rules!
There is a terrible past of a hundred years in which bad people tried to
formulate rules, whose effect was merely to stop people from opening
their eyes. (I could go on for a thousand pages giving examples.)
There is no canon. There is no agreement. There are no accepted
definitions or even a vocabulary.
You have to forge out for yourself and discover the movies you love and
then discover your own ways of dealing with them.
(Of course I don't want to discourage you from reading MY writings.
But, seriously, you have to find your own way.)
Elizabeth Nolan wrote:
>
>
> I'm not so much looking for a reductionist view of cinema as an
> understanding of the RULES OF THE GAME...and since those rules are
> often applied randomly or not at all, it is hard to grasp them.
3230
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:23pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
> "The inscribed audience for CRUISING is straight."
But that happens. The inscribed audience for ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS is
female. That's not a prohibition against men seeing it and appreciating
it, though I suppose it's an obstacle that some men don't care to breach.
> I propose "L'Homme Blesse" as an "answer" to
> "Cruising."
That's my favorite Chereau film. I confess that I haven't really liked
his recent work that well. - Dan
3231
From: Zach Campbell
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 4:35pm
Subject: Porn Theater
Did anyone catch this? I'd been awaiting it eagerly since John
Waters sung its praises last November, and it finally makes its way
to the Quad, plays for a week or two (midterm time for me), and when
I've finally got a quiet Friday afternoon to saunter down to that
theater, its run has ended. Damn. I think David mentioned it in a
positive context the other day. Anyone else?
Also I'm hoping to see LE PETITE LILI tonight. What's the word on
it? Or the new Klapisch that is also playing at MoMA in a few weeks?
--Zach
3232
From:
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 0:40pm
Subject: Re: An Auteurist Adventure
I'm sure when I like a film that it is good. But when I don't like it, have
no idea whether it is "bad" - or whether I just did not "get it".
I thought "Verboten", "Merrill's Marauders", "Hell and High Water", "White
Dog" and "Fixed Bayonets" seemed weak. But this is only after one viewing.
Please do not take this as some sort of active denunciation of the films. All of
them have moments of inspiration - Fuller is very gifted.
Plus I love his novel "Crown of India".
"Pickup on South Street" has repeatedly rubbed me the wrong way. Its hero is
a jerk - the Fuller film I've always liked least. The writing also seems
"un-Fuller-like", compared Fuller's originals, too.
With Preminger, "Anatomy of a Murder" is the famous film I actively dislike.
Reason: the plot depends on that old sexist horror, the idea that women are
running around crying rape for no good reason. This very bad old idea used to
make it virtually impossible for any woman to prosecute her rapist in court. See
Susan Brownwiller's book "Against Our Will" for documentation. This same idea
makes "Rashomon" the only Kurosawa film I don't like.
Other Premingers seem awfully darn grim: "Where the Sidewalk Ends", "Angel
Face", "In Harm's Way", "Rosebud". Once again, all of these have merits. I've
never seen "Bonjour Tristesse" or "Advise and Consent" in Scope, and am
suspending judgment till I do. "In the Meantime Darling" is an early minor film.
"Daisy Kenyon" is good - I should have put it on my list.
The other Fuller and Premingers I have not seen.
Mike Grost
PS This info was dragged out of me. Do not take it to heart. It is in no way
any sort of informed, measured judgement. Thank you!
3233
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:05pm
Subject: Re: Porn Theater
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, "Zach Campbell"
> Did anyone catch this? I'd been awaiting it eagerly since John
> Waters sung its praises last November, and it finally makes its way
> to the Quad, plays for a week or two (midterm time for me), and when
> I've finally got a quiet Friday afternoon to saunter down to that
> theater, its run has ended. Damn. I think David mentioned it in a
> positive context the other day. Anyone else?
I caught the last screening last night after gleaning from the NY Press listings, useful for once, that it was closing. (Maybe the Press has improved its listings now that the Voice has apparently stopped printing schedules in theirs -- necessitating even more frequent recourse to their continually updated website as each Friday's day of reckoning approaches. I've got to stop spending my life checking that thing.)
It's an interesting film -- I need to know more about him. I thought Armond White overpraised it just a bit! -- but that's OK. It probably ends up being too talky (I think Dave Kehr was right that it would have been better without the monologues -- interesting though they are), but then I had GOODBYE DRAGON INN on the brain. (If we still had repertory theaters, one could look forward to the inevitable double bill...)
3234
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:07pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
"The inscribed audience for ALL
> THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS is
> female. That's not a prohibition against men seeing
> it and appreciating
> it, though I suppose it's an obstacle that some men
> don't care to breach."
True, but there's nothing transgressive about a
straight female spectator. "Cruising" renders gay
spectators invisible.
> That's my favorite Chereau film. I confess that I
> haven't really liked
> his recent work that well. - Dan
Really? Have you read my paen to "Those Who Love Me"?
Of course, I'm over-the-moon about Chereau as he's my
favorite director in three different media (film,
theater,opera) and One Fabulous Babe!
http://www.ehrensteinland.com/htmls/bride/g001/b_patricechereau.shtml
--- Dan Sallitt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3235
From: Henrik Sylow
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:13pm
Subject: Re: pseudo-scientism of the university
10 Enter film school
20 Watch the films we say are important
21 REM: Citizen Kane
22 REM: Le Regle du Jeu
23 REM: Tokyo Story
24 REM: Breathless
...
183 REM: Last Year at Marienbad
...
200 Understand their importance, their historical significance and
expres it using the words below as many times as possible
201 REM: mise en scene
202 REM: Auteur
203 REM: montage
204 REM: spacial use of tense
...
250 Goto 10
This is of course highly sarcastic, but nevertheless...
3236
From: Joseph Kaufman
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:45pm
Subject: Re: Lamont Johnson, TV directors
Johnson's wonderful voice can be heard dubbing the title character
Itto Ogami in Roger Corman's cut-down of the first two LONE WOLF AND
CUB movies, SHOGUN ASSASSIN.
--
- Joe Kaufman
3237
From: Tag Gallagher
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:49pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
Pardon my total ignorance, but what in the world is an "inscribed
audience" and what equipment does one need to detect such inscription?
David Ehrenstein wrote:
> "The inscribed audience for ALL
> > THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS is
> > female. That's not a prohibition against men seeing
> > it and appreciating
> > it, though I suppose it's an obstacle that some men
> > don't care to breach."
>
>
3238
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:54pm
Subject: Whoops!
Did I say "Purple Pit"? That's from "The Nutty
Professor" -- quel Freudian slip!
I meant "The Gilded Grape."
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3239
From: jess_l_amortell
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 5:57pm
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
> > I find that statement utterly mystifying.
>
> Oops - I just read your article.
The demonstrations against the shooting of CRUISING were historic, but as has surely been pointed out before, they were anything but an expression of auteurism -- they were based on an inspection of the screenplay.
3240
From: Jaime N. Christley
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:02pm
Subject: Re: Whoops!
Well, there is a popular theory going around that any movie, no
matter how bad or good, would be vastly improved by casting Jerry
Lewis in the lead or one of the leads (male or female).
-Jaime
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, David Ehrenstein
wrote:
> Did I say "Purple Pit"? That's from "The Nutty
> Professor" -- quel Freudian slip!
>
> I meant "The Gilded Grape."
>
> __________________________________
> Do you Yahoo!?
> The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
> http://shopping.yahoo.com
3241
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:05pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
> Pardon my total ignorance, but what in the world is an "inscribed
> audience" and what equipment does one need to detect such inscription?
I feel an awkward conversation coming on....
"Inscribed" here means built into the film's point-of-view structure.
- Dan
3242
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:13pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
> True, but there's nothing transgressive about a
> straight female spectator. "Cruising" renders gay
> spectators invisible.
Some stories can be told without favoring a particular perspective,
sexual or otherwise. But some stories have a perspective built in, and
to avoid the perspective means not telling the story.
I think I'd agree that it's a problem when the inscribed audience is
also treated with the most sympathy. (I had this problem a little bit
with LOST IN TRANSLATION - definitely had it with GHOST WORLD.) I don't
think this happens with CRUISING, though. Don Scardino is the most
sympathetic character, just as Rock Hudson is in ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS.
> Really? Have you read my paen to "Those Who Love Me"?
No, where is it? - Dan
3243
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:41pm
Subject: Re: Negative criticism
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> > Pardon my total ignorance, but what in the world is an "inscribed
> > audience" and what equipment does one need to detect such
inscription?
>
> I feel an awkward conversation coming on....
>
> "Inscribed" here means built into the film's point-of-view
structure.
>
> - Dan
One might ask, awkwardly, "what is a film's point-of-view structure?"
Or are you simply saying that the film is what used to be called a
woman's picture -- intended for a predominantly if not exclusively
female audience?
3244
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:43pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
"> Some stories can be told without favoring a
> particular perspective,
> sexual or otherwise. But some stories have a
> perspective built in, and
> to avoid the perspective means not telling the
> story."
And that's exactly what happens with "Cruising."
Gays were meant to be seen and not heard. And Don
Scardino's character doesn't alter the status quo from
which Friedkin proceeds.
My piece on "Those Who Love Me" appeared in the
Winter2002-2003 issue of "Film Quarterly." It can be
downloaded from the University of california press
website.
--- Dan Sallitt
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3245
From: jpcoursodon
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:44pm
Subject: Said and Cyd
"Edward [Said] was not an irredeemable highbrow, and he insisted
that one of the most significant moments of his life was getting to
meet Cyd Charisse." Michael Wood, The London review of Books,
October 23.
I wonder if the meeting was one of the most sifnificant moments of
HER life.
3246
From: Elizabeth Nolan
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:47pm
Subject: If there are no rules, how are there auteurs/ists?
I knew my RULES OF THE GAME would provoke at least one
THERE ARE NO RULES REPLY!
If there are no rules, how are there auteurs/ists?
But there must be something, if not in terms of valuation, there must
be something shared that allows for communication.
I can go to the other extreme and share my three favorite comments when
working as a physician:
It is very hard to know what goes on in the hearts and minds of other
people.
People are different.
No one can feel something the way you feel something.
I have been willing to give cinema and go and am enjoying my
exploration.
Elizabeth
>
>
>
>
>
> Message: 13
> Date: Fri, 24 Oct 2003 12:08:16 -0400
> From: Tag Gallagher
> Subject: Re: pseudo-scientism of the university
>
> Elizabeth, there are no Rules!
>
> There is a terrible past of a hundred years in which bad people tried
> to
> formulate rules, whose effect was merely to stop people from opening
> their eyes. (I could go on for a thousand pages giving examples.)
>
> There is no canon. There is no agreement. There are no accepted
> definitions or even a vocabulary.
>
> You have to forge out for yourself and discover the movies you love and
> then discover your own ways of dealing with them.
>
> (Of course I don't want to discourage you from reading MY writings.
> But, seriously, you have to find your own way.)
3247
From: David Ehrenstein
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 6:50pm
Subject: Re: Re: Negative criticism
It was a lot more than that. Friedkin and company
moved into the West Village like Hitler on Poland --
or Bush on Iraq. They operated on the assumption that
gay activists were merely "troublemakers" who could be
bought off -- just the way the Mafia exploited people
pre-Stonewall. Oh sure Freidkin was able to get a
number of gay Kapos to help him wrangle extras for the
orgy scenes. But in the last analysis gays and
straights stayed away in droves.
This in turn has led to the legend that "Cruising" was
"ahead of its time." Yeah -- just like "Reefer
Madness."
--- jess_l_amortell
> > > I find that statement utterly mystifying.
> >
> > Oops - I just read your article.
>
> The demonstrations against the shooting of CRUISING
> were historic, but as has surely been pointed out
> before, they were anything but an expression of
> auteurism -- they were based on an inspection of the
> screenplay.
>
>
>
__________________________________
Do you Yahoo!?
The New Yahoo! Shopping - with improved product search
http://shopping.yahoo.com
3248
From: Dan Sallitt
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:02pm
Subject: Inscribed
>>"Inscribed" here means built into the film's point-of-view
> structure.
>
> One might ask, awkwardly, "what is a film's point-of-view structure?"
> Or are you simply saying that the film is what used to be called a
> woman's picture -- intended for a predominantly if not exclusively
> female audience?
Yeah, I guess, with all that that implies.
In CRUISING, the lead character is straight, a cop assigned to go
undercover as gay. His perplexity at the gay world is both built into
the script (the film shows us gay life at the same time as he discovers
it) and into the visual structure (classically, scenes would begin with
alternation between shots of the lead and reverse shots of the rest of
the environment, with the shots of the lead somewhat bigger and/or
filmed with slightly shorter lenses. Or, in a variation, a shot of the
lead is transformed by a track or pan or zoom into a shot of the lead in
the environment, and the shot gets wider, or the lens gets longer. I
can't remember the exact visual layout of these scenes in CRUISING).
- Dan
3249
From: Fred Camper
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:09pm
Subject: Re: The Marrying Kind
Well, I'll second Bill (or "third" David); this is a great Cukor. The
sun-drenched "Decoration Day" sequence is especially beautiful.
But I think there are other Cukors that could also be used as
eye-popping proofs of his greatness: "Holiday," "The Women," the
underrated "Winged Victory," of course "A Star is Born," and the
greatly underrated "erotic" masterpiece "Wild is the Wind." Or for those
who favor excerpts, the card-playing long take in "Born Yesterday" or
the Claire Bloom long take in the very uneven "The Chapman Report"
should suffice.
- Fred (who is just back from Brazil, way behind on reading posts, but
recognized a film title...)
3250
From: tag@s...
Date: Fri Oct 24, 2003 7:53pm
Subject: RE: Re: Negative criticism
I am saying that I do think ALL THAT HEAVEN ALLOWS has an inscribed
audience that is female. And I am asking you for evidence I why you feel
that there is such an INSCRIPTION.
It is one thing to postulate that such-and-such a movie was "aimed" at
women. It's quite another to say that a specific audience is inscribed
thereinto.
--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Dan Sallitt
> > Pardon my total ignorance, but what in the world is an "inscribed
> > audience" and what equipment does one need to detect such
inscription?
>
> I feel an awkward conversation coming on....
>
> "Inscribed" here means built into the film's point-of-view
structure.
>
> - Dan
One might ask, awkwardly, "what is a film's point-of-view structure?"
Or are you simply saying that the film is what used to be called a
woman's picture -- intended for a predominantly if not exclusively
female audience?
| Yahoo! Groups Sponsor | |
| |
pmail/S=:HM/A=1732161/rand=747972781"> |
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the