John Milus and SK
R.A. Freeman
Just a general query. I recently unearthed a interview in a defunt UK
film magazine called "Cinema" (It was an off shoot of Starburst with many
of the same writers contributing articles and criticism). In #3 of the mag,
theres an interview with John Milius at about the time Conan The Barbarian
was going to be released. In it, the interviewer asks about a rumoured
project with Stanley K., Milius replied that he's still in discussion with
SK. Does anyone have more info about this?
FAQ
Bilge Ebiri
I'd suspect SK was perhaps interested (albeit briefly) in getting Milius to
help out on FMJ. I can't remember the timeline of CTB vs. FMJ right off the
bat, but it seems to me that around this time SK would have been focused
primarily on FMJ at this point in his career.
That said, I'm glad Milius didn't get involved...
love,
Bilge.
R.A. Freeman wrote in message <6k9c41$ia4...@leeds.ac.uk>...
Lewis Thomas
Glad Milius wasn't involved? What the Hell? Milius is a fucking great
screenwriter, Apocalypse Now is a far superior film to FMJ. FMJ lacks
scope, new ideas and vision. It is also one of the most inaccurate
potaryal of NAM. I'm not saying it's a bad film, its an excellent film
in fact, but Milius is a well respected writer to anyone who understands
and appriciates film, Kubrick wanted Milius to do an edit on the script,
but he was too busy - Milius would have definatley have brought
something positive to the film.
LEJACKAL
>>Glad Milius wasn't involved? What the Hell? Milius is a fucking great
>screenwriter, Apocalypse Now is a far superior film to FMJ.
I'm not sure if AN is 'far superior' as you say, but I'll agree that Milius
would never let that two-act structure stand. FMJ is a brilliant film in its
own right, but AN is >the< definitive film about the vietnam experience. Milius
would have surely contributed some much need diolouge and a disciplined
narrative structure. - Alex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
pp00...@mindspring.com
PAB...@leeds.ac.uk (R.A. Freeman) wrote:
>Just a general query. I recently unearthed a interview in a defunt UK
>film magazine called "Cinema" (It was an off shoot of Starburst with many
>of the same writers contributing articles and criticism). In #3 of the mag,
>theres an interview with John Milius at about the time Conan The Barbarian
>was going to be released. In it, the interviewer asks about a rumoured
>project with Stanley K., Milius replied that he's still in discussion with
>SK. Does anyone have more info about this?
>
>FAQ
I believe the project is to be a sequel to "Red Dawn" featuring a more
mature, beefed up C. Thomas Howel.
Bilge Ebiri
Lewis Thomas wrote in message <35686025...@virgin.net>...
>Glad Milius wasn't involved? What the Hell? Milius is a fucking great
>screenwriter, Apocalypse Now is a far superior film to FMJ. FMJ lacks
>scope, new ideas and vision. It is also one of the most inaccurate
>potaryal of NAM.
Have you actually read Milius's original draft of the AN script? Have you
read the other scripts he has written? Have you seen the films he has made?
I'm assuming you have. If that constitutes a great body of work, then we
have a difference of opinion here.
> I'm not saying it's a bad film, its an excellent film
>in fact, but Milius is a well respected writer to anyone who understands
>and appriciates film,
Well, thanks for the tolerance there, fella. Like I said, we disagree. I'm
sure we both understand film pretty well, my personal opinion of FAREWELL TO
THE KING, CONAN THE BARBARIAN, FLIGHT OF THE INTRUDER, and RED DAWN
notwithstanding.
>Kubrick wanted Milius to do an edit on the script,
>but he was too busy - Milius would have definatley have brought
>something positive to the film.
>
Obviously Kubrick saw something in Milius that was worthwhile and it's quite
possible that whatever he brought to the script might indeed have been
worthwhile. I think the script of FMJ as it stands, written by Michael Herr
and Kubrick, however, is impeccable. IMVFHO.
love,
Bilge.
R.A. Freeman
In article <35686025...@virgin.net>,
Lewis Thomas <lewis....@virgin.net> wrote:
>Glad Milius wasn't involved? What the Hell? Milius is a fucking great
>screenwriter, Apocalypse Now is a far superior film to FMJ. FMJ lacks
>scope, new ideas and vision. It is also one of the most inaccurate
>potaryal of NAM.
In Heroes (Pan 1989), the journalist John Pilger briefly discusses the
various films that had been made about Vietnam. As well as dismissing claims
of authenticity of Michael Cimimo for "The Deer Hunter", he recounts a rather
strange anaecdote of a US journalist (I think from the magazine Mother Jones)
who wrote to Milius to ask where he got the story of the NVA cutting off the
arms of vaccinated Vietnamese children. Milius replied by sending her a card
from a US death squad and a 'poem' on how he felt about journalists (if
memory serves me goes something like this, "We will kill them all, pad after
pad, pen after pen", etc and ends with the line "No dialogue with communist
criminals"). So much for Milus and criticism.
>I'm not saying it's a bad film, its an excellent film
>in fact, but Milius is a well respected writer to anyone who understands
>and appriciates film, Kubrick wanted Milius to do an edit on the script,
>but he was too busy - Milius would have definatley have brought
>something positive to the film.
The only Milius film I've really enjoyed is Conan The Barbarian. A good
screenwriter-maybe. As a director, I can't recall anything he's done of
note... but then C5 is showing Red Dawn tonight - the film the Guniness book
of Records once described as the most violent ever made...;)
FAQ
JimWebb 66
>From: Lewis Thomas
>Glad Milius wasn't involved? What the Hell? Milius is a fucking great<BR>
>screenwriter, Apocalypse Now is a far superior film to FMJ. FMJ lacks<BR>
>scope, new ideas and vision.
the only thing fmj is missing is the drug "cliche" that every nam
film tried to throw at us. the one think it does have is absolute realism (in
geat abundance). kubrick didnt comprimise on the charicterization- he didnt
powder up the plot to make it more commercial (>pla-TOON<)-what you see is what
you get, there are no good people or bad people, just real people with real
ideas and feelings.
Phil Noir
I've spoken to a couple of Marines, and they each cited FMJ as the
definitive example of a the most accurate basic training/combat
experiences ever put to film.
Does this make it the "best?" Who cares? it's the best to us.
Padraig L Henry
>Glad Milius wasn't involved? What the Hell? Milius is a fucking great
>screenwriter,
Yes, we know that. That is not the point.
> Apocalypse Now is a far superior film to FMJ. FMJ lacks
>scope, new ideas and vision. It is also one of the most inaccurate
>potaryal of NAM.
On the contrary.
Padraig
Padraig L Henry
On 24 May 1998 19:00:51 GMT, leja...@aol.com (LEJACKAL) wrote:
> FMJ is a brilliant film in its
>own right, but AN is >the< definitive film about the vietnam experience. Milius
>would have surely contributed some much need diolouge and a disciplined
>narrative structure. - Alex
>~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Apocalypse Now may be about many things, but Vietnam ain`t one of
them.
Padraig
JimWebb 66
>From: Phil Noir <phil...@earthlink.net><BR>
>I've spoken to a couple of Marines, and they each cited FMJ as the<BR>
>definitive example of a the most accurate basic training/combat<BR>
>experiences ever put to film. <BR>
><BR>
>Does this make it the "best?" Who cares? it's the best to us.<BR>
>Who cares? it's the best to us.<BR>
>Who cares? it's the best to us.<BR>
>Who cares? it's the best to us.<BR>
BULLSEYE @ !!!
LEJACKAL
Apocolypse Now may be about many things, but Vietnam ain`t one of
them.
I totally agree with you. I should have clarified that. What I meant was
that Apocolypse Now is as you say it is, but that Full Metal Jacket is a film
that >needs< a sense of structure during the last 40 mins. Full Metal Jacket is
a chilling and realistic experience, but comparitivly Apocolypse Now is just
something totally different; sort of like a Fellini film. --- Alex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
John Benjamin Strelow
Lewis Thomas <lewis....@virgin.net> wrote:
>Glad Milius wasn't involved? What the Hell? Milius is a fucking great
>scope, new ideas and vision. It is also one of the most inaccurate
>in fact, but Milius is a well respected writer to anyone who understands
>and appriciates film, Kubrick wanted Milius to do an edit on the script,
>but he was too busy - Milius would have definatley have brought
>something positive to the film.
I don't understand why you say FMJ is an inaccurate portrayal of Vietnam.
A number of veterans have hailed it as an accurate portrayal of both the
boot camp experience and urban warfare.
And how is _Apocalypse Now_ accurate? It's an incredibly surreal film,
hardly a realistic portrayal of anything. There is no intrinsic value in
"accuracy", anyway.
As to which film is superior, I much prefer Kubrick's taut focus and vast
philosophical scope to Coppola's psychedelic ramblings. To me,
_Apocalypse Now_'s lack of focus is its greatest defect, what keeps it a
good film, but keeps it from being a great film.
John Strelow
jstr...@ucla.edu
Dan Mann
I think you Kubrick fans should broaden your views a little. Kubrick is
good, but he's not the only director worth talking about, its without
question that the guy is a friggin genius.
I can't understand why all people want to know about is what directors
admire Kubrick, and why his films are better than anyone elses. I know
this is a Kubrick group, don't blag at me sacrcastically, because I'll
lay the fuck into you.
This is my opinion IN SHORT:
The reason I prefer Apoc. Now to FMJ is that visually it is not simply
'unbelievable' in scope and everthing else, but it is a film that goes
beyond what happened in NAM, it shows us what it was actually like from
the marines POV and also delves deeper into human phycology, mans
undoing and violent nature. It takles unanswerable questions head on
with no pretention what so ever. Every aspect of the film is
increadible, acting, writing, editing, music. The film is near perfect.
FMJ is more lighthearted, less deep. Its brilliant, and it does concern
itself with 'authenticity' of the boot camp etc. But the second half
just seems like a well though out series of cool moments and shootouts.
I'm not mocking the film, I'm just saying its not as deep. I love
Kubrick, most of his films show us the 'skin' and on screen each shot is
near perfection, what I also like about him is that he lets the soul of
the film - whats below the skin - stay, and for anyone whos interested
they can study it. A Clockwork Orange is a perfect example.
And yes I have read Milius' drafts on Apoc Now. Why? They were superb.
Can anyone tell me why you think Kubrick is a better director than
Scorsese? I think Marty is THE director of this and any other
generation.
David Culpepper
don't blag at me sacrcastically, because I'll
>lay the fuck into you.
I'm shiverin', really intimidated.
it shows us what it was actually like from
>the marines POV and also delves deeper into human phycology, mans
>undoing and violent nature
What Marines? I don't recall many Marines in AN. I saw Army and Navy.
Learn how to spell.
Moby2001
>>I believe the project is to be a sequel to "Red Dawn" featuring a more
mature, beefed up C. Thomas Howel.<<
Man, he made "Gettysburg" just a few years ago and despite the fake beard he
still don't look very mature or beefed up. Oh, wait. You were joking! ;-)
M4RV1N
> Dan Mann, in:
><6kf1nt$iqq$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>
trolls:
>I think you Kubrick fans should broaden your views a little.
Really? Okay, I've just changed my views on not responding to ignorant types
who drop in on this newsgroup.
>Kubrick is
>good, but he's not the only director worth talking about
True. That's why we often talk about Kurosawa, Godard, Welles, Fellini,
Truffaut, Renoir, Bergman, Resnais, Herzog, Altman, Gilliam, Tati, Hitchcock,
Kieslowski, Bunuel, etc.
And by the way, Kubrick is "good" like Shakespeare was a "good" writer.
>I can't understand why all people want to know about is what directors
>admire Kubrick
It tells us something. As does your post.
> I know
>this is a Kubrick group, don't blag at me sacrcastically, because I'll
>lay the fuck into you.
You make me laugh. "Lay the fuck into us"? I think you're wanted back on
alt.insecure.inferioritycomplex.moron.
>This is my opinion IN SHORT:
Yes it is. And narrow.
>The reason I prefer Apoc. Now to FMJ
<snipped gibberish>
>, it shows us what it was actually like from
>the marines POV
I have spoken to three Vietnam vets who all said the opposite. Until recently
there was a FMJ website which had post after post by vets who said Kubrick's
film was the most realistic depiction of that war. The vets I spoke to talked
of the intense resonance with Joker's anguish at killing the sniper, the split
second loss of a friend, the agonizing boredom, the constant shift of
leadership, and the feeling of being lost. Of the other Vietnam films, the one
they mentioned most was not "Apocalypse Now", it was "Hamburger Hill". For
more on FMJ's realism, see my post in the "Godard on FMJ" thread (back there at
the end of last month).
>and also delves deeper into human phycology,
Ah yes. The study of algae. Yes, there is quite a bit of fungus, mold and
algae on the Conrad in "Apocalypse Now".
(this line is the only reason I wanted to respond to this post :) )
>Can anyone tell me why you think Kubrick is a better director than
>Scorsese? I think Marty is THE director of this and any other
>generation.
No, I don't think I could tell >you<. You forgot a couple words in the last
sentence. Scorsese is the most overrated director of this or any other
generation. (Although a few more films like "Cape Fear" and "Kundun" and he'll
lose that title to Coppola.)
Mark Ervin
Dan Mann
David Culpepper, nice.
>
LEJACKAL
I know
this is a Kubrick group, don't blag at me sacrcastically, because I'll
lay the fuck into you.
Well fuck you, too! What gives you the right to talk to us like that? I'll
tell you what, why don't you start a topical thread on the pleasures of 'laying
into us', this way the entire thread thread can evolve around your infantile
machoism, and we won't have to read any more of your idiotic posts.
---- Alex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
geoffrey alexander
In article <199805260317...@ladder01.news.aol.com>,
jimw...@aol.com (JimWebb 66) wrote:
Which makes it, indeed, the best. We all have many divergent opions (and
differences of same) but what most impresses me is that our general
consensus here is pretty faultless.
And p.s. I've never met a vet either (of any political persuaion) who did
not find FMJ uncannily accurate.
g.
geoffrey alexander
>
> Can anyone tell me why you think Kubrick is a better director than
> Scorsese? I think Marty is THE director of this and any other
> generation.
"Taxi Driver" (and "Raging Bull" as well perhaps, though its not as
compelling for me personally) are as good as anything Kubrick has ever done
aside from 2001, but I think some measure of his success with those films
was due to some good fortune (the kind thast allowed to Kubrick to make
2001 a transcendent masterpiece even aside from any consideration of the
medium). He is far too inconsistent; and even though, when after taking
away the failures, near misses, and mediocrities, we are left with more
great films than constitute many others' successful careers, it's hard to
extrapolate from that observation it its merely a matter of his beeing too
prolific -- to ready to make a film before it should be made, if at all (a
sense of restraint Kubrick maintains in vast measure)...
Scorsese >has< genius, but he doesn't >possess< it, if you catch my drift.
At least not to the extent as does another director I could name.....
g.
geoffrey alexander
In article <6kf1nt$iqq$1...@nclient3-gui.server.virgin.net>,
lewis....@virgin.net wrote:
> This is my opinion IN SHORT:
> The reason I prefer Apoc. Now to FMJ is that visually it is not simply
> 'unbelievable' in scope and everthing else, but it is a film that goes
> beyond what happened in NAM, it shows us what it was actually like from
> the marines POV and also delves deeper into human phycology, mans
> undoing and violent nature. It takles unanswerable questions head on
> with no pretention what so ever. Every aspect of the film is
> increadible, acting, writing, editing, music. The film is near perfect.
I would same the >exact< same thing regarding FMJ, and perhaps would even
choose not to qualify that adjective in you last sentence....
g.
Dan Mann
Geoff (mind if I call you Geoff),
Interesting. I was a little confused reading the posts, but after
about the third time I kinda caught the drift. Uh, well, how come I can
name more class films made by Scorsese than I can by Kubrick. Why is it
that Scorsese seems to tackle a message, where-as Kubrick seems to be
more concerned with framing the shot to the nearest millimetre, and how
come Scorsese can change his style to suit different genre, yet keep his
prints all over his films, when Kubrick does the same things,
(techniques which were discussed in another post) all the time. And how
come early Kubrick films have already started to date, when nothing
Scorsese has ever done has dated.
These aren't rhetorical questions.
Dan.
David Culpepper
P.S. I'm not exactly a vet, I'm active duty. From most of my peers
perspective, FMJ is the "best" of the three NAM flims. In fact, we use it
in training junior officers.
Tobasco
John Benjamin Strelow
Dan Mann <"Dan.Mann"@Mann Co.UK> wrote:
>Geoff (mind if I call you Geoff),
I am not Geoff, but I will respond anyway.
> Interesting. I was a little confused reading the posts, but after
>about the third time I kinda caught the drift. Uh, well, how come I can
>name more class films made by Scorsese than I can by Kubrick.
Perhaps you are thinking of _Boxcar Bertha_?
> Why is it
>that Scorsese seems to tackle a message, where-as Kubrick seems to be
>more concerned with framing the shot to the nearest millimetre,
No matter what you think of Kubrick's films, the notion that he does not
concern himself with "messages" or significant themes is infantile. What
great themes has Scorsese tackled? Kubrick's films are insights into
human nature. Scorsese's films are insights into their particular
characters.
>and how
>come Scorsese can change his style to suit different genre, yet keep his
>prints all over his films, when Kubrick does the same things,
>(techniques which were discussed in another post) all the time.
I suggest you looks at Kubrick's films with an open mind. Form and
function are conjoined completely. The lighting, editing, and camera
movement correspond perfectly with each film's genre. Do you really
think that Kubrick does the same things in _Dr. Strangelove_ as he does
in _Barry Lyndon_? I don't think so.
> And how
>come early Kubrick films have already started to date, when nothing
>Scorsese has ever done has dated.
You must be thinking of _Boxcar Bertha_ again. I would venture that none
of Kubrick's films have dated; contrarily, they have gained meaning and
significance over the years.
John Strelow
jstr...@ucla.edu
David Culpepper
Dan Mann <"Dan.Mann"@Mann Co.UK> > wrote in message
<6kk85f$q3q$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>...
>Uh, well, how come I can >name more class films made by Scorsese >than I
can by Kubrick.
I consider that "Bambi Meets Godzilla" is a class flick. Anyone can argue
til they're blue in the face and I'm not changing my mind. I have my own
bias as to what "class" is. And there isn't a person posting in this or any
other ng that dosen't have their own as well.
Being a flexible kinda guy, I try to adjust my biases as I learn, but some
things just aren't negotiable. And I have learned that sometimes we just
have to agree to disagree. (isn't that right Zach?)
>Why is it >that Scorsese seems to tackle a message, where-as >Kubrick seems
to be >more concerned with framing the shot to the >nearest millimetre,
"The medium is the message" as SK paraphrased McLuhan, as posted in another
thread. SK is a cameraman, it's integral to his art. Scorese knows more
about camerawork than 99% of the rest of the world, but SK is an order of
magnitude above any other filmmaker I know of in this regard. Precision is
part of SK's method of conveying a story (message).
>And how >come early Kubrick films have already started to date, >when
nothing >Scorsese has ever done has dated.
Back it up. What's dated and according to whose opinion?
>These aren't rhetorical questions.
>
Maybe not rhetorical, but they sure do beg the question.
I get real bored real fast with all this "the greatest this" and "the
greatest that" crap (Muhammad Ali being the only exception). Somebody tell
me what the greatest tree is. Or the greatest fish. Or the greatest musical
chord. Can somebody tell me whether Everest is a "better" mountain than K2?
Or if PiCcAsO is a "better" painter than Rembrandt?
These are rhetorical questions and statements.
Tobasco
Wolfds
Dan Mann writes:
>Geoff (mind if I call you Geoff),
>
> Interesting. I was a little confused reading the posts, but after
>about the third time I kinda caught the drift. Uh, well, how come I can
>name more class films made by Scorsese than I can by Kubrick. Why is it
>that Scorsese seems to tackle a message, where-as Kubrick seems to be
>more concerned with framing the shot to the nearest millimetre, and how
>come Scorsese can change his style to suit different genre, yet keep his
>prints all over his films, when Kubrick does the same things,
>(techniques which were discussed in another post) all the time. And how
>come early Kubrick films have already started to date, when nothing
>Scorsese has ever done has dated.
>These aren't rhetorical questions.
>
>
They may not be rhetorical, but they are invariably based on false assumptions.
I love Scorsese, too, but the short shrift you pay Kubrick reveals more about
yourself than it does the director.
Dr. Strangelove, if anything, has become even more trenchant and hilarious over
its 35+ years.
The Shining and 2001 are clearly timeless pieces of art which will be studied
as long as there is film.
The Killing is still among the top ten or twenty noirs ever.
A Clockwork Orange is dated like 1984 is dated.
Re the "messages" that are so supposedly lacking in Kubrick's films: Perhaps
you are missing the boat? There are so many messages in all his films, he just
doesn't beat the viewer over the head with them. He relies on the audience to
figure it out (which apparently causes confusion in some cases).
"Keep it in your mind and don't forget that it is not he, she, them, or it that
you belong to"
Bob Dylan
"Even Richard Nixon has got soul"
Neil Young
"Time is a jet plane, it moves too fast"
Bob Dylan
JimWebb 66
ok folks . dan mann is right .scorcesce is better than kubrick. lets all drop
our guns and follow him of the cliff,we cant win,lil marty is too powerfull.
sorry dan, if you watch sienfeld you would have learned that you cant make
people change teams. you got your opinions and we got ours . end of story.
geoffrey alexander
In article <6kkq5o$e...@bgtnsc02.worldnet.att.net>, "David Culpepper"
<dc...@worldnet.att.net> wrote:
> Dan Mann <"Dan.Mann"@Mann Co.UK> > wrote in message
> <6kk85f$q3q$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>...
> >Uh, well, how come I can >name more class films made by Scorsese >than I
> can by Kubrick.
>
> I consider that "Bambi Meets Godzilla" is a class flick. Anyone can argue
> til they're blue in the face and I'm not changing my mind. I have my own
> bias as to what "class" is. And there isn't a person posting in this or any
> other ng that dosen't have their own as well.
> Being a flexible kinda guy, I try to adjust my biases as I learn, but some
> things just aren't negotiable. And I have learned that sometimes we just
> have to agree to disagree. (isn't that right Zach?)
>
>
> >Why is it >that Scorsese seems to tackle a message, where-as >Kubrick seems
> to be >more concerned with framing the shot to the >nearest millimetre,
>
> "The medium is the message" as SK paraphrased McLuhan, as posted in another
> thread. SK is a cameraman, it's integral to his art. Scorese knows more
> about camerawork than 99% of the rest of the world, but SK is an order of
> magnitude above any other filmmaker I know of in this regard. Precision is
> part of SK's method of conveying a story (message).
>
>
> >And how >come early Kubrick films have already started to date, >when
> nothing >Scorsese has ever done has dated.
>
> Back it up. What's dated and according to whose opinion?
>
> >These aren't rhetorical questions.
> >
>
>
> Maybe not rhetorical, but they sure do beg the question.
>
> I get real bored real fast with all this "the greatest this" and "the
> greatest that" crap (Muhammad Ali being the only exception). Somebody tell
> me what the greatest tree is. Or the greatest fish. Or the greatest musical
> chord. Can somebody tell me whether Everest is a "better" mountain than K2?
> Or if PiCcAsO is a "better" painter than Rembrandt?
> These are rhetorical questions and statements.
> Tobasco
I >am< geoff, and yes you may call me that, and if I'd time, I'd say pretty
much what everyone has already, in response to your post (though I >might<
be more polite about it....:) but everyone's post I've read so far pretty
much covers it.....
not that we've >finished< --
...by any means......
g.
Wolfds
> Dan Mann <"Dan.Mann"@Mann Co.UK> > wrote in message
>> <6kk85f$q3q$1...@nclient5-gui.server.virgin.net>...
I forgot to mention (in an earlier response) why I find this question prima
facie absurd, even if true (which it is not). Stanley Kubrick's first film was
in 1955, Scorsese's almost twenty years later. What next, Mr. Mann? A
dissertation (or, more likely, just a lot of huffing and puffing) on why Fritz
Lang is overrated, since some of his early stuff has begun to date?
Dan Mann
David Culpepper wrote:
Bollocks. Any vet knows that Apoc.Now is REAL. FMJ is a movie. My
old man is a vet, a day don't go by when he doesn't remind me of this.
Dan Mann
JimWebb 66 wrote:
Are you foriegn, or completely stoned? I don't watch fucking
Sienfeld because its shit.
Dan Mann
> Any one who doesn't know what a good film is is plain stupid. A good
> film is a good film. Opinion comes into it of course, but good is
> good, shit is shit. Something that is meaningless, pointless, or
> purly made for money/ligh entertainment is a waste of time effort and
> money. Shit.
It easy. Bambi vs Godzilla is shit. Taxi Driver or Dr. Strangelove are
class.Fuck, it don't take a friggin genius to work it out!
Dan Mann
> A Clockwork Orange has dated like a mouldy cheese. Its still good
> though, has a very interesting point and on the whole, if you can
> ignore the fact it's dated, it's a superb film, well made.
The Killing is brilliant, but it's dated like a shrivled prune. That
annoying fucking v.o!
Paths of Glory, Sparticus Killers Kiss, Lolita, 2001(just!) - they've
all dated.
Taxi Driver Dr. Stranglove
Raging Bull 2001
Goodfellas A Clockwork Orange
King Of Comedy The Shining
Mean Streets The Killing
Casino Sparticus
Color of Money FMJ
After Hours Barry Lyndon
Cape Fear
Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
Last temptation of Christ
Last Waltz
LOOK - Scorsese has more 'good' films than Kubrick! End of story.
Michael Stanley
>Taxi Driver Dr. Stranglove
>Raging Bull 2001
>Goodfellas A Clockwork Orange
>King Of Comedy The Shining
>Mean Streets The Killing
>Casino Sparticus
>Color of Money FMJ
>After Hours Barry Lyndon
>Cape Fear
>Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore
>Last temptation of Christ
>Last Waltz
>
>LOOK - Scorsese has more 'good' films than Kubrick! End of story.
Granted. You do make a very legitimate and good point however;
Scorsese - 5ft 4inches
Kubrick - 5ft 9inches
No fuckin' contest man, no fuckin' contest.......
(ad nauseam)
JimWebb 66
>JimWebb 66 wrote:<BR>
><BR>
>> ok folks . dan mann is right .scorcesce is better than kubrick. lets<BR>
>> all drop<BR>
>> our guns and follow him of the cliff,we cant win,lil marty is too<BR>
>> powerfull.<BR>
>> sorry dan, if you watch sienfeld you would have learned that you cant<BR>
>> make<BR>
>> people change teams. you got your opinions and we got ours . end of<BR>
>> story.<BR>
>From: Dan Mann <"Dan Mann"@Mann.co.UK><BR>
> Are you foriegn, or completely stoned? I don't watch fucking<BR>
>Sienfeld because its shit.<BR>
sorry if you didnt get the humor in the sienfeld part ,it
was a bit of a joke.
LEJACKAL
Re: Dan Mans idiotic post:
Scorsese has more 'better' films than Kubrick so that makes him better? That
would make Terrance Malick the greatest film-maker of all time with just two
films? :)You don't even give us complete list of the films by each director to
look at, and then you expect us to see the logic in your inane post?
Scorsese worships the ground Kubrick walks on (it's well noted), so I'm
sure he would be the first to admit that your illogical post is beyond
stupifying. By the way, the 'other' films you failed to list are as follows:
Scorsese:
What's A Nice Girl Like You Doing In A Place Like This? (student film)
It's Not Just You, Murray! (student film)
ItalianAmericana (doc.)
American Boy (doc.)
The Big Shave (student film)
Boxcar Bertha (full-lengh feature)
Who's that Knocking At My Door? (full-lengh feature)
Street Scenes (doc.)
Kubrick:
Day Of The Fight (RKO screenliner series)
Flying Padre (RKO screenliner series)
Seafarers (doc.)
Fear And Desire (full-lengh feature)
And yes, I've seen >all< these films (except Seafarers), so I guess that
makes me 'better' than you, right? :)
p.s. You spelled Spartacus incorrectly.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rod Munday
Perhaps we can get Dan the Man and Thurston together and then the rest
of us can go hide behind a rock like Raquel Welch in "One Million Years
BC" while these 2 dinosaurs fight to the death.
Rod :)
Rod Munday
My advice is, stop injecting testosterone directly into the vein, you'll
feel a lot calmer about things.
Rod
Michael Stanley
LEJACKAL wrote in message
<199805310700...@ladder03.news.aol.com>...
He didn't mention the inept efforts that are Lolita and Paths of Glory
either, other than that I'd say his analysis was pretty near faultless.
Wolfds
leja...@aol.com writes:
And included Scorsese's "Cape Fear" among his list of >>good<<
films. If it were not for "The Fan," it would easily be DeNiro's worst.
Padraig L Henry
On 31 May 1998 07:00:10 GMT, leja...@aol.com (LEJACKAL) wrote:
>Re: Dan Mans idiotic post:
> By the way, the 'other' films you failed to list are as follows:
>
>Scorsese:
>What's A Nice Girl Like You Doing In A Place Like This? (student film)
>It's Not Just You, Murray! (student film)
>ItalianAmericana (doc.)
>American Boy (doc.)
>The Big Shave (student film)
>Boxcar Bertha (full-lengh feature)
>Who's that Knocking At My Door? (full-lengh feature)
>Street Scenes (doc.)
AND not forgetting :
New York, New York
New York Stories
A Personal Journey With Martin Scorsese Through American Movies
The Age Of Innocence
Kundun
To my mind this last film is Scorsese`s most ambitious and innovative
- if not his best film to date. But >comparing< Scorsese with Kubrick
vis, for instance, Age of Innocence and Barry Lyndon only serves to
highlight their formal differences, not some crude, ego-centered and
insular pecking order ... Indeed, Age of Innocence and Kundun are the
closest Scorsese has come to emulating Kubrickian aesthetic and
metaphysical cinematic strategies (Medium=Message, etc).
And Kundun is clearly a Scorsese movie. Like all of his films, it
positions the dynamics of its central concerns - the structure of
power - within a tradition-laden patriarchal society violently
threatened with potential extinction. And while we all know that
Scorsese studied for the priesthood before finding his true vocation,
Kundun (like The Last Temptation of Christ before it) represents an
aesthetic and spiritual convergence: the power and philosophy of
passive resistance, focussing on the expression of a culture (Tibetan
Buddhism) where aesthetics are inseparable from spirituality. In the
film colour and texture are fully integrated with gesture and meaning.
Kundun is one of those rare films where the meaning is embodied in the
form. As Amy Taubin stated in a recent interview with Scorsese, "When
the Dalai Lama says that line about past, present and future being one
- its Buddhism, but its also about editing. It sounds like Dziga
Vertov: `The Kino-eye is a victory over time`."
Just when my faith in contemporary film-making was reaching a low ebb
along comes Kundun (and The Butcher Boy: both even share the same
brilliant DoP, Roger Deakins). Kundun does mirror films like Taxi
Driver, Goodfellas and Casino, but whereas the latter portray worlds
completely devoid of spiritual values, Kundun implores us to meditate
on such values in its odyssey through the second half of the twentieth
century. In Taxi Driver`s Travis Bickle`s explosion of sociopathic
rage and Goodfellas` Henry Hill`s drug-induced paranoia we witness the
mirror perversions of the Dalai Lama`s spiritual transendence.
And it is Cameron`s innocent archetype, Georges Melies, who Scorsese
chooses for the Dalai Lama`s first encounter with film, a work of
imagination and magic. Lesser talents would have chosen the
sensationalist Lumiere Brothers` L`Arrivee d`un train en gare de La
Ciotat or some such platitudinous anachronism. But Cameron is no
Scorsese, and while Kundun can be criticised, like Titanic, for its
simplistic script (Mathison wrote it), it`s left to Scorsese to remind
us that modern technology can be used to create totally new worlds,
new colours for the palette, and can use cinema`s inherent potential
to expand its form in ways that few film-makers have the courage or
the ability to achieve.
And its no coincidence, then, that Scorsese chose Philip Glass to
compose the score. After Scorsese saw Mishima and Koyaanisqatsi he
noted that "One day I would love to be able to make a film that would
cry out for a score by Philip Glass ... I like the emotional power of
his music, and yet the music is intellectually disciplined". And Glass
admitted that he had waited twenty years to write such a score.
Glass`s three-act opera from 1980, Satyagraha (meaning: passive,
non-violent resistance), concerns itself with the period Ghandi spent
in South Africa (1893-1914). Each act takes a historical figure as a
sort of spiritual guardian (Leo Tolstoy, Rabindranath Tagore, and
Martin Luther King Jr) representing the past, present and future of
Satyagraha; and just like Kundun, Satyagraha is about both historical
time and politics, and how to be truly civilised in a gratuitously
hostile, indifferent world: how to be holy in an unholy world.
Critic David Denby`s review of Kundun mistakenly suggested that you
can`t make a movie about Buddhism because it`s too passive, you are
only "allowed" to make action movies. He mustn`t like Kubrick so.
Scorsese`s response to this is, "It`s like this conversation I had
with Elia Kazan a few years ago. He said, "Yes, I can make pictures
with plots and the normal traditional action. But what if you do
something that`s passive? Can you make a film about passive
characters, where inaction is action? Then you really see if you can
go inside the mind and the heart." How many years more must we just
do act one, act two, act three? Polish cinema has done something
else. Kieslowski has. And Russian cinema. There`s a new Sokurov film
that Paul Schrader told me about <Mother and Son>. This is also
cinema. Why can`t America make cinema like that? ... I wish I could
find another project like this one <Kundun> one day."
I have to say that I agree completely with Scorsese`s sentiments here
(though Scorsese is, as ever, being way too modest - Hollywood movies
have always been predicated on acts of violence), though he might also
have included Kubrick as a master of the cinema of inaction. And
Angelopoulos, among others. And, more recently, Iranian film-maker,
Abbas Kiarostami, whose superb A Taste of Cherry won last year`s Palme
d`or at Cannes.
Apart from Kubrick, no other major American director of the past few
decades has managed to make films like The Last Temptation of Christ
and Kundun >within< the studio system. Scorsese is virtually alone
among directors of the past 30 years who is still succeeding in making
highly personal, passionate and dynamic work. (Most of the rest have
either burnt-out or sold-out ... :--( ).
Padraig
Ironic that it was also Denby who recently lamented, in April`s issue
of The New Yorker, the systematic degeneration of the role and ethos
of the film critic. And Boorman`s latest issue of Projections is also
devoted to the issue, which, according to Sight and Sound, maintains
that a "conspiracy of lickspittle colleagues, unintelligent movies and
gullible youth has made the critics` role almost redundant." But
Graham Green made similar complaints back in 1936 in that very same
magazine, decades before the politique des auteurs emerged. So where
does that leave us ... ? (So is David Thompson America`s best film
commentator these days?)
"Nobody up here pays attention to film reviews ... most of the written
word has gone the way of the dinosaur." -----Bruce "Dick-Head" Willis
John Benjamin Strelow
path...@iol.ie (Padraig L Henry) wrote:
>Kundun
>
>To my mind this last film is Scorsese`s most ambitious and innovative
>- if not his best film to date. But >comparing< Scorsese with Kubrick
>vis, for instance, Age of Innocence and Barry Lyndon only serves to
>highlight their formal differences, not some crude, ego-centered and
>insular pecking order ... Indeed, Age of Innocence and Kundun are the
>closest Scorsese has come to emulating Kubrickian aesthetic and
>metaphysical cinematic strategies (Medium=Message, etc).
Would you not also say that _Taxi Driver_ approaches the Kubrickian
aesthetic? As you point out below, Scorsese often examines the structure
of power, and especially how the people within it create that structure
and are manipulated by it. Often, the structure is very focussed, such
as in _GoodFellas_. In _Taxi Driver_, it seems to me that the structure
attempts to implicate all of society, which is to me a more Kubrick-esque
approach. _Casino_ seems similar to me.
Or do I misunderstand what you mean by "Kubrickian aesthetic and
metaphysical cinematic strategies"?
>And Kundun is clearly a Scorsese movie. Like all of his films, it
>positions the dynamics of its central concerns - the structure of
>power - within a tradition-laden patriarchal society violently
>threatened with potential extinction. And while we all know that
>Scorsese studied for the priesthood before finding his true vocation,
>Kundun (like The Last Temptation of Christ before it) represents an
>aesthetic and spiritual convergence: the power and philosophy of
>passive resistance, focussing on the expression of a culture (Tibetan
>Buddhism) where aesthetics are inseparable from spirituality. In the
>film colour and texture are fully integrated with gesture and meaning.
>Kundun is one of those rare films where the meaning is embodied in the
>form. As Amy Taubin stated in a recent interview with Scorsese, "When
>the Dalai Lama says that line about past, present and future being one
>- its Buddhism, but its also about editing. It sounds like Dziga
>Vertov: `The Kino-eye is a victory over time`."
I agree that _Kundun_ is clearly Scorsese. The conflict between the
spirit and the flesh, which has concerned Scorsese dating back to _Mean
Streets_ if not _Who's That Knocking On My Door?_ (which I have not
seen), is polarized in the conflict between Tibet and China.
Though the aesthetics of Tibetan culture may be inseparable from
spirituality, is it true that the aesthetics of the film are inseparable
from its spirituality? Scorsese's camera has typically been wild in its
exploration of the forces which fight against spirituality: the red
colored bar of _Mean Streets_, the uninhibited tracking shots of mob
pleasures in _GoodFellas_, the cinematic fireworks revealing mistrust,
greed, and betrayal in _Casino_. Does the style of editing and
camerawork and _Kundun_ work to a different purpose?
>Just when my faith in contemporary film-making was reaching a low ebb
>along comes Kundun (and The Butcher Boy: both even share the same
>brilliant DoP, Roger Deakins). Kundun does mirror films like Taxi
>Driver, Goodfellas and Casino, but whereas the latter portray worlds
>completely devoid of spiritual values, Kundun implores us to meditate
>on such values in its odyssey through the second half of the twentieth
>century. In Taxi Driver`s Travis Bickle`s explosion of sociopathic
>rage and Goodfellas` Henry Hill`s drug-induced paranoia we witness the
>mirror perversions of the Dalai Lama`s spiritual transendence.
And yet in all these cases, Scorsese's depiction of these worlds utilizes
the same sort of camerawork and editing.
>And it is Cameron`s innocent archetype, Georges Melies, who Scorsese
>chooses for the Dalai Lama`s first encounter with film, a work of
>imagination and magic. Lesser talents would have chosen the
>sensationalist Lumiere Brothers` L`Arrivee d`un train en gare de La
>Ciotat or some such platitudinous anachronism. But Cameron is no
>Scorsese, and while Kundun can be criticised, like Titanic, for its
>simplistic script (Mathison wrote it), it`s left to Scorsese to remind
>us that modern technology can be used to create totally new worlds,
>new colours for the palette, and can use cinema`s inherent potential
>to expand its form in ways that few film-makers have the courage or
>the ability to achieve.
It is _Kundun_'s script that I find its greatest weakness. Talk of
aesthetics is fine, but there is also content with which to deal.
Unexplained scenes of Tibetan ritual, while visually beautiful, do
nothing to bring me closer to the characters; they only increased my
separation. Scorsese's images often overcome this: the Dalai Lama's
dream sequence in which he is surrounded my slain Tibetans packs more
emotional punch for me than all the scenes of slaughtered or drowned
bodies in such films as _Titanic_ and _Braveheart_ combined. The closing
images of the Dalai Lama looking back at his lost land are also beautiful
and effective. But much of the sorrow I felt was the regret that I did
not better understand the world he was leaving, so that I could feel his
pain even more.
>Critic David Denby`s review of Kundun mistakenly suggested that you
>can`t make a movie about Buddhism because it`s too passive, you are
>only "allowed" to make action movies. He mustn`t like Kubrick so.
>Scorsese`s response to this is, "It`s like this conversation I had
>with Elia Kazan a few years ago. He said, "Yes, I can make pictures
>with plots and the normal traditional action. But what if you do
>something that`s passive? Can you make a film about passive
>characters, where inaction is action? Then you really see if you can
>go inside the mind and the heart." How many years more must we just
>do act one, act two, act three? Polish cinema has done something
>else. Kieslowski has. And Russian cinema. There`s a new Sokurov film
>that Paul Schrader told me about <Mother and Son>. This is also
>cinema. Why can`t America make cinema like that? ... I wish I could
>find another project like this one <Kundun> one day."
Denby's assertion seems incredibly short-sighted. And yet Scorsese's
question, "Why can't American make cinema like that?" begs an answer.
Perhaps it is because people think like David Denby. Perhaps there is
some cultural difference. But I do not think that is it. I have no
doubt that if you played Kieslowski's _Blue_ to everyone who has seen
_Titanic_, most would be moved more by Kieslowski's piece. It explains
less, and audiences feel more. Truth is not in the think of it, but in
the feel, as our distinguished Stanley K. would say.
>I have to say that I agree completely with Scorsese`s sentiments here
>(though Scorsese is, as ever, being way too modest - Hollywood movies
>have always been predicated on acts of violence), though he might also
>have included Kubrick as a master of the cinema of inaction. And
>Angelopoulos, among others. And, more recently, Iranian film-maker,
>Abbas Kiarostami, whose superb A Taste of Cherry won last year`s Palme
>d`or at Cannes.
In other contexts, Scorsese does include Kubrick as such a master. In
his massive documentary (I have only seen the book version), Scorsese
remarks how _Barry Lyndon_ is one of the most emotional movies he has
ever seen. To me, that film is probably the best balance ever of the
think of it and the feel of it, creating a profound experience unmatched
by almost all of cinema.
>Apart from Kubrick, no other major American director of the past few
>decades has managed to make films like The Last Temptation of Christ
>and Kundun >within< the studio system. Scorsese is virtually alone
>among directors of the past 30 years who is still succeeding in making
>highly personal, passionate and dynamic work. (Most of the rest have
>either burnt-out or sold-out ... :--( ).
I think there are a few others, but none as skilled as either Kubrick or
Scorsese. I respect Oliver Stone, for instance. He too has made
personal and passionate films within the studio system. That he is not
quite as good as Kubrick and Scorsese should not detract from the talent
he does have.
Of course, Stone came perilously close to selling out, had he followed De
Palma's path and made _Mission Impossible 2_.
John Strelow
jstr...@ucla.edu
David Culpepper
Dan Mann <"Dan Mann"@Mann.co.UK> > wrote in message
<357009CE...@Mann.co.UK>...
>Bollocks. Any vet knows that Apoc.Now is REAL. FMJ is a movie.
>
Smile when you say that, you pollywog landlubber.
Tobasco
David Culpepper
I'm in the process of moving and just got my puter hooked up. I've decided
that this our man dan thread is a lot better than the top ten lists.
:-) (-:
Tobasco
A proud Golden Shellback
Bambi meets Godzilla rules! (or is it the other way around?)
Martin Cannon
JimWebb 66 wrote:
>
> >From: Dan Mann <"Dan.Mann"@Mann Co.UK><BR>
>
> >Can anyone tell me why you think Kubrick is a better director than<BR>
> >Scorsese?
>
>
> becouse kubrick
> makes better films than scorsese.
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Competitive rankings of this
sort are appropriate for a discussion of sports, not a discussion of
art.
Padraig L Henry
On 28 May 1998 06:16:47 GMT, geof...@iavalley.cc.ia.us (geoffrey
alexander) wrote:
>"Taxi Driver" (and "Raging Bull" as well perhaps, though its not as
>compelling for me personally) are as good as anything Kubrick has ever done
>aside from 2001, but I think some measure of his success with those films
>was due to some good fortune (the kind thast allowed to Kubrick to make
>2001 a transcendent masterpiece even aside from any consideration of the
>medium). He is far too inconsistent; and even though, when after taking
>away the failures, near misses, and mediocrities, we are left with more
>great films than constitute many others' successful careers, it's hard to
>extrapolate from that observation it its merely a matter of his beeing too
>prolific -- to ready to make a film before it should be made, if at all (a
>sense of restraint Kubrick maintains in vast measure)...
>
>Scorsese >has< genius, but he doesn't >possess< it, if you catch my drift.
>At least not to the extent as does another director I could name.....
Yes, Scorsese did fall into the director-for-hire trap (Cape Fear made
more money than any of his other films), and such a detour has been a
painful exercise for him ever since Raging Bull was passed over by the
press on its initial release. But this seems to be changing: He was in
Dublin recently (en route to Cannes) where he gave a workshop which I
attended and he repeatedly emphasised that he is not going to make
movies like Cape Fear any more ie., ones driven by market-values and
by a conservative or reactionary narrative. He says, "I`m getting
bored, I don`t like working for someone else. Doing someone else`s
movie is a hard job." Though the brutal irony is that Cape Fear gave
him the resources to make Age of Innocence and Kundun.
Good evening, Dr Faustus.
Padraig
Padraig L Henry
Addendum
Zach has just pointed out that Adrian Biddle, not Roger Deakins, was
DoP on The Butcher Boy. There`s another one to add to the Missing
Marine and Hallorann`s Missing Arm, Dudes ...
Padraig
Zach Ralston
Don't worry, you're still batting over .900
It was a terrific post, again well-written, eloquent, intellectual, but
never condescending. We love you, Paddy. Give us a hug.
-zach
"All work and no play makes Zach a dull boy."
Brian Miller
Padraig L Henry <path...@iol.ie> wrote in article
<35739b19...@news.iol.ie>...
>Though the brutal irony is that Cape Fear gave
> him the resources to make Age of Innocence and Kundun.
>
> Good evening, Dr Faustus.
>
> Padraig
>
Just as in the brutal irony that Creep gave Radiohead the resources to make
The Bends and OK Computer.
Brian Miller
tak
In article <35700CA5...@Mann.co.UK>, "DanMann"@Mann.co.UK says...
>
>LOOK - Scorsese has more 'good' films than Kubrick! End of story.
Pure, radiant ignorance such as yours is a rare and beautiful thing.
Cultivate it. Let it grow into a shining, full blown stupidity. Cherish it,
Danny-boy. It's all you've got going for you.
Mt
cine...@hknet.com
LMAO. The true meaning of being *laid the fuck into* is about to
become clear.
The waters of idle uninformed film comparison are shark-infested, Dan.
Piss and paddle in them at your own risk.
derek
Dan Mann
tak wrote:
Pure, radiant ignorance such as yours is a rare and beautiful thing.
Cultivate it. Let it grow into a shining, full blown
stupidity. Cherish it, Danny-boy. It's all you've got going for you.
Mt
Thanks for this personal e-mail, I enjoyed recieving it. I havn't seen
your name on the thread, so I assume you don't
know the entire story. I prefer Scorsese as a film-maker to Kubrick,
although I do have a huge amount of respect for
Kubrick, and have defended him when needed against all the other nasty
film buffs. A genuinely interesting guy, I admire
the man.
A point was reached where I had to stop the pointless bickering and
make a bold statement, I think it worked, another
subject started getting discussed, one which I backed away from.
I'll asume you're either gay or a girl. If you're gay then I'll
ignore the comment, if you're female I'd like an apology, and
I'd also like some oral relief. I am a real film maker, based in the
UK, if you play your cards right I may think about
letting you on my crew as 'oral relief girl,' of course that depends on
your sucking ability.
Finally my 'stupidity and igorance' is not all I have going for me,
you don't know what type of person I am, you can't
possibly judge me on one or even a thousand messages, unless of course
you are joking. You don't know me at all, and
unless you spend years living in the same house you never will. The
same as you to me, I don't know you, I don't even
know your name, you at least have the advatage of knowing mine.
Respect.
Dan Mann.
LEJACKAL
Dan Mann foolishly writes:
>Thanks for this personal e-mail, I enjoyed recieving it. I havn't seen
>know the entire story. I prefer Scorsese as a film-maker to Kubrick,
>although I do have a huge amount of respect for
Kubrick, and have defended him when needed against all the other nasty
film buffs. A genuinely interesting guy, I admire
>the man.
> A point was reached where I had to stop the pointless bickering and
make a bold statement, I think it worked, another
subject started getting discussed, one which I backed away from.
I'll asume you're either gay or a girl. If you're gay then I'll
>ignore the comment, if you're female I'd like an apology, and
I'd also like some oral relief. I am a real film maker, based in the
UK, if you play your cards right I may think about
>letting you on my crew as 'oral relief girl,' of course that depends on
your sucking ability.
Finally my 'stupidity and igorance' is not all I have going for me,
>you don't know what type of person I am, you can't
possibly judge me on one or even a thousand messages, unless of course
>you are joking. You don't know me at all, and
unless you spend years living in the same house you never will. The
>same as you to me, I don't know you, I don't even
know your name, you at least have the advatage of knowing mine.
>Respect.
>Dan Mann.
You've just pissed off the wrong person. Trust me. tak@passport (Mark) can
lay into someone better than anyone else on this newsgroup. Prepare to be
flamed. Jesus, you're sad little man. ---- Alex
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Rod Munday
DAN THE MANN
In angry solitude and puffed up silence after the act, you bask in the
applause of your own masturbatery standing ovations and fawning sticky
fingered encores, but behind the edifices you construct to protect
yourself, and lurking in the shadows caste out by your fetid impotent
scream of hate death is waiting, staring back at you biding its time as
it always has done, whispering you are nothing, you are nothing, you are
nothing.
No respect
Rod
Wolfds
Dan Mann writes:
>I do have a huge amount of respect for
>Kubrick, and have defended him when needed against all the other nasty
>film buffs. A genuinely interesting guy, I admire
>the man.
For which I'm sure he's eternally grateful.
> A point was reached where I had to stop the pointless bickering and
>make a bold statement,
You have mistaken "bold" for "stupid." Confusing quantity and quality (and
adding a "nah nah" to boot) was not challenging, it was idiotic. And I tried
to watch Scorsese's Cape Fear again; maybe none of Scorsese's films have dated
but there's at least one that plain sucked (maybe Cape Fear can be your oral
relief girl).
>I'll asume you're either gay or a girl.
What part of the original post led you to this conclusion? Nothing I read
betrayed any of these qualities. Perhaps you have some hang-ups you haven't
worked out
>I am a real film maker, based in the
>UK,
I sure hope more intelligence and imagination go into your films than what
you've shown here.
Dave
Dan Mann
Listen Dave, you tit, you better watch 'ew fuckin' back right mush, oh I
see I'm gonna havta go outta my way to fuck your waste of a life up big
time right mush. Watch ew fucking back now right, I'm onto yew.
Fuck you.
Dan Mann.
Dan Mann
> You've just pissed off the wrong person. Trust me. tak@passport (Mark)
> can
> lay into someone better than anyone else on this newsgroup. Prepare to
> be
> flamed. Jesus, you're sad little man. ---- Alex
> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Oh I am terrified of jungle man. Ape-boy really has me shaking in my
boots, prositiute killing fuck. You feel good now some guy has come
along with some funny bullshit to lay on me, you pathetic fucking
cocksucker. Do the dirt yourself pussy boy!
Fuck you and everyone you know.
Dan Mann.
Dan Mann
You've just pissed off the wrong person. Trust me. tak@passport (Mark) can
lay into someone better than anyone else on this newsgroup. Prepare to be
flamed. Jesus, you're sad little man. ---- Alex
Dan Mann
Rod Munday wrote:
ROD -sticking outta your friggin head. I can't be fucked to say
anything to your sorry fucking asshole.
Fuck you.
Dan Mann.
Dan Mann
> You've just pissed off the wrong person. Trust me. tak@passport (Mark)
> can
> lay into someone better than anyone else on this newsgroup. Prepare to
> be
> flamed. Jesus, you're sad little man. ---- Alex
Dan Mann
You've just pissed off the wrong person. Trust me. tak@passport (Mark) can
lay into someone better than anyone else on this newsgroup. Prepare to be
flamed. Jesus, you're sad little man. ---- Alex
Wolfds
Again, all the intelligence we've come to expect...
And, I better watch my back...and you're going to "fuck" my waste of a life?
Some latent homosexuality on your part, perhaps, Dan?
Dave
Rod Munday
.......Well I'm not surprised you can't think of anything to say to
me...... You who would be wise to value intelligence for other reasons
than just film appreciation. :)
There is nothing you can say to me, because you have nothing to tell
except fear. Death is stalking all of us, but some of us attempt to
>think< our way through the maelstrom and summon the strength to not be afraid......
Dan, I can see that you are afraid: afraid of your sexuality, your
death, your power, and its lack.... that's why you pray so hard at the
altar of these things - this is your paradox, and why you are
anti-intelligence - the power of mind threatens to unravel your
fortress, doesn't it?
That's the sordid shame of living....Potence all to soon becomes
impotence, strength withers, all this and more is your fate and
mine.....
But so what. Dan the Mann so what. So what?
Still no respect.
--
Rod Munday
Legz3
Dan (Mann),
Take it someplace else, won't you? This has got nothing to do with AMK, or
any of us poor fools who agree to meet here with some civility. You can surely
find a more appropriate outlet, and it's anywhere but here. Enough!
Jeff Westerman
Padraig L Henry
>DAN THE MANN
>
>In angry solitude and puffed up silence after the act, you bask in the
>applause of your own masturbatery standing ovations and fawning sticky
>fingered encores, but behind the edifices you construct to protect
>yourself, and lurking in the shadows caste out by your fetid impotent
>scream of hate death is waiting, staring back at you biding its time as
>it always has done, whispering you are nothing, you are nothing, you are
>nothing.
>
>No respect
>
>Rod
Even Vincent Price would have great difficulty surpassing that :--).
Any relation?
Padraig
Anyway, isn`t Van Morrison the real Van The Man.
Dan Mann
Legz3 wrote:
Oh I am sorry sir. Please may I go to the toilet? Why would i even
think about listening to a guy who put my second name in brackets.
Dan Mann
> Dan, I can see that you are afraid: afraid of your sexuality, your
> death, your power, and its lack.... that's why you pray so hard at the
>
> altar of these things - this is your paradox, and why you are
> anti-intelligence - the power of mind threatens to unravel your
> fortress, doesn't it?
>
> That's the sordid shame of living....Potence all to soon becomes
> impotence, strength withers, all this and more is your fate and
> mine.....
>
> But so what. Dan the Mann so what. So what?
>
> Still no respect.
> --
>
> Rod Munday
Are you getting this shit out of a book or something? I can imagine
you have many friends and lovers. You poor poor fart.
Dan Mann
I would enjoy it if we ended this thread now. It's getting boring.
I'll start it up with a new discussion:
Why Francis Ford Coppola has sold out:
In my opinion, Coppola did three great films during the 70's. Actually,
I'd even say they were classics, forever cemented in the annuls of
filmic history, classic films. Power, meaning, thought, commitment,
they have the qualities of the best movies of all time. Iam am of course
talking about Apocylipse Now, and the first two Godfathers.
He also made The Coversation which is brilliant, a great character film.
Then:
The fat fuck sold out. Did he get scared? Did he loose all talent, did
he run out of steam or ideas I don't know. I think he burned himself
out, knew he'd never make another film on anywhere near the scale of his
70's epics. So he decided that he'd done his part in film history, and
that he'd dawdle his way through the rest of his career directing shit.
He's making a living sure, but he's not doing anything worthy of his
greatness. As a genius (which I would say he is) he gains my respect.
Now, I loath the dick.
Anybody disagree?
Dan Mann.
Geoffrey Alexander
Dan Mann <"Dan Mann"@Mann.co.UK> wrote in article
<3579819C...@Mann.co.UK>...
He's getting it out of John Milius, in case you haven't noticed. Or, to be
specific, a rather dead-on parody. Kudos, Roderick.
g.
David Culpepper
Oh well, time to start ignoring dan again...
Greg Lowry
Wolfds wrote:
Why don't you kids take this discussion to email and save the rest of us from
it?
Geoffrey Alexander
Dan Mann <"Dan Mann"@Mann.co.UK> wrote in article
> Rod Munday wrote:
>
> > DAN THE MANN
> >
> > In angry solitude and puffed up silence after the act, you bask in the
> >
> > applause of your own masturbatery standing ovations and fawning sticky
> >
> > fingered encores, but behind the edifices you construct to protect
> > yourself, and lurking in the shadows caste out by your fetid impotent
> > scream of hate death is waiting, staring back at you biding its time
> > as
> > it always has done, whispering you are nothing, you are nothing, you
> > are
> > nothing.
> >
> > No respect
> >
> > Rod
>
> ROD -sticking outta your friggin head. I can't be fucked to say
> anything to your sorry fucking asshole.
>
> Fuck you.
> Dan Mann.
>
>
The quintessential "Dann [the] Man".
Let not another word be spoken in reply. Allow the gentleman to bask in his
Silence.
g.
Geoffrey Alexander
Dan Mann <"Dan Mann"@Mann.co.UK> wrote in article
> I would enjoy it if we ended this thread now. It's getting boring.
> I'll start it up with a new discussion:
>
> Why Francis Ford Coppola has sold out:
You think anything with Coppola's name will start a new thread HERE?
Jesus, kid. Rent a clue.
Geoffrey (yes; that one).
LamaSivartDoz
Dan Mann wrote:
>
> > You've just pissed off the wrong person. Trust me. tak@passport (Mark)
> > can
> > lay into someone better than anyone else on this newsgroup. Prepare to
> > be
> > flamed. Jesus, you're sad little man. ---- Alex
>
> Oh I am terrified of jungle man. Ape-boy really has me shaking in my
> boots, prositiute killing fuck. You feel good now some guy has come
> along with some funny bullshit to lay on me, you pathetic fucking
> cocksucker. Do the dirt yourself pussy boy!
>
> Fuck you and everyone you know.
> Dan Mann.
Are you laying the fuck into him now? This is great fun...
--
"You're only as healthy as you feel"
Travis Bickle
R.A. Freeman
In article <357927E0...@Mann.co.UK>,
Dan Mann <"Dan Mann"@Mann.co.UK> wrote:
>Listen Dave, you tit, you better watch 'ew fuckin' back right mush, oh I
>see I'm gonna havta go outta my way to fuck your waste of a life up big
>time right mush. Watch ew fucking back now right, I'm onto yew.
>
>Fuck you.
>Dan Mann.
Dan Mann is capable of showing much more conversational intelligence than
this unreasonable bile that has been erupting out of his fingers for the past
two days.
As for you Dan, you've been insulting a couple of my friends, of which I am a
little bit pissed off about. I don't know what precipitated such crappy
behaviour from you and I would appreciate that you apologise to all concerned
for the pithy and insulting comments that you've been making for the past
couple of days. The more you come out with it, the more chance of you getting
really burned. Frankly, people here have been quite corteous towards you. I'm
surprised that you still haven't been really flamed.
End message - Stop acting like an asshole.
FAQ
Dan Mann
>
>
> As for you Dan, you've been insulting a couple of my friends, of which
> I am a
> little bit pissed off about.
Oh dear I am sorry. Really, I am. Really.
> I don't know what precipitated such crappy
> behaviour from you
Why from me? You don't know me at all. And the reason it not because I
just did it, it's because of what has been said TO me and ABOUT me.
> and I would appreciate that you apologise to all concerned
> for the pithy and insulting comments that you've been making for the
> past
> couple of days.
Sorry.
> The more you come out with it, the more chance of you getting
> really burned. Frankly, people here have been quite corteous towards
> you.
Yeah right. Right. Right. Right.
> I'm surprised that you still haven't been really flamed.
Hmm.
>
>
> End message - Stop acting like an asshole.
>
Okay. okay. okay.
> FAQ
>
DAN MANN.
Mark Smyth
I haven't read this newsgroup for a few days....have I missed
something.....and what does it all have to do with Kubrick?