Texasville is a masterpiece. The logical follow-up to the Last Picture Show, whereby an isolated culture is invaded by pop culture and insanity breaks out.
Awards are broken down between men and women because narrative cinema is broken down between men and women. This thread is as silly as debating about what color of lipstick should be put on the pig.
Many of the social and political rationales cited above to maintain a distinction between male and female Acting awards could also be applied to all the other usual categories in award ceremonies: writing, directing, cinematography, sound editing, music, etc.
Not really. Actors and actresses are signifiers of what’s represented on the screen, and we separate them because narrative film representation is so fundamentally based on this division between male and female. The behind-the-scenes artisans aren’t applicable. Intellectually it may seem that getting rid of the actor/actress distinction is the correct thing to do, but it would be a false move because it has nothing to do with the cinema that we give these awards to.
I can’t believe people are still taking that quotation seriously.
Obviously the only people who take that quote seriously are the ones who rail against it. It’s a polemical statement who’s sole purpose is to praise the B genre film. It also demonstrates that the history of cinema is the history of men filming women. You might want to trade in film history profs or switch film schools for all the insight those heated lectures are providing you.
However, cinema is one of the places where conventional and closed views of reality (like the binary perspective of human beings as men/women or male/female) could be challenged as all the queer cinema proves (and I’m not talking about sexual orientation only but all kind of social, political and cultural transgressions).
That’s fine. Let’s discuss Araki then instead of focusing on the window dressing of Oscar sexual politics.
David- I find that a pale imitation of the Happy Together whisper finale and so it never worked for me, although I’m sure if I had seen this one first I would have been blown away.
If you define the French New Wave as a large amount of first-time directors taking their cameras out on location to film, it ended in 1962. Too many busts, and the money stopped flowing.
It’s worth bearing in mind that the film canon, historically speaking, remains relatively ill-defined when compared to the literary canon, which has had 3000 or so to separate the wheat from the chaff (so to speak), so it remains to be seen what will stick, as well as if concepts like Western vs. Eastern, etc. have any relevance to the future.
Cinema ages much quicker than literature so the comparison isn’t valid. On the contrary, the film canon is more clearly defined than the literary canon as it’s more consumable.
“Only in terms of sales and box office which has nothing to do with merit. Stephen King may sell more than Dante but he’ll never enter the canon because it _is _ more defined, by artistic merit.”
I’m not sure how you determined this. Citizen Kane made no money at the box office and Rules of the Game did no box office business, just to name the consensus top 2 in the canon.
Welles was canonized before dvd (when his box office stock was at the lowest of the lows) and as I said, Kane and Rules of the Game did no box office. Your argument simply doesn’t fit.
*The auteur theory was an opinion, an idea to convince people that film could be a serious art. *
Not exactly. Film was already considered a serious art and the Murnaus, Chaplins, Eisensteins, etc. were already considered the authors of their films. The auteur theory as developed by Cahiers was to treat Hollywood genre film specifically as serious art via assessment of the mise-en-scene, as well as to elevate particular French directors above others. The emphasis was that the auteur did NOT need control over elements of production such as screenplay, crew, actors, musical score or final edit.
I have no figures but i’d wager Morris Engel’s films didn’t play as much worldwide as Welles. How many of the 1962 critics had seen The Little Fugitive, Lovers and Lollipops or Weddings and Babies? I know some folks in France saw the first one but I’ll bet Kane made Avatar money compared to Engel’s films, again, not because it’s better but due to entirely superficial reasons.
The Little Fugitive made a considerable splash on the international critics scene and I would guess a large number of critics in the 1962 poll saw it. While it is noteworthy for it’s mode-of-production innovation, I personally think it’s only a decent film. You can’t assume it’s absence in a single poll is due to superficial reasons.
I too weary of the argument, but nevertheless as a movie buff, film student, Criterion devotee, and consumer, I have no use for this release whatsoever.
This is the first dvd release of the UCLA restoration.
The Most Philosophicallly Dense Films over 2 years ago
“Bunuel may have been the greatest genre filmmaker of them all”
ho ho ho.
Which Bunuel genres films have you seen? I only ask because maybe you haven’t seen his better ones.
Go to Comment
What's going on on camera is more interesting than what the camera does. over 2 years ago
Most of the time I just wish directors would get out of the way and let the actors do their work. Much like John Ford
When Ford got out of John Wayne’s way, he went off an starred in Ghengis Kahn and The Green Berets.
But you shouldn’t trust anything Ford said about his own filmmaking. Nobody had a more strictly formal sense and control of camera and mise-en-scene.
Go to Comment
Peter Bogdanovich is directing a new film over 2 years ago
Texasville is a masterpiece. The logical follow-up to the Last Picture Show, whereby an isolated culture is invaded by pop culture and insanity breaks out.
Go to Comment
Classic Actors and their Modern Counterparts over 2 years ago
hugh grant = cary grant (with worse taste in material)
What an insult. Cary Grant is the greatest actor in the history of cinema. Hawks and Hitchcock built their greatest monuments around him.
Go to Comment
NAME A DIRECTOR & HIS/HER "MUSE" over 2 years ago
Alfred Hitchcock and that hot blond chick
Go to Comment
New Yorker Films shuts down over 2 years ago
New Yorker treated more great films badly than just about any other distributor. Let’s hope the new reincarnation can do better.
Go to Comment
a man and a woman: have people forgotten that it exists over 2 years ago
It copycatted New Wave style and applied it to inanity. That’s why it’s been deservedly forgotten.
Go to Comment
Should there be one Best Acting category for awards ceremonies? over 2 years ago
Awards are broken down between men and women because narrative cinema is broken down between men and women. This thread is as silly as debating about what color of lipstick should be put on the pig.
Go to Comment
Filmmakers deserving of personal adjectives over 2 years ago
Malicky. def — Having a grandly orchestrated, floating, quasi-religious sense of importance.
Use in a sentence: “My friend told me he loved The Hangover, so I got all Malicky on his ass.”
Go to Comment
Filmmakers deserving of personal adjectives over 2 years ago
Malicky. def — Having a grandly orchestrated, floating, quasi-religious sense of importance.
Use in a sentence: “My friend told me he loved The Hangover, so I got all Malicky on his ass.”
Go to Comment
Should there be one Best Acting category for awards ceremonies? over 2 years ago
Many of the social and political rationales cited above to maintain a distinction between male and female Acting awards could also be applied to all the other usual categories in award ceremonies: writing, directing, cinematography, sound editing, music, etc.
Not really. Actors and actresses are signifiers of what’s represented on the screen, and we separate them because narrative film representation is so fundamentally based on this division between male and female. The behind-the-scenes artisans aren’t applicable. Intellectually it may seem that getting rid of the actor/actress distinction is the correct thing to do, but it would be a false move because it has nothing to do with the cinema that we give these awards to.
Go to Comment
Should there be one Best Acting category for awards ceremonies? over 2 years ago
In what way?
“All you need for a movie is a girl and a gun.” – Jean-Luc Godard
Go to Comment
Should there be one Best Acting category for awards ceremonies? over 2 years ago
I can’t believe people are still taking that quotation seriously.
Obviously the only people who take that quote seriously are the ones who rail against it. It’s a polemical statement who’s sole purpose is to praise the B genre film. It also demonstrates that the history of cinema is the history of men filming women. You might want to trade in film history profs or switch film schools for all the insight those heated lectures are providing you.
Go to Comment
Should there be one Best Acting category for awards ceremonies? over 2 years ago
However, cinema is one of the places where conventional and closed views of reality (like the binary perspective of human beings as men/women or male/female) could be challenged as all the queer cinema proves (and I’m not talking about sexual orientation only but all kind of social, political and cultural transgressions).
That’s fine. Let’s discuss Araki then instead of focusing on the window dressing of Oscar sexual politics.
Go to Comment
Ever go through huge lulls in your film viewing? over 2 years ago
David- I find that a pale imitation of the Happy Together whisper finale and so it never worked for me, although I’m sure if I had seen this one first I would have been blown away.
Go to Comment
FRENCH NEW WAVE - when did it end? over 2 years ago
If you define the French New Wave as a large amount of first-time directors taking their cameras out on location to film, it ended in 1962. Too many busts, and the money stopped flowing.
Go to Comment
Does anyone dispute the Auteur Theory any more? over 2 years ago
Hitchcock didn’t write his screenplays
Hitchcock had the final word on every word in his screenplays.
Go to Comment
Scottish Film over 2 years ago
The Bill Douglas trilogy and I Know Where I’m Going!
Go to Comment
Scottish Film over 2 years ago
The Bill Douglas trilogy and I Know Where I’m Going!
Go to Comment
Does anyone dispute the Auteur Theory any more? over 2 years ago
f you write, direct, act, shoot, design, edit, and score the film, then you have stronger ground to stand on.
This is the opposite of the Auteur theory, which is based in the supremacy of the mise-en-scene.
Go to Comment
non-western bias over 2 years ago
It’s worth bearing in mind that the film canon, historically speaking, remains relatively ill-defined when compared to the literary canon, which has had 3000 or so to separate the wheat from the chaff (so to speak), so it remains to be seen what will stick, as well as if concepts like Western vs. Eastern, etc. have any relevance to the future.
Cinema ages much quicker than literature so the comparison isn’t valid. On the contrary, the film canon is more clearly defined than the literary canon as it’s more consumable.
Go to Comment
non-western bias over 2 years ago
“Only in terms of sales and box office which has nothing to do with merit. Stephen King may sell more than Dante but he’ll never enter the canon because it _is _ more defined, by artistic merit.”
I’m not sure how you determined this. Citizen Kane made no money at the box office and Rules of the Game did no box office business, just to name the consensus top 2 in the canon.
Go to Comment
non-western bias over 2 years ago
Welles was canonized before dvd (when his box office stock was at the lowest of the lows) and as I said, Kane and Rules of the Game did no box office. Your argument simply doesn’t fit.
Go to Comment
Does anyone dispute the Auteur Theory any more? over 2 years ago
*The auteur theory was an opinion, an idea to convince people that film could be a serious art. *
Not exactly. Film was already considered a serious art and the Murnaus, Chaplins, Eisensteins, etc. were already considered the authors of their films. The auteur theory as developed by Cahiers was to treat Hollywood genre film specifically as serious art via assessment of the mise-en-scene, as well as to elevate particular French directors above others. The emphasis was that the auteur did NOT need control over elements of production such as screenplay, crew, actors, musical score or final edit.
Go to Comment
Greatest Single Cut over 2 years ago
The cut at 1:43
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vBNn38ZNUXI
Go to Comment
non-western bias over 2 years ago
I have no figures but i’d wager Morris Engel’s films didn’t play as much worldwide as Welles. How many of the 1962 critics had seen The Little Fugitive, Lovers and Lollipops or Weddings and Babies? I know some folks in France saw the first one but I’ll bet Kane made Avatar money compared to Engel’s films, again, not because it’s better but due to entirely superficial reasons.
The Little Fugitive made a considerable splash on the international critics scene and I would guess a large number of critics in the 1962 poll saw it. While it is noteworthy for it’s mode-of-production innovation, I personally think it’s only a decent film. You can’t assume it’s absence in a single poll is due to superficial reasons.
Go to Comment
God Bless You, Criterion over 2 years ago
I too weary of the argument, but nevertheless as a movie buff, film student, Criterion devotee, and consumer, I have no use for this release whatsoever.
This is the first dvd release of the UCLA restoration.
Go to Comment
non-western bias over 2 years ago
This thread is like the Special Olympics without gold medals.
Go to Comment
vegetarians, meat eaters and bloody films over 2 years ago
a film like sweeney todd is more likely 2 disturb a meat eater than a vegetarian
Why?
Go to Comment
vegetarians, meat eaters and bloody films over 2 years ago
Yes you can.
Go to Comment