Rob said:
**Nauseating, provincial "feel-good" movies will reinforce viewers' dependency on literalized exposition; audiences won't know how to follow a movie unless it's "explained" to them. If they need to spend any time thinking about it they'll scowl. **
I think you're right and I'll expand this observation with two points of my own.
First, I have lost track of the number of times people will respond to any criticism I have of a movie with one of my least favorite sentences in the world: "Well, it's just a movie."
What the FUCK is that supposed to mean? I think I can make a guess. This is an art form many people consider to be theirs. They can ignore all the boring paintings and classical music and other claptrap but, dammit, movies belong to the people so don't you artsy-fartsy types dare horn in on this territory too. It's just a movie and that's it. It exists only to entertain and nothing else you say about it is valid.
Needless to say, I don't subscribe to this view.
Second, it's not just that people are reluctant to spend time thinking nowadays, they seem to be reluctant to spend any time at all. It now seems to be considered good to "not waste any time" in film. Just cut out the extra crap and only include scenes that advance the plot, usually action scenes but it can ahppen in comedies and romances too. You simply cannot, must not just take your time in a movie and observe people and places and processes. No scenes that "just" establish mood or simply exist for the sheer joy of the moment. If it doesn't advance the story, cut it!
I think a perfect example of this comes in the disgraceful remake of Planet of the Apes. In the original, our intrepid adventurers crash-land and then spend a good 20-30 minutes wandering through the wasteland. We take our time to soak up the eerie atmosphere and establish a mood. When we see the creepy image of the scarecrow-like structures on the ridge, they aren't explained. They merely exist and they are disturbing.
In the remake, Marky Mark crashes and barely gets himself out of the lake before the apes come riding in and chase the humans. We don't get any time to look around, just start the chase! Later in the film, when he esapes and sees the same scarecrow-like structures, he runs right to them, bubbling aggression and attitude, and demands "What's this? What is it?" It must be explained.
Of course, I should note that there are plenty of great movies being made today - I am merely talking about the trends in popular mainstream Hollywood releases.
Today, if 2001 doesn't make literal sense, well then, it's just stupid. "Hey, that wouldn't really happen." "Man, if that was me, I'd just kick Hal's ass." "How'd he get into that white room anyway?"
*sigh*
How nice to know that the stories of the millions slaughtered in Stalinist Russia were, apparently, "made up"--I'll have to dig up my emigre grandparents and tell them the news.
Rob: Oh, I'm not saying Altman is great simply because he works with so many genres; he's no different, in that respect, than any other journeyman director you could name. What makes him first-class is the way he infuses each cinematic category with his funky energy, revitilizing and transforming shop-worn and tired elements into something exciting and new.
Case in point: THE LONG GOODBYE. Aficionados of Chandler's novel were PISSED by the film's representation of Philip Marlowe. Instead of Humphrey Bogart, here was Elliot Gould. Instead of a noble knight who fought for the fading ideals of the past, here was a sloppy, mumbling, smart-aleck SCHLUB who spent the majority of the movie getting his face pushed in. Instead of a tightly-constructed classic noir, here was some weird, shambling MESS with a depressing ending.
And yet, by a daring revision of the novel's final scene, Altman and Leigh Brackett (who wrote the script) proved they understood Chandler and his creation better than anyone suspected. Marlowe/Gould wasn't some passive schuck--he was just biding his time, waiting for the optimal moment to act and prove that the old ideals still had a place in the world, no matter how anachronistic they might seem.
What a great movie. Altman's innovations even extended to the soundtrack, which consisted of nothing but variations on the title song (with one exception--a bitterly ironic placement of "Hooray for Hollywood" over the end titles).
Look at McCABE & MRS. MILLER, with its Breughel-like visual composition, its dreamy opium reveries, and its calm fatalism.
Look at MASH, with its wise-cracking irreverence and its iron determination to defeat the forces of death with humor and a well-made martini.
Look at...ah, you get the picture. Don't misunderstand me--I adore Scorcese and Coppola and Kubrick and all the others. But Altman gets me where I live, man. Maybe it's because he's the most jazz-like of all of them. If Coppola is opera, and Scorcese is early rock-and-roll, and Kubrick is Bartok/Stravinsky-style classical, then Altman is Charles Mingus with an arriflex. And I definitely dig that.
Following Rob's comments, I'd like to make note of another trend in movies that irritates me; a tendency towards more and more implausible plots, bizarre stunts, and lightning-fast editing that drives me up the fuckin' WALL.
Now, I can enjoy this stuff in a Jackie Chan movie, and Baz Lurhmann's _Moulin Rouge_ was great fun. But when I see garbage like _The Fast and the Furious_, I figure I should've hiked on down to the nearest Six Flags and ridden the damn roller coaster. There, I'd get maybe three or four minutes of an actual _ride_, instead of some stroboscopic incoherency that tells me that these people have no idea how to tell an actual _story_.
I mean, gang, I just watched the restored DVD of _Children of Paradise_. It's really hard to look forward to shit like _Rollerball_ after watching something like _that_.
Chris L's discussion of that "greatest cut in cinema history" is good, but I don't think it's quite that literal. Sure, the spaceship is a weapons platform, but that's not evident in the film. Look at what that cut does. It saves Kubrick the task of having to spell out something like "Four million years later" with a montage, a narration, or even a title card. It forces the association between the first tool, the bone, to the most sophisticated of man's tools. And it reduces the passage of four million years to a mere _instant_-- and thus, a perspective more godlike than usual has been granted to the audience.
By the way, I can't say I "got" 2001 on my first screening-- a nice, big, widescreen showing when I was eleven. That's because I'd read a lot about it before I'd seen it, so I sorta knew the plot already. As much as I love the film, I still wonder; if I'd gone to it absolutely cold, not knowing a thing about it, what would I have thought?
Chris,
"Setting aside the provincial, almost childish demand that a movie "explain" something to you, there is perhaps some validity to the complaint, at least on a superficial level."
Yeah, Kubrick inferred the Starchild.
Fortunately, unlike your friend, I know a number of people ranging from late teens to early 30's who understand what 2001 is doing, connect with the abstract imagery and embrace the film with increasing enamor in every viewing. And that's a key: you see a new movie in every viewing; concepts emerge from the images more profoundly. Things you never thought of before pop out. I was something like 15 when I first saw the film in its millionth theatrical re-release and really tripped on it. But after some 20 viewings since so MUCH grew in the movie; and STILL it seems like a fresh experience every time I watch it.
But I had to respond to your point because I kind of detect a backward step in narrative today's movies has taken audiences. Nauseating, provincial "feel-good" movies will reinforce viewers' dependency on literalized exposition; audiences won't know how to follow a movie unless it's "explained" to them. If they need to spend any time thinking about it they'll scowl. This on the periphery of a time when more "common folk" than ever, it seems, have come to grasp what 2001 is doing. The ones wearing the dunce caps have become proportionately fewer. That, of course, is only impression from a hope and my own friends.
Brian, I second your love of Frank Church's postings. As the resident right-winger, it is a joy that I am able to point to him as one of those 'make believe' leftist extremists that everyone thinks I am imagining (hey, if communism can be make believe, so can he).
Frank, the phrase is 'could have'....could HAVE, should HAVE, would HAVE....not 'OF'. I typo as much as the next guy, probably more, but you misuse this OF instead of HAVE with consistency.........if you want to have your, ahem, logical arguments sound intelligent, learn your HAVEs and while your at it watch out for your apostrophes when you mean plural (it would be apostrophes, not apostrophe's).
Ciao. -TODD
Nice discussion on the most fascinating film ever made. I'm loving it!
I recently heard from someone who saw 2001 for the first time. He hated it and particularly hated the ending. "They don't even explain anything!" was his lament.
Setting aside the provincial, almost childish demand that a movie "explain" something to you, there is perhaps some validity to the complaint, at least on a superficial level.
Just what the hell is the "Starchild" supposed to be?
My contention is that there is no Starchild of any kind. Kubrick couldn't just put up a title card explaining what happened - he had to choose an image for his film. Yet how could he? He was trying to show us a man advanced to the next stage of evolution. And just as two-dimensional beings would be utterly incapable of even conceptualizing three-dimensional people like us, there is no way - simply no way - any of us, including Kubrick, could ever wrap our minds around what the next stage of evolution might really be.
So we get an image that our tool-using hairless monkey brains can process. One that provides us a recognizable metaphor - an embryo to represent rebirth. Outerspace to represent the cosmic scale of it all. Dave himself only cobbles together the White Room images so his own brain can make at least some sense out of his metamorphosis. Thus the so-called Starchild is the final image of 2001. Just because it's the best way primitives like us can understand the next stage.
Also, I would like to point out that the cut from the primitive human throwing the bone in the air to the space station is the single most brilliant cut in film history. Has anyone ever conveyed so much information with such economy on film? In one cut, less than a second of film, the message is delivered "Absolutely nothing of any particular significance has happened to humanity from the time the first man picked up a tool until today."
Wow! How could anyone ever have figured out a way to show that idea - that pure idea - on film? That's art. That's genius.
Also, I didn't really get 2001 the first time I saw it. It took me a few more viewings plus consulting the written body of work on that film. Someone once told me that you shouldn't have to do that for any film - that it is a weakness of 2001. Nonsense. Don't we need help and research to fully appreciate Shakespeare or Joyce or Melville? Why not the same for a great film?
P.A.,
I'm 'go' on your cheesy a la Spielberg spin. I put him and Scott in a common group not in the context of quality but of what defines an artist versus a craftsman. Harlan once submitted a perspective on these categories which I share, with perhaps my own slant (as an artist myself - still evolving, of course; I claim no expertise on anything - AND one who's studied film for a long time I can relate to it; and Harlan's opinion on film is one of great merit, whatever disagreements we may find - I still have some confidence in my own views even as I learn - as he's been a part of the industry himself for decades): that there is the minute handful of directors deserving of the designation 'artist' - worthy of the label 'auteur' - one with his own consistent vision and style, his own language, driven by an uncompromising passion and world view (people like Altman, Kubrick, Coppola, Scorcese, Resnais, Bunuel, Lang, Hitchcock, Fellini, Kurosawa, and so on); the rest are directors of varied ability. Both Scott and Spielberg are among the latter. That's what I meant.
I do like some of Scott's stuff - frankly, he's a problematic director - but I DETESTED 'Legend'; absolutely bored the shit out of me. If you want to see the right way to handle that kind of material take a look at Cocteau (Beauty and the Beast). Assuming you haven't.
Jim,
You're entitled to Altman; his is a language that doesn't connect with me like certain other directors (he's into repertoire, like Cassavetes, which is generally not the way I like to go; but I'll never deny his artistry, his style and his vision). But a wide range of genres is not what makes a great director. "Artists" are obssessed people, so, whether in the form of theme or genre, a strong recurring element will always appear. People like Scorcese or Hitchcock explored and revisited in their own ways the things that haunted them most. So you can't use any true gauge by which to measure their work. Each work stands on its own merit, each reaching different people in different ways. That's why Kubrick is one of the greatest, not by the frivolous issue of numbers on a "resume" but by the power of the work itself.
Another director, incidentally, who SHARED Altman's preference for genre-shifting was Billy Wilder; Wilder once received praise from the most enviable source around: Hitchcock said of him (at the time 'Double Indemnity' came out), "the two most important words in cinema today are Billy Wilder."
I gotta tell ya, I don't give a shit about critics - whether we're talking Pauline Kale or Ebert; if I were a director and I received accolades from the likes of Hitchcock or Scorcese I'd be high as a coke addict.
Faisal,
Where in all the universe did you ever find 'Fear and Desire'? MY understanding is Kubrick did his best to prevent its viewing to avoid embarrassment - as it was basically a "student" film. But I don't give a shit; I've ALWAYS wanted to see it. It was our first look at the existentialist themes that would recur throughout his career. And it was his learning turf (he'd looped the entire soundtrack; an error that doubled his paltry budget and taught him a painful lesson).
I'm beginning to love Frank Church's comments-- especially his claim that Communism was a "made up bad guy brought to us by our Military rulers." Always nice to be reminded that there really _is_ a comic-book leftism out there, that really _does_ live up to the caricatures circulated by right-wingers.
Okay, now for _2001_. I'm amazed that people are saying that its ideas were hackneyed and cliched. I presume that, for these people the works of Arthur C. Clarke are equally hackneyed? That the works of Olaf Stapleton-- which _2001_ closely resembles, in its perspective on the human race-- are rubbish on the level of the Power Rangers?
_2001_ was, most consciously, an attempt to forge a mythology for the Space Age. The story could just as easily be told in a classical framework: "In eons past, the God gave Men fabulous gifts that enabled us to build our societies. They left behind a token for men to find, so that one day, when they were ready, they might travel to the realm of the Gods. A wise king finds this token, and sends his bravest heroes on a dangerous quest to travel to the realm of the Gods. Although they overcome terrific dangers (including, oddly enough, a powerful one-eyed creature), only one survives. He is then transformed by the Gods, and returns to share this transformation with mankind." Hell, Ray Harryhausen could have made a dandy picture out of that: Kubrick and Clarke were consulting Joseph Campbell long before George Lucas made it a standard screenwriter's template.
And the approach Kubrick took in telling this story was genuinely radical. The _Dawn of Man_ sequence is a marvel of pure cinematic storytelling. It establishes the daily life of early man. It shows the dangers, the daily diet, even the tribal rivalries. And with the simple device of that monolith-- which, by the way, could be regarded as being _solely_ symbolic, a three-dimensional equivalent of a black rectangle hiding the Absolute Unknown-- Kubrick _shows_ us the dawning of human intelligence.
Heywood Floyd's travel to the Moon is another daring departure from our expectations. Space travel has become routine, so Kubrick shows us _how_ routine it is-- the bland food, the check-in process, the cocooned lifestyle. And Floyd himself is no "movie scientist." He behaves as a _real_ scientist in his position would; he's a bureaucrat, more at home budgeting projects and keeping order among the rank-and-file.
By the time we've reached the _Discovery_, Kubrick's managed to ease us into a new way of watching cinema. He's established how zero-gee makes hash of our notions of space, and now, he frames his shots from very unconventional angles-- but they now seem _natural_ to us. (Pay attention to how he frames Poole and Bowman at the dinner table-- the camera must have been pinned to the wall and mounted sideways.) Things like this make _2001_ the primarily _visual_ experience that it is. There is a story, and a fine one at that, but the film attemppts to give its audience a taste of how space will alter the way we see things.
The battle with HAL may seem slow, drawn-out, and distant... but that really is the way it would be. The EVA trips would be slow because they would be _maddeningly careful_. Shutting down HAL wouldn't be a matter of yanking plugs or confounding him with illogic; it'd be a careful process of selectively removing particular functions. And look at the way Kubrick confounds our expectations of drama; the murders of four men are coldly technological, but that of a machine is bizarre and affecting.
The final sequence returns us once again to pure cinema. We're overwhelmed with a dazzling display of new images, landscapes that seem only vaguely familiar, new phenomena that cannot be understood. The film places the _audience_ in Bowman's eyes-- in a sense, it's the precursor to all those movie-rides Doug Trumbull's been building at Universal Studios' theme park. And really, has there ever been a movie moment so astonishing as that first look at the hotel room?
Whenever I hear from people who dislike 2001, I tend to hear the same things. The people who find it dull, slow-moving, and unexciting seem to expect it to be more of a George Lucas spectacular-- it's not much different from complaining that _Citizen Kane_ isn't in color. The people who affect disdain for its "hackneyed" ideas are sort of in the same boat: _2001_ established a style for conveying the ineffable on film, and we've had thirty years of people trying the same tricks for lesser goals. (It's always amusing to ask them for ideas that _aren't_ hackneyed. Jeezus, after 10,000 of recorded history, find me an idea that _isn't_ old in some way.)
Sure, there are intelligent people who disliked the film. I remember reading Lester del Rey's review, and thinking that he _must_ have wanted a big-budget version of a John W. Campbell story. It was sort of like reading Martin Gardner's review of _The Last Temptation of Christ_-- he dismissed it as cheap sensationalism. When this happens, I get the sense that they had some idea of what it _should_ have been, and got angry that it turned out to be something new under the sun. (Or, in this case, _near_ the Sun.)
_2001_ was made with the highest intelligence ever brought to film, and it attempted to make a statement about Mankind as a _species_ without recourse to cheap sentiment or religious fable. It's shaped the way we look at space, technology, and our future, for now we use it as a reference point against our actual progress. It's expanded what was possible in motion pictures-- not just in special effects, but in editing, storytelling, and the creation of experience. _2001_ really is one of the great works of art of the 20th century.
Stuck at work tonight. I hope the BBC issues IHNMAIMS on CD someday since I missed the crackly audio and desire a broadcast quality version.
Rob, I may not agree as passionately about 2001, but I was one of those guys who didn't get it at first, but the first time I saw it in stereo on a big screen (sadly not a theater screen) I GOT IT BIG TIME. It was like a symphony and the direction and editing made it so...beautiful. It remains one of my top ten films of all time (no I won't print another list)
Wish I could say the same abut 2010...what a hunk of week old dogshit.
Chris,
In a WAY 2001 IS about acting.
I once had a friend who also misused the word and concept of "wooden acting". The term refers to the kind of thing you find in an Irwin Allen movie, where no one CARES about the acting and no purpose or emphasis on character or character CHANGE exists.
In 2001, every move and course the actors make were deliberate and calculated. Specific effects were behind every decision.
In this case, the film had two main characters: the human race and HAL. Bowman and Poole were isolated specimens in the lonely isolated wastes of space. The Discovery itself like an organism (hence it assumes the look of a brain and spinal chord). The two astronauts are the equivalent of janitors broken from the cradle; they've become more like machines, hence they're void of emotion. HAL is intentionally the only "human" there capable of the emotional weaknesses the astronauts left behind.
EVERY fucking detail and theme in this movie is brilliantly thought out and any one who disposes of it - I mean that literally - ANYONE - is the type who'd have had a problem figuring out Picasso when he first came on the scene; for the narrative approach in 2001 was taken to a new level in movies, wherein, as Kubrick said, you must disconnect your thoughts and "feel" the images to follow it.
No question about it, as you said, anyone laying on the addle-brained, myopic comments you just cited DIDN'T GET IT.
One more thing: the film holds up remarkably well today BECAUSE of its ambiguous, metaphoric approach and its brilliant cold, ironic imagery; watch the lame sequel by Peter Hyams, 2010, sometime and look how badly and how QUICKLY it's dated...BECAUSE it literalizes the text. My girlfriend and I once saw the two back-to-back (not by plan) and noted how ironic it was when the sequel, in its access to CGI, looked inferior to the original and seemed so puerile in its text (with an occasional redeeming element here and there when cited on its own terms; she liked the Russians and Americans working-together theme. But like that theme was really new turf, right? On the whole we both shook our heads).
Bermanator, the BBC apparently cant replay dramas. Its in the fine print to the side of the Listen to Again page;
http://www.bbc.co.uk/radio4/progs/listenagain.shtml
Gunther, sorry for the mistake with your name.
Kerry
Dumb question: how do I listen to I Have No Mouth again? I searched the BBC4 website and I couldn't find it. Help for the inept?
Thanks,
Bermanator
Communism being a concern in the 50's is a laughable artiface. Communism is a made up bad guy brought to us by our Military rulers to make money for defense contractors and moneyed interest of many stripes. Communism was not mushrooming into our society, but religious fascism and political intolerance was. Most of the people who were called Commies were Jews. Anyone at the time who believed in leftist ideas could of been labeled a Communist. The actual Communist party in America had so few members they had trouble finding a hall small enough for their meetings. Communist domino's are a mirage. Truman was a snake who built a war economy on fear--fear of dissent. This Communist talk is worthless. American Imperialism is the real bad guy. Just ask the victoms?
The mere fact that someone would critique 2001 primarily on the basis of plot or "wooden acting" suggests that the would-be critic simply didn't get it at all.
2001 isn't concerned with character. It is a film about ideas.
The man actually managed to film evolution. How the hell do you do that? It's fucking genius though I do understand if some people don't like the glacial pacing.
The people in 2001 do not matter. Not one whit. They are, um, just bags of meat. :) And part of what we're supposed to understand about the human race in general is that we've just about reached the end of the tool-using phase of our evolution. We are at a dead-end, stale and rotting until we can make the next leap. For the characters to seem anything other than "wooden" would have undermined that idea.
And that's not even getting into the fact that this is a movie, not a book and a discussion of a film should never stop at the mere plot level. The look, the music, the editing. This is a masterpiece and, IMHO, a serious candidate for the best film ever made.
Film is an inherently emotional medium and Kubrick made an almost purely intellectual movie. That's off-putting to some people. But, as Roger Ebert has said, great movies aren't for everybody. Only bad movies are. That's what makes them so bad.
Oh Christ, Meat. Do you have life insurance? You poor bastard, you have no idea what a hornets' nest you've just stuck your shnozz in. "A screaming comes across the sky...as Rob swoops down to eviscerate the Kubrick infidel."
Turn away, folks. It's gonna be ugly.
Oh, oh, I think I've irked a Monolith Man...
Sorry, Rob, but I rank "2001" as one of Kubrick's worst. To me, it's an almalgamation of hackneyed sf concepts that have been around since the late 30's, the poorest wooden acting by Keir Dullea, and Gary Lockwood (Hal outacted them both), and holes in the plot you could drive Discovery, the Enterprise and the Death Star through abreast of each other.
As to IHNM, well, had to miss it, but I'm told you can hear previously aired broadcasts. Sounds like it was soundly enjoyed. It's a good thing I've got a cable internet hookup.
I didn't get my smarts from an oversized black cutting board, I got mine from books, says a proud Bag of Meat.
How interesting that I log on immediately after watching Jeopardy to see the first few postings about I Have No Mouth...
Not that it's shocking to see that on HE board but because Harlan and I Have No Mouth was just a question on tonight's Jeopardy in the "Science Fiction" category.
Of course, it's depressing that they (all three contestants) didn't get the answer but makes sense since they missed 3 of the 5 "Science Fiction" questions, 3 of the 50 "70's Movies" questions and almost half the questions overall in Double Jeopardy, so many that they ran out of time with 6 questions still left on the board. I'm sure any Jeopardy contestants (outside of Celebrity Jeopardy) are smart but this had to be the least culturally aware group I have ever seen.
Anyway, for those of you not on the East Coast, you might still be able to catch Jeopardy tonight and get the HE question right.
As for the I Have No Mouth... game, I bought it a while back but I have never been able to get the sound to work. I installed a half dozen times and even brought over a real live geek to help me to get it to work to no avail so, unfortunately, it sits on my shelf, mostly unused. I do, however, have and use the I Have No Mouth... mousepad.
-chris
Hey, who here has played Harlan's I Have No Mouth And I Must Scream PC game? I bought it hot off the shelf years ago and played about half of it. Not that I lost interest, but I lose interest in ALL computer games. The wife is a major domo gamester, which is why I bought her a Playstation (and subsequently Playstation 2) just to keep her off my goddamn computer all the time. Me? I occasionally get in the mood to shoot at monsters and evildoers when I'm blowing off steam, so I have had some of those Doom/Quake-type games loaded onto my PC for that once a month 10 minutes of violence.
Anyway, I just came across my IHNMAIMS software and I think I'll load it onto this PC (instead of that old clunker that was top of the line for about 10 minutes in 1997).....so, who here has played it and how did you like it? Though I am not a gamer in the least, I found it fun while I had the patience to waste time back then....but the wife (lover of Harlan speaking engagements, evil witch who has never read a word from his pen) did not find it interesting due to her high-graphic-action needs.
I don't need the action, I just wonder if I should just read another book instead.
-TODD
Excellent adaptation of "I Have No Mouth..." Was I the only one who got a chill up the spine, when David Soul tried to scream through shut lips at the end? I almost didn't recognize you, Harlan--good vocal control on your part, and a more emotional take on AM than I've always imagined.
I'm the one who suggested that Scorcese lacked range. I was being slightly facetious, of course--the man has directed several films outside of the criminal/psychotic milieu, and directed them very well. The man is a pro, and the kinetic energy of his style is apparent in even the relatively staid settings of KUNDUN and THE AGE OF INNOCENCE. (And I'd like to state, for the record, that MEAN STREETS is one of my ab-so-loot favorite films of all time--I couldn't even tell you how many times I've seen it, and if it's possible to wear out the DVD, then I'm the chap who will do it.)
But compared to Altman...well, look at his resume. He's tackled so many genres, among them: War (MASH, STREAMERS), Westerns (McCABE AND MRS. MILLER, BUFFALO BILL), Horror (IMAGES, 3 WOMEN), Mysteries both hardboiled and traditional (GOSFORD PARK, THE LONG GOODBYE, COOKIES FORTUNE, THE PLAYER), Musicals (POPEYE, NASHVILLE), and Social Satire (SHORT CUTS, NASHVILLE, THE PLAYER, HEALTH, etc.) The man is fearless, always questing, never satisfied with past successes. What can I say? He's my favorite director, and his films are alive in a way that exposes most American movies for the prefab Disneyland rides that they really are.
See, Rob? I can be just as fanatical as you.
Kubrick:
Blatant name dropping time given me and Brian first met on AMK, which used to be a great pool of Kubrick appreciation a few years ago. Some facts about myself:
1. I have seen everything that Kubrick has done including Fear & Desire and The Seafarers before K's death.
2. I was asked to work on and got a very nice credit on the Flying Padre documentary 'Stanley & Us', an eight hour magnus opus doco on SK. I helped out in arranging contacts with SK collarborators who I still keep in touch with. I was credited as 'Collaborator' (No Kazan jokes fellahs), which is a nice European title. Much like 'Montage' which has a much nicer ring to it than being a plain 'Editor'.
(The IMDB has me incorrectly listed as Asst. Director, which I certainly was not).
3. We were invited to SK's estate where we interviewed members of the family.
4. I am currently working on a book chapter looking at SK and A Clockwork Orange with interviews, again, with his colleagues.
Nuff said.
On ranking directors:
I have found this technique somewhat dubious. Yes there are some directors that do elevate films that should identify them as projects which could not be done without them, but good films should count more than good directors. This approach also ignores the immense contributions from other creative people that can lift a film from excreable mess to a decent creature. Screenwriters, Editors and other people can make movies that the director can then take primary credit for (Actually, this can also be blamed upon the marketing of a film, who wants to watch a film because Anne V. Coates edited it... apart from me).
Kubrick is a great film maker, he's talented enough so that many of his films don't stink. Same with Cronenberg,Scorcese, etc. but what about appreciating the skills of other directors who worked without making any attempt to autuer status. For example, I think John Badham is very good with performance and casting (i.e. Stakeout, Blue Thunder) while Richard Fleischer has also showed quite neat visual flair in some of his films (i.e. Twenty Thousand Leagues under the Sea, Soylent Green). Yes, they've also made junk but their talent should be appreciated rather than being written off as being hack work.
BTW - To those who subscribe that the director is the sole creative force behind any films. I normally tell them the saga of two multi-award winning and finacially successful films that were saved mainly due to the Producer/Editor/writer stepping in to take control. I am not going to name them in a public forum but the directors were the one who took the bows for work done because of someone else realised where the material could go and make a better film all around.
FAQ
Rob: No way is Ridley Scott as cheesy as Spielberg. I am a big old Scott fan, as far back as Legend. I liked Legend. Go ahead, mock away. IMO, Mr. Scott has shown range and consistently entertains me; at least 3 of his movies would rank as all-time favorites.
Side note: while on imdb looking up Scott's career, I noticed that he is exec producer on a new movie called Red Dragon, based on the first book in the Hannibal Lector trilogy and by far the best-- probably the scariest horror novel I've ever read. Edward Norton is playing Will Graham. This could be very good; it has to be better than the first version, Manhunter (though Tom Noonan is a very cool person).
What I remember about Popeye: lots of shots of feet. Robert Altman can be great but is of erratic quality and definitely not in the class of Scorsese, who is my favorite living director and can take the Pepsi challenge with anyone.
What the hell happened to Quentin Tarantino? No facetious replies, please.
Bermanator
never gets too much done on snow days
Gunter, sorry to hear about your diconnection. My little modem brought down the whole show.
Once again Im facinated by the writer reading his own words, and how much they differ from my interpretation of them. I found Harlans reading of AM to be more emotional than I had imagined the computer to be.
Enjoyed the show.
Kerry
Hate. Let me tell you how much I've come to hate RealPlayer. There are 387.44 million miles of printed circuits in wafer thin layers that fill AM's complex. If the word HATE was engraved on each nanoangstrom of those hundreds of millions of miles it would not equal one one-billionth of the hate I feel for RealPlayer at this micro-instant.
Of course I got disconnected right in the middle of the program. Whoever invented streaming audio should be dragged out and shot.
You blasphemous wad of Canadian bacon...
Your remarks about 2001 are right out of the crapper.
Utterly absurd.
Rob, The Most Dangerous Kubrick Fan Ever To Walk The Earth
S'ok man, pick away. Thanks for the correction.
A imperfect Bag of Meat
For whoever asked, the broadcast has a 30 minute time slot. I let you let you draw your own conclusion... ;)
BOM, a minor nit. McCarthy was a cheesehead, not from Minnesota.
Chris L. & Brian:
This is to inform you both, and Faisal, along with any others who might care that I do not like Kubrick as much as you do.
Yes I love "Dr. Strangelove", like "Paths to Glory" and "A Clockwork Orange", but am largely ambivalent to most of his other work. Except "2001": Grade C sf, a filler story contained in the back of an "Astounding", circa 1947.
Of course, I looking forward to the pageant to crown "Miss Kubrick Lover"; especially the swimsuit competition. Make sure you're all properly shaved.
Please don't get hokey and dress as the monolith for the evening wear section.
Of course, singing "Singing in The Rain" for the talent portion will get you immediately disqualified.
Bert Parks isn't the secret identity of the Bag of Meat
Brian,
Oh yeah and I forgot to add.
I love Kubrick more than you do. So sit on it, pal.
If you ever needed proof there was no God, I offer Kubrick's death as evidence. Not even the idiot God portrayed in the Bible could be so stupid as to eliminate Stanley Kubrick while there is a perfectly good Michael Bay or Renny Harlin just sitting around, waiting to be fucking snuffed.
Brian,
Actually, I was responding to someone else who said Scorsese didn't have enough range. I think there's _something_ to that sentiment but not too much. I had mentioned Age of Innocence as a counter of point and could just as easily have mentioned Last Temptation of Christ. And I agree with your assessment of that film - it is a masterpiece. Likewise, I agree with everything else you say about Scorsese - he is a master and my pick for greatest living director.
Coupla things. Another aspect of awfulness re HUAC and the blacklist was the way it eroded even the efforts of some of the best. At the time, a number of actors organized to fight HUAC; some of these stalwarts included Humphrey Bogart, Lauren Bacall, Danny Kaye, and Edward G. Robinson. Sadly, a few years later, many of these actors actually renounced this moment of integrity by saying they were duped by Commies. It hurts my gut to learn that Bogart was among those who issued career-saving apologias.
In times of torment-- to borrow I.F. Stone's phrase, about another era-- it's hard to find people who are as sterling as we'd want them to be. Budd Schulberg was one of the best screenwriters who ever ran a typewriter, and he's done a lot of good political work as well. (Schulberg ran a writer's workshop in Watts in the 1960s. Believe it or not, Spike Lee didn't know about this when he dedicated _Bamboozled_ to Schulberg.) But, he named names and helped Kazan with his whitewash. Kazan's remembered at least as much for his duplicity in front of HUAC as he is for his films... but with figures such as Walt Disney, Ronald Reagan, and even John Wayne, people tend to think of their film work first, and their HUAC-friendliness is just a footnote.
Someone mentioned the film _The Front_ as a nice film resource to check out on the blacklist. It is, and not just as a drama. It was _made_ by blacklisted artists-- screenwriter Walter Bernstein, director Martin Ritt, and actors Zero Mostel and Herschel Bernardi.
I'd like to mention that, as far as Kubrick goes, Faisal and I stand foremost in our admiration for his work. He and I have agreed that neither of us surpasses the other, so as to keep the peace. (And if either of us tries to do better, the other will spill the beans about Stanley's cryogenic sarcophagus in St. Albans.) But we are unsurpassed on this board. So There. Nyaah.
I won't comment on _Popeye_ because I liked it.
Chris, I gotta wonder _how_ you could say that Martin Scorsese doesn't have much of a range-- unless you believe that films about 20th century urban lowlifes constitutes a really restrictive "range." Sure, he does a lot of films that fit that vague description. But when he goes outside of that, he's _still_ one of the finest filmmakers alive. You've mentioned _The Age of Innocence_ and _Kundun_, but _The Last Temptation of Christ_ is one of the finest, most heartfelt, intelligent and amazing films I've ever seen.
Quick question re: the BBC's "I Have No Mouth and I Must Scream": How long is the program. I ask because I'm scheduled to go to a rehearsal from 6--8 PM (EST), but I'd like to hear the show. I can probably get away with going to rehearsal around (or shortly after 7).
Also: Is there any way to record an Internet broadcast for future (personal) use?
(Hey, PA! Happy snow day! Even Ithaca College was closed until noon today which meant that I missed my arranging class. For me, that's good since I didn't get around to the homework!)
Rob said:
**Up till now, more often than not, I found little to agree with you on in film. **
That's OK, Rob, you're learning. One day, you'll get there. :)
Whenever asked who my favorite director is, I say Stanley Kubrick without hesitation. Unless you count Killer's Kiss, for me, the only question about each Kubrick film is whether it's very, very good or one of the greatest films ever made. He never did anything else. Even the somewhat forgotten _The Killing_ is, IMHO, a magnificent film.
On the other hand, when people ask me who the greatest director ever was, I don't know if I can answer Kubrick or not. On a "per pound" basis, yes. But Kubrick's body of work is small relative to other greats like Billy Wilder, Federico Fellini, Akira Kurosawa, Robert Altman and Martin Scorsese. How much should it "count against" him? I dunno.
Of the younger filmmakers still not even at the halfway point (we hope) of their careers, I think the Coen Brothers are the most interesting though I think I've read some less than enthusiastic commens from Harlan about them in the past, unless it was just Fargo he didn't like. They're my favorite of the younger crowd. Of the really young (at least in career terms), the directors I am most closely monitoring are M. Night Shyamalan, Wes Anderson, P.T. Anderson, Darren Aronofsky and, to a lesser degree than the others, Todd Solondz.
I admit to a strongly American bias in contemporary film. I just don't get to see many of the new foreign releases.
Alex:
My thanks for your clarity, and correction for me. It's important to get the facts with this.
I hope you're bearing up with your recent misfortune. Again, my sympathies, to both you and Brian.
I do loathe Kazan, and cannot speak enough of his cowardice. A pity the name Quisling has become a word defining venal traitorism. Kazan would've worked perfectly as the noun.
BoM
Found a comprehensive website on HUAC and the Hollywood 10:
http://www.hollywood10.com/
It has transcripts of testimony (including Herr Reagan), historical overviews, and the names of those who were blacklisted.
R.Wilder
...and to be fair...
The last time I saw _Popeye_ was less than a year ago.
The comparison of Coppola's Apoc vs. Altman's Popeye??? At least, Coppola went over budget and got it done. I was just responding to the idea that Altman would give up and accept an inferior product just because he didn't have the time or money to do it. I also said I hoped that wasn't the case given the skill of the director. I tend to agree that there was a point to keeping the Octopussy comical, I just didn't think it worked.
And I don't WANT to sit through Popeye again, especially not to listen to Olive Oyl musical numbers.
There are folks who will debate endlessly the secret and powerful genius within "Titus Andronicus" because it's part of a great body of work. Perhaps it does succeed on a different level beyond my humble perception, but it just seems like we'd be viewing it differently had it been directed by someone like Jeremy Heinbergh.
Yours in great respect.
Jay
I know this is a paraphrase, but...
From Robin Williams' stand-up circa 1982, 1983? from his "Robin Williams Has a Son" routine.
Robin: I was Mork from Ork, nanunanu...Mork was good for me, got us this house...I was Popeye. Popeye was....was...
Robin's "son": Popeye wasn't good for nobody.
Robin: You're right.
Meat--While Joe McCarthy was indeed a villain of the worst water, he was not the villain of HUAC. HUAC predated him. As Harlan notes, the rancid J. Parnell Thomas led HUAC into its excesses and abuses. Ironically, he eventually went to prison himself, for a more monetary type of corruption, and served time alongside some of his Hollywood Ten victims.
Would we all have the courage of Ring Lardner Jr., who refused to answer the questions, saying he'd "hate myself in the morning" if he did? Surely not. Some of us would cave. But I would hope that even those of us who did shiver in that wind would have the decency not to make a cause, a glory, a pride of our craven collaboration as Kazan did. He felt no shame. He made himself out a hero, and was feted as one. And he supped with his masters while pretending to be a man. As you note, many broke, but how many pretended to be stronger for it?
For a good overview of the entire blacklist era, I'd like to add a further recommendation to Harlan's: NAMING NAMES by Navasky.
On Popeye, I liked it a bit, but didn't love it--and that, methinks, is my own fault. The problem is my love for the strip is so strong that no film could have lived up to my hopes. I'm no fan of Fantagraphics publishing--we all know who runs it--but their Complete Segar Popeye is a wonderful accomplishment all the same. Now let's all have a duck dinner.
You bring the duck.
--alex
Viande Bag:
""High Noon" does resonate with the sentiments of courage in the face of a creeping evil, and as both film and political allegory"
Well, of course, remember who MADE the film: Stanley Kramer. One of the brightest beacons in film history.
Chris,
Remarkably, we see eye-to-eye now on TWO subjects: Atheism and Kubrick (almost synonymous). Up till now, more often than not, I found little to agree with you on in film. One obvious point, though: Kubrick is not among the greatest "LIVING" directors. He is among the greatest, now, like Hitchcock, lying in a grave and in our hearts and passions.
Feel like I'm back in grade school again: we've got near white out conditions here, and all government buiding were closed. Gods, what fun coming home. Fortunately I've one of the 4X4s that can actually handle adverse conditions.
Well, the Ellison incendiaries did their job; hoping the casualty list here is few.
Well, on the matter of one "Popeye", it's nice to see that even Mr. Ellison can be so overcome with sentimentality that his judgement of a film can be so badly skewed. The Mrs. suggested however, that it might be my lack of sentiment over a rotten childhood deprived of the joys of fantasy and its enjoyment coupled to the necessity of pragmatism to keep on moving that might be the problem.
Of course, it's my post, so Mr. Ellison's wrong.
To Mr E., re Kazan: On the whole, I do agree with you on this individual. His is one of the most venal types, and yes I would be the first to join you in the 1st Annual "Piss on Kazan's Grave" Beer Blasting Blues Festival and Barbeque. (Corona, apparently, has a slightly acidic quality in the urine it produces, or so I'm told.) Sir, that's how I feel as a person.
His venality doesn't stem as much from his intial actions before HUAC, but his defense of his acts. In all fairness, there were a great many who gave names, not out of some perverse lie of patriotism that Kazan has used as rationale for his scurrilous act, but out of fear. Kazan was a Judas who felt he could justify his betrayal with a weak excuse, and that makes me even more hateful of him.
You seem to render Cooper as some icon or redemption, if I've read correctly, when in fact he was as most was: a man, terrified of losing his career, of the possiblity of being banished to oblivion for the crime of having a divergent opinion from Mr. McCarthy, Cohn, et al.
To borrow from your comment the example of the grenade: how many, faced with the fear of having their livelihood, their existence essentially erased could throw themselves on the grenade, in the act of courage and self-sacrifice? It would be wonderful to think that any and all would rise to defend their rights; too often we are shown otherwise. These aren't cowards, Mr. Ellison, just human beings, who in the face of hysteria sometimes cannot find the courage to fight.
In my own circumstance, I wonder what I might do, knowing my family's future was placed in that degree of peril. I couldn't say in all honesty that I could stand so resolute against the hysteria in something that, based on my readings, would leave me feeling as King Canute standing before the waves.
Note: as I revise this, the Mrs tells me that I would fight; she notes that I've been well trained to resist that which I disagree with.
"High Noon" does resonate with the sentiments of courage in the face of a creeping evil, and as both film and political allegory it works well. But, it has the convenience of being made AFTER the HUAC hearings feel apart, as was "On The Waterfront", when the dust had settled.
What infuriates me is the reaction to HUAC by your government, both at the time of the hearings, and afterward. The bland, deferential leadership(?) of Eisenhower, who looked the other way as the junior Senator of Minnesota began to rip apart the right of Americans to differ with their political systems, was nothing less than reprehensible. Moreso, only when Ike's beloved military came under HUAC scrutiny did the administration and Congress begin to push for McCarthy's censure.
Then, once the storm had passed, government did nothing to redress those who were victims, in either clearing their names, or compensation for their suffering. HUAC was ended, and everything swept up nice and neat. Never, by anyone, has there been demands to investigate how HUAC was handled, and whether or not any of those branded were even guilty of any of the actions they were accused of.
I don't know if any good could come of it, but I would like to see this reopened, if anything to find the innocent who were essentially convicted by what I consider to ahve been truly a kangaroo court, and compensate those who were forced to a shadow existence by panic and fear.
BoM
I had NO notion - no idea at all - that BUDD SCHULBERG was some sell-out (by way of his involvement with 'On The Waterfront'). Author of the fantabulous 'What Makes Sammy Run?' and 'A Face In The Crowd'. I'd enjoyed the hell out of his writing, which often focused on victimization of Jews. He had been assaulted by right-wing Cro-Magnons like John Wayne for being a "commie". That's why I'm utterly stunned. I read quite a bit about Kazan and scorned him invariably for what he did (and I remember how lame Maher was being on the subject that night on PI); but Schulberg I'll have to do a little research on. VERY disappointing if true.
On to Altman: POPEYE creaked for me when I saw it. Sometime I'll give it another run; I doubt there will be any epiphany waiting for me in the limp ending though. We'll see: I've had a change of heart about some films before. Never saw 'Health'. And '3 Women' I really ought to see in its entirety. It's SUPPOSED to be quite remarkable. And I love the Pirandello comparison to Brewster, a film I dug to the nth.
...I need to read Pirandello.
Jim,
Dude: if you're to name him your crowning favorite at least put Altman in the right company. Coppola, yes. Scorcese, yes. Spielberg belongs in the same ballpark as Ridley Scott or Cameron; he's a sell-out interested in making the bucks. He does not have the artistic eccentricities or angsts or depth of an Altman or a Fellini or a Kubrick. Thus, to draw some comparison between him and Altman is inappropriate; think of it as comparing vertebrate to invertebrate.
Oh, P.A.:
I done thought you'd already run FP. I wouldn't have spun my precis if I'd understood you hadn't.
The greatest living director is Stanley Kubrick. Don't tell me you bozos actually fell for all that "he's dead" crap. He just wanted to go into total seclusion to work on his masterpiece that will make even 2001 and A Clockwork Orange look like Joel Schumacher's bad dreams.
(A guy can hope)
Personally, I would definitely place Scorsese above Altman. But I guess it's silly to rank the great directors. Altman has made too many stinkers. I don't think Scorsese has ever made a bad movie. King of Comedy and Kundun are mediocre but not bad. As for range, he hasn't often ventured far afield but his Age of Innocence is magnificent. Taxi Driver, Raging Bull - yeah, I gotta go with Scorsese.
Last I checkes, Jules Dassin had yet to shuffle off this mortal coil even though he doesn't make films anymore. Perhaps he can't _quite_ be called great but how about pretty damn good? If you haven't seen Rififi, you don't know film noir.
Oh, and to whomever was complaining about Shelley Duvall's performance in "Popeye:" try watching it again and look how she sings the song "He's Large." Just the perfect amount of nuance as she desperately tries to come up with some sort of compliment for Bluto. Good writing, good performance.
That said, I've never been a fan of...er...you know, the hamburger dude. Steals Sweat Pea to go gambling. He's like an aching tooth in the movie - never that bad, but a little bit of an irritant.
The octopus, on the other hand, is funny. Silly as hell, and I think that would have been lost if it was a Jaws-level effect.
Regards,
Joseph
P.S. to Chris: Sorry if I misunderstood your post on Nashville. Myself, I respect and LOVE "Nashville."
Give the Man a Segar:
Jay Smith: Oh, come on. Using your budgetary analysis of directing, is Coppola a bad director because he went over budget and over time on *Apocalypse Now* or a good director because the studio kept sending more money? I'm not sure of the entire story about the *Popeye* budget, but I wouldn't bet against the elements screwing up the filming (and eating up the budget), as I think the set was constructed on-site somewhere. Malta, maybe?
Popeye did fight an octopus in the *Thimble Theatre* strip back in the 20s/30s -- it's referred to in Bud Sagendorf's wonderful illustrated history of Popeye as one of the one-eyed sailor's finest battles, and I assume that Altman and Feiffer (who wrote the screenplay, unless I've lost 5% of my brain) knew that. But yes, it is cheesy. So is the Joker's plunge from the top of the building at the end of *Batman*, and in a movie with that budget, I find that a lot sloppier and stranger than that poor old maligned octopus that everyone's so darned mad at.
The poor octopus. Such a dreamer. And so gentle and kind-hearted. Condemned now to extra status in *Temptation Island III: Marooned on the Moons of Jupiter* and *Survivor IV: At the Mountains of Madness* because of that early critical revilement.
And the winner of the tribal council is...the shuggoth! Was there ever any doubt?
Marlon Brando as Wimpy...now that would be cool.
Hey, I think *Dick Tracy* works pretty well too, even though I disliked it when I was a callow youth. Sure, it squanders villains in throwaway roles like a Joel Schumacher Batman movie on speed, but Beatty probably figured that there'd never be a sequel anyway. And the look of the film is fantastic and 'true' to Gould's strip, although I would have liked to see the prosthetic face make-up used on Beatty as well -- apparently he pondered doing so.
PAB: Have you read *The Painted Bird*? Heck, I'd also recommend either *Slaughterhouse Five* or *Mother Night* as being readily accessible to early grade high school students, but I may be whacked out myself here (or inviting parental wrath, I dunno).
Heather: Check out the novels of Tim Powers -- *The Anubis Gates*, *Last Call*, *Earthquake Weather*, *Expiration Date*, *The Stress of Her Regard* and *On Stranger Tides* are all nourishing, non-Tolkienesque fare. One caveat -- read *Last Call*, *Expiration Date* and *Earthquake Weather* in that order, as they form a loose-knit, non-Tolkienesque trilogy of stand-alone novels that also stand together.
James Joyce: It's a snow day, which means "The Dead" is in order. Maybe the greatest short story ever written, and with a worthy film adaptation to boot.
J Stover
Frank Church:
You may talk like an idiot and act like an idiot, but don't let that fool you...you reallyARE an idiot. *
You say the US isn't in Afghanistan for reasons of self-defense? HELLO! Are you for real or are you just crappin' us?
* Apologies to Groucho.
Lynn, I visted the Holocaust Museum for the first time last April, and it made a huge impression on me. I too remember the Room of Shoes, and the pile of eyeglasses, and the hair. Also, the boxcar where the people stood on their way to the camps. I imagined I could smell their fear while I stood there.
I was moved, but it was preaching to the choir. The entire Polish Jewish side of my family went to camps on the Warsaw Express to Auschwitz, so it didn't take much to move me to tears. These kids, however, don't get that. They know that the swastika is a bad ass symbol, the jackboots look cool, and what's wrong with being proud to be German? They don't quite understand that Nazism=genocide, and genocide is not cool for humans, even if the bloody trains run on time. One wants to scream, one wants to rant, but ultimately, education with compassion is the only thing that will make a difference here.
The Holocaust Museum has a good website and I just downloaded the book they offer, so thanks for the tip.
On a lighter note, today is a snow day, so I guess I'll probably watch Forbidden Planet soon.
Bermanator
"Popeye: Don't feel like quarreling with any of the negative opinions expressed about Popeye except one -- the octopus. The budget ran out, and Altman had to improvise a climax with the materials available, without further studio support. The crappy *look* of the octopus is hardly an indictment of Altman's skill as a director."
That's like saying, "We couldn't afford to shoot the Death Star blowing up, so we just got a basketball painted it silver and deflated it." If budget problems were the reason they used an inflatable monster for the "money shot" that's not a sign of a good director (or producer, really). My assumption was Altman was going for cartoony camp and intentionally made a silly monster. Given that (looks around for pitchforks and lit torches) ALTMAN IS A GREAT DIRECTOR, I hope that budget mismanagement is not the case. I wasn't expecting Rick Baker, but sheesh...
(At this point Jay looks at the fresh wound on his ass where a cheek used to be and decides its time for a disclaimer) Altman Goooooood. Popeye...sorry, Mr. Ellison. I know my opinion don't mean a tinker's cuss at a tourette's convention, but you could "busk me in da mush" and I'd still feel the same way.
(Gingerly steps over charred landscape) Yep, it looks like Harlan weighed in on the Kazan topic. Any survivors left?
Joseph/Chuck: Thanks. Yeah, maybe my King wasn't ass-kissy enough. I also wondered if I shouldn't have made him randomly blurt out things like, "PANCAKES ARE A WONDERFUL BREAKFAST FOOD!", or "THE GREATEST LIVING ACTOR IS ROBERT GOULET!" But when in doubt, K.I.S.S., after all.
Lynn: (Shudders) The Room Of Shoes had the same effect on me, as well. Amazing how something so pedestrian as FOOTWARE can be used to illuminate such a monumental act of genocide. Chilling, just chilling.
I was also deeply moved by the exhibit on The White Rose organization. To display that kind of courage...to willingly face death to save a culture from self-immolation...there are no words I can write to properly describe the admiration I felt for their bravery and nobility of spirit. I even kissed the photo of Sophie Scholl as I left.
Lynn, I kid you not: I'm actually shaking a little, as I recall that visit. (I guess I feel a kind of kinship to the place. Members of my family were killed by the German Einsatzgruppen in Russia. Also, my mother gave one of the first individual donations towards the construction of the Museum; her name is on a plaque there.)
Chris L: Now, when you say you basically dislike James Joyce, I assume you're referring to his novels. Fair enough, they can be a little trying in places. But have you ever read his short-story collection DUBLINERS? If you haven't, I suggest you give it a looksee. The experimentation is kept to a minimum, and the prose is BEAUTIFUL, the best ever written. It is, simply, the Joyce book for people who don't like Joyce.
Oh, and I didn't think you were letting Kazan off the hook, necessarily. Frank Church, I'm not saying you're stupid, but you do seem to have a simplistic, binary-style penchant for dividing everyone into "Progressive" and "To The Right Of Genghis Khan." Stop it. Things aren't that easy, and you do yourself, and everyone else, a disservice by insisting that they are.
Well, I'm glad to see so many people (Harlan included) giving Altman his due. As for you playa-haters out there, SUCK IT! As loath as I am to indulge in AICN-style hyperbole, I must say: Robert Altman is the greatest living film director, bar none. (Yeah, I said it. You got a problem with that? Name me someone else who can hold the title. Scorcese? Not enough range. Coppola? Peaked too early. Spielberg? Too Hollywood.)
Maybe Big Bob indulges in the wacky-weed a mite too much, but if it spurs his creativity, then good for him. Perhaps film schools everywhere should take his cue, and start stockpiling the Acapulco Gold, as well.
Justin: *Sniff* Our little guy is growing up! WAAAHHHH... (Ain't maturity a bitch? Wait until you start scoring with women--if you think our advice is churning your mind now, you ain't heard nothin' yet, young sir...)
I saw IN THE BEDROOM tonight, by the way. Damned good movie. I liked how it defied my expectations at every turn. It appeared to be a romance film, then a mediation on grief, then a chilling depiction of revenge. I also dug the use of Balkan choral music on the soundtrack--those tangy harmonies provided an eerie counterpoint to the story. Definitely one of the best movies of this past year.
Well, what a couple of days have wrought. Looks like I'm not going to bed for a little while. But, I don't need no friggin' sleep! Not at all! Hahahahahaha!
Jim Davis: I think Altman is a great director. Sometimes he's directed some stinkers, but if you look up a list of stinkers, you'll find scattered in there some of the greatest names in filmmaking. Except Kurosawa. I can't think of a single flat-out stinkburger to his credit. And, I liked Popeye. I'm surprised that there are those here who do as well. Including HE himself. I feel much better now.
Artists and their art: I think Justin showed some brains for watching Altman - not because he caved, but because he respected the opinions of those who encouraged him to take another look at the work of a person he doesn't particularly like. Iiii think Altman's comments on violence in movies were asinine. But, I'm eagerly waiting to see his new film.
I also like the work of Walter Brennan, even though he was a John Bircher. I know this because some relatives of mine (God help me) attended some John Bircher meetings at his ranch house in Montana. Fortunately, these relatives are distant in more ways than one. Unfortunately, they have moved closer to my Grandmother, causing her much vexation. She can more than take care of herself, though. General Patton in a blond wig, as we like to call her. Brennan gave some wonderfully nuanced performances in TO HAVE AND HAVE NOT, and was a wonderful Judge Roy Bean in THE WESTERNER. Pathetic and lonely one moment, menacing the next. And yet, there are those political ads he did for John Schmidtz. Yech.
Some reactionaries will surprise you, though. John Wayne defending the Panama Canal Treaty, for example, or John Ford reaming Cecil B. DeMille for his dastardly attack on another director because he thought he was a "pinko".
Speaking of dastardly directors, I am of the opinion, after some reading, that Kazan's actions were those of an opportunistic coward. He was supposedly of the left, yet screwed over others who were his FRIENDS _before_ the tough got going. He was immensely talented, but he had no character. Belonging to a particular party was NOT illegal, yet Kazan went along with this fucking over of the constitution and his friends and colleagues just so he wouldn't get his hair mussed. I'll occasionally watch his films, but I'll still think "What a shitheel."
Lynn: Crimes against art: How about Joe Esterhaus? He gets paid several bajillion dollars to write excrement like SHOWGIRLS and BASIC INSTINCT, but Harlan Ellison's screenplay for I, ROBOT doesn't get filmed. I think that smelly, scruffy screenwriter (Esterhaus, that is. Last I heard, HE is a very neat fellow) should be sent henceforth to the stinky bowels of the hoary netherworld to clean up the excrescence of Cerberus himself, and never set ink to paper again.
Brian, et al, on Neville: Righto! Chamberlain was a conservative. A tory. He wanted Hitler to keep going right to the gates of Moscow. He was what Lincoln referred to as a clever fool. He was a man of extremely narrow intellect, and was unable to take the kind of broad view a national leader needs to take. He approached the crisis over Czechoslovakia "Like a man staggering onto a used car lot, money dripping from his pockets, anxious to buy." (William Manchester. Might not be an exact quote) He was, in short, a mook, a loser who thought he could beat Hitler at three card monty.
By the way, BOM, several of Hitler's generals were already plotting against him, and had an order for his arrest ready if he invaded Czechoslovakia. But, when Neville blew in from nowhere and handed the Sudetenland to Hitler, the whole plot was shot to hell. If Neville had stayed the hell out, the Czechs could have defended themselves with only the moral support of France and the Soviet Union. The General staff knew that. The invasion, which Hitler was looking forward to, would have been a disaster for Germany. There was no way around the Czech defences. I don't know if the coup would have succeeded, but it would have put a dent in Hitler's credibility, at home and abroad. Even Mussolini demonstrated that Hitler could be stopped if someone had only shown some backbone. He foiled Hitler's first attempt at annexing Austria.
Jay Smith and Jim Davis: Those Satan postings were inspired! I laughed so hard I passed holy water through my nose! Now that's a miracle. Maybe I should tell the Pope.
That's it. I'm pooped. Time for go to bed. Get up in morning. Say hello to boss. Keep job. Might be important. Tor very tired.
Chuck
Ah, the beauty of the Internet. I ordered the Nancy Schwartz book and the John Henry Faulk book.
First books I bought in two months. Longest I ever went. I declared a personal moratorium until I plowed through more than half my current bag log. I'm down to a record low with a mere 12 books recently purchased and sitting on the "To Be Read" end of the table.
Most recently finished: _Interpreter of Maladies_ by Jumpha Lahiri. Read a nice story about her in a magazine. It's her first published book so naturally she wins not just a Pen/Hemingway but also something called the Pulitzer. Nice collection of short stories. I felt they were all very similar but she is quite adept at drawing very subtle emotional brush strokes.
Joseph,
I respect Nashville.
I admire Nashville.
But it boggles my mind that anyone could actually enjoy that film.
I feel the same way about James Joyce, just for the record.
Chris,
Okay, I might have come down a little hard. I just got in my soapbox mode. People here can tell you about it. I start foaming and ranting and raving about random junk like people being unable to appreciate the political and moral genius of a film like Nashville, one of the finest essays on how humans interact in film history (with a high honorable mention going to the Baker story in "Short Cuts," from one of my all-time-why the hell can't I write like this stories by Raymond Carver, starring the underrated Lyle Lovett), and I need to take my meds now...
Anyway, sorry to dump on you. Hey, does anyone remember the documentary on late 60's Berkely that illustrates a central theme of my 8-16 years: "Reagan's An Asshole?" I can't think of the name, but I remember watching it the same night as "Medium Cool," at a cast party for summer stock "Hair."
Regards,
Joseph
The passages I cut and pasted and replied to which showed me on my screen but mysteriously disappeared when I submitted the post were:
**But I take issue with your attempt to divert the question of his betrayals with wondering if he genuinely thought he was acting against an evil. **
And
**Here, if you don't care to actually inform yourself by reading the history of the times, you can watch the movie "The Front," about a cashier who fronts for blacklisted writers. Or, you can get the documentary "Hollywood on Trial," **
Here's hoping they show up this time.
Joseph said:
>
I must admit this is a sentiment I don't understand. I don't think anyone's opinion should ever become so calcified that he or she becomes angry over the mere fact that someone asks a question about the issue. Without questions, how can one get answers? I have no agenda here except to learn so I don't see how I am "diverting" anything or why one would "take issue" with it. It's always good to ask questions and try to learn, isn't it?
>
Thank you for the recommendations. It is certainly a subject I am interested in and one I do care "to actually inform" myself about. I simply haven't gotten there yet. Wish I could learn everything all at once. If only somebody would invent a machine to allow you to mainstream all the information in the world in one download. It's frustrating to be limited by the processing speed of the human body and brain. So much to learn, never enough time for even 1/10th of one percent of it.
Altman, Popeye:
Harlan: Yes, you can call me "Smokey." "Happy Hooligan," though, is out of the question.
Popeye: Don't feel like quarreling with any of the negative opinions expressed about Popeye except one -- the octopus. The budget ran out, and Altman had to improvise a climax with the materials available, without further studio support. The crappy *look* of the octopus is hardly an indictment of Altman's skill as a director.
Altman in general: Every six years or so, Altman "comes back" in terms of media coverage -- it happened with *The Player,* it happened with *Short Cuts,* it's apparently happening with *Gosford Park.* Attendant with this coverage always seems to come the idea (centered, I think, around the truly awful assumption that financial success = artistic success) that he had 'lapsed' in the between time. When the between times include films such as *Come Back to the Five and Dime...* and work such as *Tanner '88*, I'd say those are between times Spielberg would be lucky to have on his best day. Christ, didn't he direct *McTeague* on Broadway or somewhere on a major stage as well?
Comics-into-film: Apparently, the new film from Sam Mendes (American Beauty) coming out soon is based on a Max Allan Collins graphic novel, *The Road to Perdition.* Haven't read it; just noting.
J Stover
Oh, damn the complexity of it all!
I just realized that I liked EAST OF EDEN and STREETCAR a lot more than I liked HIGH NOON. A LOT more, I tell you! I found the Kazan pictures to be far more engaging.(Wipe that look off your face.)So what am I to do now, I ask you? I've been mouthing off for the past two days about how I don't think it's wrong to be uncomfortable with the work of truly hurtful, despicable people, and yet I already knew about HUAC when I saw both STREETCAR and NOON. Yes, I do know about the Commission. I couldn't speak volumes on the subject, but I did learn a great deal about it in a history course I took in Albuquerque.
Anyhoo...SO IT SEEMS I'M THE BIG FUCKING FLAPPYJAWED HYPOCRITE AFTER ALL, DOESN'T IT? Well this is a fine how do you do. How can this be? If I really like Kazan's stuff better than HIGH NOON, then it does mean that I am able to completely separate the art from the artist, doesn't it? Heavens. Contradictions abound. Who'd have thought I'd turn out to be such a maroon? I certainly never speak or behave in ways that would lead anyone to suspect such a thing. No no, I realize you're all shocked, but please try to get back to your lives. I can deal with this on my own. Really. I don't need anything. I have F.W. Murnau, my faithful sock puppet, and I cannot ask for anything more in this life.
Grr. I do NOT NOT NOT ever want to prefer the work of the bad guy. I don't see what's so wrong with that! Why should I prefer Kazan's movies to HIGH NOON? According to the Justin of yesterday, I have no business doing that. And he's right! God, I remember those days, when I was young and moral and idealistic. Things were so much simpler then. I was so young and full of life, before YOU FUCKERS CAME ALONG AND SUCKED IT OUT OF ME! But perhaps I'm wiser now, somehow, in some way. Because, I suppose, if sometimes the works of shady characters happen to speak to me more than the work of really swell fellas, then...but..but that would mean that life wasn't fair, and if that were so, then...then...fuh, bgzzzzzzzzztt*
There went the fuse.
J
p.s. This is time I should have spent thinking about the writers and isolaton issue, which means that I will be resorting to using the Hemingway quote in my response to the young lady this evening. Wilkins, you are THE MAN, man. A thousand thanks! I'm going to come off erudite as hell.
Of course, I've never actually read Hemingway (step off bitches, my TO READ list would make all of you go crying to mama), so you know she's going to ask me tomorrow, "So, didn't you think that Hemingway's earlier works were so much more...oh, you know...what's the word I'm looking for?"
Oh well. The perils of being me.
Chris,
Hesitated to weigh on the Kazan debate, because it's already common fact that he's a scumbag. But I take issue with your attempt to divert the question of his betrayals with wondering if he genuinely thought he was acting against an evil. Trouble is, he turned people in for something that wasn't even vaguely or illegal, and destroyed their lives. That's a coward and a scumbag.
Here, if you don't care to actually inform yourself by reading the history of the times, you can watch the movie "The Front," about a cashier who fronts for blacklisted writers. Or, you can get the documentary "Hollywood on Trial," where you can also get an appreciation for how scummy Ronald Reagan was long before he was Governor or President. Allow me to quote, as a slight hijack, from a review: "there is an almost scary interview with Ronald Reagan, who explains why the blacklist--the existence of which was continually denied by industry officials--was important and beneficial for Hollywood." Lovely son-of-a-bitch, eh?
Joseph
Berman~ RE: your naive offender.
http://www.ushmm.org/
The United States Holocaust Memorial Museum contains the strongest testimony against Nazism. It was one of the most powerful experiences of my life, right next to holding my grandmother's hand as she died. Right next to holding my mom minutes later.
And it wasn't the film clips that did it. It wasn't the photographs or the cases full of eyeglasses and other personal effects. It wasn't the cast taken of a road made from Jewish headstones. It wasn't the cast of the "Arbeit Mach Frei"(sp?) arch or the ovens.
It was the room full of shoes.
A room with nothing but white walls and a twelve foot ceiling and a walkway lined with clear acrylic barriers. So that you could walk through the room full of shoes, two feet deep. In nothing but shoes. Children's shoes and men's shoes and women's shoes.
It was the bales of human hair.
Forty pound BALES of human hair. I can't even wrap my mind around how many people died to make ONE forty pound bale of human hair, much less the ten or fifteen that I saw. It may have been more, but I was too overwhelmed to count.
And it was the memorial walls etched with names from the ground floor to the fourth floor. And the utter stillness of the Hall of Remembrance. The sunlight and shadows that moved around the eternal flame.
I don't know where you're at, geographically, but it's worth the pilgrimage. And you don't have to say a word. The place speaks for itself.
L.
You talk to me about "magic realists" such as Borges. (Oh, yes, I DO like him. I also like Calvino--though that's unrelated, perhaps.) Are there other writers, say, who have started in the last ten years, who write books of a similar nature or 'bent'? (i.e., perhaps some kind of expansion on or extrapolation of this "magic realism.") (The words in quotation marks denote 'that's NOT quite the word for it,' but it'll do for argument's sake.)
I haven't got a complete grasp of that genre but I DO realize that there is something about Harlan's more recent efforts (such as "Shatterday," "Slippage" and "Mind Fields") that I find more..'meaty,' I guess you could say.
Went down the fantasy hole for a while. It bends my brain a little. (Tolkien's okay, but.. I dunno..there's just SOMETHING about the stories in "Slippage" that I find more "interesting"--or challenging or something). (Sorry, I'm still working on fairies and elves though I liked it in Shakespeare.)
Sure, I could look it up. It's what I've BEEN doing. Looking for some feedback, that's all. Thanks.
Alex said:
>
Yes, this has always been one of my favorite quotes.
An even better one, though tangetially related comes from Mr. Tolstoy:
"Nationalism and patriotism are sins; sins against humanity and the human spirit."
I wholeheartedly agree with both sentiments.
On the other hand (and I am NOT saying this has any relevance to Kazan, only to the quote in question) if I found out my best friend in the whole wide world was about to, say, fly a plane into the Pentagon with lots of people at work there, I hope I would have the strength to turn him in, no matter how much it hurt.
I have never felt I owe any allegiance to anything called a "country" or a "government." Those are things. My allegiances are to people. Respect the laws and institutions of the country in which you live but don't love your country. Love the people.
On Kazan, I'm a major head-in-the-MUSIC ignoramous, but I'm not completely ignorant. I thank HE for his reading suggestions (and I'll get to 'em should I be blessed to live so long) but bottom line is that for whatever reasons, Elia Kazan ratted. I'm sure the art lives, but I will forever relate the name "Elia Kazan" with those who ratted on their friends to achieve momentary comfort.
At what price?
Well, I _know_ that something I wrote was a big piece of Harlan's rant: specifically, my comment that what Kazan did "wasn't a crime, like murder or assault or rape." I'd meant that as a contrast to the discussion of James Brown beating his wife. I hadn't intended it to trivialize the effects of Kazan's testimony.
In my defense I'd like to recap something I'd written earlier. I'd described how, regardless of what we say or do here today about artists with reprehensible lives, history will probably forget their deeds and hail the art. And I'd written that there was something ugly and awful in this; the only posterity the victims have is as a footnote to the artists' lives. I am _not_ terribly keen on separating the art from the artist.
To Chris L., re Kazan's motives. Back when that award was in the news, there were a lot of interviews with people who'd worked with Kazan who speculated on why he testified-- even though at the time he regarded himself as a man of the Left. The most charitable guesses were that Kazan might've felt that communists and lefties had too much power in the theatre, and he resented having to negotiate with them. The least charitable guess was that Kazan was one of the highest-paid directors around, making massive amounts of money, and to fight HUAC would've put his livelihood in danger. What struck me was that NO ONE speculated that Kazan testified out of a dislike for Communism, the Soviet Union, or anything remotely like an actual political principle.
Wow. My first Ellisonian spanking. :)
For the record, I dig Altman, esp. The Player and MASH. But I saw Popeye for the first time as a 9 year old. Didn't hold much joy for them then, either.
A few quick notes on Altman, from a constant lurker: All this talk about Altman, and nary a mention of "California Split"? Well, OK: I mean, I think the damned thing never made it to video, and only occasionally comes on Encore ... but it's an asbolutely amazing movie. Just perfect, really: Maybe the best movie ever made about gamblers (played here by Elliot Gould and George Segal), and gambling. And failing that, it's a durn fine companion piece to "The Gambler," starring James Caan and written by James Toback.
Aside to Mr. Ellison: I seem to remember an old essay where you talked about a pal of yours and his sorta kinda Dostoevskian screenplay. You never named the writer, but were you referring to James Toback and "The Gambler"? Just wondering.
The other great unmentioned Altman movie (unless, that is, I missed the mention) is "Thieves Like Us," which is the best adaptation of a non-existent Faulkner book, ever. Sort of in the vein of "McCabe," but even more lyrical and moving, if that's possible. Maybe not.
And what about "Vincent and Theo" and "Tanner" and ah, gosh, there's just too much. Even the bad stuff (like "O.C. and Stiggs") is interesting.
Okeydokey, that's my two and a half cents.
Chris--
regarding Kazan, I think that the feelings of a lot of us can be summed up in the remark somebody--Forster, I think--made on a general principle: "If I had to choose between betraying my country and betraying my friend, I hope I would have the guts to betray my country."
Harlan--
I know I should be digging through the collection and finding this myself, but can you tell me if I'm right that you wrote something about the Maher show, about the argument that lasted beyond the credits running? I plead exhaustion from burying my father, or I'd look it up myself. I recall a rant--righteous, mind you--related to the cultural ignorance of modern America and the you-should-pardon-the-expression oreo you faced on P.I.
--Alex
Also, Harlan, thank you for the readin suggestions. A while back, I actually asked for some reading recommendations on HUAC but that one disappeared into the internet ether.
I take no shame in not knowing as much as I should on the subject. There are many things I know a lot about, many more I don't know enough about and still more I know nothing at all about. The only shame is if I don't try to correct the deficiencies in my knowledge.
Not knowing something is a problem. Not wanting to know, however, is the real crime.
To P.A. Berman, re Chamberlain: Hard to see how my comments amount to revisionist history, in that Chamberlain's indifference to what hitler would become is certainly a good fit with the anti-Semitism you mention. The point isn't whether what Chamberlain did was or wasn't "appeasement"-- it was. What matters are the _motives_ behind it, and how the differ from the popular legend I described.
Actually, to Bag'o'meat, the best way to prevent Germany from waging war would have involved relaxing the Versailles agreement so that the progressive Weimar republic could have built the country back. Hard to imagine Hitler acquiring the power he did if the country was already doing well. But this really is Monday-morning quarterbacking.
Oh, just a clarification on _Millennium_. I didn't think it was all that great. There were a few decent shows, and some good performances, but it really did strike me as a kind of "Se7en" for TV. The first season finale-- which included that incredible montage of apocalypse set to Patti Smith's "Horses"-- must have been a high water mark for TV, and I'd hoped the next season was going to be set in a kind of post-apocalypse America. Instead, they went back to the serial-killer-of-the-week.
_The Prisoner_, now, THAT was a great show.
To Rob: Sorry about flying off the handle like that. You were right, I was wrong to reply in that manner.
I agree with Chris that Jennifer Connelly is amazingly beautiful and a fine actress. But I'd rather not see her become a Leading lady. Because she's _already_ out of my league, and that'd put her into practically another _universe_.
I'll assume my mention of Kazan's statement that he genuinely thought Communism was evil is part of what prompted Harlan's rant. I was pretty sure that no matter what I said, the mere mention of the issue for discussion would cause people to think it had something to do with my personal opinion on the matter. It doesn't. As I said, I don't know enough to make an informed opinion and I have always agreed with Harlan that people aren't entitled to their opinions - they are entitles to informed opinions. Likewise, I will not automatically condemn merely because people I respect say I'm supposed to.
My reaction is and long has been that he deserves all the criticism he gets but I won't throw stones without the knowledge. I don't have any doubt that his actions were evil and had terrible consequences and that HUAC is one the darkest chapters in 20th century American history. But I still want to know what motivated him. The motivation doesn't mitigate the impact of his actions but I still want to know why - not just what. History (and it is history to me - it happened long before I was born) is meaningless as just a series of names, places and dates.
So I would again ask - is Kazan just lying when he says he thought he was doing "the right thing"? Just trying to cover up for his cowardice and greed? And even if the thought Communism was a genuine evil, does that in any way change the opinion we should have of him since the impact of his actions is indisputably bad?
HARLAN HERE:
J. STOVER: (I asked once, but I figure you may not have known it was to you I spoke. So I'll ask again: May I call you
"Smokey"?) You are not alone. I ADORE Altman's version of POPEYE. It was grand, simply grand. Ignore these poopieheads.
They are too blinded by decades of movie crap to savor the singular brilliance of Altman. HEALTH was a scream. A WEDDING was to die for. BREWSTER McCLOUD was nothing less than Pirandello-level fantastic Absurdism. M.A.S.H. and McCABE AND MRS. MILLER and THE LONG GOODBYE speak for themselves. NASHVILLE created its own genre. GOSFORD PARK glows like a diamond. The rest of you jerkazoids shut the fuck up before I come and bitch-slap yo asses into silence. I ain't smiling.
And while I'm being assertive here, I don't want ANY GODDAM opinions on that ghoul backstabbing pus-sucking lying ass-protecting slime-trail Elia Kazan unless and until you've read at least two of the FIFTY FUCKIN' THOUSAND books available on the blacklist and HUAC. If you need one to start with, try Nancy Schwartz's THE HOLLYWOOD WRITERS WARS or Alvah Bessie's book, or...
Other recommendations will soon flood in on you. But do not pretend to an informed opinion--any more than did Maher with an utter vacuum of knowledge on the subject--until you've read up on this. I feel my blood boiling as parvenus (yeah, that's you) sit up on their hind legs and self-aggrandizingly put in their two-farthings of johnny-come-lately, ignorant voicing of an ignorant know-nothing opinion as if it were more cogent and relevent than a fart in a sirocco. Kazan was a GREAT director, one of the best of his time, and the works should, indeed, be lauded. But so was Leni Rieffenstahl, and HER works are condemned, because she did EXACTLY what Kazan did. She cozened up to the Devil. In her case, Hitler; in his, J. Parnell Thomas and the HUAC sanhedrin of tormenters and Santa Armendad torturers. Do not, I beg you, DO NOT blather me your insipid rationalizations that he wasn't so bad because he didn't rape or murder anyone. (Gee, Hitler and Mussolini made the trains run on time, and Der Fuehrer just looooooved dogs!)
Well, in fact, you adolescent idiots, Elia Kazan DID murder people, as surely as if he'd thrown the grenade. He ruined whole families, drove great actors and directors and writers to commit suicide, prevented casual hangers-on from working at their art, aided an entire industry in demonstrating its gut-level mendacity and consummate expertise in selling out its own...and was the willing rodent ratfink who accused people of behavior that was, in simple fact, NOT UNLAWFUL!!!! He rancidly buttered his own bread at the cost of stealing that bread from the mouths of his betters. If for nothing else, the sonofabitch shitball oughtta burn in the 8th and inner circle of Hell forever for preventing Zero Mostel from working for twelve years. TWELVE FUCKING YEARS!!! Mostel, the great Zero Mostel, ypou buncha illiterate asswipes! What the hell is wrong with you clowns? Don't you read? Don't you remember? Have you fallen prey to the malaise of our time, Cultural Amnesia? Are you as stupid as the history-ignorant kids each of you has decried on this board from time to time? Kazan's Crimes: him and the others, all of them: in the top 10 of the most shameful episodes in American history, laced with anecdotal nightmares that make such petty bullshit as Whitewater and Jefferson's slaves look like what they were, pish-posh time.
Go read !!!!! Pick up a goddam BOOK ON THE SUBJECT! Otherwise, you are no better than the culturally amnesiac assholes who deny The Holocaust. Or the kid who didn't have a clue why scratching a swastika on a desk was infamous behavior.
READ A BOOK OR TWO ON THE BLACKLIST. Start with John Henry Faulk's! It's not as if there isn't a roomful of brilliant, pointed, convincing reading on this topic.
Susan warned me not to post on this. Leave it alone, she said.
I should have listened to her.
Does my rage and impatience show?
Mmm. Well, Carl Foreman had the same rage, and that's why he wrote the screenplay for HIGH NOON; and Fred Zinnemann shared that rage, which was why he directed it; and Gary Cooper was so ashamed of his testimony before HUAC, so ashamed that he had acted in such an unCooperishly cowardly way, that he begged Foreman to let him star in it. And their rage was so complete, so perfect, in artistic terms, that the little shits Budd Schulberg and Lee J. Cobb and Karl Malden and the snake Kazan had to create ON THE WATERFRONT to make their apologia.
Both are High Art. But one was made by victims, and the other by members of the lynch mob who were trying to cop a plea in the court of public opinion.
Yes, Lautrec was right on spot when he said, "One should never meet an artist whose work one admires. The man is always so much less than the art."
Truer of me than of almost anyone else I can think of.
Nonetheless. Harlan
Oh.. and Prosecution Exhibit C: http://us.imdb.com/Quotes?0081353
Meat -
I hate to straffe my wingman on this point, but I hardly think its possible to give any real depth to Popeye characters, especially Olive since she was nothing more than an asexual foil who squealed and whined through the cartoons, too. I would have enjoyed seeing Nicholson coming after HER with an axe in an empty hotel.
But it was hardly a good movie with the addition of Ray Walston's character and the lack of Spinach until the last reel... Just a wishy-washy Hamlet where the speech is replaced with mumblings and bad musical numbers.
I was wondering if your average movie goer perceives Vick in "A Boy and His Dog" as an amoral simpleton that wants nothing more than to pursue his baser desires, or as one of the few compassionate individuals left in the world after the holocaust...
J Stover, Chris L, et al who like Bob's 'Pop':
Nope, sorry.
Popeye Prosecution exhibit B: Shelly Duvall. While her look is nearly letter perfect for Olive Oyl, her one dimensional performance, combined with her banshee-like voice as she screams for her beloved sailor man wanted me to start lobbing enough depth charges to send the entire production to Davy Jones' locker.
J; Hell won't take a Bag of Meat. I'd be trying to mount a coup d'etat immediately upon arrival.
Re: "Popeye" Prosecution Exhibit A: "I yam whut I yam whut I am Whut I am and dat's all dat I yam."
A wonder that song didn't take home the Oscar.
Oh and the Squid that was right out of Ed Wood's budget.
Todd,
Ain't nothin' wrong with being a liberal. Most conservatives think I'm a liberal. Most liberals think I'm a conservative. The only thing I really know is that Jennifer Connelly is the most beautiful actress in Hollywood and I'm glad to see she's finally getting a shot at leading lady status.
Speaking of Popeye, am I the only person who was delighted with Peter David's _The Wedding Of Popeye and Olive_ a few years back? I really wish we would get a regular Popeye comic. And judging from that issue, Mr. David is just the fan for the job if he's interested.
Brian,
I posted quickly just before darting out the door this a.m. and began running that line through my head as I was driving, "you just lash out at Chamberlain alone..blah, blah, blah..." and realized it may have read like I was aiming that at you specifically.
That was not meant as 'YOU' you, that was YOU as in ANYONE in general who runs such a simplistic thesis on Chamberlain and the liberals of his day.
I was in complete agreement with you.
Before the U.S. entered the war there was a very strong Nazi sympathy/Isolationist/anti-Semitic wave blasting through the country, and most of THAT was on the right. So any would-be Right-winger trying to brand the Liberals of the day (hence, of THIS day) is talking out of shallow ignorance...as usual.
Also, I haven't looked back at the post but I may have misspelled the name of our favorite pro-Nazi of the day Charles Lindbergh.
Chris L, stop taking the bait. Frank is one of the more liberal guys on this board.....liberal to the point of sounding like he loves all countries except for the one he resides in. You won't make any points with him. Not at all.
P.S., Check out my earlier discussion on Altman......yes, I am a Popeye fan too.
-TODD
I like Popeye quite a bit. Not a great film but a good one and a much better job than I would ever have expected. I think it's all but impossible to convert a comic strip into a watchable film but I think Altman pulled off the trick as well as could be asked. And Robin Williams did a fabulous job in the titular role, possibly the most challenging performance of his career.
OK, I admit it, Frank, you succeeded in getting me to respond again. I should be able to resist your brand of petty demagoguery but I am weak in this respect, especially when on the receiving end of ad hominem attacks.
I am staunchly pro-choice but that doesn't mean I am insensitive to the arguments of the pro-life side. I think they have some valid point though they all pale in comparison to the need to protect a woman's right to choose and control her own body. But there are good and useful arguments to be made. However, when some extremists resort to phrases such as "baby killers" or compare abortion to the holocaust, their cheap rhetoric reveals they feel incapable of defending their argument with facts and must resort to base tactics and distortions of reality to promote their agenda.
Likewise, while I support the military strikes against al-Qaeda and the Taliban, I can understand why some people feel it isn't appropriate. If I thought police action could work, I might favor that option but I think that's an ivory tower fantasy. We were attacked by al-Qaeda who is directly and openly supported by the Taliban, the then-ruling government of Afghanistan. On those grounds, I think the strikes are justified but I respect the contrary position.
However, when extremists on the other side distort reality by referring to our targeted strikes as a "war waged against the people of Afghanistan" or, in Frank's case, hide behind the pitiable image of the woman and children or falsely claim we "bomb the entire country", they only reveal their inability or unwillingness to defend their position rationally.
Frank has also tried to shout down any discussion on the matter asserting that any thinking American would think the way he does as well in engaging in ad hominem attacks (the Rush Limbaugh reference which is certainly amusing to me) and blatant lies (claiming I wrote a "defense of Kazan".)
One finds these petty tactics used constantly on the Internet as well as on the airwaves but I thought we had higher standards here. Perhaps I am naive to expect better of a self-selecting group that would post to Harlan Ellison's board. Maybe HE is such a good writer, even the hammer-brained are attracted to his work. :)
I am demeaned by allowing myself to be angered by such grade school tactics but I don't apologize for my lack of tolerance for demagogues and liars.
Popeye was just hammy. But I will gladly take that film over, Patch Adams any day.
Popeye:
Geez, am *I* the only person on the board who liked Altman's *Popeye*? I mean, it's not a great film, but it captures a lot of the weird, creepy, and not necessarily laugh-out-loud funny ambience of the Segar strips far better than most comic adaptations ever get the feel of their original material (*Annie*-- now there's a movie that fails its source material, or at least Clarence Gray's source material).
Damn you *Popeye* haters! Damn you to hell!
Oh, and Justin (and anyone else) -- the art vs. artist thread reminded me of Orwell's essay on the topic, "Benefit of Clergy: Some Thoughts on Salvador Dali." Check it out if you have aa chance -- it's in a number of Orwell essay collections.
J Stover
Dwayne: The Neville Chamberlain reference was not wise, given the weight of intellect in this place...especially if you were implying that "liberals" enabled Hitler and the Nazis just like they're doing today with bin Laden and al-Qaeda, while "conservatives" led the fight against evil in both eras.
Before and during WWII, right-wingers and capitalists from Henry Ford to Charles Lindbergh to the DuPonts to George W. Bush' great-grandpa (that's the grandpa of George H.W. Bush) tended towards isolationism, anti-Semitism, war profiteering or all three (and let's never forget how IBM eagerly sold its newfangled calculating machines to the Nazis, which were then used to help identify and locate Jews).
It was Franklin Roosevelt's liberal administration that edged the US closer and closer to the war from 1939-41 (helping the Soviets, Lend-Lease to Britain, the "50 destroyers for access to bases" deal that helped beat the U-boats, and so on). Yes, he turned a blind eye toward hints and rumors of the Holocaust, but it wasn't because he was pro-Hitler.
So, basically, the analogy of then to now is completely specious. GW Bush unleashed aircraft and a few thousand troops, which helped the old warlords of Afghanistan rise up and overthrow a hated regime of new warlords and the terrorists they were sheltering. That's not the same thing.
In fact, let's try not use historical analogies at all. They tend to break down under analysis, and they encourage talk radio style sniping rather than actual debate.
Jim,
Very nice job. Only problem is that those questions are far too hardball for Larry King.
Regards,
Joseph
Chris L., or should I say, Rush Limbaugh's little tadpole. So no Woman or Children are being harmed whatsoever eh? Your proof is looking as thin as the attention span of tadpole Bush.
Bermanator,
I don't know if this is what you want but you should be able to find a lot of information starting at this site:
http://www.holocaustchronicle.org/StaticPages/54.html
Rob: The "Avec!" phrase has a very long and convoluted history. It's pretty much shorthand in my circle of friends for anything absurdly melodramatic. Picture really a bad faux-Shakespearen play as directed by Chuck E. Jones.
Jay: Hee, hee. Cute, very cute. Of course, Satan would HAVE to do a full media blitz, including the obligatory appearance on CNN.
(Scene opens on set of "Larry King Live." King, hunching grotesquely in his chair, speaks to camera)
KING: TONIGHT!!!! IN HIS FIRST TELEVISION INTERVIEW, THE PRINCE OF DARKNESS TALKS ABOUT HIS RECENT LEGAL TROUBLES, AND LIFE AS THE MOST HATED MAN ALIVE!!! SATAN HIMSELF ANSWERS QUESTIONS AND TAKES YOUR CALLS FOR THE FULL HOUR, ON LARRY KING LIVE!!!
(Show intro plays as camera pans back, showing a casually-dressed Satan sitting across from King)
KING: Boy, your Dark Majesty, what a year it's been, huh?
SATAN: Please, Larry, just call me Satan. No honorifics here. I'm a regular working stiff, just like everyone else.
KING: Well, ya gotta admit, you have a reputation.
SATAN: Yes, Larry, I know. Believe me, after reading some of the things about me that have been printed in the papers, *I* start to wonder myself. (Laughs)
KING: Why is that? Why do you think you get such a bad rap?
SATAN: (Speaks quietly and sincerely) Larry, as much as I'd like to pin everything on the media, the truth is, I share a lot of the blame. I look back at some of the things I've done, and I see...Larry, I see a lost little boy who just didn't KNOW how to reach out to others.
KING: So, is this a new Satan?
SATAN: Not so much a NEW Satan as it is the one who's been here all along. Larry, fame can be a very isolating thing. When all you hear is what your lackeys tell you, you can start to believe your stuff don't stink, if you know what I mean. So, I've cut back on the extravagances, laid off some of the entourage, and have generally tried to get back to basics.
KING: Let's take some calls. RIVERSIDE, CALIFORNIA!
CALLER: Hi, Larry. I love your show. I have a question for Mr. Satan. What was it like working with Marilyn Manson?
SATAN: (Smiles, shakes his head) These rumors just KILL me. Yeah, Manson likes to name-drop me at every opportunity, but the fact is I don't even know the guy. Trust me, I have better things to do than hang out with Alice Cooper-wannabes. The whole industrial/hardcore/dark metal scene is just so *90'S*--if you want to be evil, then do it with a little FINESSE, know what I mean? Some of the toadying of these guys just turns my stomach. When Trent Reznor moved into the Tate Mansion, all I could think was, "Oh puh-leeeze! A little obvious, aren't we?" I've got enough people smooching my ass as it is. You wanna get my attention? STOP MOPING AROUND AND WRITE SOME DECENT MUSIC AGAIN! What was that last album of his all about, sheesh...
My taste currently runs more to the VH1 spectrum, I guess. I'm doing some production work on the new Jewel album, supervising some remixes for Cher, and Lee Greenwood has expressed some interest in collaborating with me. Gotta keep stirring the pot, you know.
KING: BILLINGS, MONTANA!
CALLER: Hi, Larry. Hi, Satan. Satan, is it true you're dating Winona Ryder?
SATAN: She's just a very good friend.
KING: BRANSON, MISSOURI!
CALLER: (Celestial Choir plays) CEASE THY PRATTLING, OH ANCIENT ADVERSARY! (Thunder roars, and lightning flashes) BOW TO YHVH, WHO, WHEN THE EARTH WAS WILD AND WASTE, SEPERATED THE LIGHT FROM THE DARKNESS AND PLACED THE STARS IN THE DOME OF THE HEAVENS! BOW, OH FATHER OF LIES!
KING: Is this really God?!?
SATAN: (Rolls his eyes) Oh yeah, like it's really HIM. I know for a fact God moved out of Branson a LONG time ago.
And so on.
Frank,
Thanks for showing your hand. I knew I should have ignored you in the first place. Your first use of cheap rhetoric about us killing the women and children in Afghanistan drew me out. Now your equally cheap use of rhetoric where you falsely claim I wrote a "defense of Kazan" shows me you are not worth replying to.
Well, OK, beyond this reply.
Hello, I'm Mrs. Meat, but I prefer Melissa.
Leaving my husband to sleep: our little one Cassie saw Daddy napping on the couch and decided that was a good idea, so she climbed up onto his stomach, and passed out herself.
P.A., here's a good little essay, readable for one in grade 9;
http://www.angelfire.com/in/j4a/nehistory.html
By the way, that was a cute little essay Jay. Nice of you to give the devil his due...
That should help.
I won't even comment about such idiocy. Comparing World War 2 to Afghanistan is pretty pathetic. Inept brain transmissions to the rear of the bus. Afghanistan is a police action. We are not attacking a country for self-defense reasons. This was a criminal act done by a rogue band of thugs, nothing more. For this to be a war it must be a legitimate attack from another country. This was a criminal action. We round up the dogs, not bomb an entire country farther into the stone age.
Chris L., Your defense of Elia Kazan kind of gives me a clue to your true intent. You have nothing but marked cards, my friend.
Justin -
I trust you to do a lot of your own thinking and research on this topic, so I will help you in your quest for a shortcut. But one day I may call upon you for a favor..... Here you go.
From Hemingway's Nobel Prize Acceptance Speech:
"Writing, at its best, is a lonely life. Organizations for writers palliate the writer's loneliness but I doubt if they improve his writing. He grows in public stature as he sheds his loneliness and often his work deteriorates. For he does his work alone and if he is a good enough writer he must face eternity, or the lack of it, each day. For a true writer each book should be a new beginning where he tries again for something that is beyond attainment. He should always try for something that has never been done or that others have tried and failed. Then sometimes, with great luck, he will succeed. How simple the writing of literature would be if it were only necessary to write in another way what has already been written. It is because we have had such great writers in the past that a writer is driven far out past where he can go, out to where no one can help him. I have spoken too long for a writer. A writer should write what he has to say and not speak it. Again I thank you."
Note: the kid is in 9th grade, and has at best a middle school reading level. So I can't get crazy on him with reading material that requires depth of thought or a large vocabulary.
Bermanator
HELP PLEASE!
Ironically, considering our current convo re: Neville Chamberlain, I need some help. Hard on the heels of pressing "SEND" on my last message, I found an Iron Eagle and swastika drawn on my desk. Niiiiiice.
Didn't take much detective work to find out who did it. The kid confessed. He honestly does not understand why his drawing is so offensive. That is to say, he knows that it offends, but he doesn't understand the depth of revulsion, and completely legitimate and justified rage that symbol evokes. He is not the first kid with whom I've had this conversation, either. This problem is systemic.
Do any of you know of an essay-length article that would clearly explain Nazism and why it's not a cool worldview with which to identify yourself? And give me a link or snail mail it to me ASAP?
Help appreciated,
Bermanator
"The Nazis were cool up until that Holocaust thing."--a real-life quote
Quick! I need to fool someone into thinking that I can discuss a specific subject with insight and intellegence. I'd like to use some good quotes about writers and isolation. The discussion is about what constitutes the "life of a writer." She says that it's all about feelings of isolation that come from spending lots of time in one's own head, when one writes a lot. I don't know if I agree or disagree yet. I don't have time to think about it this afternoon. I'll think about it tonight, but I'm going to be brain-smooshingly exhausted and I could use some quotes, just in case I can't think of anything smart to say on my own. I fully realize that this is kind of sleazy, but QUICK QUICK HURRY! Thanks in advance.
J
Brian:
Agreed on _Millennium_. They cancel all the good shows - too thought-provoking for the General Public, I assume. Much like the oft-mentioned _Nowhere Man_ - and yet, _The