Annie Hall and Manhattan
Calvin
just alike, other than one being in color and the other in anamorphic
widescreen black and white.
I hadn't seen Annie Hall in a very long time, but watched it again
this
week. It's only partly true that the two movies were alike. Annie
Hall,
often called Woody Allen's transition movie, was indeed that, and
it had a split personality. Half of it clearly was the old Woody, and
half of it the new. It kept shifting from one side of the divide to
the
other.
But it is true that the then 'new Woody' scenes were indeed very much
like the later Manhattan, in style, spirit, and wit, and they're the
part of
Annie Hall that I wouldn't mind seeing often, like my many viewings
of
Manhattan. As for the 'old Woody' scenes, they're just fine but once
is enough.
Richard Schultz
: As for the 'old Woody' scenes, they're just fine but once is enough.
Let me guess -- your next post is going to be about Wagner.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
The Starmaker
I like Woody Allen films, but the bad part of his films is he always
seems to inject Nazism into his films like if he was brought up in
some concentration camp or something. Nazi's do not exist.
I mean he was born and brought up in New York City, that means he's an
American. But if you listen to his movies you think he was brought up in
Auschwitz, he acts like he's some "Holocaust survivor"...all he did was
survive New York City...he might as well go into a tatoo store and
tatoo numbers on his arm!
Stone me
"Calvin" <cri...@windstream.net> wrote in message
news:1186258773....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com...
while there is much I like about Annie Hall, it misfires.
There is special scene of note, that of the lobsters.
It's clear there is something more than actor and actress going on
there, something not acted, but a real moment of mutual regard.
One could believe they were lovers.
I think one of the things that drive him are a too high perception of
himself, and his role as a "great" director.
To sustain it, he needs to "move on" before the critics gather to
encapsulate him in a phrase or word. There are no "Allenist"
movies, or even moments.
Stone me.
Richard Schultz
: I found in Manhatten the creativity and sensitivity of the artist, and
: while there is much I like about Annie Hall, it misfires.
: There is special scene of note, that of the lobsters.
I suspect that the culture(s) being depicted is (are) too alien to you.
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"I've lost my harmonica, Albert."
Calvin
> In article <1186258773.786603.5...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> : As for the 'old Woody' scenes, they're just fine but once is enough.
>
> Let me guess -- your next post is going to be about Wagner.
Possibly. There are so many ways to irritate you,
and so little time.
In the meantime, what did you think about Bing relenting
and allowing Wagner at the Met?
tomcervo
Diane Keaton to Mariel Hemingway. It's not the confessional aspect,
but in a movie with so many interesting adult women, it's perverse--
her only attraction is immaturity.
Calvin
In the story he didn't want to lose Keaton. He had to let her
go because she went back to Murphy. But I don't necessarily
believe that his return to Hemingway would last. Sad, because
she sets herself up to be hurt repeatedly. Why does a 17 year
old get involved with a 42 year old in the first place? It's not
just Woody's preference for jail bait at issue here (and one
of the primary themes of the movie is the confessional that
you mentioned).
But if the movie has a flaw, it seems to me, it is that we're
supposed to believe that Hemingway is some kind of angelic
puppy that gives unconditional love to a 42 year old, willing
to mate with him for life, and forgive his divided interests in
women.
Al Smith
Woody Allen and Mel Brooks, both. Obsessed with Nazis, even though
they've never seen a Nazi. It's like being obsessed with Bigfoot.
-Al-
David Oberman
>> : As for the 'old Woody' scenes, they're just fine but once is enough.
>>
>> Let me guess -- your next post is going to be about Wagner.
>
>Possibly. There are so many ways to irritate you,
>and so little time.
One cannot judge 'Lohengrin' from a first hearing, & I certainly do
not intend to hear it a second time. [Rossini]
>In the meantime, what did you think about Bing relenting
>and allowing Wagner at the Met?
Wherever the fish are, that's where we go. [Wagner]
____
Please write music like Wagner, only louder.
-- Sam Goldwyn to studio composer
No Man
"One cannot judge 'Lohengrin' from a first hearing, & I certainly do
not intend to hear it a second time. [Rossini]"
It is late in 1972, and we are climbing up the hill to one valley from
another. All a bit bleary from dirty red the night before. Over the city
behind and to the right is a dense reddish fog. The radio is on the classic
station, as it always was that season.
It is years later now. I go into the main library in the town which is down
the valley we climbed into before. I ask, and am given to one who might know
in Reference. "There is music I heard once, and it haunts me. It does not
move, but drifts like the very fog of the morning I heard it. It's Wagner."
He gave me two chances, and I looked them up. One was the Prelude to Act
III, Logengrin.
Bingo.
I'm listening to it now.
--
"No Man Entertains You With His Dreams"
http://tremonius.blogspot.com/
No Man
they happened.
In both films, I think, a woman would see the point much quicker than men.
He wants something for his ladies. He wants Annie to take classes ("Don't
take any class where they make you read `Beowulf.') for broadening and he
revokes that wish whenever it impinges on his own satisfaction; such as, her
professor is attractive to her. ("Oh, `David'? What's he call you,
`Bathsheba'?")
In the other, he wants high school girl Muriel to go abroad for broadening.
Really, it's to move her offstage so he can pursue the Dianne Keaton
character. But Dianne goes back to her estranged husband, and so Woody madly
chases over to try and convince Muriel not to go to Europe after all.
He follows his own self-interest in every particular. And by a strange
coincidence, this is the guy who took up with his own adoptive daughter.
"I wear glasses so they think I'm an intellectual, and my movies don't make
money so they think I'm an artist." Woody Allen, on his audience.
In one of them, an audience is leaving a theatre after a showing of a film
of the director Woody plays in the movie. They are discussing arcane plot
trappings.
"What do you think the Rolls means?"
"I, ah, think that was meant to be his car."
Knit-browed nodding.
Calvin
> ...
> He follows his own self-interest in every particular. And by a strange
> coincidence, this is the guy who took up with his own adoptive daughter.
Actually it was Mia Farrow's adopted daughter, and he wasn't
living with them. Not that that makes it ok, but there's no need
to make it appear worse than it was.
David Oberman
>It is years later now. I go into the main library in the town which is down
>the valley we climbed into before. I ask, and am given to one who might know
>in Reference. "There is music I heard once, and it haunts me. It does not
>move, but drifts like the very fog of the morning I heard it. It's Wagner."
>
>He gave me two chances, and I looked them up. One was the Prelude to Act
>III, Logengrin.
>
>Bingo.
I'd have guessed "Tristan" -- play this chord progression:
http://content.answers.com/main/content/wp/en/b/bd/Wagner_Tristan_opening.png
>I'm listening to it now.
Excellent! I have a bunch of copy editing to do this morning, so I'm
listening to Ravel's "Introduction et allegro" over & over. (I click
the Toggle Repeat button on Winamp.) The file is free here:
www.musicexpress.com.br/Artista.asp?Artista=108
Performed by the Quarteto de Brasília. You can follow along with this
piano transcription PDF file:
When the great Constantin sat down (or stood up?) to write his score
for Truffaut's "Les Quatre Cents Coups," I believe a recording of
"Introduction" was nearby.
David Oberman
>It is a confessional, and the lobster and all other points are there because
>they happened.
The lobster scene always reminds me of "Portnoy's Complaint," when
Alex's mom finds out Alex has been eating lobster & she is horrified:
"You'll be throwing up out your kishkes & both ends!"
Al Smith
Woody left pictures of himself having sex with Soo Whatever on the
mantel so that Mia would see them, with the hope that she would
want to join in on an incestuous threesome with him and their
adopted daughter. Not that there's anything wrong with that,
necessarily, but let's not downplay the kinky factor here.
-Al-
Harkness
No Man wrote:
> It is a confessional, and the lobster and all other points are there because
> they happened.
>
> In both films, I think, a woman would see the point much quicker than men.
> He wants something for his ladies. He wants Annie to take classes ("Don't
> take any class where they make you read `Beowulf.') for broadening and he
> revokes that wish whenever it impinges on his own satisfaction; such as, her
> professor is attractive to her. ("Oh, `David'? What's he call you,
> `Bathsheba'?")
>
> In the other, he wants high school girl Muriel to go abroad for broadening.
> Really, it's to move her offstage so he can pursue the Dianne Keaton
> character. But Dianne goes back to her estranged husband, and so Woody madly
> chases over to try and convince Muriel not to go to Europe after all.
>
The character is named Tracy. The actress is named Mariel. Muriel is a
film by Alain Renais.
And Mary, the character played by DIANE Keaton, doesn't go back to her
husband -- she goes back to Michael Murphy's character, who's married
to someone else. She his mistress, not his wife.
John Harkness
Calvin
It wasn't 'their' adopted daughter, it was Mia's only. And it wasn't
their mantle either (you didn't say it was). He and she lived on
opposite sides of Central Park. I'm really not trying to defend it,
only to get the facts straight.
It Woody was hoping for a threesome, obviously it backfired,
as Mia went bananas and lashed out with everything she had,
truth be damned, trying to ruin him. Thank goodness she
didn't succeed with the ugliest lie that she told. Again, Woody
was not in the right, but neither was Mia in her reaction.
MC
Harkness <cali...@yahoo.com> wrote:
And there was me thinking Muriel was a picture on a wall.
--
"Anybody can direct. There are only 11 good writers."
-- Mel Brooks
MC
Al Smith <inv...@address.com> wrote:
I guess they don't call him Woody for nothing.
--
"Anybody can direct. There are only 11 good writers."
ã Mel Brooks
william
> It Woody was hoping for a threesome, obviously it backfired,
> as Mia went bananas and lashed out with everything she had,
> truth be damned, trying to ruin him. Thank goodness she
> didn't succeed with the ugliest lie that she told. Again, Woody
> was not in the right, but neither was Mia in her reaction.
Excuse me? Woody's actions are mitigated by Mia's reaction? I'm so
sick of people making excuses for Woody's actions and his stupid,
empty and self-serving films. And how would you expect Mia or anyone
else to react in that situation? Is there a website with pointers on
how to react when someone betrays you on the most visceral level and
with your adopted daughter? Woody's a putz and his movies are
embarrassing: Flicks for false intellectuals and burnt-out hipsters.
These days his movies are funnier than his comedies but for all the
wrong reasons. He's a washed up hack whose work has all the
significance of a bat farting in an empty attic.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Calvin
> On Aug 5, 2:44 pm, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> > It Woody was hoping for a threesome, obviously it backfired,
> > as Mia went bananas and lashed out with everything she had,
> > truth be damned, trying to ruin him. Thank goodness she
> > didn't succeed with the ugliest lie that she told. Again, Woody
> > was not in the right, but neither was Mia in her reaction.
>
No, but the worst of her vengeance is not mitigated by his
provocation either.
william
> No, but the worst of her vengeance is not mitigated by his
> provocation either.
And you don't see a lack of balance here? Maybe if she shot that piece
of twisted peckerwood in the head your argument might have some
weight. But, no, you want to blame the vicitim for being rude and
angry. I just can't see it. It's more of the blatherings of the Woody
apologists: Mia's a bitch and Woody's misunderstood. Yeah, Woody
raided the nest and porked the tender bird but Mia yelled at him and
that's just unacceptable. How gauche.
William
www.williamahearn.com
No Man
"It Woody was hoping for a threesome, obviously it backfired,
as Mia went bananas and lashed out with everything she had,
truth be damned, trying to ruin him. Thank goodness she
didn't succeed with the ugliest lie that she told. Again, Woody
was not in the right, but neither was Mia in her reaction."
How do you know this? The same way you know the truth in the heart of the
wooden puppet now infesting the offal office? I mean, what is your evidence
that Mia Farrow is lying when she says she would come upon Woody taking
certain odd liberties with their biological daughter Dylan? Do you think a
guy who could build classic funny scripts could never be a pervert?
I have no idea the degree of truth and lies in most any divorce action I'm
not personally involved in, and I doubt very seriously the casual moviegoer
has more data to go on than I do.
"If Woody's a child-abuser I'll kiss Pat Buchanan in the mouth." - Dick
Cavet, offering sentiment instead of evidence, as must we all.
No Man
"I'd have guessed "Tristan" -- "
I'm very impressed and a little astounded. Remember I said
>He gave me two chances, and I looked them up.
The other one was indeed Tristan et Isolde.
Thanks for your references. I'm looking at them now.
Calvin
> Somebody sez:
> "It Woody was hoping for a threesome, obviously it backfired,
> as Mia went bananas and lashed out with everything she had,
> truth be damned, trying to ruin him. Thank goodness she
> didn't succeed with the ugliest lie that she told. Again, Woody
> was not in the right, but neither was Mia in her reaction."
>
> How do you know this? The same way you know the truth in the heart of the
> wooden puppet now infesting the offal office? I mean, what is your evidence
> that Mia Farrow is lying when she says she would come upon Woody taking
> certain odd liberties with their biological daughter Dylan? Do you think a
> guy who could build classic funny scripts could never be a pervert?
>
> I have no idea the degree of truth and lies in most any divorce action I'm
> not personally involved in, and I doubt very seriously the casual moviegoer
> has more data to go on than I do.
There is a big difference in liking underage, but still post-
adolescent,
girls, and sexually abusing your own daughter. Of course I don't
know, but from the evidence of his movies, in which he doesn't
shy away from revealing what interests him, I see no reason to
believe Mia. And from the knowledge that we all have of the
charges of sexual abuse that wronged women fling at their
husbands in divorce proceedings, we have every reason to doubt
Mia's story. I'm aware that they were not married, but my
point is the same. She didn't get away with it. Her lie didn't
stick.
Not legally, anyway, though it certainly stuck in the minds of
people who don't like Woody Allen.
No Man
Baturns and the panel truck doodled along after with "BATMAN'S PARACHUTE
PICKUP SERVICE" inscribed on the side, I used to wonder, who is it takes
care of the fallen debris when the action is over, the wreckage and the
broken glass and the overturned tables? There must be these menials all over
the world who come out when the fire is out and the vehicles are gone and
the townsfolk shuffle off through the dark trees in twos or threes while the
old mill burns down by the creek who sweep the litter and bury the dead and
replace broken chairs in the bars without in any way participating in the
action or engaging with the question as originally posed at all.
Let's hear it for the net menials! It allows us 180 degree turns at 90 MPH
without a care about the minor details like discharged 'chutes and how you
spell "Diane."
The only problem is, in newsgroups, there are 180 menials to every single
principle player willing and able to grab hold of the proposition itself and
heave ho.
Calvin
We're not talking about rudeness and anger. We're talking
about a vicious, potentially ruinous lie. See 'No Man's post
below, and response to it. There no need for duplication.
william
> Not legally, anyway, though it certainly stuck in the minds of
> people who don't like Woody Allen.
Calvin, once again we're going to agree to disagree. I read your post
as your inability to see Woody as the scumbag that I think he is and I
doubt you're ever going to. So that's that.
William
www.williamahearn.com
No Man
"Of course I don't know, but from the evidence of his movies, in which he
doesn't
shy away from revealing what interests him, I see no reason to believe Mia."
I happen to believe that John Wayne was the real Zodiac Killer. Judging
strictly from his movies, in which he didn't shy away from what interested
him, I would say serial murder was an obvious fascination. QED.
william
> Calvin cavils:
>
> "Of course I don't know, but from the evidence of his movies, in which he
> doesn't
> shy away from revealing what interests him, I see no reason to believe Mia."
>
> I happen to believe that John Wayne was the real Zodiac Killer. Judging
> strictly from his movies, in which he didn't shy away from what interested
> him, I would say serial murder was an obvious fascination. QED.
>
Man's post as pointing to the absurdity of your position that the
content of Woody's films clears him of any behavior not described in
the films. That *is* what you're saying. We don't know that Mia was
lying. She might have believed Woody molested their child based on the
behavior in Woody's life. You have to admit -- whether the charge is
true or not -- that the belief based on life behavior outweighs the
evidence contained in some 20 or so dreadful and self-serving films.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Calvin
There's no need to repeat what I've already said, but I stand
by it, whether you ridicule part of it or not.
I would like to add, though, that I think many adults, perhaps
most adults at some time or other, have found mature teenagers
to be sexually attractive. But most people don't act on that.
Acting on that is what Woody Allen did wrong, and I don't
defend it.
But I think very few adults, as a percentage, find children to
be sexually attractive. So it will take a lot of convincing for
me to believe that Woody Allen found children, and his own
child in particular, to be sexually attractive, much less that
he acted on it.
One thing that I didn't mention about Mia's accusation, is that
if she ever saw Woody sexually abusing their daughter, it
seems like she would have taken some kind of action at the
time, rather that wait until later and bring it up when she was
outraged about him and her much older adopted daughter.
Her accusation didn't stick in court, and unless you can give
some other evidence that I haven't heard, that's good enough
for me.
Al Smith
He's small but mighty.
-Al-
Calvin
> > I guess they don't call him Woody for nothing.
>
> He's small but mighty.
Diane Keaton thinks highly of his masculinity.
She said he "has balls to the floor".
Al Smith
That happens to a lot of older guys.
-Al-
william
> (to 'No Man' and 'william':)
> Her accusation didn't stick in court, and unless you can give
> some other evidence that I haven't heard, that's good enough
> for me.
Just two things and then I'm done with this because life is too short
to be wasted on conversations about Woody Allen. First, the real issue
isn't whether the accusations were true but whether Mia "lied" while
making them. That isn't something we can determine but -- let's face
it -- based on his behavior she'd be an idiot not to assume something
may have happened between Woody and the children. It's a normal
parental response and Woody brought it on himself. There's just no
sane way around that.
The second is that you seem to think that since he wasn't proved to
have committed the second offense, then the first offense isn't as
offensive as it is on its face. Discrediting Mia -- who, frankly, I
could care less about -- does not validate Woody. You're using Mia to
distract from the criminal and despicable and selfish acts of a sorry-
ass, broken-down hack who doesn't deserve any attention but our
vilification.
You can have him.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Calvin
> ...
> You can have him.
Thanks. I've seen every movie that Woody Allen has directed,
many of them multiple times, and I hope to go on seeing a new
one every year for as long as we both shall live.
Stacia
>Of course I don't
>know, but from the evidence of his movies, in which he doesn't
>shy away from revealing what interests him, I see no reason to
>believe Mia.
His movies aren't evidence of anything. Let's use the "Naked Gun"
movies to determine whether OJ Simpson is guilty or not, while we're at
it.
>And from the knowledge that we all have of the
>charges of sexual abuse that wronged women fling at their
>husbands in divorce proceedings
For god's sake, Calvin, you just made that up. You haven't done any
research on this, you don't have any statistics, you haven't even Googled
it. You just made it up because you *think* it happens all the time.
Farrow included the court documents from the incident in her biography.
I doubt you have even looked at those. Further, she alleged Allen
molested Dylan and the court determined that was *inconclusive*, not that
Allen definitely did not. Allen lost custody over the children and was
denied the right to even see Dylan. You think that was entirely because
Farrow just lied to the court out of malice?
Stacia
Calvin
> Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> writes:
> >Of course I don't
> >know, but from the evidence of his movies, in which he doesn't
> >shy away from revealing what interests him, I see no reason to
> >believe Mia.
>
> His movies aren't evidence of anything. Let's use the "Naked Gun"
> movies to determine whether OJ Simpson is guilty or not, while we're at
> it.
You can make up a thousand analogies to ridicule what
I said, but Woody Allen had been making movies for
decades before the blow up in the early 90s. He had
been very autobiographical. Of course that is not
evidence in a legal sense, but it goes well in hand with
Woody's affair with *Mia's* adopted daughter, but it does
not suggest in the slightest way the sort of thing that Mia
accused him of.
> >And from the knowledge that we all have of the
> >charges of sexual abuse that wronged women fling at their
> >husbands in divorce proceedings
>
> For god's sake, Calvin, you just made that up. You haven't done any
> research on this, you don't have any statistics, you haven't even Googled
> it. You just made it up because you *think* it happens all the time.
I've heard for many years, at least two decades, stories of
women accusing husbands of child abuse in divorce cases.
Some accusations are true, no doubt, but many aren't. The
legal system has been weighted in favor of women, for better
or for worse. If I'm saying something that outrages feminists,
then excuse the hell outta me. I'm not one, and have no
obligation to please feminists.
> Farrow included the court documents from the incident in her biography.
> I doubt you have even looked at those. Further, she alleged Allen
> molested Dylan and the court determined that was *inconclusive*, not that
> Allen definitely did not. Allen lost custody over the children and was
> denied the right to even see Dylan. You think that was entirely because
> Farrow just lied to the court out of malice?
It was 'he said, she said'. You choose to believe Mia; I choose
to believe Woody. You can stamp your feet all you like, but
you don't have evidence. Produce some, and I'll rethink my
views on it.
In the meantime, this thread is about two Woody Allen movies
from the SEVENTIES. It is not an invitation for every Woody
Allen hater to come running to preach their hatred.
No Man
"She might have believed Woody molested their child based on the
behavior in Woody's life."
Behavior she witnessed, according to her. Mia passes the room where Woody
and their daughter, single digit age, are alone. He is, she says, placing
his thumb inside her mouth. Nothing else is happening. She claimed he agreed
to seek therapy.
After that, I no longer laugh so loud and long at Annie Hall.
No Man
"But I think very few adults, as a percentage, find children to
be sexually attractive. So it will take a lot of convincing for
me to believe that Woody Allen found children, and his own
child in particular, to be sexually attractive, much less that
he acted on it."
Do you deny that pederasty, the sexual abuse of children, occurs? Do you
think there is ever an occasion when a father molests a daughter? If not,
then there must be a whole lot of Mia Farrows out there. If so, then what
evidence do you have that Woody Allen is not one of them?
There are any number of Catholic priests who should've left the seminary for
film school, if Calvin is any indication.
David Oberman
>In the meantime, this thread is about two Woody Allen movies
>from the SEVENTIES.
I prefer "Annie Hall" to "Manhattan," slightly. "Annie Hall" has the
fussy little Jewish man jokes, whereas "Manhattan" is where the Deep
Thoughts start appearing (even more so in "Stardust Memories" &
"Interiors").
____
Please write music like Wagner, only louder.
-- Sam Goldwyn to studio composer
David Oberman
>Just two things and then I'm done with this because life is too short
>to be wasted on conversations about Woody Allen. First, the real issue
>isn't whether the accusations were true but whether Mia "lied" while
>making them. That isn't something we can determine
We'd need to examine pupil dilation, changes in heart rate,
perspiration, & so forth. But even these signs are far from perfectly
reliable. Of course, we could strap Mia down & administer thiopental
sodium.
Calvin
> Calvin claims:
> "But I think very few adults, as a percentage, find children to
> be sexually attractive. So it will take a lot of convincing for
> me to believe that Woody Allen found children, and his own
> child in particular, to be sexually attractive, much less that
> he acted on it."
> Do you deny that pederasty, the sexual abuse of children, occurs? Do you
> think there is ever an occasion when a father molests a daughter? If not,
> then there must be a whole lot of Mia Farrows out there. If so, then what
> evidence do you have that Woody Allen is not one of them?
> There are any number of Catholic priests who should've left the seminary for
> film school, if Calvin is any indication.
What kind of sense of logic do you have, when you can follow
my sentence, "But I think very few adults, as a percentage,
find children to be sexually attractive." with your sentence,
"Do you deny that pederasty, the sexual abuse of children,
occurs?"?
Obviously I don't deny it. "Very few" implies "some",
and "as a percentage" implies a possibly large number.
Sut still, it being a small percentage, I don't expect to
personally run into any child abusers. The very idea
of finding children sexually attractive is incomprehensible
to me, and I believe it is the same to most people. Yes,
it occurs. We hear it on the news often. But the totality
of the cases we hear about on the news is an extremely
small percentage of the population. A minute percentage.
On the other hand, angry women, wanting to get even with
men who have wronged them, are extremely prevalent, and
are even encouraged by their lawyers to make horrific
accusations like the one Mia made.
Putting those things together, I find it much easier to believe
Woody than Mia. I don't expect to change your mind,
however. I'm only defending my point of view because you
attacked it again, above, and even ended it with a nasty
crack, as though I must be discredited for thinking wrong
thoughts.
Kingo Gondo
"Richard Schultz" <sch...@mail.biu.ack.il> wrote in message
news:f93k51$fmo$3...@news.iucc.ac.il...
> In article <1186258773....@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Calvin
<cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
> : As for the 'old Woody' scenes, they're just fine but once is enough.
>
> Let me guess -- your next post is going to be about Wagner.
Hmmmm...and just read this article published Sunday:
http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/music/article2181464.ece
Calvin
> Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >In the meantime, this thread is about two Woody Allen movies
> >from the SEVENTIES.
>
> I prefer "Annie Hall" to "Manhattan," slightly. "Annie Hall" has the
> fussy little Jewish man jokes, whereas "Manhattan" is where the Deep
> Thoughts start appearing (even more so in "Stardust Memories" &
> "Interiors").
I don't know what those deep thoughts are, except maybe in the
scene near the end when WA is talking into a tape recorder and
naming things that he likes, books, music, and such, before
he stops and goes running off to get MH back.
But I'm a sucker for all those gorgeous New York/Gershwin scenes,
mixed in with so much humor.
Richard Schultz
: One cannot judge 'Lohengrin' from a first hearing, & I certainly do
: not intend to hear it a second time. [Rossini]
Didn't Rossini also say something to the effect that Wagner has wonderful
moments and awful quarter-hours?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"That's *genius*!"
"Really? I thought it was Rachmaninov."
Richard Schultz
: On Aug 5, 12:36 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
:> In article <1186258773.786603.5...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
:> : As for the 'old Woody' scenes, they're just fine but once is enough.
:> Let me guess -- your next post is going to be about Wagner.
: Possibly. There are so many ways to irritate you,
: and so little time.
You seem to forget that it is *you* who lack a sense of humor, and who
seem to spend your days in a constant state of irritation.
Have you seen _Marnie_ yet?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
". . . for while he was not dumber than an ox, he was not any smarter."
-- James Thurber, _My Life and Hard Times_
David Oberman
>Didn't Rossini also say something to the effect that Wagner has wonderful
>moments and awful quarter-hours?
Yes, apparently, & the comment was influential, judging by this quote:
"Parsifal is the kind of opera that starts at six o'clock and after it
has been going three hours, you look at your watch and it says 6:20."
-- David Randolph
I've been reading the derned most amusing quotes about composers &
conductors today, thanks to this thread (or the direction the thread
has taken).
Wagner has lovely moments but awful quarters of an hour.
-- Rossini, 1867
"He'd be better off shoveling snow."
-- Richard Strauss on Schoenberg
"Why is it that whenever I hear a piece of music I don't like, it's
always by Villa Lobos?"
-- Stravinsky
"He has an enormously wide repertory. He can conduct anything,
provided it's by Beethoven, Brahms or Wagner. He tried Debussy's La
Mer once. It came out as Das Merde."
-- Orchestra member on George Szell
"We cannot expect you to be with us all the time, but perhaps you
could be good enough to keep in touch now and again."
-- Beecham to a musician during a rehearsal
The great German conductor Hans von Buelow detested two members of an
orchestra, who were named Schultz and Schmidt. Upon being told that
Schmidt had died, von Buelow immediately asked, "Und Schultz?"
"Her singing reminds me of a cart coming downhill with the brake on."
-- Beecham on an unidentified soprano in Die Walkyre
"God tells me how the music should sound, but you stand in the way."
-- Toscanini to a trumpet player
"Already too loud!"
-- Bruno Walter at his first rehearsal with an American orchestra, as
the players reached for their instruments
David Oberman
>But I'm a sucker for all those gorgeous New York/Gershwin scenes,
>mixed in with so much humor.
That's one of the few things that bug me about Woody Allen: the jazz
he puts in his movies is so smooth & creamy: It's good but it's very
limousine Liberalish. Why doesn't he use any hard bop stuff like Art
Blakey's recordings of "A Night in Tunisia"?
Harkness
> Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >But I'm a sucker for all those gorgeous New York/Gershwin scenes,
> >mixed in with so much humor.
>
> That's one of the few things that bug me about Woody Allen: the jazz
> he puts in his movies is so smooth & creamy: It's good but it's very
> limousine Liberalish. Why doesn't he use any hard bop stuff like Art
> Blakey's recordings of "A Night in Tunisia"?
>
Ah. so instead of a "limousine liberal" he should sound like a hipster
pseud, and Woody'd just look odd with a goatee and turtleneck. Hard
bop? That's so 1953.
John Harkness
Richard Schultz
: "We cannot expect you to be with us all the time, but perhaps you
: could be good enough to keep in touch now and again."
: -- Beecham to a musician during a rehearsal
Beecham's comment to the female cellist is perhaps a bit more wicked. As
was his comment about Herbert von Karajan ("a sort of musical Malcolm
Sargent") which killed two birds with one stone.
Then there's the story of the double bass player in an orchestra being
conducted by Reiner who brought a telescope to a rehearsal. . . .
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
It's a bird, it's a plane -- no, it's Mozart. . .
steve
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> The great German conductor Hans von Buelow detested two members of an
> orchestra, who were named Schultz and Schmidt. Upon being told that
> Schmidt had died, von Buelow immediately asked, "Und Schultz?"
That's a great one. Here's one:
A small city orchestra was short a trumpet player, and the only applicant
for the position was a jazz musician. The conductor was reluctant even to
audition him, given the reputation of jazz musicians as unprofessional.
But the guy was quite good and they had no other choice, so they hired him.
During several rehearsals for an upcoming concert, the conductor was
pleasantly surprised at the trumpet players reliable and professional
manner. At the final rehearsal he paused for a moment to thank the trumpet
player.
"You've really changed my attitude about jazz musicians. I half expected
you to be trouble, but your behavior in rehearsal and your playing have both
been exemplary. Thank you for your professionalism, and thank you for
proving me wrong."
"Hey, I figure it's the least I could do, considering that I cant make the
gig."
steve
--
"The accused will now make a bogus statement."
James Joyce
Calvin
> Have you seen _Marnie_ yet?
I saw it when it was current, but my efforts to see it
again, on DVD, have so far failed.
Any reason why you didn't answer my Bing/Wagner/Met question?
steve
blindly formulated
the following incoherence:
> And you don't see a lack of balance here? Maybe if she shot that piece
> of twisted peckerwood in the head your argument might have some
> weight. But, no, you want to blame the vicitim for being rude and
> angry. I just can't see it. It's more of the blatherings of the Woody
> apologists: Mia's a bitch and Woody's misunderstood. Yeah, Woody
> raided the nest and porked the tender bird but Mia yelled at him and
> that's just unacceptable. How gauche.
I'll jump in here, if you guys dont mind. Consider this. If Mia's
accusations about child molestation were true (and there is no reason to
think they are), the situation would be one of a mother allowing her
boyfriend to abuse her child, and then blowing the whistle when he leaves
here. If so, that makes her just as guilty as he. If the accusations are
false, she is guilty of the worst form of false accusation. In other words,
the only one here that we know for a fact to be guilty of real wrongdoing is
Mia. Woodys actions with her adopted daughter may not be admirable, but her
accusations, if false (as they almost certainly are), are criminal.
Calvin
> I'll jump in here, if you guys dont mind. ...
I certainly don't mind. I'm happy to turn the defense over
to your able hands.
Richard Schultz
Any reason why your sole response to my analysis of _Marnie_ was a personal
insult unrelated to anything in the post I had written?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"Life is a blur of Republicans and meat." -- Zippy
Calvin
> In article <1186406154.216672.268...@o61g2000hsh.googlegroups.com>, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> : On Aug 6, 12:45 am, schu...@mail.biu.ack.il (Richard Schultz) wrote:
> :> Have you seen _Marnie_ yet?
> : I saw it when it was current, but my efforts to see it
> : again, on DVD, have so far failed.
> : Any reason why you didn't answer my Bing/Wagner/Met question?
>
> Any reason why your sole response to my analysis of _Marnie_
> was a personal insult unrelated to anything in the post I had written?
No more insulting than your comments to me nearly always
had been, and still are of course. But you mentioned that
you didn't know fully what someone else had posted because
you had killfiled him. I responded with my thoughts about
you killfiling people.
william
> > Any reason why your sole response to my analysis of _Marnie_
> > was a personal insult unrelated to anything in the post I had written?
>
> No more insulting than your comments to me nearly always
> had been, and still are of course. But you mentioned that
> you didn't know fully what someone else had posted because
> you had killfiled him. I responded with my thoughts about
> you killfiling people.
And since I was the named person in said killfiling, all I can say,
Calvin, is while I totally disagree with you about Woody Allen as a
person and a director, I totally agree with you insulting Richard. His
sniping arrogance lowers the standards of this list. And when the
situation is tuirned around, he comes whining and wondering why
someone treats him as he treats others. Too bad he won't see this
since he -- to use that other thread about movie quotes -- "can't
handle the truth." Let him whine and wonder. Soon his killfile will be
so huge, he'll be on the list alone.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Calvin
Now he can see it because I quoted it, and he hasn't yet
killfiled me.
No Man
discussion of sick behavior doesn't?
He was developing his theory on hysteria, and to do that, he must convince
that the young women coming to him with stories of abuse by their fathers
were delusional. Yet he had visited a morgue in Paris where the remains of
abused children were stored, so he had no doubt such horrors did happen. But
he opted for his theory at the expense of his patients.
A latterday secretary, with access to the Freud archives, developed, he
said, absolute proof that the theory behind Freudian analysis, hysteria, was
utterly false. So Masson wrote a book and stood away and waited for the
entire structure of analysis to come crashing down to earth.
It didn't even stagger. This proves the validity of theory in conflict with
practice.
Next case.
No Man
I don't know who you're talking about, but I suspect the Paris Hilton of
this environment, in that, no matter how hard I try and ignore the guy, just
look what the cat drags in every few days.
Your killfile is only as good as everyone else's. Reminds me of another
story.
In the first days of mailing lists, which were contemporary with the
earliest newsgroups, there was a list on some forgotten subject and it died,
but the remaining members who had not been able to log off were unable to do
so.
You had to send precise instructions, as LOGOFF LITERARY-L and it didn't
work in this case because apparently the machine running the list had been
abandoned in a university basement and forgotten and the address for
commands had changed just enough to mean you could not reach it but it could
reach you, anytime anyone responded to any comment at all.
It was a great early Net mystery. Weeks would go by, and invariably somebody
would send an inquiry to the list, 'Is it gone yet?' and see her note
broadcast to the survivors to universal groans. Then they would make a new
pact; if everyone is quiet and loses the address of the listserv then it
will be all the same as if we were free of this albatross.
Then in some weeks more, one who was excessively curious might peek over the
wall, "Is it dead yet?" and here would come a volley of her comment and its
consequences.
Moral: There's no cure for obnoxious pests. It's an evolutionary issue.
william
> Moral: There's no cure for obnoxious pests. It's an evolutionary issue.
>
Here's the story in a nutshell. Calvin and I agree on very little. But
I enjoy talking with him because it focuses my attention on things
that I may not have thought of. Talking with people who agree with me
is boring and stifling. Richard -- the Paris Hilton in question -- is
a self-important blowhard who likes picking on people. If you slap him
back he'll killfile you because basically he's a bully and a coward.
Richard is a perfect example of the expression "an education is a
terrible thing to waste." A while back, Calvin and I were discussing
Hitchcock -- again, an area where there is little common ground -- and
Richard keep butting in with extraenous questions and demands for
attention and that's where he said he killfiled me. (Whether he's
capable is a different reality.) So after insulting Calvin time and
again, Richard pops up with the question about why Calvin insulted him
after he posted some nonsense about Hitchcock's Marnie. And that led
to the exchange you read recently.
Calvin, I hope I didn't misrepresent your role in this.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Calvin
No, it was such a relief that the Paris Hilton was Mr. Shultz
and not me that I'm happy.
Calvin
David Oberman
>Richard is a perfect example of the expression "an education is a
>terrible thing to waste."
The book to read is "The Meaning of a Liberal Education" by Everett
Dean Martin, copyright 1926. I'd love to see it filmed!
____
An indecipherable, uncorrected horror.
-- Spohr on the Große Fuge, Op. 133
Richard Schultz
: He was developing his theory on hysteria, and to do that, he must convince
: that the young women coming to him with stories of abuse by their fathers
: were delusional. Yet he had visited a morgue in Paris where the remains of
: abused children were stored, so he had no doubt such horrors did happen. But
: he opted for his theory at the expense of his patients.
Have you ever heard of "False Memory Syndrome"?
-----
Richard Schultz sch...@mail.biu.ac.il
Department of Chemistry, Bar-Ilan University, Ramat-Gan, Israel
Opinions expressed are mine alone, and not those of Bar-Ilan University
-----
"an optimist is a guy/ that has never had/ much experience"
Lurk@renvcom.net Pt. Lurk
>
> In the other, he wants high school girl Muriel to go abroad for
> broadening. Really, it's to move her offstage so he can pursue the Dianne
> Keaton character. But Dianne goes back to her estranged husband, and so
> Woody madly chases over to try and convince Muriel not to go to Europe
> after all.
"But Dianne goes back to her estranged husband, and so Woody madly
chases over to try and convince Muriel not to go to Europe after all."
The above is a demented misrepresentation of what the film actually
contains.
Congratulations: you have successfully graduated in 'film studies'...
L.
Lurk@renvcom.net Pt. Lurk
news:1186323960....@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
> For me it's the movie where he's asking you to switch to decaf--from
> Diane Keaton to Mariel Hemingway. It's not the confessional aspect,
> but in a movie with so many interesting adult women, it's perverse--
> her only attraction is immaturity.
>
Idiotic falsehood. She is presented at several junctures as having a more
sane and mature understanding of things than Allen's character.
You know, some of you people really ought to be kept away from films -- or
at the very least, prevented from communicating the fantasies your weave
about them...
L.
Lurk@renvcom.net Pt. Lurk
news:1186325171.011543.194270@
>
> In the story he didn't want to lose Keaton. He had to let her
> go because she went back to Murphy. But I don't necessarily
> believe that his return to Hemingway would last. Sad, because
> she sets herself up to be hurt repeatedly. Why does a 17 year
> old get involved with a 42 year old in the first place? It's not
> just Woody's preference for jail bait at issue here (and one
> of the primary themes of the movie is the confessional that
> you mentioned).
>
> But if the movie has a flaw, it seems to me, it is that we're
> supposed to believe that Hemingway is some kind of angelic
> puppy that gives unconditional love to a 42 year old, willing
> to mate with him for life, and forgive his divided interests in
> women.
>
More idiocy. We're not 'supposed to believe' anything of the sort: the
Hemingway character's balance and maturity even shows itself in her
discussion of *serial monogamy*.
You people are every bit as bad as Pauline Kael -- who regularly allowed her
hysterical, knee-jerk reactions to movies to prevent her even *seeing
events* correctly.
Your first paragraph is actually so stupidly remote from the realities of
the story that I'd feel *sullied* if I dealt with it...
L.
MC
Muriel. Gotta love that.
--
"Anybody can direct. There are only 11 good writers."
‹ Mel Brooks
Lurk@renvcom.net Pt. Lurk
news:1186336990....@d30g2000prg.googlegroups.com...
>
>>
>> In the other, he wants high school girl Muriel to go abroad for
>> broadening.
>> Really, it's to move her offstage so he can pursue the Dianne Keaton
>> character. But Dianne goes back to her estranged husband, and so Woody
>> madly
>> chases over to try and convince Muriel not to go to Europe after all.
>>
>
> The character is named Tracy. The actress is named Mariel. Muriel is a
> film by Alain Renais.
>
> And Mary, the character played by DIANE Keaton, doesn't go back to her
> husband -- she goes back to Michael Murphy's character, who's married
> to someone else. She his mistress, not his wife.
>
What's more, Ike is for most of the film uncomfortable with the 'April and
September' aspect of his relationship with Tracy. He knows that going abroad
to study is the right thing for her to do, and he is prepared to use that as
a means of helping himself deny the authentic aspects of their relationship.
At the end of the film (once he has attempted a 'normal' relationship with
an age-matched peer, and been hurt in the process), he has finally
acknowledged these authentic aspects -- and it is at that time that he tries
to prevent her leaving. The dramatic point being that what's right and best
for her ceases to be so apparently important to him when he starts really
wanting her.
L.
David Oberman
>Your first paragraph is actually so stupidly remote from the realities of
>the story that I'd feel *sullied* if I dealt with it...
You didn't used to be so mean.
No Man
"What's more, Ike is for most of the film uncomfortable with the 'April and
September' aspect of his relationship with Tracy. He knows that going abroad
to study is the right thing for her to do, and he is prepared to use that as
a means of helping himself deny the authentic aspects of their relationship.
"
You have to understand something about low-grade insults parodying Film Crit
101. You never ever produce your own copy. Always you disdain, never
explain. If you do, then such imbecilic rhapsodizing as " ~ a means of
helping himself deny the authentic aspects of their relationship" is always
the result. This makes my teeth itch to even copy over. It's the most
dreadful dreck. Go back to "Boy, is you guys dumb 'r what."
In both these films, Woody Allen plays the benign Svengali character, and
his wishes for his charges must precisely coincide with his own main chance.
It is a confessional, after all. He is all for broadening experience as it
enhances the girl on his arm, but he is opposed the second it conflicts with
his own appetite, such as to remove the girl on his arm.
"..deny the authentic aspects of their relationship." Kee-rist.
Lurk@renvcom.net Pt. Lurk
>
> In both these films, Woody Allen plays the benign Svengali character,
He doesn't do anything of the sort, asshat: neither character is actually
all that 'benign' -- indeed, Alvy and Ike are, at least intermittently,
among the most negative portrayals ever produced by a
(co-)writer-actor-director. If you can't see that from what the films
actually and unambiguously show, then *you're an idiot*.
In fact, you, sir or madam, are *everything that's wrong with film
criticism*. You simply aren't up to the job of understanding and remembering
the works you write about. You don't have the sensitivity or the integrity
to make a contribution; and yet you spout, and you spout, and you spout...
L.
Stacia
>In fact, you, sir or madam, are *everything that's wrong with film
>criticism*.
For fuck's sake, it's just a Usenet post, it's not some published
critique. It's not even a *blog*. Do you really not know that?
Are you just some wanker from the "writing" groups in the headers who
fancies himself as some tough-love college professor in a real writing
course? Perhaps someone can draw you a diagram so you know how to get
from here to there. Aw, I'm feeling nice, I'll do it for you:
Usenet ----> University
Good luck.
Stacia
The Starmaker
8 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=btoZtWDdLLY
Stardust Memories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d058fO_hg8U
I wonder to myself...
Did Woody Allen go into a movie theater
with a camcorder and taped it, or did he
rent a VHS, DVD or got the real reel to it, ...
and then copied all that he could including
the "look and feel" of 8 1/2, and incorporated
into his own movie?
I mean, it looks to me like he stole the whole thing!!!!!
Am I wrong here?
The Starmaker
The Starmaker
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmEqBdde5H0
Stardust Memories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d058fO_hg8U
(they take it down, it goes up again)
Calvin
Yes. I've seen both movies multiple times. Woody Allen
obviously was inspired by Fellini and 8 1/2, but his movie
was original. He didn't steal it.
The Starmaker
In Hollywood, "inspired by" and "stealing it" means the same thing!
william
> Yes. I've seen both movies multiple times. Woody Allen
> obviously was inspired by Fellini and 8 1/2, but his movie
> was original. He didn't steal it.
If Woody Allen had an original idea it would die of loneliness.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Calvin
In the universe, they don't.
Calvin
> oops, here is the 8 1/2
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmEqBdde5H0
> Stardust Memories
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d058fO_hg8U
> (they take it down, it goes up again)
Your two clips support my point, not yours, but the
entire movies should be compared and contrasted
if a conclusion such as yours is to be drawn or refuted.
The Starmaker
>
> On Aug 9, 9:52 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > Calvin wrote:
> > > On Aug 9, 9:26 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > > I mean, it looks to me like he stole the whole thing!!!!!
> > > > Am I wrong here?
> >
> > > Yes. I've seen both movies multiple times. Woody Allen
> > > obviously was inspired by Fellini and 8 1/2, but his movie
> > > was original. He didn't steal it.
> >
> > In Hollywood, "inspired by" and "stealing it" means the same thing!
>
> In the universe, they don't.
I'm pretty sure Eliza Garder was inspired by Elizabeth Arden...
or maybe it's "based on"...
or "adapted from"...,
or "loosely inspired by"
or "What the hell, I stole it!!!"
The Starmaker
What are you saying, I should ignore the similarites and make a comparison
by the entire movie instead?
I should just ignore this comparison of implied theft
http://tinyurl.com/2uxhd8
and draw a conclusion on the entire film instead?
I'm confused.
The Starmaker
But when I compare these two products
8 1/2
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmEqBdde5H0
Stardust Memories
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d058fO_hg8U
with these two products...
They both seem to be "inspired by", "loosely inspired by", "based on", "adapted from" ,"Inspired (either wholly or in part)" ...
or lets just call it what it is, outright "theft"....
What exactly is the difference between the perfume products and the film products?
I'm clueless, I don't see the difference...can someone explain it to me?
Calvin
> I'm pretty sure Eliza Garder was inspired by Elizabeth Arden...
>
> http://tinyurl.com/2ed4y4
>
> or maybe it's "based on"...
> or "adapted from"...,
> or "loosely inspired by"
> or "What the hell, I stole it!!!"
>From the looks of the picture you provided, and the fact that
one author's name is derived from the other's name, I would
guess that the 'Garder' book is a parody. But not being
familiar with either book, I can only guess.
Calvin
> Calvin wrote:
> > On Aug 9, 9:34 pm, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > oops, here is the 8 1/2
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jmEqBdde5H0
> > > Stardust Memories
> > > http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d058fO_hg8U
> > > (they take it down, it goes up again)
>
> > Your two clips support my point, not yours, but the
> > entire movies should be compared and contrasted
> > if a conclusion such as yours is to be drawn or refuted.
>
> What are you saying, I should ignore the similarites and make a comparison
> by the entire movie instead?
No. While watching both entire movies, you should keep
the similarities and the differences in mind, and then you
might have enough information to say whether or not one
filmmaker *stole* from the other. And don't forget to
note the contexts surrounding any similar-looking scenes.
> I should just ignore this comparison of implied theft
> http://tinyurl.com/2uxhd8
> and draw a conclusion on the entire film instead?
> I'm confused.
Finding examples of plagarism is not going to prove anything
about '8 1/2' and 'Stardust Memories'.
william
> Finding examples of plagarism is not going to prove anything
> about '8 1/2' and 'Stardust Memories'.
I'm having a problem seeing both films in the same sentence.
William
www.williamahearn.com
Kingo Gondo
"william" <willia...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1186759014.8...@z24g2000prh.googlegroups.com...
> On Aug 10, 9:49 am, Calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>
>> Finding examples of plagarism is not going to prove anything
>> about '8 1/2' and 'Stardust Memories'.
>
> I'm having a problem seeing both films in the same sentence.
Why?
Try this:
"Stardust Memories is, in many ways, an unabashed homage to Fellini's 8 1/2,
among it's other influences."
Now, that wasn't so hard, was it?
The Starmaker
It's not a book, it's perfume!!!!
Calvin
> Calvin wrote:
> > On Aug 10, 12:42 am, The Starmaker <starma...@ix.netcom.com> wrote:
> > > I'm pretty sure Eliza Garder was inspired by Elizabeth Arden...
>
> > >http://tinyurl.com/2ed4y4
>
> > one author's name is derived from the other's name, I would
> > guess that the 'Garder' book is a parody. But not being
> > familiar with either book, I can only guess.
>
> It's not a book, it's perfume!!!!
Fine, but it still has nothing to do with '8 1/2' and 'Stardust
Memories', although both titles may also be perfumes, for
all that I know.
The Starmaker
Not only did Woody Allen stole the Mona Lisa from Leonardo Davinci, he also stole his
pallette, oil paints, all the colors, the brushes, the eaisle, the turpentine, the whole shabang!
Undecided
> For fuck's sake, it's just a Usenet post, it's not some published
> critique. It's not even a *blog*. Do you really not know that?
> Are you just some wanker from the "writing" groups in the headers who
> fancies himself as some tough-love college professor in a real writing
> course? Perhaps someone can draw you a diagram so you know how to get
> from here to there. Aw, I'm feeling nice, I'll do it for you:
For these abusive simpletons, there must be a simple explanation, and
there is. They are invariably males of the teenage development stage who
believe insults raise them above their targets in everyone's eyes. They
are as incapable of realizing their actual effect on the general reader
as they are of determining what is happening in movies. Some I have seen
are the sad products of a misguided high school counselor obsessed with
"Self-Esteem" and the inevitable hysteria resulting from a gross
mismatch between the earlier faux-promise and their lack of credits in
the real world. In twenty years I have never seen anything worth reading
from any of these pompous snarly gnats.
--
Doubting Timus
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
Undecided
> No. While watching both entire movies, you should keep
> the similarities and the differences in mind, and then you
> might have enough information to say whether or not one
> filmmaker *stole* from the other. And don't forget to
> note the contexts surrounding any similar-looking scenes.
This sounds like the cracked alibi of a busted shoplifter. "If you go
through your store, you'll find plenty of merchandise I *didn't* steal."
In the film Conspiracy Theory, there is a scene in which the protagonist
is beset by gendarmes in a theatre. They are working down the rows. They
will find him. And so he yells "FIRE!" and escapes in the panic.
It is an exact one-to-one duplicate of a scene in Torn Curtain. Now, can
we say that scene is not stolen if we but show cabdriving shots in the
city which were not in Torn Curtain?
Class?
--
Doubting Timus
Ubi Dubium Ibi Libertas
Undecided
> If Woody Allen had an original idea it would die of loneliness.
Someone around here claimed his "Match Point" was not from Dreiser's
novel because there was a tidbit of family history missing. Like, maps
can never tell you anything because they aren't on a one-to-one scale.
And, of course, if you steal from one work, that's theft, but Allen also
ripped off portions of the murders in Crime and Punishment, which spells
theft from more than one work, which means genius.
Calvin
> Calvin wrote:
> > No. While watching both entire movies, you should keep
> > the similarities and the differences in mind, and then you
> > might have enough information to say whether or not one
> > filmmaker *stole* from the other. And don't forget to
> > note the contexts surrounding any similar-looking scenes.
>
> This sounds like the cracked alibi of a busted shoplifter. "If you go
> through your store, you'll find plenty of merchandise I *didn't* steal."
That's not what it is though, because the person claimed that
'Stardust Memories' was a stolen *movie*. He used the first scene
from each as proof. So I told him he should compare the whole
two movies, not just one scene from each.
But even if he had only claimed that the first scene from 'Stardust
Memories' was a ripoff, he still would have been wrong because,
even though the 'Stardust Memories' opening does resemble the
'8 1/2' opening, as it was intended to do, and as the audience was
expected to notice, there are still basic differences in the meaning
of the scenes, and in the context in which the openings are used
in the two movies.
In 'Stardust Memories', the scene is a film within the film, and
characters in the film are criticizing the scene and saying that
the director should stick to comedy, for which he has a great
gift. In the scene itself, the director is trapped on a grim train,
but can see people partying on the other train, where he would
prefer to be.
In '8 12', the director (not played by himself) is trapped in a
traffic jam, that everyone else doesn't seem to mind, or at
least is resigned to, but he manages to get out of the car
and float away into the sky. Later he finds that he is tethered
by a long rope and about to be pulled down into the surf or
the sea.
The two scenes thus can be compared and contrasted, and so
also the two movies can be compared and contrasted. The
'Stardust Memories' ending, by the way, likewise evokes the
ending of '8 1/2', as the audience is again intended to notice.
The Starmaker
He stole the ending too, what a gonif!!!! I didn't see the movie
8 1/2, as probably millions or billions of people haven't either...
so what is an audience intended to notice if no one saw the original?
I think the truth is, he intended hopefully the audience *not* to notice the theft!
I notice a lot of film makers like to steal scenes from other countries...
so it makes them look "original" untill you happen to watch a film from Afganstan or Instanbul!
The Starmaker
from what I heard, "Stardust Memories" didn't get too many good reviews,
people had trouble understanding it...from what I understand, the best part
of the movie is the 8 1/2 part, the rest I heard is garbage. The only good part is the part Woody stole!
If you're going to steal, steal the whole thing!!!!
Calvin
> anywaaaayyyyyy......
>
> from what I heard, "Stardust Memories" didn't get too many good reviews,
> people had trouble understanding it...from what I understand, the best part
> of the movie is the 8 1/2 part, the rest I heard is garbage. The only good
> part is the part Woody stole!
>
> If you're going to steal, steal the whole thing!!!!
You win, dude. Your mental power is too much to withstand.
I never should have tried.