Michael Mann, John Woo, Clint Eastwood
Timothy Worsley
Scoresese's WHO'S THAT KNOCKING ON MY DOOR? showed up in Woo's BULLET IN
THE HEAD, I figure these intertextual cinematic observations must be really
boring for everyone. So here are more of them to annoy you.
I was watching the original pilot for Michael Mann's MIAMI VICE last week,
and was struck by some resemblances to John Woo's HARD BOILED. Compare the
confrontation between Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas on the former's
boat with that between Tony Leung and Chow Yun Fat on TL's boat. Also the
whole undercover cop theme of course. And some of the emotional intensity
of the MIAMI VICE pilot is reminscent of Woo's stories of loyalty and
betrayal, life and death. There's a nice shot in the MIAMI VICE pilot that
seems like classic Michael Mann and in its intricacy reminds me of the long
take near the end of HARD BOILED (if you've seen the movie, you know what
I'm talking about, it's a *very* long shot) -- it starts off with an
overhead view of DJ and PMT walking up the staris, the camera follows them
tilting up up, then pans across as the they walk down the corridor, then
rotates to follow them around a corner and tracks (I think?) down the
corridor...
I also think that Michael Mann's THIEF is a fantastic film, with its great
Tangerine Dream soundtrack, well-written story, awesome camera work, gritty
technological/industrial imagery, and -- John Woo fanatics take note -- the
nice shootout at the end. [As an aside, I thought LAST OF THE MOHICANS was
unremarkable, but I don't generally care for those historical movies --
maybe BARRY LYNDON would be an exception. Michael Mann is great at urban
crime drama, shots of cars, machinery, dials and instruments, all sorts of
more "modern" stuff, and I wish he would make something as cool as
MANHUNTER or THIEF again. Just MHO, I don't say he *should* do this, just
that I would *like* it if he did.]
OK, so what about Clint Eastwood? Well, I wonder if Woo likes westerns...
But, no, what I'm talking about is really Eastwood's THE ROOKIE. This film
is obviously and undeniably copying Woo's A BETTER TOMORROW. Compare the
scene where the bad guy is at Charlie Sheen's house. His wife has boiling
water on the stove (does she through it at the guy or was that just the
coffee? Anyway it's the same genearl idea...), she hits him in the head
with a phone. When Charlie Sheen shows up he gets shoved into a bookcase
or something. Jeez, did anyone get smashed through a coffee table?? Also,
there is a scene where Charlie Sheen is looking in the mirror and then
smashes it. This reminds one of Leslie Chung looking the mirror and then
smashing it (although he uses his hand). And finally, there's the
motorcycle stuff by Charlie Sheen, which is quite similar to Danny Lee in
Woo's THE KILLER.
Peter Reiher asked Joshua Tsui a while ago if he really thought Woo was
comparable to such canonical masters as Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Fellini, etc.
(I hope I remembered that thread correctly.) John Woo fully deserves to be
compared with these directors, despite his apparent status as an "action"
filmmaker, a "popular" filmmaker, someone engaged in the production of Low
Art instead of High Art, a dichotomy which I do not care for. A BETTER
TOMORROW goes right up there with 8 1/2, LA DOLCE VITA, KAGEMUSHA, YOJIMBO,
etc. MANHUNTER and THIEF are also in that category. So are many of
Scorsese's films. Some of these are more "comparable" to Woo's films than
others (eg Kurosawa's "action" flicks, and obviously Scorsese and Mann as I
have mentinoed already). Tarkovsky is at the very top of my list of
favorite directors, but it's idiotic to ask me if he is a "better" director
than John Woo! I'll resist babbling about a possible point of comparison
there though (Tarkovsky is well-known for his use of camera movement...) I
don't particularly care for Hitchcock (the man or his movies) anymore (I
liked them a lot when I was very young though), but I will admit that, say,
STRANGERS ON A TRAIN is very well-made. I don't expect everyone to *enjoy*
John Woo's films as much as I do, but I *do* expect that anyone who knows
anything about film can recognize that, say, A BETTER TOMRROW is very
skillfully executed.
Hmm, why did this turn into a veritable flame?? I must be in a
argumentative mood or something... It's probably just because I read
Shiv's comment about not particularly caring for A BETTER TOMORROW, and I
had just watched it again the other day (the laserdisc, letterboxed) and
enjoyed it as I always do. It has gotten to the point where I don't really
"watch" the movie anymore, I *study* it. I'm sure any of you who have seen
a film, say, 50 or 100 times knows what this is like. One gets to know
every shot, every camera movement and even change of focus within a shot,
and admire little details about how efficiently the editing imparts what's
going on and relates different shots together, and so on. OK, maybe you
remember the dialogue too... :-)
Anyway, Shiv mentioned how he had seen and enjoyed Tsui Hark's films, like
PEKING OPERA BULES and ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINA. I should point out that
these are excellent but completely different in their "tone" from Woo's
films. Hark is wacky, goofy, essentially harmless *fun* (although he has
some definite substantial themes in there too). Woo is more *serious*.
His films are extreme but not at all in a silly way -- despite the
ludicrous and inappropriate laughter from the audience at a local showing
of THE KILLER last summer (probably Harvard geeks or something, made me
want to suggest to that highly esteemed instituion that they should impose
an earlier curfew on their dorms since clearly these bozos were out past
their bedtimes!! I'll give that a partial ``:-)''...). To enjoy them
fully one has to buy into the characters drives and motivations and accept
the *reality* of the movie. Hark's films are fun as entertaining fantasy
even if you can't immerse yourself in their world (I'm not sure you're
supposed to). Hmm, I could see someone writing a paper on this, maybe an
analysis of POV shots or something?
Thanks for listening; I'll shut up now.
-Ed (not Tim), epr...@sybase.com (not wildman@...)
PS Hey, folks, check this out!
Quote #1: ``Let's go.'' ``Why not?''
Quote #2: ``Let's go.'' ``We can't.'' ``Why not?''
To identify both quotes would be impressive, and your reward would be
immense (I might say "Hey, <your name> is cool!" here in rec.arts.movies
example). Hint: the second one is from a translation. Naturally people
that didn't read this far are already disqualified... Ha!
Timothy Worsley
> [...] it starts off with an
>overhead view of DJ and PMT walking up the staris, the camera follows them
>tilting up up, then pans across as the they walk down the corridor, then
>rotates to follow them around a corner and tracks (I think?) down the
>corridor...
Perhaps needless to say, this description is hopelessly mangled. Oh well.
Why do I waste bandwidth calling attention to it? Beats me...
Maybe it tracks backwards as they walk towards the camera in the first part
of the corridor, then pans right to follow them around the corner, then
tracks forward? Hmm, I can't remember exactly...
While I'm here, any Dennis Farina fans around? He was in an early episode
of Miami Vice, he was of course one ofthe stars of Mann's CRIME STORY show,
he was the FBI dude in MANHUNTER, he had a small part in THIEF -- James
Caan called him a "goof"! I guess I should see MEN OF RESPECT...
And there is of course the one film I know of where Dennis Farina and
Michael Ironside (another "cult" actor I think, ever since SCANNERS) both
appear... did you guess it? JO JO DANCER, YOUR LIFE IS CALLING, starring
Richard Pryor, and not a bad movie actually.
Ciao,
Peter Reiher
>
>Peter Reiher asked Joshua Tsui a while ago if he really thought Woo was
>comparable to such canonical masters as Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Fellini, etc.
>(I hope I remembered that thread correctly.) John Woo fully deserves to be
>compared with these directors, despite his apparent status as an "action"
>filmmaker, a "popular" filmmaker, someone engaged in the production of Low
>Art instead of High Art, a dichotomy which I do not care for.
I have no problem with an action filmmaker being considered a great filmmaker.
Many of Kurosawa's films are action films. So are John Ford's and Howard
Hawks. I am not an especial believer in "High Art" vs. "Low Art", either.
I am, however, a believer in good movies and bad movies, and in the notion
that films can be significant works of art.
>A BETTER
>>TOMORROW goes right up there with 8 1/2, LA DOLCE VITA, KAGEMUSHA, YOJIMBO,
>etc.
In my opinion, "A Better Tomorrow" falls in a step or two behind "Lethal
Weapon", a film that should not be mentioned in the same breath as these
other films. I considered it to be only slightly above average, and not
a particularly strong sign of Woo's talent.
>MANHUNTER and THIEF are also in that category. So are many of
>Scorsese's films.
I don't think anything Michael Mann has done has suggested he is yet a
great filmmaker. Considering that I thought "The Last of the Mohicans"
was his best film, so far, clearly we have different criteria for judging
his films.
>Tarkovsky is at the very top of my list of
>favorite directors, but it's idiotic to ask me if he is a "better" director
>than John Woo! I'll resist babbling about a possible point of comparison
>there though
There's no point in making a strict hierarchy of "quality" of directors.
On the other hand, few will argue with the statement that Orson Welles
was a better director than Allan Dwan, and not just on matters of
personal preference. There is little point in comparing Woo to Tarkovsky -
they're not remotely trying to do the same things in their films and they
don't use the same techniques.
>I don't expect everyone to *enjoy*
>John Woo's films as much as I do, but I *do* expect that anyone who knows
>anything about film can recognize that, say, A BETTER TOMRROW is very
>skillfully executed.
Well, either I don't know anything about film or your expectation has
been disappointed. I did not find "A Better Tomorrow" to be skillfully
executed. (I would agree, however, that "The Killer" was.) I thought
"A Better Tomorrow" was merely a rather derivative thriller with the
action cranked up a notch or two more than the average film of its kind.
Given that I went into the theater expecting quite a lot, with the
belief that I was about to see a really good film, "A Better Tomorrow"
has to count as one of my great cinematic disappointments of the last
five years.
>Anyway, Shiv mentioned how he had seen and enjoyed Tsui Hark's films, like
>PEKING OPERA BULES and ONCE UPON A TIME IN CHINA. I should point out that
>these are excellent but completely different in their "tone" from Woo's
>films. Hark is wacky, goofy, essentially harmless *fun* (although he has
>some definite substantial themes in there too). Woo is more *serious*.
>His films are extreme but not at all in a silly way
That's true. Hark clearly has an approach to cinema reminiscent of
Steven Spielberg's, rather than Martin Scorsese's. My own opinion is
that "Peking Opera Blues" is a more perfectly realized expression of
its director's intentions than any other Hong Kong film I've seen.
I consider it a great film, in the same way that "Raiders of the Lost
Ark", "Star Wars", and "Gone With the Wind" - a near-perfect entertainment.
It doesn't have the depth of "Citizen Kane" or "Raging Bull", but it
wasn't supposed to.
Woo, on the other hand, clearly intends us to take his film's fairly
seriously, though he is able to put in light touches. The scene in
"The Killer" is which the hit man and the cop talk in cheery banalities
while holding guns to each other's heads, because neither wants to
upset the blind girl who is with them, cannot be taken fully seriously,
and I don't think was meant to be. But it's a great scene, one of
those cinematic ideas that is so well executed that it really stands out
in the memory. Nothing wrong with Woo extracting a little laughter from
it, especially since the way he stages it makes it clear that the
characters themselves are aware of a certain farcical element in their
behavior. On the whole, though, Woo is trying to do much more than
entertain, and I think his films are increasingly showing his ability
to do so. I don't think Woo can yet be considered a great director,
but I think he might yet achieve greatness.
--
Peter Reiher
rei...@wells.cs.ucla.edu
Mark Nevins
That posting on the films of John Woo and intertextuality was fascinating;
I'd love to see more of this kind of stuff.
However, I must take offence to the crack about "Harvard geeks": I
presume you saw the film at the Brattle (a truly world-class cinema),
but if you saw it last *summer*, the audience would have been
composed of Harvard *Summer School* students, *not* Harvard Students.
There is a big difference: "real" Harvard students have to apply,
Summer School students (a small percent of whom are "real" Harvard
students) need only have a lot of money--there is no other
admission requirement. Thus you, sir, might certainly attend Harvard
Summer School, while you might not have what it takes to get into
Harvard.
A small point, but one which I wanted to clarify. You brought this issue up.
I should not that I did not take my A.B. from Harvard, but I have had
the pleasure to teach both Harvard and Harvard Summer students.
Sprinkle smilies liberally above, and pardon my bristling.
Now, can anyone help me access an archive of the discussion of the
director's cut of _Blade Runner_? Anyone have any useful bibliography?
Mark Nevins
nev...@husc.harvard.edu
p.s. bad editor: please read "offense at" and "I should note" above
Avoid normal situations.
>
>That posting on the films of John Woo and intertextuality was fascinating;
>I'd love to see more of this kind of stuff.
>
Okey-doke. The first thing off the top of my head: the climax of Walter
Hill's _Extreme Prejudice_ is quoted almost verbatim from _The Wild Bunch_.
Brian De Palma quotes stuff from Hitchcock all the time, but (1) almost
everybody knows that already, and (2) to go into all the cases would no
doubt bore the rest of you netterpunks to death.
Anybody else notice any real neat "quotations" in other films?
Love & kisses,
The Stainless Steel Moviegoer
Rosebud!
Iain Sinclair
>I was watching the original pilot for Michael Mann's MIAMI VICE last week,
>and was struck by some resemblances to John Woo's HARD BOILED. Compare the
>confrontation between Don Johnson and Philip Michael Thomas on the former's
>boat with that between Tony Leung and Chow Yun Fat on TL's boat. Also the
>whole undercover cop theme of course.
Tony Leung's role in the film was a bit of a "hack", so to speak, to
accomodate a lot of people (him, his fans, etc). It wasn't originally
intended for him to play such an important part, I believe.
I would never try to analyse a Hongkong action film too deeply. If you're
talking about "influences" and such, it's almost not worth bothering with,
since those films routinely plagiarise concepts and entire scenes quite
aggressively. Actually, Woo does seem to be a true original, and he
rarely talks about his "influences". (Whether or not he has been influenced
by Miami Vice, well.. :-)
It seems that a lot of people are beginning to copy Woo (I'll take your
word for it with The Rookie). But at the moment it's just superficial
aspects of style, and not the whole deal of stories, cinematography,
(Chow Yun Fat :-), etc. It'll be interesting to see a film that he
hasn't made in Hongkong (ie. the upcoming Van Damme one). That will
determine whether or not he is one of the "greats" for me.
--
Iain Sinclair axo...@socs.uts.edu.au
Timothy Worsley
>That posting on the films of John Woo and intertextuality was fascinating;
>I'd love to see more of this kind of stuff.
Glad you enjoyed it. Hey, anyone can do it! I like finding out about
less well-known examples (Potemkin and Yojimbo and Psycho and so on,
everyone recognizes those...) Keep your eye out and post what you
see! You know, it occurs to me that MST3K represents two whole hours
of intertextual fun. That must be part of its appeal -- figuring out
all the references.
>However, I must take offence to the crack about "Harvard geeks": I
>presume you saw the film at the Brattle (a truly world-class cinema),
Sorry. I don't really have any right to despise Harvard but I enjoy
doing so anyway. Yes, the Brattle is very cool but I still think the
audiences are lame even during the regular academic year. They
laughed a lot at Herzog's NOSFERATU recently too. And when I saw THE
CONVERSATION there they laughed at the end when Gene Hackman is
playing the saxophone! There are numerous other examples. And since
the Harvard community must represent some of this I blame it on them,
perhaps wrongly. Oh well.
>Thus you, sir, might certainly attend Harvard Summer School, while you
>might not have what it takes to get into Harvard.
Since you say "might" I won't say you're wrong...
>nev...@husc.harvard.edu
>
>p.s. bad editor: please read "offense at" and "I should note" above
Hmm, is the One True Harvard Editor "ed"? :-) What they hell kind of
archaic equipment does one have to grovel over at the Science Center
these days anyway???
Ciao,
Timothy Worsley
rei...@ficus.cs.ucla.edu (Peter Reiher) writes:
>In my opinion, "A Better Tomorrow" falls in a step or two behind "Lethal
>Weapon", a film that should not be mentioned in the same breath as these
>other films. I considered it to be only slightly above average, and not
>a particularly strong sign of Woo's talent.
>
>>MANHUNTER and THIEF are also in that category. So are many of
>>Scorsese's films.
>
>I don't think anything Michael Mann has done has suggested he is yet a
>great filmmaker. Considering that I thought "The Last of the Mohicans"
>was his best film, so far, clearly we have different criteria for judging
>his films.
It seems to be the case! (You really don't consider MANHUNTER or THIEF to
be as good as LAST OF THE MOHICANS??)
There are differences in taste here. But there are also some issues I
think are interesting with respect to the formation of a canon of "great"
films. Actually, I'm sure this very argument is part of that process,
within this community... OK, so maybe I shouldn't bring up the meta-level
topic, but it's too hard to argue intelligently about this disagreement in
this forum... :-). (I mean, how could I hope to demonstrate to someone
else the excellence of Woo's camera work and editing? Just saying it's so,
as I have, is not much of a proof.)
>>I don't expect everyone to *enjoy*
>>John Woo's films as much as I do, but I *do* expect that anyone who knows
>>anything about film can recognize that, say, A BETTER TOMRROW is very
>>skillfully executed.
>
>Well, either I don't know anything about film or your expectation has
>been disappointed.
Well, that remark of mine was deliberately confrontational, perhaps too
much so. But A BETTER TOMORROW does repay close study. It is not an
innovative story, but the technique -- well, I know you disagree so I won't
belabor the point...
>Given that I went into the theater expecting quite a lot, with the
>belief that I was about to see a really good film, "A Better Tomorrow"
>has to count as one of my great cinematic disappointments of the last
>five years.
I think I can explain some of our differences. On the recommendation of a
friend I saw THE KILLER when it was released here in the US. I had never
seen a Hong Kong film. I had never heard of John Woo (or Tsui Hark). I
was into film and movies but didnt' pay much attention to the "industry".
Anyway, I was amazed, seriously impressed, by THE KILLER. I had just
gotten a laserdisc player around that time, and while at Sight & Sound I
noticed A BETTER TOMORROW in the import bin (it's a Japanese disc). I
recognized Chow Yun Fat and the cover indicated some sort of violent urban
drama so I got it. This disc is letterboxed, but subtitled only in
Japanese, so all I had to go on was the non-discursive aspects of the film.
Since I didn't know what people were saying, I had to imagine what the
motivations of the charaters were for the most part. And the only way to
really watch the film was to just be absorbed by the style (which I still
maintain is compelling -- Woo doesn't consisently get singled out for his
editing skill for nothing) and the obviously intense conflicts in the
story. I asked for a plot summary here on alt.cult-movies, and Walter Dao
(hi if you're around Walt) was kind enough to give me the basic idea. So
the open-ness of my reading of the film probably contributed to my regard
for it. When watching the film with the dialogue translated by subtitles
(which as you have mentioned, Peter, are atrocious) I think the story could
easily seem more "simplistically derivative" than "mythically simple" (or
even "elegant"). I still watch "A Better Tomorrow" every now and then --
it's certainly more fun in the theater (what isn't), but when I watch it
on video I *always* choose the one without subtitling. Partly because it's
letterboxed and of course laserdiscs have much better image quality but
also perhaps because I don't *want* to have the banality of the translated
dialogue interfere with my own process of constructing the meaning of the
film.
Anyway, what the point of my story is, is this: (1) more "open" texts, like
a film without subtitles, or a song in a language you do not understand,
require the reader to expend thought and effort to create the meaning, at
least moreso than with the more classical variety. You know the line, you
get out of something what you put into it... And (2) I think the way
"canons" are formed has a lot more to do with the reading than with the
text itself. Are Hitchcock's films really intrinsically "great" by
themselves, or is it only through the circumstances that people have viewed
(read) them and due to the fact that many people have studied them very
closely and referred to them frequently, that they are so commonly included
in the "canon"? And since everyone knows about the study that has gone
into them and the references to them, since they are so visible, there is
little argument when someone says a Hitchcock film is "great". Anyeone who
says "Strangers on a Train" is *not* skillfully executed would be dismissed
as crazy because there is such consensus on its merits.
I think that this process could very well occur with Woo's films -- and to
some extent it already is. A BETTER TOMORROW, whatever you think of it,
has undeniably had a great impact on not only Hong Kong cinema, but as I
was pointing out originally, even in Hollywood (eg THE ROOKIE, or perhaps
even RESERVOIR DOGS, as you mentioned). I study these films very closely,
I admire their construction, and so do a fair number of other people that I
know. When these people start making their own films, or writing
screenplays, or reviewing other people's movies, or whatever they do, it
will be informed by this background. Just as John Woo admired Jean-Pierre
Melville's films and made THE KILLER as a tribute to them (if you've seen
THE KILLER, check out LE DOULOS, there are direct references), directors of
the present and future may make John Woo homages. If the critics and
theorists and whoever else in the "community" also devote attention to Woo,
his films could easily become of similar "stature" as Kurosawa's or
Hitchcock's.
<Deep breath...> Well, that is the closest thing to a position paper on
this topic as I care to write for now! I'd be interested to hear what
others think.
Since I do agree with Peter on some of his points, and since my
disagrements are already established (and I hope I explained the underlying
causes above to some extent?) I'll refrain from commenting too much more...
>Woo, on the other hand, clearly intends us to take his film's fairly
>seriously, though he is able to put in light touches. The scene in
>"The Killer" is which the hit man and the cop talk in cheery banalities
>while holding guns to each other's heads, because neither wants to
>upset the blind girl who is with them, cannot be taken fully seriously,
I find very little silliness in THE KILLER. Again, is this in the text
itself or in the reading of the text? This scene is ironic, and certainly
humorous, but I don't think it is a farcical moment at all. My remark
about inappropriate laughter actually had more to do with really pathetic
things like the guffaws in response to Chow Yun Fat saying his riend's
name, subtitled as "Sydney" I believe -- I have no idea what was funny
about this!! And of course they laughed at all the songs, and at the
subtitle "This one's for Jenny" and at the harmonica playing, and when the
little girl's hand moved, and and and well you get the picture -- it was
*not* a pleasant film-going experience. The audiences in New York City
were much better.
Hope you don't mind if I skip to last part of this:
>On the whole, though, Woo is trying to do much more than
>entertain, and I think his films are increasingly showing his ability
>to do so. I don't think Woo can yet be considered a great director,
>but I think he might yet achieve greatness.
I wonder, if Woo does achieve this "greatness", will his "earlier" films
such as A BETTER TOMORROW be viewed differently (by someone such as
yourself)? Could such a change in Woo's status promote more sympathetic
"readings" of his films than were made before a general consensus was
achieved that he is a "great" director? I would love to know the answer to
this question some day!
I hope I made some amount of sense this time. Partly I was trying to
expand on a remark I made a while back in a previous exchange on the
subject of Hong Kong films, which had to do with a "sensual" vs. "analytic"
viewing of a film. Possibly I just have an idiosyncratic preference for
the former -- which would explain most of my personal "canon" of great
films that I admire, as well as the related fact that I don't usually
listen to "songs" but prefer "music" -- ie raw sound instead of words. I
mentioned songs in languages one doesn't understand earlier -- and I can
remember at least one example of a song I enjoyed a lot *until* the lyrics
were translated for me. Clearly this is consistent with what I have been
trying (successfully? I hope so...) to explain.
Happy movie-watching, canon-forming :-), or whatever,
-Ed (not Tim), epr...@sybase.com (not wildman@...)
PS anyone who actually *does* know what they're talking about in the areas
I was attempting to babble about please feel free to followup.
cc...@lure.latrobe.edu.au
>...
> Peter Reiher asked Joshua Tsui a while ago if he really thought Woo was
> comparable to such canonical masters as Hitchcock, Kurosawa, Fellini, etc.
> (I hope I remembered that thread correctly.) John Woo fully deserves to be
> compared with these directors, despite his apparent status as an "action"
> filmmaker, a "popular" filmmaker, someone engaged in the production of Low
> Art instead of High Art, a dichotomy which I do not care for. A BETTER
> TOMORROW goes right up there with 8 1/2, LA DOLCE VITA, KAGEMUSHA, YOJIMBO,
> etc. MANHUNTER and THIEF are also in that category. So are many of
> Scorsese's films.
I think you want to be careful about what movie borrows from what.
Scenes that have dramatic similarities in different films can end up
looking similar on film. After all, there isn't that many ways to show
essentially the same sequence.
Different directors have different trademarks as well. There is no doubt
Woo is great at the action film and Mann is a visualist. These traits can
make otherwise ordinary films stand out from the usual fodder, which is
why I would always make time to see a Mann, Eastwood, Scott or Friedkin
film. Comparing them too closely can be blinding to their idiosyncrasies
and thus some of the fun.
Mark Kosten
(cc...@latrobe.edu.au)
Shiv Naimpally
most hindi-films and their soap-opera type plots and acting, and I
suspect the similarity of ABT to such films may have something to
do with why I disliked it.
Your comments about 'once Woo is recognized as famous, will his
earlier works be re-evaluated' brings up and interesting point.
In University a friend and I used to watch a lot of movies, in the
theatre and on video and we used 'Movies on TV' (Ed Schuyer) as
a guide. My friend used to keep his old copies and he noticed that
after Woody Allen got a few Oscars for Annie Hall, the ratings for
his earlier movies were revised upward in this guide ! In earlier
years his movies had not been favourably looked upon, but once he
became recognized as a great director, his earlier works were
re-evaluated ! Thats critics for you !
Laurence Roberts PSE
death of a child) and Cocteau's Orpheus (the motorcyclists of death)
Larry-bob
Daniel Read
>If you enjoy a piece of
>work why should you feel obliged to nominate it for Citizen Kane status?
ED says:
I don't. And why do you feel obliged to regard Citizen Kane as having
this status? I think the main reason is simply because from day one
everyone is told what a great film it is, and so much has been written
about it, etc. that everyone just assumes it is great, and when they
see it, they read the film as a classic, a great film, instead of
coming to it with a clean slate. There are people who are simply not
impressed with Citizen Kane, just as there are people who are simply
not impressed with A Better Tomorrow :-) <sorry, I just couldn't
resist that comparison!>. I think Pauline Kael might be one of the
former (or is it 8 1/2 I'm thinking of? Maybe both??)
Pauline Kael does not say that about Citizen Kane. In fact, in her
essay raising Kane she calls it a "Masterpiece, albeit a shallow
masterpiece" (I'm quoting from memory).
I cited Citizen Kane because it is the paradigmatic example of a "great
film", at least in North America and England. It has attained that
status on the basis of a great deal of scholarly study, and
long-standing popular and critical esteem. Even if I knew nothing about
Citizen Kane but that a large number of eminent critics regarded it as a
masterpiece, then that would be a good reason for me to regard it that
way (certainly not the BEST reason). If you were a large number of
eminent critics then I might be swayed by your claim that A Better
Tomorrow is a masterpiece. Absent that strong argument from
multiple-authorities, I want other kinds of evidence.
Remember we can find some people who believe that almost any piece of
trash is a masterpiece. If you look at the monthly film ratings you
will see that some people give "10" ratings to films like "Revenge of
the Nerds" and "House". Maybe their right, but I sure won't believe
them without a lot of argument.
You make the following comment :
>>You suggest that "A Better Tomorrow" is
>>a great film, yet give no reasons other than your belief that the
>>technique is innovative.
>Well, does it need any other reasons? The story is good even if it's
>not particularly original. We all know Shakespeare ripped off his
>plots, and Kurosawa stole from him, and Leone stole from *him*, and
>none of this prevents at least two of these three from inclusion into
>the canon (not much argument on Bill or Akira as far as I can tell).
First, it was your BELIEF which I objected to. I am saying that you
must persuade me that the technique is innovative.
Second, I don't think innovative technique is enough to make a film (or
any piece of art) a masterpiece. It is not the technology, but the way
it is used. Now I don't have a good theory of aesthetics, but I will
suggest that technique and theme must be organically related in order to
create great art. CITIZEN KANE's technique, for example, is intimately
related to one theme of the film -- the fact that the private worlds of
public figures can never be known. (I think this is what makes Pauline
Kael call it shallow. Interestingly, Borges called CK a "labyrinth
without a center" -- and this tremendous insight was intended as a
CRITICISM). If BRINGING UP BABY had been made like CITIZEN KANE it
wouldn't be a masterpiece (and vice versa).
daniel read
Manish Malhotra
>
>I cited Citizen Kane because it is the paradigmatic example of a "great
>film", at least in North America and England. It has attained that
>status on the basis of a great deal of scholarly study, and
>long-standing popular and critical esteem. Even if I knew nothing about
>Citizen Kane but that a large number of eminent critics regarded it as a
>masterpiece, then that would be a good reason for me to regard it that
>way (certainly not the BEST reason). If you were a large number of
>eminent critics then I might be swayed by your claim that A Better
>Tomorrow is a masterpiece. Absent that strong argument from
>multiple-authorities, I want other kinds of evidence.
>
This discussion brings up the issue of what makes a film
a masterpiece. Is ``unanimous opinion of critics'' a good criterion ?
I wonder how many film-critics come up with their own original reviews.
(Is it not possible that their reviews are influenced (positively or
negatively) by what other critics have already said ?)
Maybe I would go to see a film that gets good reviews, but I base
my opinions about a film simply on how much I liked it myself.
As I walk out of the theatre, I know whether I have just seen
a well-made film or not. What I am trying to say is that without
knowing details of camera movement, different styles of editing, etc.,
(i.e., without technically dissecting a film, which is what critics do),
but simply by considering the film as a single, whole ``experience'',
I will know whether it is a well-made film or not. For example,
a poorly edited film will leave a poor impression.
For example, even though I had heard so many good things about
"Citizen Kane", I did not enjoy the film. Similarly, "Raging Bull"
would not make it to my list of top 20 films of the 80s (both Siskel
and Ebert rate it as their top pick of the 80s). In fact, I find
a lot of similarity between these two films. Both these films
describe the story of a person who makes it big. They also go on
to show how their lives continue in the post-glory era of their lives.
I guess my opinion of these films will change when I reach the that
age myself and will be able to comprehend what these films are trying
to depcit and how successful they have been. Apparently, a lot of
critics are able to identify with these films and consider them as
masterpieces.
To me, they are not, at least not now. I can identify with films
that describe stories of someone growing from childhood to
adolescence. This is why, I tend to enjoy films like "Sugar Cane Alley",
"Cinema Paradiso", "The Great Expectations", "Oliver Twist",
"Pather Panchali", etc. But then, there are so many films
which do not involve such personal ``identification'' on a viewer's part
and regardless of viewer's age (assuming that you understand the film),
these films leave a mark, such as "Gallipolli", "Paths of Glory",
"The Seventh Seal", "Casablanca", etc...
Manish
Shiv Naimpally
out Kurasawa, Leone, and others have borrowed from others, but
generally the borrowing is quality borrowing - eg. Brian Depalma
borrowing from Hitchcock, Kurasawa borrowing from Shakespeare.
As a friend once noted about Depalma "If you are going to steal,
at least steal from the best, from the Master.". Yes ABT's plot
is not original, but it is fairly predictable.
Your point about visual style is well taken though. I will attempt
to find some John Woo films, especially ABT, letterboxed. Certainly
Woo's style appears to have been influenced by Peckinpah etc..
I'm also curious about the French director (Jean Pierre Malle ?)
who Woo cites as his influences. Does anyone have a list and
reccomendations of his movies ? Are they readily available in
North America ?
Timothy Worsley
Daniel Read <dr...@andrew.cmu.edu> writes:
>Timothy Worsley states:
Just to clarify, I'm Ed Price (not Timothy Worsley). Tim lets me use
his account for news access.
>Reiher disagrees, and so do I. You suggest that "A Better Tomorrow" is
>a great film, yet give no reasons other than your belief that the
>technique is innovative.
Well, does it need any other reasons? The story is good even if it's
not particularly original. We all know Shakespeare ripped off his
plots, and Kurosawa stole from him, and Leone stole from *him*, and
none of this prevents at least two of these three from inclusion into
the canon (not much argument on Bill or Akira as far as I can tell).
It's pretty hard to discuss anything other than plot and character
development on the net. Visual style is just that, visual. I can't
prove anything about Woo's editing with ASCII text. At the
traditional 1000 words per frame people might start to complain about
bandwidth even if I did want to got for it anyway! :-)
Anyway, your point is well-taken, I guess if I'm going to be so
insistent on this advocacy of Woo, some convincing arguments are
necessary. Well, anyway, it's not to be expected that everyone can
agree on these things (the opposite is obviously the case). I just
like sharing my enthusiasm for those films that are in my personal
canon, that I watch over and over again. And there are plenty of
films that I enjoy that I don't do this with.
>If you enjoy a piece of
>work why should you feel obliged to nominate it for Citizen Kane status?
I don't. And why do you feel obliged to regard Citizen Kane as having
this status? I think the main reason is simply because from day one
everyone is told what a great film it is, and so much has been written
about it, etc. that everyone just assumes it is great, and when they
see it, they read the film as a classic, a great film, instead of
coming to it with a clean slate. There are people who are simply not
impressed with Citizen Kane, just as there are people who are simply
not impressed with A Better Tomorrow :-) <sorry, I just couldn't
resist that comparison!>. I think Pauline Kael might be one of the
former (or is it 8 1/2 I'm thinking of? Maybe both??).
Ciao,
-Ed (*not* Timothy Worsley!), epr...@sybase.com (not wildman@...)
Daniel Read
... A BETTER TOMORROW does repay close study. It is not an
innovative story, but the technique -- well, I know you disagree so
I won't
belabor the point...
Reiher disagrees, and so do I. You suggest that "A Better Tomorrow" is
a great film, yet give no reasons other than your belief that the
technique is innovative. Now I like John Woo's films a lot --
especially those made since THE KILLER -- but I can't see that even THE
KILLER or BULLET IN THE HEAD deserve the kind of reverential treatment
that you give to them. A BETTER TOMORROW is, in my opinion, greatly
inferior to these films. Now I don't think that my opinion is any
better than yours, but I would suggest that if you are going to nominate
films like ABT (or Micheal Mann's films for that matter) for
canonization you had better come up with some reasons derived from your
"close study".
I do think that Woo's technique, especially in the post ABT films (even
ABT II) IS remarkably clever and I also think he is one of the best
action directors at work. He has seen a lot of films and has learned
his lessons well. Why isn't that good enough? If you enjoy a piece of
work why should you feel obliged to nominate it for Citizen Kane status?
This has got nothing to do with the "false dichotomy" between high and
low art. Such apparently "low" artists as Howard Hawks, Douglas Sirk
(both of whom are likely influences on John Woo), John Fuller and
Nicholas Ray have all produced films that are popular and "great" by
tonier standards. Hong Kong directors, working under the same pressures
as their earlier Hollywood brethren, may well produce films of
equivalent quality. Indeed, John Woo and Tsui Hark (a likelier
candidate, by my books) may already be doing so and Timothy Worseley may
well be a prophet crying in the wilderness (the Cahiers of the 90s).
However, I have my doubts.
daniel
Timothy Worsley
don't think it did.]
In article <1992Nov06.1...@bmerh85.bnr.ca>
sh...@bnr.ca (Shiv Naimpally) writes:
>I'm also curious about the French director (Jean Pierre Malle ?)
>who Woo cites as his influences. Does anyone have a list and
>reccomendations of his movies ? Are they readily available in
>North America ?
Jean-Pierre Melville:
1946 24 HEURES DE LA VIE D'UN CLOWN [short film]
1947 LE SILENCE DE LA MER [from short story by Vencors]
1949 LES ENFANTS TERRIBLES [from play by Jean Cocteau]
1953 QUAND TU LIRAS CETTE LETTRE
1955 BOB LE FLAMBEUR [written by JPM & Auguste le Breton]
1958 DEUX HOMMES DANS MANHATTAN
1961 LEON MORIN, PRETRE [from book by Beatrix Beck]
1962 LE DOULOS
1962 L'AINE DES FERCHAUX [from book by Georges Simenon]
1966 DEUXIEME SOUFFLE
1967 LE SAMOURAI [from _The Ronin_ by Joan McLoad]
1969 L'ARMEE DES OMBRES [from book by Joseph Kessel]
1970 LE CERCLE ROUGE
1972 UN FLIC
He appeared in:
1948 LES DRAMES DU BOIS DE BOULOGNE (Jacques Loew)
1949 ORPHEE (Jean Cocteau)
1957 UN AMOUR DE POCHE (Pierre Kast) [as police commissioner]
1958 DEUX HOMMES DANS MANHATTAN (J-P Melville)
1959 A BOUT DE SOUFFLE (J-L Godard) [as the celebrity who says he wants to
become immortal and then die or something like that]
1962 LANDRU (Claude Chabrol)
Now, I am *far* from an expert on Melville, because DUE TO THE PATHETIC
FILM AND VIDEO INDUSTRY (in the US anyway) I CAN'T SEE ANY OF HIS FUCKING
MOVIES!!!!
Well, hardly any... My video store had BOB LE FLAMBEUR [Bob the Gambler]
and LE DOULOS [The Stoolie]. If you've seen THE KILLER you will recognize
certain elements of it come from LE DOULOS (for example, the scene where
Chow Yun Fat has the bullets taken out of his back was undoubtedly
referring to a similar scene in Melville's film; and there are more general
things too). I think LES ENFANTS TERRIBLES must be available on video in
the US but I haven't seen that one yet. I really want to find LE SAMOURAI;
it sounds very "Woo-esque" (it's about a doomed, cold-hearted hitman or
something). Many of these are apparently stylish gangster flicks (LE
DEUXIEME SOUFFLE, L'ARMEE DES OMBRES).
From the limited knowldge I have, I belive it is quite appropriate to
compare John Woo with Melville.
BTW, Auguste le Breton (co-writer of BOB LE FLAMBEUR) wrote RIFIFI, a
famous crime drama. It inspired the creators of "Mission Impossible",
which was originally to be about the exploits of a group of criminals
called "Brigg's Squad" -- remember "Good morning Mr. Briggs... Your
mission, should you decide to accept it...", from before Peter Graves was
on the show? This made me wonder if perhaps Luc Besson's NIKITA was *not*
influenced by "Mission Impossible" (it sure seemed like it to me) but
rather was drawing on the French tradition that would be a more direct
source. But my brother (something of an expert on MI) tells me that there
is a specific episode of MI that NIKITA draws from, so maybe that
speculation is well-founded after all. The ambassador played by the same
actor who plays the guy who's going to impersonate him (I never checked the
credits but I believe I'm right about this) -- that is *classic* Mission
Impossible/Martin Landau...
Hopefully someone can give a better response about Melville's films. And
I'd be curious about the video availability in the US as well. Thanks in
advance for any information!
Ciao,
-Ed (not Tim), epr...@sybase.com (not wildman@...)
"I need to go wherever the rats can go." (identify this quote anyone?)
Jesper Lauridsen
>Well, hardly any... My video store had BOB LE FLAMBEUR [Bob the Gambler]
>and LE DOULOS [The Stoolie]. If you've seen THE KILLER you will recognize
>certain elements of it come from LE DOULOS (for example, the scene where
>Chow Yun Fat has the bullets taken out of his back was undoubtedly
>referring to a similar scene in Melville's film; and there are more general
>things too). I think LES ENFANTS TERRIBLES must be available on video in
>the US but I haven't seen that one yet. I really want to find LE SAMOURAI;
>it sounds very "Woo-esque" (it's about a doomed, cold-hearted hitman or
>something). Many of these are apparently stylish gangster flicks (LE
>DEUXIEME SOUFFLE, L'ARMEE DES OMBRES).
L'ARMEE DES OMBRES is a war movie, dealing with a group in the french
resistance. But the style of the movie almost makes them appear like
gangsters (they have no illusions of what resistance work really means).
It's a very good movie and it's really nice to see a movie where the
germans speak german, the french speaks french and the english english.
Of those Melville films that I have seen (and thats way to few) LE
CERCLE ROUGE is my favourite - one of the best movies I saw in 1990.
--
Jesper Lauridsen | Je ne suis pas un voyou
rors...@daimi.aau.dk | Je suis Monsieur Hire
Avoid normal situations.
>I say:
>
>I cited Citizen Kane because it is the paradigmatic example of a "great
>film", at least in North America and England. It has attained that
Huh? "Paradigmatic example of a 'great film'"?
[ other stuff about _Citizen Kane_ and _A Better Tomorrow_ deleted ]
>Second, I don't think innovative technique is enough to make a film (or
>any piece of art) a masterpiece. It is not the technology, but the way
>it is used. Now I don't have a good theory of aesthetics, but I will
>suggest that technique and theme must be organically related in order to
>create great art. CITIZEN KANE's technique, for example, is intimately
>related to one theme of the film -- the fact that the private worlds of
>public figures can never be known. (I think this is what makes Pauline
>Kael call it shallow. Interestingly, Borges called CK a "labyrinth
>without a center" -- and this tremendous insight was intended as a
>CRITICISM). If BRINGING UP BABY had been made like CITIZEN KANE it
>wouldn't be a masterpiece (and vice versa).
>
Gentlemen, I'm confused. How exactly are we defining "masterpiece"
and "great art" here?
Love & kisses,
The Stainless Steel Moviegoer
"If thought can corrupt
language, then language can
corrupt thought."
-- George Orwell
Michael S Ritchie
a great deal of influence or impact on either the culture (something
like Casablanca or The Godfather) or on other filmakers (like
Citizen Kane, Raging Bull, some Bergman), personal identification
aside, which is why some movies get named again and again on
"best-of" lists for sometimes seemingly obscure reasons--I've never
seen what's "great" about Raging Bull, though I admit I've only
seen it once.
--Michael
Timothy Worsley
>Tony Leung's role in the film was a bit of a "hack", so to speak, to
>accomodate a lot of people (him, his fans, etc). It wasn't originally
>intended for him to play such an important part, I believe.
("The film" is HARD BOILED.) You're right. I read that Tony Leung's
character was originally going to be simply an evil opponent. But
they made him a more sympathetic character to not ruin his "image" or
something... Maybe the contrast between HARD BOILED and THE LOVER was
an issue?? :-)