Sight and Sound polls
Reel Drew
Regarding the Sight and Sound lists of the ten greatest films, there are
actually two, one with films chosen by the critics and another with films
selected by directors. The directors' list does not include ANY silent films.
My feeling about all these attempts to proclaim certain films, whether ten or
a hundred, as the greatest of all time is that they are of little value in
measuring the artistic development of cinema. In their own way, the Sight and
Sound lists are just as slighting in their view towards essential film history
as the various AFI lists. I find it particularly infuriating that both the
critics and directors voting in the Sight and Sound polls have completely
overlooked D. W. Griffith while finding room for the likes of "The Godfather."
Sight and Sound's editor, Nick James, commenting on their top choice, "Citizen
Kane," mentions how it had such a dramatic effect on subsequent filmmaking.
And Griffith's films? Did they not have an influence on filmmakerst? The Sight
and Sound crowd have completely ignored what Orson Welles himself said
repeatedly--that Griffith was the greatest of all directors, the man who, more
than anyone else, was responsible for film as an art. Welles always placed
"Intolerance" at or near the top of the greatest films ever made. Given the
injury to Griffith's reputation by the DGA's foolish decision to drop the DWG
award several years ago, the Sight and Sound voters had a chance this year to
rectify this cultural injustice by reaffirming Griffith's artistic and historic
significance, an opportunity they missed.
The Sight and Sound polls are, in my view, nothing more than middle brow
elitism. They seem to want to go out of their way to avoid anything that
smacks of sentimentality or "heart" appeal--only "Sunrise" and Ozu's "Tokyo
Story," neither of which are on the director's list, have that quality--so
directors widely viewed as "sentimental" (Griffith, Capra, John Ford) are
nowhere to be found on these lists. Their top choice, "Citizen Kane," while
undeniably a tremendous, ground-breaking masterpiece, tends to be somewhat cold
or detached with a more limited emotional range than, for example,
"Intolerance," "Broken Blossoms," "The Outlaw and His Wife," "La Roue," "The
Big Parade," "The Crowd," "The Wedding March," "Gone With the Wind," the films
of Ford and Capra, and Welles's own "The Magnificent Ambersons." Imagine a
group of literary critics who refused to consider Shakespeare, Dickens, Hugo or
Dostoyevsky because they were deemed too "sentimental!"
Both Sight and Sound lists tend to be pretty humorless. Other than "Singin'
in the Rain" on the critics' list and the black comedy, "Dr. Strangelove," on
the directors', there are no comedies here. No films with Chaplin, Lloyd and
Keaton, no films by Lubitsch and Sturges, no "I Was Born, But. . .," no "It
Happened One Night," no "My Man Godfrey." Apparently, laughter, like tears, is
anathema to the Sight and Sound crowd. (Shades of "Invasion of the Body
Snatchers!" Have these critics and directors been taken over by the pod
people?)
At the same time, the Sight and Sound lists avoid the really avant-garde
films--from silent masterpieces like Teinosuke Kinugasa's "A Page of Madness"
and Mario Peixoto's "Limite" to the outstanding films of the French New Wave.
Films which rival novels by Joyce and Proust in making special demands of the
audience to elicit fuller understanding of the narrative appear to be beyond
the conventional assumptions of those voting for these lists.
The Sight and Sound lists also tend to be male-centered. Among the critics'
choices, I think only "Tokyo Story" and "Sunrise" have a really balanced gender
approach. And the directors' top choices don't TEND to be male-oriented--they
ARE male all the way. (You can't get more macho than "Lawrence of Arabia" with
its all-male cast.) It's almost as though in these lists, the woman, like the
female protagonist of "Vertigo" (no. 2 on the critics' list, no. 8 on the
director's), exists as a sort of fantasy in the male mind, a kind of
psychological variant of the Adam's Rib myth. The many films in which woman is
the heroine--Griffith's "Intolerance," "Way Down East," and "Orphans of the
Storm," the works of Mizoguchi and Naruse, "Gone With the Wind," not to mention
all the star vehicles with Garbo, Crawford, Stanwyck, Davis, Hepburn and
others--were all unrepresented by this list.
What, after all, are these lists trying to celebrate? Great, innovative
films which transformed the art? Why, then, have the Sight and Sound lists
consistently omitted Gance's "Napoleon," perhaps the most innovative film of
all? The choices can hardly be considered representative of the entire world
of filmmaking. Except for the postwar Ozu and Kurosawa titles (none of Ozu's
silent classics were included), the Sight and Sound lists are very Eurocentric
and Hollywood-oriented. There are no examples of Latin American, Middle
Eastern, Indian, Chinese or prewar Japanese films. Obviously, when you are
talking about only ten films, one's choices have to be very limited. But for
that reason, I think there should be some attempt at a more balanced
representation before you start declaring that these are the WORLD's greatest
films.
I think it would be better and probably more honest if these lists were
characterized, not as the greatest but rather as the favorite films of those
voting. Perhaps the lists would then look different and would actually be full
of "guilty pleasures." (Like Ed Wood's films? I think that would suit the
sensibility of a number of the directors today!) But once people get away from
the attempt to pass off their highly subjective responses as objective,
cerebral analyses, we might at least have much more interesting and
individualistic conceptions of the cinema's heritage by these critics and
directors.
I hope my series of articles on silent film directors, which have just been
published on Gilda's Blue Book of the Screen
at:http://www.geocities.com/Hollywood/Boulevard/7770/pioneers.html under the
heading Great Pioneers of the Cinema, will in some way represent a broader
approach to film history than the current Sight and Sound lists. The directors
whom I have profiled in these articles include D. W. Griffith, Frank Capra,
Abel Gance, Pre-Revolutionary Russia's Evgenii Bauer, China's Sun Yu, Japan's
Mikio Naruse, Brazil's Humberto Mauro and Mario Peixoto, and Australia's team
of Raymond Longford & Lottie Lyell.
William M. Drew
W. Lydecker
camping in virginal white *arab drag*, on top of that train.
Bruce Calvert
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/list.php?list=films
you can see which critics and directors voted for which films. Some of their
choices are very, lets say "out there". (ROSE HOBART? THE OPENING OF MISTY
BEETHOVEN? HEAVEN'S GATE?) I agree that the director's choices are less diverse
than the critic's choices.
Tom Gunning, a silent film author and researcher, has an interesting comment on
this poll:
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/voter.php?forename=Tom&surname=Gunning
"As a historian I think this is a good thing to do; not to indicate what the
timeless masterpieces are, but to give a sense of history for our evaluations.
Values are mutable, but that's the point. They change and have power to change."
Here is David Robinson's comment
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/voter.php?forename=David&surname=Robinson
"This is an awful game. My ten best finish up desperately and terminally square,
just because these are the ones I have to have, out of pure love. But I would
have liked to have Zéro de conduite, L'Atalante and from the more modern ones
L'Enfant sauvage, The Purple Rose of Cairo, Edward Scissorhands, Brazil and The
Road Home. I'd also have liked space for a few more silents, including A Trip to
the Moon, Speedy, Greed, Seventh Heaven, Sunrise, Foolish Wives and Our
Hospitality, naturally."
Bruce Calvert
(remove the xspam to reply)
Visit the Silent Film Still Archive
http://home.attbi.com/~silentfilm
Tony Spadaro
really have no relevance whatsoever. They are collections of "favourites" at
best. If the criteria was to list films with major influence on later films
Griffith would obviously be there along with Eisenstein. "The Great Train
Robbery" of 1903 would have to be the most important film on the entire
list -- it is the progenitor of an entire genre, and the first film to bring
the dime novels to the screen.
But lists of this nature (and especially the amazingly moronic AFI top
100) are about mutual showing off. "I have very good taste and appreciate
the finer movies like Kane and Godfather --- and guess what--- YOU have good
taste too, because you've seen these easy to find classics also."
The list(s) that would really be of value (and yes, they are sometimes
found in books and even magazine articles, even on the web occasionally)
would be of films that were very influential to moviemakers, or the public,
and in some cases the government <<< Star Wars and Ron Reagan for example
>>>.
A film like "Birth of a Nation" is Very Important by the standards set
above, regardless of it's entertainment quality and regardless of how many
critics want it on their favourites list.
Which is a very long way of saying "Sight and Sound" is full of sound and
fury, signifying nothing.
--
http://www.chapelhillnoir.com
Photography ... the hard way
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
a Radical approach to photography.
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Reel Drew" <reel...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20020812145910...@mb-fl.aol.com...
James L. Neibaur
canary as his top film.
JN
Please visit the most poorly designed web pages online:
my Favorite Movies web page:
http://hometown.aol.com/jimneibr/myhomepage/movies.html
and my Favorite Performers web page:
http://hometown.aol.com/jimneibr/myhomepage/rant.html
Max Nineteennineteen
>My feeling about all these attempts to proclaim certain films,
whether ten or a hundred, as the greatest of all time is that they are
of little value in
measuring the artistic development of cinema. In their own way, the
Sight and Sound lists are just as slighting in their view towards
essential film history as the various AFI lists.
>One of the problems with top ten (or 20 or 100) type lists is that
they
really have no relevance whatsoever. They are collections of
"favourites" at
best... "Sight and Sound" is full of sound and fury, signifying
nothing.
I could not disagree more.
Do I think this is a definitive list of the ten best films of all
time? Since I think Vertigo is no more Hitchcock's best film than
Seven Samurai is Kurosawa's than 8-1/2 is Fellini's than The Bicycle
Thief is DeSica's, plainly not. No list is going to be definitive for
anyone, even those who voted on it. That's so obvious as to be hardly
worth saying.
But I think the Sight & Sound poll is always a fascinating exercise--
conducted as it is on a higher critical plane than those silly AFI
polls-- because it's such a perfect barometer of the broad path of
critical taste. ReelDrew lambastes it as being of no interest for
neglecting Griffith when that's exactly what IS interesting about it
now.
Look at the very first list, 1952:
1 The Bicycle Thief
2 City Lights
The Gold Rush
4 Potemkin
5 Louisiana Story
Intolerance
7 Greed
Le Jour se Leve
The Passion of Joan of Arc
Brief Encounter
You would not know sound Hollywood existed from such a list. America
might as well be Germany, a country that dropped off the cinematic map
a few years into the sound era. There's a very distinct picture of
what film art is in a list like this-- realism (Italian neo, or French
poetic, or documentarian, or Dreyer and Stroheim), distinguished by
highly artistic editing (Intolerance and Potemkin), and with the
pantomime of that reincarnation of Pan, Chaplin, for entertainment
value.
Now look at 1962:
1 Citizen Kane
2 L'Avventura
3 The Rules of the Game
4 Greed
Ugetsu
6 Potemkin
The Bicycle Thief
Ivan the Terrible Part I
9 La Terra Trema
10 L'Atalante
There's a clear evolution here-- the absence of Griffith, Flaherty and
Dreyer being one sign that realism is no longer associated with
silents alone but rather with Italian neorealism-- three neorealist
films (if we stretch to include L'Avventura) making the list. That
last one (which few of us would agree with now) is really quite
extraordinary-- a two-year-old film making the list at #2, no less
(imagine, say, American Beauty or Being John Malkovich suddenly
appearing on this year's list). Just off the list at #11 are two more
films which are only a few years old-- Hiroshima Mon Amour and Pather
Panchali. People clearly believed they were living in an important
time for film.
Each of the lists provides similar insights: 1972 sees Buster Keaton
replace Chaplin in the top 10 and finds dark horses in the runners up
like Vertigo and The Searchers, which by 1982 would make the top 10
along with Singin' in the Rain, at last making a place for commercial
Hollywood cinema among the greatest films of all time. Compare that
to 1952 and you see a revolution in attitudes of Vatican II
proportions-- who in 1952 would have imagined a John Ford film on the
list that wasn't The Informer or The Grapes of Wrath but one of those
silly westerns? Who in 1952 would have imagined that the breezy
followup to An American in Paris, then in theaters, would come within
a million miles of such a list? You might as well expect to see
Esther Williams there.
In short, I find the S&S polls fascinating and they tell me a lot of
things. What the ten best films of all time are isn't one of them.
Dr. Giraud
> If you go to
> http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/list.php?list=films
> you can see which critics and directors voted for which films. Some of their
> choices are very, lets say "out there". (ROSE HOBART? THE OPENING OF MISTY
> BEETHOVEN? HEAVEN'S GATE?) I agree that the director's choices are less diverse
> than the critic's choices.
Camille Paglia (since when is she a film critic?) voted for the 1956
version of THE TEN COMMANDMENTS. Now THAT'S weird. Older films are
dropping off the list, though. (Among my favorites, I was happy to see
TROUBLE IN PARADISE get a few votes, but DOCKS OF NEW YORK got
nothing.)
Individual votes are interesting. Of the directors, Sydney Pollack
voted for INTOLERANCE and John Boorman for BIRTH OF A NATION. Many
silents got one or two votes: THE WEDDING MARCH, LES VAMPIRES, MAN
WITH A MOVIE CAMERA, etc. Now, with film departments at universities
being folded into "media studies", the future looks even worse.
Shawn Stone
(Who wishes Boorman had voted for his own POINT BLANK - as obscure 60s
films go, it's a lot more fun than L'AVVENTURA or 8 1/2!)
Reel Drew
As a follow-up and to qualify my earlier post about the Sight and Sound
polls, having looked through all the choices of the critics and directors
voting, I should mention that there were a few (for example, Sidney Lumet) who
did vote for Griffith. The same holds true for others like Gance and Capra who
had a handful of supporters. My critique, therefore, should have been of the
collective opinion or emphasis the cumulative votes imply rather than of
individuals. This situation might also be true of the AFI voters although, to
the best of my knowledge, in this case, there has never been a published
breakdown on who voted for what. But we often tend to forget--I include myself
among them--that individuals voting in these polls often make very good
choices, even if they are in a decided minority. The final results of these
polls, though, merely indicate what's fashionable at the moment and have no
fundamental value in measuring lasting artistic greatness and significance.
The fact that D. W. Griffith, Erich von Stroheim, Abel Gance, Victor Sjostrom,
G. W. Pabst, Frank Capra, King Vidor, V. I. Pudovkin, Rene Clair, Cecil B.
DeMille, and Josef von Sternberg failed to generate much support from most of
the Sight and Sound voters only indicates how trivial and meaningless these
contests really are. (Indeed, there were no votes for a film by Clair or
Pudovkin. And while three of Vidor's later sound films garnered votes, not a
single critic or director voted for his two great silent classics, "The Big
Parade" and "The Crowd.")
William M. Drew
Reel Drew
For the benefit of those who might be interested, 54 silent films (out of
hundreds of films for which people voted) garnered at least one vote from those
participating in the Sight and Sound polls. For this summary, I am counting
the critics' and directors' votes together. I'm also including "Modern Times"
and Sun Yu's "The Highway" as silents although they have some songs and sound
effects and, in the Chaplin film, passages of speech. While there was one vote
each for Abel Gance's "J'accuse" and Cecil B. DeMille's "The Ten Commandments,"
I'm assuming these were the sound versions. Unless otherwise indicated, all
these films are features.
The five most popular silents, the only ones to generate more than ten
votes, were Sergei Eisenstein's "Potemkin" (1925) which received 25 votes; F.
W. Murnau's "Sunrise" (1927) with 24 votes; Carl Dreyer's "The Passion of Joan
of Arc" (1928) with 18 votes; Buster Keaton's "The General" (1927) with 14
votes; and Charlie Chaplin's "City Lights" (1931) with 13 votes. Below that,
Fritz Lang's "Metropolis" (1927) received 10 votes; D. W. Griffith's
"Intolerance" (1916) had 9 votes; Charlie Chaplin's "Modern Times" (1936) had 8
votes; Charlie Chaplin's "The Gold Rush" (1925), Erich von Stroheim's "Greed"
(1924), Dziga Vertov's "The Man With a Movie Camera" (1929), Abel Gance's
"Napoleon" (1927), each received 7 votes; F. W. Murnau's "Nosferatu" (1922),
Buster Keaton's "Sherlock, Jr." (1924) got 5 votes; Luis Bunuel & Salvador
Dali's "Un Chien Andalou" (1929, short), Alexander Dovzhenko's "Earth" (1930)
had 4 votes; D. W. Griffith's "Broken Blossoms" (1919), Robert Wiene's "The
Cabinet of Dr. Caligari" (1919) had 3 votes. The following received 2 votes: D.
W. Griffith's "The Birth of a Nation" (1915), F. W. Murnau's "The Last Laugh"
(1924), Robert Flaherty's "Nanook of the North" (1922), Buster Keaton's "The
Navigator" (1924), Sergei Eisenstein's "October" (1928), G. W. Pabst's
"Pandora's Box" (1929), Buster Keaton & Charles Riesner's "Steamboat Bill, Jr."
(1928), Sergei Eisenstein's "Strike" (1924), Louis Feuillade's "Les Vampires"
(1916, series), Victor Seastrom's "The Wind" (1928). Finally, there was one
vote for each of these silents: Marcel l'Herbier's "L'Argent" (1929), Walther
Ruttman's "Berlin, Symphony of a City" (1927); Buster Keaton & Edward
Sedgwick's "The Cameraman" (1928), Charlie Chaplin's "The Circus" (1928), Sun
Yu's "Daybreak" (1932), F. W. Murnau's "Faust" (1926), Alexander Medvedkin's
"Happiness" (1934), Victor Seastrom's "He Who Gets Slapped" (1924), Sun Yu's
"The Highway" (1934), Yasujiro Ozu's "I Was Born, But. . .(1932), Victor
Sjostrom's "Ingeborg Holm" (1913), Charlie Chaplin's "The Kid" (1921), Harold
Shaw's "The Land Beyond the Sunset" (1912, short), Evgenii Bauer's "A Life for
a Life" (1916), Alfred Hitchcock's "The Lodger" (1926), Georges Melies's "Le
Melomane" (1903, short), D. W. Griffith's "The Mothering Heart" (1913, short),
D. W. Griffith's "The Old Actor" (1912, short), Buster Keaton's "Our
Hospitality" (1923), Abel Gance's "La Roue" (1922), Lupu Pick's "Sylvester"
(1923), F. W. Murnau's "Tabu" (1931), Louis Feuillade's "Tih Minh" (1918,
series), Erich von Stroheim's "The Wedding March" (1928), Hanna Schwarz's "The
Wonderful Lie of Nina Petrowna" (1929), Alexander Dovzhenko's "Zvenigora"
(1928).
William M. Drew
Max Nineteennineteen
>The fact that D. W. Griffith, Erich von Stroheim, Abel Gance, Victor
Sjostrom, G. W. Pabst, Frank Capra, King Vidor, V. I. Pudovkin, Rene
Clair, Cecil B. DeMille, and Josef von Sternberg failed to generate
much support from most of the Sight and Sound voters only indicates
how trivial and meaningless these contests really are.
Or that tastes change. Or that film history didn't end in 1930 after
all.
The fact that Sunrise has supplanted Passion of Joan of Arc on the
list as THE silent film certainly seems to suggest improvement in
taste to me.
Actually, what I want to see is the next 10 on the list, it's often
more interesting to see what new and surprising things are milling
about in the wings than to see the game of musical chairs among a
fairly constant list at the top.
David Manning
<aa2a3f47.02081...@posting.google.com>...
>
> Actually, what I want to see is the next 10 on the list, it's often
> more interesting to see what new and surprising things are milling
> about in the wings than to see the game of musical chairs among a
> fairly constant list at the top.
THE CRITICS' TEN:
Citizen Kane (Welles)
Vertigo (Hitchcock)
La Regle du jeu (Renoir)
The Godfather and The Godfather Part II (Coppola)
Tokyo Story (Ozu)
2001: A Space Odyssey (Kubrick)
Battleship Potemkin (Eisenstein)
Sunrise (Murnau)
8 1/2 (Fellini)
Singin' in the Rain (Kelly, Donen)
THE NEXT SIXTEEN:
Seven Samurai (Kurosawa)
The Searchers (Ford)
Rashomon (Kurosawa)
The Passion of Joan of Arc (Dreyer)
A bout de souffle (Godard)
L'Atalante (Vigo)
The General (Keaton)
Touch of Evil (Welles)
Au hasard Balthazar (Bresson)
Jules et Jim (Truffaut)
L'avventura (Antonioni)
Le Mepris (Godard)
Pather Panchali (S. Ray)
La dolce vita (Fellini)
M (Lang)
The Story of the Late Chrysanthemums (Mizoguchi)
WHAT THE PICTURE DID FOR ME
(according to manager Biff Iwerks of the Movieland Theatre, Oshkosh):
Citizen Kane - Long and slow but we broke even on notoriety factor.
Something different for a change, said many, but a real downer. I
could use a few more Mexican Spitfires from RKO to pick up the slack.
Vertigo - "Jimmy" Stewart normally a good draw for us but patrons
hated it. Silly, unbelievable plot and way too long but lots of
comments on the interesting music. It's no Spirit of St. Louis!
La Regle du jeu - Okay comedy that turns ugly at end. Some highbrow
smut but the Frenchies have this type story down cold. A total
flop-a-roo business-wise.
The Godfather and The Godfather Part II - A couple of flashy crime
pictures - my rowdy Saturday night crowd ate them up. Lots of action,
smart lines. The ladies aren't crazy about this tough guy foolishness,
glamorizing crooks, etc. But we cleaned up anyway.
Tokyo Story - Moving and slow character piece. Pleased everybody who
showed up but that was not many. Only samurai Jap pix seem to stoke
our boilers. Too bad.
2001: A Space Odyssey - Swell music and photography but too darn long
- audience alternately bored or laughing at it. Lots of walk-outs,
sleepers. Everybody liked the Evil Computer, tho' - great heavy.
Patrons confused by weird trick ending.
Battleship Potemkin - Tedious Commie propaganda with gruesome scenes
of violence and annoying camerawork. Exile it to Siberia.
Sunrise - Who does Fox think they're kidding with this artsy junk? The
Heinie who directed it is just a big show off. You could write the
plot on a matchbook! Still, that Janet Gaynor is a sweetie - she just
needs more intelligent pictures, like Seventh Heaven.
8 1/2 - Lengthy, pointless hash. Some clever bits here and there - and
no human feeling whatsoever. Definitely not up to this director's
previous stuff. Give us another I Vitelloni, Fred!
Singin' in the Rain - No snob appeal like "American in Paris" which is
a plus with our crowd. Some of these jokes are older than I am! Still,
it was pretty clean and we racked up some dimes.
Sh! the Octopus - Packed houses, held over. Patrons laughed till they
hurt. Funniest thing since Heart Trouble. Need more like this!
Max Nineteennineteen
the Late Chrysanthemums?
David Manning
voted for Chrysanthemums. Seven critics (and four directors) voted for
Ugetsu. So, with a one vote difference, it's not exactly an
overwhelming consensus in favor of the mums.
max...@yahoo.com (Max Nineteennineteen) wrote in message news:
<aa2a3f47.02081...@posting.google.com>...
Max Nineteennineteen
So when did everyone get a chance to see The Story of the Late
Chrysanthemums (which I, for instance, have never had a chance to see,
though I've seen several other Mizoguchi films of that era), and isn't
it curious that out of nowhere it should suddenly have developed
enough of a reputation that it has edged ahead of the considerably
better known Ugetsu (not to mention other plausible choices such as
Sansho the Bailiff?)
Really, it's like seeing that Drunken Angel suddenly knocked Seven
Samurai off the list. Or that Pilgrimage knocked The Searchers off.
Or...
Philip
"Max Nineteennineteen" <max...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa2a3f47.02081...@posting.google.com...
Well, it screened on Australian TV in 1989, but if all of the critics who
voted just happened to have been over here and saw it, it would have made
the 1992 list. After 13 years, I really can't remember anything about it -
but don't read anything into that. Lots of important things slip out of my
memory.
Like...um...er...
John Soister
book out there on Roland West?
John Soister
John Soister
again... Would anyone be able to point me toward a good book (or ANY book) on
Roland West? Please?
John Soister
Mile Films
Can't think of one, but Scott MacQueen wrote some excellent articles on West
for American Cinematographer and a few other publications.
Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
email: Mile...@aol.com
website: www.milestonefilms.com
Roxor2
John Soister >>
I'm not aware that anybody ever did a whole book about West, but Scott McQueen
wrote a great career study that appears in BETWEEN ACTION AND CUT: FIVE
AMERICAN DIRECTORS, edited by our own Frank Thompson and published by Scarecrow
in 1985. It's extremely well researched and contains a lot of rare stuff
(including studio memos and tidbits of that sort). Not just a brief article,
either: it's more than 50 pages long with over 100 footnotes (Oh, alright,
dammit, ENDnotes). Scott really did a great job. So did Frank, for that matter.
I don't know if the book is still in print, but it's worth having for the West
material alone.
Ed Hulse
David Manning
<aa2a3f47.02081...@posting.google.com>...
>
> So when did everyone get a chance to see The Story of the Late
> Chrysanthemums (which I, for instance, have never had a chance to see,
> though I've seen several other Mizoguchi films of that era), and isn't
> it curious that out of nowhere it should suddenly have developed
> enough of a reputation that it has edged ahead of the considerably
> better known Ugetsu (not to mention other plausible choices such as
> Sansho the Bailiff?)
The film is available on VHS in the United States, however... Of the
eight critics who voted for it, three are from Japan, three from the
UK, and one each from the U.S. (Jonathan Rosenbaum of the Chicago
Reader) and France:
Meanwhile, of the seven critics who voted for Ugetsu Monogatari, four
are from the US, one each from Switzerland and France, and one (Robin
Wood) is listed as UK/Canada. So five of the seven are based in North
America:
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/poll/voted.php?film=Ugetsu+Monogatari+%28Mizoguchi%29
So, geography may have something to do with it.
Cajun Joe255
the first thing about Roland West, don't even know how to find out if there's a
book out on Roland West, ad nauseam -- what makes you think YOU SHOULD BE
WRITING A BOOK?????
FThomp1065
>I'm not aware that anybody ever did a whole book about West, but Scott McQueen
wrote a great career study that appears in BETWEEN ACTION AND CUT: FIVE
AMERICAN DIRECTORS, edited by our own Frank Thompson and published by
Scarecrow in 1985. It's extremely well researched and contains a lot of rare
stuff
(including studio memos and tidbits of that sort). Not just a brief article,
either: it's more than 50 pages long with over 100 footnotes (Oh, alright,
dammit, ENDnotes). Scott really did a great job. So did Frank, for that matter.
I don't know if the book is still in print, but it's worth having for the
West material alone.
Although I'll get slammed for mentioning one of my own books, there's a single
copy of this book available on Amazon. Click on "collectibles" and thar she be.
Of course, it's my own last spare copy which makes it *darned* collectible in
my book.
Frank Thompson, whose other books include "I Have Often Killed on This Street
Before: Stalking Rodgers and Hammerstein" and "Lee Harvey, You Got Some
'Splainin' to Do!: Desi Arnaz and the Warren Report."
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Vitaphone
I don't know about books, but it sure never stopped anyone from declaring
themselves a film director... or actor... or screenwriter... or... or....
newsgroup poster,
Jeff
------
"My lawyer instructed me to say 'Yes' to everything."
"We're gonna have fun if you're on the level with that!"
Robert Woolsey to Helen Kaiser, "RIO RITA" (Radio-1929)
John Soister
Sometimes we faw down & go boom while jumping to conclusions.
I learned how to do research while in high school, college and grad school.
Having checked the online LoC collections catalogue and the Books in Print at my
local library - and having also checked with Access Pennsylvania, an online
statewide search engine - I decided to come here. This group - comprised of
articulate, informed, helpful aficionados of the silent film - IS, to a very
real extent, a research tool.
Present company excepted, of course.
John Soister
Max Nineteennineteen
nom-de-web in ten years?) is probably as close as we'll get to an
answer: when it was mostly western critics voting, Ugetsu, the best
known Mizoguchi film, was the obvious choice (as Tokyo Story, the
first Ozu film widely seen in the west, is for Ozu), but add Japanese
critics and the balance shifts toward something they know better.
Karamzin
John Soister is one of our best film writers today. His research on a
topic is above reproach; he consistently brings new and interesting
insight to films that we thought we already new; and when the
description warrants it, his incisive wit is laugh-out-loud funny.
Besides being a excellent film historian, he happens to be a gentleman
and an all-around terrific person. If he can't ask for a little
information here, among fellow movie fans, friends, scholars, writers
-- then to quote Chico Marx, "I pity us!"
Ed Watz
James Russell
Um... did he say he was? Cos if so, I missed that bit.
James R.
--
Hot Buttered Death http://www.ans.com.au/~jgwr/blog/
Celluloid Dreams: Wednesday, 8pm AEST, 2SER 107.3 FM http://www.2ser.com/
Roxor2
Right on, Ed. I wonder how many books Cajun Joe has written? Funny, I can't
remember seeing that byline anywhere before....
Ed Hulse
Paul Gallagher
At first I thought it was due to Noel Burch's influence: a preference
for Zangiku monogatari's 'Japanese mode of representation' over the
later, Westernized films. This might have influenced Jonathan Rosenbaum,
who I know was an avid reader of Burch, but I doubt it was true in general,
since many of the most formally innovative Japanese films, and
the ones Burch most highly praises, got no votes at all: no votes for
Wife, Be Like a Rose, or An Inn in Tokyo, or The Only Son, or The
Brothers and Sisters of the Toda Family, or There Was a Father.
Paul
Bruce Calvert
favorite film. As of right now, THE GENERAL has a slight lead over VERTIGO.
http://www.bfi.org.uk/sightandsound/topten/userpoll/index.php
Bruce Calvert
(remove the xspam to reply)
Visit the Silent Film Still Archive
http://home.attbi.com/~silentfilm
bpnjensen
It's really rather amazing to me that, as of 4:45 PM PST on Wednesday,
August 21, 2002, there have been more 52,000 votes at this website,
ostensibly unique votes (if you believe their little note at the
bottom that tells you "you have already voted"), and that both The
General and Vertigo have more 5,200 votes each.
Bruce Jensen
Precode
Wasn't he that guy making Mexican horror movies in New Orleans?
Mike S.
(who once told the Wrestling Women, "Who's your mummy?")
Robert Keser
> I'm not aware that anybody ever did a whole book about West, but Scott McQueen
> wrote a great career study that appears in BETWEEN ACTION AND CUT: FIVE
> AMERICAN DIRECTORS, edited by our own Frank Thompson and published by Scarecrow
> in 1985. It's extremely well researched and contains a lot of rare stuff
> (including studio memos and tidbits of that sort). Not just a brief article,
> either: it's more than 50 pages long with over 100 footnotes (Oh, alright,
> dammit, ENDnotes). Scott really did a great job. So did Frank, for that matter.
> I don't know if the book is still in print, but it's worth having for the West
> material alone.
You made up this title and description just to torture us, didn't you?
I just ran through the search engines of thirteen online used booksales
services and not one, even the ones actually covered in layers of dust,
has heard of this book. (In fact, I think one stuck out its tongue at me).
I know that Frank exists (because he corresponded with me once), but
I won't believe this title until someone verifies it by sending me a copy!
--Bob Keser
Bruce Calvert
<3D6AF172...@ix.netcom.com>, Robert Keser stated...
>You made up this title and description just to torture us, didn't you?
>I just ran through the search engines of thirteen online used booksales
>services and not one, even the ones actually covered in layers of dust,
>has heard of this book. (In fact, I think one stuck out its tongue at me).
>I know that Frank exists (because he corresponded with me once), but
>I won't believe this title until someone verifies it by sending me a copy!
Then what is this?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0810817446/qid=1030419224/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3334937-9364111?s=books
And this?
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2R6O3QQQTL&isbn=0810817446
Roxor2
I just ran through the search engines of thirteen online used booksales
services and not one, even the ones actually covered in layers of dust,
has heard of this book. (In fact, I think one stuck out its tongue at me).
I know that Frank exists (because he corresponded with me once), but
I won't believe this title until someone verifies it by sending me a copy! >>
Have you tried Larry Edmunds Bookshop in Hollywood? Edmunds is pretty well
stocked with old Scarecrow books.
Ed
Robert Keser
On Mon, 26 Aug 2002 22:26:44 -0500, in article
<3D6AF172...@ix.netcom.com>, Robert Keser stated...
>You made up this title and description just to torture us, didn't you?
>I just ran through the search engines of thirteen online used booksales
>services and not one, even the ones actually covered in layers of dust,
>has heard of this book. (In fact, I think one stuck out its tongue at me).
>I know that Frank exists (because he corresponded with me once), but
>I won't believe this title until someone verifies it by sending me a copy!Then what is this?
http://www.amazon.com/exec/obidos/tg/detail/-/0810817446/qid=1030419224/sr=1-1/ref=sr_1_1/102-3334937-9364111?s=booksAnd this?
http://search.barnesandnoble.com/booksearch/isbnInquiry.asp?userid=2R6O3QQQTL&isbn=0810817446
do not actually *have* the book (of course, they're the two I hadn't
consulted). However, Barnes and Noble helplfully suggests that a
'close match' that would interest me is: 'The Biblical Archaeologist:
Vol. XXVIII, September 1965, No. 3.Campbell, Edward F. (Ed)'
(????????????)
--Bob Keser
Robert Keser
No, I haven't tried Larry Edmunds yet (that's one place probably
not connected to the online search engines). Good tip: thanks, Ed!
--Bob Keser
BlakeMF
Michael F. Blake
Henry Nicolella
> > remember seeing that byline anywhere before....
> >
> > Ed Hulse
>
> Wasn't he that guy making Mexican horror movies in New Orleans?
>
> Mike S.
> (who once told the Wrestling Women, "Who's your mummy?")
Cajun Joe is a character strangled by the mummy in THE MUMMY'S CURSE
(1944). Not sure why anyone would use the name of someone slow enough
to be overtaken and killed by the pokiest monster in screen history
(As Bill Cosby said: "Anyone caught by the mummy DESERVES to die")
Henry Nicolella
Robert Keser
> Edmunds does not have the book. I checked.
Thanks for saying so. Do you suppose Frank has a boxful gathering
dust in his garage? Now's his chance to make a killing...
--Bob Keser
FThomp1065
>> I won't believe this title until someone verifies it by sending me a copy!
>>>
Thank God *somebody* knows I exist. And no, I won't send you a copy.
Frank Thompson, whose other books include "Between Action and Lunch: Snacks of
the Great Directors"
FThomp1065
>Thanks for saying so. Do you suppose Frank has a boxful gathering dust in his
garage? Now's his chance to make a killing...
If only. Just sold my last spare copy through Amazon about a week ago. Now why
can't there be this kind of interest in "The Star Film Ranch?" I *do* have a
garage full of those.
Frank Thompson, whose other books include "A Band of Brooks Brothers: Tailors
in World War II"
Brent Walker
Slower than THE CREEPING TERROR?
Brent Walker
TJNORT
NOTHING is slower than the Creeping Terror, except possibly the Creeping
Unknown (which actually turns into something like the Seeping and Slurping
Unknown, if I remember the Quartermass films correctly) or Torgo in MANOS: THE
HANDS OF FATE.
Precode
Thanks, I'd forgotten that; the mummy connection was coincidental. For
the record, though, I was making a joking reference to Coffin Joe, a
Mexican horror director of whom Ed is but one of many to have an
inexplicable fondness for.
Mike S.
(whose other books include "Cuppa Joe: Great Stars and Their Coffee
Breaks")
James Russell
wrote:
>Thanks, I'd forgotten that; the mummy connection was coincidental. For
>the record, though, I was making a joking reference to Coffin Joe, a
>Mexican horror director of whom Ed is but one of many to have an
>inexplicable fondness for.
Inexplicable? How can you not love titles like "Tonight I'll Incarnate In
Your Corpse" and "48 Hours of Hallucinatory Sex", even if (like me) you've
never seen the films?