I, too, have a question for Doberdude.....it's legit.(really!)
Jeff Duncanson
Can you provide the original URL for that file you sent to Tom's blog?
I'm wondering if there are any other goodies on there.
Jeff
David Oberman
Jeff, I'm sorry but I don't remember sending Tom a file ... ? What was
this?
____
"People first, then money, then things."
-- Suze Orman
Jeff Duncanson
Your Pal Brian
> The Kael, Simon, Dwight Macdonald thing....
This, you mean:
I finally listened to Tom's thing just now. Jeebus Christmas.
Kael sounds like Anna Russell's President of the Women's Club.
Now I know the voice to use when I read her articles, which I
won't of course.
How long is this mad infatuation to last, Doberdude?
Brian
David Oberman
>This, you mean:
>
>http://tinyurl.com/rckcv
Right. I passed on the address to Jeff.
>I finally listened to Tom's thing just now. Jeebus Christmas.
>Kael sounds like Anna Russell's President of the Women's Club.
>Now I know the voice to use when I read her articles, which I
>won't of course.
>
>How long is this mad infatuation to last, Doberdude?
Nimrod likes her, too! Jeebus!
The essays to read are "The Darned" in "Reeling" & "Hail, Folly!" in
"When the Lights Go Down"--Kael at her finest!
Tom Sutpen
The essays to read are "The Darned" in "Reeling" & "Hail, Folly!" in
"When the Lights Go Down"--Kael at her finest!
*****
Agreement on the latter. Kael was always at her best when she was
covering films of vaulting ambition such as 'Novecento'. One wonders
how she would have tackled Griffith and Stroheim back in the day.
I would also add to that her reviews of Gance's 'Napoleon', Norman
Mailer's biography of Marilyn Monroe (brutal stuff), her essay on Cary
Grant and, yes, 'Raising Kane'; for the sheer scope of the thing if
nothing else.
Tom Sutpen
Jeff Duncanson
David Oberman
>The essays to read are "The Darned" in "Reeling" & "Hail, Folly!" in
>"When the Lights Go Down"--Kael at her finest!
>
>*****
>Agreement on the latter. Kael was always at her best when she was
>covering films of vaulting ambition such as 'Novecento'.
Sample:
"There are sequences in '1900' as great as any ever filmed. The
childhood scenes are steeped in memory--honeyed. Once again Vittorio
Storaro is Bertolucci's cinematographer, & the lighting suggests that
moment in art history when the Barbizon school gave way to the summer
sun of Impressionism--when color burst open & became diffused, as if
nature, like a film director, could no longer control its own
exuberance. The little hellion Olmo, skinny-fced & barefoot,
collecting frogs to sell to the manor house & wearing them tied
together, still alive & wriggling, around his hat, is like Huck Finn
in a surreal pastoral calendar. His freedom is balanced against the
image of the plump-faced, spoiled, rich Alfredo, forced to eat those
frogs' legs at dinner, & throwing up. The camera moves constantly,
even in the interiors, which suggest a 1930s idea of fin de siècle;
they have the tawny light of the Italian Impressionist Fattori--or a
tilted, fuzzy Maxfield Parrish. In the most prodigious sequence, which
appears to be one continuous shot, Bertolucci presents the peasant
uprising of 1908 as a panoramic mural: poplars in the mist; the
landowning hunters shooting ducks, which fall in the river; peasants
who have been evicted from their land leaving on loaded wagons while,
of those remaining, the men prepare to resist & the women stretch out
on the road to block the oncoming cavalry, who ride up to their
bodies, turn around, & leave. The camera executes almost a figure
eight in this lyrical panning, tracking crane shot; it sweeps over the
Po Valley, showing you the different, conflicting elements in the
landscape. You're given the components of a novel at a glance, & every
one of them is shown in relation to the others. Bertolucci has perhaps
the greatest spatial-temporal sense of all film directors. The
simultaneous actions that other directors have achieved only by
cutting he puts in the same shot. The effect of this
hunters-peasants-cavalry sequence is of a passage of visual music.
>One wonders how she would have tackled Griffith and Stroheim back in the day.
Her piece on "Intolerance" in "Going Steady" is beautiful & quietly
moving; it starts out ostensibly as a memorial tribute to Mae Marsh,
who had just died, & evolves into a summation of Griffith's power.
>I would also add to that her reviews of Gance's 'Napoleon', Norman
>Mailer's biography of Marilyn Monroe (brutal stuff), her essay on Cary
>Grant and, yes, 'Raising Kane'; for the sheer scope of the thing if
>nothing else.
"Raising Kane" happens to be the best single thing ever written about
'30s comedies & the Broadway traditions they grew out of. Its
detractors foolishly dismiss the entire thing just because of the
screenplay authorship question, which apparently Kael botched
(possibly with an ax to grind).
sirb...@hotmail.com
David Oberman ha escrito:
OH WOW!!! is this what the likes of boots and slutpod refer to when
they talk of great literature!??!?!?!?!
ROFLMFAO'!?!?!?!?!?
chrissakes you twirps are giving me more and more reasons post by post
to subvert your cute little ng... if only i had more time...
> >One wonders how she would have tackled Griffith and Stroheim back in the day.
>
> Her piece on "Intolerance" in "Going Steady" is beautiful & quietly
> moving; it starts out ostensibly as a memorial tribute to Mae Marsh,
> who had just died, & evolves into a summation of Griffith's power.
>
> >I would also add to that her reviews of Gance's 'Napoleon', Norman
> >Mailer's biography of Marilyn Monroe (brutal stuff), her essay on Cary
> >Grant and, yes, 'Raising Kane'; for the sheer scope of the thing if
> >nothing else.
>
> "Raising Kane" happens to be the best single thing ever written about
> '30s comedies & the Broadway traditions they grew out of. Its
> detractors foolishly dismiss the entire thing just because of the
> screenplay authorship question, which apparently Kael botched
> (possibly with an ax to grind).
>
>
>
oh yes, doberboots, i'm quite oh so sure it's a magnificient piece of
piece. give us more!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
*SIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH*
Tom Sutpen
OH WOW!!! is this what the likes of boots and slutpod refer to when
they talk of great literature!??!?!?!?!
*****
No. Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything written on the
subject of film that would qualify as great literature. Can you? Can
anybody?
Tom Sutpen
sirb...@hotmail.com
slutpod vomited:
> sirblob demanded:
ahhhh lol!!!!!!!! well enlighten us with what YOU consider to be GREAT
LITERATURE!!! and who are em who measure these standards??? harold
bloom n jarques barzun??? tom wolfe???!!! give us names... LOL!!!!
Tom Sutpen
> No. Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything written on the
> subject of film that would qualify as great literature. Can you? Can
> anybody?
> Tom Sutpen
ahhhh lol!!!!!!!! well enlighten us with what YOU consider to be GREAT
LITERATURE!!! and who are em who measure these standards??? harold
bloom n jarques barzun??? tom wolfe???!!! give us names... LOL!!!!
*****
Well, I like all three quite a bit (and one I can certainly say has had
a defining influence on my own writing, for good or ill), but unless
you're willing to narrow your terms (what area of literature, for
example) there are just too many names to list. Which is all rather
beside my point, Senor, since I can't think of a single film critic
whose name could be found were I to execute the list you ask for.
What I find intriguing is your implication that there's been *any* film
writing that ranks with even minor works by, say, Tolstoy or Joyce . .
. or Lawrence Ferlinghetti, even. Would you like to tell us who that
is, because I would love to know.
(and be nice or I'm gonna delete those Allison Moyet CDs)
Tom Sutpen
sirb...@hotmail.com
Tom Sutpen ha escrito:
> Juan chortled, amiably:
>
> > No. Speaking for myself, I can't think of anything written on the
> > subject of film that would qualify as great literature. Can you? Can
> > anybody?
>
> > Tom Sutpen
>
> ahhhh lol!!!!!!!! well enlighten us with what YOU consider to be GREAT
> LITERATURE!!! and who are em who measure these standards??? harold
> bloom n jarques barzun??? tom wolfe???!!! give us names... LOL!!!!
>
> *****
> Well, I like all three quite a bit (and one I can certainly say has had
> a defining influence on my own writing, for good or ill),
and the three are crap.
but unless
> you're willing to narrow your terms (what area of literature, for
> example) there are just too many names to list. Which is all rather
> beside my point, Senor, since I can't think of a single film critic
> whose name could be found were I to execute the list you ask for.
>
> What I find intriguing is your implication that there's been *any* film
> writing that ranks with even minor works by, say, Tolstoy or Joyce . .
> . or Lawrence Ferlinghetti, even.
this is just pathetic. all you've proven is your undying fetish with
primary sources, or with stories. those you mention arent great
writers, just results. mention some more. come on. i havent made the
abstract silly claim to reason of 'good writers' so i obviously don't
have to obey your imperative regarding my apparently having to mention
great film 'writers'.
Would you like to tell us who that
> is, because I would love to know.
>
> (and be nice or I'm gonna delete those Allison Moyet CDs)
>
dont sweat. you took so long i found them myself. stevie nicks
belladona i still want. and whaddaya mean delete? we're all LEGAL here,
none of us uses emule and that 'delete' word you used was obviously
from your birthday present shortlist from amazon.com to me.
> Tom Sutpen
your mom
David Oberman
>stevie nicks belladona i still want.
Shots I took of Madame Nicks at a New York City party in 1979, with
friends Mary Torrey & Tom Moncrieff:
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/7720/nyc1979019yb.jpg
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/2535/nyc1979028ba.jpg
I shoot Nicks with bloodshot eyes as she rests her head atop her
limousine at UCLA football field in 1983:
http://img125.imageshack.us/img125/4026/ucla19835gp.jpg