ftp.xmission.com/2014.06.ftp.xmission.com.tar/ftp.xmission.com/pub/lists/movies/archive/v02.n291

Internet Message Format | 2000-09-17 | 53KB

From: [e-mail] (movies-digest)
To: [e-mail]
Subject: movies-digest V2 #291
Reply-To: movies-digest
Sender: [e-mail]
Errors-To: [e-mail]
Precedence: bulk


movies-digest        Sunday, September 17 2000        Volume 02 : Number 291



Re: [MV] Changes in the movie going public ...
[MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...
Re: [MV] Changes in the movie going public ...
Re: [MV] Changes in the movie going public ...
Re: [MV] Changes in the movie going public ...
Re: [MV] Changes in the movie going public ...
Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...
[MV] back
Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...
Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...
[MV] Hmmm... Freedom to choose, what a novel idea.
[MV] In Hopes of Elevating the Discusion Here ...
[MV] Mystery train - 1989 - 3.5/5
[MV] bye
Re: [MV] Sidestep city.

----------------------------------------------------------------------

Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:12:40 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Changes in the movie going public ...

[e-mail] wrote:

> In a message dated 09/15/2000 11:20:08 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [e-mail] writes:
>
> << Teenagers and early-20s go to movies to be with their friends, and or
> dates.
>  It's a herding thing.  They aren't looking for great acting, or a
>  well-constructed storyline.  Just lights and music. (OK, I'm exaggerating a
>  bit.)  And they go partly to GET AWAY from their parents.  So the studios
>  mostly make movies that appeal to youth, even if they alienate older
>  viewers. >>

Let me ask you this question.  |How do  teen flicks and teen culture today
compare to its predecessors, 20, 30, 40, years ago?  I will admit this is my
subjective reading but I'd have to say that the growth of the post modernist
culture, of self-critique, and relativism in culture in the last 30 years has
made culture far more dense than it ever was. The Simpsons is our generation's
Flintstones compare the two and make a conclusion.  I will admit others are far
less easy to compare.  My parent's generation see something in West Side Story
and Grease, I or my generation don't.  I personally think its strange, but who am
I to judge eh?  its all relative in the end.


- --
Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com



[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Fri, 15 Sep 2000 23:39:57 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...

>
> Spoken like a true sheep. What you're really saying is "if people
> with low IQ's wish to flock in huge numbers to whatever is new and
> glittery without ever questioning its worth or whether we're missing
> out on something truly great on the screen next door, thus confining
> the truly great smaller films to the trash heap, then let us."

Of course, you speak like a snob .  It is probably far better on your heart if your
less bitter and judge things more objectively.  A great many great films have
received the critical and commerical success they deserved.  If your favorite film
somehow got lost somewhere,  feel free to recommend it to this list and we will
heed your advice.  To tear down people you bunch together is convineint and safe
for you, especially when you're sitting in the comfort of your own home.  Before
you make any accusations, consider that you've probably done "zero" research into
why "teens" go see the movies they see.  Herd mentality? Yes, ocassionaly, but more
often than not, I'll utter an movie in a small circle of friends and I'll get five
or six "oh yeah, that movie looks sweet"   and five or six weeks later, if the
movie stinks, you'll never hear about it again.  Just because you think it stinks
doesn't make it so.   Just because you think all teens have "low low IQ" doesn't
make it so.  In fact, teens today are far more savvy about media, propaganda, and
crap than their parents even were.

Which leads me to my next question.  Are you a relatvist? post-modernist? leftist?
liberal? who subscribe to the notion of a subjective truth? that whatever is true
to one person/society/or country is true because it is and there is no such thing
as an objective truth?  Because you seem to sound like one, that because its true
to you, it must be the truth.

Not to mention I find your lack of research into the accusations you made totally
laughable.  I can make a general statement that "all women between the ages of 20
to 40" like to see Richard Gere seduce a woman half his age.  That may be true, or
I may feeding you a fast one, an overlay broad biased generalization of the women
demographic  just so I can build my second hallow, subjective, biased point of view
ontop of my  hallow, subjective, biased  "truth"  so that I can make my case look
good to the end reader.


- --
Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com



[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 06:57:55 -0700
From: "David F. Nolan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Changes in the movie going public ...

on 9/15/2000 11:12 PM, Dexter Sy at [e-mail] wrote:

> Let me ask you this question.  |How do  teen flicks and teen culture today
> compare to its predecessors, 20, 30, 40, years ago?  I will admit this is my
> subjective reading but I'd have to say that the growth of the post modernist
> culture, of self-critique, and relativism in culture in the last 30 years has
> made culture far more dense than it ever was. The Simpsons is our generation's
> Flintstones compare the two and make a conclusion.  I will admit others are
> far
> less easy to compare.  My parent's generation see something in West Side Story
> and Grease, I or my generation don't.  I personally think its strange, but who
> am
> I to judge eh?  its all relative in the end.

I'm not saying that teens today are less intelligent or less sophisticated
than teens 20, 30 or 40 years ago.  Just that teenagers in general are less
demanding in their movie fare than older, more experienced adults ... who
now have the option of waiting to watch movies on video, which they didn't
in times past. So today's theater audiences tend to be mostly teens and
early-20s, who prefer the noisy "herd" environment.  For teenagers -- then
and now -- going to the movies is a much a tribal gathering as an artistic
experience. (Again, I generalize.)  As for the Simpsons vs. The Flintstones,
neither is/was particularly aimed at teenagers. I watch The Simpsons
regularly, and so do many adults I know.

The topic of this thread is "Changes in the movie going public ..." and my
observations (i.e. "teenagers have simple tastes, and go to movies largely
to be with their own age group and away from parents") were made in that
context.  I never said they were stupid. Some are, some aren't... just like
adults.


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:10:30 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Changes in the movie going public ...

In a message dated 09/15/2000 11:02:40 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< Let me ask you this question.  |How do  teen flicks and teen culture today
 compare to its predecessors, 20, 30, 40, years ago?  I will admit this is my
 subjective reading but I'd have to say that the growth of the post modernist
 culture, of self-critique, and relativism in culture in the last 30 years has
 made culture far more dense than it ever was. The Simpsons is our
generation's
 Flintstones compare the two and make a conclusion.  I will admit others are
far
 less easy to compare.  My parent's generation see something in West Side
Story
 and Grease, I or my generation don't.  I personally think its strange, but
who am
 I to judge eh?  its all relative in the end. >>

And don't forget that much of the teen culture in the sixties consisted of
surfing movies.  Times are changing and I do believe teens to be a bit more
critical these days.
- -Eric-

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 10:19:44 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] Changes in the movie going public ...

In a message dated 09/16/2000 6:58:21 AM Pacific Daylight Time,
[e-mail] writes:

<< The topic of this thread is "Changes in the movie going public ..." and my
 observations (i.e. "teenagers have simple tastes, and go to movies largely
 to be with their own age group and away from parents") were made in that
 context.  I never said they were stupid. Some are, some aren't... just like
 adults. >>

Yes, but not all teens have simple tastes.  Besides that, what you and others
perceive as "simple" may be different.
- -Eric-

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sat, 16 Sep 2000 14:51:23 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Changes in the movie going public ...

>   As for the Simpsons vs. The Flintstones,
> neither is/was particularly aimed at teenagers. I watch The Simpsons
> regularly, and so do many adults I know.

So if neither were aimed at teenagers, then they must be aimed at the general TV
masses... which still makes my point that in general, culture has evolved into a
much more critical and self-concious form.  As for the Simpsons having a big adult
reach, you are absolutely right.  There are a lot of jokes that younger audiences
will miss, but keep in mind that the Simpsons never pull in ratings in the same
league as ER or Law and Order, which have absolutely massive adult audiences.
What Simpson's have on its side however is a core of 15 to 20 something viewers,
which constitudes a large chunk of the movie going audiences generalized as being
uncritical in its movie going tates.

>
>
> The topic of this thread is "Changes in the movie going public ..." and my
> observations (i.e. "teenagers have simple tastes, and go to movies largely
> to be with their own age group and away from parents") were made in that
> context.  I never said they were stupid. Some are, some aren't... just like
> adults.

Well, I have to agree and disagree.  Yes, movies always have an element of herd
mentality, regardless of age.  Don't tell me any number of films popular with the
more adult audiences doesn't have that  same effect.  Word of mouth is in my ways
the euphemism of the "herding mentality".  Would an adult film be commercially
viable without herds and herds of adults going to see the movie just because Jane
Smith went to see it last weekend and couldn't stop talking about it at the office
on monday?

Getting back to my point, I have to disagree however with the audiences being less
critical.  I think we judge films much more differently than adults.  Mel and I got
into a discussion about the Matrix a few months ago.  He believed it had a weak
plot, but failed to provide any evidence as to why he thought it was a weak film.
All I got from that discussion was that he felt  the special effects took over and
pretty much underwrote the film's success.  I got the impression a lot of the
technical nuances in the film, things like the  behavior of the A.I.  or the bullet
time effect, were taken by a lot of people outside the technology culture as jargon
hollywood invented.  That is a little far from the truth.  The Matrix is actually
inspired by Hong Kong action films, Japanimation and the video game culture, sub
cultures which enjoys a tremendous following in the youth culture.  A lot of the
concepts are real.  The bullet time effect for example, can be seen as a slow motion
dramatic mechanism used in Japanimation and a parallel can also be drawn to
contemporary sports video games which feature instant replay modes that allow
players to playback a sequence,frame by frame in slow-mo  with total controll over
the camera. They can zoom in on it, rotate around it etc. etc..

This is really a roundabout way in getting at it, but I think there is a certain
element of relativism here. You cannot truly appreciate something unless you live
it, and films like the Matrix offer a lot  more than just eye candy to teens.  It
alludes to many things we also enjoy and there are numerous connections to be made.
Whereas the uninitiated looking in from the outside will draw all the right
conclusions for all the wrong reasons.
- --
Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com



[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:48:47 -0700
From: Chris Parry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...

Dexter Sy wrote:
>
> Of course, you speak like a snob .  It is probably far better on your heart if your
> less bitter and judge things more objectively.

Two things make me bitter. Awful films and people who think they're
smart when they're using a big word, but spell it wrong. Relatvist?
Convineint? You're making my heart bitter, Dex.

> A great many great films have
> received the critical and commerical success they deserved.

Sure. Easy Rider got the praise and business it deserved because
when it came out, people actually read and paid attention to
reviews. Ditto The Exorcist. Ditto The Godfather. Ditto Taxi Driver.
Ditto Apocalypse Now. All films that looked destined to crash and
burn, but the critics camped out in their corner and they became
huge successes. Here's a challenge for you and your oh-so-critical
teenage buddies... name one other film released since Star Wars,
that was saved by critics in the same way. Just one. One flick that
looked like it was going to disappear, but the critics came in and
started a big roll of support that translated into an $80m box
office. Come on, Dex. Affliction? Ulee's Gold? Go? Bottle Rocket?
Being John Malkovich? The Sweet Hereafter? Fight Club?
Trainspotting? Boys Don't Cry? Put 'em all together and they made
less money than Wild Wild West. In fact, the Blair Witch Project, a
film that disappointed the majority of it's $150m audience, was the
one film that actually got a big buzz from pre-release word of mouth
and became a huge blockbusting success, but what 'media outlet' gave
it the big buzz? Not informed critics. Not the press. Not reviews.
Oh no, it was Harry Knowles. The same guy who "cried at Armageddon",
the same guy who said The Faculty was a masterwork (and happened to
have been given a cameo). Go teens, you clever, well-informed, media
savvy beings you!

There's my research, now where's yours?

> Before
> you make any accusations, consider that you've probably done "zero" research into
> why "teens" go see the movies they see.  Herd mentality? Yes, ocassionaly, but more
> often than not, I'll utter an movie in a small circle of friends and I'll get five
> or six "oh yeah, that movie looks sweet"   and five or six weeks later, if the
> movie stinks, you'll never hear about it again.

You just proved my point, you buffon! You see a trailer, talk it up
with your buds, do ZERO actual research on whether it's really good
or whether they've shown you every plot point already in the
trailer, then you herd on out opening weekend, hand over your ticket
money, and if it sucks you forget about it. You don't ask for a
refund, you don't tell everyone you know to avoid it, you just
wander off, ripped off. Meanwhile, your dollars have accrued to make
that awful movie a number one box office smash, which means other
mooks flock to it because "it's at #1, it must be good", and the
sequel planning commences.

> Just because you think it stinks
> doesn't make it so.

No, it does. In my mind, it does, and I don't care about whether
that rings true in your mind. Let me ask you, did you pay to see
Wild Wild West, Double Jeopardy, Eye Of The Beholder, Wing Commander
or Urban (should have been Urbane) Legend? And if so, what happened
with your awesome teen research? Didn't you see how each of these
movies were almost universally damned before release? And you went
anyway?

Deny it.

> Just because you think all teens have "low low IQ" doesn't
> make it so.  In fact, teens today are far more savvy about media, propaganda, and
> crap than their parents even were.

What utter rot. If my point ever needed any evidence to prove that
teenagers are, as a collective, fools, just observe the MTV Movie
Awards - the one awards show where Adam Sandler can pick up a prize
for his acting.

> Which leads me to my next question.  Are you a relatvist? post-modernist? leftist?
> liberal? who subscribe to the notion of a subjective truth? that whatever is true
> to one person/society/or country is true because it is and there is no such thing
> as an objective truth?  Because you seem to sound like one, that because its true
> to you, it must be the truth.

The only truth that matters to me is what I see as the truth, as I
have said before. Your truth is irrelevant to me. Label that how you
like, but I prefer to call myself a prioritist. My priorities come
first, second and last. Offence freely given to those who choose to
take it.

> Not to mention I find your lack of research into the accusations you made totally
> laughable.  I can make a general statement that "all women between the ages of 20
> to 40" like to see Richard Gere seduce a woman half his age.  That may be true, or
> I may feeding you a fast one, an overlay broad biased generalization of the women
> demographic  just so I can build my second hallow, subjective, biased point of view
> ontop of my  hallow, subjective, biased  "truth"  so that I can make my case look
> good to the end reader.

Huh? Wha...? I'm sorry, you lost me after "an overlay broad biased
generalization of the women demographic." Here's a clue, just
looking up the big words in the dictionary doesn't make them mean
something when placed one after the other. Read a book, you media
savvy brainiac.

OZ

http://www.efilmcritic.com
http://www.mymovies.com.au
http://www.tribe.com
http://www.if.com.au
http://ifmagazine.ifctv.com
http://www.sain.com.au

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 14:44:19 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] back

Hi guys,
I am back

- -Jed
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:48:07 EDT
From: [e-mail]
Subject: Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...

In a message dated 09/16/2000 11:45:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,=20
[e-mail] writes:

<< What utter rot. If my point ever needed any evidence to prove that
 teenagers are, as a collective, fools, just observe the MTV Movie
 Awards - the one awards show where Adam Sandler can pick up a prize
 for his acting. >>

Sure, and we're all part of the MTV generation, right?  The only time I ever=
=20
watched that channel was on an overnight Jr. High field trip when my three=20
roommates stayed up all night gathered around it while I tried to sleep. =20
They love rap and alternative rock while I'm listening to the Beach Boys and=
=20
the Beatles.  Why?  That's just how my taste is.  And believe me, I know man=
y=20
people that also do not fit that generation, so the MTV movie awards are=20
meaningless to me.  I agree with Dex's argument.  If you find a movie that=20
you feel is being lost, tell us about it.  Our ears (in this case, eyes) are=
=20
open.  Bad movies will be made whether or not people go to them, so if=20
someone's going to go to them on opening night, just let them do what they=20
want to do.  You've got your own choice, so go to the movies that interest=20
you.  I, personally, have no interest in going to see Big Mamma's House or=20
The Art of War, and Pok=E9mon the Movie 2000, like Pok=E9mon the First Movie=
,=20
sucked royally.  If you actually would read my posts, you would know that I'=
m=20
a very outspoken critic of them.
- -Eric-

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:21:27 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] The Crap that pass for Intellectual discussion...

Well, I think the problem is we have is a person who has formed a very bais
against certain types of films, and you can see from the venom that oozes out of
his posts that he hates them.  I'm not even going to get into the argument of
whether Martin Laurence or Adam Sandler is deserving of their fame. That is a
purely subjective issue, but the  one fact we do have is that people find them
funny.    If Chris can't live with it and can only find relief through bashing
and belitting the actors, the films and its audiences then I feel for him.  He's
got a lot of personall  issues to work out.

As my psychology professor would say, an overstated superiority complex is often
formed to hide a deeper inferiority complex.

Dexter

[e-mail] wrote:

> In a message dated 09/16/2000 11:45:36 PM Pacific Daylight Time,
> [e-mail] writes:
>
> << What utter rot. If my point ever needed any evidence to prove that
>  teenagers are, as a collective, fools, just observe the MTV Movie
>  Awards - the one awards show where Adam Sandler can pick up a prize
>  for his acting. >>
>
> Sure, and we're all part of the MTV generation, right?  The only time I ever
> watched that channel was on an overnight Jr. High field trip when my three
> roommates stayed up all night gathered around it while I tried to sleep.
> They love rap and alternative rock while I'm listening to the Beach Boys and
> the Beatles.  Why?  That's just how my taste is.  And believe me, I know many
> people that also do not fit that generation, so the MTV movie awards are
> meaningless to me.  I agree with Dex's argument.  If you find a movie that
> you feel is being lost, tell us about it.  Our ears (in this case, eyes) are
> open.  Bad movies will be made whether or not people go to them, so if
> someone's going to go to them on opening night, just let them do what they
> want to do.  You've got your own choice, so go to the movies that interest
> you.  I, personally, have no interest in going to see Big Mamma's House or
> The Art of War, and PokΘmon the Movie 2000, like PokΘmon the First Movie,
> sucked royally.  If you actually would read my posts, you would know that I'm
> a very outspoken critic of them.
> -Eric-
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

- --
Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com



[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:40:19 -0700
From: Dexter Sy <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Hmmm... Freedom to choose, what a novel idea.

> You've got your own choice, so go to the movies that interest
> you

It just struck me that through this entire discussion, however long it has been,
we've talked about the merits of criticizing people or the merits of why certain
good films aren't being seen.   We've forgot completely that people do have a
choice to see what they want to see.   Ha! This is funny, but it clarifies one
thing for me.   I talked about the issue of imposing one's thoughts on others and
the dangers.   If history tells us anything, the power of a well intentioned
tyrant to do good by telling his subjects what to do does not excuse then ten
tyrants the come after him who will probably use the same power for their own
self interest.  History has shown time and again that benevolent tyrants are
rare, and they often are the people who begin a dynasty.  And guess who ends one?
weak tyrants whose sheltered life have grown so out of touch with the people they
think they are gods.

The point I'm getting at here is the intentions behind the debate.  I think
Chris, Eric and I all mean well when we argue, we just don't see things in the
same light.  The movies Chris advocates are all very good, I've seen a lot of
them and I'd be the first to say I probably agree with his tastes 9 out of 10
times.  But the way he goes about making his points really fly in the face of
tolerance, and at the very least, respect for the people he criticizes.  This
leads to the who issue of tyrants.  His intentions to impose his will, his truth
to the public is good, but the means does not justify the end.    This concept
may seem to be a little abstract or obtuse to some of you, but I hold my personal
liberties very dearly.  I'm very aware, in historical terms, of how fragile
personal liberties are so before accusations that I'm using the issue of freedom
to my own advantage start flying, think long and hard about the issue itself and
don't let your biases in this very specific debate cloud your judgement on the
much broader issue of personal freedom.

>

>

> .  I, personally, have no interest in going to see Big Mamma's House or
> The Art of War, and PokΘmon the Movie 2000, like PokΘmon the First Movie,
> sucked royally.  If you actually would read my posts, you would know that I'm
> a very outspoken critic of them.

Oh, and I actually liked Big Momma's House.  Since you're disagreeing with me,
you must be a mindless troll who needs to be put down endlessly so I can feel
justified that I am right and speak the truth.  Big Momma's House is a good
movie, Martin Laurence is funny.  I said so, so it must be true.   If you
disagree, you are wrong, and we will go through the whole cycle of belitting you
and your brain power again.
*sarcasm interended* :-D

Dexter

>
>
> [ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
> [ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

- --
Dexter S.
Tendo Box - Nintendo e-zine
Http://www.tendobox.com



[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 17:54:40 -0700
From: "David F. Nolan" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] In Hopes of Elevating the Discusion Here ...

OK, Oz (and others tired of the picayune)... here's an article that ran in
the NY TIMES which should provide plenty of fodder for discussion....

NYTimes.com
The New York Times

Was It Citizen Hearst or Citizen Welles?

September 17, 2000

By DAVID THOMSON

AS I made my way through "The Chief," David Nasaw's new life of
William Randolph Hearst, a premonition crept up on me. This long,
careful book was loaded with shot that might carry further than Mr.
Nasaw intended. I could not place the feeling at first, or see how
so reasonable and persuasive a narrative was setting off such large
creaks and groans within me. But then the prospect dawned =8B that
the election itself might be affected =8B and I began to feel
hopeful.

 No, I do not mean Bush and Gore. Still, if history runs to script,
then Sight and Sound, the magazine of the British Film Institute,
some time early in 2002, will publish its sixth once-a-decade poll
on the movies that critics and filmmakers think of as the best
ever. Does that poll matter? Only to the extent that Sight and
Sound is the oldest serious film magazine in English, and because
it has carefully nursed its poll to cover a wide range of voters.
There is also the point that its winner chimes with just about
every other poll ever taken. A year and a half ahead of polling,
"Citizen Kane" is a Tiger Woods favorite to retain the title it
first won in 1962.

 Now, please read the following with care: I love "Citizen Kane"; I
have been on record for several decades as its ardent admirer. I
would not dispute anyone who, in 2002, says again that it is the
best film ever made =8B if it really reassures us to have such a
ranking. Yet I believe that it would be for the good of film
history, for watching movies, for the always tenuous notion of film
as an art, and especially for "Citizen Kane," if the film could be
spared from running, have its number hoist up in the rafters of the
old Boston Garden, whatever. That allows "Citizen Kane" a chance of
becoming something other than the Ozymandian monument lording it
over the surrounding desert.

 Now, Sight and Sound itself could find the wisdom to forgo its
poll =8B yet I suspect that that is as unlikely as getting the
Academy to do without its March prize-giving. "Citizen Kane" could
be gently omitted from the vote =8B but how does wisdom then surmount
the plaints about unfairness? I might remind Sight and Sound that
in 1952, when it began this game, "Citizen Kane" was nowhere to be
seen. In that poll, the top 10 were "The Bicycle Thief," "City
Lights" and "The Gold Rush" (tied for second); "Battleship
Potemkin"; "Louisiana Story" and "Intolerance" (tied for fifth);
"Greed"; "Le Jour se L=E8ve" and "The Passion of Joan of Arc" (tied
for seventh); and "Brief Encounter," "Le Million" and "Rules of the
Game" (tied for tenth).

 That list deserves some comment: could we all agree by 2002 that
De Sica's film ought to be called "Bicycle Thieves"? The Italian
title, "Ladri di Biciclette," takes the plural; part of the point
of the movie is that theft is infectious =8B it breeds more thieves.
Elsewhere, the 1952 poll is a warning to all list-makers that you
end up whistling in tomorrow's dark. There are films here that many
of today's young people will not know. And I began to wonder
whether =8B like Communism itself, so big once, so un-cool now =8B
"Battleship Potemkin" didn't need explanation.

 But "Citizen Kane" was a great film in 1952 =8B wasn't it? And Orson
Welles had not vanished: his film of "Othello" would win the Palme
d'Or, the top prize, at Cannes that year. But "Kane" did not
dominate then. After the film's critical success and commercial
failure in 1941, it became hard to find. Very few "old" films were
revived in those days. Movie theaters were crowded out with brand
new pictures. There was neither time nor space for reconsideration
(and there was little use of the repertory of old films on
television). There was, especially in Europe, a film society
tradition that depended on films like "Potemkin," Dreyer's "Joan of
Arc" and "Le Jour se L=E8ve" =8B "old," yet treasured, and available in
16-millimeter prints.

 Such innocence did not last. In the 1950's "Citizen Kane" began to
be shown on television; it reappeared in fine 35-millimeter prints
at revival houses; and Orson Welles delivered "Mr. Arkadin" (which
is a kind of weekend house-party remake of "Kane") and "Touch of
Evil" (which was a Sight and Sound runner-up in 1992). The young
French hailed Orson: in Truffaut's 1973 "Day for Night," the
director dreams of Kane. By 1962, Sight and Sound was in no doubt:
"Citizen Kane" headed the top ten that also had "L'Avventura,"
"Rules of the Game", "Greed," "Ugetsu Monogatari" (look it up!),
"Potemkin," "The Bicycle Thief," "Ivan the Terrible," "La Terra
Trema" and "L'Atalante."

 "Kane" held its place in 1972, 1982 and 1992, when, allowing for a
few ties, the top films were "Citizen Kane," "Rules of the Game,"
"Tokyo Story," "Vertigo," "L'Atalante," "Raging Bull," "The
Searchers," "2001," "The Passion of Joan of Arc," "The Godfather"
(just the first part), "8 1/2," "Seven Samurai," "Pather Panchali,"
"Modern Times" and "La Strada." "Rules of the Game" had 39 votes,
while "Kane" had 73.

 It's hard to imagine that "Citizen Kane," or Welles, have lost
support in the last 10 years. Three biographical studies have been
published in that time, one of them Peter Bogdanovich's extensive
interview with Welles. "Touch of Evil" has been revived in
something supposedly closer to Welles's intent. Documentary
material from his South American jaunt, "It's All True," was
released; a new cache of Welles material has come to light. Welles
died in 1985, but he feels more present than ever =8B and there is
still most of a full-length feature, "The Other Side of the Wind,"
shot over a long period of time until his death, that may or may
not get a release.

 Welles hangs over us =8B as a martyr, an example and a variously
booming and seductive voice. He's more than ordinary or common. (A
stage biography of Welles, "War of the Worlds," by the avant-garde
director Anne Bogart will be part of the Next Wave Festival at the
Brooklyn Academy of Music next month.) What I had tried to do in my
own book about Welles ("Rosebud: The Story of Orson Welles") was
reclaim the actual man, showing the flaws, tricks and evasions as
well as the greatness. When "The Chief" was published, some reviews
spoke of William Randolph Hearst at last emerging from behind the
dazzling light of Charles Foster Kane. I think they're correct;
and, in turn, I think this helps us see Kane more fully or clearly.
Mr. Nasaw makes Hearst a regular guy (as well as extraordinary) and
often likable or sympathetic, if far from a universal hero. The
ordinariness is the greatest coup, for it helps teach us how
profoundly unalike Hearst and Kane were. And that's the crucial
step toward grasping the inner bond between Kane and George Orson
Welles.

 This is not a revisionist approach: it does not take away from the
scope of "Citizen Kane" =8B the way it is about America, its power
and media, as much as it is about this one figure. What I am
suggesting is that even in his early 20's, Welles had a sharper
understanding of America than Hearst possessed, and a more needy
idea of how he might fit in. The people close to Welles in the
early 1940's were staggered at his talent; it was their chief
reason for enduring his ordinary defects. It was not absurd then to
think that he might move on, beyond show business and into that
"higher" field that is compared with theater and performance
throughout his great movie.

 Better than he or she knows "Ugetsu Monogatari" or "Greed," maybe,
the ordinary viewer "knows" the teasing masquerade whereby "Citizen
Kane" was a film about William Randolph Hearst, a cross between
satire and lampoon (with a dash of very intimate cruelty), such as
was always bound to incur the mogul's wrath and rebuke and make
Welles's future uncomfortable. I don't seek to deny the elementary
equation between Susan Kane and Marion Davies (Hearst's West coast
mistress), or Xanadu and San Simeon (Hearst's castle south of the
Big Sur coast).

 It's much more important to note the genetic distance between
Hearst and Kane =8B and that's where Mr. Nasaw's book is so
instructive. Hearst was never the dark, fallen angel making ironic
observations about himself that is Welles's Kane. Hearst was silly,
sentimental, muddled. He loved his wife and mistress =8B whereas Kane
hardly noticed a woman. Hearst wanted both, and was friendly, loyal
and kind to both. He was, to be sure, a master of the media who had
passing delusions of grandeur, and who did some petty damage to
history and public understanding. Some of his remarks fall from
Kane's lips. But he never had the confidence, the angel's flight,
to say as Kane did, finishing off his first wife's line, "The
people will think =8B what I tell them to think.`

 Hearst was not a character, bent upon the giddy, lens-stretching
spatial dislocation of Xanadu, or its narcissistic "caves of ice."
San Simeon was a vanity, if you will, but it was handsome and a
delight =8B it still is. Julia Morgan, the architect he hired and
largely trusted, did wonders there, and you can still feel the
great confidence and good will of Californian success =8B without
disapproval, or promise of comeuppance. And Hearst enjoyed the
place, just as he loved Marion to the end. He also worked hard when
he was in his 80's, instead of sitting in the dark splendor,
contemplating what his last word should be. He was never that much
of a tyrant.

 David Nasaw stresses the contradictions in Hearst =8B "William
Randolph Hearst was a huge man with a tiny voice" are the writer's
very first words. Yet Orson Welles was already famous for one of
the greatest voices of the 1930's. It was a voice for poetry and
promotion, for alarming the nation with "The War of the Worlds" or
resonating with the secret insights of "The Shadow." It was a great
voice, but one so sure of itself that the streak of charlatanism
could hardly be excluded. And just as "Citizen Kane" is a picture
that takes sound as seriously as sights, so it is obsessed with the
pattern of speech and applause, oration and manipulation. It hears
in Orson Welles's voice astonishing, rapturous conviction, and the
urge that may sweep a speaker off his flat feet. To this day, there
is hardly a movie anywhere that so asks us to distinguish bombast
from sincerity. All of that came from people who couldn't get
Orson's tricky voice out of their heads. A "Kane" with Hearst's
voice would not have worked: that great man supplies his own
ridicule and humiliation. Yet Hearst did his best, and talked away
for 80 years. He was grand but he was a chump at the same time.

 The process that made "Kane" =8B from screenwriting to finished film
=8B was entranced with Welles's voice, yet waiting for betrayal. "The
Chief's" faith in contradictions helps redirect us toward the
terrible, inhuman unity of "Citizen Kane," and the way in which it
was derived from and written for Welles. I do not want to refight
the old battle Pauline Kael began over authorship. Rather, I
suggest that Herman Mankiewicz (with John Houseman at his side)
wrote a script that was a cunning challenge to Welles. It said:
Look, Orson, the world will think this is Hearst. But you and I
know it is you =8B with your great voice, your raging beauty, your
notorious genius, your animal energy, your little boy vanity, your
royal arrogance and that selfishness that permits you no other exit
except self- destruction. So here it is, Orson, my gift to you. And
Welles read and understood and accepted the challenge.

 The parenthetical about Houseman is vital. When Mankiewicz was
hired to write what they were still calling "American" then, he was
a perilously reformed alcoholic. So he was sent up to a ranch north
of Los Angeles to do the work, to stay on the wagon, and Houseman
was sent with him. No one knew Welles better, loved his talent
more, or was more wary of his fickle nature. No one could be so
helpful in recalling anecdotes to inspire Mankiewicz =8B who had
already fallen into many of Houseman's opinions about the great
boy, and who was only confirmed in them when Welles later tried to
reduce his credit for writing the thing.

 I believe =8B and have argued before =8B that you can feel the
evidence, as if it were Welles's pushing ego, when you're in the
dark with the film. And San Simeon was a place where people had a
good time =8B so very far from the Xanadu that is in awe of Kane's
gloom and inertia. When you recall the solemnity of Kane's death,
it may be worth knowing that Hearst died, as most significant
people die, in a crowded house. Indeed, Marion Davies =8B who loved
him beyond the end =8B was distraught that he had no peace. Whereas
Orson Welles died in a small house in Los Angeles absolutely alone.

 I urge this view of Welles and Kane not out of hostility to
Welles. I hope it comes closer to the heart of this mysterious
film, without seeming to explain it away. But I think the movie is
about a grim, lonely egotism, and Welles was its model, not Hearst.

 Does that make such a difference? For one thing, it helps
challenge the orthodoxy that "Citizen Kane" is as much about
America, its politics, its view of success and happiness, as it is
about one haunted man. And it's that legend of the personal and the
political in harness that does so much to prolong the reign of
"Citizen Kane" as our best and most important film.

 The legend makes it easier for young people to write "Kane" off,
to bow as they enter its church, but then pass on in defiance. For
it's not good for an art or a medium still young that the great
work should be so much of the past. It fosters the anxiety that the
cinema is in decline. And just because no American film has matched
"Kane," so we are deterred from seeing how works from Europe or
Asia may be the most likely rivals.

 I suspect that people coming to the movies now feel daunted by
"Citizen Kane" =8B I felt that way once toward "Battleship Potemkin,"
and could see or feel only how distant it was from my culture. Kids
in love with movies want to believe that theirs is the golden age,
and so you hear youthful tributes to "Jaws" and "Star Wars" and
"E.T." and "Titanic" as the greatest ever made instead of just the
biggest bonanza.

 Equally, at a time when young Americans seem resentful if asked to
watch foreign films, the claims of Renoir, Ophuls, Antonioni,
Mizoguchi, Rivette and Bunuel may fade, just as too many people
have hardly heard of Angelopoulos, Kiarostama, Hou Hsiao-Hsien or
Chris Marker.

 I mention that great documentary- maker because, when Mr. Marker
was polled in 1992, he declined to play the game (he did slip in
one name, "Vertigo"). But a filmmaker that wise could feel ashamed
of the movies' remorseless need for champions. We are not battered
with league standings for the best painting, the most relevant
symphony, the novel to take to a desert island. Could there be some
uneasiness in us as to whether films are really important, or self-
important?

 Put it all together, and I feel inclined to resist the automatic
claims of "Citizen Kane" once again. And it seems to me valuable to
note how that film is the project of a unique self-centeredness.
That is not an attack on Orson Welles, just an attempt to measure
him.

 Do I expect to see "Kane" exempted from the polls? Is my tongue
close to my cheek? Well, yes and no. I hope that the British Film
Institute and voters will see the full context. Some abstentions
would be healthy; they would give the future a better chance. On
the other hand, even if some rule were passed that took "Citizen
Kane" out of the reckoning, that might merely add to the likelihood
of many of us voting for "The Magnificent Ambersons."

David Thomson is the author of "A Biographical Dictionary of Film."


The New York Times on the Web
http://www.nytimes.com






[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 20:57:53 EDT
From: "Marc Desbiens" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] Mystery train - 1989 - 3.5/5

**minor spoilers**

I was pleased that a television station here presented this film late at
night because I was not able to find it in any video stores nearby. So
besides purchasing it before viewing, this was my only way to get my hands
(or eyes !) on it !

It turned out to be a very good film and certainly an original one too.  It
is stylish and experimental though so I think it would appeal more to people
who watch more than one movie per month let's say ... or people who have
some rather unusual tastes that are not too often met by the typical
Hollywood films out there.  This is an independant film that would not
appeal to everybody but if you are into those types of films you might enjoy
it
a whole lot !

The movie is set in Memphis, Tennessee, has great atmosphere with nice
location shots, and an excellent soundtrack as well just like all Jim
Jarmush films basically.

The film includes many lines of dialogues in foreign languages, such as
Japanese and Italian, thankfully subtitles are provided.  Jim Jarmusch, the
director also used the same idea in "Ghost dog : The way of the Samurai"
that I saw just a month ago ...

The film is composed of three different stories ... what they have in common
is they are set in Memphis and all the characters at one point or another go
to a sleazy hotel and also hear "Blue moon" on the radio sung by Elvis
Presley .. There are also many other lil' details that link all the stories
together ... look closely !

We start off with a duo of Japanese travellers, who are "Far from Yokohama".
They are travelling around the U.S simply to visit important sites in rock
and roll history. Memphis is a good place to begin their journey.

This story was my personal favourite, because it set up
the inter-weaving elements of each story. Both of the actors in this story
were played well, especially the young japanese woman who was simply amazing
(Youki Douko).

It was funny to see them walking around with their big suitcase and going to
visit "Sun studios" were a whole lot of famous rock singers recorded hit
songs.  Then they go on the tour but the lady who is acting as their guide
talks incredibly fast so they don't get anything she is saying due to their
limited english abilities.  Just seeing their faces as they were obviously
not understanding anything she was saying cracked me
up !  :o)

In the 2nd part, we join an Italian lady (Nicoletta Brashiti is also great
!), stuck in Memphis after an airplane mishap. She also finds her way to the
seedy hotel late at night (All 3 stories take place at the same time
basically just like in "Go" or "Pulp fiction" for
example). At the hotel, she meets Dee-Dee, a young woman who has just left
her boyfriend and needs a place to stay just for the night so she can leave
on the train in the morning.

They end up sharing a room together just because they each don't want to be
alone that night. A supernatural encounter, linked to something that
happened to the italian lady earlier, takes place and is quite entertaining
and funny.

Finally, we meet up with 3 armed robbers, quite predictably actually, since
a certain sound was heard
in the previous two stories that is a clue as to what is going to happen
next (you'll see what I mean when you watch the film).

This story I felt was the weakest of the 3, after the first two stories, I
was thinking it had a shot at a 4/5 but with the last third that is not as
intriguing for me it remains at a solid 3.5/5. This 3rd part starts off
rather slowly, and provides a so-so finish to an otherwise excellent film.
It wasn't awful of course but I think the first two parts were better
overall.

All through the movie, we also meet the seedy hotel's bellboy and manager,
who provide some comic relief,
and hold the 3 stories together by their presence.

I recommend this film, it's quite a fun ride so I was glad I was able to see
it and I think it is the type of film you can watch quite a few times as
well because you'll have a great time picking out the common elements in
each of the 3 stories !

3.5/5

Marc     ;o)

- ---------------------------------------------------------
"Pop quiz, Hotshot !  There's a bomb on a bus ...
Once the bus goes 50 miles an hour, the bomb is armed ...
If it drops below 50, it blows up ...
What do you do ??  WHAT DO YOU DO ??"

Dennis Hopper as "Howard Payne"
"Speed" - 1994
- --------------------------------------------------------










_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Sun, 17 Sep 2000 22:50:56 EDT
From: "Jed Cross" <[e-mail]>
Subject: [MV] bye

Okay,
I just wanna say bye again to you guys, I mean, none of subjects interest
me, I am on other mailing lists that a few of you are on, like the N64 list
and Game Related.

- -Jed
_________________________________________________________________________
Get Your Private, Free E-mail from MSN Hotmail at http://www.hotmail.com.

Share information about yourself, create your own public profile at
http://profiles.msn.com.


[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

Date: Mon, 18 Sep 2000 15:51:12 -0700
From: Chris Parry <[e-mail]>
Subject: Re: [MV] Sidestep city.

My previous email was laoded with challenges to Dex, questions for
him to answer, admissions for him to make or deny... and he
sidestepped them all, reverting to this malarky.

> If Chris can't live with it and can only find relief through bashing
> and belitting the actors, the films and its audiences then I feel for him.  He's
> got a lot of personall  issues to work out.

Which to me is an admission that what I said in my previous email is
correct. Yes, Dex has gone to see the critically-drubbed films I
mentioned and, when they stank, not asked for his money back. Yes,
he's been a part of the problem. Yes, he takes his film
recommendations from trailers.

Then he follows that up with..

> As my psychology professor would say, an overstated superiority complex is often
> formed to hide a deeper inferiority complex.

Your psychology professor might also say that one has to be
qualified to determine when a superiority complex is overstated,
understated, or simply a guy who knows he is right. Being right
doesn't make you mental, Dex.

Then this..

> History has shown time and again that benevolent tyrants are
> rare, and they often are the people who begin a dynasty.  And guess who ends one?
> weak tyrants whose sheltered life have grown so out of touch with the people they
> think they are gods.

It's funny, since I called Dex a moron, everything he says is either
a psychology professor quote, a misspelled 'big word', or a history
reference. Trying to prove something, big fella? What tyrants have
to do with people sick of awful movies is a little beyond me, but
hey, keep drawing that long bow, kid.

> The movies Chris advocates are all very good, I've seen a lot of
> them and I'd be the first to say I probably agree with his tastes 9 out of 10
> times.  But the way he goes about making his points really fly in the face of
> tolerance, and at the very least, respect for the people he criticizes.  This
> leads to the who issue of tyrants.

See, the thing is, tolerance has no place in film criticism, or any
'arts' criticism, for that matter. By its very nature, to criticise
an artistic work one must be honest and direct. Just as I'm not
going to skirt around the issue in calling Joel Schumacher a hack,
why should I skirt around the issue that people who think Big
Momma's House is a 'great movie' are likewise? If nobody speaks up
and points out the obvious, that the definition of a great film is
far beyond what Martin Lawrence is capable of, then the population
drifts closer to the Springer-esque and standards continue to drop
off.

But hey, you might not agree with me (just because I believe I'm
right doesn't necessarily make me so), and you may full well
continue to go to crap movies that you know are crap going in, and
you may keep believing trailers and studio marketing campaigns and
ignoring reviews, but don't expect me to like it or keep my mouth
shut about it, just because you're concerned about... tyrants... was
that it? We're supposed to embrace awful movies so tyrants don't
rise up?

O.....kay.

OZ

http://www.efilmcritic.com
http://www.mymovies.com.au
http://www.tribe.com
http://www.if.com.au
http://ifmagazine.ifctv.com
http://www.sain.com.au

[ To leave the movies mailing list, send the message "unsubscribe ]
[ movies" (without the quotes) to [e-mail]          ]

------------------------------

End of movies-digest V2 #291
****************************

[ To quit the movies-digest mailing list (big mistake), send the message     ]
[ "unsubscribe movies-digest" (without the quotes) to [e-mail] ]