Mandatory Foreign Classics
Feui...@aol.com
Specifically working on a list of categories and films within
categories.
Most of the categories are pretty nicely set, but I'm working on one
that needs a little plumping up.
Here's the category:
Mandatory Classic I
Cabiria
Les Vampires
La Roue
Napoleon
The Passion of Joan of Arc
Un Chien Andalou/L'Age D'Or
To qualify for the category, any film suggested has to be both foreign
and silent, and made between 1913-1930.
It can't be either German or Russian, because they have their own
categories.
Any suggestions? Am I forgetting something?
Tom Moran
rudyfan
sat through that by sheer tenacious grit because of it's historical
significance and it almost killed me.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Oh dear, for pity's sake, make that mandatory CLIPS from Cabiria. I
> sat through that by sheer tenacious grit because of it's historical
> significance and it almost killed me.
If you spliced all the tracking shots together you'd have all you ever
needed from this film, and it would be lovely to watch as well.
=================
Nowhere Confidential:
Eric Stott
"rudyfan" <rudyf...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:1163401339....@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Oh dear, for pity's sake, make that mandatory CLIPS from Cabiria. I
> sat through that by sheer tenacious grit because of it's historical
> significance and it almost killed me.
Likewise I wouldn't make a class sit through the whole NAPOLEON- it's too
damm long. You've already got Gance represented by La Roue, how about
showing Captain Fracasse?- it's a bit more conventional but extremely well
made and the director had a distinguished career.
Stott
Frederica
Dear God. The Passion of Joan of Arc *and* Cabiria? Is this a film
class or Abu Ghraib?
Frederica
bigsil...@aol.com
classics if they dislike them so. "Cabiria" was originally a serial,
just like "Les Vampires" is and was not intended to be watched in it's
entirety at one sitting. It's a great story filled with much more than
just "tracking shots."
There are the beautiful Roman Baths, the scenes of child sacrifice
to Baal, even the volcano in the beginning is a marvel for it's time.
There's humor and [gasp] all the things that make serials great. Two
of my favorites are the human ladder that the soldiers create so our
hero can climb up into the castle and of course Archimedes' Death Ray
Mirror that catches everything on fire as they are putting it into
position.
That whole film is a masterpiece and I look forward to seeing the more
complete (and even longer) version when it comes out on DVD.
"Les Vampires" is another film few at a.m.s appreciated probably
because they attempted to watch it quickly, and not as it was intended.
It was designed to be seen in ten visits to the theater and not as a
six and a half hour film. I've studied this in great detail, even
writing a 29 page, chapter by chapter summery and once even had a
website devoted to it.
"Napoleon," with Carmine Coppala's musical score played through a
sound system really comes alive. The opening scenes of his childhood,
eventually change to the early days of his life. The stirring
political scenes left me sorry that I do not know the history better.
Then there are the love scenes and the battles that occur in a downpour
of rain before the amazing (first time) panoramic 25 minute conclusion.
And what a grand twentyfive minute conclusion! You need to try to
imagine what it must have been like sitting in a theater when suddenly,
the image becomes three times as wide as projectors bring two
additional screens to life. Today, we have just a small letter box
image to look at, but that's where you're imagination is supposed to
take over; right?
I read that Gance actually shot a reel in 3-D and also some in
color, before he decided to create the panoramic image that we can
thank for today's wide screen films. Too long you say? It is too long
if you don't take the time to both see and hear it. I only wish I
could have been in England to see the even longer restoration complete
with the huge triple screen.
The "Passion of Joan of Arc" is a wonderful study of our humanity.
The close-ups and the acting presented in this 'In Your Face'
recreation is stunning especially because of it's clarity of purpose.
The sharpness of the old B&W image shows clearly the artistic advantage
of not always looking at things in color.
It sounds like a great class, and hopefully filled with students
who are more interested in seeing what early films could do to the
imagination than complain about how long they must sit through them.
Take lots of breaks to talk about what you see on the screen and none
of these classics are dull.
These are all films that I will watch again and again but never in one
sitting.
Rich Wagner
Daniela C
bigsil...@aol.com schrieb:
> "Les Vampires" is another film few at a.m.s appreciated probably
> because they attempted to watch it quickly, and not as it was intended.
> It was designed to be seen in ten visits to the theater and not as a
> six and a half hour film. I've studied this in great detail, even
> writing a 29 page, chapter by chapter summery and once even had a
> website devoted to it.
>
>
> Rich Wagner
I've watched Les Vampires on German TV in the nineties as a series and the
suspense and tension was very high. I even totally forgot that it was
silent.Great stuff indeed and Irma Vep is a real vamp!!
Frederica
bigsil...@aol.com wrote:
> Sometimes I wonder why some people here at a.m.s. watch these old
> classics if they dislike them so. "
I don't have to like something just because someone tells me to. I
also don't have to like something just because you do.
Frederica
rudyfan
> Sometimes I wonder why some people here at a.m.s. watch these old
> classics if they dislike them so. "Cabiria" was originally a serial,
> just like "Les Vampires" is and was not intended to be watched in it's
> entirety at one sitting. It's a great story filled with much more than
> just "tracking shots."
YMMV, but the restored Cabiria I saw was produced as one long (stress
l-o-n-g) film. I can appreciate it, but I don't have to like it. Just
like a taste of canned anchovies tells me I'd dont' need to eat the
whole can to know it's not a dish for me.
Frankly, I think exposure, in a classroom environment, of the fully
restored Cabiria would do a lot more to discourage viewing of
additional silent films. Historically important, but compared to what
came a few years later, it does not hold up well. For me, this is also
true of some Griffith films. In this case, big bleeding chunks can do
the job.
Napoleon, for as much as I enjoyed seeing it in 1980 and I appreciate
what Gance was trying to do. I also find some of the film, for 1927
standards, badly acted and badly cut. Some technical stuff like the
pillow and snow fights are great. Again, YMMV from mine. With
apologies to Kevin Brownlow, overall I find this film to be more than a
bit of a bore. The tryptichs are awesome, though. Deserving of the
cheers that feat received.
Then again, I'm just discovering some foreign silent films, thanks to
Milestone and Kino. I think everything is worth watching at least
once. But I also appreciate that just because it's a classic does not
always make it good. :-) I have many guilty pleasures in film, and not
just from the silent era. Nothing wrong with people disagreeing,
that's what makes the world go round.
Anyway, my 2 cents.
Eric Grayson
French category, so why not just split them into two groups and go from
there.
French:
Les Vampires
La Roue
Napoleon
The Italian Straw Hat
Un Chien Andalou
Entr'acte
Everyone else:
Cabiria
Passion of Joan of Arc (actually, you could make the case for this
being a German film, since it was partly financed there)
Phantom Chariot
Outlaw and His Wife
There you've got most of the major ones.
Eric
In article <1163398309.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>,
Mark Dunn
<Feui...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1163398309.4...@b28g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
lubi...@hotmail.com
stories, atrocious acting with a heavy emphasis on female stars with
performances better suited for the stage. Add to this the tiresome
tableau style and you pretty much can forget this stuff.
If you do Russian cinema don't forget there's more than just the whole
revolutionary stuff.. Yevgeni Bauer is a great director of the 10s
while Kulezhov and Room are good examples of normal cinema which is
today more involving than the usual Eisenstein, Pudovkin etc. stuff. A
friend, who sat with bored frustration through some classics, loved BED
AND SOFA.
The most underrated cinema is probably the Scandinavian, so Sjöström
and Stiller are essential. BERG-EYVIND, SIR ARNE'S TREASURE, EROTIKON
are uniformly excellent cinema with stunning landscapes and a more
modern and intelligent storytelling than most silents. Only GÖSTA
BERLING was an overlong dud.
Looking at Great Britain aside of the Hitchcocks, PICCADILLY and HINDLE
WAKES are stunning.
The French avantgarde is worth a look especially MENILMONTANT by
Kirsanoff.
The Danish silents by Christensen are supposed to be quite good as is
supposedly THE CHESS PLAYER by Raymond Bernard, I've yet to see them.
To sum it up: the lesser known films are often the better ones. A lot
of silent classics are considered classics because they were inventive
in visual terms (often just a few sequences), but fail at pretty much
every other level. So the epics like CABIRIA, BIRTH OF A NATION,
OCTOBER or NAPOLEON get endlessly quoted because of certain scenes, but
that's often all that is to it, while lesser known films like THE WIND
offer the more rewarding viewing experiences.
My friend ended up loving most BED AND SOFA, THE CAMERAMAN and THE
WISHING RING by Tourneur, so don't follow too closely and blindly the
usual film histories.
Bruce Calvert
should show a Max Linder comedy short.
There are British films like Hitchcok's THE LODGER and DOWNHILL and Elvey's
HINDLE WAKES.
And no Scandinavian films like INGEBORG HOLM, THE OUTLAW AND HIS WIFE,
THOMAS GRAAL'S BEST CHILD or THOMAS GRAAL'S BEST FILM.
--
Bruce Calvert
--
Visit the Silent Film Still Archive
http://home.comcast.net/~silentfilm/home.htm
Eric Grayson
much for me. On the other hand, I kinda liked Kipps, which no one else
but me liked. I should probably see these again...
Eric
In article <1163454950.6...@m73g2000cwd.googlegroups.com>,
clint
classics if they dislike them so."
Liking silent films doesn't mean one likes all silent films. And plenty
of the recognized classics are not for everyone, even less an audience
unused to silent films. My advice: sit through each of these films
yourself, even if you have already seen them, before selecting them for
your class.
Last week I watched a silent film I had never heard of. I had never
heard of the director, or any of the actors either, and I have been
watching silent films for years. I couldn't even make sense of the
title, HINDLE WAKES, as the film started. But I was soon blown away.
The film is simply amazing, and the girl who played the lead (still
don't know her name) was superb.
I think a film class in this year of grace 2006 might fall asleep
watching CABIRIA. Try an excerpt or two.
rod...@mont-alto.com
lubi...@hotmail.com wrote:
> The few Italian silents I've seen strike me as unwatchable today, dumb
> stories, atrocious acting with a heavy emphasis on female stars with
> performances better suited for the stage.
ASSUNTA SPINA is quite operatic in plot, but the acting I find much
more subdued than some other Italian silents. And the location
shots--boating, going out dancing, the bustling action at the
court--give it a very "lively" and documentary feel in places.
-- Rodney
mikeg...@gmail.com
Eric Grayson wrote:
> Oh, come on Tom. I can see from your list that you're dying to have a
> French category, so why not just split them into two groups and go from
> there.
>
> French:
> Les Vampires
> La Roue
> Napoleon
> The Italian Straw Hat
> Un Chien Andalou
> Entr'acte
>
> Everyone else:
> Cabiria
> Passion of Joan of Arc (actually, you could make the case for this
> being a German film, since it was partly financed there)
> Phantom Chariot
> Outlaw and His Wife
>
> There you've got most of the major ones.
Except Menilmontant.
Just got my Jacques Feyder DVD, too. We shall see...
mikeg...@gmail.com
Eric Grayson wrote:
> Oh, come on Tom. I can see from your list that you're dying to have a
> French category, so why not just split them into two groups and go from
> there.
>
> French:
> Les Vampires
> La Roue
> Napoleon
> The Italian Straw Hat
> Un Chien Andalou
> Entr'acte
>
> Everyone else:
> Cabiria
> Passion of Joan of Arc (actually, you could make the case for this
> being a German film, since it was partly financed there)
> Phantom Chariot
> Outlaw and His Wife
>
> There you've got most of the major ones.
Except Menilmontant.
Feui...@aol.com
> Likewise I wouldn't make a class sit through the whole NAPOLEON- it's too
> damm long. You've already got Gance represented by La Roue, how about
> showing Captain Fracasse?- it's a bit more conventional but extremely well
> made and the director had a distinguished career.
Well, I haven't included "Captain Fracasse" for the excellent reason
that I'd never heard of it.
But I'll take a look and see what I think. Thanks for the suggestion.
Tom Moran
Feui...@aol.com
> Oh, come on Tom. I can see from your list that you're
> dying to have a French category, [...]
There are at least two other French categories -- French Poetic Realism
and New Wave.
What I'm looking for here are foreign silents that are not German or
Russian.
But "The Outlaw and His Wife" is a good idea. :)
Tom Moran
Feui...@aol.com
> I don't know if there is a single title that is mandatory, but surely
> you should show a Max Linder comedy short.
I have shorts scheduled for the first class -- Lumiere, Melies,
Griffith... the whole nine yards.
> There are British films like Hitchcok's THE LODGER and DOWNHILL
> and Elvey's HINDLE WAKES.
> And no Scandinavian films like INGEBORG HOLM, THE OUTLAW
> AND HIS WIFE, THOMAS GRAAL'S BEST CHILD or THOMAS
> GRAAL'S BEST FILM.
Excellent ideas. Thanks -- I will investigate these.
Tom Moran
dr.giraud
Eric Grayson wrote:
> You know, I saw Hindle Wakes and Piccadilly in 35mm and they didn't do
> much for me. On the other hand, I kinda liked Kipps, which no one else
> but me liked. I should probably see these again...
>
> Eric
I liked Kipps and Piccadilly, but Hindle Wakes seemed interesting but
padded.
Tom's list has a distinctly medicinal whiff to it.
Dr. Giraud
dr.giraud
TIGRE RIALE (1916, not on video but I'd buy it in a second) is a hoot.
Long chases in the snow, gigantic hotel fire and much breast-beating,
poison-swallowing passion. Star/diva Pina Minachelli is to Pola Negri
what Asta Nielsen was to Greta Garbo.
Dr. Giraud
Eric Stott
<Feui...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1163467557.7...@m7g2000cwm.googlegroups.com...
I think you'll like it- there aren't any big virtuosic scenes, but the
direction, acting & art direction are all first rate- plus the villain is a
young Charles Boyer!
It's one of those moview that can get away with the hero beating his
over-confident opponant in a sword fight and saying "I could kill you, but I
will let you live- your witty repartee was most diverting". It's available
in a nice Image disc- please choose the piano score by Neal Kurz- the jazz
score by Michel Portal is horrifyingly inappropriate.
Stott
Eric Grayson
dr.giraud <sst...@metroland.net> wrote:
Yeah, but that's Tom. He loves the MGM artsy-fartsy (but stiff as a
board) "classics" as well. The stuff that Tom likes is the stuff that
English teachers told us to like in school. I like some of it, but
don't like some of it. I expect Tom will flame me in a semi-friendly
way for being bourgeois, ignorant or both, and that's his prerogative.
Piccadilly was OK but too much in love with Anna May Wong. Yes, here's
another lovely shot of Anna. Yes, here's another lovely shot of Anna.
Yes, here's ANOTHER lovely shot of Anna. It reminds me of The Wedding
March. I wish they'd give me (even in today's money) the amount of
money that Von Stroheim spent on those apple blossoms. It was a
wonderful effect, but YEESH.
Eric (who still hates Tale of Two Cities no matter what anyone else
says)
dr.giraud
Eric Grayson wrote:
<snip>
> Yeah, but that's Tom. He loves the MGM artsy-fartsy (but stiff as a
> board) "classics" as well. The stuff that Tom likes is the stuff that
> English teachers told us to like in school. I like some of it, but
> don't like some of it. I expect Tom will flame me in a semi-friendly
> way for being bourgeois, ignorant or both, and that's his prerogative.
<snip>
What's weird and unhappy is that the Warner Home Video people seem to
be of the same mind. Who had the bright idea to put out the "motion
picture classics" set? A bunch of MGM stiffs. (Though I do like Tale of
2 Cities). I'm dreading their Forbidden Hollywood series.
Dr. Giraud
Lloyd Fonvielle
Bingo. Definitely mandatory.
> Just got my Jacques Feyder DVD, too. We shall see...
Same here. Same here . . .
Feui...@aol.com
> dr.giraud <sst...@metroland.net> wrote:
<snip>
>> Tom's list has a distinctly medicinal whiff to it.
> Yeah, but that's Tom. He loves the MGM artsy-fartsy (but
> stiff as a board) "classics" as well. The stuff that Tom likes
> is the stuff that English teachers told us to like in school. I
> like some of it, but don't like some of it. I expect Tom will
> flame me in a semi-friendly way for being bourgeois, ignorant
> or both, and that's his prerogative.
Not at all. Whether you're bourgeois or ignorant is not for me to say.
I *will* point out, however, that the category is not called "Mandatory
Classics" for nothing.
And further point out that you haven't seen the whole list (which has
close to 300 films on it), only a tiny fraction of it.
Tom Moran
Eric Grayson
<Feui...@aol.com> wrote:
>
> I *will* point out, however, that the category is not called "Mandatory
> Classics" for nothing.
>
> And further point out that you haven't seen the whole list (which has
> close to 300 films on it), only a tiny fraction of it.
>
Well, then we're guessing at the tone of the kinds of things you'd
include.
I noted (as did others) that you skipped the Scandinavian classics. I
don't know why you'd pick Outlaw and His Wife over Phantom Chariot; I'd
include both.
What's confusing is why you have some French films in this list and yet
you say that you have another two categories for French films. By what
criteria did these get slopped over from your main list into this one?
Eric
Feui...@aol.com
> <Feui...@aol.com> wrote:
>> I *will* point out, however, that the category is not called
>> "Mandatory Classics" for nothing.
>> And further point out that you haven't seen the whole list (which
>> has close to 300 films on it), only a tiny fraction of it.
> Well, then we're guessing at the tone of the kinds of things you'd
> include.
True. But given that it's an "Intro to Film" course, most of the
selections should be pretty obvious.
Here's the idea. You have a two-semester course. First semester takes
1900-1950, the second takes 1950 to 2000.
Within each semester you have selected categories. I'm assuming you
would have time to show 12 films per semester, but there are more
categories then there are slots -- for a reason. The idea is that you
would show 12 out of the (let's say) 18 categories.
Within those categories are several films -- ranging from five to ten.
So within the Silent Film Comedy category you'd have everything from
"The Kid" to "Modern Times."
The idea is that the course would never be taught the same way twice --
because you'd be showing different categories each semester and within
those categories different films each time. This would keep the
instructor from feeling like they're going through the motions teaching
exactly the same films every semester in the same order.
That's the idea, anyway. :)
> I noted (as did others) that you skipped the Scandinavian classics. I
> don't know why you'd pick Outlaw and His Wife over Phantom Chariot; I'd
> include both.
I've skipped the Scandinavian classics because I am woefully ignorant
about them.
It's an area of film history that I meed to investigate a lot further.
> What's confusing is why you have some French films in this list and yet
> you say that you have another two categories for French films. By what
> criteria did these get slopped over from your main list into this one?
The idea is that there are certain films that didn't seem to fit into a
given category. So I created a category called "Mandatory Classics"
and just tossed them in there.
Here are some other Mandatory Classics:
15) Mandatory Classic II
The 39 Steps
Grand Illusion
The Lady Vanishes
Rules of the Game
Citizen Kane
Children of Paradise
Ivan the Terrible Part I
5) Mandatory Classic III
The Third Man
The Seventh Seal
La Strada
L'avventura
8½
Dr. Strangelove
Persona
Blow Up
10) Mandatory Classic IV
The Conformist
Cries and Whispers
Day for Night
Amarcord
The Mother and the Whore
The Story of Adele H.
Celine and Julie Go Boating
Barry Lyndon
The "Mandatory Classics" category is where I put films that don't seem
to fit anywhere else.
Tom Moran
mikeg...@gmail.com
Feui...@aol.com wrote:
> 5) Mandatory Classic III
> The Third Man
> The Seventh Seal
> La Strada
> L'avventura
> 8½
> Dr. Strangelove
> Persona
> Blow Up
Taking this group as one example, these are such random assortments
it's hard to know what the purpose of these lists is-- from the
hyper-control and caricature of Strangelove to the real-time naturalism
of L'Avventura, what are these supposed to represent exactly? (Films of
the Janus Collection comes closest.) It's certainly hard to see how
these are supposed to teach people something about the historical
development of the art-- give me Italian cinema and pose Rossellini and
Antonioni on one side, Fellini and Visconti on the other, and Miracle
in Milan right in the middle, maybe, and then I gain context, but La
Strada to 8-1/2 by way of The Third Man and The Seventh Seal is so
random. Might as well be Nevsky to Ivan the Terrible by way of Those
Redheads From Seattle.
It's also hard to know how you mean mandatory when you have, in the
lists you've shown, one film that is next to impossible to see (La
Roue). Yet as others have pointed out, the things that have come out on
video in recent years-- and stand some potential to rise into the
canon-- mostly don't register here. There might be something
interesting in a project that tried to rewrite film history entirely
based on things we're only now seeing, giving precedence to the
Scandinavians over Griffith, Dreyer's Michael over Passion of Joan of
Arc, Feyder's Faces of Children over Gance, Boris Barnet over
Eisenstein, German street films over expressionism, Ozu over Ufa. Or
not. But I'm puzzled what this assortment of certified classics circa
1965 is supposed to represent.
Feui...@aol.com
> Feui...@aol.com wrote:
> > 5) Mandatory Classic III
> > The Third Man
> > The Seventh Seal
> > La Strada
> > L'avventura
> > 8½
> > Dr. Strangelove
> > Persona
> > Blow Up
>
> Taking this group as one example, these are such random assortments
> it's hard to know what the purpose of these lists is-- from the
> hyper-control and caricature of Strangelove to the real-time naturalism
> of L'Avventura, what are these supposed to represent exactly?
I thought I made that clear -- this category is (to put it crudely) a
sort of dumping ground for films that don't fit into any of the other
categories.
For example -- I don't have a category for "Post-War British Cinema,"
but it's obvious that "The Third Man: is an important film in post-WWII
filmmaking. So where to put it? In my opinion, it goes into Mandatory
Cinema.
Likewise with Fellini and Bergman. There's an Italian Neo-Realism
category, but neither Fellini not Antonioni quite fits there -- so
where to put them? In the Mandatory Classics category.
That's what that category is for -- to put the films that don't
conveniently fit into any of the other categories. So by definition
they should appear somewhat random.
Tom Moran
mikeg...@gmail.com
> conveniently fit into any of the other categories. So by definition
> they should appear somewhat random.
I would just say, try harder to find where they belong, then-- what
group of films they cast an interesting light on. No film is an island.
Feui...@aol.com
If you do that then the categories metastasize until the list becomes
totally unwieldy.
Could I come up with a "Post-WWII British Cinema" category to place
"The Third Man" in? I suppose I could, but I want to keep the
categories to a minimum, since I already have more categories than I
can show films in a given semester. So I isolate "The Third Man" and
put it in the "Mandatory Classics" category.
It works for me.
Tom Moran
kino eye
> Dear God. The Passion of Joan of Arc *and* Cabiria? Is this a film
> class or Abu Ghraib?
>
> Frederica
I heard Rumsfield being interviewed by Fox a week before the elections
about this:
Fox: So you condone dunking--that's not torture?
Rumsfield: Dunking someone to save American lives. Sure. That's a
no-brainer.
Fox: What about a forced watch of Passion of Joan of Arc?
Rumsfield: My god, man--have you no shame? These are humans beings
here, not animals.
Feui...@aol.com
> I heard Rumsfield being interviewed by Fox a week before the elections
> about this:
>
> Fox: So you condone dunking--that's not torture?
> Rumsfield: Dunking someone to save American lives. Sure. That's a
> no-brainer.
> Fox: What about a forced watch of Passion of Joan of Arc?
> Rumsfield: My god, man--have you no shame? These are humans beings
> here, not animals.
I've seen "The Passion of Joan of Arc" and I can't for the life of me
understand why people would feel that way about such an obvious
masterpiece, unless they were total cretins.
I'll assume instead that you just saw a bad print, and it affected your
judgement.
Tom Moran
Frederica
Feui...@aol.com wrote:
> I've seen "The Passion of Joan of Arc" and I can't for the life of me
> understand why people would feel that way about such an obvious
> masterpiece, unless they were total cretins.
>
> I'll assume instead that you just saw a bad print, and it affected your
> judgement.
>
> Tom Moran
It's a good thing you regularly feel the need to tell us how superior
you are to the rest of us, because otherwise we wouldn't notice.
Frederica
Feui...@aol.com
It's not a matter of feeling superior. I'm perfectly willing to admit
that everyone can;t like everything, and there are certified
masterpieces of film and literature that leave me cold (a lot of
Antonioni, for example -- another is "A Clockwork Orange").
But I don't go around saying that a given film that has a reputation
for being a work of art is a boring piece of crap just because I
personally don't like it.
(Feel free to dig into the Google archives for past postings that you
believe belie the above statement.)
Tom Moran
Frederica
Feui...@aol.com wrote:
> (Feel free to dig into the Google archives for past postings that you
> believe belie the above statement.)
>
> Tom Moran
That would be an enormous amount of trouble to go through, especially
considering I don't really care what you think.
Frederica
Feuillade
> Feui...@aol.com wrote:
>> Tom Moran
> Frederica
Your lack of intellectual curiosity is not my problem.
Tom Moran
Neil Midkiff
Nor is this conversation anyone else's concern. Please take it to
private e-mail, if you must bother one another at all.
-Neil Midkiff
Eric Stott
"Feuillade" <Feui...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:1163889802....@e3g2000cwe.googlegroups.com...
I thought you had some intelectual possibilities and was willing to
tollerate your dross for the occasional bit of gold, but you're a jerk.
Killfile.
eric Stott
Feuillade
> eric Stott
Have you decided to lowercase your first name from now on?
Tom Moran
Lloyd Fonvielle
> I've seen "The Passion of Joan of Arc" and I can't for the life of me
> understand why people would feel that way about such an obvious
> masterpiece, unless they were total cretins.
>
> I'll assume instead that you just saw a bad print, and it affected your
> judgement.
The old Tom is back! I think he likes to hide behind a mask of
reasonableness from time to time just to make his outbursts of rudeness
more dramatic, although it's also possible that his outbursts are part
of a Tourette's-like syndrome over which he has no control.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> It's not a matter of feeling superior. I'm perfectly willing to admit
> that everyone can't like everything, and there are certified
> masterpieces of film and literature that leave me cold . . .
Certified how? By whom?
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Frederica wrote:
>>That would be an enormous amount of trouble to go through,
>>especially considering I don't really care what you think.
>
> Your lack of intellectual curiosity is not my problem.
The importance of what Tom says has been certified by . . . where is
that certification from, Tom? I keep forgetting.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Eric Stott wrote:
>>I thought you had some intelectual possibilities and was willing to
>>tollerate your dross for the occasional bit of gold, but you're a jerk.
>>Killfile.
>
>>eric Stott
>
> Have you decided to lowercase your first name from now on?
Bingo, Tom! You nailed him there. I'd like to see him wriggle out of
that dazzling intellectual riposte!
Feuillade
> Feui...@aol.com wrote:
>> It's not a matter of feeling superior. I'm perfectly willing to admit
>> that everyone can't like everything, and there are certified
>> masterpieces of film and literature that leave me cold . . .
> Certified how? By whom?
Wow -- an interesting question coming from Lloyd! Who knew?
The question of canons and who determines what goes in them is in fact
an interesting question and might, in theory, require a longish
discussion to thrash out.
But for the purposes of this post I'll just give one example:
The fact that Jean Renoir's "Rules of the Game" has been on every
single one of the BFI Top Ten film lists since 1952 would seem to
indicate that it is, at least in some sense, "certfied" as a classic
film.
Tom Moran
Feuillade
> Feuillade wrote:
>
> > Frederica wrote:
>
> >>That would be an enormous amount of trouble to go through,
> >>especially considering I don't really care what you think.
> >
> > Your lack of intellectual curiosity is not my problem.
>
> The importance of what Tom says has been certified by . . . where is
> that certification from, Tom? I keep forgetting.
>
You're assuming that what I say is important. And I don't believe that
that's something I've ever claimed.
Tom Moran
Feuillade
> Feui...@aol.com wrote:
>
> > I've seen "The Passion of Joan of Arc" and I can't for the life of me
> > understand why people would feel that way about such an obvious
> > masterpiece, unless they were total cretins.
> >
> > I'll assume instead that you just saw a bad print, and it affected your
> > judgement.
>
> The old Tom is back!
You may have to change your shorts, Lloyd.
Tom Moran
Lloyd Fonvielle
> The question of canons and who determines what goes in them is in fact
> an interesting question and might, in theory, require a longish
> discussion to thrash out.
I'd say that's putting it mildly.
> But for the purposes of this post I'll just give one example:
>
> The fact that Jean Renoir's "Rules of the Game" has been on every
> single one of the BFI Top Ten film lists since 1952 would seem to
> indicate that it is, at least in some sense, "certfied" as a classic
> film.
There might have been a roughly comparable period in the 19th Century
when Bourgereau was considered a painter of the first rank. There might
have been a comparable period after Bach's death when he was
unrecognized as a timeless master.
50 years is the blink of an eye in the history of art, and critics'
polls within such a time frame are probably the LAST place one should
look for the judgement of history.
Picasso would probably fare well in such polls, but a hundred years from
now he will be . . . Bougereau.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> You're assuming that what I say is important. And I don't believe that
> that's something I've ever claimed.
You suggested that Frederica's lack of interest in your opinions
signified a lack of intellectual curiosity -- which certainly implies
that your opinions have intellectual substance.
Feuillade
> Feuillade wrote:
>
> > You're assuming that what I say is important. And I don't believe that
> > that's something I've ever claimed.
>
> You suggested that Frederica's lack of interest in your opinions
> signified a lack of intellectual curiosity -- which certainly implies
> that your opinions have intellectual substance.
>
Not necessarily.
But suppose someone walked up to you and said, "I just got done reading
this "Hamlet" play and I gotta tell ya -- I think it's a load of crap!"
How would you respond?
Tom Moran
富春包子
"rudyfan 写道：
"
> Oh dear, for pity's sake, make that mandatory CLIPS from Cabiria. I
> sat through that by sheer tenacious grit because of it's historical
> significance and it almost killed me.
>
> Feui...@aol.com wrote:
> > Lately I've been working on a course in Introduction to Film.
> >
> > Specifically working on a list of categories and films within
> > categories.
> >
> > Most of the categories are pretty nicely set, but I'm working on one
> > that needs a little plumping up.
> >
> > Here's the category:
> >
> > Mandatory Classic I
> > Cabiria
> > Les Vampires
> > La Roue
> > Napoleon
> > The Passion of Joan of Arc
> > Un Chien Andalou/L'Age D'Or
> >
> >
> > To qualify for the category, any film suggested has to be both foreign
> > and silent, and made between 1913-1930.
> >
> > It can't be either German or Russian, because they have their own
> > categories.
> >
> > Any suggestions? Am I forgetting something?
> >
> > Tom Moran
Feuillade
Easy prediction to make, Lloyd, especially given the fact that you
won't be around to be told you're wrong.
But I'll be interested in seeing how wrong you turn out to be. :)
Tom Moran
Lloyd Fonvielle
> But suppose someone walked up to you and said, "I just got done reading
> this "Hamlet" play and I gotta tell ya -- I think it's a load of crap!"
> How would you respond?
For starters, I wouldn't say "you cretin!" That ends a conversation,
rather than starting a productive one. If in fact I wanted to end the
conversation with this person, I would just not respond. I would not
take it as an opportunity to assert my superior insight. That's pathetic.
Feuillade
> Feuillade wrote:
>
> > But suppose someone walked up to you and said, "I just got done reading
> > this "Hamlet" play and I gotta tell ya -- I think it's a load of crap!"
> > How would you respond?
>
> For starters, I wouldn't say "you cretin!" That ends a conversation,
> rather than starting a productive one. If in fact I wanted to end the
> conversation with this person, I would just not respond. I would not
> take it as an opportunity to assert my superior insight. That's pathetic.
>
And claiming "that's pathetic" does not "assert your superior insight"?
Tom Moran
James Roots
I'd respond, "Well, if it isn't Tom Moran!"
Jim
George Shelps
>Feuillade wrote:
>>But suppose someone walked up to you
>>and said, "I just got done reading this
>>"Hamlet" play and I gotta tell ya -- I
>>think it's a load of crap!"
>> How would you respond?
>For starters, I wouldn't say "you cretin!"
>That ends a conversation, rather than
>starting a productive one. If in fact I
>wanted to end the conversation with this
>person, I would just not respond. I would
>not take it as an opportunity to assert my
>superior insight. That's pathetic.
Perfect analysis, Lloyd. Moran typically
hides behind a facade of reasonableness
looking for an opporunity to pounce. He
waits for someone to make either
a highly dubious remark (such as above)
or to assert a political view he scorns,
and then the fangs come out.
He has no interest in productive conversation. His posting history has
shown this is just a lure to entrap
the unwary in his line of fire. Very
simply, he enjoys hurting people.
Eric Stott
"Lloyd Fonvielle" <ll...@fabulousnoSPAMwhere.com> wrote in message
news:hmY7h.9380$LG7....@newsfe17.lga...
> Feuillade wrote:
>
>> Eric Stott wrote:
>
>>>I thought you had some intelectual possibilities and was willing to
>>>tollerate your dross for the occasional bit of gold, but you're a jerk.
>>>Killfile.
>>
>>>eric Stott
>>
>> Have you decided to lowercase your first name from now on?
>
> Bingo, Tom! You nailed him there. I'd like to see him wriggle out of
> that dazzling intellectual riposte!
oh hell- damm my arthritic fingers. PERHAPS I SHOULD BE LIKE EVERYONE ELSE
ON THE NET AND JUST LEAVE THE CAPS LOCK ON
ERIC STOTT
kino eye
> I've seen "The Passion of Joan of Arc" and I can't for the life of me
> understand why people would feel that way about such an obvious
> masterpiece, unless they were total cretins.
>
> I'll assume instead that you just saw a bad print, and it affected your
> judgement.
Actually, Passion of Joan of Arc is one of my favorite silent films.
But I'm okay with the thought that smart, caring, people feel otherwise
about JoA. Life's more interesting when people don't always agree with
me.
And in deciding which is funnier, Rumsfield ordering a forced watch of
Napoleon (a film I also like), or a forced watch of a film which itself
describes torture--I'd go for JoA every time.
Feuillade
> oh hell- damm my arthritic fingers. PERHAPS I SHOULD BE
> LIKE EVERYONE ELSE ON THE NET AND JUST LEAVE
> THE CAPS LOCK ON
>
> ERIC STOTT
>
YOU KNOW, THAT'S NOT A BAD IDEA.
TOM MORAN
Lloyd Fonvielle
> And claiming "that's pathetic" does not "assert your superior insight"?
I am indeed asserting an insight into civil discourse that is superior
to yours.
There's no disputing taste -- manners are something else again.
Feuillade
> Feuillade wrote:
>> And claiming "that's pathetic" does not "assert your superior insight"?
> I am indeed asserting an insight into civil discourse that is superior
> to yours.
>
> There's no disputing taste -- manners are something else again.
>
Actually, manners are relative -- as I believe you'll find out when you
give the "thumbs-up" sign to an Iraqi. :)
Tom Moran
الحارثي
Lloyd Fonvielle أرسلت:
> rudyfan wrote:
>
> > Oh dear, for pity's sake, make that mandatory CLIPS from Cabiria. I
> > sat through that by sheer tenacious grit because of it's historical
> > significance and it almost killed me.
>
> needed from this film, and it would be lovely to watch as well.