Oh Boy! Gigi in French!
Glamour Studios
non-musical French version from 1949...it has none of the charm, and all
of the smarm!
Archie Waugh
P.S. - WARNING: This mvie contains actual, annoying French people
speaking French.
Frederica
"Glamour Studios" <glam...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3DE8101C...@gte.net...
Oooh, I think I've seen that! Dammit Archie, I had successfully suppressed
that memory. Years of therapy...
Frederica
Tony Spadaro
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Glamour Studios" <glam...@gte.net> wrote in message
news:3DE8101C...@gte.net...
MPierce12
Perrier(laced with scotch) for dinner instead.
Max
FLEXARET2
The original french-language GIGI was not a great film, but a very
good one and it did inspire a great film.
Based on the original source material by Colette, it was very interesting
to note how the US version of GIGI toned down the consensual sexual
aspects of the story's lifestyle.
Robert Osborne did quote some original reviews which saw the film as nothing
really special, but as having "its moments". And I agree.
One such scene was where the uncle meets the grandmother and they very briefly
recall the affair they had during their youth. How wonderful to see the short
scene which was the source material for one of the
highlights of the MGM GIGI- the song "Yes, I remember It Well" -
so perfectly performed by Maurice Chevalier and Hermoine Gingold.
There were also some other scenes in the French film which evoked memories of
how these scenes were transformed in the later film.
It was certainly worth viewing the French version, but the duped-looking,
contrasty print and the washed-out subtitles did not help one enjoy the
screening. It is possible that MGM bought this film and took it out of
circulation, just as the majors had done on many other occasions
when they remade source material.
Following this on TCM was the Russian SOLARIS - which I could only bear for 45
minutes and am amazed at how this sired the new major studio remake. Of course,
somebody else will tell me what "great art" that original film is and that I
did not appreciate it. And I cannot disagree,
for film is all matter of personal taste.
- Sam Sherman
Tony Spadaro
bailing out of the novel after about 25 pages -- and I HAVE read a lot of
Tolstoy and that wester writer Dusty Vesky, so it's not like I'm allergic to
Russian novels. But I sure have not had any fun out of Russian SciFi.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"FLEXARET2" <flex...@aol.com> wrote in message
news:20021201225209...@mb-fc.aol.com...
Frederica
"Tony Spadaro" <tspa...@ncmaps.rr.com> wrote in message
news:O%EG9.38841$sj1.2...@twister.southeast.rr.com...
> I taped "Solaris" but haven't had the guts to try it yet. I remember
> bailing out of the novel after about 25 pages -- and I HAVE read a lot of
> Tolstoy and that wester writer Dusty Vesky, so it's not like I'm allergic
to
> Russian novels. But I sure have not had any fun out of Russian SciFi.
I actually managed to sit through all of SOLARIS many years ago, but that
was only because I was surrounded by large people and couldn't get out of
the theater. I'd pulled out all of my own fingernails by the time the film
had finished.
Frederica
Christopher Jacobs
> I sure have not had any fun out of Russian SciFi.
>
> ----------------------
Then you need to see AELITA QUEEN OF MARS (although it may take two or
three viewings for it to grow on you)! It's another film, however,
that might well benefit from a Kodascope 5-reel version, if not a
Castle Films one-reel abridgement.
--Christopher Jacobs
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Website/TheTHREAToftheMUMMY.htm
http://www.und.nodak.edu/instruct/cjacobs/Website/VENGEANCEoftheSORCERESS.htm
Tony Spadaro
about it, the more I think "dread" is not the best emotion with which to
approach a film.
--
http://chapelhillnoir.com
and partial home of
The Camera-ist's Manifesto
The Links are at
http://home.nc.rr.com/tspadaro/links.html
"Frederica" <missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com> wrote in message
news:asg12p$pbe$1...@lumberjack.rand.org...
Glamour Studios
certainly help, I agree!
Archie Waugh
James Russell
<missme...@RATSPAMMERSyahoo.com> wrote:
>I actually managed to sit through all of SOLARIS many years ago, but that
>was only because I was surrounded by large people and couldn't get out of
>the theater. I'd pulled out all of my own fingernails by the time the film
>had finished.
It's a slow one all right. The remake apparently runs over an hour less than
the original. Having seen Soderbergh's "Full Frontal" today, though, I will
never know how his remake compares to Tarkovsky's film, as I hated "Full
Frontal" so much that I finally realised I'd seen enough of Soderbergh's
oeuvre at last to realise there's nothing of interest in there for me.
James R.
--
Hot Buttered Death http://hotbuttereddeath.blogspot.com/
Celluloid Dreams: Wednesday, 8pm AEST, 2SER 107.3 FM http://www.2ser.com/
Max Nineteennineteen
actually voluntarily seen more than once. (Actually, I think he's
someone who believed his own publicity after the truly great Andrei
Rublev, and became insufferably pretentious, although I did kind of
like The Sacrifice.) The thing that drove me out of there was finding
how much I agreed with David Thomson's comment that it was a premise
that would have made a good Star Trek episode-- at 1/3 the length....
Frederica
"Max Nineteennineteen" <max...@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:aa2a3f47.02120...@posting.google.com...
I came out thinking "It screams for a remake, a short remake please" oh, and
"OUCH!!!" from the fingernails thing.
Frederica
Silvered Motion
> had finished.
>
> Frederica
You too, eh?
I'm still recovering from having seen the remake; shorter, but no
better; a film of extraordinary self-importance, with remarkably
little of any actual importance to offer the audience ... a poor man's
cross between "2001" [the bulk of the film] and "A.I.:Artificial
Intelligence" [the ending], if you can believe that ... and no, I
don't much care for "2001," but it's much better conceived and made
than "Solaris," and indeed starts to look like the monumental classic
so many claim it to be when compared with Soderbergh's film; fans of
Soderbergh's editorial sensibilities will find much to like on that
level, but the rest is empty ... good actors embodying angst and
uncertainty to the service of characters so thinly established that
few in the audience could possibly care about any of that angst or
uncertainty. Clean, beautiful frames of ... nothing. Strictly my own
reaction, of course ... and I loved "The Limey"! Ah well; Soderbergh
should stay away from remakes and conventional, linear editing, two
horrors which combined in last year's "Ocean's Eleven"; he seems, and
feels, bored with linear film design, but even a series of flashbacks
and other such faux bits of non-linearity cannot save "Solaris" ...
then again, maybe it's Clooney's influence? No, no, it's Soderbergh
... all ya' have to do is watch "Schizopolis" -- God help you -- to
figure out how easy it is for the guy to devote his time and energy to
films that are nothing at all; he credited "Schozopolis" once with
re-energizing his enthusiasm for filmmaking! Unbelievable from the man
who made "Out of Sight" and the "The Limey," but there you go.
However, after "Traffic" and "Ocean's Eleven," I've ceased expecting
another "Limey" from Soderbergh (I missed "Full Frontal," but it
doesn't sound as if I missed much); and really, after "Titanic"'s
hopelessly pedestrian script (or that of "T2: Judgment Day"), James
Cameron's involvement with "Solaris" doesn't surprise me, either. I'm
the guy who found "Minority Report" sloppy and obvious, but loved
"A.I.," both out of Spielberg's camp. It seems as if everyone embraces
the high-concept films I dismiss from these guys, and dismisses the
high-concept films I embrace; maybe it's just me.
...
...
Nah. I rely on evolved critical trends and the history books to back
me up decades from now ... (cough) ....
Bill
Glamour Studios
> I'm
> the guy who found "Minority Report" sloppy and obvious, but loved
> "A.I.," both out of Spielberg's camp. It seems as if everyone embraces
> the high-concept films I dismiss from these guys, and dismisses the
> high-concept films I embrace; maybe it's just me.
>
You and I were just about alone on "A. I." - I dared open my mouth in support of it, and was promptly stomped by
the anti-Spielbergers, some of whom were still laboring under their own bizarre misapprehension that the
uber-robots at the end were aliens, because "Spielberg's films always have aliens" - yeah, right, exactly two of
them that he made twenty + years ago.
Archie Waugh,
who actually often enjoys Harrison Ford the Younger as well!
ChaneyFan
> actually voluntarily seen more than once.
I have a close friend who's a Russian emigre who raved and raved about how this
was the greatest film ever made. I finally saw it a few years back and haven't
recovered yet from the mind numbing experience. Clearly not my cup of tea.
===============================
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
Silvered Motion
> You and I were just about alone on "A. I." - I dared open my mouth in support of it, and was promptly stomped by
> the anti-Spielbergers, some of whom were still laboring under their own bizarre misapprehension that the
> uber-robots at the end were aliens, because "Spielberg's films always have aliens" - yeah, right, exactly two of
> them that he made twenty + years ago.
> Archie Waugh,
> who actually often enjoys Harrison Ford the Younger as well!
My own mother, after seeing the film, asked me about the "aliens at
the end." I'm puzzled by how many people seemed confused on that
point. Perhaps they'd given up on the film earlier, and weren't
following the plot? With all love and kindness to my mother, for whom
it was admittedly material not usually her ilk, I really have to
believe that succesfully following the plot while you're watching the
film should lead to a ready comprehension of the final act (which was
such a delightful surprise to me the first time I saw the film, I
actually wound up with tears in my eyes). Those robots are
anthropologists, seeking an understanding of their origins. And it
ties in directly with Jude Law's prophecy about robots earlier in the
picture. Not that I'm a big supporter of that "we can't clone things
because life paths are used up," or whatever that odd reasoning was,
but I just overlook such less-than-scientific garbledygoop for the
exquisite emotional journey of the film, and its rather extraordinary
visual design. I also felt Osment gave the finest performance of a
male actor that year (the same year Kidman gave the finest female
performance of the year in "The Others"). But now I'm on my
kudos-that-should-have-been kick .... :)
And all of that said, the same critics who blast "A.I." often seem to
praise "Minority Report." I just don't understand it. Has Spielberg,
since the days of "1941," ever directed a scene more beneath his
talents than those chronicling Cruise's eye operation (everything
involving the eye doctor and the aftermath of the operation)? Ugh. And
don't get me started on the cliched plotting, slapdash editing,
blatant inconsistencies in logic (something of a problem in "A.I.,"
admittedly), and other problems. The only good thing about "Minority
Report"? It brought Spielberg back to 2.35:1. If only he'd had a more
purposeful and original cinematography to fill that frame, instead of
yet another scifi or action film that envisions the world in cold
blues, overblown whites, and grainy shadows (I could have done with a
bit less of this in "A.I.," but at least that picture had a
captivating story to tell; sharp, cold blues, quite clean -- as
opposed to the heavy grain Spielberg favors of late -- also marked the
notably more entertaining "Ballistic: Ecks vs. Sever" action offering
of a few months ago, to illustrate how common that photochemical
and/or filtered -- possibly digital grading? -- approach has become)
... as further evidence that I am, indeed, crazy, I honestly believe
"Impostor" is a better Philip K. Dick adaptation than "Minority
Report" (by which I mean a better story, a better visual design, a
better editing sensibility ... a better picture based on a Dick work).
What is the sudden objection in filmmaking circles against rich color
in either science fiction or action? "Blade Runner" is a Parisian
Can-Can compared to the muddy puddle that is "Minority Report." And
"Blade Runner" isn't exactly a bright film, folks. However, The League
for Decency in Film Criticism has already petitioned to have me
removed from public platform, so before they bring out the vials of
hemlock I'll shut up and live to serve another city .... :)
Bill
Stephen Cooke
On 4 Dec 2002, Silvered Motion wrote:
> And all of that said, the same critics who blast "A.I." often seem to
> praise "Minority Report." I just don't understand it.
> Has Spielberg, since the days of "1941," ever directed a scene more
> beneath his talents than those chronicling Cruise's eye operation
> (everything involving the eye doctor and the aftermath of the
> operation)? Ugh.
You didn't see Hook, did you?
swac
Silvered Motion
> You didn't see Hook, did you?
>
> swac
I've blocked "Hook" from my memory. That's my excuse. But yes, I saw
it ... I must admit, I saw it. One needn't go nearly so far back as
"1941" to see Spielberg at his worst.
I actually find "Always," which by all rights should be a charming and
exciting fable, one of Spielberg's least-watchable films. I love the
cinematography, I love the actors, I love the set design, the aerial
and fire FX are fine, you can't go too far wrong with John Goodman (or
so I thought until "The Big Lebowski") ... but when Audrey Hepburn
starts giving Dreyfus a haircut (this is what's happening, isn't it?
Or did I miss something?), the film loses me. Actually, it loses me
from the beginning, but I don't realize it until the haircutting
scene. A remake that need never have come to pass? Perish the thought,
I know, I know ....
Spielberg's films divide me; there are some that I love, not only in
spite of, but sometimes because, of their strong sentimentality, such
as "Saving Private Ryan" and "A.I.: Artificial Intelligence," and some
where that sentimentality just seems processed and canned, lacking in
wit, dragging the film to its knees: "Always," "Hook," what little of
"Empire of the Sun" I've seen (only about twenty minutes or so) all
jump to mind ... I'm also the one who thinks "The Lost World: Jurassic
Park" is much better than the first film, and the third, which
Spielberg didn't even direct, is the best of the bunch, with its
sharp, no-nonsense editing (unless you consider the entire franchise
nonsense ... but you know what I mean), stellar FX, and ... and ...
yes, I admit, I'm rather partial to Tea Leoni. And pterodactyls. What
a combo.
When Spielberg strums his magical harp of storytelling ambition, he
strikes a lovely tune about as often as he strikes a numbing
abomination to the ears (and eyes, as it were). His lack of
consistency (unless you consider the back-and-forth a sort of
consistency) is peculiar, but in his defense, when he sets his sights
on a really great project, he can hit it out of the park (I'd classify
the Indiana Jones trilogy in that group, in part for the adeptness
with which all three films capture the feel and style of classic
theatrical serials). I'm not exactly ANTICIPATING such grandiose
accomplishments from "Catch Me If You Can," but I'll keep an open
mind.
Bill
(who hasn't mentioned "E.T." because he hasn't seen "E.T." since it
was first in theatres, and who changes his mind about "Close
Encounters of the Third Kind" and "Jaws" every time he sees them ...
terrible scripts, great FX, bad films ... mediocre scripts, decent FX,
decent films ... transparent scripts, serviceable FX, great films ...
argh)
P.S. Just to mention something on topic briefly: I've always had a
very poor reaction to the musical "Gigi," not only for the creepy
qualities that seem to pervade every frame, but for its interminable
narrative length and jarring process FX. "Thank Heaven, for 'My Fair
Lady' / It grows better with each viewing, with each day / Thank
Heaven, for 'My Fair Lady' / It trounces 'Gigi' in the most delightful
way." And "Oklahoma!", in its Todd-AO incarnation, stands, I should
think, as the very height of musicals, an exhilerating monument to
everything that's wrong with something like "Gigi."
I realize there are those who love "Gigi"; Robert Osborne has called
it his favorite musical. I respectfully disagree with such an
assessment of its quality, but nevertheless admire him for discerning
that which I cannot in its content. :)