La Dolce Vita---does it suck, or is it just me?
Barry Merriman
I saw La Dolce Vita last night, on the basis of it
supposedly being one of Fellini's best movies, emotionally
and intellectually deep, etc, etc.
Well, the only emotion it stimulated in me was boredom.
In fact, its one of the least interesting movies I've
ever seen in my life. The filming, directing and acting is
all excellent, but really nothing happens at all...a lot to
take in a 3 hour movie. Its like: a day in the life of a guy whose
life is pretty thin. At best, this would have to be considered
a movie of *extremely* subtle pleasures.
Would anyone care to defend it, or is it really as dull as
it looks.
--
Barry Merriman
UCSD Fusion Energy Research Center
UCLA Dept. of Math
bmer...@fusion.ucsd.edu (Internet; NeXTMail is welcome)
Dan A. Balogh
>I saw La Dolce Vita last night, on the basis of it
>supposedly being one of Fellini's best movies, emotionally
>and intellectually deep, etc, etc.
.
.
.
>Would anyone care to defend it, or is it really as dull as
>it looks.
Well, what originally gave you the idea that it was one of Fellini's
best movies? I would suggest going back to that/those sources to get
more details.
In the end, you have your opinion and that opinion may be the same or
may be different than, say, MY opinion. When you ask for someone to
defend "La Dolce Vita," you're really asking someone to defend their
personal preference, which is really pretty silly in the end. You may
like creamed corn and I may hate it, preferring corn-on-the-cob
instead. So what? Not only is it unlikely that we will change each
others' minds -- but why even try in the first place?
You challenge someone to defend the movie and then imply that unless
you get a compelling response, you'll continue to believe that it is
"really as dull as it looks." Do you really expect that after reading
someone's response to your challenge that you will miraculously go
back in time and become less bored with the movie? I don't think so.
Dan
Peter Reiher
>I saw La Dolce Vita last night, on the basis of it
>supposedly being one of Fellini's best movies, emotionally
>and intellectually deep, etc, etc.
>
>In fact, its one of the least interesting movies I've
>ever seen in my life.
>Would anyone care to defend it, or is it really as dull as
>it looks.
Personally, I don't enjoy either of Fellini's (arguably) most famous
films, "La Dolce Vita" and "8 1/2." I much prefer "Amarcord" and
"La Strada."
It may be that "La Dolce Vita" and "8 1/2" were very much films of their
times, films that spoke to the spirits of people in the early 60s.
In "La Dolce Vita," we get lots of insight on the spiritual emptiness
of the leisured class, especially the upper echelons of that class.
This theme had some freshness in the early 60s, when the Jet Set seemed
the most glamourous of all people, a group devoted to having high-priced
fun all over the world. Fellini's examination of the shallowness of
that life perhaps came as a revelation to those who thought that nothing
could be better than to join that crowd. Similarly, the examination of
the life and difficulties of the artist in "8 1/2" may be too familiar,
nowadays.
It's also possible that this aspect of Fellini just doesn't appeal to
me, personally. There are certainly things to admire in both films,
they simply do not strike me as really great films.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
<http://www.cs.ucla.edu/project-members/reiher/home_page.html>
RalfBenner
movie. Believe it or not, the movie originally opened in this country as a
reserved seat attraction (in Chicago, in followed "Ben Hur" at the old
Michael Todd Theatre). A curiosity piece, it more or less gave a glimpse
at what we're now infected with, addicted to -- paparazzi-style
journalism. Prez Prado's "Patricia" became a huge hit.
RalfB...@aol.com
Rob Ray
>
>ba...@starfire.ucsd.edu (Barry Merriman) wrote:
>
>>I saw La Dolce Vita last night, on the basis of it
>>supposedly being one of Fellini's best movies, emotionally
>>and intellectually deep, etc, etc.
>>Would anyone care to defend it, or is it really as dull as
>>it looks.
>
>best movies? I would suggest going back to that/those sources to get
>more details.
>
>In the end, you have your opinion and that opinion may be the same or
>may be different than, say, MY opinion. When you ask for someone to
>defend "La Dolce Vita," you're really asking someone to defend their
>personal preference, which is really pretty silly in the end. You may
>like creamed corn and I may hate it, preferring corn-on-the-cob
>instead. So what? Not only is it unlikely that we will change each
>others' minds -- but why even try in the first place?
>
>You challenge someone to defend the movie and then imply that unless
>you get a compelling response, you'll continue to believe that it is
>"really as dull as it looks." Do you really expect that after reading
>someone's response to your challenge that you will miraculously go
>back in time and become less bored with the movie? I don't think so.
>
>Dan
>
a lot more complex than creamed corn. Their strengths and weaknesses
are lot more fun to disect and discuss as well. (In fact, that's what this group
is all about.) Whether or not one changes one's opinion about a film is almost
beside the point.
Understand that I have never seen La Dolce Vida and have no real desire to. But,
I think Barry was asking if there was not something present in the film that he
was missing, some obscure (to him) meaning behind the characters' actions,
or the director's use of lighting and color etc.
Anything others might contribute would not erase the 3 hours of boredom he
had on first viewing, but if it caused him to see the film in a new light and
*learn* something about the art of motion pictures, maybe those 3 hours would
not have been a total waste.
My $.02
Rob Ray
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"How much is that BIG GUN?!. . . And I need a box of bullets, too!"
Anita Garvin Stanley (1906-1994)
Dan A. Balogh
>Maybe not...but if he sees the movie again, after investigating other
>viewpoints, he may find it a completely different experience; he may find
>interesting elements in the film which he overlooked or misinterpreted on
>his first viewing. You seem to think that it's impossible to learn anything
>from other people's subjective opinions, and I'm afraid I have to
>disagree. I've re-assessed numerous films after reading or hearing
>others' opinions, although generally not without seeing the film for
>myself a second time.
>Mike D'Angelo | "Hence there was all the time a restless-
Mike:
It wasn't apparent that he was looking for another viewpoint when he
said --
> Would anyone care to defend it, or is it really as dull as
> it looks.
I was responding to the tone, which seemed confrontational.
Dan
Peter Reiher
>
>Not only is it historically important in modern Italian cinema, it was a
>breakthrough movie in world cinema.
. . .
>But La Dolce Vita liberated all the national cinemas from
>forms and subjects which had become stagent and listless, mired in their
>various conventions. Italian cinema, for one, before La Dolce Vita was
>buried under the weight of historical costume pictures (with a very few
>notible exceptions such as Roberto Rossalini's sp? Rome: Open City). The
>effect of La Dolce Vita was to open up the cinema to contemporary
>subjects treated with honesty and naturalism.
I don't believe this to be correct. If you asked a knowledgeable film
fan what was special about Italian cinema in the 50s, he would not have
said its costume dramas, he would have probably woould have said,
"Italian neo-realism." Italian cinema of this era was about bicycle
thieves, poverty, anti-Facism, and gritty realism. Yes, there were
costume epics (like "The Leopard," though I think most of us would be
happy to be buried under more films like that one), and there was the
profusion of cheap, rotten commercial Italian film - I believe that was
the era of the gladiator film. But serious Italian cinema had far more
richness, and realism, than that. "La Dolce Vita," in the mid-60s, had
a decade and a half of naturalism, and often rather grim naturalism,
to look back on.
Moreover, I would not consider a film that opens with an extended sequence
of a helicopter carrying a statue of Jesus Christ with his arms spread widely
open over the city of Rome exactly the standard bearer of naturalism in cinema.
There was even a reasonable amount of the fantastic in Italian cinema.
De Sica's "Miracle in Milan," from 1951 is one example. However, there
clearly is a type of the fantastic that is purely Fellini's, and "La
Dolce Vita" certainly contains some of that.
Leonardo Dasso
On 11 Oct 1995, Barry Merriman wrote:
>
> I saw La Dolce Vita last night, on the basis of it
> supposedly being one of Fellini's best movies, emotionally
> and intellectually deep, etc, etc.
>
> Well, the only emotion it stimulated in me was boredom.
> In fact, its one of the least interesting movies I've
> ever seen in my life. The filming, directing and acting is
> all excellent, but really nothing happens at all...a lot to
> take in a 3 hour movie. Its like: a day in the life of a guy whose
> life is pretty thin. At best, this would have to be considered
> a movie of *extremely* subtle pleasures.
>
> Would anyone care to defend it, or is it really as dull as
> it looks.
>
>
The good thing about your poster is that with a clever title you have
allowed for an easy, simple and short answer:
It is just you.
Leonardo
P.S. Don't be cruel with yourself. Give yourself a second chance: see it
again. Decades of Sillywood dont wash off so easily. It takes time, man.
Dan A. Balogh
>I don't believe this to be correct. If you asked a knowledgeable film
>fan what was special about Italian cinema in the 50s, he would not have
>said its costume dramas, he would have probably woould have said,
>"Italian neo-realism." Italian cinema of this era was about bicycle
>thieves, poverty, anti-Facism, and gritty realism. Yes, there were
>costume epics (like "The Leopard," though I think most of us would be
>happy to be buried under more films like that one), and there was the
>profusion of cheap, rotten commercial Italian film - I believe that was
>the era of the gladiator film. But serious Italian cinema had far more
>richness, and realism, than that. "La Dolce Vita," in the mid-60s, had
>a decade and a half of naturalism, and often rather grim naturalism,
>to look back on.
But you're not quite right either. A "knowledgable film fan", as you
put it, would know that while the Italian neo-realism movement was
influential, it was (like most film movements) short-lived, lasting
from about 1944 to 1953 at most. In no way did it predominate the
1950s.
Dan
handyguy
in this thread saw La Dolce Vita. I saw a beautifully restored 35mm
print at Lincoln Center a few years ago and was blown away by it. Most
of the large audience seemed also to love it. Shot in gorgeous b&w
'scope, it's the type of film that would lose a lot of impact on video
or in a mediocre 16mm print.
I think it's Fellini's most entertaining film. I Vitelloni is the
best of all; 8-1/2 a close second; and La Strada and Satyricon the
most overrated.
Ken Braithwaite
Dan A. Balogh <da...@openix.com> wrote:
>khbr...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Ken Braithwaite) wrote:
>
>>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.95101...@m5.physiol>,
>>Leonardo Dasso <ll...@physiol.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>P.S. Don't be cruel with yourself. Give yourself a second chance: see it
>>>again. Decades of Sillywood dont wash off so easily. It takes time, man.
>
>>Travels, The Conversation, Vertigo, Schindler's List, Sunset Boulevard,
>>Singin' In The Rain, .... my god! you haven't been exposed to **shudder**
>>Pinnochio have you??
>
>Ken,
>
>I agree with you that the films you named are all great American
>films, but I would hardly call them Hollywood films. There's a BIG
>difference. The Hollywood studio system was responsible for stifling
>a great amount of creativity for a long time. Most (if not all) of
>the films you named were made outside that Hollywood studio system.
>
>Dan
>
Dan,
Well the point at issue is Hollywood, not studios. And these are
all Hollywood movies. And more than that all except possibly City Lights
and The Converstaion are indeed studio productions. But Chaplin and
Coppola are both very much Hollywood.
As for the studios stifling creativity ... true in some cases
but not in others. I personally think Hollywood movies of the 30s and
40s are more creative and varied than those of the late 50s through
the sixties and most of the 70s. (And the 80s ...). I have always
suspected you of prefering Halloween III to Bringing Up Baby ... :)
--
Ken Braithwaite khbr...@mercator.uwaterloo.ca
If black and white combine and blend in a thousand shades of gray
Are there then no black and white? -- Alexander Pope
Peter Reiher
>khbr...@mercator.math.uwaterloo.ca (Ken Braithwaite) wrote:
>
>>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.95101...@m5.physiol>,
>>Leonardo Dasso <ll...@physiol.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>>>P.S. Don't be cruel with yourself. Give yourself a second chance: see it
>>>again. Decades of Sillywood dont wash off so easily. It takes time, man.
>
>>Indeed. You may NEVER recover from City Lights, Citizen Kane, Sullivan's
>>Travels, The Conversation, Vertigo, Schindler's List, Sunset Boulevard,
>>Singin' In The Rain, .... my god! you haven't been exposed to **shudder**
>>Pinnochio have you??
>
>films, but I would hardly call them Hollywood films. There's a BIG
>difference. The Hollywood studio system was responsible for stifling
>a great amount of creativity for a long time. Most (if not all) of
>the films you named were made outside that Hollywood studio system.
First off, one needs to be a little careful with the phrase "Hollywood
studio system." The studio system really prevailed from the 1920s through
the early 1950s, and died after that. Major Hollywood "studios" still
dominated (and dominate) American film production, but they make their
films in a very different way than the films made during the earlier
period.
The true studio system was based on long-term contracts with talent (actors,
directors, cinematographers, everyone, basically), large production facilities,
and a close relationship between the producers and exhibitors of the films.
Since you had a chain of theaters that needed a new film every week, more
or less, your studio had to produce 50 movies or so a year. In order to
do so, you needed major production facilities capable of managing almost
a production line of films. That meant you could not afford any slowdowns,
so you needed everything right there - from carpenters to some of the
world's best writers. And you needed large physical facilities where you
could actually film your movies. And you needed a corps of producers to
oversee the making of the films.
Some artists flourished under the studio system - John Ford, Howard Hawkes,
Michael Curtiz, Alfred Hitchcock, William Wyler, George Stevens, and many
others made great films under the studio system. Some artists struggled
with it, notably Orson Welles, but also Preston Sturges and several others.
Many mediocre films, and not a few bad ones, were made under this system,
but I doubt if any other method of producing films has had a significantly
better level of quality.
Since the studio system collapsed, films in Hollywood have been made in
a very different way. However, Steven Spielberg, Martin Scorsese, Francis
Coppola, Ridley Scott, and even Woody Allen have worked within the new
system, and made some fine films. It's neither fair nor accurate to say
that "Showgirls" is a Hollywood movie (because it sucks), but "Schindler's
List" isn't (because it doesn't suck). The fact is that every film on
the list Mr. Braithwaite provided, with the possible exception of "City
Lights," was indeed produced under either the classic Hollywood studio
system or the modern version.
Dan A. Balogh
>In article <Pine.SUN.3.91.95101...@m5.physiol>,
>Leonardo Dasso <ll...@physiol.ox.ac.uk> wrote:
>>P.S. Don't be cruel with yourself. Give yourself a second chance: see it
>>again. Decades of Sillywood dont wash off so easily. It takes time, man.
>Indeed. You may NEVER recover from City Lights, Citizen Kane, Sullivan's
>Travels, The Conversation, Vertigo, Schindler's List, Sunset Boulevard,
>Singin' In The Rain, .... my god! you haven't been exposed to **shudder**
>Pinnochio have you??
Ken,
I agree with you that the films you named are all great American
films, but I would hardly call them Hollywood films. There's a BIG
difference. The Hollywood studio system was responsible for stifling
a great amount of creativity for a long time. Most (if not all) of
the films you named were made outside that Hollywood studio system.
Dan
FilmGene
>Travels, The Conversation, Vertigo, Schindler's List, Sunset Boulevard,
>Singin' In The Rain,>>
<< Most (if not all) of
the films you named were made outside that Hollywood studio system. >>
Only "City Lights" was made outside the "Hollywood studio system". And, if
you stretch it -- "The Conversation". The others are all prime examples of
what could be achieved WITHIN the studio system, from Welles to Spielberg.
Anyone who considers those "non-Hollywood" films has no understanding
whatever of the studio system.
Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
Dan A. Balogh
>Only "City Lights" was made outside the "Hollywood studio system". And, if
>you stretch it -- "The Conversation". The others are all prime examples of
>what could be achieved WITHIN the studio system, from Welles to Spielberg.
>Anyone who considers those "non-Hollywood" films has no understanding
>whatever of the studio system.
>Gene Stavis, School of Visual Arts - NYC
So I have no idea what I'm talking about, huh? Why am I not
surprised? Just another arrogant Usenet SOB...
The studio system I refered to was the system where a producer decided
to do a script, handed it to a director of his choice, picked out
stars that had contracts with the studio, etc. The director, also
signed to the studio, had no choice but to shoot the script with the
photographer who also happened to have a contract with the studio.
Most Michael Curtiz films are good examples. Curtiz never developed
his own style, just directed scripts that were assigned to him, etc.
But of course since you're from the School of Visual Arts (wow), you
apparently dedicate your life to such insignificance and must know
more than me.
How many great artists had to go to school to learn their art anyway?
Dan
FilmGene
apparently dedicate your life to such insignificance and must know
more than me.
How many great artists had to go to school to learn their art anyway?>>
1) It's interesting that, having been totally blown out of the water by
several others in addition to me, you refer to the discussion as
"insignificance". Hmmmm.
2) It is clear that I DO know more than you (except in hurling insults).
3) I don't know how many artists needed to have gone to school. It is
clear, however, that you need considerably more education.
Ken Braithwaite
>
>>Only "City Lights" was made outside the "Hollywood studio system". And, if
>>you stretch it -- "The Conversation". The others are all prime examples of
>>what could be achieved WITHIN the studio system, from Welles to Spielberg.
>>Anyone who considers those "non-Hollywood" films has no understanding
>>whatever of the studio system.
>
>
>
>surprised? Just another arrogant Usenet SOB...
>
>The studio system I refered to was the system where a producer decided
>to do a script, handed it to a director of his choice, picked out
>stars that had contracts with the studio, etc. The director, also
>signed to the studio, had no choice but to shoot the script with the
>photographer who also happened to have a contract with the studio.
Which basically represents only some of what the studios produced,
and really only fits Warner Bros at all well.
But which does not represent most the studio era productions, and
doesn't even fit Thalberg era MGM well. It fits the Thin Man series
and Woody van Dyke I agree. Doesn't fit William Wyler, Alfred Hitchcock,
John Ford, Preston Sturges, John Huston, George Cukor, Ernst Lubitsch,
Leo McCarey, Billy Wilder, Herman Mankiewicz, Orson Welles, ...
This auteurist stuff -- I *really* wanna call it Baloghnie -- is
dated and wrong, based on serious misconcetions on how movies are made
and the completely erroneous idea that the director is the "true
creator" of a movie. Even Truffaut recanted!
>
>Most Michael Curtiz films are good examples. Curtiz never developed
>his own style, just directed scripts that were assigned to him, etc.
Curtiz is of course one of Warner's house directors. And your description
does not fit his most famous movie. And as for the others, well does
that make them any less worthwhile?
>But of course since you're from the School of Visual Arts (wow), you
>apparently dedicate your life to such insignificance and must know
>more than me.
>
>How many great artists had to go to school to learn their art anyway?
Dunno. This looks like a criticism debate to me though, not about
who is or is not an artist.
>
>Dan
Dan A. Balogh
to say about the Hollywood studio system (I found this after looking
up 'studio' in the index) -
From "How to Read a Film: The Art, Technology, Language, History, and
Theory of Film and Media" (James Monaco); Oxford University Press,
1981; ISBN 0-19-502802-3:
In this tightly organized production system, individual contributors -
whether directors, cinematographers, screenwriters, or designers -
could not easily assert themselves. Not only did the mass of films
exhibit a studio style, they also displayed a surprising degree of
intellectual conformity. We can discern a difference between M-G-M's
gloss and Paramount's sophistication, but there is no significant
contrast in terms of the political and social consciousness they each
evinced. Always concerned with the essential commodity value of the
films they produced, the moguls of the golden age of Hollywood
preferred to produce films that were like the other films - not
different from them. As a result, very few of the thousands of films
produced during these years strike us as unique.
<end of passage>
So Ken can continue thinking that this was only true at Warners and he
can continue disputing this theory by citing individual exceptions
(study probability theory Ken), and Gene can continue thinking that
only he knows all the answers but this is the third author that
supports what I was saying about Hollywood and the stifling studio
system (and this was only the second book I picked up). Perhaps the
three authors should have consulted with Ken and Gene before they
wrote their books.
Dan
Peter Reiher
>From "How to Read a Film: The Art, Technology, Language, History, and
>Theory of Film and Media" (James Monaco); Oxford University Press,
>1981; ISBN 0-19-502802-3:
>
>In this tightly organized production system, individual contributors -
>could not easily assert themselves. Not only did the mass of films
>exhibit a studio style, they also displayed a surprising degree of
>intellectual conformity.
>
>
>So Ken can continue thinking that this was only true at Warners and he
>can continue disputing this theory by citing individual exceptions
>(study probability theory Ken), and Gene can continue thinking that
>only he knows all the answers but this is the third author that
>supports what I was saying about Hollywood and the stifling studio
>system (and this was only the second book I picked up). Perhaps the
>three authors should have consulted with Ken and Gene before they
>wrote their books.
You might want to check out "The Genius of The System," by Schatz, and
"The Hollywood Studio System," by Gomery. Since both of these very
well researched books concentrated on the studio system itself (rather
than being general treatments of films that happened to mention the studio
system), and since both are fairly recent, I put more trust in their
significantly more complex view of how Hollywood really worked than
in the quotes you have provided. It wasn't simple, it wasn't uniform,
and it wasn't nearly as well organized as those who look at it
superficially believe.
It is undeniable that much standard, unoriginal junk emerged from a
system that demanded putting out a certain number of films on a certain
schedule. However, that's also true of all other systems meant to
produce large numbers of films, from the current Hollywood practices
to Soviet state-sponsored films to Bollywood. For that matter, even
the less-regimented European community produces large quantities of
dull, unoriginal films - they just don't get as widely exported as
American trash does.
Ken Braithwaite
>to say about the Hollywood studio system (I found this after looking
>up 'studio' in the index) -
>
>Theory of Film and Media" (James Monaco); Oxford University Press,
>1981; ISBN 0-19-502802-3:
>
>In this tightly organized production system, individual contributors -
>exhibit a studio style, they also displayed a surprising degree of
>gloss and Paramount's sophistication, but there is no significant
>contrast in terms of the political and social consciousness they each
>evinced. Always concerned with the essential commodity value of the
>films they produced, the moguls of the golden age of Hollywood
>preferred to produce films that were like the other films - not
>different from them. As a result, very few of the thousands of films
>produced during these years strike us as unique.
>
>
>So Ken can continue thinking that this was only true at Warners and he
>can continue disputing this theory by citing individual exceptions
>(study probability theory Ken), and Gene can continue thinking that
>only he knows all the answers but this is the third author that
>supports what I was saying about Hollywood and the stifling studio
>system (and this was only the second book I picked up). Perhaps the
>three authors should have consulted with Ken and Gene before they
>wrote their books.
Read my post again. You are misrepresenting my position. *YOU* made a specific
claim about how all studios went about the business of making films.
I said that claim was in error, and there is nothing in that quote to support
your claim or refute mine.
And just a suggestion -- read something by historians who have actually
researched how things were done rather than critics who just conjecture,
and whose conjectures (surprise!) suit their preconceptions.
And I am still waiting to be convinced that Singing in the Rain is
not a Hollywood movie.
Dan A. Balogh
>You might want to check out "The Genius of The System," by Schatz, and
>"The Hollywood Studio System," by Gomery. Since both of these very
>well researched books concentrated on the studio system itself (rather
>than being general treatments of films that happened to mention the studio
>system), and since both are fairly recent, I put more trust in their
>significantly more complex view of how Hollywood really worked than
>in the quotes you have provided. It wasn't simple, it wasn't uniform,
>and it wasn't nearly as well organized as those who look at it
>superficially believe.
>It is undeniable that much standard, unoriginal junk emerged from a
>system that demanded putting out a certain number of films on a certain
>schedule. However, that's also true of all other systems meant to
>produce large numbers of films, from the current Hollywood practices
>to Soviet state-sponsored films to Bollywood. For that matter, even
>the less-regimented European community produces large quantities of
>dull, unoriginal films - they just don't get as widely exported as
>American trash does.
>--
> Peter Reiher
> rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
> <http://www.cs.ucla.edu/project-members/reiher/home_page.html>
Peter,
Thanks for the input. It is clear that you really do treat USENET as
a respectful exchange of free ideas while other people use it as a
competition to continually defend their position (like Ken) or to
"blow others out of the water" (like Gene). You and I, for instance,
are the only two people in this thread that mentioned published
citations. The others are too busy with their own arrogant opinions
to be bothered by that.
I shall certainly take your thoughtful comments into consideration and
look up the books you mentioned.
Thanks.
Dan
Ken Braithwaite
I also suggested that you look to historians not critics for history;
these are 2 I was thinking of but there are others.
I am STILL waiting for proof Singing in the Rain and Pinnochio and
Sullivan's Travels and Citizen Kane and Sunset Boulevard are not
Hollywood studio movies as you claimed in begiining this dispute.
>I shall certainly take your thoughtful comments into consideration and
>look up the books you mentioned.
>
>Thanks.
>
>Dan
>
Ken Braithwaite
Schmidlin <rtr...@cintig.microserve.com> wrote:
>I have been following this thread for a long time and find Gene,Dan and Kens
>comments informative and interesting. What bothers me is that though these are
>three educated and dedicated lovers of it appears they have never worked in
>the studeo system. I have and currently work in and out of it. It is hard now
>and always has been to get a good movie made. Somebody always muddles the pot.
>Look at the amount of re-writes Casablanca had and how the studeo system %#@#
>on Preston Sturges. Even Hitchcock had his problems. Those who have worked out
>of the system like Welles and cassevettes had to pay a dear price. So had
>Renoir...I wonder what films he would have made if he had the controll of
>Houston or Ford for any length of time. So let this group think what it is
>they are trying to say as we all love film, let's not praise or tear to
>shreads eveything, lets just try to understand the strain.....SCHMID
A joke John Huston used to tell may be a propos:
Two producers are walking in the desert. They are near death, parched from
thirst. They come to a beautiful oasis with a cool clear pond. "Quick" says
one, "let's drink." "Wait," says the other, "let's piss in it first."
FilmGene
Kens comments informative and interesting. What bothers me is that though
these are three educated and dedicated lovers of it appears they have
never worked in the studeo system. >>
Unless SCHMID is considerably older than he has let on, it is extremely
unlikely that he worked in the studio system we are referring to, that is
the studio system of the '20's through the '50's. There really is NO
comparison between that kind of studio system and the "system" which
exists today.
While there were hideous aspects of that system, most of the people who
have worked in both prefer the older system which, despite its drawbacks,
produced the golden age of American films.
Schmidlin
>Unless SCHMID is considerably older than he has let on, it is extremely
>unlikely that he worked in the studio system we are referring to, that is
>the studio system of the '20's through the '50's. There really is NO
>comparison between that kind of studio system and the "system" which
>exists today.
>While there were hideous aspects of that system, most of the people who
>have worked in both prefer the older system which, despite its drawbacks,
>produced the golden age of American films.
Correct Gene I started working with studeos in the late 70's but with the
amount of time I have spent since that time ( I spent this last summer
working at MCA/U) I have met some old war horses and have found stories that
do not appaer in text books or historical retropectives. I have a large
collection like most of these fine texts. And I don't state that I understand
everything. I guess I may be wrong but some exspearence dureing any time is
better then none.....SCHMID