Re: OT: Black Narcissus
dav...@earthlink.net
Natalie Kalmus of Technicolor labs said it was the most beautiful color
movie ever made, and that Jack Cardiff is considered one of the
greatest color cinematographers in history, I hardly need "redeeming"
for recommending it.
If you don't like the painted backdrops, it's a good thing I didn't
also recommend Robert Krasker's work in Olivier's "Henry V"...
There's no real basis for even having a discussion. It's as if I
recommended that you read "The Great Gatsby" and you said "what a piece
of crap -- how could you recommend it?" I mean, if you think filet
mignon tastes like dog shit, that's your opinion -- it's not like I
could persuade you to think otherwise.
David Mullen, ASC
Los Angeles
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> David Mullen, how could you recommend this movie as one of the greatest
> ever in terms of cinematography? I have just received it from Netflix
> and I watched it last night. What an awful, awful movie. I tried to
> undertand your point of view: you probably meant that for a movie
> filmed in 1947 it has incredible technicolor innovations and all. But
> still, Citizen Kane was filmed in 1941 and is light years ahead of
> Black Narcissus. In my humble opinion, the backdrops made of blown-up
> photographs look awful, artificial, dull, two-dimensional and
> "lifeless".
>
> I'll give you a second chance and watch Bertolluci's movie this week. I
> have already downloaded around 90% of it. I hope it will redeem you for
> this awful recommendation!
>
> L.B.
goofb...@gmail.com
beautifully photographed color films ever made. You might be able to
argue the merits of the story, the direction, the acting, etc. (though
I certainly find little to fault) but the cinematography is
irreproachable.
goofb...@gmail.com
Bertolucci's work, a giant steaming turd, but, again, the photography
is stellar, among the best of all time.
Boaz
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> What an awful, awful movie. I tried to
> undertand your point of view: you probably meant that for a movie
> filmed in 1947 it has incredible technicolor innovations and all. But
> still, Citizen Kane was filmed in 1941 and is light years ahead of
> Black Narcissus. In my humble opinion, the backdrops made of blown-up
> photographs look awful, artificial, dull, two-dimensional and
> "lifeless".
Lordy, Lordy, Lordy...
You're referring to the art direction, not the cinematography.
Best not to bring up "The Red Shoes" if that's the case.
Boaz
("It's funny how the colours of the real world only seem really real
when you viddy them on a screen.")
dav...@earthlink.net
much sense as saying that Caravaggio is a "better" painter than Van
Gogh because he was the most realistic. It's not always the highest
aspiration of art to be realistic or three-dimensional. Van Gogh was
inspired by Japanese prints, art which had no sense of vanishing-point
perspective.
In fact, I would argue that sometimes a theatrical or Expressionistic
approach is more involving than a realistic one. Just compare the late
1930's-1940's "Jane Eyre" or "Wuthering Heights" which recreated Gothic
England in b&w on Hollywood soundstages against painted backdrops --
these movies seem more true to the spirit of the Brontes than the more
naturalistic backdrops of the Zeferelli version of "Jane Eyre", shot in
the real locations.
I mean, if you think "Black Narcissus" looks bad because it uses
painted backdrops, then you must really hate the "An American in Paris"
ballet sequence shot by John Alton, another important work of color
cinematography. Or John Huston's "Moulin Rouge", which is shot in the
style of Toulose-Lautrec paintings. Painting hasn't been limited to
realism since the Post-Impressionists so why should cinematography?
Harry Bailey
melodramas in the history of film (and one of the very first dreamwork
psychodramas), influencing directors from Hitchcock (Vertigo) to
Kubrick (Barry Lyndon - aesthetic construction derived from painting
artefacts; The Shining - itself a gothic melodramatic tour-de-force -
and Eyes Wide Shut - a tense dreamwork analysing desire, hysteria and
repression) to such more recent directors as Lars von Trier (Dogville).
> If I am to fall in love with a work of art, I have to feel good about
> its aesthetics.
Art for you then is simply a perverted lusting after suitable
masturbatory material. So, its not art that interests you, its "feel
good" porn.
Boaz
> Making realism the only criteria for judging cinematography makes as
> much sense as saying that Caravaggio is a "better" painter than Van
> Gogh because he was the most realistic. It's not always the highest
> aspiration of art to be realistic or three-dimensional. Van Gogh was
> inspired by Japanese prints, art which had no sense of vanishing-point
> perspective.
Or, on the other side of the coin, thinking that only "pretty pictures"
and a nice, "clean" grainless image with rich color saturation and deep
black shadows constitutes great cinematography is also a mistake.
Consider the grainy, source-lightish, hand-held work on "The French
Connection," or the grainy source lit look to "The Killing Fields."
Even Kubrick and Milsome pushed their film stock one stop to add grain
and create milky shadow areas for FMJ in order to give it more of a
"documentary" look (though that term is subjective).
> In fact, I would argue that sometimes a theatrical or Expressionistic
> approach is more involving than a realistic one.
It really depends upon the film and subject matter. "The French
Connection," as one example, would not have been as believable or as
engaging if it had been shot like a noir film, with deep shadows, and
if it had been done on sound stages or on a New York street backlot.
Even Dassin's "The Naked City" worked better by using real locations in
NYC.
> Just compare the late
> 1930's-1940's "Jane Eyre" or "Wuthering Heights" which recreated Gothic
> England in b&w on Hollywood soundstages against painted backdrops --
> these movies seem more true to the spirit of the Brontes than the more
> naturalistic backdrops of the Zeferelli version of "Jane Eyre", shot in
> the real locations.
Very true. Lean's "Great Expectations" is another great example
(especially the opening scene in the graveyard). On the other hand,
John Ford and Greg Toland were wise to approach "The Grapes of Wrath"
by shooting as naturalistic as possible, suggesting the photos of
Dorthea Lange. Even the night scenes, though there is a certain amount
of expressionism in the lighting, makes use of lights hidden in
kerosene lamps. However, the scene where Jim Casy tells Tom Joad one of
his past preaching experiences was done on a soundstage with a painted
backdrop, and it looks and sounds clumsy and awkward, out of tone with
the rest of the film's more naturalistic look. I can understand the
limitations of the technology then, and the need for control that sound
stage shooting provides, but this is one example of a film where the
painted backdrops don't work.
> I mean, if you think "Black Narcissus" looks bad because it uses
> painted backdrops, then you must really hate the "An American in Paris"
> ballet sequence shot by John Alton, another important work of color
> cinematography. Or John Huston's "Moulin Rouge", which is shot in the
> style of Toulose-Lautrec paintings. Painting hasn't been limited to
> realism since the Post-Impressionists so why should cinematography?
>
> David Mullen, ASC
> Los Angeles
Should we ask LB what he thinks of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari"? I
guess the animated films of Disney, et. al., also don't qualify either,
since they don't even involve filming anything real, just painted cells
and painted backdrops.
Boaz
("We're going to show you some films.")
Harry Bailey
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> No, you are talking bull again, you distort everything that I say. To
> me, beauty can be something pure, absolute. It doesn't have anything
> to do with sex necessarily. I like to experience beautiful things; they
> make me feel good.
Once again, you take refuge behind "feel good" rhetoric, as if it were
some mystical indivisible essence beyond all reason and comprehension.
Worse, both your quote from Mann/Visconti's Death in Venice, and the
vast majority of your posts at this newsgroup, consistently betray your
actual notion of "beauty", a notion that is both reductive and
reactionary, being based entirely on hedonistic pleasure
> How can one see Gericault's Raft of The Medusa without feeling strong
> emotions? How can someone see Michelangelo's David, or the Pieta, or
> the Sistine Chapel, or Boticelli's Birth of Venus and Allegory of
> Spring without feeling that some works of art can communicate in many
> levels?
But your whole insistence to date has and continues to completely
contradict this notion. You don't want art to affectively communicate
or engage on many levels, you just want it to make you "feel good", to
serve merely as a source of hedonistic pleasure (both sex and
sentimentality), the very definition of conservative porn.
> Why shouldn't I look for aesthetical values in a work of art?
Aesthetic values extend far beyond sexual and emotional pornography,
while art extends far beyond the aesthetic. But you've never heard of
modernism.
Matthew Dickinson
Harry Bailey wrote:
> Black Narcissus is one of the most brilliant and influencial gothic
> melodramas in the history of film (and one of the very first dreamwork
> psychodramas), influencing directors from Hitchcock (Vertigo) to
> Kubrick (Barry Lyndon - aesthetic construction derived from painting
> artefacts; The Shining - itself a gothic melodramatic tour-de-force -
> and Eyes Wide Shut - a tense dreamwork analysing desire, hysteria and
> repression) to such more recent directors as Lars von Trier (Dogville).
How can you know it influenced these things? I never understand how art
critics confidantly trace influences. wait, how do you spell that word?
and are you padraig in disguise/ i got these suspicions which are
burnin me up
Matthew Dickinson
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> Padraig has never been this dumb. I think it is not him.
>
> L.B.
Harry Bailey
Boaz wrote:
> dav...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > Making realism the only criteria for judging cinematography makes as
> > much sense as saying that Caravaggio is a "better" painter than Van
> > Gogh because he was the most realistic. It's not always the highest
> > aspiration of art to be realistic or three-dimensional. Van Gogh was
> > inspired by Japanese prints, art which had no sense of vanishing-point
> > perspective.
>
> Or, on the other side of the coin, thinking that only "pretty pictures"
> and a nice, "clean" grainless image with rich color saturation and deep
> black shadows constitutes great cinematography is also a mistake.
Isn't today's popular cultural obsession exactly this, Boaz? The
obsession with "realism" leads to its opposite, a stainless-steel
sanitised hyper-real (ie more real than real). And isn't this the irony
underlying much CGI-based films, that the goal is to render such scenes
more "realistic"? Remember all those responses to, for instance, the
Omaha beach sequences in Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan: "Ooohh, it's
soooo reeeealistic!" (ie the more contrived and artificial the process,
the more "realistic" the result, all those Reality TV shows being the
latest manifestation). And not just special-effect-driven movies and
sanitised, banal reality TV, but even internet porn, where,
hilariously, pubic hair is taboo. The latter reminds me of
still-widespread notions of Greek sculpture, that it was all-pure,
all-white, all-pristine: in fact, all Greek sculpture was originally
painted in a riot of colors - the Greeks industrialised kitsch
sculpture
> > Just compare the late
> > 1930's-1940's "Jane Eyre" or "Wuthering Heights" which recreated Gothic
> > England in b&w on Hollywood soundstages against painted backdrops --
> > these movies seem more true to the spirit of the Brontes than the more
> > naturalistic backdrops of the Zeferelli version of "Jane Eyre", shot in
> > the real locations.
>
> Very true. Lean's "Great Expectations" is another great example
> (especially the opening scene in the graveyard). On the other hand,
> John Ford and Greg Toland were wise to approach "The Grapes of Wrath"
> by shooting as naturalistic as possible, suggesting the photos of
> Dorthea Lange. Even the night scenes, though there is a certain amount
> of expressionism in the lighting, makes use of lights hidden in
> kerosene lamps. However, the scene where Jim Casy tells Tom Joad one of
> his past preaching experiences was done on a soundstage with a painted
> backdrop, and it looks and sounds clumsy and awkward, out of tone with
> the rest of the film's more naturalistic look. I can understand the
> limitations of the technology then, and the need for control that sound
> stage shooting provides, but this is one example of a film where the
> painted backdrops don't work.
Ford did this frequently, suggesting that he was fully aware of the
contrast. In The Quiet Man for example, the most apparently
breathtaking scene, when John Wayne/Thornton first beholds Mary Kate,
this scene was shot with fake, photographed backdrops, and the irony is
all self-reflexive, is all Ford's, because Thornton then exclaims "Hey,
is this real!?" In this sense, Ford, like Kubrick (but unlike Lean) was
a thoroughly modernist film-maker: "truth" in his films is not a given,
a point at which the medium becomes objective, transparent, unmediated,
"real", but in fact draws attention to its own contrivance at the very
moment reality - whether it takes the form of "authentic" nature, the
"real" self, or the omniscient camera - impinges upon the screen.
Matthew Dickinson
days, maybe, can't be that bright, but i didn't mean to start no damn
discussion about this so suck it
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> LOL. That was a good one, Matthew. The truth is, Katharina is an
> intelligent woman who deliberately wears a disguise at AMK. She is the
> smart old wolf wearing the young sheep's clothes. She has to do this,
> because she simply can't offer any true insight about Kubrick's films
> without damaging her father's legacy. One of the things that make
> Kubrick's films great is the many possibilities of interpretation they
> offer. It's their ambiguity. If Katharina offered her own
> interpretation, this would harm this ambiguity, because she has more
> authority than fans and movie critics...she is family. That is why she
> does not contribute to real discussions. That is why she concentrates
> on silly trivia.
> She is a smart woman, Matthew. I can tell.
>
> L.B.
Matthew Dickinson
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> Boaz wrote:
> > Should we ask LB what he thinks of "The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari"? I
> > guess the animated films of Disney, et. al., also don't qualify either,
> > since they don't even involve filming anything real, just painted cells
> > and painted backdrops.
>
>
> answer? I must also point out that cinematography isn't everything.
> Movies are more than just lighting, perspective and color. Some of the
> films that I consider masterpieces are pretty mediocre in the
> cinematography department. I loved disney's movies as a kid and I would
> certainly recommend them to my nephew. I like Fantasia. I haven't
> watched The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, and I have to admit, the only
> silent movies that I liked up to this day were Alexander Nevsky and
> Joan of Arc. I have to admit I haven't watched as many silent movies as
> I should.
>
> L.B.
I can't remember if I've said, but I agree, Black Narcissus has some of
the worst photography I've ever seen. I think michael jackson's beat it
and billy jean Has better photography and set design. Where did our
Mike Jackson go run off too anyway? hope he's doing okay. better to be
off this newsgroup than on it i sppose.
Harry Bailey
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> Harry Bailey wrote:
> > Once again, you take refuge behind "feel good" rhetoric, as if it were
> > some mystical indivisible essence beyond all reason and comprehension.
> > Worse, both your quote from Mann/Visconti's Death in Venice, and the
> > vast majority of your posts at this newsgroup, consistently betray your
> > actual notion of "beauty", a notion that is both reductive and
> > reactionary, being based entirely on hedonistic pleasure
>
> communicates in many levels
only after you'd been taken to task for your monotonic "feel good"
basis.
>and I said that Beautiful things give me a
> sense of exaltation, something I could define as almost spiritual.
ALMOST spiritual? As in, I ALMOST got up today, I ALMOST ate dinner
today, I ALMOST posted a message at AMK today? You earlier defined
Beauty as Absolute (ie as GOD) but now its just ALMOST spiritual, just
giving you a "sense of exaltation", like, say, caffeine, alcohol, LSD,
orgasm, boring old hedonism again. Frankly, I do not believe you are
able to distinguish between Michaelangelo's Statue of David and a
Dildo, because for you they are ultimately ("absolutely") simply sex
aids, and of course ALMOST spiritual.
>This
> is not a definition of hedonistic pleasure, on the contrary. I must
> also add that art can also stimulate my intellect
Stimulate? Your hedonic language here is interesting; presumably like
LSD or copulation stimulates your intellect to fantasise.
>, but I thought this
> was so obvious that did not even need mentioning. Afterall, the fact
> that art stimulates the intellect is one of the reasons why we post
> here at AMK, isn't it?
It's not the reason you post here, "but I thought this was so obvious
that did not even need mentioning."
>
>
> > But your whole insistence to date has and continues to completely
> > contradict this notion. You don't want art to affectively communicate
> > or engage on many levels, you just want it to make you "feel good", to
> > serve merely as a source of hedonistic pleasure (both sex and
> > sentimentality), the very definition of conservative porn.
> >
>
> No, not at all. I said I said that Beautiful things give me a sense of
> exaltation, something I could define as almost spiritual. It is also
> something that stimulates my intellect. I am not talking about porn, I
> am talking about art and beauty.
>
> Please define this neologism, "conservative porn". Have you just
> created it? You're very creative with words. And with bull.
>
> > Aesthetic values extend far beyond sexual and emotional pornography,
> > while art extends far beyond the aesthetic. But you've never heard of
> > modernism.
>
> More bull. I never mentioned -or restricted myself to- pornography. I
> talked about art and beauty. I dislike a lot of modern art, yes. Some
> stuff interests me, like Francis Bacon for example.
>
> Please define this neologism "emotional pornography". Have you just
> created it? You're very creative with words. And with bull.
>
> Harry Bailey, you are the Quintessential Bull. How do you like this
> neologism?
>
> L.B.
You would need to urgently consult a dictionary regarding the actual
meaning of the term "neologism", mr preversenile.
Yelps
"Boaz" <boa...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1153375182.6...@h48g2000cwc.googlegroups.com...
Maybe Black Narcissus would be better if it was in Black and White, then the
backdrops would look more real. Maybe watch it on an old B&W TV.
Speaking of Citizen Kane, is there a Colorized version available? (lol)
dc
Harry Bailey
dav...@earthlink.net wrote:
> Making realism the only criteria for judging cinematography makes as
> much sense as saying that Caravaggio is a "better" painter than Van
> Gogh because he was the most realistic.
Of course, Caravaggio, with such works as The Taking Of Christ,
co-invented (visual-mimetic) realism, but I like how, in art history
and practice, such "realism" is properly called chiaroscuro (lightdark
color contrast of object foreground and background). Keeps realism, as
it were, in perspective.
Boaz
Harry Bailey wrote:
> Boaz wrote:
> > Or, on the other side of the coin, thinking that only "pretty pictures"
> > and a nice, "clean" grainless image with rich color saturation and deep
> > black shadows constitutes great cinematography is also a mistake.
>
> Isn't today's popular cultural obsession exactly this, Boaz? The
> obsession with "realism" leads to its opposite, a stainless-steel
> sanitised hyper-real (ie more real than real). And isn't this the irony
> underlying much CGI-based films, that the goal is to render such scenes
> more "realistic"?
Real, in terms of looking "believable" is understandable. I once saw a
incredibly cheesy sci-fi movie down at my home town theater when I was
a kid. I can't recall the title, but I could see that the sets were
junky and overlit. The exteriors were all done on a sound stage, with
no attempt to light it to make it look like it just might be outdoors.
But the real zinger was when an astronaut was about to be attacked by a
rubber spider the size of a football. One could see the wire pulling
the fake spider up, as if it were "jumping." And then the thing got
"zapped" when one of the other astronauts whipped out a Mattel 0-M
Radio Rifle (painted over to hide the logo) to shoot it. I was maybe
eight or nine years old at the time, and I thought it was bullshit even
then.
And while I truly enjoyed the films of Ray Harryhausen and his
stop-motion animation as a kid (and still do as an adult), I didn't
like some of the other films that tried to imitate his style, and
failed. Nor did I like films that used blue screen and one could see
grain and contrast added to a scene, not to mention the fringe line
around the actor, the flatness of the lighting, with the end result for
the audience what it was: an actor in front of a blue screen with the
action behind him added later. So, yes, when Kubrick opted for his
"single generation look" on "2001," and Lucas utilizing VistaVision for
the background plate for his films, all resulting in a more seamless
and "believable" look, I not only accepted it I embraced it, and
respected the filmmakers for making the extra effort to allow me to be
absorbed into their world without the distractions of artifice, or any
of the mechanics that made me aware I was watching something fake or
staged.
> Remember all those responses to, for instance, the
> Omaha beach sequences in Spielberg's Saving Private Ryan: "Ooohh, it's
> soooo reeeealistic!"
Well, the people being shot, blown up, incinerated and stabbed in SPR
did look real. What I found more irritating about SPR were those people
who said the film "was about D-Day." No, D-Day, June 6, was only the
opening sequence. When I bought the American Cinematographer that had
the filming of SPR as their cover story, the guy behind the counter
asked me if I had seen it. I did, I replied. He asked if it was
"better" than "The Longest Day." Someone had told him that SPR had
"realistic" violence in it, so therefore it was "better" than TLD, even
though TLD was ACTUALLY about the D-Day landing and its consequences on
the American, German AND British armed forces. In any case, my answer
was no, SPR was not "better" than TLD; it was the proverbial apples vs.
oranges comparison. What "Saving Private Ryan" was about was clearly
contained in its title.
> (ie the more contrived and artificial the process,
> the more "realistic" the result, all those Reality TV shows being the
> latest manifestation).
"Reality show" is just a euphemism for TV shows that use either no
writers, or they use non-WGA writers, who more often than not get
overworked and underpaid (read: exploited with no chance for
representation or bargaining). This whole business started as a means
to offset any potential writers' strikes. It was also the "prophecy"
come true, a la "The Player," where Peter Gallagher's yuppie executive
suggested "movies without scripts. They aren't so much "entertainment"
as they are car accidents that allow viewers to channel surf, or watch
casually without being too involved, or where they can put their brain
on cruise control and still not miss anything. They soap operas without
experienced actors.
> And not just special-effect-driven movies and
> sanitised, banal reality TV, but even internet porn, where,
> hilariously, pubic hair is taboo.
As the guy on the phone to Amelie said, "Fur pie doesn't sell."
> The latter reminds me of
> still-widespread notions of Greek sculpture, that it was all-pure,
> all-white, all-pristine: in fact, all Greek sculpture was originally
> painted in a riot of colors - the Greeks industrialised kitsch
> sculpture
"Beauty is truth, truth beauty,-that is all
Ye know on earth, and all ye need to know."
Even Keats knew his kitsch.
"The Quiet Man" worked because in that film Ford was making a
modern-day Irish fairy tale; a storybook film, if you will. The film
has more in common with "She Wore a Yellow Ribbon," where Ford and
Winton Hoch tried to recreate the look of Frederic Remington's
paintings. The night scenes that were done on a sound stage are
gorgeous and very poetic in their imagery. But such "poetry" didn't
work in the context of "The Grapes of Wrath." The starkness of the
landscape ruined by dust storms deserved better treatment than that. I
doubt, however, that there was a director at the time better suited to
direct this film than Ford. I could accept his Pare Lorentz-like
montage and camera angles of the Caterpillars pushing down the
condemned farmhouses; that kind of staged imagery worked in the context
of the film. But the soundstage material was too much artifice within
the context of the harsher realities of the subject matter. Some films
need a little more "realism" (read: naturalism) in their lighting than
do others, simple as that.
David Gaudio
taste")...but...
I saw "Black Narcissus" on the big screen, last year, as matter of
fact, at the Academy Theater in Beverly Hills, a beautiful new print,
with the great Jack Cardiff himself in attendance, and it is absolutely
one of the reigning jewels in cinema history. Easily one of my
favorite films, and one of Powell/Pressburger's greatest achievements.
How can you not appreciate the fantastic eroticism of the film, if
nothing else? Jean Simmons' dance scene alone is worth the price of
admission. It is a film Hollywood would never have had the courage to
make in 1947, or for many years to come. Just a shimmering dream of a
movie, startlingly realized. Full of longing, whimsy, and baroque
passion. The cinematography and production design are legendary, but
all aspects of the film, from its cast to its supremely talented
writer/director/producer team, are splendid. A masterpiece like this
film lives in our hearts in the same way that any of Stanley Kubrick's
great works do. Like Kubrick's films, I am reminded of "Black
Narcissus" more often than I probably realize - it is a part of my
subconscious, now.
I side with the estimable Mr. Mullen on this one, I dare say.
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> David Mullen, how could you recommend this movie as one of the greatest
> ever in terms of cinematography? I have just received it from Netflix
> and I watched it last night. What an awful, awful movie. I tried to
> undertand your point of view: you probably meant that for a movie
> filmed in 1947 it has incredible technicolor innovations and all. But
> still, Citizen Kane was filmed in 1941 and is light years ahead of
> Black Narcissus. In my humble opinion, the backdrops made of blown-up
> photographs look awful, artificial, dull, two-dimensional and
> "lifeless".
>
> I'll give you a second chance and watch Bertolluci's movie this week. I
> have already downloaded around 90% of it. I hope it will redeem you for
> this awful recommendation!
>
> L.B.
Harry Bailey
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> I am not misogynist. I behave as one because I know you hate it.
Disavowal is the modus operandi of today's misogynists, among other
contemporary pathologies. As the Nazi's used to say, while turning on
the gas, "I'm just acting, playing the game; I'm not REALLY doing it,
you understand? I'd never REALLY do something like that, even though I
am here doing it, you understand?"
Gen is right: Lord Dingdung's misogyny is so pathological as to be
completely unconscious. Any wonder he identifies with such hopeless
cases as Dr S's Ripper, whose misogyny is the entire raison d'etre of
military indoctrination.
Matthew Dickinson
defend your case. And Genevieve was not hysterical either. You should
apologize.
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> Look, it is my personal opinion. Sometimes my opinion goes against the
> majority. It happens. I am sorry if I disappointed you. what amazes me
> is how important my opinion is to you. You take it so personally. It's
> absurd.
>
> You are probably in need of a boyfriend.... You're behaving as a
> hysterical bitch. Freud was right!
>
> L.B.
>
> porti...@yahoo.com wrote:
>
> > Anyway, I guess you know something that most film scholars,
> > cinematographers, and Bertolucci do not. May the spirits of Powell and
> > Pressburger nip you in the arse! (hmm, me thinks he might like that?)
> >
Matthew Dickinson
prejudiced against gay people. Get your priorities straight, you
hysterical gay Brazillian bitch.
Matthew Dickinson
You are a Brazillian faggy bitch.
Matthew Dickinson
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> LOL. You're truly a gentleman.
If I'm such a gentleman, why was I an asshole last night in saying that
me and "kathy" were "hot" for each other?
Of course I'm a moron. But at least I know you are a total fag. And if
anyone finds out for me where you live in Boston and emails me this
information, I will drive to your address and kick your cowardly ass.
2834 Woodstar Ct. Duluth, Georgia.
I don't hide.
Matthew Dickinson
Matthew Dickinson
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> Look, I'm for the equality of the sexes. She attacks, she gets attacked
> back.
>
> L.B.
And I'm for equality between Brazillian and American bitches. What is
your address? Email it to me or post it here.
Harry Bailey
Lord Dingdung wrote:
> Look, it is my personal opinion. Sometimes my opinion goes against the
> majority.
You are confusing your right to express an opinion with the validity of
that opinion.
> You take it so personally. It's absurd.
It is you who takes it personally, calling it "my personal opinion."
> You are probably in need of a boyfriend.... You're behaving as a
> hysterical bitch. Freud was right!
Freud would be turning in his grave listening to this patriarchal
psychosis, having his name invoked to justify the ravings of a twisted
paedophile like this Dingdung, who tries to hide his true sadistic
paedophilic pathology on this newsgroup by falsely masquerading as a
liberal homosexual.
Matthew Dickinson
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> No, I am afraid you are a maniac and I don't want this kind of visitor,
> sorry!
So, you are a coward. Well, that settles it then. However, if anyone
finds out your address and gives it to me, I will make do on my promise
to use this information to drive to your place and severely kick your
ass, probably with a baseball bat. I won't kill you unless it is
accidental.
> Why don't you try to visit Christiane Kubrick? At least you know
> HER address. Good Luck.
>
> L.B.
ichorwhip
Harry Bailey wrote:
> dav...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > Making realism the only criteria for judging cinematography makes as
> > much sense as saying that Caravaggio is a "better" painter than Van
> > Gogh because he was the most realistic.
>
> Of course, Caravaggio, with such works as The Taking Of Christ,
> co-invented (visual-mimetic) realism, but I like how, in art history
> and practice, such "realism" is properly called chiaroscuro (lightdark
> color contrast of object foreground and background). Keeps realism, as
> it were, in perspective.
OT to the OT: Leonardo actually pioneered chiaroscuro as well as
sfumato. No argument there, but Caravaggio definitely perfected the
use of both along with some of the greatest use of foreshortening that
the Renaissance ever knew. I love Carravaggio! "Supper at Emmaus" is
one of my favorite works:
http://www.abcgallery.com/C/caravaggio/caravaggio27.html
Note how Peter's left hand nearly leaps out of the painting. Jesus'
right hand is also expertly foreshortened. Whether you are a Christian
or not, anyone that knows art has to admit this is "divine."
"... he took bread, and blessed it, and brake and gave to them. And
their eyes were opened, and they knew him; and he vanished out of their
sight"(Luke 24: 30-31).
i
"piop"
ichorwhip
porti...@yahoo.com wrote:
> Er- my partner and I recommend another website to you:
>
> http://www.misogynist.com/ and www.antiquatedhystericaldumbasses.com
>
> G.
Hey Gen, that 2nd link doesn't work......... LOL!!!!!!!
>
> Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> > Look, it is my personal opinion. Sometimes my opinion goes against the
> > majority. It happens. I am sorry if I disappointed you. what amazes me
> > is how important my opinion is to you. You take it so personally. It's
> > absurd.
> >
> > You are probably in need of a boyfriend.... You're behaving as a
> > hysterical bitch. Freud was right!
> >
ichorwhip
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> You are worse than a mysoginist. You are prejudiced against gay people,
> which is a worse crime. Talking about dildoes, porn, and stuff like
> that.
>
> Shame on you.
>
> L.B.
OMG! Funny! This thread kind of just falls apart into complete
pandemonium. FWIW, I like "Black Narcissus" almost as much as I love
myself....
Now do me! LOL!!!
"I don't like you should do what you done. And I'm not your brother no
more and wouldn't want to be."
i
"piop"
Yelps
"Matthew Dickinson" <stal...@comcast.net> wrote in message
news:1153531982.3...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
Will you please stop with the Manhood studies children?
Jesus Christ
dc
Yelps
"Lord Bullingdon" <figuei...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1153532645....@i42g2000cwa.googlegroups.com...
> No, I am afraid you are a maniac and I don't want this kind of visitor,
> HER address. Good Luck.
>
> L.B.
>
Dont say such a dumb thing. Plz keep the kubrick family out of this.
dc
Yelps
Matthew. C'mon stop. You are making threats over the internet again. Let it
go.
dc
Matthew Dickinson
oh fuck yourself, would you? You have no business in this.
Lord Bullingdon is a worse asshole now than he was 5 years ago when he
was most hated. He DESERVES to get his ass kicked. It is a pity that
the internet separates us.
Matthew Dickinson
Yelps wrote:
>
> Will you please stop with the Manhood studies children?
>
> Jesus Christ
>
> dc
I thought you were taking a break. So you want to fight too? This
doesn't involve you, dc, so why are you making it involve you? If this
place is too low for you, then get the hell out.
Nothing can be said to Bullingdon to get him from playing games with
the people at this group. He takes pleasure out of it. He has confided
this to me in email.
Matthew Dickinson
However, if Paulo apologizes to Genevieve for calling her a hysterical
bitch, and if he vows to not purposively annoy the people here, then I
will forgive and forget. I know that no matter how many times he says
he's sorry it won't make a difference, though. That's why I would
attack him hard if I knew where he lived, because he deserves some kind
of punishment which no words here and no FAQs from so_keefe can give.
He is giggling right now as I post this.
Yelps
C.mon. Lighten up. He's just really into Kubrick Studies. So what if he's
gay and brazilian. You don't threaten someone cause he's gay, that has no
class whatsoever. He brings up some interesting topice, some far better
then most of the other meaningless OT stuff. Occasionaly he is rude and he
needs to work on that, but you need to get a grip son. Maybe it's the
sunspots, but the threats are over the top.
dc
dc
Yelps
So let him giggle.
Over and out till sunspot activity dies down.
dc
Matthew Dickinson
Yelps wrote:
> C.mon. Lighten up. He's just really into Kubrick Studies. So what if he's
> gay and brazilian. You don't threaten someone cause he's gay, that has no
> class whatsoever. He brings up some interesting topice, some far better
> then most of the other meaningless OT stuff. Occasionaly he is rude and he
> needs to work on that, but you need to get a grip son. Maybe it's the
> sunspots, but the threats are over the top.
>
> dc
>
> dc
No, the threats are not over the top. I have remained calm and
unemotional throughout this whole debate despite my excellent writing
skills which apparently do convince morons like you that I am angry and
upset.
He called her a hysterical bitch. He laughed. He glorified in his own
vanity. The same old story as it always is with Paulo. If he doesn't
quit this behavior, he is going to be annoying and pestering the lives
of other people, no doubt, far away from this newsgroup. Someone needs
to teach him a lesson, because one of these days he's going to find
himself in such a situation where someone with a lot less control than
me, will simply kill him in frustration. And since we live in the U.S.,
in which killing people often lands you in jail, that will be a problem
for the killer, and I will take pity on the killer for having lost
control and attacked this prick Paulo, okay?
So someone needs to teach him a lesson. This has nothing to do with his
being gay or Brazillian. If you had read my posts, and understood the
context, I would not have to say that.
So take a break from this newsgroup like you said you were going to do,
okay?
Harry Bailey
ichorwhip wrote:
> Harry Bailey wrote:
> > dav...@earthlink.net wrote:
> > > Making realism the only criteria for judging cinematography makes as
> > > much sense as saying that Caravaggio is a "better" painter than Van
> > > Gogh because he was the most realistic.
> >
> > Of course, Caravaggio, with such works as The Taking Of Christ,
> > co-invented (visual-mimetic) realism, but I like how, in art history
> > and practice, such "realism" is properly called chiaroscuro (lightdark
> > color contrast of object foreground and background). Keeps realism, as
> > it were, in perspective.
>
> OT to the OT: Leonardo actually pioneered chiaroscuro as well as
> sfumato.
He invented everything, that pisa pizza fellow, at least on paper: the
cinema (the first Magic Lantern), the automobile (not the gas-guzzling
engine variety, but a spring-action wooden contraption, which a bunch
of Italian engineers recently built. Needless to say, the thing
worked), the flush loo, the canal lock, the tank, the helicopter, the,
the ...
>No argument there, but Caravaggio definitely perfected the
> use of both along with some of the greatest use of foreshortening that
> the Renaissance ever knew. I love Carravaggio! "Supper at Emmaus" is
> one of my favorite works:
>
> http://www.abcgallery.com/C/caravaggio/caravaggio27.html
>
> Note how Peter's left hand nearly leaps out of the painting. Jesus'
> right hand is also expertly foreshortened. Whether you are a Christian
> or not, anyone that knows art has to admit this is "divine."
Actually, this all ties in, in a round-abouty kinda way, with Kubrick
quite nicely, though in the still-life genre. Perhaps the very first
hyperreal, photo-realistic painter in THAT genre was Luis Meléndez, an
18th century Spanish painter (1716-1780). Take a quick look at these
examples for astonishing evidence:
http://www.nga.gov/feature/artnation/still_life/index.htm
or this:
http://www.museobilbao.com/web/web_uk/detalle_fundamental.php?idobra=24#
Them oranges in that last image above most definitely are not
clockwork. Quite amazing stuff, really, especially considering its all
from the pre-photographic era. Its as though such painting was somehow
anticipating the arrival of photography some time in the then-distant
future
The tie-in: Katharina, a still-life hyperreal specialist, would luv
this guy's work (or more likely, probably already does).
Harry Bailey
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> Harry Bailey wrote:
> > > OT to the OT: Leonardo actually pioneered chiaroscuro as well as
> > > sfumato.
> He invented everything, that pisa pizza fellow, at least on paper: the
> cinema (the first Magic Lantern), the automobile (not the gas-guzzling
> engine variety, but a spring-action wooden contraption, which a bunch
> of Italian engineers recently built. Needless to say, the thing
> worked), the flush loo, the canal lock, the tank, the helicopter, the,
>
>
>
>
> prejudices.
>
> L.B.
My prejudices relate to an intolerance of paedophilia, which, unlike
hetero-bi-homo sexuality, is not a sexual orientation - but is child
abuse, something your "please, AMK, please tell me that I exist"
pathology will never understand, until you're castrated and your Piles
then fed to the ducks on the Hue River ...
gh
<figuei...@hotmail.com> said:
> ...I have to admit, the only
> silent movies that I liked up to this day were Alexander Nevsky and
> Joan of Arc. I have to admit I haven't watched as many silent movies as
> I should.
>
> L.B.
Perhaps you should watch a few more silent films, Alexander Nevsky is
not a silent film.
G
gh
<figuei...@hotmail.com> said:
> I am not misogynist. I behave as one because I know you hate it.
Please do us all the favor and deny us your essence from here on in.
G
(not to be confused with G.(period))
Matthew Dickinson
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> Before being called a bitch, she called me an idiota. She knew it was
> coming. She is the one who's pestering, not me. I merely reacted.
>
> L.B.
OK, I'm cool with you again L.B. Thanks for explaining in email.
ichorwhip
Very nice stuff, an astonishing talent indeed. Note that he died in
poverty. Pretty much unappreciated in his time, and I only barely had
ever heard of him in this time. A real pity that he is not better
known. Try buying one of his paintings however. That will bring his
reality home to you!
>
> Them oranges in that last image above most definitely are not
> clockwork. Quite amazing stuff, really, especially considering its all
> from the pre-photographic era. Its as though such painting was somehow
> anticipating the arrival of photography some time in the then-distant
> future
>
> The tie-in: Katharina, a still-life hyperreal specialist, would luv
> this guy's work (or more likely, probably already does).
I don't know what Katharina thinks of him, but yes, she has done some
work along these lines.
"I love the use of the color blue by the artist."
i
"piop"
ichorwhip
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> Harry Bailey wrote:
> > > sfumato.
> He invented everything, that pisa pizza fellow, at least on paper: the
> cinema (the first Magic Lantern), the automobile (not the gas-guzzling
> engine variety, but a spring-action wooden contraption, which a bunch
> of Italian engineers recently built. Needless to say, the thing
> worked), the flush loo, the canal lock, the tank, the helicopter, the,
>
>
>
>
> prejudices.
>
Yes Lard, Leonardo was really, really gay. To get this all "sparkling
clear" I have nothing against gays whatsoever. On the other hand
Hairy's pedophile accusations are very serious. If I ever find out
that you even sympathize with pedophiles I will make it my goal in life
to make sure that Matthew gets your address.
Yelps
"ichorwhip" <icho...@netzero.net> wrote in message
news:1153704281....@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com...
>
> Lord Bullingdon wrote:
>
>>>>>>>>> On the other hand
> Hairy's pedophile accusations are very serious. If I ever find out
> that you even sympathize with pedophiles I will make it my goal in life
> to make sure that Matthew gets your address.
Oh o...I have to agree with Ichorwhip on this one.
dc
ichorwhip
Just make sure you take a shower first...
ichorwhip
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> Read all the posts, you'll see that it was her who began all this
> sillyness.
>
> L.B.
>
> gh wrote:
> G
> (not to be confused with G.(period))
What was interesting, in a case-study sort of way, is that you never
went apeshit until Gen, a female, made a negative comment about you.
Many many males have said all manners of derogatory crap about ya, and
your strongest comeback is usually "Bull!" But let a woman come along
and call you out and suddenly the spittle and "bitch" feathers start
flying. Care to explain that Paulo?
"The horrible killing sickness had wooshed up and turned the like joy
of battle into a feeling I was going to snuff it."
i
"piop"
Harry Bailey
ichorwhip wrote:
> Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> > Read all the posts, you'll see that it was her who began all this
> > sillyness.
> >
> > L.B.
> >
> > gh wrote:
> > G
> > (not to be confused with G.(period))
>
> What was interesting, in a case-study sort of way, is that you never
> went apeshit until Gen, a female, made a negative comment about you.
> Many many males have said all manners of derogatory crap about ya, and
> your strongest comeback is usually "Bull!" But let a woman come along
> and call you out and suddenly the spittle and "bitch" feathers start
> flying. Care to explain that Paulo?
Maybe because "he's" a female! But seriously, the guy isn't even gay,
he's too conflicted to know what "he" is. Without exception, every gay
male (been to a hairdresser recently?) I've ever encountered is very
respectful towards women - indeed their friends tend to be largely
female rather than male.
ichorwhip
Harry Bailey wrote:
> ichorwhip wrote:
> > Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> > > Read all the posts, you'll see that it was her who began all this
> > > sillyness.
> > >
> > > L.B.
> > >
> > > gh wrote:
> > > G
> > > (not to be confused with G.(period))
> >
> > What was interesting, in a case-study sort of way, is that you never
> > went apeshit until Gen, a female, made a negative comment about you.
> > Many many males have said all manners of derogatory crap about ya, and
> > your strongest comeback is usually "Bull!" But let a woman come along
> > and call you out and suddenly the spittle and "bitch" feathers start
> > flying. Care to explain that Paulo?
>
> Maybe because "he's" a female! But seriously, the guy isn't even gay,
> he's too conflicted to know what "he" is.
An interesting posit...
> Without exception, every gay
> male (been to a hairdresser recently?)
Yes, Steve is gay to about the tenth power in fact... Sure can cut
hair!
> I've ever encountered is very
> respectful towards women - indeed their friends tend to be largely
> female rather than male.
That's pretty much true in my experience as well, but I'm sure there's
got to be exceptions... hmmmmm.... maybe Paulo is a hermaphrodite.
"Are you now, or ever have been, a homosexual?"
i
"piop"
ichorwhip
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> Thanks for providing even more stereotypes.
>
> L.B.
>
> Harry Bailey wrote:
> bull
Here's a few more: Kenwood, Sony, Alpine, Polk....
ichorwhip
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> I am more of a man than both of you will ever be.
Stop! stop! My delicate hetero-feelings can't take anymore!
> Being gay doesn't
> make you a sissy.
I never said any such thing Paulo.
>This is how people like to show gay people on TV, but
> it is just an stereotype.
>
> L.B.
So "Will and Grace" is bull?
Seriously Paulo, there are plenty of good reasons to not like you.
Being gay matters not to me. I'm razzing you because it's fun. Why
are you so sensitive about it?
"Now this is where we keep all of our meat."
i
"piop"
Harry Bailey
ichorwhip wrote:
> Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> > I am more of a man than both of you will ever be.
>
> Stop! stop! My delicate hetero-feelings can't take anymore!
(Wondering what Sgt. Hartman would make of this "more of a man than
you" insecurity):
Hartman: What's YOUR name, scumbag?
Bulldung: Lord, sir.
Hartman: Lord what, of God? That name sounds like saintliness to me,
and you don't look like no saint. Are you a shit-stabber? Do you puke
up monkeys? Why I bet you could suck the Old Testament up your ass and
then come up looking for the new one.
Bulldung: Sir, no, sir.
Hartman: Why, you're so ugly you're the reason Leonardo da Vinvi gave
up painting. Did your mother have you aborted as a child?
Bulldung: Sir, no, sir. I'm, I'm ...
Hartman: I'm asking the questions here, Sailor. Were you about to call
me a pederast? From now on your name is Aborted, do you understand,
scumbag?
Bulldung: But I'm a gay aristocreep.
Hartman: [CENSORED].
Matthew Dickinson
Lord Bullingdon wrote:
> You've got a hard on for me, Bailey. You are obsessed with everything
> related to me.
>
> L.B.
> ________________________________
> Carlito - Who sent you, motherfucker?
> Lalin- The D.A.
> Carlito- Norwalk?
> Lalin- He got a hard-on for you, man.
> ________________________________
>
>
>
> Harry Bailey wrote:
> bull
kkh
> >
> > Note how Peter's left hand nearly leaps out of the painting. Jesus'
> > right hand is also expertly foreshortened. Whether you are a Christian
> > or not, anyone that knows art has to admit this is "divine."
>
> Actually, this all ties in, in a round-abouty kinda way, with Kubrick
> quite nicely, though in the still-life genre. Perhaps the very first
> hyperreal, photo-realistic painter in THAT genre was Luis Meléndez, an
> 18th century Spanish painter (1716-1780). Take a quick look at these
> examples for astonishing evidence:
>
> http://www.nga.gov/feature/artnation/still_life/index.htm
>
> or this:
> http://www.museobilbao.com/web/web_uk/detalle_fundamental.php?idobra=24#
>
>
> or this:
> http://www.nationalgallery.org.uk/cgi-bin/WebObjects.dll/CollectionPublisher.woa/wa/largeImage?workNumber=NG6505&collectionPublisherSection=work
>
> clockwork. Quite amazing stuff, really, especially considering its all
> from the pre-photographic era. Its as though such painting was somehow
> anticipating the arrival of photography some time in the then-distant
> future
>
> The tie-in: Katharina, a still-life hyperreal specialist, would luv
> this guy's work (or more likely, probably already does).
Oh yes You're right there! I love these paintings with a passion. I
have a fantastic double volume called "Still Leben" by Claus Grimm
published by Belser Verlag. The paintings in these weighty volumes are
by the Master still life painters from France, Italy,Spain,Germany, and
the Netherlands. Mindblowing. Exquisite! The pages are much drooled
over and wondered at by yours truly.
. Willem Kalf, Abraham Mignon,Jan Davids de Heem , Claez Van Heda,
virtuoso painters, all.
The artists of today have moved on, but there is still [!] a place for
the still life painter... :D
[having said that- I'm exploring landscape painting at the moment,
seeing as how we are experiencing such a splendid summer, but am
getting bitten to buggery by biting bugs for my pains!] Further more
the Clouds won't keep still! It's most frustrating.
regards,
Katharina