Kael, Eyes Wide Shut
Richard Fangnail
She didn't like Kubrick's films staring with 2001.
I would have liked EWS more if it wasn't with Tom Cruise. And the
supporting cast was great too.
David Oberman
<richard...@excite.com> wrote:
>I've read that Pauline Kael hated Eyes Wide Shut - true or myth?
She said it was ludicrous, which might mean that she hated it.
She said that Kubrick was the director who was least capable of
putting sensuality & eroticism on the screen.
She referred to the orgy in EWS as "hygienic."
_______
The red haw grows at the old home,
Which is sweeter than the river haw;
But the river haw has a perfume
Which is nice in the nostril to draw.
-- from "The Old Homestead" (Mattie J. Peterson)
steve
On 12-Feb-2010, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> She said it was ludicrous, which might mean that she hated it.
>
> She said that Kubrick was the director who was least capable of
> putting sensuality & eroticism on the screen.
>
> She referred to the orgy in EWS as "hygienic."
Woman's POV. I thought it was powerfully sexy. Smokin' hot.
--
"It is no excuse for presumptuous ignorance, that it is directed by insolent
passion."
Edmund Burke.
Steve Newport
was never much of an actor, and got a pass for far too long.
Stone me
"Steve Newport" <birdp...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:29595-4B7...@storefull-3172.bay.webtv.net...
>I often disagree with Kael, but EWS is a truly dreadful film. Tom Cruise
> was never much of an actor, and got a pass for far too long.
>
Occasionally she lets her political standpoint bias her
summary. :-)
(for the most part they are very brief notes)
Stone me.
David Oberman
>> She referred to the orgy in EWS as "hygienic."
>
>Woman's POV. I thought it was powerfully sexy. Smokin' hot.
Yes, sensuality is subjective (lord, how I hate that word). But I
think I share Kael's overarching view of Kubrick as a sensually
sterile director. I have often used the term "clinical" to describe
his director's appraisal of both character & story.
Haven't yet seen "Barry Lyndon."
David Oberman
Newport) wrote:
>Tom Cruise was never much of an actor, and got a pass for far too long.
I think he's a rotten actor. The surest sign of a rotten actor is that
he is invariably best when he's youngest (Elizabeth Taylor is the
perfect example). But in Cruise's case, although he was certainly
better in his first few films, he was hardly good even then. One of
his major flaws is his unpleasant-sounding speaking voice--the sound
of his declamation, particularly in moments of intense emotion.
When some people say he's a great actor, I think they may be
responding to what the director or the editor (or even the composer)
is doing, not to what Cruise is doing. Stick the guy on a stage &
watch him & my hunch is that all will become clear.
(Now watch Jim come along & tell me that he saw Tom do "Hamlet"
onstage X years ago & he was extraordinary.)
nick
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:14:51 -0800 (PST), Richard Fangnail
>
> >I've read that Pauline Kael hated Eyes Wide Shut - true or myth?
>
> She said it was ludicrous, which might mean that she hated it.
>
Did she like any of Kubrick's movies?
steve
On 12-Feb-2010, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> Yes, sensuality is subjective (lord, how I hate that word). But I
> think I share Kael's overarching view of Kubrick as a sensually
> sterile director. I have often used the term "clinical" to describe
> his director's appraisal of both character & story.
I think I know what you mean, Dober. His films are not warm emotional
journeys. They feel detached and cerebral. However, in a sense, that works
in terms of sexuality. [If the leftys are reading, I'll probably get
slammed for this...which is always fun.] Take the scene in A Clockwork
Orange where Alex is on stage and approached by a hot naked chick. The
detached style strips the girl (ahem) of all personal characteristics and
makes her a pure sex object. She's there for one purpose only. Frankly, Im
cool with that. The same is true of the Orgy scene in EWS.
Now, Ive found lots of women sexy (or sexier) because they have great
personalities and are smart and funny. That, in my mind, is part of a
larger form of attraction, where the chick is attractive as a friend, mate,
and sexual partner. But I see nothing wrong with a purely sexual
attraction. In fact, a purely sexual attraction may be a mental focus that
is rather intense and very satisfying. In any case, few scenes hit me as
Kubricks sexual scenes do.
steve
David Oberman
<nickmacp...@AOL.com> wrote:
>Did she like any of Kubrick's movies?
LOLITA most of all. (In fact, you guys might enjoy her full essay on
it in I LOST IT AT THE MOVIES.)
THE KILLING: an impress achievement, she felt.
PATHS OF GLORY: ambivalent about ("The film's rhythm is startling--you
can feel the director's temperament") but in many ways impressed with.
But in all her views of Kubrick's movies, even the early ones, you can
sense in her an inability to take pleasure in his work. (On BARRY
LYNDON: "Kubrick's images are fastidiously delicate in the
inexpressive, peculiarly chilly manner of the English painters of the
period--the mid-18th century--& it's an ice-pack of a movie, a
masterpiece in every insignificant detail. Kubrick supresses most of
the active elements that make movies pleasurable.")
Steve Newport
actor is that he is invariably best when he's youngest (Elizabeth Taylor
is the perfect example). But in Cruise's case, although he was certainly
better in his first few films, he was hardly good even then. One of his
major flaws is his unpleasant-sounding speaking voice
And Taylor has almost no voice to speak of.
nick
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 14:34:10 -0800 (PST), nick
>
> >Did she like any of Kubrick's movies?
>
> LOLITA most of all. (In fact, you guys might enjoy her full essay on
> it in I LOST IT AT THE MOVIES.)
>
Kubrick's,
S D
Sol L. Siegel
news:a0abn5dbpa98k01bb...@4ax.com:
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:14:51 -0800 (PST), Richard Fangnail
> <richard...@excite.com> wrote:
>
>>I've read that Pauline Kael hated Eyes Wide Shut - true or myth?
>
> She said it was ludicrous, which might mean that she hated it.
>
> She said that Kubrick was the director who was least capable of
> putting sensuality & eroticism on the screen.
>
> She referred to the orgy in EWS as "hygienic."
I've always thought that the whole point of the orgy was that it wasn't
erotic. The Harford character makes his nocturnal journeys in search of
the image that will replace that of the wife's narrative of the erotic
dream. This is why he gains entry into the orgy to begin with - but
that image is nowhere to be found. He finally discovers it in his own
bedroom - the mask, instead of his own face, lying on the pillow next to
his sleeping wife.
I know it's pretentious, but that's how I read the movie. It might have
worked, despite Kidman's overstylized performance (and what kind of
dialog writing is "naval officer?") and Kubrick's clumsy efforts to
precisely translate Schnitzler to 1990s New York, except for one thing:
the dream itself isn't erotic! So Pauline was right after all.
Somehow, though, I still like the picture better than A Clockwork
Orange.
--
- Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
David Oberman
>Somehow, though, I still like the picture better than A Clockwork
>Orange.
Sol, I like you!
What do you think of those yappers over in the classical recording
group? Jesus, they take one another apart like wolves over a caribou
carcass.
They make us look like Mr. Rogers & his neighbors.
Sir Blob
> On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 19:40:09 GMT, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> >> She referred to the orgy in EWS as "hygienic."
>
i guess the post mortem gave crabs herpes the works, we'd see if she
was also a hypocrite at this
> >Woman's POV. I thought it was powerfully sexy. Smokin' hot.
tom cruise is a pretty fine actor, eyes wide shut grand stuff, but
could be more erotic
>
> Yes, sensuality is subjective (lord, how I hate that word). But I
> think I share Kael's overarching view of Kubrick as a sensually
> sterile director. I have often used the term "clinical" to describe
> his director's appraisal of both character & story.
>
> Haven't yet seen "Barry Lyndon."
>
>
u double me in age and yet, wot a grand irish pic this be
David Oberman
<sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>u double me in age and yet, wot a grand irish pic this be
You mean you're only 38?
Sir Blob
> who gives a fuck ?
philologists
these days of imdb by the millions name dropping gives a few the
illusion theyr still in control. some are even trying to write video
essays, a small malaise still in our great enlightenment
and who better than kubrick and kael the guggenheims of quotaworldia,
each with their paranoid sex and view not realising the grand
androginous hermaphroditic times we live in, incapable us to jerk off
at this without jerking off at the broads in the thick of it or the it
crowd two seconds later
doesnt take away from most amusingly comments sections, women's ease
for pulling being were it true appaling, with naive languages
persisting above film noirish survival strategies of
hyperintelligentsia
http://www.guardian.co.uk/lifeandstyle/2010/feb/09/how-to-flirt-lessons-women
Steve Newport
I don't like either of them.
When it comes to LOLITA, I liked Albee's Broadway stage version best. It
starred Donald Sutherland, Blanche Baker, Shirley Stoller, Clive Revill,
and Ian Richardson. I also saw Alan Jay Lerner and John Barry's musical
version, starring John Neville, Denise Nickerson, Dorothy Loudon, and
Leonard Frey.
nick
> David Oberman <DavidOber...@att.net> wrote innews:a0abn5dbpa98k01bb...@4ax.com:
>
> > On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:14:51 -0800 (PST), Richard Fangnail
> > <richardfangn...@excite.com> wrote:
>
> >>I've read that Pauline Kael hated Eyes Wide Shut - true or myth?
>
> > She said it was ludicrous, which might mean that she hated it.
>
> > She said that Kubrick was the director who was least capable of
> > putting sensuality & eroticism on the screen.
>
> > She referred to the orgy in EWS as "hygienic."
>
> I've always thought that the whole point of the orgy was that it wasn't
> erotic. The Harford character makes his nocturnal journeys in search of
> the image that will replace that of the wife's narrative of the erotic
> dream. This is why he gains entry into the orgy to begin with - but
> that image is nowhere to be found. He finally discovers it in his own
> bedroom - the mask, instead of his own face, lying on the pillow next to
> his sleeping wife.
>
> I know it's pretentious, but that's how I read the movie. It might have
> worked, despite Kidman's overstylized performance (and what kind of
> dialog writing is "naval officer?") and Kubrick's clumsy efforts to
> precisely translate Schnitzler to 1990s New York, except for one thing:
> the dream itself isn't erotic!
It's been a long time since I read the Schnitzler source material,
Dream Novel or whatever it was called, but iirc the main character was
Jewish--something Kubrick avoided in EWS because he wanted the lead to
be more universal, hence the name Harford=Harrison Ford, Kubrick's
archetypal "gentile" (at least this is what Frederick Raphael said)--
as well as being something of a washout, a general practitioner, a
housecall making doctor, because he was too intellectually unambitious
to go into academia. (Because it would seem that back in those days
teaching at a university was considered more prestigious than being a
medical doctor.)
So his alienation, his outsider status, as I remember, was a lot
better established than it is in Eyes Wide Shut, where all through the
movie you're wondering what the big deal is. It doesn't translate to
1990's New York at all. Not to sound like Calvin or anything but I
kept thinking that if anyone had directed this material it should have
been Woody Allen.
Steven L.
news:%ildn.116824$Fm7....@newsfe16.iad:
> On 12-Feb-2010, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
>
> > Yes, sensuality is subjective (lord, how I hate that word). But I
> > think I share Kael's overarching view of Kubrick as a sensually
> > sterile director. I have often used the term "clinical" to describe
> > his director's appraisal of both character & story.
>
> I think I know what you mean, Dober. His films are not warm emotional
> journeys. They feel detached and cerebral. However, in a sense, that works
> in terms of sexuality. [If the leftys are reading, I'll probably get
> slammed for this...which is always fun.] Take the scene in A Clockwork
> Orange where Alex is on stage and approached by a hot naked chick. The
> detached style strips the girl (ahem) of all personal characteristics and
> makes her a pure sex object. She's there for one purpose only. Frankly, Im
> cool with that. The same is true of the Orgy scene in EWS.
Exactly.
Any director can make a movie with hot steamy sex orgies.
But it takes an unusual type of director to make a movie with
deliberately cold, sterile sex orgies.
What I liked about Eyes Wide Shut is that the protagonist--played by Tom
Cruise--never gets to have sex himself. It's like an erotic dream where
you see lots of sexy stuff around you--and then you wake up and go about
your daily life.
--
--
Steven L.
sdli...@earthlinkNOSPAM.net
Remove the "NOSPAM" before sending to this email address.
Sol L. Siegel
It's very simple: When the subject of a thread looks interesting, I
start reading it until it starts turning into a shouting match and move
on, occasionally skipping ahead to the few posters who consistently have
something to add. d;>)
Sol L. Siegel
news:8973fb34-39a4-4590...@v25g2000yqk.googlegroups.com:
> It's been a long time since I read the Schnitzler source material,
> Dream Novel or whatever it was called, but iirc the main character was
> So his alienation, his outsider status, as I remember, was a lot
> better established than it is in Eyes Wide Shut, where all through the
> movie you're wondering what the big deal is. It doesn't translate to
> 1990's New York at all.
I haven't read the Schnitzler, but I would assume that the gay-bashers
who accost him early on were meant to be equivalents for 1890s anti-
Semites. Regardless of the rumors that have hounded Cruise for years,
there's no other reason for the scene to be in the movie.
nick
character needed to be gay to create some kind of framework for his
dislocation. But just as he didn't want to retain Schnitzler's themes
of Jewishness and anti-Semitism, he didn't want Cruise to be gay
because he he didn't want EWS to get pigeonholed thematically so even
Raphael concedes the film doen't make a lot of sense.
Raphael said another problem with Eyes Wide Shut was that it was a
story about adultery and a failing marriage written by two men happily
married to their spouses for decades. At one point in Eyes Wide Open,
his account of his days working with Kubrick, he talks about how
Stanley was going online to see how much money it cost to get a
prostitute. Neither of them knew anything about orgies. You read it
and wonder why Kubrick was so obsessed with the material for all that
time.
Sol L. Siegel
news:bffb19b0-a1db-42e0...@15g2000yqa.googlegroups.com:
> Raphael said another problem with Eyes Wide Shut was that it was a
> story about adultery and a failing marriage written by two men happily
> married to their spouses for decades. At one point in Eyes Wide Open,
> his account of his days working with Kubrick, he talks about how
> Stanley was going online to see how much money it cost to get a
> prostitute. Neither of them knew anything about orgies. You read it
> and wonder why Kubrick was so obsessed with the material for all that
> time.
Think back to Barry Lyndon and The Shining - both movies about an
isolated man's inability to deal with the world around him. (Remember
that The Shining ends with the failed artist trapped for eternity in his
own vision.) It's as if Kubrick consciously loved his self-imposed
isolation, and yet there was an unacknowledged part of himself that was
screaming to get out. In the end, it may have even been what killed
him.
michael
orgy scene. I liked all the other Kubrick movies, but not this one, although
the orgy was nice to watch. I read a Kael review of Clockwork Orange online
http://www.visual-memory.co.uk/amk/doc/0051.html , way back from 1972, and
she didn't care for that movie. I thought that was a great film.
--
Michael W (earlier "michael",
added W, there are more Michaels now)
www.TheEnglishCollection.com
"Richard Fangnail" <richard...@excite.com> skrev i melding
news:2b748fe1-f107-44e1...@q2g2000pre.googlegroups.com...
tomcervo
I'm not too sure what you think of as isolation. It's pretty clear
that K dropped out of the Hollywood scene, but was surrounded by as
many of his friends and family as he wanted--he saw the people he
worked with and wanted to see, and didn't see the rest. He loved work
and family, and was lucky enough to be able to avoid everyone else.
You really think that Ron Howard looks forward to meeting Mary Hart?
Francis A. Miniter
I have not read the Schnitzler novel, but the whole thing
seems to me to be right out of the Tannhauser legend, with
Christmas substituted for Easter, as Christmas is now what
Americans - well, westerners in general - think about. Even
the use of art. Elizabeth in the legend is deeply
associated with art; Alice in the film worked in an art
gallery and their apartment is loaded with art. The orgy at
the mansion stands in for that in the Venusberg. And there
is redemption at the end with sacred love prevailing over
profane love.
--
Francis A. Miniter
Oscuramente
libros, laminas, llaves
siguen mi suerte.
Jorge Luis Borges, La Cifra Haiku, 6
Steve Newport
MichaelW
she actually wrote such a bad review of Ryan's Daughter that David Lean
didn't make another film for over a decade. If so, she has surely done more
harm than good. David Lean is a favorite of mine, of everybody's i suppose.
--
MichaelW (earlier "michael",
added W, there are more Michaels now)
www.TheEnglishCollection.com
"Steve Newport" <birdp...@webtv.net> skrev i melding
news:14161-4B7...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
Sir Blob
> Do you agree with her general assessment of Kubrick? I read somewhere that
> she actually wrote such a bad review of Ryan's Daughter that David Lean
> didn't make another film for over a decade.
gotta be wishful thinking from the facebook kaelite fangroup prolly
If so, she has surely done more
> harm than good. David Lean is a favorite of mine, of everybody's i suppose.
>
> --
> MichaelW (earlier "michael",
> added W, there are more Michaels now)www.TheEnglishCollection.com
>
> "Steve Newport" <birdpare...@webtv.net> skrev i meldingnews:14161-4B7...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
>
> > I'm with Kael on CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Hated it.
i agree, its a pile of crap
David Oberman
<sirb...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>> > I'm with Kael on CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Hated it.
>
>i agree, its a pile of crap
It's stilted & frenetic, like Prussians at play.
steve
On 15-Feb-2010, David Oberman <DavidO...@att.net> wrote:
> >i agree, its a pile of crap
>
> It's stilted & frenetic, like Prussians at play.
Google tells me that that's a Kael quote.
David Oberman
>> It's stilted & frenetic, like Prussians at play.
>
>Google tells me that that's a Kael quote.
It's a dream of a movie--a bliss-out.
Flasherly
> I often disagree with Kael, but EWS is a truly dreadful film. Tom Cruise
> was never much of an actor, and got a pass for far too long.
He's done some worthy work -- however, these days, altogether
developed and tied into politics of religious persuasions. War of the
Worlds, Minority Report, Vanilla Sky, Interview w/ a Vampire. Oh,
well. Not that you would have to like him to dismiss a unique presence
across broad appeal, but then a connoisseur needn't;- b&w is a
perfectly acceptable medium within its own rights, specialty and
substantive means confer to a lesser viewing audience. Of any of the
above, I wouldn't go farther than a cursory nod of homage to HGW for
WotW for lasting impressions among a receding discretion time permits.
Flasherly
>
> Think back to Barry Lyndon and The Shining - both movies about an
> isolated man's inability to deal with the world around him. (Remember
> that The Shining ends with the failed artist trapped for eternity in his
> own vision.) It's as if Kubrick consciously loved his self-imposed
> isolation, and yet there was an unacknowledged part of himself that was
> screaming to get out. In the end, it may have even been what killed
> him.
>
> --
> - Sol L. Siegel, Philadelphia, PA USA
Poor analogy. Barry Lyndon is superficially alone, a consequence and
result of effete circumstances war, its vagaries and nature, enable
him opportunistically to arise, from a spy of lower distinction, for
whom, we, in this age, are more apt easily take for granted;- any
asshole with a sufficiently large wad of bills stuck in and between
both ears, is entitled to thumb his nose, from the press podium, at a
larger viewing society. Virtue yet exists, being, among such
immutably ageless Graces, an entrustment stated to exact her toll;-
whereas by contrast, the Ponzi of investment scandals of today,
inclusive of Madoff and offspring, sons et al., Virtue becoming, is to
Barry's son, alone, left in stark committal: an unreconcilable mental
state, justly to demand exactitude upon his father's sins. A less
concise distinction permitted retribution within a leeway of social
standings of wealth and power, to contemporise among excesses, as well
conveniences, not just for the privileged alone to abuse.
--
[Past guests at the Overlook Hotel]
Stuart Ullman: Four presidents, movie stars...
Wendy Torrance: Royalty?
Stuart Ullman: All the best people.
nick
> I'm with Kael on CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Hated it.
Loved it as a teenager, indifferent--leaning toward dislike--to it as
an adult.
nick
> Do you agree with her general assessment of Kubrick? I read somewhere that
> she actually wrote such a bad review of Ryan's Daughter that David Lean
> didn't make another film for over a decade. If so, she has surely done more
> harm than good. David Lean is a favorite of mine, of everybody's i suppose.
>
MichaelW
critique of Ryan's Daughter (1970) allegedly dissuaded director David Lean
from making a film for fourteen years afterwards. Her 'preview' of Robert
Altman's 1975 movie Nashville appeared several months before the film was
actually completed, in an (ultimately unsuccessful) attempt to catapult the
film to box office glory."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pauline_Kael
You are right about Lean being slighly touchy, but I just wish he would have
made more films. Anyway, you are right, she cannot be blamed in any case.
--
MichaelW (earlier "michael",
added W, there are more Michaels now)
www.TheEnglishCollection.com
"nick" <nickmacp...@AOL.com> skrev i melding
news:743343ac-0207-482c...@15g2000yqi.googlegroups.com...
David Oberman
It has a nasty spirit, & a demonstrably infantile one, too.
I like movies to be happy & positive & to share happy stories about
love & compassion & joie de vivre. Negative art is bad art.
David Oberman
It certainly does. She didn't manage to convince Stanley Kramer,
Joshua Logan, George Cosmatos, Taylor Hackford, Mel Brooks, Ross
Hunter, Delbert Mann, Lindsay Anderson, Harold Prince, Ken Russell,
George Roy Hill, or John Milius to get out of the movies, either.
MichaelW
movies.
--
MichaelW (earlier "michael",
added W, there are more Michaels now)
www.TheEnglishCollection.com
"David Oberman" <DavidO...@att.net> skrev i melding
news:mjnjn5p1cp2bjo2o6...@4ax.com...
David Oberman
<michaelh...@gmail.com> wrote:
>That would exclude Kafka and Edward Munch, or does your rule apply just to
>movies.
Good question. Probably just movies & music.
nick
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:54:00 -0800 (PST), nick
>
> >On Feb 14, 9:55 pm, birdpare...@webtv.net (Steve Newport) wrote:
> >> I'm with Kael on CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Hated it.
>
> >Loved it as a teenager, indifferent--leaning toward dislike--to it as
> >an adult.
>
> It has a nasty spirit, & a demonstrably infantile one, too.
>
> I like movies to be happy & positive & to share happy stories about
> love & compassion & joie de vivre. Negative art is bad art.
>
but at the same time Kubrick is hectoring and mocking his audience for
their prurience. He's having it both ways. (Kael called him a
pornographer professor or somesuch.) If I'm going to wallow in a
cinematic gutter I want the guy who made the movie enjoy the wallowing
as much as me. That's why I like Brian De Palma and Paul Verhoeven so
much. I don't want to be lectured. That's what Michael Haneke did in
Funny Games and I can't stand that movie.
Steve Newport
positive & to share happy stories about love & compassion & joie de
vivre.
Me, too. They don't make enough movies for people like us!
Stephen Ross Roberts-Newport
Read about our family:
http://www.theanimalrescuesite.com/clickToGive/ps/3/fsg9vxwzgjd7y8lr1k9g.
And please click to give -- it*s free!
Steve Newport
just to movies.>>>
--------------------------
SN: There's no tune like a showtune. Especially an upbeat one.
Steve Newport
convince Stanley Kramer, Joshua Logan, George Cosmatos, Taylor Hackford,
Mel Brooks, Ross Hunter, Delbert Mann, Lindsay Anderson, Harold Prince
Although I think Hal only made two movies. Neil Simon writes in one of
his autobio volumes about a very uncomfortable, accidental meeting he
had with Kael.
tomcervo
> Yes, my source is the Wikipedia article, which says "Kael's scathing
> critique of Ryan's Daughter (1970) allegedly dissuaded director David Lean
> from making a film for fourteen years afterwards.
Wikipedia tends be worth the paper it's printed on.That it's as
accurate as most encyclopedias just shows how valuable most
encyclopedias are.
Lean made a kind of movie that wasn't being made in the 70's, and I
don't think someone who dealt with the likes of Coward, the Kordas,
and Sam Speigel would be very nonplussed by a boutique critic. She
didn't count for very much in Hollywood after a while, and the
reported snipe hunt Warren Beatty gave her may have taught her where
she stood in the food chain.
A friend of hers wondered aloud when the Library of America edition of
her criticism would appear. Since it would have to include her longest
work of film scholarship, "Raising Kane", he'd better hope for later
rather than sooner.
william
If I'm going to wallow in a
> cinematic gutter I want the guy who made the movie enjoy the wallowing
> as much as me. That's why I like Brian De Palma and Paul Verhoeven so
> much. I don't want to be lectured. That's what Michael Haneke did in
> Funny Games and I can't stand that movie.
Aren't those two different things? De Palma and Verhoeven tend toward
the titillating rather than exploring (or whatever) sex and how it's
used. If you want cheese, I have no problem with that and I'm not
being snide as most of us do at some point. On the other hand,
sometimes it's different to have and titties and a distant rather than
jaundiced eye presenting them. Not saying one's better; just
different.
William
www.williamahearn.com
David Oberman
wrote:
>Lean made a kind of movie that wasn't being made in the 70's, and I
>don't think someone who dealt with the likes of Coward, the Kordas,
>and Sam Speigel would be very nonplussed by a boutique critic. She
>didn't count for very much in Hollywood after a while, and the
>reported snipe hunt Warren Beatty gave her may have taught her where
>she stood in the food chain.
>A friend of hers wondered aloud when the Library of America edition of
>her criticism would appear. Since it would have to include her longest
>work of film scholarship, "Raising Kane", he'd better hope for later
>rather than sooner.
You've been watching too many Bogdanovich movies.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/film/filmblog/2010/feb/03/warren-beatty-pauline-kael
Stone me
> news:mjnjn5p1cp2bjo2o6...@4ax.com...
>> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:54:00 -0800 (PST), nick
>> <nickmacp...@AOL.com> wrote:
>>
>>>On Feb 14, 9:55 pm, birdpare...@webtv.net (Steve Newport) wrote:
>>>> I'm with Kael on CLOCKWORK ORANGE. Hated it.
>>>
>>>Loved it as a teenager, indifferent--leaning toward dislike--to it as
>>>an adult.
>>
>> It has a nasty spirit, & a demonstrably infantile one, too.
>>
>> I like movies to be happy & positive & to share happy stories about
>> love & compassion & joie de vivre. Negative art is bad art.
>>
"MichaelW" <michaelh...@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:hlcq17$5mc$1...@news.eternal-september.org...
> That would exclude Kafka and Edward Munch, or does your rule apply just to
> movies.
>
>
Excuse me for butting in here, and bottom posting;
There are no rules that can be so precise. Even for movies, there will be
some
bright spark who can think of an instance which disproves the rule.
This shouldn't be a challenge to a working mind.
Stone me.
Steve Newport
cinematic gutter I want the guy who made the movie to enjoy the
wallowing as much as me.
John Waters!!
Howard Brazee
wrote:
>Wikipedia tends be worth the paper it's printed on.That it's as
>accurate as most encyclopedias just shows how valuable most
>encyclopedias are.
Encyclopedias have always been a good place to start research.
But then we have successive approximations to the truth - and should
never expect to know the "whole truth", which doesn't exist.
--
"In no part of the constitution is more wisdom to be found,
than in the clause which confides the question of war or peace
to the legislature, and not to the executive department."
- James Madison
tomcervo
> On Mon, 15 Feb 2010 20:31:26 -0800 (PST), tomcervo <tomce...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Lean made a kind of movie that wasn't being made in the 70's, and I
> >don't think someone who dealt with the likes of Coward, the Kordas,
> >and Sam Speigel would be very nonplussed by a boutique critic. She
> >didn't count for very much in Hollywood after a while, and the
> >reported snipe hunt Warren Beatty gave her may have taught her where
> >she stood in the food chain.
> >A friend of hers wondered aloud when the Library of America edition of
> >her criticism would appear. Since it would have to include her longest
> >rather than sooner.
>
> You've been watching too many Bogdanovich movies.
>
Not sure I've sat through any since "Nickelodeon", which was probably
the one too many. I had "The Cat's Meow" running on the DVD player
once, but mainly for the casting. Thanks for the article--it confirms
something I saw implied in movie journals in the 80's: a starstruck
Kael thought she was going to be the next Irene Mayer (or Polly
Platt?) and ended up as the butt of a joke. Beatty may have done it
out of malice or indifference, but it probably earned him the Oscar
for "Reds" on sheer popularity.
Now take a look at the interview with Bernard Herrmann and George
Coulouris in the Spring 1972 "Sight and Sound". Sorry, it's not
online, but well worth looking up as an example of Herrmann's
legendary ire. Kael claimed that Welles and Herrmann 'gined up
"Salambo" because RKO wouldn't pay to use a real opera. Herrmann (and
most others) have a different story. Welles was looking for an opera
with a first act curtain going up on the female lead singing an aria.
No such thing, said Herrmann--but I can give you one. He spun off a
near-parody of French Romantic opera, so popular in the early 20th
century American Big Opera houses. All that, and Kael puts it down to
mere cheapness, instead of a director and composer collaborating on a
precise effect. Herrmann hovered between contempt and astonishment--
Kael had never bothered to ask him about his work on "Kane". But then
she never asked ANYONE about "Kane"--she just spun off her own
fantasia, research free, like some clever college kid writing a blog,
which is about what her column in the New Yorker often amounted to.
Shawn was so busy keeping 'fuck' out of her column that he failed to
notice the lack of sense.
Two quotes: Roger Ebert, asked about her, noted that she persisted in
fighting battles that had already been won: in the early 80's SCTV had
a skit with someone playing her, in which she confesses that she can't
tell a good movie from a bad one anymore.
Steve Newport
the article confirms something I saw implied in movie journals in the
80's: a starstruck Kael thought she was going to be the next Irene Mayer
(or Polly Platt?) and ended up as the butt of a joke. Beatty may have
done it out of malice or indifference, but it probably earned him the
Oscar for "Reds" on sheer popularity.
It was an undeserved Oscar.
David Oberman
wrote:
>Thanks for the article--it confirms
>something I saw implied in movie journals in the 80's: a starstruck
>Kael thought she was going to be the next Irene Mayer (or Polly
>Platt?) and ended up as the butt of a joke.
Where is the evidence for this perspective? Based on what I know of
this incident, you're stretching wildly.
If Kael was so "starstruck," why would she have waited until she was
almost SIXTY YEARS OLD to pursue opportunities to mingle in Hollywood?
She had power to do so as far back as 1968, a year into her stint at
the New Yorker.
She went out there to see whether she could have any direct
(pre-production) effect on the quality of various films in planning,
including the one Beatty said he wanted made.
>Now take a look at the interview with Bernard Herrmann and George
>Coulouris in the Spring 1972 "Sight and Sound". Sorry, it's not
>online, but well worth looking up as an example of Herrmann's
>legendary ire. Kael claimed that Welles and Herrmann 'gined up
>"Salambo" because RKO wouldn't pay to use a real opera. Herrmann (and
>most others) have a different story. Welles was looking for an opera
>with a first act curtain going up on the female lead singing an aria.
>No such thing, said Herrmann--but I can give you one. He spun off a
>near-parody of French Romantic opera, so popular in the early 20th
>century American Big Opera houses. All that, and Kael puts it down to
>mere cheapness, instead of a director and composer collaborating on a
>precise effect. Herrmann hovered between contempt and astonishment--
>Kael had never bothered to ask him about his work on "Kane". But then
>she never asked ANYONE about "Kane"--she just spun off her own
>fantasia, research free, like some clever college kid writing a blog,
>which is about what her column in the New Yorker often amounted to.
>Shawn was so busy keeping 'fuck' out of her column that he failed to
>notice the lack of sense.
Tom, you & I will never see eye to eye on this. Have you actually read
RAISING KANE? Your oft-stated scorn seems extrapolated from
Bogdanovich interviews, &, like him, you take minor details from the
KANE essay & blow them up into these enormous obstacles to truth &
validity.
You mischaracterize what Kael actually wrote. She never wrote in that
essay that RKO wouldn't pay to use a real opera. What she said was
that Mankiewicz, in his screenplay, had Susan make her debut in
Massenet's THAIS (French Romantic opera, by the way). (In his youth,
Hearst was engaged to Sybil Sanderson, an American singer who
befriended Massenet & for whom Massenet wrote THAIS.)
All Kael says in RAISING KANE is that to use THAIS would have cost a
fee, "so Bernard Herrmann wrote choice excerpts of a fake
French-Oriental opera--SALAMMBO."
That's ALL she says about the whole Herrmann opera business. That's
it. It really wasn't something that should have elicited "contempt" &
"astonishment" from Herrmann, Welles, Bogdanovich, OR you.
(Really, you should think about reading the essay yourself, instead of
blasting it year after year based on the bitter recollections of a few
others.)
Incidentally, to my ear, SALAMMBO doesn't sound like LES TROYENS or
THAIS, but like twilight German Romanticism--say, the Strauss of
ARIADNE or DIE FRAU.
tomcervo
> On Tue, 16 Feb 2010 18:03:57 -0800 (PST), tomcervo <tomce...@aol.com>
> wrote:
>
> >Thanks for the article--it confirms
> >something I saw implied in movie journals in the 80's: a starstruck
> >Kael thought she was going to be the next Irene Mayer (or Polly
> >Platt?) and ended up as the butt of a joke.
>
> Where is the evidence for this perspective? Based on what I know of
> this incident, you're stretching wildly.
>
> If Kael was so "starstruck," why would she have waited until she was
> almost SIXTY YEARS OLD to pursue opportunities to mingle in Hollywood?
> She had power to do so as far back as 1968, a year into her stint at
> the New Yorker.
Ask me that when YOU'RE almost 60 years old. No fool like an old fool,
as we old fools have proved often enough.
I read it when it appeared in The New Yorker and I owned the book for
a while. I followed the controversy as it unfolded, and for a long
time I was in Kael's camp.
>
> You mischaracterize what Kael actually wrote. She never wrote in that
> essay that RKO wouldn't pay to use a real opera. What she said was
> that Mankiewicz, in his screenplay, had Susan make her debut in
> Massenet's THAIS (French Romantic opera, by the way). (In his youth,
> Hearst was engaged to Sybil Sanderson, an American singer who
> befriended Massenet & for whom Massenet wrote THAIS.)
>
> All Kael says in RAISING KANE is that to use THAIS would have cost a
> fee, "so Bernard Herrmann wrote choice excerpts of a fake
> French-Oriental opera--SALAMMBO."
"Cost a fee"--and who would have paid it? That's a quibble. And
Herrmann wrote Salammbo in response to a particular request from
Welles for a specific effect--one that still floors me when I see it.
>
> That's ALL she says about the whole Herrmann opera business. That's
> it. It really wasn't something that should have elicited "contempt" &
> "astonishment" from Herrmann, Welles, Bogdanovich, OR you.
Contempt is the exact impression I got from Herrmann in the S&S
interview, but then my contemporary impression was not mediated by
Bogdanovich, McBride or Welles.
>
> (Really, you should think about reading the essay yourself, instead of
> blasting it year after year based on the bitter recollections of a few
> others.)
I just saw the "breakfast at the Enquirer office" scene that Kael
seems to regard as a joke played on Welles by cast and crew. The
response to that was that Kael seemed to have no awareness of what was
involved in creating a scene that would make it into a final cut. She
may have been reacting to the brash spontaneity of the scene, but a
letter to say, Joe Cotten would have corrected that impression--but
that would have required research, something that she seemed to regard
as a brake on the headlong flow of her muse.
Hell, she should have written a novel, or a movie, "Citizen Wilson",
about the rise and fall of a boy genius filmmaker as seen through the
eyes of his friends and enemies--but that would have taken some guts.
> Incidentally, to my ear, SALAMMBO doesn't sound like LES TROYENS or
> THAIS, but like twilight German Romanticism--say, the Strauss of
> ARIADNE or DIE FRAU.
But without the humor?
Alexander_ The_Great
Re: Kael, Eyes Wide Shut
Group: rec.arts.movies.past-films Date: Fri, Feb 12, 2010, 2:34pm
(CST-2) From: nickmacp...@AOL.com (nick)
On Feb 12, 2:15 pm, David Oberman <DavidOber...@att.net> wrote:
On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:14:51 -0800 (PST), Richard Fangnail
<richardfangn...@excite.com> wrote:
I've read that Pauline Kael hated Eyes Wide Shut - true or myth?
She said it was ludicrous, which might mean that she hated it.
She called it "crap" which more than likely meant that she hated it.
Did she like any of Kubrick's movies?
----------------------------------------------------
Why should anyone care what some lady thinks of Kubrick's films?
Different people have different tastes. Every director has films people
both love and hate, and yes, I suppose some people hate every film a
certain director does. I wasn't overwelmed with EWS either, but it
wasn't a stinker by any stretch. As for Cruise, I don't have a problem
with his acting all that much, like most people seem to have. He's not a
‘‘great’’ actor, but he does ok in certain films.
Alexander_ The_Great
Re: Kael, Eyes Wide Shut
(CST-2) From: Flas...@live.com (Flasherly)
I thought he did a great job as Lestat in Interview With The Vampire, as
well as it's creater, Anne Rice. I liked Valkyrie as well, though I'm
sure most hate it.
David Oberman
(Alexander_ The_Great) wrote:
>Why should anyone care what some lady thinks of Kubrick's films?
For the same reason that a bunch of us read this newsgroup.
Stone me
"Alexander_ The_Great" <Alexander...@webtv.net> wrote in message
news:4361-4B89...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's good to reach some kind of analysis of a film knowing, or finding
later that noted critics are in opposition.
That's the real value of critics, both professional and amateur.
"Different people have different tastes." Yes, but as you probably realise,
criticism requires some method of explaining and hopefully a consistent
line, besides the usual, "I like/dont like that, so other opinions are
wrong".
Stone me.
Alexander_ The_Great
Re: Kael, Eyes Wide Shut
(CST+6) From: sun...@boulevard.hwd (Stone me)
news:4361-4B89...@storefull-3171.bay.webtv.net...
Re: Kael, Eyes Wide Shut
Group: rec.arts.movies.past-films Date: Fri, Feb 12, 2010, 2:34pm
(CST-2) From: nickmacp...@AOL.com (nick) On Feb 12, 2:15 pm, David
Oberman <DavidOber...@att.net> wrote: On Fri, 12 Feb 2010 10:14:51 -0800
(PST), Richard Fangnail <richardfangn...@excite.com> wrote:
I've read that Pauline Kael hated Eyes Wide Shut - true or myth? She
said it was ludicrous, which might mean that she hated it. She called it
"crap" which more than likely meant that she hated it. Did she like any
of Kubrick's movies?
----------------------------------------------
Different people have different tastes. Every director has films people
both love and hate, and yes, I suppose some people hate every film a
certain director does. I wasn't overwelmed with EWS either, but it
wasn't a stinker by any stretch. As for Cruise, I don't have a problem
with his acting all that much, like most people seem to have. He's not a
''great'' actor, but he does ok in certain films.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
It's good to reach some kind of analysis of a film knowing, or finding
later that noted critics are in opposition. That's the real value of
critics, both professional and amateur. "Different people have different
tastes." Yes, but as you probably realise, criticism requires some
method of explaining and hopefully a consistent line, besides the usual,
"I like/dont like that, so other opinions are wrong".
Stone me.
Oh yes, I get that and understand. Critics are important to a certain
extint, but in the end, you just need to go see that movie or listen to
that cd on your own and form your own opinion of it. I just argue that a
lot of times in my personal view of things have found the complete
opposite over view of a film or maybe a record then what the critics
said. But sure, I see the point you make, and agree.
Alexander_ The_Great
Re: Kael, Eyes Wide Shut
(CST-2) From: DavidO...@att.net (David Oberman)
(Alexander_ The_Great) wrote:
Why should anyone care what some lady thinks of Kubrick's films?
I read this newsgroup for the enjoyment of fdiscussing film. I don't
take to heart what someone else's opinion is on a film, I go and see it
for myself. Almost always, when some ‘‘critic’’ or even some one
in here barks about a film sucking, I see it any way and they usually
turn out to be anything but suck. And the films they say are great, are
the ones that actually suck. So again, I could care less what she has to
say, it's only opinion, and we have get one. Kubrick has way more fans
of his films from a positive perspective then those like her who don't
like his work.
David Oberman
(Alexander_ The_Great) wrote:
>Why should anyone care what some lady thinks of Kubrick's films?
>---------------------------------------------------
>For the same reason that a bunch of us read this newsgroup.
>--------------------------------------------------
>I read this newsgroup for the enjoyment of fdiscussing film.
With us, right?
Well, pretend she's just another one of us.
Avoid normal situations.
style ]
Alexander_ The_Great <Alexander...@webtv.net> wrote:
> Re: Kael, Eyes Wide Shut
> Group: rec.arts.movies.past-films Date: Sat, Feb 27, 2010, 8:26pm
> (CST+6) From: sun...@boulevard.hwd (Stone??me)
> ---------------------------------------------------
> Oh yes, I get that and understand. Critics are important to a certain
> extint, but in the end, you just need to go see that movie or listen to
> that cd on your own and form your own opinion of it. I just argue that a
> lot of times in my personal view of things have found the complete
> opposite over view of a film or maybe a record then what the critics
> said. But sure, I see the point you make, and agree.
More ought to be said, or perhaps clarified.
Now that we live in the 21st century, and have thousands and thousands of
movies from which to choose, all the time, critics are more valuable than
ever; essentially, you're indirectly paying people to see movies for you and
help you separate the wheat from the chaff.
One could argue that one should listen to just plain ol' word of mouth, but
critics -- the real ones, anyway -- can and often will point you to stuff that
most nonprofessionals would never touch. As such... if you've been into movies
for a while (like just about everyone on this newsgroup), and you're willing
to pay close attention... after a time, you can figure out from where each of
your friends, each newsgroup poster, and each critic is coming... and you can
weigh and balance their opinions accordingly.
Consensus often means nothing (argumentum ad populum). Consensus of expert
opinion, however, often means something (e.g., the U.S. Supreme Court).
It's true that you can wind up disagreeing with all your favored pals/users/
critics/whathaveyou sources of information when you actually sit down to see
a picture. That doesn't change where the smart money should go, if you get my
drift. Furthermore, you should always be willing to "fire" a well-regarded
source of opinion if it turns out that he is dishonest, wrong too often, or
he just plain goes nutbag on you, and find somebody else who -- relatively
speaking, anyway -- has his head screwed on, and has more or less the same
subinterests and focuses with cinema as you do.
--
alt.flame Special Forces
"Dear Mr. President: This is just to tell you that everything is all right
now. The man you sent found our house all right, and we went down to the bank
with him and the mortgage can go on for a while longer. You remember I wrote
you about losing the furniture too. Well, your man got it back for us. I never
heard of a president like you." -- Letter to the White House, summer, 1933