Derivatively Hollywood.
Jacques E. Bouchard
I caught a movie on television last night: "Les Compères", a 1983
film with, among others, Gérard Despardieu. It smelled a lot like
"Father's Day" with Robin Williams and Billy Crystal. In fact, it was
almost _exactly_ like "Father's Day", down to the finer points. It makes
"Father's Day" more than an adaptation: it becomes a simple copy, with
minor adjustments for an
American public.
This raises the issue of original screenwriting. It's one thing to
admit that all films are based on simple identical plot points, but
there seems to be a trend in Hollywood to simply re-do the films which
have been done before. "Jungle to Jungle", "True Lies", "Father's Day"
(and several others I can't recall at this time) are simple carbon
copies of the originals. Could it be that Hollywood has taken a step
further the concept of focus groups, and will only do what has already
been done and tested in other countries?
Siskel and Ebert were on Letterman last night. Gene Siskel mentioned
that, in recent years, the writing has been getting worse while the
special effects have been getting better. Didn't we have that very same
discussion here a short while ago?
jaybee
John McFetridge
> I caught a movie on television last night: "Les Compères", a 1983
>film with, among others, Gérard Despardieu. It smelled a lot like
>"Father's Day" with Robin Williams and Billy Crystal. In fact, it was
>almost _exactly_ like "Father's Day", down to the finer points. It makes
>"Father's Day" more than an adaptation: it becomes a simple copy, with
>minor adjustments for an
>American public.
>
>
Hey Jacques,
Certainly have to agree, it seems like market research gone insane.
Right now there is a hit film in Quebec called, "Les Boys," and the
current rumour is it's going to be remade in English.
I remember when Denys Arcand made, "The Decilne of the American
Empire," he said he got lots of offers to remake it in English.
On the other hand, it seems like the market really does decide --
North Americans don't like subtitled films. Let's see how John Sayles'
"Men With Guns," does.
By the way, have you seen, "Les Boys?"
John McF
Jacques E. Bouchard
John McFetridge wrote:
> By the way, have you seen, "Les Boys?"
No. It's playing a block from me, but it's little more than a crude
comedy with lots of swearing and bathroom humour.
jaybee
Wm.J.Townsend
Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> trend in Hollywood to simply re-do
> the films which have been done before
Blame it on Rio
Pure Luck
Point of No Return
My Father the Hero
The Vanishing
Diabolique(sp?)
Hollywood's finest..... -Bill
Rick Jones
> Siskel and Ebert were on Letterman last night. Gene Siskel mentioned
>
>that, in recent years, the writing has been getting worse while the
>special effects have been getting better. Didn't we have that very same
>discussion here a short while ago?
Be very, very careful of "wistful recollection." People of all ages
are prone to remembering how things used to be better ten/thirty/fifty
years ago. You hear it in sports "By Jesus, the players used to play
for the love of the game and not money, blah blah blah" and it's all
lies (they always played for money.) You hear it about music, how
music today sounds the same and it all sucks, and that's all lies
(MacArthur Park was a big hit in the 1960s, which says a lot.)
People tend to remember good and forget bad; consequently, while bad
movies are immediately apparent in today's market up against the great
ones, the awful movies of yesteryear are largely forgotten, and only
the good ones are remembered. So while "The Usual Suspects," a
wonderfully written movie, is offset by "Alien Resurrection," a
terrible movie, everybody remember "Casablanca" but nobody remembers
"Mug Town" or "Secret of Treasure Mountain."
And let's be brutally honest here; overall quality in movies IS up.
"Tom Jones" won the Academy Award for Best Picture; if you released it
today it'd be critically panned and laughed out of the theatres. If,
on the other hand, you had released "Schindler's List" in, say, 1958,
it would blow people out of their shoes; it would have been so vastly
superior to anything else around the audiences wouldn't have known
what to make of it.
Watch "Gone With the Wind" with an honest eye and ear. It's a great
movie, but... come on. If you wrote that dialogue today you'd be
barred from Hollywood by an act of the California state legislature.
Is the writing getting worse? In the last two years I have seen all
kinds of wonderfully written movies. What about Fargo? Donnie
Brasco? Sling Blade? Ulee's Gold? What was wrong with those?
Jacques E. Bouchard
Rick Jones wrote:
> Is the writing getting worse? In the last two years I have seen all
> kinds of wonderfully written movies. What about Fargo? Donnie
> Brasco? Sling Blade? Ulee's Gold? What was wrong with those?
At the risk of beating a dead horse: look at the success garnered by
Titanic. Take the same characters and romantic plot and set it in an average
town, and you've got a yawner. Set it on the biggest disaster of the century
(some might call this cheap pandering) and spend millions in special
efffects, and you've got the biggest money-maker in history. What made
Titanic's success?
jaybee
Rich Wilson
Rick Jones wrote:
>
> On Fri, 06 Mar 1998 11:16:11 -0500, "Jacques E. Bouchard"
> <mephist...@sympatico.ca> wrote:
>
> > Siskel and Ebert were on Letterman last night. Gene Siskel mentioned
> >that, in recent years, the writing has been getting worse while the
> >special effects have been getting better. Didn't we have that very same
> >discussion here a short while ago?
>
> Be very, very careful of "wistful recollection." People of all ages
> are prone to remembering how things used to be better ten/thirty/fifty
> years ago.
Rick,
"Be very, very careful of" bad arithmetic.
It seems pretty unlikely that a 20 year old will remember "how things were"
20 years ago, much less 30. And a 20-30 year-olds are in the heart of the
target market for most media including film.
I think most 20-year-olds looking at a 50-year old film will probably have
no idea what life was like in the wake of World War II -- just 10 years
after The Great Depression. How could they possibly appreciate the way a
movie of that time fit into its cultural context, and the value system of
its day?
Even so, some young viewers still seem to appreciate many old films.
Far more than you do, I gather.
[ snip ]
> You hear it about music, how
> music today sounds the same and it all sucks, and that's all lies
> (MacArthur Park was a big hit in the 1960s, which says a lot.)
THOUSANDS of records were "big hits" in the sixties! What kind of
nonsensical statement is that? If you are trying to say that this one
record summarizes the music of the sixties, you are a true cultural
illiterate. Pardon my candor, but such a statement really leaves the cake
out in the rain.
Get a copy of the Beach Boys boxed set that contains the outtakes from
Brian Wilson's never-released "Smile" album, and listen to the
near-symphonic structures and advanced harmonies he was using. Or just
listen to "Good Vibrations," for that matter, which was a hit single. Get
your ears opened.
I won't even bother describing the Beatles' astounding evolutionary
process that culminated in "Sgt. Pepper" and finally in "Abbey Road."
Even then, pop artists looked for inspiration in pre-existing
material, the best example being the way so many artists of that era
brought 40s and 50s black blues music to new audiences, in both old and new
forms (listen to the early Yardbirds, Animals, Stones, et al; then listen
to Cream's version of "Crossroads," Led Zeppelin's "You Shook Me" and a
zillion others that took the blues into totally new territory).
Listen to the spoken-word performances of Jim Morrison, Captain
Beefheart and other artists. Read the lyrics of Joni Mitchell and Bob Dylan
and Paul Simon.
The sixties gave rise to Frank Zappa, George Clinton, and the
beginning of cross-cultural fertilization in bands like Santana, and
genre-crossing stylists like the Byrds and Buffalo Springfield.
I strongly suggest you acquaint yourself with all these people before
you attempt to summarize an entire decade with a one-shot novelty record.
I like a lot of newer artists, and I buy their records. But with very
few exceptions one can argue that they are all derived from innovations
that took place starting around 1958 -- and ending about 1980. I mean, who
has really gone further out beyond Zappa or Brian Eno, for example, in
terms of melody, structure, or instrumentation? Fiona Apple? Jewel? <LOL>
What do you hold out as true musical innovation today? Trance? Techno?
Gimme a break. Look at the Grammy winners. Many fine artists among them --
but all derivative. You make a big mistake trying to use music as an
example of "today" being unilaterally "better" than before.
> People tend to remember good and forget bad;
What is this, the Entertainment Weekly version of "Julius Caesar?"
(And do you know what I mean by that?)
> consequently, while bad
> movies are immediately apparent in today's market up against the great
> ones, the awful movies of yesteryear are largely forgotten, and only
> the good ones are remembered. So while "The Usual Suspects," a
> wonderfully written movie, is offset by "Alien Resurrection," a
> terrible movie, everybody remember "Casablanca" but nobody remembers
> "Mug Town" or "Secret of Treasure Mountain."
I agree with you that movie writing is faring very well today, although not
necessarily the stuff coming through the conventional channels. To some
extent the diversification and broadening of the industry is allowing new
voices and styles to arise, and I think there is innovation (or at least
experimentation) going on that's quite welcome.
But this contrasts sharply with popular music. I think you might want
to sweep a little less with the cultural generalizations, and you'll be
safe. At least, according to my personal taste. ;-)
> And let's be brutally honest here; overall quality in movies IS up.
> "Tom Jones" won the Academy Award for Best Picture; if you released it
> today it'd be critically panned and laughed out of the theatres.
Let's be "brutally honest" and say that such a statement is off-the-wall.
Leonardo DiCaprio in "The Man in the Iron Mask?" What a joke. Albert
Finney, by contrast, was (and is) absolutely perfect in "Tom Jones."
Have you ever read that script? I have. It's one of the best uses of
narration in film story-telling that I can think of.
So what on earth is your basis for dissing "Tom Jones" specifically?
Just what would your critique be? LACK OF SPECIAL EFFECTS? Would you also
knock "A Man for All Seasons" and "Lawrence of Arabia" and all other big
historical films made before 1997?
I believe Jaybee's original post was calling attention to a very specific
phenomenon, i.e. the remaking of films that had already been made. "Cousin,
Cousine" becomes "Cousins" and "La Cage Aux Folles" becomes "The Birdcage"
and so on and on. I didn't notice if he also called attention to the
endless recycling of things like "A Star is Born," but that's worth noting
also.
That is totally unrelated to some sort of philosophical stance whereby
one dismisses the work of the past and only looks at stuff that's current!
In other words, you haven't even touched on the point of his message.
* It's difficult or impossible for one to understand where one is, if
one doesn't know where one has been.* That is the reason for my discourse
on music earlier.
By the way, Shakespeare died about 400 years ago, but they keep
remaking his stuff for some reason. And did I mention that DiCaprio's new
vehicle, mentioned above, is based on an old book by a guy named Dumas? Or
that this same book has been translated to the screen more than once
before?
This example supports Jaybee's points. But I think the question really
comes down to whether today's filmmakers are improving on anything when
they borrow from previous work -- or when money people go with such stuff
*instead* of new work from new writers with new voices. I don't think so,
but those investments seem to be paying off when consumers choose the new
version over the old one in some kind of kneejerk reaction -- or perhaps
because they don't even know there ever *was* an "old" version.
So MY bottom line out of all this is that I disagree with Siskel (as
parpaphrased by Jaybee). I don't think the writing is getting worse.
But sometimes I believe the audiences might be. Just a theory. ;-)
--
Rich Wilson
http://www.communicator.com
David Thielen
Tuvyah
jaybee wrote:
>>look at the success garnered by
Titanic. Take the same characters and romantic plot and set it in an average
town, and you've got a yawner. Set it on the biggest disaster of the century
(some might call this cheap pandering) and spend millions in special
efffects, and you've got the biggest money-maker in history. What made
Titanic's success?<<
The mind-altering contact poison that was secretly painted onto this nation's
theater seats by the ultra-top-secret black ops wing of AMPAS, run by kingpin
Jack Valente (codename "Producer's Shill").
--Smilin' Ted
Pretzels and beer for the Bavarian Illuminati!
Jacques E. Bouchard
Tuvyah wrote:
I thought it was the secret ingredient in the popcorn seasoning.
jaybee
JoannKB
>> The mind-altering contact poison that was secretly painted onto this
nation's
>> theater seats by the ultra-top-secret black ops wing of AMPAS, run by
kingpin
>> Jack Valente (codename "Producer's Shill").
I believe Jack Valenti is the head of the MPAA. Arthur Hiller is the president
of AMPAS.
Bill Blum
joa...@aol.com (JoannKB) wrote:
Not this year. Actually, he stepped down last year. He was, of course
busy shooting "An Alan Smithee Film."
>http://members.aol.com/JoannKB
Bill
(Not affiliated with any other Bills)
Tuvyah
JoanneKB wrote:
>> The mind-altering contact poison that was secretly painted onto this
nation's
>> theater seats by the ultra-top-secret black ops wing of AMPAS, run by
kingpin
>> Jack Valente (codename "Producer's Shill").
>I believe Jack Valenti is the head of the MPAA. Arthur Hiller is the
>president of AMPAS.
Oh no. They've gotten to you, too....
joh...@smt.net
Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
<<look at the success garnered by Titanic. Take the same characters and
romantic plot and set it in an average American town, and you've got a
yanwer. Set it on the biggest disaster of the century (some might call
this cheap pandering) and spend millions on special effects, and you've
got the biggest money-maker in history. What made Titanic's success?>>
You're right. Titanic in Reading, Pennsylvania would be a yawner -
unless the town of Reading sank in one history's great nautical
disasters. For that matter, it's highly unlikely Field Of Dreams would
work in Istanbul.
In Titanic, foreknowledge of the ship's sinking informs, and adds depth,
to virtually every scene prior to finale. The romantic sub-plot ties in
with the larger plot. It's called theme.
You've also trashed Cameron for writing a middle-of-the-road script.
Roger Ebert, in his Chicago Sun-Times review of Titanic, wrote:
"James Cameron's l94-minute, $200 million film of the tragic voyage is
in the tradition of the great Hollywood epics. It is flawlessly crafted,
intelligently constructed, strongly acted and spellbinding. If its story
stays well within the traditional formulas for such pictures, well, you
don't choose the most expensive film ever made as your opportunity to
reinvent the wheel."
I agree with Ebert on what made Titanic's success. His last point is so
obvious it's almost embarrassing to have to raise it.
Have a nice day, jay-bee.
John
Jacques E. Bouchard
joh...@smt.net wrote:
> Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> <<look at the success garnered by Titanic. Take the same characters and
> romantic plot and set it in an average American town, and you've got a
> yanwer. Set it on the biggest disaster of the century (some might call
> this cheap pandering) and spend millions on special effects, and you've
> got the biggest money-maker in history. What made Titanic's success?>>
>
> You're right. Titanic in Reading, Pennsylvania would be a yawner -
> unless the town of Reading sank in one history's great nautical
> disasters. For that matter, it's highly unlikely Field Of Dreams would
> work in Istanbul.
>
> In Titanic, foreknowledge of the ship's sinking informs, and adds depth,
> to virtually every scene prior to finale. The romantic sub-plot ties in
> with the larger plot. It's called theme.
The tragedy of the Titanic would add depth to a hamster spinning in its
wheel. It's called hitching a ride on the back of history.
Look: I thought "Titanic" had shortcomings because it stuck to a
formula. You thought "Titanic" was great because it stuck to a formula. I
just guess we expect different things from a movie. Don't let it distract
you from the movies you enjoy. I don't.
jaybee
joh...@smt.net
Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
<<The tragedy of the Titanic would add depth to a hamster spinning in
its wheel. It's called hitching a ride on the back of history>>
An accusation familiar, no doubt, to Shakespeare, Oliver Stone, Steven
Spielberg, and other artists who have mingled history and fiction in
pursuit of their vision.
You've been pissing on Cameron's script. I think your sniping has less
to do with substantive screenwriting issues, and more to do with morally
positioning yourself above the material.
Don't let it distract you from the films you enjoy. I don't.
John
Jacques E. Bouchard
joh...@smt.net wrote:
> Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> <<The tragedy of the Titanic would add depth to a hamster spinning in
> its wheel. It's called hitching a ride on the back of history>>
>
> An accusation familiar, no doubt, to Shakespeare, Oliver Stone, Steven
> Spielberg, and other artists who have mingled history and fiction in
> pursuit of their vision.
Cameron is Shakespeare?
> You've been pissing on Cameron's script. I think your sniping has less
> to do with substantive screenwriting issues, and more to do with morally
> positioning yourself above the material.
It has everything to do with disappointment in a script that could have
been so much more, and the adulation of an indiscriminate public.
Since you like to include Cameron with the Grand Masters, here's an
appropriate analogy: a man is given money to paint the ceiling of a chapel,
a very nice chapel (the Titanic story). With Michaelangelo as possible
inspiration to draw from (the Shakespeare of painting), he decides to play
it safe instead and paints kittens, children with big eyes, and bullfighters
with a roller. Visitors ooh and aah, impressed by the architecture of the
chapel. By association, the painting is voted "mostest bestest painting in
the hole [sic] wyde [sic] werld [sic]". The kitty cat painter is slapped on
the back and hailed as the best in the biz. When discording opinions arise,
the fans point back and exclaim: "But look how gorgeous the chapel is!"
It's still just kittens, kids with big eyes and bullfighters.
jaybee
joh...@smt.net
Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
<<Cameron is Shakespeare?>>
Jay-bee: for the record, I'm enjoying this exchange of ours.
What I said was: Shakespeare is among those who have mingled fiction and
history in pursuit of their vision. But now that you mention it: Shakespeare,
in his day, was appreciated as an entertainer, though thought deficient in
refinement due to his supposed artlessness. Oddly enough, Shakespeare was a
also populist, and wrote his plays for the common men and women of his
era.
So no, Cameron is not Shakespeare. But yes, he did suffer the slings and
arrows of foppish, high-brow critics of his day, who looked down their noses
at him because ordinary joes liked his shit.
> It has everything to do with disappointment in a script that could have
> been so much more, and the adulation of an indiscriminate public.
So the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and all those who
saw and loved Titanic, are indiscriminate? Interesting.
> Since you like to include Cameron with the Grand Masters, here's an
> appropriate analogy: a man is given money to paint the ceiling of a chapel,
> a very nice chapel (the Titanic story). With Michaelangelo as possible
> inspiration to draw from (the Shakespeare of painting), he decides to play
> it safe instead and paints kittens, children with big eyes, and bullfighters
> with a roller. Visitors ooh and aah, impressed by the architecture of the
> chapel. By association, the painting is voted "mostest bestest painting in
> the hole [sic] wyde [sic] werld [sic]". The kitty cat painter is slapped on
> the back and hailed as the best in the biz. When discording opinions arise,
> the fans point back and exclaim: "But look how gorgeous the chapel is!"
>
> It's still just kittens, kids with big eyes and bullfighters.
>
> jaybee
Thank you. I may e-mail that to a friend of mine who teaches kindergarten.
Re: Titanic - it's possible you saw it at the wrong chapel. It's a $200
million dollar disaster flick, made under duress, made with Cameron's own
personal and professional credibility on the line. The subject matter is
far from fireproof, and the thing could easily have been a colossal flop.
In the end, he only managed to turn out a critically-acclaimed, all-time
box-office champ.
Given the nature of the material, the budget of the film, the story-telling
constraints dictated by the material, I think he did a very good job with
the script. You don't.
But for me, something is rotten in Denmark when the audience is toasted
in the name of dissing a film. Get to know a few ordinary joes. They're
not as dumb as you think.
BTW - that's discordant, as opposed to discording.
John
-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
joh...@smt.net
Gary Pollard
johnmcb+AEA-smt.net wrote in message +ADw-6eqn1f+ACQ-r6v+ACQ-1+AEA-nnrp2.dejanews.com+AD4-...
+AD4-
+AD4-In the end, he only managed to turn out a critically-acclaimed, all-time
+AD4-box-office champ.
+AD4-
+AD4-Given the nature of the material, the budget of the film, the story-telling
+AD4-constraints dictated by the material, I think he did a very good job with
+AD4-the script. You don't.
Critically acclaimed where? I'm with Jay-Bee. The script is about as full of
art as most episodes of +ACI-The Monkees+ACI- ever were.
Almost every review I've read has commented on the crappy script.
Here are some.
+ACI-...then to invest that love story with plot details that range from
unlikely to downright stupid. +ACI-
Jonathan Rosenbaum
+ACI-Superior production design and action sequences clash painfully with
dialogue so clich+AOk-d it makes you weep in frustration.+ACI-
Kenneth Turan
+ACI-Ultimately, Titanic will sail or sink not on its budget but on its merits
as drama and spectacle. The regretful verdict here: Dead in the water.+ACI-
Richard Corliss
+ACI-But its two leads, both of them hugely capable actors, are undermined by
ham-fisted direction and loads of blockhead dialogue. +ACI-
Stephanie Zacharek - Slate
+ACI-Clunky dialogue assumes its own particular charm, and corny melodrama
springs vitally to life. +ACI-
Cinemania (He likes it, but he still admits its there)
+ACI-The plot of Cameron's +ACQ-200 million epic is a familiar melodrama, driven by
the miscast Billy Zane, who seems to have been inspired to give a +ACI-period+ACI-
performance that might have been appropriate in a silent film of 1912. His
cardboard villain, an upper-class twit named Caledon Hockley, seems merely
ludicrous. +ACI-
John Harfl Film.com
+ACI-...the human interest story that occupies fully two-thirds of this three
hour plus epic is so flat and unconvincing that, for once, you find yourself
longing for the disaster footage to start.+ACI-
Peter Brunette Film.com
+ACI-Yes, we may pause to observe the faults of the film, its clearly fake
digital re-creation of the ship plowing through the ocean, especially in the
daytime+ADs- the sketchy nature of the supporting characters+ADs- the one-note
dastardliness of the villains+ADs- the broadness of emotions.+ACI-
Robert Horton Film.com
+ACI-...the most juvenile romantic tale of 1997, a dippy passion piece between a
threadbare American artist (Leonardo DiCaprio) and the spoiled fianc+AOk-e (Kate
Winslet) of a temperamental man of means (Billy Zane). +ACI-
Tom Keogh
+ACI-while these scenes benefit from likable acting by Kate Winslet and Leonardo
DiCaprio, they suffer from trite dialogue and predictable romance-movie
events.+ACI-
David Sterritt - Christian Science monitor
+ACI-....nothing so much as an Edwardian soap opera to which one of the world's
most glamorous catastrophes has been appended.+ACI-
David Edelstein - Slate
+ACI-DiCaprio and Winslet's effortless chemistry is what sells the fictional
story, and it is more than enough to make up for the cartoonishness of Zane
(in a thankless but necessarily villainous role that could've come straight
out of a silent film of the period). +ACI-
Eddie Cockrell Nitrate Online
+ACI-It trivialises the tragedy and insults the deaths of the 1,500 people by
centreing the entire movie on a fictional romance (a horribly cliched one at
that) +ACI-
Rael Film Guide
+ACI-If they don't call him an idiot for his expenditure, they'll surely call
him one for his writing. Obviously, Cameron was going to sink or swim with
this project, but couldn't he have subsumed his world-class ego for one
second and given the writing assignment to somebody with an imagination?+ACI-
Mr. Cranky
+ACI-This +ACQ-200-million ship carries lots of spectacle, but it's hurt by cliches
and simplistic dialogue.+ACI-
Detroit News
+ACI-Their presence, of course, is to be Rose's societal burden, but it would
have been nice had everything not been so black and white. +ACI-
Screen It
+ACI-TITANIC' FILMMAKERS SHOULD HAVE SUNK MORE MONEY INTO THE SCRIPT+ACI-
Barbara Shulgasser
+ACI-Perhaps the director's mistake was in writing the script himself. +ACI-
Mick Lasalle San Francisco Chronicle
+ACI-You will get your money's worth and more, you may even feel transported,
but you will have to overlook some decidedly hokey stuff along the way. +ACI-
Portland Oregonian
+ACI-At times the film is hokey (+ACI-God himself couldn't sink this ship+ACEAIg-),
obvious (+ACI-Captain, don't you want to go out with a bang?+ACI-), and finally,
deliciously, romantically sweet.+ACI-
Andy Jones - Alive and Kicking
+ACI-The love triangle is unconvincing and duller than watching ice melt.+ACI-
Tucson Weekly
+ACI-Cameron's dialogue has never been as good as his direction, which makes for
a few stilted clunkers along the way.+ACI-
Austin Chronicle
+ACI-The plot has been characterized as +AGAAYA-Romeo and Juliet go boating,'' but the
writing quality is more Barbara Cartland than Shakespeare.+ACI-
Los Angeles Daily news
+ACI-But if the romance is hokey, it keeps the film from being solely about the
technical side of rendering the legendary disaster.+ACI-
Boston Globe
+ACI-But the romance at the core of the story is full of mishmashed melodrama
and out-of-sync sensibilities.+ACI-
Seattle Post-Intelligencer
+ACI-some of the character development (like having Cal chase the lovers with a
gun while the ship sinks) is a bit ridiculous.+ACI-
Deseret news
Gary
Jacques E. Bouchard
joh...@smt.net wrote:
> What I said was: Shakespeare is among those who have mingled fiction and
> history in pursuit of their vision. But now that you mention it: Shakespeare,
> in his day, was appreciated as an entertainer, though thought deficient in
> refinement due to his supposed artlessness. Oddly enough, Shakespeare was a
> also populist, and wrote his plays for the common men and women of his
> era.
>
> So no, Cameron is not Shakespeare. But yes, he did suffer the slings and
> arrows of foppish, high-brow critics of his day, who looked down their noses
> at him because ordinary joes liked his shit.
Let's see if "Titanic" lives on. I believe it'll be upstaged by the next
special effect bonanza.
> > It has everything to do with disappointment in a script that could have
> > been so much more, and the adulation of an indiscriminate public.
>
> So the Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences, and all those who
> saw and loved Titanic, are indiscriminate? Interesting.
One critic's diamond is another's lump of coal. Sure Titanic appealed to a
large number of people, but only because it made an excellent job of catering to
the lowest common denominator.
> In the end, he only managed to turn out a critically-acclaimed, all-time
> box-office champ.
There have been comments that "Gone With The Wind" remains the record holder
if adjustments are made for inflation.
> But for me, something is rotten in Denmark when the audience is toasted
> in the name of dissing a film. Get to know a few ordinary joes. They're
> not as dumb as you think.
See, now I'm being "toasted" for NOT loving the film. I'm a snob looking down
my nose at ordinary joes. Is that what this argument is about?
What of the ordinary joes who didn't think "Titanic" was all that hot? What
are they?
jaybee
joh...@smt.net
Gary Pollard wrote:
> Critically acclaimed where? I'm with Jay-Bee. The script is about as full of
Titanic tied the record for most Oscar nominations by a film. In my
opinion, this qualifies as critical acclaim.
Re: the scrapbook of pot-shots. Certainly fair comment, esp. since I
brought up Ebert in the first place. But. . .
Hell hath no fury like a critic who smells a populist film with
ambitions to be something more. I think critics went in expecting
the usual disaster-film fare (Ernest Borgnine clutching toupee as
he swims after Shelley Winters. The cop. The priest. The little girl.
Characters from different walks of life, thrown together in the
cauldron)
Instead, Cameron delivered a class-struggle love-story. That's what
threw the dogs off. They caught a whiff of Merchant-Ivory in the
subject matter and then got angry when he didn't deliver a A Room
With A Porthole.
<<Yes, we may pause to observe the faults of the film, its clearly fake
digital re-creation of the ship plowing through the ocean, especially in
the daytime. The sketchy nature of the supporting characters. The one-note
dastardliness of the villains>>
Yes. The characters are sketchily drawn. Yes, Zane is a one-note villain.
Because the spine of the story is the voyage and sinking of the ship.
Story-wise, script-wise, there simply isn't time for elaborate character
development. The fucking boat is sinking. People are scrambling, making
impossible choices. I think Cameron wrote a very good script for the
kind of film it was.
Titanic is not nominated in screenplay, and I have no quarrel with that.
But if it's axiomatic that a good film cannot be made from a bad script,
then I think words like cheap, pandering and crappy are out of line.
<<Ultimately, Titanic will sail or sink not on its budget but on its
merits as drama and spectacle. The regretful verdict here: Dead
in the water.
Richard Corliss>>
On the contrary, it seems to be sailing along fine.
John
John
joh...@smt.net
Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
<<See, now I'm being "toasted" for NOT loving the film. I'm a snob looking
down my nose at ordinary joes. Is that what this arguement is about>>
I was you who used the phrase: "the adulation of an indiscriminate public".
John
>
> See, now I'm being "toasted" for NOT loving the film. I'm a snob looking
down
> my nose at ordinary joes. Is that what this argument is about?
>
> What of the ordinary joes who didn't think "Titanic" was all that hot?
What
> are they?
>
> jaybee
>
>
Wil Maxwell
Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
> One critic's diamond is another's lump of coal. Sure Titanic appealed to a
> large number of people, but only because it made an excellent job of catering to
> the lowest common denominator.
You mean the middle class teenage girls who would like to tie up Leonardo
DiCaprio in their bedrooms(MCTGWWLTTULDITB) denominator?
Actually, I haven't even seen Titanic... I was going to go see it, but when I
heard there was a love story at the center of the plot I decided against it. I
mean who wants to interrupt the coolest special effects of the year to hear
someone crying "I love you!" Give me a break... Not to mention the fact that I
already knew how the film ended... That kinda ruins the whole picture for me. I
was hoping Leonardo would have patched the hole in the boat with his pretty-boy
ass and die saving the ship... :) Ahh, but I was wrong. I think one day I'll
make a version of Titanic where the ship is saved... Biggest suprise ending of
all time. I'll be famous!
Wil...
Wil Maxwell
wmax...@enteract.com
http://www.enteract.com/~wmaxwell/info/
"My doctor says that I have a malformed public duty gland
and a deficiency in moral fiber, and that therefore I am
excused from saving Universes." -- Ford Prefect
Jacques E. Bouchard
joh...@smt.net wrote:
> Jacques E. Bouchard wrote:
>
> <<See, now I'm being "toasted" for NOT loving the film. I'm a snob looking
> down my nose at ordinary joes. Is that what this arguement is about>>
>
> I was you who used the phrase: "the adulation of an indiscriminate public".
And somehow that implies a social class? You need to get rid of a few
pre-conceived notions.
jaybee
Jacques E. Bouchard
joh...@smt.net wrote:
> Yes. The characters are sketchily drawn. Yes, Zane is a one-note villain.
> Because the spine of the story is the voyage and sinking of the ship.
> Story-wise, script-wise, there simply isn't time for elaborate character
> development.
Forgive my french, but that is crap. An apology for inept writing.
I'm a big fan of those "short-short story" contests. In 500 words or less
(sometimes even as little as 250 or 100) people are challenged to write a complete
story, and some pull it off beautifully. One of my favourites is "The Portrait",
by Stanley Kunitz (see below). You can find it at
http://www.poets.org/lit/POEM/skunit02.htm, and it even includes a real audio file
of the author reading it.
The art of writing is in the showing, not the telling. A good writer can tell
you more about a character in 15 minutes than Titanic could in 3 hours.
This is what I mean when I say that screenwriters stand to benefit immensely
by studying literature - and I don't just mean Shakespeare, either.
jaybee
*********************************************************
The Portrait
Stanley Kunitz
My mother never forgave my father
for killing himself,
especially at such an awkward time
and in a public park,
that spring
when I was waiting to be born.
She locked his name
in her deepest cabinet
and would not let him out,
though I could hear him thumping.
When I came down from the attic
with the pastel portrait in my hand
of a long-lipped stranger
with a brave moustache
and deep brown level eyes,
she ripped it into shreds
without a single word
and slapped me hard.
In my sixty-fourth year
I can feel my cheek
still burning.
Copyright © 1971 by Stanley Kunitz.
Gary Pollard
johnmcb+AEA-smt.net wrote in message +ADw-6f0844+ACQ-cv3+ACQ-1+AEA-nnrp1.dejanews.com+AD4-...
+AD4-Gary Pollard wrote:
+AD4APg- Critically acclaimed where? I'm with Jay-Bee. The script is about as full
of
+AD4APg- art as most episodes of The Monkees ever were.
+AD4-
+AD4-Titanic tied the record for most Oscar nominations by a film. In my
+AD4-opinion, this qualifies as critical acclaim.
Well, I for one gave up on the Oscars a long time ago. Forrest Gump got
several. Citizen Kane got none. The Oscars are a popularity contest, and
often the result of incredible lobbying. In terms of the nominations, I
really don't see what makes a make-up man any more qualified to judge a good
script than Joe Bloggs at the corner store.
A brilliant film that made no money would stand little chance of getting
one. A middle-brow piece of hackwork that made a lot stands every chance.
+ACI-Good Will Hunting+ACI-, +ACI-The Boxer+ACI- and +ACI-Boogie Nights+ACI- are all better scripts
and hardly deep or arty movies. But it is noticeable that even in the
current +ACI-Titanic+ACI- hysteria, the Oscar nominators did have the sense (more
than I suspected actually) not to nominate it for best screenplay.
+AD4-Re: the scrapbook of pot-shots. Certainly fair comment, esp. since I
+AD4-brought up Ebert in the first place. But. . .
+AD4-
+AD4-Hell hath no fury like a critic who smells a populist film with
+AD4-ambitions to be something more. I think critics went in expecting
+AD4-the usual disaster-film fare (Ernest Borgnine clutching toupee as
+AD4-he swims after Shelley Winters. The cop. The priest. The little girl.
+AD4-Characters from different walks of life, thrown together in the
+AD4-cauldron)
Why do so many defences of +ACI-Titanic+ACI- turn into attacks on its critics? It is
quite possible for someone to dislike +ACI-Titanic+ACI- for perfectly good reasons
rather than the relatively insulting ones that its defenders like to imply.
If you want to see a film-maker able to turn out populist movies that went
beyond that, look at Lean, or even modern day players like Cronenberg or
Tarantino.
The fault of +ACI-Titanic+ACI- is that whenever a clash between populism and any
other ambition occurs, populism wins. This occurs in terms of those bathetic
one-liners, inane melodrama, and then anachronisms that destroy the very
suspension of disbelief the film would like to maintain. Even among those
who like the film, agreat many say. +ACI-Yes these things stank, but I could
overlook them.+ACI- You shouldn't have to.
I couldn't. When +ACI-Titanic+ACI- began I had high hopes. I thought this could have
been a work of genius. But as the black and white chracters took centre
stage I realised Cameron had dropped the ball. By the time the necklace was
slipped into Jack's pocket (and how did Rose know that this WAS what
happened?) I realised that we had sunk into irretrievable corniness.
+AD4-Instead, Cameron delivered a class-struggle love-story. That's what
+AD4-threw the dogs off. They caught a whiff of Merchant-Ivory in the
+AD4-subject matter and then got angry when he didn't deliver a A Room
+AD4-With A Porthole.
Well, Ivory would at least have researched his period better, or not thrown
the period sense out of the window whenever a chance to +ACI-stroke+ACI- the
audience presented itself.
The class struggle is banal. Poor +AD0- good. Rich +AD0- bad, unless they began as
poor. Molly Brown as the rich lady with a heart of gold (although all she
did to get the money was marry into it).The problem is that when Cameron is
dealing with the real figures, as opposed to his cardboard fictitious ones,
his pseudo-Marxist schematics don't apply at all. One reason perhaps why, as
the film ends, some of us have sympathy for the +ACI-real+ACI- people and the
nobility they showed and little or none at all for Jack and Rose.
I think it's rather weak to be talking about class struggle in a movie when
that movie has about as much insight into class struggle as a Charlie
Chaplin or Buster Keaton film. And I don't see a guy who spends +ACQ-200 million
on a Hollywood commodity as much of a Marxist anyway. This is just more
populism. He knows his potential audience aren't rich.
+AD4APAA8-Yes, we may pause to observe the faults of the film, its clearly fake
+AD4-digital re-creation of the ship plowing through the ocean, especially in
+AD4-the daytime. The sketchy nature of the supporting characters. The one-note
+AD4-dastardliness of the villains+AD4APg-
+AD4-
+AD4-Yes. The characters are sketchily drawn. Yes, Zane is a one-note villain.
+AD4-Because the spine of the story is the voyage and sinking of the ship.
+AD4-Story-wise, script-wise, there simply isn't time for elaborate character
+AD4-development. The fucking boat is sinking. People are scrambling, making
+AD4-impossible choices. I think Cameron wrote a very good script for the
+AD4-kind of film it was.
I disagree completely. See +ACI-A Night to Remember+ACI-. Ut can be done. Cameron
wasted time on bland fictitious characters when he could have got over the
same message better, or at least as well, by fleshing out the real ones.
Certain truths were inherent in the situation. Turning it into a Harlequin
romance does nothing to put ther message over more effectively. In my view
this script encapsulates so much of what is wrong with Hollywood
scriptwriting today.
+AD4-Titanic is not nominated in screenplay, and I have no quarrel with that.
+AD4-But if it's axiomatic that a good film cannot be made from a bad script,
+AD4-then I think words like cheap, pandering and crappy are out of line.
Well, I think the film and the script, both deserve those epithets. I
realise more and more that the film's appeal lies not in the execution but
in the situation that is at the centre of it. The script panders: the
anachronisms, the awful Italian accent, the one-liners, the blandnesses, the
low-brow view of art. The film can't avoid revealing the same weaknesses and
pandering in the same way. These are ongoing weaknesses of Cameron's
scripts, so it's not the first time.
+AD4APAA8-Ultimately, Titanic will sail or sink not on its budget but on its
+AD4-merits as drama and spectacle. The regretful verdict here: Dead
+AD4-in the water.
+AD4-Richard Corliss+AD4APg-
+AD4-
+AD4-On the contrary, it seems to be sailing along fine.
Commercially yes, aesthetically, no.
Gary
Dennis Ward
joh...@smt.net wrote in message <6f0844$cv3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>The characters are sketchily drawn. Yes, Zane is a one-note villain.
>Because the spine of the story is the voyage and sinking of the ship.
>Story-wise, script-wise, there simply isn't time for elaborate character
>development.
This must be a joke. No time for elaborate character development in a 4
hour movie? Oh, come on. That's ludicrous.
As for the "spine of the story" being the sinking of the ship, if that's the
case then Cameron could have saved a hell of a lot of money by just
eliminating the people all together. I mean, the real tragedy of the
Titanic disaster was the destruction of such a lovely sailing vessel, and
the people who died were just a footnote.
--
Best wishes, Dennis
"If I entered into an agreement with that man, I would be sticking my head
in a moose." (Samuel Goldwyn)
joh...@smt.net
"Gary Pollard" <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote, on Titanic:
<<Certain truths were inherent in the situation. Turning it into a
Harlequin romance does nothing to put their message over more effectively.
In my view, this script encapsulates so much of what is wrong with Hollywood
scriptwriting today>>
Gary:
I respect you for stating your case up front, though I don't share
your view that Titanic, Boogie Nights and Good Will Hunting qualify
as hack-work. And. . .
<<I think it's rather weak to be talking about class struggle in a movie
when that movie has about as much insight into class struggle as a
Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton film>>
. . .if you've got a case to make against the American film industry,
please leave Charlie Chaplin, one of the great artistic geniuses and
film-makers of the 20th Century, out of it.
Cheers,
John
joh...@smt.net
Dennis Ward wrote:
> As for the "spine of the story" being the sinking of the ship, if that's the
> case then Cameron could have saved a hell of a lot of money by just
> eliminating the people all together. I mean, the real tragedy of the
> Titanic disaster was the destruction of such a lovely sailing vessel, and
> the people who died were just a footnote.
>
> --
>
> Best wishes, Dennis
Dennis:
What I said was: the spine of the story is the voyage and sinking of
the ship. They set sail, they sink. A dozen film-makers could give you
a dozen versions of what happens in between, but the spine remains the
same. All other elements, including plot and characterization, must be
evaluated against the larger canvas.
BTW - I can do supercilious too.
Best wishes,
John
WriteTV
Am I the only person who sees "symbols" like these --
<< +ACI-Titanic+ACI- >>
-- in Gary's posts? Is it just me? Or is it AOL?
(No snide remarks on changing my ISP, please. I'm happy where I am, and the
only posts I see those symbols in are Gary Pollard's.)
Curious...
Genia
-----------------------------------------------
"No matter how paranoid you think you are, you're not paranoid enough."
-- THE X-FILES, "Unusual Suspects," written by Vince Gilligan
Bob Miller
wri...@aol.com (WriteTV) wrote:
I'm getting them, too, on Gary's posts -- I use Forte Agent as my
newsreader in win95.
Bob
My 2 centavos' worth...
Bob Miller
bmi...@neosoft.com
Sherron Nelson
No.....I see them too, and wondered the same.
Paul
G
Ditto receiving superfluous characters via webtv from Gary's posts.
I just figured that he was a CIA agent posing as a filmmaker in Hong
Kong and that it was some sort of encryption.
P
"It just doesn't seem to me that Los Angeles is the place to live the
life of the mind." - Barton Fink. (from early in the first act of
"Barton Fink" by Joel and Ethan Coen)
"I'LL SHOW YOU THE LIFE OF THE MIND!!" - "Charlie" aka "Madman Mundt"
from late in the third act.
Gary Pollard
Darn
Apologies for that. I think my newsreader was sending out the programmes in
a non-suitable font. Is this any better?
Gary
Sherron Nelson wrote in message +ADw-35172EB9.7B20E024+AEA-prodigy.net+AD4-...
+AD4-No.....I see them too, and wondered the same.
+AD4-
+AD4-WriteTV wrote:
+AD4-
+AD4APg- Am I the only person who sees +ACI-symbols+ACI- like these --
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- +ADwAPA- +ACI-Titanic+ACI- +AD4APg-
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- -- in Gary's posts? Is it just me? Or is it AOL?
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- (No snide remarks on changing my ISP, please. I'm happy where I am, and
the
+AD4APg- only posts I see those symbols in are Gary Pollard's.)
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- Curious...
+AD4APg- Genia
+AD4APg-
+AD4APg- -----------------------------------------------
+AD4APg- +ACI-No matter how paranoid you think you are, you're not paranoid enough.+ACI-
+AD4APg- -- THE X-FILES, +ACI-Unusual Suspects,+ACI- written by Vince Gilligan
+AD4-
+AD4-
+AD4-
Gary Pollard
Hmm. Maybe it's not any better. Let me try again
Gary
Gary Pollard wrote in message <6f6trh$9q...@news.asiaonline.net>...
cine...@hknet.com
> Gary Pollard wrote in message <6f6trh$9q...@news.asiaonline.net>...
> >Darn
> >
> >Apologies for that. I think my newsreader was sending out the programmes in
> >a non-suitable font. Is this any better?
> >+AD4-
> >+AD4APg- Am I the only person who sees +ACI-symbols+ACI- like these --
> >+AD4APg-
> >+AD4APg- +ADwAPA- +ACI-Titanic+ACI- +AD4APg-
> >+AD4APg-
> >+AD4APg- -- in Gary's posts? Is it just me? Or is it AOL?
> >+AD4APg-
Gary,
I think everyone sees them, and I think, i.e. speculating, that
whoever/whatever you are using is giving us +AD4APG instead
of the little > thing which indicates an earlier message being quoted.
Why not look in your preferences to see if you are given options as
to the character used to quote previous messages, and change your
default character. That may help.
As you can see, hknet is reaching newsgroups again, heaven help 'em.
(Are you all booked up for April? Did you see John Woo's presentation
of Melville's brilliant Le Samourai at the Arts Centre. Superb. Superb.)
cheers,
derek
Brevity
joh...@smt.net wrote:
>"Gary Pollard" <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote, on Titanic:
><<I think it's rather weak to be talking about class struggle in a movie
>when that movie has about as much insight into class struggle as a
>Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton film>>
>. . .if you've got a case to make against the American film industry,
>please leave Charlie Chaplin, one of the great artistic geniuses and
>film-makers of the 20th Century, out of it.
>Cheers,
>John
Buster Keaton was what? Chopped liver?
>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
-Brevity (remove the x to reply via email)
tom ward
sammy should have said
"up a moose's ass"
to the tenth degree
tom ward
Dennis Ward wrote:
> joh...@smt.net wrote in message <6f0844$cv3$1...@nnrp1.dejanews.com>...
>
> >The characters are sketchily drawn. Yes, Zane is a one-note villain.
> >Because the spine of the story is the voyage and sinking of the ship.
> >Story-wise, script-wise, there simply isn't time for elaborate character
> >development.
>
> This must be a joke. No time for elaborate character development in a 4
> hour movie? Oh, come on. That's ludicrous.
>
> As for the "spine of the story" being the sinking of the ship, if that's the
> case then Cameron could have saved a hell of a lot of money by just
> eliminating the people all together. I mean, the real tragedy of the
> Titanic disaster was the destruction of such a lovely sailing vessel, and
> the people who died were just a footnote.
>
> --
>
> Best wishes, Dennis
>
Keith M. Lucas
In article <35172EB9...@prodigy.net>,
>
>> Am I the only person who sees "symbols" like these --
>>
>> << +ACI-Titanic+ACI- >>
>>
Oh, I just assumed it was yet another "It's totally cross-platform...
it works on Windows'95 *AND* Windows NT" text encoding.
Honestly, you should try reading the net on a 7bit terminal these
days. There used to be a saying that race didn't transmit down an
ASCII link, it might just be true now, but it's about the only thing
there isn't a bastard child of HTML to code for...
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
sillywizATexcessionDOTdemonDOTcoDOTuk"It's not a personality..it's a bulldozer"
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
assassinate president plutonium nuclear amnesty international airliner heroin
-------------------------- Include triggers, make life hard for the spooks. ---
Keith M. Lucas
In article <6f6trh$9q...@news.asiaonline.net>,
Gary Pollard <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>Darn
>
>Apologies for that. I think my newsreader was sending out the programmes in
>a non-suitable font. Is this any better?
Er.. no. (see below)
Possibly you have some extensions for Unicode turned on in your
news-software ? Or are you using a HTML "enhanced" one ?
Look for options mentioning "Plain Text" or "ASCII" in the preferences.
>Gary
>Sherron Nelson wrote in message +ADw-35172EB9.7B20E024+AEA-prodigy.net+AD4-...
>+AD4-No.....I see them too, and wondered the same.
>+AD4-
>+AD4-WriteTV wrote:
>+AD4-
>+AD4APg- Am I the only person who sees +ACI-symbols+ACI- like these --
>+AD4APg-
>+AD4APg- +ADwAPA- +ACI-Titanic+ACI- +AD4APg-
>+AD4APg-
>+AD4APg- -- in Gary's posts? Is it just me? Or is it AOL?
>+AD4APg-
>+AD4APg- (No snide remarks on changing my ISP, please. I'm happy where I am, and
>the
>+AD4APg- only posts I see those symbols in are Gary Pollard's.)
>+AD4APg-
>+AD4APg- Curious...
>+AD4APg- Genia
>+AD4APg-
>+AD4APg- -----------------------------------------------
>+AD4APg- +ACI-No matter how paranoid you think you are, you're not paranoid enough.+ACI-
>+AD4APg- -- THE X-FILES, +ACI-Unusual Suspects,+ACI- written by Vince Gilligan
>+AD4-
>+AD4-
>+AD4-
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Gary Pollard
Actually I've always preferred Keaton to Chaplin. I think HE was the genius.
Gary
Brevity wrote in message <6f8v6b$f...@argentina.earthlink.net>...
>joh...@smt.net wrote:
>
>>"Gary Pollard" <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote, on Titanic:
>
>><<I think it's rather weak to be talking about class struggle in a movie
>>when that movie has about as much insight into class struggle as a
>>Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton film>>
>
>>. . .if you've got a case to make against the American film industry,
>>please leave Charlie Chaplin, one of the great artistic geniuses and
>>film-makers of the 20th Century, out of it.
>
>>Cheers,
>
>>John
>
>Buster Keaton was what? Chopped liver?
>
>
>
>>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>
Gary Pollard
I don't think that Boogie Nights and Good Will HUnting are hack-work.
I think "Titanic" is, at least in terms of writing. Look who walked away
with the most trophies.
Gary
joh...@smt.net wrote in message <6f42fn$h9a$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>...
>"Gary Pollard" <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote, on Titanic:
>
><<Certain truths were inherent in the situation. Turning it into a
>Harlequin romance does nothing to put their message over more effectively.
>In my view, this script encapsulates so much of what is wrong with
Hollywood
>scriptwriting today>>
>
>Gary:
>
>I respect you for stating your case up front, though I don't share
>your view that Titanic, Boogie Nights and Good Will Hunting qualify
>as hack-work. And. . .
>
><<I think it's rather weak to be talking about class struggle in a movie
>when that movie has about as much insight into class struggle as a
>Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton film>>
>
>. . .if you've got a case to make against the American film industry,
>please leave Charlie Chaplin, one of the great artistic geniuses and
>film-makers of the 20th Century, out of it.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John
>
>
>
>
Gary Pollard
I can admire Chaplin for his direction, not for his insight into 20th
century socio-economic realities...although even the simplistic view he
presented, and the treatment he ultimately got even for that, make a far
better case against the "American film industry" than I could.
Gary
joh...@smt.net wrote in message <6f42fn$h9a$1...@nnrp2.dejanews.com>...
>"Gary Pollard" <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote, on Titanic:
>
><<Certain truths were inherent in the situation. Turning it into a
>Harlequin romance does nothing to put their message over more effectively.
>In my view, this script encapsulates so much of what is wrong with
Hollywood
>scriptwriting today>>
>
>Gary:
>
>I respect you for stating your case up front, though I don't share
>your view that Titanic, Boogie Nights and Good Will Hunting qualify
>as hack-work. And. . .
>
><<I think it's rather weak to be talking about class struggle in a movie
>when that movie has about as much insight into class struggle as a
>Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton film>>
>
>. . .if you've got a case to make against the American film industry,
>please leave Charlie Chaplin, one of the great artistic geniuses and
>film-makers of the 20th Century, out of it.
>
>Cheers,
>
>John
>
>
>
>
Gary Pollard
Derek
I think I've solved it, although I'm not sure. I seemed to be using a
Universal font (which clearly isn't) rather than the Western one.
Missed Woo and "Le Samourai" at the Arts Cetnre. I saw it years ago and
liked it though.
As for the film festival. I used to book between 30 and 40 tickets over that
period. I'm slowing down a bit now though, but I made sure to get the Kitano
films and "The Sweet Hereafter". So far I've just booked ten shows this
year, although I might sneak into some day time shows. The important thing
is to grab the sell-outs first.
Commercial cinema's been good here lately though. We've finally got to see
the movies everyone's been talking about. I liked "Boogie Nights" a lot, and
"The Boxer" more than I expected.
Gary
cine...@hknet.com wrote in message <35181A...@hknet.com>...
>> Gary Pollard wrote in message <6f6trh$9q...@news.asiaonline.net>...
>> >Darn
>> >
>> >Apologies for that. I think my newsreader was sending out the programmes
in
>> >a non-suitable font. Is this any better?
>
>> >+AD4-
>> >+AD4APg- Am I the only person who sees +ACI-symbols+ACI- like these --
>> >+AD4APg-
>> >+AD4APg- +ADwAPA- +ACI-Titanic+ACI- +AD4APg-
>> >+AD4APg-
>> >+AD4APg- -- in Gary's posts? Is it just me? Or is it AOL?
>> >+AD4APg-
>
>
Brevity
"Gary Pollard" <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>Actually I've always preferred Keaton to Chaplin. I think HE was the genius.
>Gary
Well, I think they both achieved greatness in film, and although
Chaplin has been more known and appreciated, I think Keaton was at
least equally brilliant, without the cloying sentimentality.
>Brevity wrote in message <6f8v6b$f...@argentina.earthlink.net>...
>>joh...@smt.net wrote:
>>
>>>"Gary Pollard" <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote, on Titanic:
>>
>>><<I think it's rather weak to be talking about class struggle in a movie
>>>when that movie has about as much insight into class struggle as a
>>>Charlie Chaplin or Buster Keaton film>>
>>
>>>. . .if you've got a case to make against the American film industry,
>>>please leave Charlie Chaplin, one of the great artistic geniuses and
>>>film-makers of the 20th Century, out of it.
>>
>>>Cheers,
>>
>>>John
>>
>>Buster Keaton was what? Chopped liver?
>>
>>
>>
>>>-----== Posted via Deja News, The Leader in Internet Discussion ==-----
>>>http://www.dejanews.com/ Now offering spam-free web-based newsreading
>>
JohnRobie
Gary Pollard wrote:
> Actually I've always preferred Keaton to Chaplin.
> I think HE was the genius.
Listen to Gary (and Brevity) on this one, folks. If you
haven't seen many (or any) of Keaton's features from the
20's, you'd be doing yourself a favor to check them out.
All are wonderful, and several are among the best films ever
made.
And for those of you who are thinking that this stuff must
be hopelessly old fashioned... A very astute first-time
screenwriter bought the rights to Keaton's "Seven Chances"
last year, wrote an updated spec script called "Bachelor",
then turned around and sold it to New Line for 850 against
1.2 million. (It was an easy property for him to grab,
since both he and the Keaton estate knew that it would be
going into the public domain in just a few years.)
Julian Richards
> Actually I've always preferred Keaton to Chaplin. I think HE was the genius.
>
What about Stan Laurel? The strange thing was that he needed teaming with
Oliver Hardy, even though he wasn't a creative influence. Anyway, Keaton,
Chaplin, and Laurel all deserve their place in history.
Brevity
john...@aol.com (JohnRobie) wrote:
>Gary Pollard wrote:
> > Actually I've always preferred Keaton to Chaplin.
> > I think HE was the genius.
>Listen to Gary (and Brevity) on this one, folks. If you
>haven't seen many (or any) of Keaton's features from the
>20's, you'd be doing yourself a favor to check them out.
>All are wonderful, and several are among the best films ever
>made.
>And for those of you who are thinking that this stuff must
>be hopelessly old fashioned... A very astute first-time
>screenwriter bought the rights to Keaton's "Seven Chances"
>last year, wrote an updated spec script called "Bachelor",
>then turned around and sold it to New Line for 850 against
>1.2 million. (It was an easy property for him to grab,
>since both he and the Keaton estate knew that it would be
>going into the public domain in just a few years.)
Right. If there is one thing Keaton isn't, or wasn't, it's "old
fashioned." Special effects that he used in many of his films - such
as the projectionist caught on screen in ever changing scenes - are as
"modern" and well done as anything we see today. Many film makers in
the silent era developed techniques that we might think of as modern.
Able Gance's "Napolean" used multi images, in one case each image hand
painted to be tinted a color of the French flag. I remember another
sequence in which shots taken of a feuding French parliament from a
camera on a swing gliding back and forth over the brawl, are intercut
with shots of Napolean, alone in a rough sea in a row boat. Amazing
to see this kind of "modern" film making done over 70 years ago in
silent film. Gance, Eisentsein, the Germans, as well as Chaplin and
Keaton created far more of our modern film language than most people
would believe. I just watched Keaton's "The General" last week, and
again was amazed at how he'd put drama, physical comedy, and romance
slam-bang up against each other and make it all work.
Gary Pollard
I love Laurel and Hardy too. It may be just a personal thing. But I prefer
both Laurel and Hardy and Keaton to Chaplin. They're less cloying. I have
most of Keaton's films on video tape and can watch them over and over. Have
long thought Keaton was under-rated compared to Chaplin.
As an English guy, I never could "get" the Three Stooges or Abbott and
Costello. But the Marx brothers are God, particularly Groucho.
Gary
Julian Richards wrote in message
<35197E96.MD-0.19...@ndirect.co.uk>...
>> Actually I've always preferred Keaton to Chaplin. I think HE was the
genius.
>>
Bob
"Gary Pollard" <gpol...@asiaonline.net> wrote:
>Actually I've always preferred Keaton to Chaplin.
>I think HE was the genius.
As a sidenote, when Samuel Beckett's only film
(a silent short) was produced, he and director Alan
Schneider considered Chaplin. They shot it with
Keaton. While I appreciate much of what Chaplin
did, I usually see more richness in the work of
Keaton.
Bob Joesting joesting at pobox dot com
(Address changed to reduce spam.)
Jacques E. Bouchard
Bob wrote:
> As a sidenote, when Samuel Beckett's only film
> (a silent short) was produced, he and director Alan
> Schneider considered Chaplin. They shot it with
> Keaton. While I appreciate much of what Chaplin
> did, I usually see more richness in the work of
> Keaton.
I loved her in "Annie Hall". :)
jaybee