Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss
calvin is a big fat liar
99 views
Skip to first unread message
wlah...@gmail.com
May 15, 2012, 11:04:47 AM5/15/12
to
Am watching North by Northwest and in the dining car scene between Cary Grant and Eva Mary Saint, Grant magically changes seats while he's looking at the menu. When the camera is on Eva, Grant is in the outside seat, when it switches to feature Grant, he's in the window seat. This film has websites devoted to the mistakes in this film although none mention this glaring bit of sloppiness. Not as funny as the trees that wobble in the forest, but close. calvin, I'm not surprised that you can't appreciate the Mizoguchi tracking shot. Yet, the dining car scene in NxNW is film school stuff. To say that you watched this scene and denied Grant changes seats means you are either blind as a dead cat, are utterly dishonest about what you saw or you flat-out lied about watching the scene. Grant jumping seats goes on through the whole scene. My god you're a waste of time.
trotsky
May 15, 2012, 11:12:01 AM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/12 10:04 AM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Am watching North by Northwest and in the dining car scene between Cary Grant and Eva Mary Saint, Grant magically changes seats while he's looking at the menu. When the camera is on Eva, Grant is in the outside seat, when it switches to feature Grant, he's in the window seat. This film has websites devoted to the mistakes in this film although none mention this glaring bit of sloppiness.
Using the internet as a testament to one's anal retentiveness? I've
>
> Am watching North by Northwest and in the dining car scene between Cary Grant and Eva Mary Saint, Grant magically changes seats while he's looking at the menu. When the camera is on Eva, Grant is in the outside seat, when it switches to feature Grant, he's in the window seat. This film has websites devoted to the mistakes in this film although none mention this glaring bit of sloppiness.
never heard of such a thing.
Not as funny as the trees that wobble in the forest, but close.
calvin, I'm not surprised that you can't appreciate the Mizoguchi
tracking shot. Yet, the dining car scene in NxNW is film school stuff.
To say that you watched this scene and denied Grant changes seats means
you are either blind as a dead cat, are utterly dishonest about what you
saw or you flat-out lied about watching the scene. Grant jumping seats
goes on through the whole scene. My god you're a waste of time.
thread devoted to him. william, you truly are an enigma wrapped inside
of a riddle ensconced in a pile of dog poop.
calvin
May 15, 2012, 12:05:31 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:04:47 AM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> Am watching North by Northwest and in the dining car scene between Cary Grant and Eva Mary Saint, Grant magically changes seats while he's looking at the menu. When the camera is on Eva, Grant is in the outside seat, when it switches to feature Grant, he's in the window seat. This film has websites devoted to the mistakes in this film although none mention this glaring bit of sloppiness. Not as funny as the trees that wobble in the forest, but close. calvin, I'm not surprised that you can't appreciate the Mizoguchi tracking shot. Yet, the dining car scene in NxNW is film school stuff. To say that you watched this scene and denied Grant changes seats means you are either blind as a dead cat, are utterly dishonest about what you saw or you flat-out lied about watching the scene. Grant jumping seats goes on through the whole scene. My god you're a waste of time.
This is what I said, which needs no further comment:
> Am watching North by Northwest and in the dining car scene between Cary Grant and Eva Mary Saint, Grant magically changes seats while he's looking at the menu. When the camera is on Eva, Grant is in the outside seat, when it switches to feature Grant, he's in the window seat. This film has websites devoted to the mistakes in this film although none mention this glaring bit of sloppiness. Not as funny as the trees that wobble in the forest, but close. calvin, I'm not surprised that you can't appreciate the Mizoguchi tracking shot. Yet, the dining car scene in NxNW is film school stuff. To say that you watched this scene and denied Grant changes seats means you are either blind as a dead cat, are utterly dishonest about what you saw or you flat-out lied about watching the scene. Grant jumping seats goes on through the whole scene. My god you're a waste of time.
"... In the shots looking
toward Grant's face he is sitting right next to the
train wall. In the shots looking toward Saint's
face he is shifted slightly away from the train
wall (which you have to deduce, since you can't
see the distance from his shoulder to the wall) so
that his head will be within the frame. he is shifted
nowhere near a chair width, hardly even half a chair
width."
wlah...@gmail.com
May 15, 2012, 12:11:10 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:05:31 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
>
> This is what I said, which needs no further comment:
>
> "... In the shots looking
> toward Grant's face he is sitting right next to the
> train wall. In the shots looking toward Saint's
> face he is shifted slightly away from the train
> wall (which you have to deduce, since you can't
> see the distance from his shoulder to the wall) so
> that his head will be within the frame. he is shifted
> nowhere near a chair width, hardly even half a chair
> width."
You're wrong and I stand by what I wrote since I just watched the scene: You're lying or you're totally dishonest about what you wrote. Any idiot can see the mistake for what it is. My god, sometimes you're running neck-and-neck with trotsky for being the most worthless pile of yak shit.
>
> This is what I said, which needs no further comment:
>
> "... In the shots looking
> toward Grant's face he is sitting right next to the
> train wall. In the shots looking toward Saint's
> face he is shifted slightly away from the train
> wall (which you have to deduce, since you can't
> see the distance from his shoulder to the wall) so
> that his head will be within the frame. he is shifted
> nowhere near a chair width, hardly even half a chair
> width."
calvin
May 15, 2012, 12:43:27 PM5/15/12
to
That was the whole point. I watched it just to see
if what you had said was correct.
wlah...@gmail.com
May 15, 2012, 12:50:57 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:43:27 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
> I watched the scene just before I posted about it.
> That was the whole point. I watched it just to see
> if what you had said was correct.
Oh. Then you're fucking stupid. Go stuff one of your cats up trotsky's butt, pull it out and eat it. You are pathologically fucked up and need help desperately. Bye bye asshole.
> I watched the scene just before I posted about it.
> That was the whole point. I watched it just to see
> if what you had said was correct.
Wull
May 15, 2012, 12:54:46 PM5/15/12
to
<wlah...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:24304282.889.1337098270796.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums@ynbq3...
You Mr. Ahearn are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster I have ever
read and in any newsgroup that I read.
I do not think any posters pay the least bit of attention to you.
Your hostility toward other posters (and especially Calvin) is quite well
known and I do not understand why you persist in aggravating other posters
as you do.
Your knowledge of movies and directors seems to be of a very high degree but
your expertise is surely overlooked because of your caustic personality and
even more by your gutter language when you are in an attack mode which is
usually 95% of the time.
I feel that most posters do not answer or talk to you because of your killer
instinct.
A non-combative poster who likes old movies.
Wull
let the acid tongue verbiage begin!
Madara0806
May 15, 2012, 12:39:26 PM5/15/12
to
calvin
May 15, 2012, 1:06:58 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:50:57 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> ... Bye bye asshole.
That is, until next time I correct something you
say and you go berserk.
> ... Bye bye asshole.
That is, until next time I correct something you
say and you go berserk.
wlah...@gmail.com
May 15, 2012, 1:23:27 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:54:46 PM UTC-4, Wull wrote:
> A non-combative poster who likes old movies.
> Wull
> let the acid tongue verbiage begin!
I have no argument with you and if my defending myself against the likes of calvin, trotsky or mac a damia, et al, offends you than please don't read my posts. We'll both feel better.
> A non-combative poster who likes old movies.
> Wull
> let the acid tongue verbiage begin!
moviePig
May 15, 2012, 1:34:48 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 12:54 pm, "Wull" <wmai...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
Fwiw, I'll suggest that, whatever else it may be, "worthless pile of
yak shit" isn't "killer language", but merely verbal abuse. I.e., a
stink bomb isn't chemical warfare. (Seems worth distinguishing flora
in the Usenet jungle.)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
> <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
yak shit" isn't "killer language", but merely verbal abuse. I.e., a
stink bomb isn't chemical warfare. (Seems worth distinguishing flora
in the Usenet jungle.)
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
Message has been deleted
calvin
May 15, 2012, 2:01:57 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 1:34:48 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> On May 15, 12:54 pm, "Wull" <wmai...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> On May 15, 12:54 pm, "Wull" <wmai...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
but what seems odd here is that after I took the trouble to
watch the NxNW scene and carefully describe it, as quoted
above, and then you saw William's reacttion to what I wrote,
your only reaponse is to make sure his verbal abuse is
properly so characterized. Do you really think that
it's fine for William to start a thread entitled 'calvin
is a big fat liar' because of my (measured, I think) words?
I'm not arguing with his legal right to do it, but you
thought Wull's words were more in need of correction than
William's words and behavior. Odd.
Obveeus
May 15, 2012, 2:58:03 PM5/15/12
to
"moviePig" <pwal...@moviepig.com> wrote:
On May 15, 12:54 pm, "Wull" <wmai...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>> My god, sometimes you're running
>>> neck-and-neck with trotsky for being the most worthless pile of yak
>>> shit.
>
>> I have been reading this newsgroup for a few years now.
>> You Mr. Ahearn are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster I have ever
>> read and in any newsgroup that I read.
>>
>> I do not think any posters pay the least bit of attention to you.
>>
>> Your hostility toward other posters (and especially Calvin) is quite well
>> known and I do not understand why you persist in aggravating other
>> posters
>> as you do.
>>
>>> neck-and-neck with trotsky for being the most worthless pile of yak
>>> shit.
>
>> I have been reading this newsgroup for a few years now.
>> You Mr. Ahearn are without a doubt the most obnoxious poster I have ever
>> read and in any newsgroup that I read.
>>
>> I do not think any posters pay the least bit of attention to you.
>>
>> Your hostility toward other posters (and especially Calvin) is quite well
>> known and I do not understand why you persist in aggravating other
>> posters
>> as you do.
>>
>Fwiw, I'll suggest that, whatever else it may be, "worthless pile of
>yak shit" isn't "killer language", but merely verbal abuse. I.e., a
>stink bomb isn't chemical warfare. (Seems worth distinguishing flora
>in the Usenet jungle.)
Wull made a valid point, though. William's persona makes it quite clear
>yak shit" isn't "killer language", but merely verbal abuse. I.e., a
>stink bomb isn't chemical warfare. (Seems worth distinguishing flora
>in the Usenet jungle.)
that there is no reason to read or respond to his posts.
moviePig
May 15, 2012, 3:54:19 PM5/15/12
to
seemed otherwise), but merely to offer a distinction that I find
interesting and, especially on Usenet, useful.
John Doe
May 15, 2012, 4:42:18 PM5/15/12
to
If you are going to make this much trouble,
why not post a link to the video clip?
wlahearn gmail.com wrote:
> Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: wlahearn gmail.com
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
> Subject: calvin is a big fat liar
> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 08:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 13
> Message-ID: <17721982.2186.1337094287478.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums ynlq12>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 96.224.43.78
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1337094287 23087 127.0.0.1 (15 May 2012 15:04:47 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:04:47 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=96.224.43.78; posting-account=4C3ScwoAAAA2wbWb7EB6D20HjAcd2OwZ
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-Received-Bytes: 1841
> Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org rec.arts.movies.past-films:83175
why not post a link to the video clip?
wlahearn gmail.com wrote:
> Path: eternal-september.org!mx04.eternal-september.org!feeder.eternal-september.org!news.glorb.com!npeer02.iad.highwinds-media.com!news.highwinds-media.com!feed-me.highwinds-media.com!postnews.google.com!glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com!not-for-mail
> From: wlahearn gmail.com
> Newsgroups: rec.arts.movies.past-films
> Subject: calvin is a big fat liar
> Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 08:04:47 -0700 (PDT)
> Organization: http://groups.google.com
> Lines: 13
> Message-ID: <17721982.2186.1337094287478.JavaMail.geo-discussion-forums ynlq12>
> NNTP-Posting-Host: 96.224.43.78
> Mime-Version: 1.0
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
> X-Trace: posting.google.com 1337094287 23087 127.0.0.1 (15 May 2012 15:04:47 GMT)
> X-Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> NNTP-Posting-Date: Tue, 15 May 2012 15:04:47 +0000 (UTC)
> Complaints-To: groups-abuse google.com
> Injection-Info: glegroupsg2000goo.googlegroups.com; posting-host=96.224.43.78; posting-account=4C3ScwoAAAA2wbWb7EB6D20HjAcd2OwZ
> User-Agent: G2/1.0
> X-Received-Bytes: 1841
> Xref: mx04.eternal-september.org rec.arts.movies.past-films:83175
calvin
May 15, 2012, 5:52:51 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 4:42:18 PM UTC-4, John Doe wrote:
[to William]
the features of the dining car scene in NxNW by
saying that Grant magically changed position
every time the scene switched to Saint's face. He
said that Grant kept moving back and forth from
the inner seat on his side of the table to the
outer seat.
So I had a look and saw that Grant didn't change seats,
but merely shifted a little bit, at most half a chair
width. I actually confirmed the essence of what
William had said, but I disproved his exaggeration.
Unfortunately William couldn't accept anything but total
agreement. He had another look himself, confirmed the
Grant shifts, but stuck to his exaggeration that Grant
was changing positions from the inner chair to the outer
chair and back.
We agree that Grant shifts, but we don't agree on how
much. If William was correct, Hitchcock would seem to
be a total fool for letting such a blatant error stay
in the film. But he is not correct. Hitchcock only
made a slight adjustment to Grant's position to better
frame the shots seen from over his shoulder in a tight
space.
[to William]
> If you are going to make this much trouble,
> why not post a link to the video clip?
This is what happened here. William exaggerated
> why not post a link to the video clip?
the features of the dining car scene in NxNW by
saying that Grant magically changed position
every time the scene switched to Saint's face. He
said that Grant kept moving back and forth from
the inner seat on his side of the table to the
outer seat.
So I had a look and saw that Grant didn't change seats,
but merely shifted a little bit, at most half a chair
width. I actually confirmed the essence of what
William had said, but I disproved his exaggeration.
Unfortunately William couldn't accept anything but total
agreement. He had another look himself, confirmed the
Grant shifts, but stuck to his exaggeration that Grant
was changing positions from the inner chair to the outer
chair and back.
We agree that Grant shifts, but we don't agree on how
much. If William was correct, Hitchcock would seem to
be a total fool for letting such a blatant error stay
in the film. But he is not correct. Hitchcock only
made a slight adjustment to Grant's position to better
frame the shots seen from over his shoulder in a tight
space.
Mack A. Damia
May 15, 2012, 6:13:19 PM5/15/12
to
of the stars moves a few inches in a scene. This is what strikes me
about William; he suffers from OCD, and everything has to be perfect
in his eyes and from his mind. He allows for no other possibilities.
He was correct about Grace and the Prince, but it was a minor issue.
The greater point was that "Marnie" is one of Hitchcock's better
films.
wlah...@gmail.com
May 15, 2012, 6:40:27 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:13:19 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
> But it's all such trivial stuff. A movie isn't terrible because one
> of the stars moves a few inches in a scene. This is what strikes me
> about William; he suffers from OCD, and everything has to be perfect
> in his eyes and from his mind. He allows for no other possibilities.
> He was correct about Grace and the Prince, but it was a minor issue.
> The greater point was that "Marnie" is one of Hitchcock's better
> films.
First of all, I never said any film was "terrible" because of a minor error. Didn't happen. I may be obnoxious and numerous other things but I'm not petty. While I may have a host of problems, the same holds for many of you. Everybody knows I'm not a fan of Hitchcock and I've stated numerous times that I'm not a fan of NxNW and every time I get critical about Hitchcock or Hollywood you all start screaming like a bunch of old ladies that I'm a troll. Say what you like about me but I know my stuff and all films -- in my mind -- are open to interpretation and appreciation. The tendency in this forum is to cling to the old Hollywood and not much else. That people would complain or make fun of the fact that I would post about Asian films is a case in point. The difference between when Grace Kelly got married and whether "Marnie" is a good film is that the first is a fact -- that Mac A Damia refused to accept and he has just as profane a mouth as mine -- and the second is an opinion. While NxNW is accepted by many as a classic, "Marnie" has been problematic since it opened. Making a case that "Marnie" is one of "Hitchcock's better films" as a statement of fact isn't supportable if you use any standard including box office, critical reviews, current DVD rentals, etc. It's an opinion, plain and simple and around here if you voice a positive opinion about Hitchcock you are one of the boys and if you're critical of a Hitchcock film, you're a troll. Yes, sometimes I have fun with trotsky or calvin and I go to a blue streak when I'm faced with fools. Oooops. Others do it and no one gives a shit. I do it and I'm the worst usenet criminal that ever lived. It might be wise to ask yourselves how well you respond to different opinions. Most of you have the exact same attitude that you accuse me of and my real fault is that I'm glib and unforgiving in my style. So dump away and have some fun. I've always loved those scenes in the Universal horror movies where the villages light their torches and go after the monster. Breaks me up every time.
>
> But it's all such trivial stuff. A movie isn't terrible because one
> of the stars moves a few inches in a scene. This is what strikes me
> about William; he suffers from OCD, and everything has to be perfect
> in his eyes and from his mind. He allows for no other possibilities.
> He was correct about Grace and the Prince, but it was a minor issue.
> The greater point was that "Marnie" is one of Hitchcock's better
> films.
calvin
May 15, 2012, 6:45:57 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:13:19 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> But it's all such trivial stuff. A movie isn't terrible because one
> of the stars moves a few inches in a scene. This is what strikes me
> about William; he suffers from OCD, and everything has to be perfect
> in his eyes and from his mind. He allows for no other possibilities.
> He was correct about Grace and the Prince, but it was a minor issue.
> The greater point was that "Marnie" is one of Hitchcock's better
> films.
Yes, it's trivial. It gets blown up because of
> of the stars moves a few inches in a scene. This is what strikes me
> about William; he suffers from OCD, and everything has to be perfect
> in his eyes and from his mind. He allows for no other possibilities.
> He was correct about Grace and the Prince, but it was a minor issue.
> The greater point was that "Marnie" is one of Hitchcock's better
> films.
William's personality. First it was his need to
discredit Hitchcock, and then it was his need to
always be right, and finally his need to crush
anyone who challenges him.
The scene in North by Northwest that always bothers
me is nearer the beginning of the movie, when Grant
has been sent dead drunk driving a car along the Long
Island seacoast, and we are shown high cliffs
falling down to the rocky shore. Maybe I'm wrong,
but I've been on Long Island a couple of times and
it was a flat place. I don't think there are any
seaside cliffs. But right or wrong it doesn't matter.
It wasn't a documentary, and the forced drunk driving
scene worked.
gtr
May 15, 2012, 8:08:24 PM5/15/12
to
On 2012-05-15 22:40:27 +0000, wlah...@gmail.com said:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:13:19 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>>
>> But it's all such trivial stuff. A movie isn't terrible because one
>> of the stars moves a few inches in a scene. This is what strikes me
>> about William; he suffers from OCD, and everything has to be perfect
>> in his eyes and from his mind. He allows for no other possibilities.
>> He was correct about Grace and the Prince, but it was a minor issue.
>> The greater point was that "Marnie" is one of Hitchcock's better
>> films.
>
> First of all, I never said any film was "terrible" because of a minor
> error. Didn't happen. I may be obnoxious and numerous other things but
> I'm not petty. While I may have a host of problems, the same holds for
> many of you.
Sure. We're all flawed humans, so let's just move on.
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:13:19 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>>
>> But it's all such trivial stuff. A movie isn't terrible because one
>> of the stars moves a few inches in a scene. This is what strikes me
>> about William; he suffers from OCD, and everything has to be perfect
>> in his eyes and from his mind. He allows for no other possibilities.
>> He was correct about Grace and the Prince, but it was a minor issue.
>> The greater point was that "Marnie" is one of Hitchcock's better
>> films.
>
> First of all, I never said any film was "terrible" because of a minor
> error. Didn't happen. I may be obnoxious and numerous other things but
> I'm not petty. While I may have a host of problems, the same holds for
> many of you.
> Everybody knows I'm not a fan of Hitchcock and I've stated numerous
> times that I'm not a fan of NxNW and every time I get critical about
> Hitchcock or Hollywood you all start screaming like a bunch of old
> ladies that I'm a troll. Say what you like about me but I know my stuff
> and all films -- in my mind -- are open to interpretation and
> appreciation. The tendency in this forum is to cling to the old
> Hollywood and not much else.
but surely that's not the forum in total.
> That people would complain or make fun of the fact that I would post
> about Asian films is a case in point.
what your previous ID was, I read your posts with great
interest--particularly the Asian ones. Quick on the trigger but useful
reads if I avoided related chit-chat.
> The difference between when Grace Kelly got married and whether
> "Marnie" is a good film is that the first is a fact -- that Mac A Damia
> refused to accept and he has just as profane a mouth as mine -- and the
> second is an opinion. While NxNW is accepted by many as a classic,
> "Marnie" has been problematic since it opened. Making a case that
> "Marnie" is one of "Hitchcock's better films" as a statement of fact
> isn't supportable if you use any standard including box office,
> critical reviews, current DVD rentals, etc. It's an opinion, plain and
> simple and around here if you voice a positive opinion about Hitchcock
> you are one of the boys and if you're critical of a Hitchcock film,
> you're a troll.
I frequently don't seem to get much depth for my dollar. I feel like
he's holding my hand to cross the street. They say he was quite the
control-freak, and that comes across on the screen. He's not along
either. On the other hand I don't dislike him enough to get into a
fistfight with people who have a little alter to his memory by their TV.
> Yes, sometimes I have fun with trotsky or calvin and I go to a blue
> streak when I'm faced with fools. Oooops. Others do it and no one gives
> a shit. I do it and I'm the worst usenet criminal that ever lived. It
> might be wise to ask yourselves how well you respond to different
> opinions. Most of you have the exact same attitude that you accuse me
> of and my real fault is that I'm glib and unforgiving in my style. So
> dump away and have some fun. I've always loved those scenes in the
> Universal horror movies where the villages light their torches and go
> after the monster. Breaks me up every time.
of whether being an asshole, or liar, or hypocrite or dishonest or
something--whether that becomes the substance of the discussion, the
leverage of a discussion or the thing we try to ignore and avoid in a
discussion.
I highly recommend moving to a newsreader where you can killfile those
people who provoke your more base qualities.
And also a more liberal use of paragraph breaks.
Tom
May 15, 2012, 9:08:11 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 10:04 am, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> Am watching North by Northwest and in the dining car scene between Cary Grant and Eva Mary Saint, Grant magically changes seats while he's looking at the menu. When the camera is on Eva, Grant is in the outside seat, when it switches to feature Grant, he's in the window seat. This film has websites devoted to the mistakes in this film although none mention this glaring bit of sloppiness. Not as funny as the trees that wobble in the forest, but close. calvin, I'm not surprised that you can't appreciate the Mizoguchi tracking shot. Yet, the dining car scene in NxNW is film school stuff. To say that you watched this scene and denied Grant changes seats means you are either blind as a dead cat, are utterly dishonest about what you saw or you flat-out lied about watching the scene. Grant jumping seats goes on through the whole scene. My god you're a waste of time.
I just watched the scene in question and it is clearly and
> Am watching North by Northwest and in the dining car scene between Cary Grant and Eva Mary Saint, Grant magically changes seats while he's looking at the menu. When the camera is on Eva, Grant is in the outside seat, when it switches to feature Grant, he's in the window seat. This film has websites devoted to the mistakes in this film although none mention this glaring bit of sloppiness. Not as funny as the trees that wobble in the forest, but close. calvin, I'm not surprised that you can't appreciate the Mizoguchi tracking shot. Yet, the dining car scene in NxNW is film school stuff. To say that you watched this scene and denied Grant changes seats means you are either blind as a dead cat, are utterly dishonest about what you saw or you flat-out lied about watching the scene. Grant jumping seats goes on through the whole scene. My god you're a waste of time.
unequivocally obvious that he moved a significant distance to his
right... at least two feet.
There is no possible way this scene could've been filmed if Grant
moved just a few inches... there's a fucking wall/partition behind
him. Unless Hitchcock used an x-ray camera, the wall/partition would
have obstructed the camera if Grant had remained pressed against the
window and wall of the train car.
You're absolutely right, William and calvin is, once again, wrong. For
him to claim Grant didn't move in order for the camera to film the
back of his head is clearly a lie. He's lied before and he'll lie
again. He's pathological and a coward.
Tom
Wull
May 15, 2012, 9:21:25 PM5/15/12
to
"Tom" <drs...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:813df25d-8fc1-46dd...@s5g2000vbc.googlegroups.com...
A wrong interpretation is not a lie. It would be just that , a different
analysis of the situation.
I doubt that any moviegoer viewing a scene in a moving dining train car
would give a fig about it. It is nevertheless a good or great movie.
Wull
Tom
calvin
May 15, 2012, 9:26:02 PM5/15/12
to
I said. This is what I said, which needs no further
Mack A. Damia
May 15, 2012, 9:29:51 PM5/15/12
to
On Tue, 15 May 2012 17:08:24 -0700, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
>On 2012-05-15 22:40:27 +0000, wlah...@gmail.com said:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:13:19 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>>>
>>> But it's all such trivial stuff. A movie isn't terrible because one
>>> of the stars moves a few inches in a scene. This is what strikes me
>>> about William; he suffers from OCD, and everything has to be perfect
>>> in his eyes and from his mind. He allows for no other possibilities.
>>> He was correct about Grace and the Prince, but it was a minor issue.
>>> The greater point was that "Marnie" is one of Hitchcock's better
>>> films.
>>
>> First of all, I never said any film was "terrible" because of a minor
>> error. Didn't happen. I may be obnoxious and numerous other things but
>> I'm not petty. While I may have a host of problems, the same holds for
>> many of you.
You had me killfiled; I reciprocated in-kind. I don't understand where
>On 2012-05-15 22:40:27 +0000, wlah...@gmail.com said:
>
>> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 6:13:19 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>>>
>>> But it's all such trivial stuff. A movie isn't terrible because one
>>> of the stars moves a few inches in a scene. This is what strikes me
>>> about William; he suffers from OCD, and everything has to be perfect
>>> in his eyes and from his mind. He allows for no other possibilities.
>>> He was correct about Grace and the Prince, but it was a minor issue.
>>> The greater point was that "Marnie" is one of Hitchcock's better
>>> films.
>>
>> First of all, I never said any film was "terrible" because of a minor
>> error. Didn't happen. I may be obnoxious and numerous other things but
>> I'm not petty. While I may have a host of problems, the same holds for
>> many of you.
you are now coming from. Grace and her Prince had nothing to do with
"Marnie" - other than she was offered the role. Doesn't much matter
if it was before or after her marriage. Now that I think about it, I
believe there was some concern from the palace about her playing a
thief- a kleptomaniac. I could be wrong, but it's a minor issue,
William.
I simply think that "Marnie" is one of Hitchcock's better films. You
and others don't like Hitchcock; I don't particularly like squid,
either - but many people do, and bon appetit to them.
--
Tom
May 15, 2012, 9:43:32 PM5/15/12
to
You can't admit when you're wrong, even when presented with
incontrovertible proof.
In your blather, you don't specify which "train wall," as there are
two... the one to his left with the windows and the one behind him
which would obstruct the camera.
Why do you dig in your heels when you are clearly wrong and you know
it?
Now, why don't you tell me about the wall behind Grant...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GcBBnPJEzo
...boob.
Tom
calvin
May 15, 2012, 9:53:23 PM5/15/12
to
Tom kindly posted with what I said, quoted above,
and you will see that what I said was entirely accurate.
Tom
May 15, 2012, 9:50:21 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 8:21 pm, "Wull" <wmai...@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
> "Tom" <drso...@aol.com> wrote in message
calvin has been caught lying to cover his ass many times. I just
posted a link to the scene... to say calvin has misinterpreted the
scene is, well, generous.
The scene is exactly as William described.
>
> I doubt that any moviegoer viewing a scene in a moving dining train car
> would give a fig about it. It is nevertheless a good or great movie.
>
> Wull
I agree... but when something is clearly blue and someone repeatedly
says it's red, even after being shown proof to the contrary... well, I
just can't let the lie stand.
Tom
> "Tom" <drso...@aol.com> wrote in message
posted a link to the scene... to say calvin has misinterpreted the
scene is, well, generous.
The scene is exactly as William described.
>
> I doubt that any moviegoer viewing a scene in a moving dining train car
> would give a fig about it. It is nevertheless a good or great movie.
>
> Wull
says it's red, even after being shown proof to the contrary... well, I
just can't let the lie stand.
Tom
Tom
May 15, 2012, 9:56:31 PM5/15/12
to
shifting."
And you still haven't explained the wall behind Grant.
You haven't explained because you can't... you've argued yourself in a
hole so deep, you can't explain your way out.
Tom
calvin
May 15, 2012, 10:04:39 PM5/15/12
to
of comparing the clip with my words and forming your own conclusions.
Tom
May 15, 2012, 10:12:35 PM5/15/12
to
Tom
calvin
May 15, 2012, 10:18:32 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 10:12:35 PM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
> Coward.
If I may use this space for a public service message,
I posted about 'Reflections in a Golden Eye' yesterday.
Any comments would be welcome and appreciated.
> Coward.
If I may use this space for a public service message,
I posted about 'Reflections in a Golden Eye' yesterday.
Any comments would be welcome and appreciated.
trotsky
May 15, 2012, 10:45:03 PM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/12 11:11 AM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:05:31 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
>>
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 12:05:31 PM UTC-4, calvin wrote:
>>
>> This is what I said, which needs no further comment:
>>
>> "... In the shots looking
>> toward Grant's face he is sitting right next to the
>> train wall. In the shots looking toward Saint's
>> face he is shifted slightly away from the train
>> wall (which you have to deduce, since you can't
>> see the distance from his shoulder to the wall) so
>> that his head will be within the frame. he is shifted
>> nowhere near a chair width, hardly even half a chair
>> width."
>
>>
>> "... In the shots looking
>> toward Grant's face he is sitting right next to the
>> train wall. In the shots looking toward Saint's
>> face he is shifted slightly away from the train
>> wall (which you have to deduce, since you can't
>> see the distance from his shoulder to the wall) so
>> that his head will be within the frame. he is shifted
>> nowhere near a chair width, hardly even half a chair
>> width."
>
> You're wrong and I stand by what I wrote since I just watched the scene: You're lying or you're totally dishonest about what you wrote. Any idiot can see the mistake for what it is. My god, sometimes you're running neck-and-neck with trotsky
Troll alert.
wlah...@gmail.com
May 15, 2012, 9:31:39 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:21:25 PM UTC-4, Wull wrote:
> A wrong interpretation is not a lie. It would be just that , a different
> analysis of the situation.
>
With all due respect, a different analysis of say visual gestures in an Ingmar Bergman film would be an interpretation that can be valid no matter what Bergman intended. The situation in the dining car in "North By Northwest" -- that, I agree, does nothing to add or detract from how you might appreciate the film -- is basic film production along the lines of continuity ala Glenn Close wearing three different dresses in a courtroom scene in "Jagged Edge." (That's from memory, it might be two or four dresses.) There really isn't any form of interpretation involved. Either Cary Grant has moved or he hasn't. As Tom pointed out, in one take he's against the window with his back to a wall. In the next shot the back of Grant's head is in the foreground for the over-the-shoulder to Eva Marie Sainte. Not possible unless he's moved and this goes on for the whole conversation.
> A wrong interpretation is not a lie. It would be just that , a different
> analysis of the situation.
>
moviePig
May 15, 2012, 10:59:12 PM5/15/12
to
- Laurence Olivier
calvin
May 15, 2012, 11:09:53 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:31:39 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
There really isn't any form of interpretation involved. Either Cary Grant has moved or he hasn't. As Tom pointed out, in one take he's against the window with his back to a wall. In the next shot the back of Grant's head is in the foreground for the over-the-shoulder to Eva Marie Sainte. Not possible unless he's moved and this goes on for the whole conversation.
response:
There really isn't any form of interpretation involved. Either Cary Grant has moved or he hasn't. As Tom pointed out, in one take he's against the window with his back to a wall. In the next shot the back of Grant's head is in the foreground for the over-the-shoulder to Eva Marie Sainte. Not possible unless he's moved and this goes on for the whole conversation.
To whom it may concern, compare my words with the clip,
and Tom's and William's distortions of my words will be
clear. This is a teachable moment. You can either go
with the clear, simple evidence of clip and words, or
you can go with those who are trying to tell you what
to think, and using distortions to do so.
Tom
May 15, 2012, 11:27:20 PM5/15/12
to
On May 15, 10:09 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:31:39 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> There really isn't any form of interpretation involved. Either Cary Grant has moved or he hasn't. As Tom pointed out, in one take he's against the window with his back to a wall. In the next shot the back of Grant's head is in the foreground for the over-the-shoulder to Eva Marie Sainte. Not possible unless he's moved and this goes on for the whole conversation.
>
> response:
>
> To whom it may concern, compare my words with the clip,
> and Tom's and William's distortions of my words will be
> clear.
No one has distorted anything you wrote. You said "slightly shifted"
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:31:39 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> There really isn't any form of interpretation involved. Either Cary Grant has moved or he hasn't. As Tom pointed out, in one take he's against the window with his back to a wall. In the next shot the back of Grant's head is in the foreground for the over-the-shoulder to Eva Marie Sainte. Not possible unless he's moved and this goes on for the whole conversation.
>
> response:
>
> To whom it may concern, compare my words with the clip,
> and Tom's and William's distortions of my words will be
> clear.
when in reality, he moved at least two feet. You're too cowardly to
admit you're wrong.
>This is a teachable moment. You can either go
> with the clear, simple evidence of clip and words, or
> you can go with those who are trying to tell you what
> to think, and using distortions to do so.
presumptuous of you to declare this a "teachable moment." You're so
fucked up, you're hilarious.
The only one in this thread trying to tell others what to think is
you. As I said yesterday, everything you post proves how little you
know. The scene clearly shows
something you refuse to admit you see. You're sick. You need
professional help. You're a danger to yourself and those around you.
Tom
trotsky
May 15, 2012, 11:29:58 PM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/12 8:26 PM, calvin wrote:
>> You're absolutely right, William and calvin is, once again, wrong. For
>> him to claim Grant didn't move in order for the camera to film the
>> back of his head is clearly a lie. He's lied before and he'll lie
>> again. He's pathological and a coward.
>
> To whom it may concern, Tom has misrepresented what
> I said. This is what I said, which needs no further
> comment:
>
> "... In the shots looking
> toward Grant's face he is sitting right next to the
> train wall. In the shots looking toward Saint's
> face he is shifted slightly away from the train
> wall (which you have to deduce, since you can't
> see the distance from his shoulder to the wall) so
> that his head will be within the frame. he is shifted
> nowhere near a chair width, hardly even half a chair
> width."
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GcBBnPJEzo
>> You're absolutely right, William and calvin is, once again, wrong. For
>> him to claim Grant didn't move in order for the camera to film the
>> back of his head is clearly a lie. He's lied before and he'll lie
>> again. He's pathological and a coward.
>
> To whom it may concern, Tom has misrepresented what
> I said. This is what I said, which needs no further
> comment:
>
> "... In the shots looking
> toward Grant's face he is sitting right next to the
> train wall. In the shots looking toward Saint's
> face he is shifted slightly away from the train
> wall (which you have to deduce, since you can't
> see the distance from his shoulder to the wall) so
> that his head will be within the frame. he is shifted
> nowhere near a chair width, hardly even half a chair
> width."
This is the scene in question. Anybody that could've posted this link
and didn't needs to whack his own peepee for not doing so. I can see
where the confusion lies, though. The POV (point of view) looking over
Grant's right shoulder is from the the point of view of a camera that
would have to be mounted in the gray wall behind him. So what. At no
time does this mean that he "moved" in his seat, it means that Hitch
used a POV that at best is unexpected. To say that Grant "moved"
because the camera angle is such that the camera would have to be in a
position that physically isn't possible when you see him from EMS's POV
is just silly.
Going further, sir william tells us there are "websites devoted to its
mistakes though none mention this glaring bit of sloppiness." Could it
be because it doesn't exist? Moreover, I never found the multiplicity
of websites he mentions, but I did find this:
http://www.moviemistakes.com/film909
These are the only things they had to say about the dining car scene:
Continuity: When Cary Grant and Eva Marie Saint are riding in the dinner
car on the train, there are several instances where the landscape/view
as seen from their window repeats itself. Keep an eye out for a bridge
they never get any closer to, and a section of tall iron work near the
tracks they keep passing over and over.
and
Continuity: In the scene on the train in the dining car, the flower
arrangement on the table changes. When the shot is over Cary Grant's
shoulder the flowers are pink carnations with four large leaves, but
when the shot is over Eve Marie Saint's shoulder it's a smaller display
of pink daisies with one leaf.
Isn't it odd that a website that goes into this much minutiae doesn't
even bother to mention the "glaring bit of sloppiness" sir william is
whining about? Again, because it doesn't exist. After a few Google
searches I've seen nobody mention anything untoward about the use of the
camera in this scene. It reminds me of Ben Stein's line in the movie
"The Mask": "I'm not used to dealing with really sick people."
trotsky
May 15, 2012, 11:31:37 PM5/15/12
to
On 5/15/12 8:43 PM, Tom wrote:
> I didn't misrepresent anything. You're a fucking liar and a coward.
> You can't admit when you're wrong, even when presented with
> incontrovertible proof.
>
> In your blather, you don't specify which "train wall," as there are
> two... the one to his left with the windows and the one behind him
> which would obstruct the camera.
I think I addressed this rather well. I welcome your rebuttal.
> I didn't misrepresent anything. You're a fucking liar and a coward.
> You can't admit when you're wrong, even when presented with
> incontrovertible proof.
>
> In your blather, you don't specify which "train wall," as there are
> two... the one to his left with the windows and the one behind him
> which would obstruct the camera.
calvin
May 15, 2012, 11:33:29 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 9:31:39 PM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
There really isn't any form of interpretation involved. Either Cary Grant has moved or he hasn't. As Tom pointed out, in one take he's against the window with his back to a wall. In the next shot the back of Grant's head is in the foreground for the over-the-shoulder to Eva Marie Sainte. Not possible unless he's moved and this goes on for the whole conversation.
response:
What's wrong with you, William? We both said he moved,
and I said it was to get his head in the frame. Yet
you pretend I didn't say those things. This is madness.
Apparently no one will back me up, so all I have is
Kipling to take with me, and you and Tom may continue
unopposed.
"If you can bear to hear the truth you've spoken
Twisted by knaves to make a trap for fools ..."
-R.K.
Mack A. Damia
May 15, 2012, 11:42:53 PM5/15/12
to
wlah...@gmail.com
May 15, 2012, 11:39:02 PM5/15/12
to
On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:29:58 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
> This is the scene in question. Anybody that could've posted this link
> and didn't needs to whack his own peepee for not doing so. I can see
> where the confusion lies, though.
Me, too. The confusion is in you thinking that you could clear anything up. You're as wrong as calvin. There is no confusion except maybe figuring out which is trotsky and which is calvin. I find some poetic justice in that. As others have pointed out, it's a minor point but a major failing on your part. This is why it's a waste of time talking to you about films: You don't know anything and to boot you're belligerent with your ignorance. You are as big a joke as calvin is and that's where I want to leave it: You and calvin entwined like blind lovers trying to describe the couch.
>
> This is the scene in question. Anybody that could've posted this link
> and didn't needs to whack his own peepee for not doing so. I can see
> where the confusion lies, though.
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 12:02:38 AM5/16/12
to
On 5/15/12 8:56 PM, Tom wrote:
> And you still haven't explained the wall behind Grant.
I did. I haven't studied film theory, but I would like you are william
> And you still haven't explained the wall behind Grant.
to show me where it is said that a camera can't be from such and such
perspective based on what exists in another shot. Honestly, I think the
idea that Hitch was being "lazy" or not paying attention to what was
being put on film in that scene is utterly preposterous. Some fucking
beatoff on Usenet tells us that Hitchcock, one of the most technically
proficient storytellers in the history of film, "fucked up" in a scene
in NbNW? Really? Who would even believe that?
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 12:06:13 AM5/16/12
to
On 5/15/12 10:39 PM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:29:58 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
>>
>> This is the scene in question. Anybody that could've posted this link
>> and didn't needs to whack his own peepee for not doing so. I can see
>> where the confusion lies, though.
>
> Me, too. The confusion is in you
Address what I wrote you mental midget. I can clip the gist of a post
> On Tuesday, May 15, 2012 11:29:58 PM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
>>
>> This is the scene in question. Anybody that could've posted this link
>> and didn't needs to whack his own peepee for not doing so. I can see
>> where the confusion lies, though.
>
> Me, too. The confusion is in you
as easily as you can. I coined a term for this: declaring intellectual
bankruptcy.
Mack A. Damia
May 16, 2012, 12:08:26 AM5/16/12
to
locations between the corner and the middle of the seat.
2. Watch his glass of wine. Some c-r-a-z-y stuff going on there.
3. Watch the scenery out of the window. It repeats several times,
and watch out for the bridge that never gets any closer.
4. So what? It's still a materpiece!
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 12:08:56 AM5/16/12
to
You are as big a joke as calvin is and that's where I want to leave it:
You and calvin entwined like blind lovers trying to describe the couch.
Tom, really, at some point you're going to have to cut sir william loose
You and calvin entwined like blind lovers trying to describe the couch.
for the sake of your own self respect. He's babbling like a brook at
this point.
Obveeus
May 16, 2012, 12:19:16 AM5/16/12
to
"Mack A. Damia" <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
> 1. Something amiss with their positions; they each seem to switch
> locations between the corner and the middle of the seat.
angles. The lack of seeing the wall when viewing Cary Grant from behind is
no more odd than the lack of seeing the woman's shoulder (the one sitting in
the next seat back) when viewing Eva Marie Sainte from behind. Both people
and temporary partitions can be moved as needed to keep them out of the
frame (just as rear view mirrors are frequently removed from cars when
filming through the front windshield). It seems amazingly silly that people
are trying to create 'much ado' about whether Grant moved 16 inches or 24
inches when both characters seem to have moved a not particularly
significant to the storytelling amount in order to accommodate the filming
angles.
calvin
May 16, 2012, 12:27:19 AM5/16/12
to
side here, and this may sever even that slight connection;
but I think you have William and Tom backwards in the
sense of who is worse. William is sort of an innocent,
in a way. He has a high I.Q. but the psychology of a
spoiled brat child. His irrationality can drive you
crazy, but he's all tantrum and huffiness, meaning no real
harm. Tom, on the other hand, has low I.Q. but a malevolent
spirit. He's like a brownshirt goon or a KGB agent. He will
harm someone as much as he can with whatever means he has.
Fortunately here on usenet his weapons are limited to the
meanness that his words and limited imagination can muster.
But if you meet him in a dark alley somewhere when he has a
real weapon, watch out.
wlah...@gmail.com
May 16, 2012, 1:25:48 AM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:02:38 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
Some fucking
> beatoff on Usenet tells us that Hitchcock, one of the most technically
> proficient storytellers in the history of film, "fucked up" in a scene
> in NbNW?
Alfred Hitchcock was the director of numerous popular movies, but he wasn't "technically proficient" as a filmmaker. Fritz Lang -- who Hitch lifted from in his early days -- was a technically proficient filmmaker in that the look and feel of "Metropolis" is still inspiring filmmakers today and that a special effects method was developed that was used for decades. The distribution rights to Lang's "Der Müd Tode" was purchased by Douglas Fairbanks so that Fairbanks could copy Lang's special effects and improve on them for "Thief of Bagdad" before releasing Lang's film in the US. I've seen in at least one recent book with the idea that Lang copied Fairbanks. You may like Hitchcock's films but rarely -- after his silent films -- did he do anything really stunning in terms of technical proficiency. Most of his films look fake -- and I think it was intentional -- with badly rendered monuments, shaky rear-projections, and studio settings for what should be exteriors. "The Birds" looks silly these days, "Metropolis" doesn't. Hitch is not Stanley Kubrick as Stephen King isn't Henry James. You look at movies but you don't see them. It's that simple. If there were a list of 25 technically proficient filmmakers, Alfred Hitchcock wouldn't be on it. I can think of 5 Japanese directors that are more technically proficient than Hitchcock, and then there's John Ford and DW Griffith and . . .
Some fucking
> beatoff on Usenet tells us that Hitchcock, one of the most technically
> proficient storytellers in the history of film, "fucked up" in a scene
> in NbNW?
Rob D
May 16, 2012, 1:32:42 AM5/16/12
to
(Well, someone was going to say it)
Rob
Heynonny
May 16, 2012, 6:21:44 AM5/16/12
to
Mack A. Damia said:
> 1. Something amiss with their positions; they each seem to switch
> locations between the corner and the middle of the seat.
>
> 2. Watch his glass of wine. Some c-r-a-z-y stuff going on there.
>
> 3. Watch the scenery out of the window. It repeats several times,
> and watch out for the bridge that never gets any closer.
>
> 4. So what? It's still a masterpiece!
> 1. Something amiss with their positions; they each seem to switch
> locations between the corner and the middle of the seat.
>
> 2. Watch his glass of wine. Some c-r-a-z-y stuff going on there.
>
> 3. Watch the scenery out of the window. It repeats several times,
> and watch out for the bridge that never gets any closer.
>
Still a masterpiece!? You're not entering into the spirit of this.
Personally, I support hunting down all copies of North By Northwest and
burning them. I know we're in economic hard times, but as soon as
things get better I'd support a Government Commission charged with
reviewing each and every cut in every "past-film" to make sure it
unanimously passes muster with this group.
OK. I looked at the sequence. It's primarily (admittedly not entirely)
an issue of camera POV. In Film-Making 101 at the Community College
level it may be worth three minutes discussion as to whether the camera
needs to be located in an actually physically possible location in the
context of the scene. The answer is no.
I have learned a lot about Hitchcock by reading William's criticism of
him over the years. I am a William fan. In this case, you was wrong,
Mr. Dunson.
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 7:29:18 AM5/16/12
to
drugs, I have no idea what that opinion is.
calvin
May 16, 2012, 7:36:09 AM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 6:21 am, Heynonny <nos...@noway.com> wrote:
> ...
Maybe so, but you also have read a lot of nonsense, as a few
posts back when William claimed that Hitchcock was not
technically proficient. One could give hundreds of examples
of Hitchcock's technical mastery. It takes more than a claim
by a highly self-regarding film 'expert' to make something true.
> ...
> I have learned a lot about Hitchcock by reading William's criticism of
> him over the years. ...
Maybe so, but you also have read a lot of nonsense, as a few
posts back when William claimed that Hitchcock was not
technically proficient. One could give hundreds of examples
of Hitchcock's technical mastery. It takes more than a claim
by a highly self-regarding film 'expert' to make something true.
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 7:52:55 AM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 12:25 AM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:02:38 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
> Some fucking
>> beatoff on Usenet tells us that Hitchcock, one of the most technically
>> proficient storytellers in the history of film, "fucked up" in a scene
>> in NbNW?
>
> Alfred Hitchcock was the director of numerous popular movies, but he wasn't "technically proficient" as a filmmaker. Fritz Lang -- who Hitch lifted from in his early days -- was a technically proficient filmmaker in that the look and feel of "Metropolis" is still inspiring filmmakers today and that a special effects method was developed that was used for decades.
William, I have to say, the thing I find most interesting about you is
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:02:38 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
> Some fucking
>> beatoff on Usenet tells us that Hitchcock, one of the most technically
>> proficient storytellers in the history of film, "fucked up" in a scene
>> in NbNW?
>
> Alfred Hitchcock was the director of numerous popular movies, but he wasn't "technically proficient" as a filmmaker. Fritz Lang -- who Hitch lifted from in his early days -- was a technically proficient filmmaker in that the look and feel of "Metropolis" is still inspiring filmmakers today and that a special effects method was developed that was used for decades.
that you seem to inhabit some alternate universe where Hitchcock is a
hack and film noir doesn't exist. Here's Hitch's wikipedia entry:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alfred_Hitchcock
Here's a quote:
> He pioneered the use of a camera made to move in a way that mimics a person's gaze, forcing viewers to engage in a form of voyeurism.[6] He framed shots to maximise anxiety, fear, or empathy, and used innovative film editing.[6]
Here's the guy the footnote refers to:
http://www.borgus.com/hitch/index.htm
This is just one guy, but if one were to compile a list of people quoted
as saying Hitch was highly inventive and technically skilled as a
filmmaker it would be approx. a mile long. I find you to be just an
incredibly elaborate troll, whose posts are usually of the variety of
"Hah! Made you look!"
The distribution rights to Lang's "Der Müd Tode" was purchased by
Douglas Fairbanks
so that Fairbanks could copy Lang's special effects and improve on
them for "Thief of Bagdad" before releasing Lang's film in the US. I've
seen in at least one recent book with the idea that Lang copied
Fairbanks. You may like Hitchcock's films but rarely -- after his silent
films -- did he do anything really stunning in terms of technical
proficiency. Most of his films look fake -- and I think it was
intentional -- with badly rendered monuments, shaky rear-projections,
and studio settings for what should be exteriors. "The Birds" looks
silly these days, "Metropolis" doesn't. Hitch is not Stanley Kubrick as
Stephen King isn't Henry James. You look at movies but you don't see
them. It's that simple. If there were a list of 25 technically
proficient filmmakers, Alfred Hitchcock wouldn't be on it.
http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/article/the_25_most_influential_directors_of_all_time_3358/
I can think of 5 Japanese directors that are more technically
proficient than Hitchcock, and then there's John Ford and DW Griffith
and . . .
>
repeating patterns. There must be some kind of neurosis--some variation
on OCD, probably--where subjective things are stated in qualitative and
absolute terms. You do this incessantly.
Mack A. Damia
May 16, 2012, 8:22:30 AM5/16/12
to
Anyway, the flaws are minor and only important to those who don't like
Hitchcock and who wish to find fault with his work.
It synergy - the whole is greater than the sum of its parts. Maybe
you can find fault with a certain part, but the whole is a
masterpiece. Where else would you find extreme danger in the middle
of a lonely corm field in the Hinterland? And the manner of that
danger? Where else would you find a climactic chase on a piece of
Americana: Mt. Rushmore?
I rest my case.
--
moviePig
May 16, 2012, 10:00:56 AM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 6:21 am, Heynonny <nos...@noway.com> wrote:
the answer is yes. And I'm avoiding the YouTube clip in question, in
hopes of escaping such a kick next time I watch NxNW.
gtr
May 16, 2012, 10:18:44 AM5/16/12
to
On 2012-05-16 11:29:18 +0000, trotsky said:
> calvin, you are entitled to your opinion, but, since I don't actually
> do drugs, I have no idea what that opinion is.
His opinion is that a participant here, or most of them are very very
> calvin, you are entitled to your opinion, but, since I don't actually
> do drugs, I have no idea what that opinion is.
bad people and need to be called names, and often.
moviePig
May 16, 2012, 10:24:20 AM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 7:52 am, trotsky <gmsi...@email.com> wrote:
> http://www.moviemaker.com/directing/article/the_25_most_influential_d...
potentially interesting Hitchcock discussion... maybe along the lines
of how he was seminal at techniques he gave a shit about, and lax at
ones he didn't.
>
> I can think of 5 Japanese directors that are more technically
> proficient than Hitchcock, and then there's John Ford and DW Griffith
> and . . .
>
>
>
> I've been on Usenet a long time, and after awhile you start to see
> repeating patterns. There must be some kind of neurosis--some variation
> on OCD, probably--where subjective things are stated in qualitative and
> absolute terms. You do this incessantly.
You know, somewhere in this thread, posterity may unearth a
> I can think of 5 Japanese directors that are more technically
> proficient than Hitchcock, and then there's John Ford and DW Griffith
> and . . .
>
>
>
> I've been on Usenet a long time, and after awhile you start to see
> repeating patterns. There must be some kind of neurosis--some variation
> on OCD, probably--where subjective things are stated in qualitative and
> absolute terms. You do this incessantly.
potentially interesting Hitchcock discussion... maybe along the lines
of how he was seminal at techniques he gave a shit about, and lax at
ones he didn't.
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 10:41:07 AM5/16/12
to
other, and as a right wing nutjob I don't feel he's qualified to make
those whatsoever.
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 10:45:29 AM5/16/12
to
On 5/16/12 9:24 AM, moviePig wrote:
> You know, somewhere in this thread, posterity may unearth a
> potentially interesting Hitchcock discussion... maybe along the lines
> of how he was seminal at techniques he gave a shit about, and lax at
> ones he didn't.
I strongly disagree. Other than sir william--and, apparently, you
> You know, somewhere in this thread, posterity may unearth a
> potentially interesting Hitchcock discussion... maybe along the lines
> of how he was seminal at techniques he gave a shit about, and lax at
> ones he didn't.
trying to throw him a bone--I can't find any evidence of any rational
human saying Hitch was "lax" as a filmmaker. My advice is that if you
want to throw him a bone you should meet him in person, if you catch my
drift.
Ironically, I've never been that big a fan of Hitchcock, but that's
mainly because the bulk of his movies were made before I started
watching movies as a youth. I have seen NbNW a couple of times and
enjoyed it immensely, for just about every reason you can enjoy a movie:
a tremendously clever script, excellent cast, excellent production
values, excellent direction. I don't see how anyone can see that movie
and find it highly memorable.
calvin
May 16, 2012, 10:46:28 AM5/16/12
to
William and Tom, but your unassailable logic stopped me
in time.
moviePig
May 16, 2012, 11:01:00 AM5/16/12
to
earlier in the thread, I've independently (of William) recalled what
seemed just acceptable matte work in Hitchcock movies. Similarly, I
remember the car chase in FAMILY PLOT as somewhat perfunctory. (Road
chases were then de rigeur, iirc.) But, in view of the concomitant
ample good stuff, those things don't bother me at all. In fact, I
almost hear Hitchcock saying, "Pay attention to the story, dolt." Is
it better if I say he might have been *deliberately* lax?
wlah...@gmail.com
May 16, 2012, 11:21:40 AM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:52:55 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
>
> > He pioneered the use of a camera made to move in a way that mimics a person's gaze, forcing viewers to engage in a form of voyeurism.[6] He framed shots to maximise anxiety, fear, or empathy, and used innovative film editing.[6]
>
The films of the weimar era started that. Wiki? Is that a joke,
>
> > He pioneered the use of a camera made to move in a way that mimics a person's gaze, forcing viewers to engage in a form of voyeurism.[6] He framed shots to maximise anxiety, fear, or empathy, and used innovative film editing.[6]
>
moviePig
May 16, 2012, 11:27:53 AM5/16/12
to
gtr
May 16, 2012, 11:29:11 AM5/16/12
to
any other topic.
calvin
May 16, 2012, 11:51:29 AM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 11:29 am, gtr <x...@yyy.zzz> wrote:
> Yes, but I was simply trying some up what is opinion is, on this and
> any other topic.
Thanks for clearing that up.
> Yes, but I was simply trying some up what is opinion is, on this and
> any other topic.
calvin
May 16, 2012, 12:26:55 PM5/16/12
to
'the witless and the wounded'. I think there's a theme here
that I'm missing.
Mack A. Damia
May 16, 2012, 1:00:34 PM5/16/12
to
watching "Red River". Mea culpa.
Mack A. Damia
May 16, 2012, 1:36:13 PM5/16/12
to
places smother it with garlic - and that's all you taste.
The other dish I don't like is gizzards. I remember going to a
dinner party hosted by an African couple on Staten Island back in the
early 1990s, and a dish with pieces of intestine was served. I had a
hard time getting through it. I've had chicken livers and gizzards
prepared St. Louis style, and they weren't too bad, but chewing on
calamari or intestines isn't my idea of fine dining.
--
Bill Anderson
May 16, 2012, 1:39:38 PM5/16/12
to
(yet another classic Usenet) thread. It's already been mentioned that
the partition behind Grant is no obstacle to a camera -- that little
gray wall can come and go as required. In fact, in reviewing the scene
at http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GcBBnPJEzo I spotted only one element
that hasn't already been discussed: Eva Marie Saint's lovely eyes.
Grant may have moved to his right, but her eyes still seem focused on
somebody directly across the table from her, somebody pressed up against
the window. Check it out at about the 0:34 mark; she is gazing straight
across the table. I say that if she's really looking at Grant, he
hasn't moved to his right and it's only the camera shooting from where
the partition used to be that gives that impression. Otherwise, if he
actually has moved to his right, Hitchcock has her continuing to look at
the spot where Grant should be sitting order to give an illusion that he
hasn't moved into a better position for the camera. (Technical
brilliance or sloppy cheating? You decide.)
Well, I guess that takes care of that.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 1:49:15 PM5/16/12
to
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 1:53:51 PM5/16/12
to
lax at all. Certainly in any creative process you would expect to be
more inspired some times rather than others. Beyond that, whatever
talent he displays is still subjective, and for william to *constantly*
speak in absolutes and opinions stated as facts it just helps degenerate
the discussion into nonsense. If you look at his report card, he (a)
has a very large knowledge of films, (b) has a childish way of
expressing his opinions, and goes out of his way to troll time and time
again with ridiculous double talk thrown in like "You're not worth my
time." I challenge you to conclude this guy has as many positives as
negatives.
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 1:55:11 PM5/16/12
to
(Was that from "Monty Python and the Holy Grail"? I can't remember
anymore.)
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 1:55:43 PM5/16/12
to
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 1:56:22 PM5/16/12
to
Obveeus
May 16, 2012, 1:57:58 PM5/16/12
to
"Bill Anderson" <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I spotted only one element that hasn't already been discussed: Eva Marie
> Saint's lovely eyes. Grant may have moved to his right, but her eyes still
> seem focused on somebody directly across the table from her, somebody
> pressed up against the window. Check it out at about the 0:34 mark; she
> is gazing straight across the table. I say that if she's really looking
> at Grant, he hasn't moved to his right and it's only the camera shooting
> from where the partition used to be that gives that impression.
> Otherwise, if he actually has moved to his right, Hitchcock has her
> continuing to look at the spot where Grant should be sitting order to give
> an illusion that he hasn't moved into a better position for the camera.
> (Technical brilliance or sloppy cheating? You decide.)
partition or held up where the partition used to be.
calvin
May 16, 2012, 1:59:23 PM5/16/12
to
On May 16, 1:39 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I've been out of town for a few days and I'm just catching up on this
> (yet another classic Usenet) thread. ...
> I've been out of town for a few days and I'm just catching up on this
Oh, you didn't miss much, just my usual lying.
Mack A. Damia
May 16, 2012, 2:05:40 PM5/16/12
to
there.
There's no doubt that both of them move, Bill. One moment she is in
the corner, the next, she's sitting in the middle of the seat. Same
with Grant. That's not "camera angle".
--
Wull
May 16, 2012, 2:35:55 PM5/16/12
to
"Mack A. Damia" <mybaco...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:14n7r7t1uqdtml7rd...@4ax.com...
Red River in light of your movie knowledge. It is definitely one of the
best westerns ever.
Wull
>
>
Wull
May 16, 2012, 2:42:08 PM5/16/12
to
news:quo7r7hfellv25vki...@4ax.com...
Then we can assume that you do not like polpo either?
Have you ever eaten Cajun dirty rice? That is usually made with chicken
liver as one of the ingredients.
But I am with you, I do not care for exotic foods. I do like much more than
the German food that I grew up with. Now where did I get the idea that this
is on topic, :-)
Wull
Have you ever eaten Cajun dirty rice? That is usually made with chicken
liver as one of the ingredients.
But I am with you, I do not care for exotic foods. I do like much more than
the German food that I grew up with. Now where did I get the idea that this
is on topic, :-)
Wull
John Doe
May 16, 2012, 3:19:24 PM5/16/12
to
Why doesn't somebody post a link to the video clip.
calvin
May 16, 2012, 3:48:46 PM5/16/12
to
Bill Anderson
May 16, 2012, 3:50:07 PM5/16/12
to
again:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GcBBnPJEzo
Mack A. Damia
May 16, 2012, 5:44:29 PM5/16/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:35:55 -0500, "Wull" <wma...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
You know, I've probably seen it and forgotten about it. After reading
the synopsis, it does sound familiar.
I enjoyed Westerns more when I was a kid. I wouldn't go far out of my
way to watch one now. Renting tapes and DVDs have made access much
easier, except I mentioned before about the dearth of good rentals in
this area.
My knowledge of movies comes from my age, not from studying the
history of film. I don't know as much as most in here.
--
wrote:
the synopsis, it does sound familiar.
I enjoyed Westerns more when I was a kid. I wouldn't go far out of my
way to watch one now. Renting tapes and DVDs have made access much
easier, except I mentioned before about the dearth of good rentals in
this area.
My knowledge of movies comes from my age, not from studying the
history of film. I don't know as much as most in here.
--
Mack A. Damia
May 16, 2012, 5:53:54 PM5/16/12
to
On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:42:08 -0500, "Wull" <wma...@sbcglobal.net>
wrote:
I couldn't touch anything that Googles to "Octopus vulgaris".
>Have you ever eaten Cajun dirty rice? That is usually made with chicken
>liver as one of the ingredients.
No, but deep fried tripe on a stick is served from vendors in St.
Louis, and I've tried that. Served with hot sauce. My
great-grandmother owned and operated a tripe shop in Lancashire,
England from 1900 until 1949. She sold tripe, brains, feet (trotters)
and the like.
>But I am with you, I do not care for exotic foods. I do like much more than
>the German food that I grew up with. Now where did I get the idea that this
>is on topic, :-)
Thread drift. You're not having a bad dream.
--
wrote:
>Have you ever eaten Cajun dirty rice? That is usually made with chicken
>liver as one of the ingredients.
Louis, and I've tried that. Served with hot sauce. My
great-grandmother owned and operated a tripe shop in Lancashire,
England from 1900 until 1949. She sold tripe, brains, feet (trotters)
and the like.
>But I am with you, I do not care for exotic foods. I do like much more than
>the German food that I grew up with. Now where did I get the idea that this
>is on topic, :-)
--
calvin
May 16, 2012, 6:09:06 PM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 5:53:54 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:42:08 -0500, "Wull" <wma...@sbcglobal.net>
> On Wed, 16 May 2012 13:42:08 -0500, "Wull" <wma...@sbcglobal.net>
> >But I am with you, I do not care for exotic foods. I do like much more than
> >the German food that I grew up with. Now where did I get the idea that this
> >is on topic, :-)
>
> Thread drift. You're not having a bad dream.
This thread was a bad dream when it was created.
> >the German food that I grew up with. Now where did I get the idea that this
> >is on topic, :-)
>
> Thread drift. You're not having a bad dream.
Mack A. Damia
May 16, 2012, 7:13:19 PM5/16/12
to
somebody's opinion is a "lie".
--
wlah...@gmail.com
May 16, 2012, 7:31:12 PM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 7:13:19 PM UTC-4, Mack A. Damia wrote:
>
> I don't know how we ever got to the point in human interaction that
> somebody's opinion is a "lie".
> --
If you really want to know, the thread title was a play on what's-his-name's book "Rush Limbaugh Is A Big Fat Idiot." I mis-recalled the title. It was supposed to be an obvious joke about calvin's politics. Oooops. My bad.
>
> I don't know how we ever got to the point in human interaction that
> somebody's opinion is a "lie".
> --
trotsky
May 16, 2012, 9:16:47 PM5/16/12
to
Tom
May 16, 2012, 9:29:06 PM5/16/12
to
On May 15, 11:27 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:08:56 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
> > On 5/15/12 10:39 PM, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > You are as big a joke as calvin is and that's where I want to leave it:
> > You and calvin entwined like blind lovers trying to describe the couch.
>
> > Tom, really, at some point you're going to have to cut sir william loose
> > for the sake of your own self respect. He's babbling like a brook at
> > this point.
>
> Mr. trotsky, I know we're only temporarily on the same
> side here, and this may sever even that slight connection;
> but I think you have William and Tom backwards in the
> sense of who is worse.
Worse than what you judgmental prick?
> William is sort of an innocent,
> in a way. He has a high I.Q. but the psychology of a
> spoiled brat child. His irrationality can drive you
> crazy, but he's all tantrum and huffiness, meaning no real
> harm.
Clearly, you are incapable of distinguishing between William's
straightforwardness and someone having a tantrum.
>Tom, on the other hand, has low I.Q. but a malevolent
> spirit. He's like a brownshirt goon or a KGB agent.
LOL! That's funny coming from someone who doesn't know the proper
usage of the word "blunder."
Here's where I graduated:
www.wustl.edu
I graduated with honors and was on the Dean's List eight out of eight
semesters. You couldn't get admitted to the weekend continuing
education classes there. I'll put my C.V. up against yours any day.
> He will
> harm someone as much as he can with whatever means he has.
You've played that card before. On the multiple occasions I've asked
you tell me how I've harmed you, you failed to provide one example. I
harmed someone in 7th grade once and have regretted it ever since. I
don't do harm to people, even people like you who deserve it.
> Fortunately here on usenet his weapons are limited to the
> meanness that his words and limited imagination can muster.
> But if you meet him in a dark alley somewhere when he has a
> real weapon, watch out.
I've never carried, let alone used a weapon of any kind. You're tin
foil hat is loose again, calvin.
Tom
> On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:08:56 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
> > On 5/15/12 10:39 PM, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> > You are as big a joke as calvin is and that's where I want to leave it:
> > You and calvin entwined like blind lovers trying to describe the couch.
>
> > Tom, really, at some point you're going to have to cut sir william loose
> > for the sake of your own self respect. He's babbling like a brook at
> > this point.
>
> Mr. trotsky, I know we're only temporarily on the same
> side here, and this may sever even that slight connection;
> but I think you have William and Tom backwards in the
> sense of who is worse.
Worse than what you judgmental prick?
> William is sort of an innocent,
> in a way. He has a high I.Q. but the psychology of a
> spoiled brat child. His irrationality can drive you
> crazy, but he's all tantrum and huffiness, meaning no real
> harm.
Clearly, you are incapable of distinguishing between William's
straightforwardness and someone having a tantrum.
>Tom, on the other hand, has low I.Q. but a malevolent
> spirit. He's like a brownshirt goon or a KGB agent.
LOL! That's funny coming from someone who doesn't know the proper
usage of the word "blunder."
Here's where I graduated:
www.wustl.edu
I graduated with honors and was on the Dean's List eight out of eight
semesters. You couldn't get admitted to the weekend continuing
education classes there. I'll put my C.V. up against yours any day.
> He will
> harm someone as much as he can with whatever means he has.
You've played that card before. On the multiple occasions I've asked
you tell me how I've harmed you, you failed to provide one example. I
harmed someone in 7th grade once and have regretted it ever since. I
don't do harm to people, even people like you who deserve it.
> Fortunately here on usenet his weapons are limited to the
> meanness that his words and limited imagination can muster.
> But if you meet him in a dark alley somewhere when he has a
> real weapon, watch out.
I've never carried, let alone used a weapon of any kind. You're tin
foil hat is loose again, calvin.
Tom
calvin
May 16, 2012, 10:22:26 PM5/16/12
to
On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 9:29:06 PM UTC-4, Tom wrote:
> On May 15, 11:27 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:08:56 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
> > > On 5/15/12 10:39 PM, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > You are as big a joke as calvin is and that's where I want to leave it:
> > > You and calvin entwined like blind lovers trying to describe the couch.
> >
> > > Tom, really, at some point you're going to have to cut sir william loose
> > > for the sake of your own self respect. He's babbling like a brook at
> > > this point.
> >
> > Mr. trotsky, I know we're only temporarily on the same
> > side here, and this may sever even that slight connection;
> > but I think you have William and Tom backwards in the
> > sense of who is worse.
>
> Worse than what you judgmental prick?
Hey, don't jump the gun. I hadn't got around to
> On May 15, 11:27 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Wednesday, May 16, 2012 12:08:56 AM UTC-4, trotsky wrote:
> > > On 5/15/12 10:39 PM, wlahe...@gmail.com wrote:
> >
> > > You are as big a joke as calvin is and that's where I want to leave it:
> > > You and calvin entwined like blind lovers trying to describe the couch.
> >
> > > Tom, really, at some point you're going to have to cut sir william loose
> > > for the sake of your own self respect. He's babbling like a brook at
> > > this point.
> >
> > Mr. trotsky, I know we're only temporarily on the same
> > side here, and this may sever even that slight connection;
> > but I think you have William and Tom backwards in the
> > sense of who is worse.
>
> Worse than what you judgmental prick?
your I.Q. deficiency yet.
> > William is sort of an innocent,
> > in a way. He has a high I.Q. but the psychology of a
> > spoiled brat child. His irrationality can drive you
> > crazy, but he's all tantrum and huffiness, meaning no real
> > harm.
>
> Clearly, you are incapable of distinguishing between William's
> straightforwardness and someone having a tantrum.
>
> >Tom, on the other hand, has low I.Q. but a malevolent
> > spirit. He's like a brownshirt goon or a KGB agent.
>
> LOL! That's funny coming from someone who doesn't know the proper
> usage of the word "blunder."
>
> Here's where I graduated:
>
> www.wustl.edu
>
> I graduated with honors and was on the Dean's List eight out of eight
> semesters. You couldn't get admitted to the weekend continuing
> education classes there. I'll put my C.V. up against yours any day.
when schools taught actual curricula, instead
of multiculturalism and political correctness.
> > He will
> > harm someone as much as he can with whatever means he has.
>
> You've played that card before. On the multiple occasions I've asked
> you tell me how I've harmed you, you failed to provide one example. I
> harmed someone in 7th grade once and have regretted it ever since. I
> don't do harm to people, even people like you who deserve it.
>
> > Fortunately here on usenet his weapons are limited to the
> > meanness that his words and limited imagination can muster.
> > But if you meet him in a dark alley somewhere when he has a
> > real weapon, watch out.
>
> I've never carried, let alone used a weapon of any kind. You're tin
> foil hat is loose again, calvin.
securely affixed.
reilloc
May 18, 2012, 11:16:54 AM5/18/12
to
On 5/15/2012 10:04 AM, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
>
> Am watching North by Northwest and in the dining car scene between Cary Grant and Eva Mary Saint, Grant magically changes seats while he's looking at the menu. When the camera is on Eva, Grant is in the outside seat, when it switches to feature Grant, he's in the window seat. This film has websites devoted to the mistakes in this film although none mention this glaring bit of sloppiness. Not as funny as the trees that wobble in the forest, but close. calvin, I'm not surprised that you can't appreciate the Mizoguchi tracking shot. Yet, the dining car scene in NxNW is film school stuff. To say that you watched this scene and denied Grant changes seats means you are either blind as a dead cat, are utterly dishonest about what you saw or you flat-out lied about watching the scene. Grant jumping seats goes on through the whole scene. My god you're a waste of time.
I used to be married to an actress. She was really good at it--on stage
and off. She's the one who told me about "cheating to the audience." (I
should have paid closer attention to the deeper meaning but that's my
fault.)
In this scene, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GcBBnPJEzo , the director
has to make Mr. Grant move to his right when Ms. Saint's talking so the
camera can shoot over his shoulder. Nobody really minds because they
want to see faces and listen to dialogue. Nobody really minds when
actors "cheat" on stage, either, unless they cheat so much they turn and
face the audience instead of the other actor to whom they're speaking.
Does the director's having shot this scene this way prove that he's not
a good "technical" director? Would a good technical director have had
the set built so Mr. Grant wouldn't have had to move or would he decide
that a little "cheating" for the sake of giving the audience what it
wants is okay?
For me, and only for me, the way the scene turned out doesn't bother me.
I'm not made dizzy by Ms. Saint's seemingly having to turn her head like
she's watching a tennis match throughout it. For others, it's apparently
a significant flaw; however, I would not agree that it's proof of
technical ineptitude.
What was the alternative? If rebuilding the set's not a possibility,
shooting the whole thing in profile and having the two "cheat" to the
camera? That would have been inferior movie making and proved worse than
a mere accusation of bad technique.
LNC
>
> Am watching North by Northwest and in the dining car scene between Cary Grant and Eva Mary Saint, Grant magically changes seats while he's looking at the menu. When the camera is on Eva, Grant is in the outside seat, when it switches to feature Grant, he's in the window seat. This film has websites devoted to the mistakes in this film although none mention this glaring bit of sloppiness. Not as funny as the trees that wobble in the forest, but close. calvin, I'm not surprised that you can't appreciate the Mizoguchi tracking shot. Yet, the dining car scene in NxNW is film school stuff. To say that you watched this scene and denied Grant changes seats means you are either blind as a dead cat, are utterly dishonest about what you saw or you flat-out lied about watching the scene. Grant jumping seats goes on through the whole scene. My god you're a waste of time.
I used to be married to an actress. She was really good at it--on stage
and off. She's the one who told me about "cheating to the audience." (I
should have paid closer attention to the deeper meaning but that's my
fault.)
In this scene, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GcBBnPJEzo , the director
has to make Mr. Grant move to his right when Ms. Saint's talking so the
camera can shoot over his shoulder. Nobody really minds because they
want to see faces and listen to dialogue. Nobody really minds when
actors "cheat" on stage, either, unless they cheat so much they turn and
face the audience instead of the other actor to whom they're speaking.
Does the director's having shot this scene this way prove that he's not
a good "technical" director? Would a good technical director have had
the set built so Mr. Grant wouldn't have had to move or would he decide
that a little "cheating" for the sake of giving the audience what it
wants is okay?
For me, and only for me, the way the scene turned out doesn't bother me.
I'm not made dizzy by Ms. Saint's seemingly having to turn her head like
she's watching a tennis match throughout it. For others, it's apparently
a significant flaw; however, I would not agree that it's proof of
technical ineptitude.
What was the alternative? If rebuilding the set's not a possibility,
shooting the whole thing in profile and having the two "cheat" to the
camera? That would have been inferior movie making and proved worse than
a mere accusation of bad technique.
LNC
wlah...@gmail.com
May 18, 2012, 11:48:30 AM5/18/12
to
On Friday, May 18, 2012 11:16:54 AM UTC-4, reilloc wrote:
>
> What was the alternative? If rebuilding the set's not a possibility,
> shooting the whole thing in profile and having the two "cheat" to the
> camera? That would have been inferior movie making and proved worse than
> a mere accusation of bad technique.
>
The alternative is find a way that doesn't interrupt the flow of the scene. Granted, it's minor but I find it typical of Hitchcock and once I become reminded of the camera, I'm knocked out of the movie. His films are all surface and rarely is there a look and feel to the film that exists beyond the actors and while we're at it, there is rarely an acting performance in a Hitchcock film that goes beyond what is necessary. He could have shot the scene with Grant and Saint anywhere on the train rather than the problematic dining room car. The whole point of Grant being in the corner is that he's hiding because he's wanted as the UN killer. So he hides in the dinning car? That scene could have had a lot added to it with him in a more believable hiding spot.
>
> What was the alternative? If rebuilding the set's not a possibility,
> shooting the whole thing in profile and having the two "cheat" to the
> camera? That would have been inferior movie making and proved worse than
> a mere accusation of bad technique.
>
gtr
May 18, 2012, 12:59:56 PM5/18/12
to
On 2012-05-18 15:16:54 +0000, reilloc said:
> I used to be married to an actress. She was really good at it--on stage
> and off. She's the one who told me about "cheating to the audience." (I
> should have paid closer attention to the deeper meaning but that's my
> fault.)
Can you explain "cheating to the audience" if it doesn't demand
> I used to be married to an actress. She was really good at it--on stage
> and off. She's the one who told me about "cheating to the audience." (I
> should have paid closer attention to the deeper meaning but that's my
> fault.)
villifying me or other participants at rampf? Pardon me if this has
been well covered while embedded in personal vitriol; I've been trying
to avoid the bile.
> In this scene, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3GcBBnPJEzo , the
> director has to make Mr. Grant move to his right when Ms. Saint's
> talking so the camera can shoot over his shoulder. Nobody really minds
> because they want to see faces and listen to dialogue.
it as a 50's thing), but I find it very irritating because I can tell,
mammal that I am, that they count not be looking one another in the
eye. It's like watching people read cue cards on SNL, it breaks my
concentration.
> Nobody really minds when actors "cheat" on stage, either, unless they
> cheat so much they turn and face the audience instead of the other
> actor to whom they're speaking.
that time I never noticed anyone feigning a locked gaze that was a
"cheat". You say that stage actors do that?
> For me, and only for me, the way the scene turned out doesn't bother
> me. I'm not made dizzy by Ms. Saint's seemingly having to turn her head
> like she's watching a tennis match throughout it. For others, it's
> apparently a significant flaw; however, I would not agree that it's
> proof of technical ineptitude.
discussing Hitchcock. I just now that when I see this explicitly
off-axis faces that I notice and it the mimesis--for me.
> What was the alternative? If rebuilding the set's not a possibility,
> shooting the whole thing in profile and having the two "cheat" to the
> camera? That would have been inferior movie making and proved worse
> than a mere accusation of bad technique.
perceive* as problems. *IF* one can pick their own problems, then they
will then pick their own solutions. It's easy for me to say from my
vantage point, but rather than pick an innovative escape from a
cul-de-sac I prefer never to have entered it.
reilloc
May 18, 2012, 1:33:09 PM5/18/12
to
On 5/18/2012 11:59 AM, gtr wrote:
> On 2012-05-18 15:16:54 +0000, reilloc said:
>
>> I used to be married to an actress. She was really good at it--on
>> stage and off. She's the one who told me about "cheating to the
>> audience." (I should have paid closer attention to the deeper meaning
>> but that's my fault.)
>
> Can you explain "cheating to the audience" if it doesn't demand
> villifying me or other participants at rampf? Pardon me if this has been
> well covered while embedded in personal vitriol; I've been trying to
> avoid the bile.
You goddam, motherfucking, moro...oh, you said not to do that. Well, the
> On 2012-05-18 15:16:54 +0000, reilloc said:
>
>> I used to be married to an actress. She was really good at it--on
>> stage and off. She's the one who told me about "cheating to the
>> audience." (I should have paid closer attention to the deeper meaning
>> but that's my fault.)
>
> Can you explain "cheating to the audience" if it doesn't demand
> villifying me or other participants at rampf? Pardon me if this has been
> well covered while embedded in personal vitriol; I've been trying to
> avoid the bile.
way I remember her explaining it was that you want the audience to see
as much of the front of your face as you can, so, you can either
"upstage" the other actor or turn your head as far as you can get away
with it toward the audience while you're speaking.
That's probably either simplistic or somehow wrong but I'm not an actor
and she's not here to tell us.
LNC
calvin
May 18, 2012, 1:36:14 PM5/18/12
to
On Friday, May 18, 2012 11:48:30 AM UTC-4, wlah...@gmail.com wrote:
> The alternative is find a way that doesn't interrupt the flow of the scene. Granted, it's minor but I find it typical of Hitchcock and once I become reminded of the camera, I'm knocked out of the movie. ...
I'm sure one could find many worse transgressions than
this one in movies made by directors whom you revere.
But limiting this to NxNW, I already mentioned one worse
example, the seaside cliffs on Long Island. Another
comes near the end, when Grant is outside Mason's house
behind Mt. Rushmore, looking through the glass with his
face clearly visible to anyone inside who happened to look
in his direction, and also clearly hearing the conversation
even though it is a quiet one on the other side of the
glass. These things should knock one (any nitpicker)
out of the movie much more readily than the dining car
scene.
The content of the dining car scene, by the way, which is
significantly more than in the clip shown here, with Saint
revealing to Grant that she knows that he is running from
the police, and why, far and away drowns out the stuff
that you quibbled about. You're completely without
perspective in your zeal to discredit Hitchcock.
> The alternative is find a way that doesn't interrupt the flow of the scene. Granted, it's minor but I find it typical of Hitchcock and once I become reminded of the camera, I'm knocked out of the movie. ...
I'm sure one could find many worse transgressions than
this one in movies made by directors whom you revere.
But limiting this to NxNW, I already mentioned one worse
example, the seaside cliffs on Long Island. Another
comes near the end, when Grant is outside Mason's house
behind Mt. Rushmore, looking through the glass with his
face clearly visible to anyone inside who happened to look
in his direction, and also clearly hearing the conversation
even though it is a quiet one on the other side of the
glass. These things should knock one (any nitpicker)
out of the movie much more readily than the dining car
scene.
The content of the dining car scene, by the way, which is
significantly more than in the clip shown here, with Saint
revealing to Grant that she knows that he is running from
the police, and why, far and away drowns out the stuff
that you quibbled about. You're completely without
perspective in your zeal to discredit Hitchcock.
reilloc
May 18, 2012, 1:43:33 PM5/18/12
to
remade--and they'll do it, give them time--maybe they'll get it perfect.
LNC
wlah...@gmail.com
May 18, 2012, 1:44:08 PM5/18/12
to
On Friday, May 18, 2012 1:33:09 PM UTC-4, reilloc wrote:
>
> That's probably either simplistic or somehow wrong but I'm not an actor
> and she's not here to tell us.
>
Besides upstaging and other bad habits of stage actors, the "cheating" is essential to stage productions where the angle from which the exchange is viewed can be drastically different depending on where one is seated. Obviously, this isn't a problem with films. So, if you're doing a play in the round, how dialog or whatever will be blocked (or staged) will be different than a play staged with a small seating capacity or a proscenium theatre where the audience is more spread out but still essentially in front of the stage. So, if you're sitting closer to the stage, you might see one actor delivering a line somewhat off center. Yet in the middle of the house it plays normally or at least looks natural.
>
> That's probably either simplistic or somehow wrong but I'm not an actor
> and she's not here to tell us.
>
moviePig
May 18, 2012, 2:35:58 PM5/18/12
to
abus.) My annoyance at "cheating" was pretty well deflated by reading
about the filming of the Cinerama epic HOW THE WEST WAS WON. The
original triple-camera and -projector so distorted the angles within a
scene, that:
"...the actors had to contend with the strange blocking that
Cinerama required. If they acted out a scene the way they normally
would, the eyelines and body language would be all wrong. In order for
it to appear convincing in Cinerama, they were forced to perform
otherwise normal scenes like avant-garde absurdist theater, facing
away from and looking past their costars."
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
wlah...@gmail.com
May 18, 2012, 2:41:59 PM5/18/12
to
On Friday, May 18, 2012 2:35:58 PM UTC-4, moviePig wrote:
> "...the actors had to contend with the strange blocking that
> Cinerama required. If they acted out a scene the way they normally
> would, the eyelines and body language would be all wrong. In order for
> it to appear convincing in Cinerama, they were forced to perform
> otherwise normal scenes like avant-garde absurdist theater, facing
> away from and looking past their costars."
>
Be that as it may, Hitchcock wasn't "cheating" because the scene is distracting and not at all natural which it would be had he succeeded. Two different things. And that is pretty much my feeling about Hitchcock, he's the Douglas Sirk of suspense. It's all surface and plot and not much else.
> "...the actors had to contend with the strange blocking that
> Cinerama required. If they acted out a scene the way they normally
> would, the eyelines and body language would be all wrong. In order for
> it to appear convincing in Cinerama, they were forced to perform
> otherwise normal scenes like avant-garde absurdist theater, facing
> away from and looking past their costars."
>
It is loading more messages.
0 new messages