Thoughts on History of Film (1)
Matt Barry
I must say, that more interesting than the films we watched and the
history we learned, was the class itself.
I had been well-prepared for a dumbed-down basic course. I expected
for the class to be covering the films of such "geniuses" as Tarantino
and Kevin Smith by the fourth week. But I was pleasantly surprised
when we actually watched some silent films.
However, the course still followed the usual, convenient history of
film structure. Unfortunately, you would think from the course that
D.W. Griffith was the only person to direct films between 1915 and
1929. Notables such as DeMille, von Stroheim, Ince, Ford, Vidor,
Murnau and Lang were barely even mentioned in passing.
Also, you would have never guessed, judging from this course alone,
that the cinema had ever existed outside of the United States. There
was no mention whatsoever of any films from foreign countries. I
understand it's all a lot to cover, but surely there should be mention
of BATTLESHIP POTEMKIN or L'ATALANTE or GRAND ILLUSION or BREATHLESS
or any of the really significant foreign films.
Moreover, I have come to the conclusion that many college-age people I
have spoken to think we are evidently living in a very important time
for film, perhaps in the same way certain French critics in the early
1960s did. It's not to say there's anything "wrong" with this, perhaps
that's all a matter of opinion. But it becomes very evident when films
such as CITIZEN KANE are dismissed as "boring", "poorly-made", and
"ridiculous", while each new Tarantino film is hailed as a
groundbreaking masterpiece. I would think that anyone who could see
what's "great" about a Tarantino film would also be able to see the
same qualities that make KANE "great", as well as films such as
VERTIGO and even NETWORK, which were also dismissed as "stupid" and
"worthless." What I find frustrating though is the fact that certain
contemporary filmmakers become deified as cinematic gods who can do no
wrong, regardless of the quality of their present work. I think this
is an unhealthy way to evaluate anything. It's essentially blanket
praise of everything produced by a given artist. I personally feel
each work should be judged on its own merits, not just "if it's Kevin
Smith, it's good." Don't get me wrong, I enjoy Kevin Smith's films
very much, even if I do feel he's in serious danger of repeating
himself, but I just can't bring myself to consider him the paragon of
wit. Quite frankly, I find much of the supposedly "witty" dialogue in
his films to be both pretentious, overwritten and even a little
distracting ("dialogue" just for the sake of dialogue-Tarantino faces
this problem too to an extent). I suppose when a certain dialogue
style becomes a director's trademark, it will find its way into all
their films regardless. I guess, bottom line, I enjoy Smith's dialogue
to a point, but then I'm aware that it's just part of a tradition of
verbal humor in the cinema going back through Billy Wilder and Preston
Sturges (also writer-directors of the majority of their films).
We also got a heaping dose of the "auteur theory", perhaps the most
misunderstood of all film theories. I find the original concept of
this to be worthwhile to a point, but I think that the concept of the
"complete filmmaker" (as auteur has come to mean) is very frustrating
because it leads to the kind of idol-worship that makes objective
evaluation nearly impossible of artist's individual films.
I would like to discuss any other opinions on the course curriculum
for these history of film courses. For instance, does anyone think
that the courses should be re-designed to completely eliminate the
auteur theory part, which many consider to be alot of outdated
claptrap? Or to include more discussion on international films?
Max Nineteennineteen
it to begin with.
I have to say, I can understand (though strongly disagree with) people
who get nothing out of Kane, but Network? Talk about a movie that's
right up our alley and predicts the world we live in now. I think
sometimes people just can't handle watching clothes that are out of
fashion, regardless of the actual movie itself. (Of course, I can't
watch early 80s movies like Splash just because of the tall
poodle-hair that Tom Hanks sports in it, but that's a well-reasoned
response.)
Bob Birchard
Well, that's the problem, isn't it. I saw "Netwoek" again a few months
ago, and what seemed like science fiction when it was originally released
has come to be very real indeed. I can understand somebody seeing it for
the first time today saying: "What's the big deal? This is just the way
things are and civilization hasn't fallen." Or has it? Only those of us
who remember an earlier time, when a film like "Network" could still
shock, have any basis of comparison.
--
Bob Birchard
Coming from the University Press of Kentucky in June 2004
“Cecil B. DeMille’s Hollywood”
by Robert S. Birchard
I.S.B.N. # 0-8131-2324-0
http://kentuckypress.com/viewbook.cfm?Category_ID=1&Group=42&ID=1113
Frederica
"Matt Barry" <mattb...@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bfc02ffc.04050...@posting.google.com...
> Well, I just completed my first history of film course at college. And
> I must say, that more interesting than the films we watched and the
> history we learned, was the class itself.
>
> I had been well-prepared for a dumbed-down basic course. I expected
> for the class to be covering the films of such "geniuses" as Tarantino
> and Kevin Smith by the fourth week. But I was pleasantly surprised
> when we actually watched some silent films.
>
> However, the course still followed the usual, convenient history of
> film structure. Unfortunately, you would think from the course that
> D.W. Griffith was the only person to direct films between 1915 and
> 1929. Notables such as DeMille, von Stroheim, Ince, Ford, Vidor,
> Murnau and Lang were barely even mentioned in passing.
Hunh? How can that possibly be, when Griffith has been expunged from film
history?
> I would like to discuss any other opinions on the course curriculum
> for these history of film courses. For instance, does anyone think
> that the courses should be re-designed to completely eliminate the
> auteur theory part, which many consider to be alot of outdated
> claptrap? Or to include more discussion on international films?
Wouldn't all of the above depend upon the time and resources you have
available? I don't know how long your class was. Was it a History of
American Film, or a History of Film? In college survey courses I sometimes
felt like the first day of class consisted of "I'm Prof. Whosis. These are
the middle ages. Study them. Learn them. The mid-term is Wednesday." In
later, more specific classes we spent more time on details, but the first
courses were a bit of a whirlwind.
It sounds like you had a reasonably good class and you made the most of it.
Frederica
Hatsoff
curriculum for the course you took sounds moronic at best. While I
think the curriculum we teach could be improved, we do the best we can
with one 3-1/2 hour class every week for 14 weeks. The first five
weeks cover American, Soviet, German and French cinema through 1930.
Following weeks we cover Italian Neo-realism, the French New Wave,
Japanese Cinema, Eastern European Cinema of the "Thaw" Era, African
Cinema and Indian Cinema. There are weeks of American cinema thrown
in there as well. Our basic problem is we pretty much only make it up
to 1970. If we get our wish and History of Film is expanded to two
semesters, we'd likely add Scandanavian Cinema, other Asian Cinema,
Iranian Cinema, etc., etc.
If your course was titled "History of American Film," then fine, but
if it's trying to pass itself off as a complete history of film
without including Soviet Montage, German Expressionism and Italian
Neo-Realism, whoever runs your film department should be canned
immediately.
Rob
Lincoln Spector
> have spoken to think we are evidently living in a very important time
> for film, perhaps in the same way certain French critics in the early
> 1960s did. It's not to say there's anything "wrong" with this, perhaps
> that's all a matter of opinion. But it becomes very evident when films
> such as CITIZEN KANE are dismissed as "boring", "poorly-made", and
> "ridiculous", while each new Tarantino film is hailed as a
> groundbreaking masterpiece.
history in the early 70's, one of my classmates used to argue passionately
about how bad Citizen Kane was, and how it didn't compare to what was
obviously the greatest film of all time, Jesus Christ, Superstar.
Lincoln
Jim Beaver
"Lincoln Spector" <Notr...@myemailaddress.com> wrote in message
news:Y0xmc.61145$lG2....@newssvr25.news.prodigy.com...
Thanks for the first best laugh I've had this morning.
Jim Beaver
Stephen Cooke
Now I just keep wondering why no one's ever tried to turn Citizen Kane
into a musical...
swac
o/~"There is a man...a certain man..."o/~
Lincoln Spector
"Stephen Cooke" <am...@chebucto.ns.ca> wrote in message
news:Pine.GSO.3.95.iB1.0.104...@halifax.chebucto.ns.ca...
Lincoln
Jim Beaver
<Phil P> wrote in message news:49el905ig50vd7sqk...@4ax.com...
> When I went to college there WERE no film history courses.
Was there film?
Jim Beaver
Rodney Sauer
Hey, if they can do PHANTOM and DR. JEKYLL and THOROUGHLY MODERN
MILLIE... it probably would be a big hit. The camera angles could be
tricky... "the first musical to show the ceiling of the rooms in its
sets!"
Rodney Sauer
Mont Alto Motion Picture Orchestra
www.mont-alto.com
Flying A
Jim Beaver wrote:
Yes, because this was also before toothbrushes.
Nancy
ChaneyFan
ago, and what seemed like science fiction when it was originally released
has come to be very real indeed. I can understand somebody seeing it for
the first time today saying: "What's the big deal? This is just the way
things are and civilization hasn't fallen." Or has it? Only those of us
who remember an earlier time, when a film like "Network" could still
shock, have any basis of comparison.
This is a problem with MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON today. It seems quaint by
today's standards, but in 1939 you have to assume that it was explosive.
===============================
Jon Mirsalis
e-mail: Chan...@aol.com
Lon Chaney Home Page: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan
Jon's Film Sites: http://members.aol.com/ChaneyFan/jonfilm.htm
ChaneyFan
group of homeschoolers. I have about 25 parents and kids, ages 6 to about 50.
(Most of the kids are 10-18...I only have three under 10). I believe history
should be taught non-chronologically so we have been jumping all over the
place. I started with THE KID BROTHER, then did a program on early cinema
(Lumiere, Muybridge, RESCUED BY ROVER, THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, etc.). I had
kids build Zoetropes and we took apart a 16mm projector to see how the shutter
and claw mechanisms worked. For the third class I had them read some articles
on child labor law, ran THE WHISTLE, and we discussed how films often were used
to push a social issue. Last month I gave them a break with a Buster Keaton
night (THE GOAT and SEVEN CHANCES) and this month we are doing an intro to
color (RED SPECTRE, clips from CYRANO and PHANTOM, and TOLL OF THE SEA). We
will also hand tint some b/w films, dry them out and run them. They have had
assigned readings for every class except the Keatons (we don't study comedy, we
just enjoy it). The class is about half video, half 16mm.
With just enough hands-on excerises and throwing in comedies about once every 3
classes, even the littlest kids are hooked. We also have had some field trips
to local screenings at Stanford Theater, PFA, etc.
William Hooper
> I started teaching a film history class this year, running once a month for a
> group of homeschoolers. I have about 25 parents and kids, ages 6 to about 50.
> (Most of the kids are 10-18...I only have three under 10). I believe history
> should be taught non-chronologically so we have been jumping all over the
> place.
My belief has been that ALL history should be taught
reverse-chronologically. Starting at some point in the past that has
very few details which relate to the modern experience results in
perceiving an earlier world that is just utterly alien.
Going backwards a jump at a time the developmental nature becomes
apparent through all phases: cars were bigger then because gas was
cheaper, streets were narrower because there were fewer cars, those
things are streetcars that people rode before buses, those are
horsecars because they didn't have electricity yet for streetcars, the
streets are unpaved because there wasn't a lot of heavy traffic or
sufficient city funds to pave them all, they're on horseback on the
woods between Philadelphia & New York & you can see roads haven't been
built yet, etc. You get into b&w photos that don't look strange, &
traveling that route by the time you get to pictures that only exist
as paintings or woodcuts the people in them still look like real
people instead of artwork. It's hard to point out what's an
innovation at a time which appears to be when ANYTHING would have been
an innovation, as opposed to having learned incrementally what already
had not been done.
Robert Lipton
ChaneyFan wrote:
> I started teaching a film history class this year, running once a month for a
> group of homeschoolers. I have about 25 parents and kids, ages 6 to about 50.
> (Most of the kids are 10-18...I only have three under 10). I believe history
> should be taught non-chronologically so we have been jumping all over the
> place. I started with THE KID BROTHER, then did a program on early cinema
> (Lumiere, Muybridge, RESCUED BY ROVER, THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, etc.). I had
> kids build Zoetropes and we took apart a 16mm projector to see how the shutter
> and claw mechanisms worked. For the third class I had them read some articles
> on child labor law, ran THE WHISTLE, and we discussed how films often were used
> to push a social issue. Last month I gave them a break with a Buster Keaton
> night (THE GOAT and SEVEN CHANCES) and this month we are doing an intro to
> color (RED SPECTRE, clips from CYRANO and PHANTOM, and TOLL OF THE SEA). We
> will also hand tint some b/w films, dry them out and run them. They have had
> assigned readings for every class except the Keatons (we don't study comedy, we
> just enjoy it). The class is about half video, half 16mm.
>
> With just enough hands-on excerises and throwing in comedies about once every 3
> classes, even the littlest kids are hooked. We also have had some field trips
> to local screenings at Stanford Theater, PFA, etc.
> ===============================
Cool! Let me know when you're going to run this class in New York.
Bob
Matt Barry
I would love to take the class over again with other people who are
actually interested in the movies. A big downside was that I was the
only film major there, everyone else was taking it as filler.
I knew what I was in for on the first day when someone told me that
they'd never watch CITIZEN KANE because they "don't watch anything in
black and white". The same person later referred to Fellini, in a
"discussion" of 8 1/2, as "some queer Italian guy."
Are there any universities that offer country-specific history of film
courses. For instance, I realized that with certain countries, I'm
only really familiar with certain periods in their cinematic history.
I've seen many films from the "Czech New Wave" of the late 1960s, but
I haven't been able to see a single Czech silent film (I've read that
the Czech Film Institute actually has the highest survival rate for
their silents..) or any Czech films from the 30s, 40s, etc. Same with
the Indian cinema-I've seen the Apu Trilogy, well most of the Satjayit
Ray films, but no silents. I would also be interested in seeing more
from the Japanese cinema (I'm familiar thoroughly with Ozu, Mizoguchi,
Kurosawa) but there's still alot more I'd like to learn about and get
a chance to see someday.
So many movies, so little time, I guess.
Matt
Bob Birchard
I think that in teaching film history there are other considerations that come into play.
The first thing is that nothing changes faster than technology and the accepted conventions of what
constitutes "good acting." For these reasons there is a built-in prejudice that many have just seeing an
older film--they simply cannot relate to what they see.
Kid's often don't have such prejudices, but you never know what will interest them, either.
I think Jon's starting with "The Kid Brother" is brilliant. It is a simple story--beautifully told, with
all sorts of visual elegance--and the bullying is something that kid's can often relate to.
The sorts of questions one might get: some friends brought their ten year old son to a Silent Society
program a few years back and the kid liked the film, but he wanted to know why the actors were moving
their lips and no sound was coming out.
Moving to the the early stuff and tying that in with a lesson on how movies work is also brilliant. It
invests what might otherwise be "dead" footage with a purpose.
"The Whistle" on the other hand is highly controversial and would probably rate a raid from the Office of
Homeland Security except for the fact that the Bush Administration has outsourced all the child labor
jobs to Bangaloor.
Jim Beaver
"ChaneyFan" <chan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040507022806...@mb-m12.aol.com...
I'm ready to sign my two-and-a-half-year-old up for your class. Hell, I'd
like to take it myself. BTW, how many screws were left over when you put
the projector back together?
Jim Beaver
Max Nineteennineteen
> Are there any universities that offer country-specific history of film
> courses. For instance, I realized that with certain countries, I'm
> only really familiar with certain periods in their cinematic history.
> I've seen many films from the "Czech New Wave" of the late 1960s, but
> I haven't been able to see a single Czech silent film (I've read that
> the Czech Film Institute actually has the highest survival rate for
> their silents..) or any Czech films from the 30s, 40s, etc. Same with
> the Indian cinema-I've seen the Apu Trilogy, well most of the Satjayit
> Ray films, but no silents.
The reality is that there is no pool of prints of these things sitting
around that universities have access to but yours chose not to show.
Well, surely they could go deeper with what's commonly available than
it sounds like they did-- you could see Soviet silents by taking an
actual Soviet film course somewhere, but odds are you could see the
exact same ones simply by requesting them from Netflix. When a show
of genuinely obscure films by a little-known figure like Boris Barnet
(who I posted about here recently) makes the circuit, it's been
organized by some archive somewhere and booked by the art film groups
in different cities. They have done the work of assembling, and
possibly restoring or reprinting, the films, and until they did so
those films were not available. Well, one or two might have been--
but not all 10 or 12, typically.
The things you mention-- prewar Eastern European and Indian film-- are
quite obscure, little explored by film historians generally, and no
one is sitting on readily available prints. Live in a major city long
enough and you'll get a chance to see a little of almost everything,
although some of the time, it will demonstrate that there's a reason
it's obscure. Anyway, if you really want to see loads and loads of
such things, you really need to organize your life to put you in one
of the major cities (or possibly a few college towns like Ann Arbor)
where these retrospectives are passing through all the time.
Precode
Now that they've done JOHNNY GUITAR, the way is clear.
Mike S.
(who suggests Nathan Lane as Mr. Bernstein)
Precode
>
>
> for these history of film courses. For instance, does anyone think
> that the courses should be re-designed to completely eliminate the
> auteur theory part, which many consider to be alot of outdated
> claptrap? Or to include more discussion on international films?
The auteur theory is valid up to a point. Many films do have a single
voice--though it may not necessarily be the director's; after all, it
ain't Herbert Ross' THE SUNSHINE BOYS--while others are truly
collaborative. An ideal course could have several aspects: 1) Compare
filmmakers with a definite "auteur" persona--e.g., Hawks, Hitchcock,
Fuller--to those who were "anonymous," such as Curtiz, Walsh, Wyler.
2) Demonstrate how a filmmaker could swing in both directions; for
example, BALL OF FIRE is as much Brackett and Wilder--and Goldwyn--as
it is Hawks, whereas HATARI! (which I finally saw this past week) is
so unadulterated Hawks that I can't really fathom watching it out of
the context of the rest of his stuff and getting much out of it. 3)
Contrast two examples of a director's work, one "auteurist," one
not--e.g., Ford's THE QUIET MAN with SEVEN WOMEN, Wilder's SUNSET
BLVD. with THE EMPEROR WALTZ, Peckinpah's RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY with
CONVOY, etc. 4) Screen a "typical" film by an auteur director and a
similar film by someone else imitating his style, such as LOVE ME
TONIGHT with a genuine Lubitsch or CHARADE with a genuine Hitchcock.
5) Finally, discuss what makes a filmmaker an "auteur," and how one
examines a movie for the signs that make it recognizable as the work
of that man. That, my friends, would be one fabulous film class, if I
do say so myself.
Mike S.
"We had a saying that those who can't do, teach, and those who can't
teach, teach gym. And those who couldn't do anything were assigned to
our school."--Woody Allen in ANNIE HALL
Bruce Calvert
<bfc02ffc.04050...@posting.google.com>, Matt Barry stated...
>
>Are there any universities that offer country-specific history of film
>courses. For instance, I realized that with certain countries, I'm
>only really familiar with certain periods in their cinematic history.
>I've seen many films from the "Czech New Wave" of the late 1960s, but
>I haven't been able to see a single Czech silent film (I've read that
>the Czech Film Institute actually has the highest survival rate for
>their silents..) or any Czech films from the 30s, 40s, etc. Same with
>the Indian cinema-I've seen the Apu Trilogy, well most of the Satjayit
>Ray films, but no silents. I would also be interested in seeing more
>from the Japanese cinema (I'm familiar thoroughly with Ozu, Mizoguchi,
>Kurosawa) but there's still alot more I'd like to learn about and get
>a chance to see someday.
I got my film degree from the University of Texas in 1978-1982. Besides the
film courses offered by the Radio-TV-Film department, several of the Language
departments offered film courses in foreign laguages for language students as
well as film students. Thus I was able to take a semester in French film and a
semester in Italian film. I believe that the German and Russian departments did
this also. I remember that we covered the Italian silent film era in lectures,
but we didn't screen any silent films (CABIRIA had not been restored by then).
The French Film class covered silents more in depth, but I think that there was
only silent shorts screened. After all, many of the students were foreign
language students, interested in listening to the language being spoken.
Bruce Calvert
--
Visit the Silent Film Still Archive
http://home.comcast.net/~silentfilm/home.htm
Remove the "xspam" to reply
Lincoln Spector
constraints...
Your mention of Seven Chances is interesting. It's not an obvious choice, as
it has a totally undeserved reputation as one of Keaton's weakest, but it's
a good choice.
Tom Stemple, who taught the film history class I took in college, showed it
to us, and we laughed non-stop from beginning to end. It truly is one of the
funniest features ever made.
btw, an astonishing number of the movies I saw in that class are now in my
DVD collection. Shows you the effect a good teacher can have.
Lincoln
"ChaneyFan" <chan...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20040507022806...@mb-m12.aol.com...
Lincoln Spector
> voice--though it may not necessarily be the director's; after all, it
> ain't Herbert Ross' THE SUNSHINE BOYS--while others are truly
> collaborative. An ideal course could have several aspects: 1) Compare
> filmmakers with a definite "auteur" persona--e.g., Hawks, Hitchcock,
> Fuller--to those who were "anonymous," such as Curtiz, Walsh, Wyler.
> 2) Demonstrate how a filmmaker could swing in both directions; for
> example, BALL OF FIRE is as much Brackett and Wilder--and Goldwyn--as
> it is Hawks, whereas HATARI! (which I finally saw this past week) is
> so unadulterated Hawks that I can't really fathom watching it out of
> the context of the rest of his stuff and getting much out of it. 3)
> Contrast two examples of a director's work, one "auteurist," one
> not--e.g., Ford's THE QUIET MAN with SEVEN WOMEN, Wilder's SUNSET
> BLVD. with THE EMPEROR WALTZ, Peckinpah's RIDE THE HIGH COUNTRY with
> CONVOY, etc. 4) Screen a "typical" film by an auteur director and a
> similar film by someone else imitating his style, such as LOVE ME
> TONIGHT with a genuine Lubitsch or CHARADE with a genuine Hitchcock.
> 5) Finally, discuss what makes a filmmaker an "auteur," and how one
> examines a movie for the signs that make it recognizable as the work
> of that man. That, my friends, would be one fabulous film class, if I
> do say so myself.
auteurs, like Sam Goldwyn, Douglas Fairbanks, Ray Harryhausen.
Lincoln
Joseph Goodman
teacher ever said was "Look how thin Marlon Brando used to be!"
Max Nineteennineteen
> group of homeschoolers. I have about 25 parents and kids, ages 6 to about 50.
> (Most of the kids are 10-18...I only have three under 10). I believe history
> should be taught non-chronologically so we have been jumping all over the
> place. I started with THE KID BROTHER, then did a program on early cinema
> (Lumiere, Muybridge, RESCUED BY ROVER, THE GREAT TRAIN ROBBERY, etc.).
I did an hour presentation for my sister-in-law's art history class a
few years ago and did it mostly chronologically, but really placed an
emphasis on seeing things develop from one clip to the next-- and if I
do say so myself, it kind of redeemed the chronological approach. I
started with Lumiere clips and talked about how we still have
"actualities" today all over TV (ie the news), then went to L'Arroseur
Arrose to show how people quickly wanted to act out for the camera.
Talking about how that was framed as if it were on stage led to Great
Train Robbery and a discussion of how we didn't identify with the
characters because we couldn't really see their faces because it was
all played out in continuous long shot, and then that led to clips
from Intolerance that showed Griffith doing precisely the opposite,
cutting continuity apart to get to showing the faces acting. A bit of
montage from Griffith led to some Soviet clips, and then I switched
over to German Expressionism to show how the bit with the night
watchman and a flashlight was repeated by Freund in The Mummy, and
then similar stuff by Welles (who of course started with Gregg Toland,
former assistant of Freund's) in The Lady From Shanghai.
And so on, anyway, I won't go through everything but by showing
continuities from clip to clip, across the years, they were quite
engaged in understanding the roots of what they watch now. Jaws
dropped when I showed them how blatantly Star Wars ripped off similar
scenes in The Searchers.
ChaneyFan
reverse-chronologically.
I don't think it has to be reverse-chrono, but clearly you shouldn't go in
order. For example, there's no reason not to start American History with the
Civil War, jump to WWI, then go back and pick up the pilgrims later.
As Bob noted, I wanted to run KID BROTHER first to hook 'em, and it worked.
ChaneyFan
it has a totally undeserved reputation as one of Keaton's weakest, but it's
a good choice.
I was looking for a short Keaton with good print material that is very funny.
SPITE MARRIAGE, STEAMBOAT BILL, GENERAL, and CAMERAMAN were too long, OUR
HOSPITALITY and THREE AGES too crummy a print, GO WEST and COLLEGE not funny
enough. I narrowed down to NAVIAGATOR, SHERLOCK JR. and 7 CHANCES and just
thought CHANCES was the right choice for the night. With an audience it's
quite a scream.
Robert Lipton
ChaneyFan wrote:
>>>>Your mention of Seven Chances is interesting. It's not an obvious choice, as
>
> it has a totally undeserved reputation as one of Keaton's weakest, but it's
> a good choice.
>
> I was looking for a short Keaton with good print material that is very funny.
> SPITE MARRIAGE, STEAMBOAT BILL, GENERAL, and CAMERAMAN were too long, OUR
> HOSPITALITY and THREE AGES too crummy a print, GO WEST and COLLEGE not funny
> enough. I narrowed down to NAVIAGATOR, SHERLOCK JR. and 7 CHANCES and just
> thought CHANCES was the right choice for the night. With an audience it's
> quite a scream.
Keaton thought it was the weakest of his independent features. Joe
Schenck would go and buy plays for him, but he preferred the stories he
and his writers came up with.
I think the reason that SEVEN CHANCES plays so well is that its story is
more conventional and hence accessible. Keaton starts out as a nice
young man and there is no character transformation, which means the
audience likes him from the start. And the gags work well, even though
they do not arise so clearly and organically from the basic situation
(making breakfast on a deserted steamship in THE NAVIGATOR, clearing the
railroad tracks in THE GENERAL, etc.).
But I'm a Keaton fanatic. ANYTHING HE did is worth watching for me.
Bob
R H Draney
>
>>>>Your mention of Seven Chances is interesting. It's not an obvious choice, as
>it has a totally undeserved reputation as one of Keaton's weakest, but it's
>a good choice.
>
>I was looking for a short Keaton with good print material that is very funny.
>SPITE MARRIAGE, STEAMBOAT BILL, GENERAL, and CAMERAMAN were too long, OUR
>HOSPITALITY and THREE AGES too crummy a print, GO WEST and COLLEGE not funny
>enough. I narrowed down to NAVIAGATOR, SHERLOCK JR. and 7 CHANCES and just
>thought CHANCES was the right choice for the night. With an audience it's
>quite a scream.
I would have gone for ONE WEEK...the final gag leads you so calmly down the
wrong road that it's always a jolt to see the payoff....r
Lincoln Spector
"Robert Lipton" <bobl...@nyc.rr.com> wrote in message
news:PoKnc.62165$Nn4.14...@twister.nyc.rr.com...
>
>
> ChaneyFan wrote:
>
> >>>>Your mention of Seven Chances is interesting. It's not an obvious
choice, as
> >
> > it has a totally undeserved reputation as one of Keaton's weakest, but
it's
> > a good choice.
> >
> > I was looking for a short Keaton with good print material that is very
funny.
> > SPITE MARRIAGE, STEAMBOAT BILL, GENERAL, and CAMERAMAN were too long,
OUR
> > HOSPITALITY and THREE AGES too crummy a print, GO WEST and COLLEGE not
funny
> > enough. I narrowed down to NAVIAGATOR, SHERLOCK JR. and 7 CHANCES and
just
> > thought CHANCES was the right choice for the night. With an audience
it's
> > quite a scream.
>
>
> Keaton thought it was the weakest of his independent features. Joe
> Schenck would go and buy plays for him, but he preferred the stories he
> and his writers came up with.
work. Keaton associated Seven Chances with something bad--Schenck ordered
him to make it--and that kept him from realizing just what a good job he'd
done on it.
The idea, admittedly, was dumb, and the original play was probably lousy.
And judging from the reviews, the recent remake was pretty bad, too. But
Keaton made it his own.
>
> I think the reason that SEVEN CHANCES plays so well is that its story is
> more conventional and hence accessible. Keaton starts out as a nice
> young man and there is no character transformation, which means the
> audience likes him from the start. And the gags work well, even though
> they do not arise so clearly and organically from the basic situation
> (making breakfast on a deserted steamship in THE NAVIGATOR, clearing the
> railroad tracks in THE GENERAL, etc.).
Many of the gags do arise from the situation--he has to find a wife, fast.
It's not a typical Keaton situation, but the gags come from it.
The fact that it still plays so well is amazing because it is, by today's
standards, very offensive. It's a racist, misogynistic movie. So much so
that I hesitated before showing it my stepdaughters, and talked to them
about those issues before I showed it. But it's so damn funny that we
forgive it.
Lincoln
ChaneyFan
wrong road that it's always a jolt to see the payoff....r
I adore ONE WEEK, but I had already picked THE GOAT as the one short I would
run. I also find myself in the temporarily depressed state of *not* owning a
16mm print of ONE WEEK (even though I have owned two previous prints). Long
story.
Precode
I've got one I might be willing to part with.
Mike S.
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Now I just keep wondering why no one's ever tried to turn Citizen Kane
> into a musical...
>
> swac
> o/~"There is a man...a certain man..."o/~
The White Stripes, the best new rock band in ages, has a song called
"The Union Forever" which is made up entirely of quotes from "Citizen
Kane" and includes the line above . . .
King Daevid MacKenzie
...and that's hardly the only Welles reference you'll find in their
catalogue, either. Jack White is a world-class Welles fiend...
...about 15 years back, there was also a band out of Chicago called
Bucket Number 6* that did a song titled "Blues for Orson," that also
touches on CITIZEN KANE...
*"Bucket Number 6" was, as any Chicago kid of the '60s through the '80s
will tell ya, the highest mark you could achieve on the Grand Prize Game
on the Chicago version of "Bozo's Circus."
--
King Daevid MacKenzie, La Crosse, Wisconsin, USA
How Radio is done. No brag, just fact.
http://ultimajock.blogspot.com
"Fear and God do not inhabit the same space." DICK GREGORY
Lloyd Fonvielle
> The sorts of questions one might get: some friends brought their ten year old son to a Silent Society
> program a few years back and the kid liked the film, but he wanted to know why the actors were moving
> their lips and no sound was coming out.
My ten year-old nephew, while watching a DVD of "The Circus", said
suddenly -- why can they have music on the film but not tallking?
That took some explaining.
James Roots
Beats my (then-) 9-year-old asking, "Turn it up, I can't hear
them talking!"
Jim
R H Draney
This is a lesson best taught by showing them Toyo films and pointing out how
awful it looks when the lip movements don't match the spoken dialog...when they
get a few years older, show 'em Doris Wishman films and point out that you never
actually *see* any of the actors speaking; their backs are always turned...(it's
an amusing dodge, but it does tend to make the films even more surreal than they
already are)....r
Mr. Moose
wrote:
My students regularly wonder about how the world used to be black-and-
white, and is now in color. Amusing. (They get the idea of silent
films just fine, though.)
It must be a completely different experience for children to see films
now than it was for us. Can you imagine seeing "Finding Nemo" when you
were a child, a film that looks very realistic and quite often
believeable? (Shrek and LOTR even more so.) The digital revolution is
going to have some interesting consequences...
Mark
Jeff NY
>get a few years older, show 'em Doris Wishman films and point out that you
>never
>actually *see* any of the actors speaking; their backs are always
>turned...(it's
>an amusing dodge, but it does tend to make the films even more surreal than
>they
>already are)
Nothing, however, will ever explain the alternate-universe that Wishman's
characters exist within! A world that requires every female, upon entering
their home, to immediately strip down to their undergarments (leaving high
heels on, please!) and spend a few minutes writhing about on an ugly sofa.
;)
jeff
"You, and the Fast Life, and all that it stands for, can go to hell!"
Sophie Tucker - HONKY TONK (WB-1929)
Lloyd Fonvielle
> Nothing, however, will ever explain the alternate-universe that Wishman's
> characters exist within! A world that requires every female, upon entering
> their home, to immediately strip down to their undergarments (leaving high
> heels on, please!) and spend a few minutes writhing about on an ugly sofa.
> ;)
Alternate universe? All women do this -- it's just not widely known.
Greta de Groat
Jeff NY wrote:
>
> Nothing, however, will ever explain the alternate-universe that Wishman's
> characters exist within! A world that requires every female, upon entering
> their home, to immediately strip down to their undergarments (leaving high
> heels on, please!) and spend a few minutes writhing about on an ugly sofa.
> ;)
>
> ...
That's nuthin, have you seen Night Nurse lately? (ok, they don't have the couch,
but they do strip down at every place of employment as well as at home)
greta
Eric Stott
speech as a character says "Doctor, I want you to sew Felix's Penis On Me!"
In an interview it was amusing to see the elderly Wishman's efforts to actually
say the word "Penis" herself.
Stott
Stephen Cooke
On Tue, 6 Jul 2004, King Daevid MacKenzie wrote:
> Lloyd Fonvielle quotes Stephen Cooke 'n sez:
>
> >> Now I just keep wondering why no one's ever tried to turn Citizen Kane
> >> into a musical...
> >>
> >> swac
> >> o/~"There is a man...a certain man..."o/~
> >
> >
> > The White Stripes, the best new rock band in ages, has a song called
> > "The Union Forever" which is made up entirely of quotes from "Citizen
> > Kane" and includes the line above . . .
>
> ...and that's hardly the only Welles reference you'll find in their
> catalogue, either. Jack White is a world-class Welles fiend...
His own label is called Third Man Records...
> ...about 15 years back, there was also a band out of Chicago called
> Bucket Number 6* that did a song titled "Blues for Orson," that also
> touches on CITIZEN KANE...
Sounds like something for The Byrds.
swac