After 60 years - I saw it
FoggyTown
anton Karas could sure play the zither - and he did every time he got
the chance!
What acknowledged classics have YOU spent all of your life
unintentionally avoiding?
mikeos
Certainly not this masterpiece.
Howard Brazee
I have avoided seeing _Jaws_, but that wasn't all of my life.
As a quick grab, a classic I missed that I'll get as soon as it's on
Blu-ray is Sullivan's Travels.
Of course, there are some that just aren't available.
--
"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
S D
unklbob
Best Years of Our Lives, and Sunset Boulevard, until the last couple
years. Just watched Vertigo for the first time a month ago.
S D
calvin
> E T
Great beginning and great ending, this is a classic, and Spielberg's
masterpiece.
calvin
The original, I mean, not the politically corrected
version.
Opry phantom
> Watched "The Third Man" for the first time ever today. Boy, that
> anton Karas could sure play the zither - and he did every time he got
> the chance!
>
rmjon23
Yes, but first: by all means hold forth on Mr Joyce's stream of
consciousness technique.
nick
Like a lot of Spielberg, ET's something I liked the first time around
but couldn't get into on repeat viewings. Jaws is maybe the only
Spielberg movie I can watch over and over again. Duel, maybe. Even
Close Encounters didn't hold up on a recent viewing. I'm not a
Spielberg basher but he's never been a filmmaker with a high
rewatchability factor. At least for me anyway.
calvin
(spoiler)
I think the ending of E.T., starting at the beginning of the
bicycle chase, is highly rewatchable. I know I'm being
hopelessly childish, but when the riders are approaching
the authorities with guns (not walkie talkies) and are
lifted away from all danger of their mission being ruined,
to John Williams' glorious music, it's always a big thrill, no
matter having been seen before. And the end at the spaceship,
called 'operatic' by some critic, with goodbyes exchanged,
and E.T. saying "I'll be right here", touching the boy's
forehead, gets me every time, even now writing about it.
It hardly matters what came before in the movie, though
some of it was quite good too, especially the beginning.,
with the spaceship door closing on someone looking out,
seeking the missing comrade. This is great stuff; I'm sorry,
but I'm a sucker for it.
tomcervo
It is, alas, although the downhill run started some time after "Duel".
Take away the manipulative skills, and there's nothing left--like
Hitchcock but without a soul.
Bill Anderson
> On Nov 26, 7:59 am, nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
>> On Nov 25, 10:10 pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
>>> On Nov 25, 3:37 pm, forn...@webtv.net (S D) wrote:
>>>> E T
>>> Great beginning and great ending, this is a classic, and Spielberg's
>>> masterpiece.
>> Like a lot of Spielberg, ET's something I liked the first time around
>> but couldn't get into on repeat viewings. Jaws is maybe the only
>> Spielberg movie I can watch over and over again. Duel, maybe. Even
>> Close Encounters didn't hold up on a recent viewing. I'm not a
>> Spielberg basher but he's never been a filmmaker with a high
>> rewatchability factor. At least for me anyway.
>
> (spoiler)
>
> I think the ending of E.T., starting at the beginning of the
> bicycle chase, is highly rewatchable. I know I'm being
> hopelessly childish, but when the riders are approaching
> the authorities with guns (not walkie talkies) and are
> lifted away from all danger of their mission being ruined,
> to John Williams' glorious music, it's always a big thrill, no
> matter having been seen before. And the end at the spaceship,
> called 'operatic' by some critic, with goodbyes exchanged,
> and E.T. saying "I'll be right here", touching the boy's
> forehead, gets me every time, even now writing about it.
>
And lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world.
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
nick
I'll mark the decline with A Color Purple and then give Spielberg a
comeback in the early 90s that lasted until Munich, arguably his best
movie post-Jaws. Like I said, I'm not a Spielberg basher. But with
The Terminal--I know he did that one before Munich, but still--and the
last Indy Jones, a disinterest creeps into the material and that's
something new for Spielberg. The Terminal played to all his fetishes
and Crystal Skull (or whatever it was called) should have been a
welcome shot for Spielberg to reclaim his action film supremacy but
the former looked like the work of someone who'd never been in an
airport in his life and with the latter, Spielberg achieved the near-
impossible--he made something duller than the National Treasure
movies.
Bill Anderson
I basically agree with this assessment. Spielberg's gift seems to be
(to have been?) the ability to tap into the Zeitgeist. Jaws had people
lined up around the block, had people everywhere talking incessantly
about sharks and beaches and fear and so forth and so on. The movie
heavily influenced the popular culture for a time, like Star Wars did
and really only a handful of other pictures, like ... like ... I can't
come up with any more that seemed to me to have had that kind of impact.
But now I really can't watch Jaws -- not because it's a bad movie, but
because I just don't care. And my Spielberg ennui especially applies to
E.T. and Close Encounters and Indiana Jones and whatever other popular
blockbusters he may have produced.
I can watch Rear Window over and over again, and North by Northwest and
The 39 Steps and Young and Innocent and lots of other Hitchcocks. I'll
never tire of The Third Man or King Kong or The African Queen or well,
that list could go on and on. Swing Time too, Steve, nyah.
So what's the deal with Spielberg films? I loved E.T. the first time I
saw it. I remember commenting that I thought it would prove to be as
popular in repeated viewings as The Wizard of Oz. But no, not at all,
at least not for me. I don't like those kids anymore, or mom, or clunky
old E.T. I don't believe any of it; I don't want to see it again, bleh.
But of course that's just me. I'm not arguing that E.T. is a bad movie.
I'm just observing that my initial wild enthusiasm wore off quickly
and that seems to be my experience with all? most? Spielberg movies. I
look forward to enjoying his next blockbuster, but I can't think of any
of his past movies I would want to watch again. What an accomplishment.
That Steven is amazing, isn't he? How does he do it?
nick
*Everybody* thought ET was going to be a beloved classic on the level
of The Wizard of Oz. But it didn't happen. It's re-release flopped
and it's not got much traction elsewhere. My younger relatives, their
eyes glaze over at the mere mention of ET.
Meanwhile, A Christmas Story, from that same decade, came out to minor
notice and grew into the beloved classic that ET never got to be (by
moving past a post-public domain It's a Wonderful Life). Now since
people are getting burned out on viewing A Christmas Story year after
year, it's lost ground to National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation. So
what we have is National Lampoon's Christmas Vacation being a more
beloved timeless classic than ET, something no one could have
predicted.
calvin
> On Nov 26, 12:04 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > tomcervo wrote:
All that the three of you (Tom, Nick, and Billy) say may be true,
but the beginning and ending of E.T. are still great. Tears again
watching those parts again this morning. Can a movie be
remembered and respected just for a few of its parts? I don't
see why not.
That might be a topic for a thread: Great parts of movies that were
not great.
moviePig
A fairly astute friend of mine (since deceased), when E.T. was
released and had my crowd in its thrall, astonished us all by
pronouncing the movie "corny" ...which nevertheless eventually became
its signature character. I guess that's what's called 'prescience',
especially because it usually seems loony at first.
Re Spielberg tapping into the Zeitgeist, you may be confusing him with
Stephen King. (I'm now plowing through King's latest thousand-page
brick with shameful gusto, but fearful that the book's melodramatic
topical landscape will exceed its shelf-life before I'm finished.)
Remember that JAWS's demonization of America's sandy surf sprang fully
formed from Benchley's enormously popular book. Spielberg merely
assembled the pictures. Wonderfully well, yes, but compare the
material to his own literature... say, CLOSE ENCOUNTERS...
--
- - - - - - - -
YOUR taste at work...
http://www.moviepig.com
unklbob
I think that Jaws is a very well made movie, technically, particularly
the editing and cinematography. Over time, though, the characters and
story have become cliche', and its lost its impact.
Saving Private Ryan was important, also, because it is one of the few
movies that show the incredible violence of a full pitched battle, and
depicted the Omaha beach invasion as faithfully as possible. But I
agree that Spielberg is a master manipulator--its like listening to a
demagogue give a speech and watching the sheep around you eat it up.
calvin
> A fairly astute friend of mine (since deceased), when E.T. was
> released and had my crowd in its thrall, astonished us all by
> pronouncing the movie "corny" ...which nevertheless eventually became
> its signature character. I guess that's what's called 'prescience',
> especially because it usually seems loony at first.
I don't see why/how a director would, could, or should
make his movie for future critical appraisal. If his
creation is enormously popular and well received by
the critics of the day, then that looks like a win to me.
Besides, it seems a bit unfair for people who liked a
movie when it was new to condemn it a quarter century
later because audience tastes have changed.
nick
>
> A fairly astute friend of mine (since deceased), when E.T. was
> released and had my crowd in its thrall, astonished us all by
> pronouncing the movie "corny" ...which nevertheless eventually became
> its signature character. I guess that's what's called 'prescience',
> especially because it usually seems loony at first.
Same thing happened when I saw ET with some school friends. I liked
it a lot. One of us started crying at the end. But a third said,
well, that it was corny and it sucked, with enough snickering and
smugness we wrote him off as being obnoxiously contrarian.
>
> Re Spielberg tapping into the Zeitgeist, you may be confusing him with
> Stephen King. (I'm now plowing through King's latest thousand-page
> brick with shameful gusto, but fearful that the book's melodramatic
> topical landscape will exceed its shelf-life before I'm finished.)
You too, huh? I've got maybe two hundred pages to go--after two and a
half weeks of reading maybe 50 pages a day--and while it's
melodramatic topical landscape is holding strong, problems with the
ending and any explanation of the Dome are beginning to peak through.
But aside from the DOA subplot involving a couple of meth-addled
townies, Under the Dome is a lot of things, but dull isn't one of
them.
calvin
> ...
> agree that Spielberg is a master manipulator--its like listening to a
> demagogue give a speech and watching the sheep around you eat it up.
I've never learned the difference between being manipulated
and being entertained in the theatre arts. Was Sophocles
manipulating us in Oedipus Rex? I think a case could be
made that he was.
moviePig
And this time around, I'm not going to tee off on King for his typical
retinue of dimension-free hypocrites, bullies, psychopaths,
etc. ...all of whom are transparently destined to burn in Hell like
the papier-mache they're made of. Even though that's invariably what
limits his filmed stuff, it's always been the basis for his most
successful and ultra-fast reading. (I'm only a quarter in, but
wondering if it's already time to start calling this one
'UNDERDOME...)
moviePig
Ommv, but, if I were a filmmaker aiming for more than a paycheck, I'm
pretty sure I'd want my audience to call me the next morning... and
year... and decade...
calvin
You seem to be equating "enormously popular and
well received by the critics of the day" with "a paycheck".
calvin
> [The Terminal] looked like the work of someone who'd never been
> in an airport in his life ...
I'm not sure that's bad (I liked The Terminal). If Fellini had
made a movie that took place in a terminal you can be sure it
would not have been like any terminal you had ever seen
(would that he had).
LookingGlass
calvin
Unfortunately it was severely damaged by the 2000-year
jump farther into the future. If you cut it off while the
boy is endlessly praying to the Blue Fairy: "... and the next
day, and the next ...", then it's a much better movie.
nick
This time out King's timely enough that he casts his hypocrites,
bullies and psychopaths as Obama hating secessionists. Take away that
Dome they're all under and they'd be Glen Beck- watching Teabagger.
If post-election Obama had been able to win over the white male Fox
demographic, King would've been sitting on one serious misfire of a
novel. As it is, Under the Dome has a "torn from today's headlines"
immediacy.
nick
The last section was as Kubrick planned it but everyone blames
Spielberg anyway. I get the impression--wrongly or rightly--that
Spielberg, in filming AI, was fulfilling Kubrick family wishes and he
must have been aware that the material was problematic to the point of
being unworkable but plunged right on in anyway. I bet if Kubrick had
lived, he would have passed on AI for something else.
moviePig
Yes, at least to the extent that neither implies what the typical ego
usually deems "lasting substance".
moviePig
Almost certainly the bulk of it was written before the recent
Presidential election. Might've been interesting to watch the
finishing touches fall into place. (I understand Kubrick tried to get
Lloyd's of London to insure 2001:ASO against an ill-timed discovery of
extraterrestrial life, although agreement was never reached.)
moviePig
Just to support 'LookingGlass': I'm not put out to hear A.I. called a
"masterpiece", whosoever's it is. It's frosty and ambitious, and I
doubt Stanley turned over in his grave. Besides, if nothing else, it
may be Haley Joel Osment's peak life-experience...
nick
"Nov. 22, 2007 - March 14, 2009" specifically, or at least according
to King. I did notice that early in the novel characters are
listening to songs by James Blunt and LCD Soundsystem from a couple
years back but later in the novel--a few days in actual time--there
are references to a television series spin-off to Lost and AppleTV and
the Apple tablet, placing the action a little while in the future, so
in King's rush to finish a thousand page novel in less than two years,
a consistent time frame must have been one of the small sacrifices.
calvin
> This time out King's timely enough that he casts his hypocrites,
> bullies and psychopaths as Obama hating secessionists. Take away that
> Dome they're all under and they'd be Glen Beck- watching Teabagger.
Though the phrase is 'tea party', the MSNBC adolescents
insist on using the word 'teabagger', because apparently
an obscene innuendo just never stops being funny.
nick
You're right, It never stops being funny. But who's to argue with
the folks who put out the Oxford American Dictionary?
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/teabagger-oxford-dictiona_b_362355.html
tomcervo
I can't think of the exact coinage, but it's something along lines of
literature being news that remains news. Some things survive and some
don't, and the survival after a while depends on how they call upon a
human chord. Not much of Spielberg's stuff really does. It's a few
months of sensation and then it's what the hell was I thinking? You
look at Sirk's romantic melodramas from the 50's; as artificial as
they may seem, there's a core of something genuine in them that makes
them as fresh as new paint
There's almost nothing in Spielberg's work that doesn't have a display
of spectacular bad taste or artistic judgment. By any standard, his
most important work is "Schindler's List". All he had to do was film
the book that Kenneally wrote--the true story--but instead he
"improved" it. He made up stuff out of whole cloth, like the
"breakdown" at the end, so well and justly mocked by Larry David in a
"Seinfeld" episode--but mildly so. He "improves" the story of a man
who spent three years of his life in constant mortal danger, and he
himself never risked anything more than a few percentage points in a
movie deal. And at the end he dedicates the movie to the mogul who
gave him a break.
i know it's just a movie, but the first time I heard the story of
Oscar Schindler, it was from Tom Kenneally, talking to a group about
the book he'd just written. And afterward at the signing, he spent a
long time talking to an old man on crutches--one of the names on the
list. it's not that I think that Spielberg isn't a good man, he's just
an artist with a very limited imagination, moral and artistic.
calvin
> ... it's not that I think that Spielberg isn't a good man, he's just
> an artist with a very limited imagination, moral and artistic.
He seems to be too good, in the liberal sense. In
some DVD feature I saw with him and Tom Cruise,
Cruise was making a fool of himself talking about his
'collaboration' with Spielberg. Apparently Cruise
thought it was part of his job to advise the director
and help him shape the movie.
And Spielberg was going along with it, humbly
(false humility I believe) accepting Cruise's arrogance
as valid and appreciated.
moviePig
And what etches deeper into the cultural lexicon than an adamant
statement of what a word absitively, posolutely *doesn't* mean. Yep,
the jury is instructed to ignore that last definition...
calvin
I didn't read that far. Like I said, adolescent obscene innuendo.
It doesn't harm me.
moviePig
You seem to miss the joke, which has little to do with talking
naughty. E.g., if it were "lefties" proudly referring to themselves
as scrotum-danglers, it wouldn't be nearly as funny as it is coming
from the Puritanical, homophobic right.
calvin
I'm not interested in obscene jokes; never have been.
As for "the Puritanical, homophobic right", you don't
know what you're talking about. Say something interesting
about the right and we can talk.
calvin
I've never heard of a Tea Party goer referring to himself as
a 'teabagger'. I've heard that only in MSNBC's snide and
childish commentary. And no doubt SNL and all of the
leftist comedians have perpetuated it. Of course I don't
know what all Tea Party goers have called themselves,
but to my knowledge it's just the leftist adolescents' childish
joke, best ignored, which I should have done.
Endymion9
news:d71870a3-33d8-4d61...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> Watched "The Third Man" for the first time ever today. Boy, that
> anton Karas could sure play the zither - and he did every time he got
> the chance!
>
> What acknowledged classics have YOU spent all of your life
> unintentionally avoiding?
I've still never seen any of the Thin Man movies.
--
--
Dennis/Endy9
~Some will sink, but we will float. Grab your coat. Let's get out of here.
You're my witness, I'm your Mutineer.~ Warren Zevon
--
calvin
> "FoggyTown" <foggyt...@aol.com> wrote:
> > Watched "The Third Man" for the first time ever today. Boy, that
> > anton Karas could sure play the zither - and he did every time he got
> > the chance!
>
> > What acknowledged classics have YOU spent all of your life
> > unintentionally avoiding?
>
> I've still never seen any of the Thin Man movies.
I saw them all because a friend insisted on
loaning them to me, one at a time. I thought
the humor was amusing now and then, but the
plots were insanely complex. I could never even
follow the detailed explanations always given
at the end by Powell, and didn't really care.
I saw 'em, but would just as soon not've.
A written classic that I had been unintentionally avoiding,
and just started reading tonight, is Look Homeward Angel.
This is great stuff, blowing me away.
Anim8rFSK
<1ec9010e-c09e-4d29...@n35g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
nick <nickmacp...@AOL.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 10:10�pm, calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> > On Nov 25, 3:37�pm, forn...@webtv.net (S D) wrote:
> >
> > > E T
> >
> > Great beginning and great ending, this is a classic, and Spielberg's
> > masterpiece.
>
> Like a lot of Spielberg, ET's something I liked the first time around
> but couldn't get into on repeat viewings. Jaws is maybe the only
> Spielberg movie I can watch over and over again. Duel, maybe. Even
> Close Encounters didn't hold up on a recent viewing. I'm not a
> Spielberg basher but he's never been a filmmaker with a high
> rewatchability factor. At least for me anyway.
CE3K holds up better if it's the original cut; it's special editions are
pretty much awful.
--
Stargate Universe SGU: It puts the "U" in "SUCKS"!
It's the show 'Defiling Gravity' would be if DG had more regulars,
fewer abortions, worse writers, and no budget for lighting.
Remember, you can't spell "disgust" without SGU!
Anim8rFSK
Bill Anderson <billand...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But of course that's just me. I'm not arguing that E.T. is a bad movie.
I'd argue that E.T. is a bad movie. Stuff only happens because it's
needed to happen for the next scene. A friend of mine who likes E.T.
says you can't really appreciate it unless you have a squirming child on
your lap. Maybe so, but that doesn't make it not a bad movie!
Anim8rFSK
"Endymion9" <endym...@comcast.net> wrote:
> "FoggyTown" <fogg...@aol.com> wrote in message
> news:d71870a3-33d8-4d61...@g27g2000yqn.googlegroups.com...
> > Watched "The Third Man" for the first time ever today. Boy, that
> > anton Karas could sure play the zither - and he did every time he got
> > the chance!
> >
> > What acknowledged classics have YOU spent all of your life
> > unintentionally avoiding?
>
>
>
> I've still never seen any of the Thin Man movies.
I've only seen one Thin Man, an episode of the TV show with Peter
Lawford that starred Robbie the Robot. Must be an extra on Forbidden
Planet or something.
David Oberman
>What acknowledged classics have YOU spent all of your life
>unintentionally avoiding?
RASHOMON
GREED
____
It is not exactly that we learn from each other, for no one can
really learn anything except in and by himself; it seems better to
say that we learn because of each other, and, indeed, that if there
were no others, there could be no learning at all. In this there is
a mystery, for we know not how to account for the first beginning
of all learning.
-- Richard Mitchell, "Psyche Papers" Part III
william
> FoggyTown <foggyt...@aol.com> wrote:
> >What acknowledged classics have YOU spent all of your life
> >unintentionally avoiding?
>
> RASHOMON
> GREED
>
are films that should, need to be seen and will deliver a grand
experience. Really.
William
www.williamahearn.com
steve
On 30-Nov-2009, David Oberman <dobe...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> >What acknowledged classics have YOU spent all of your life
> >unintentionally avoiding?
>
> RASHOMON
You've never seen Rashomon? Really?
> GREED
Do you mean this one?
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015881/
steve
--
"Politicians are worse than thieves. At least when thieves take your money,
they don't expect you to thank them for it."
Walter Williams
David Oberman
>A fairly astute friend of mine (since deceased), when E.T. was
>released and had my crowd in its thrall, astonished us all by
>pronouncing the movie "corny" ...which nevertheless eventually became
>its signature character. I guess that's what's called 'prescience',
>especially because it usually seems loony at first.
The critic least qualified to make any pronouncements about movie
classics for the young in America -- John Simon -- has always been on
top of Spielberg. As far back as "The Sugarland Express," Simon has
insisted that Spielberg is no artist but a grinding manipulator, often
with entertaining results but never with truly provocative or
believable views into personality or anything more than mechanical
craftsmanship.
"If we compare BADLANDS with THE SUGARLAND EXPRESS, the difference
between the artist & the mere smartass becomes overwhelmingly
manifest. Steven Spielberg's film about a kooky couple on the lam,
escorted by what seems to be the entire Texas police force, has a
certain cinematic knack, but is all effect & no real humanity, all
manipulation & splash, & no attempt at honest insight" (June 1974).
David Oberman
>> Though the phrase is 'tea party', the MSNBC adolescents
>> insist on using the word 'teabagger', because apparently
>> an obscene innuendo just never stops being funny.
>
>You're right, It never stops being funny. But who's to argue with
>the folks who put out the Oxford American Dictionary?
>
>http://www.huffingtonpost.com/dawn-teo/teabagger-oxford-dictiona_b_362355.html
The dictionaries shouldn't be doing this just yet. It's too soon.
Lexicographers have always pushed political views, but they used to
wait a year or two before pretending that what they were doing was all
legitimate descriptive linguistics.
moviePig
> >What acknowledged classics have YOU spent all of your life
> >unintentionally avoiding?
>
> RASHOMON
> GREED
Haven't you heard? GREED is good!
Actually, like the dedicated Philistine that I am, I recall it being
mostly for film historians. But RASHOMON's a treasure... not to
mention deep...
David Oberman
>> RASHOMON
>> GREED
>>
>David, I know we don't agree on everything. Having said that, these
>are films that should, need to be seen and will deliver a grand
>experience. Really.
I saw a little bit of GREED on public TV years ago -- the part with
the two of them in the hotel room on the boardwalk? I'll watch the
rest of what's available some day, as I will RASHOMON.
One movie I will NOT watch is CLOCKWORK ORANGE, in which Beethoven is
used to degrading effect! Also using Beethoven to degrading effect is
Keith Olbermann on his TV show.
Judge Judy uses Beethoven on her TV show, but by doing so, elevates
her show & its viewers. Judge Judy can do no wrong.
David Oberman
>> RASHOMON
>
>You've never seen Rashomon? Really?
Not that I recall. But others tell me I actually did see it.
>> GREED
>
>Do you mean this one?
>
>http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0015881/
Yes, that's it. Based on a Frank Norris novel which I really love,
second only to American novels by Fitzgerald ("Tender Is the Night") &
Ford Madox Ford ("The Good Soldier") & superior to novels by Dos
Passos, Hemingway, A.B. Guthrie, & William F. Buckley.
I don't think I've seen Stroheim's WEDDING MARCH, either, come to
think of it.
David Oberman
>Actually, like the dedicated Philistine that I am, I recall it being
>mostly for film historians. But RASHOMON's a treasure... not to
>mention deep...
I'm going to see both of them, if a massive cardiac event doesn't do
me in first. (It shouldn't -- one isn't expected to.)
I also want to see Stroheim's WEDDING MARCH.
Did you see Griffith's BATTLE OF THE SEXES last night? My mom watched
it with me. She was bored with the sentimentality, but I had to
explain to her that she was seeing a master (albeit at low ebb by
1928) at work. I told her to observe how the cuts got quicker &
quicker as the action grew tenser or the characters grew more upset, &
conversely how the cuts extended languidly as the action calmed. I
pointed out that this was how this master director & visionary created
such exquisite directorial rhythm -- how he pioneered aspects of
musical tempo application in films & how his cameraman Bitzer put the
camera where it belonged in every scene! I remarked how refreshing it
was to watch these maestri's art unfold so assuredly & satisfyingly, &
compared their craftsmanship with the shoddy crap you see nowadays at
the movies.
Bill Anderson
> "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
>>> RASHOMON
>> You've never seen Rashomon? Really?
>
> Not that I recall. But others tell me I actually did see it.
>
*snicker*
--
Bill Anderson
I am the Mighty Favog
nick
> One movie I will NOT watch is CLOCKWORK ORANGE, in which Beethoven is
> used to degrading effect! Also using Beethoven to degrading effect is
> Keith Olbermann on his TV show.
>
What do you think of Walter/Wendy Carlos?
william
>
> One movie I will NOT watch is CLOCKWORK ORANGE, in which Beethoven is
> used to degrading effect!
Nonsense. I'm a Beethoven fan and that wasn't my take. Now, Singin' In
The Rain is another story . . .
William
www.williamahearn.com
David Oberman
>What do you think of Walter/Wendy Carlos?
I think (s)he's mostly a rump roast, plundering the past solely to
play with all the wrong sound gadgets (never the right ones, like the
Hohner Pianet).
I think I know why Kubrick settled on Beethoven for the Ludovico
brainwashing scenes in the film: Beethoven signed himself "Ludovico" a
number of times, including in letters & on manuscript frontispieces.
David Oberman
>Nonsense. I'm a Beethoven fan and that wasn't my take. Now, Singin' In
>The Rain is another story . . .
I'm watching Bette Davis spitting at Claude Rains tonight in
DECEPTION. Miss Davis plays the Appassionata.
Beethoven would have abhored the use his symphony is put to by
Kubrick. Beethoven would have considered Kubrick a reprobate artist, a
moral degenerate. He might even have dumped a plate of chicken
paprikash on Kubrick's lap.
moviePig
> David Oberman wrote:
> > "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>
> >>> RASHOMON
> >> You've never seen Rashomon? Really?
>
> > Not that I recall. But others tell me I actually did see it.
>
> *snicker*
He's confused because each tells a different account of how it
happened...
william
>
> Beethoven would have abhored the use his symphony is put to by
> Kubrick. Beethoven would have considered Kubrick a reprobate artist, a
> moral degenerate. He might even have dumped a plate of chicken
> paprikash on Kubrick's lap.
>
what? I guess it's OK for you to speak for Ludvig since he can't hear
you, but still . . .
William
www.williamahearn.com
Bill Anderson
> On Nov 30, 7:54 pm, Bill Anderson <billanderson...@yahoo.com> wrote:
>> David Oberman wrote:
>>> "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
>>>>> RASHOMON
>>>> You've never seen Rashomon? Really?
>>> Not that I recall. But others tell me I actually did see it.
>> *snicker*
>
> He's confused because each tells a different account of how it
> happened...
>
Don't explain the good jokes, MP.
David Oberman
>> Beethoven would have abhored the use his symphony is put to by
>> Kubrick. Beethoven would have considered Kubrick a reprobate artist, a
>> moral degenerate. He might even have dumped a plate of chicken
>> paprikash on Kubrick's lap.
>>
>With all due respect, how the hell do you know?
Kubrick's film dramatizes (& some say fetishizes) the bestial in man,
the ignoble, the cruel, but offers no path to earthly salvation. The
gang leader & his followers are thugs at the start of the film, & back
to being thugs at the end. Beethoven's expectation of art was that it
provide moral direction & spiritual uplift. In his art, he strove to
mirror the uncorrupted noble nature of heroic struggle -- against
fate, against base instinct, against tyranny, against cruelty &
treachery. In a letter of 1811, he wrote: "From my earliest childhood
my zeal to serve our poor suffering humanity in any way whatsoever by
means of my art has made no compromise with any lower motive." In
1824: "Since my childhood I have learnt to love virtue--& everything
beautiful & good."
In Beethoven's Conversation Book of February 1820: "The moral law in
us, & the starry sky above us--Kant!!!"
Neill Massello
> One movie I will NOT watch is CLOCKWORK ORANGE, in which Beethoven is
> used to degrading effect! Also using Beethoven to degrading effect is
> Keith Olbermann on his TV show.
And what about Schroeder and that toy piano in Peanuts?
Halmyre
> william <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Beethoven would have abhored the use his symphony is put to by
> >> Kubrick. Beethoven would have considered Kubrick a reprobate artist, a
> >> moral degenerate. He might even have dumped a plate of chicken
> >> paprikash on Kubrick's lap.
>
> >With all due respect, how the hell do you know?
>
> Kubrick's film dramatizes (& some say fetishizes) the bestial in man,
> the ignoble, the cruel, but offers no path to earthly salvation.
Well, you could argue that's true about Judge Judy's show as well.
--
Halmyre
moviePig
Well, I *almost* included at least a disclaimer to that effect, but I
couldn't quite isomorph David's humorous comment -- applicable to
*any* ancient movie (or moviegoer) -- into a specific reference to
RASHOMON. (That's also why my own rendering's so flat-footed ...i.e.,
with fallen archness.) Next time, I'll try not to misunderestimate.
william
>
> In his art, [Beethoven] strove to
> mirror the uncorrupted noble nature of heroic struggle -- against
> fate, against base instinct, against tyranny, against cruelty &
> treachery.
People have some very creative ways of disappointing us. Whoever
thought Picasso would sell designer sheets? Beethoven might see his
music as playing the role of hope in the film. You can never tell.
Every once in a while I'll look up a director's favorite films and am
astounded at what they found valuable. People -- especially creative
people -- are funny that way.
William
www.williamahearn.com
David Oberman
>> Kubrick's film dramatizes (& some say fetishizes) the bestial in man,
>> the ignoble, the cruel, but offers no path to earthly salvation.
>
>Well, you could argue that's true about Judge Judy's show as well.
No, no, the Judge Judy show puts all that on display & then
butterflies it like a shrimp on the barbecue! Judge Judy represents
the triumph of the cold, clear light of reason & justice in the
dankness of ignorance & idiocy.
Judge Judy's two home DVDs are on sale now at Barnes & Noble!
David Oberman
>People have some very creative ways of disappointing us. Whoever
>thought Picasso would sell designer sheets? Beethoven might see his
>music as playing the role of hope in the film. You can never tell.
>Every once in a while I'll look up a director's favorite films and am
>astounded at what they found valuable. People -- especially creative
>people -- are funny that way.
Yes, indeed. Beethoven, for example, could also really be an idiot. He
spent too many precious years fighting his goofy sister-in-law in the
courts, when he should have been composing his second opera with
Grillparzer. I feel that Judge Judy, had she been around back then,
might have been able to spur him on at precisely the moment he needed
it.
What you said about what directors sometimes find valuable in their
own work reminded me of the audio commentary on the DVD of "Eyes of
Laura Mars." Kershner talks about the most idiotic things as the film
unfolds; doesn't he realize how sexy & beautiful his film is?
David Oberman
Good question. I think Schroeder represents the primarily male urge to
focus microscopically on a task, & both consciously & unconsciously to
exclude all other people & things from thought.
S D
new version is on the drawing board with Mr. P at the helm ; presently
he is looking for any drawing room comedy or drama, preferably with an
after tax payday of 4.5 mil .....a two fer is perfectly OK
nick
Bergman liked American Beauty. Go figure.
nick
> william <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >Nonsense. I'm a Beethoven fan and that wasn't my take. Now, Singin' In
> >The Rain is another story . . .
>
> I'm watching Bette Davis spitting at Claude Rains tonight in
> DECEPTION. Miss Davis plays the Appassionata.
>
> Beethoven would have abhored the use his symphony is put to by
> Kubrick. Beethoven would have considered Kubrick a reprobate artist, a
> moral degenerate. He might even have dumped a plate of chicken
> paprikash on Kubrick's lap.
>
seeing Beethoven's Nephew.
moviePig
So did I. Besides... despair, disillusionment, self-loathing, and
angst... Hell, Ingmar could've sued for copyright infringement...
john smith
Bill Anderson
> Citizen Kane, I watched half of it and never saw the second half...
>
It was the sled.
David Oberman
>> Beethoven would have abhored the use his symphony is put to by
>> Kubrick. Beethoven would have considered Kubrick a reprobate artist, a
>> moral degenerate. He might even have dumped a plate of chicken
>> paprikash on Kubrick's lap.
>>
>I wonder what he would have dumped in Paul Morrissey's lap after
>seeing Beethoven's Nephew.
Should I see that? is that something I might enjoy on a guffawish
level? I remember you've mentioned that before -- or at least
mentioned Morrissey.
Beethoven didn't dump food in everyone's lap, by the way. Often, he
would simply clasp his fingers behind his back, roll his eyes skyward,
& then turn & depart, mumbling something or other.
There were two Ludwig van Beethovens, did you know? The one you know
AND his grandpa. The grandpa was also an excellent musician.
nick
> nick <nickmacpherso...@AOL.com> wrote:
> >> Beethoven would have abhored the use his symphony is put to by
> >> Kubrick. Beethoven would have considered Kubrick a reprobate artist, a
> >> moral degenerate. He might even have dumped a plate of chicken
> >> paprikash on Kubrick's lap.
>
> >I wonder what he would have dumped in Paul Morrissey's lap after
> >seeing Beethoven's Nephew.
>
> Should I see that? is that something I might enjoy on a guffawish
> level? I remember you've mentioned that before -- or at least
> mentioned Morrissey.
>
Morrissey was staging a post-Warhol minor comeback. It was
entertaining enough. This is a comment from someone on the IMDb
(dated from 1999, so he remembers the film maybe ten plus years better
than I do).
"I enjoyed this film although it wasn't entirely satisfying. The plot
centers around old Beethoven's fixation on the welfare of his nephew,
for whom he fought a lengthy custody battle against his brother's
former wife. Beethoven thought she was a bad influence on the boy.
Sadly, the nephew isn't receptive to Beethoven's "overtures," pardon
me, and resents his boorish uncle's efforts on his behalf. The nephew
is a complete nonentity, lacking in both interest and talent. He seems
to wish only to be left alone. One excellent scene has pug-faced
Beethoven frantically trying to rescue his nephew from the clutches of
a maidservant, charging down a hallway, huffing and puffing, with
mounted antlers passing by overhead as he approaches the bedroom where
his nephew lies. The whole film portrays Beethoven as we don't like to
imagine him."
David Oberman
>"I enjoyed this film although it wasn't entirely satisfying. The plot
>centers around old Beethoven's fixation on the welfare of his nephew,
>for whom he fought a lengthy custody battle against his brother's
>former wife. Beethoven thought she was a bad influence on the boy.
>Sadly, the nephew isn't receptive to Beethoven's "overtures," pardon
>me, and resents his boorish uncle's efforts on his behalf."
"Overtures"?!
This film sounds like a dramatization of the ideas propagated by
Sterba in a book published decades ago.
I must see this film!
TT
> Citizen Kane, I watched half of it and never saw the second half...
>
Most fall asleep midway through.
TT
> my zeal to serve our poor suffering humanity in any way whatsoever by
> means of my art has made no compromise with any lower motive." In
> 1824: "Since my childhood I have learnt to love virtue--& everything
> beautiful & good."
>
A bit naive to blindly believe what a man writes about himself.
Clockwork might be an abomination to a person from 19th century though.
Or who knows, maybe they would find it fascinating with it's brutality
and humour.
Madara0806
> On Nov 26, 2:16 pm, unklbob <mcgrisw...@aol.com> wrote:
>
\
> > ...
> > agree that Spielberg is a master manipulator--its like listening to a
> > demagogue give a speech and watching the sheep around you eat it up.
>
> I've never learned the difference between being manipulated
> and being entertained in the theatre arts. Was Sophocles
> manipulating us in Oedipus Rex? I think a case could be
> made that he was.
I think it's more a difference between being moved and being
manipulated. Honest emotion vs. dishonest emotion. A film like
CINDERELLA MAN, directed by Ron Howard, offers honest emotion. ET--and
just about all of Spielberg--traffics in dishonest emotion. But people
are generally gullible fools who don't mind being manipulated, which
is why certain people get elected president and certain people become
hugely successful movie producers.
David Oberman
>> treachery. In a letter of 1811, he wrote: "From my earliest childhood
>> my zeal to serve our poor suffering humanity in any way whatsoever by
>> means of my art has made no compromise with any lower motive." In
>> 1824: "Since my childhood I have learnt to love virtue--& everything
>> beautiful & good."
>
>A bit naive to blindly believe what a man writes about himself.
Shows how little you know about Beethoven.
"As soon as he was quiet, he wrinkled his brow & took on a sinister
appearance, so that one could easily become afraid of him if one did
not know that such an exalted artist's soul must be fundamentally
good." -- Dr. Karl von Bursy, on his visit to Beethoven, 1 June 1816
"The English, he said, were an honourable people, who knew not only
how to value art, but how to reward it and, furthermore, had
instituted freedom of speech & writing, even in opposition to the King
& the most powerful ministers of state, tolerating neither censors nor
tax-collectors." -- from a letter of Wilhelm Christian Mueller, 26 Oct
1820
"I was about eleven years old when my respected teacher Czerny took me
to see Beethoven. Already a long time before, he had told Beethoven
about me & asked him to give me a hearing some day. However, Beethoven
had such an aversion to infant prodigies that he persistently refused
to see me. At last Czerny, indefatigable, persuaded him, so that,
impatiently, he said: 'Well, bring the rascal to me, in God's name!'
... For a time he scrutinized us grimly, exchanged a few hurried words
with Czerny & remained silent when my good teacher called me to the
piano. The first thing I played was a short piece by Ries. When I had
finished, Beethoven asked me whether I could play a fugue by Bach. I
chose the Fugue in C minor from the Well-Tempered Clavichord. 'Could
you also transpose this fugue at once into another key?' Fortunately,
I could. After the final chord, I looked up. The Master's darkly
glowing gaze was fixed upon me penetratingly. Yet suddenly a
benevolent smile broke up his gloomy features, Beethoven came quite
close, bent over me, laid his hand on my head & repeatedly stroked my
hair. 'Devil of a fellow!' he whispered, 'such a young rascal!' I
suddenly plucked up courage. 'May I play something of yours now?' I
asked cheekily. Beethoven nodded with a smile. I played the first
movement of the C major Concerto. When I had ended, Beethoven seized
both my hands, kissed me on the forehead & said gently: 'Off with you!
You're a happy fellow, for you'll give happiness & joy to many other
people. There is nothing better or greater than that!' This event in
my life has remained my greatest pride, the palladium for my whole
artistic career. I speak of it only very rarely & only to my intimate
friends." -- Franz Liszt's account of his visit to Beethoven
TT
Nice, or creepy.
David Oberman
calvin
So what is dishonest about the emotion in E.T.? I haven't seen
'Cinderella Man'. E.T. is a fantasy, with no chance of being
true. Does that make it dishonest?
I'm asking this sincerely. Why is manipulation bad?
Isn't that what movies do? Why don't you answer my
question about Oedipus Rex? One is a 'gullible fool'
just for liking a movie?
I was a gullible fool when I voted for Lyndon Johnson in
1964, and Carter in 1976. It's not that hard to see
oneself as a fool concerning past politics. But a fool
for liking the wrong movies? I just can't see it.
I still don't know what manipulation in the arts is,
or why it is bad (in the arts).
TT
heheh...of course.
David Oberman
>I still don't know what manipulation in the arts is,
>or why it is bad (in the arts).
I don't think it's really identifiable as a single thing by everyone,
cal. I think it's subjective (I hate that word). If you feel
manipulated, for example, call it being manipulated. Pauline Kael felt
that THE SOUND OF MUSIC & DIRTY HARRY manipulated her. I felt
manipulated when I watched the Tolkien movies. I felt as if they were
putting the screws to me emotionally & especially visually. I felt as
if they were squeezing out every last drop of emotion in me (or trying
to) in what felt like a mechanical, impersonal way, without giving me
any free time, as it were. As a moviegoer, I like my free time as part
of my response to the film. I like the incidental pleasures of movies.
I want the at least occasional opportunity to discover things on my
own. I don't want the movie to calculate every last possible reaction
& then squeeze it out of me in every scene or every frame.
Plus, some movies manipulate you in good ways (they leave you your
pride by allowing you the opportunity to make intellectual or
emotional discoveries or draw connections) & some movies manipulate
you in bad ways (they don't give you credit for having a brain or a
full reserve of experience of your own on which to draw).
Gaza, what do you think?
Bill Anderson
>
> Gaza, what do you think?
>
YIKES!
calvin
> calvin <cri...@windstream.net> wrote:
> >I still don't know what manipulation in the arts is,
> >or why it is bad (in the arts).
>
> I don't think it's really identifiable as a single thing by everyone,
> cal. I think it's subjective (I hate that word). If you feel
> manipulated, for example, call it being manipulated. Pauline Kael felt
> that THE SOUND OF MUSIC & DIRTY HARRY manipulated her. I felt
> manipulated when I watched the Tolkien movies. I felt as if they were
> putting the screws to me emotionally & especially visually. I felt as
> if they were squeezing out every last drop of emotion in me (or trying
> to) in what felt like a mechanical, impersonal way, without giving me
> any free time, as it were. As a moviegoer, I like my free time as part
> of my response to the film. I like the incidental pleasures of movies.
> I want the at least occasional opportunity to discover things on my
> own. I don't want the movie to calculate every last possible reaction
> & then squeeze it out of me in every scene or every frame.
>
> Plus, some movies manipulate you in good ways (they leave you your
> pride by allowing you the opportunity to make intellectual or
> emotional discoveries or draw connections) & some movies manipulate
> you in bad ways (they don't give you credit for having a brain or a
> full reserve of experience of your own on which to draw).
>
> Gaza, what do you think?
Maybe this is part of what you mean by freedom denied:
In 'Titanic' I hated it when so much time was spent by
Rose and Jack sloshing around in the ice water below
deck, not once but twice, and a long episode each time,
when I wanted to know what was going on topside for
everybody. I felt trapped below deck with them, and
resented it.
steve
On 3-Dec-2009, David Oberman <dobe...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> >I still don't know what manipulation in the arts is,
> >or why it is bad (in the arts).
>
> I don't think it's really identifiable as a single thing by everyone,
> cal. I think it's subjective (I hate that word). If you feel
> manipulated, for example, call it being manipulated.
My wife and I use that term to describe any situation where the film shows
you one reality (and I dont mean surreal), then gives you another. The "it
was all a dream" twist is a tolerable example, but what we focus on is
something that is actually unfair. I mean where the "twist" is neither a
result of surrealism, a flawed narrative, or a dream, but rather a cheap and
impossible trick that breaks the movies own rules in order to render a final
twist or resolution unexpected. For example, I believe that there is a
phone conversation in "The Sting" that could not actually happen given the
final realization (cant recall details). Another example is in a stupid
film ("Magic"?) where the dummy can be seen moving his eyes when the crazy
ventriloquist (the ventriloquist blames the dummy for the crimes he commits)
isnt holding him. The dummy isnt actually alive, but we catch a glimpse of
something that indicates he is.
In short, we are manipulated when the film doesnt play by it's own rules.
steve
--
"The robber baron's cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some
point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us
without end, for they do so with the approval of their own conscience."
C.S. Lewis
Bill Anderson
>
> Maybe this is part of what you mean by freedom denied:
> In 'Titanic' I hated it when so much time was spent by
> Rose and Jack sloshing around in the ice water below
> deck, not once but twice, and a long episode each time,
> when I wanted to know what was going on topside for
> everybody. I felt trapped below deck with them, and
> resented it.
I saw the movie because some reviewer -- I really think it was Ebert --
wrote something along the lines of, "If you can sit through the
interminable romance you'll be rewarded because once that boat starts to
go down you'll be unable to tear your eyes from the screen." Or words
to that effect -- I don't remember exactly.
Anyway, with those words in mind I consented to take my 14-year-old
nieces to see it and I found myself actually enjoying some of the
romance -- the part that involved the elderly woman revisiting the site,
anyway. But I hated hated hated the entire iceberg sequence. Let's run
through cold water this way. No, let's run that way. This way. That
way. I thought that ship was NEVER going to go down and when the cries
of the doomed died away I actually felt relief.
Not one of my favorite movies. That it found an audience and was popular
is understandable; that it became the top box office grosser of all time
is beyond my comprehension.
calvin
> ...
> In short, we are manipulated when the film doesnt play by it's own rules.
Actually, Hitchcock came to mind when you said that,
especially Vertigo (not trying to start another argument
with william).
We see the woman in the window of the hotel, but then
we are shown that it was impossible for her to have
been there. Scotty is in a mental institution, seemingly
catatonic; his visitor walks down a long hopeless hallway
after seeing him; and then in the very next scene he is
out and about and operating in a wholly alive (though
obsessive) manner.
william
>
> Actually, Hitchcock came to mind when you said that,
> especially Vertigo (not trying to start another argument
> with william).
If I remember the conversation that you refer to, there was no
argument in any negative way. We discussed the film in a civil manner
and simply didn't agree.
>
> We see the woman in the window of the hotel, but then
> we are shown that it was impossible for her to have
> been there. Scotty is in a mental institution, seemingly
> catatonic; his visitor walks down a long hopeless hallway
> after seeing him; and then in the very next scene he is
> out and about and operating in a wholly alive (though
> obsessive) manner.
"Vertigo" only makes sense if you realize that Scotty never gets out
of the catatonic state and never leaves the hospital. Whether
Hitchcock intended the possibility of arriving at this conclusion
isn't known, but the interpretation can be supported by the film
itself without any extranenous sources such as the book or whatever.
William
www.williamahearn.com
calvin
Though I liked the movie as a whole, and often defend it,
it has some big flaws: the ice water sloshing, and
throwing away the diamond being too biggies.
The ice water sloshing violated the rules also, because
later it was shown that so many died by freezing in it.
And as others have noted, these were 90s young people,
not 1912-era young people. But great movies often have
some big flaws, and Titanic touched billions of people.
I can't relate to your impatience with how long it took the
ship to sink. Having always been interested in the ship,
since reading A Night to Remember at age 16, I found
the whole sinking to be riveting, far better done than any
previous movie on the subject, including A Night to Remember.
David Oberman
>My wife and I use that term to describe any situation where the film shows
>you one reality (and I dont mean surreal), then gives you another. The "it
>was all a dream" twist is a tolerable example, but what we focus on is
>something that is actually unfair. I mean where the "twist" is neither a
>result of surrealism, a flawed narrative, or a dream, but rather a cheap and
>impossible trick that breaks the movies own rules in order to render a final
>twist or resolution unexpected. For example, I believe that there is a
>phone conversation in "The Sting" that could not actually happen given the
>final realization (cant recall details). Another example is in a stupid
>film ("Magic"?) where the dummy can be seen moving his eyes when the crazy
>ventriloquist (the ventriloquist blames the dummy for the crimes he commits)
>isnt holding him. The dummy isnt actually alive, but we catch a glimpse of
>something that indicates he is.
>
>In short, we are manipulated when the film doesnt play by it's own rules.
I hate when movies do that. John Simon has discussed that very thing
in his film reviews. He says that a fantasy can be a fantasy, but it
must still adhere to the rules of life & behavior that it sets for
itself.
Steve, what are you having for dinner tonight?