Oscar's Cinema Journal 2005

Maybe I should have this "coffret." Good practice for my French, and if Rivette is as good as you guys are saying he is, this should convince me. I wonder if they have subtitles in French for the hearing impaired as an option on the DVD's. That has worked very well for a number of Italian films I have watched both at home and on the UC campus in the past year or two, that they had subtitles in Italian for the "non udenti," and so I've had help following the dialogue without having the distraction of an English translation. Can you find it at a bargain price?

You can buy it at Amazon's french site but I don't know if the dvds have subtitles in French for the hearing impaired. I haven't seen Gang of Four (1988), but it's available here and Rosenbaum states it's an "ideal introduction" to Rivette. I will rent it sometime this year.

Sunday June 5th

Passions (Russia, 1994) on region 1 dvd
Directed by the highly regarded Kira Muratova who's the subject of a traveling retrospective called "Take No Prisoners: The Bold Vision of Kira Muratova". The first film of hers I've ever seen and the only one to win a Russian Academy Award (Nika) for Best Picture. Paradoxically, not one preferred by her enthusiastic followers. Passions (or "Avocations" as the title is translated on the dvd) begins at a waterfront hospital where a jockey(Sasha) and a circus performer (Violetta) are nursing on-the-job injuries. Violetta and nurse Lilya are drawn to Sasha and his visitors_ jockeys, groomers, promoters and trainers of race horses. After Violetta recovers, she and Lilya pay a visit to the hippodrome and stud farm where loopy conversations and wacky interactions take place. These characters are very sharply drawn and quite differentiated, except they all share Muratova's fascination with animals. They might remind you of characters from movies by Fellini or Kusturica. The whole film takes place outdoors, except for a scene under a circus tent when Violetta returns home.
I was consistently amused by these personalities and their antics and fascinated by the racing and circus subcultures depicted by Muratova. On the other hand, there is really nothing earth-shattering going on here at any level. Violetta's search for a partner for her circus act and the rivalry between two jockeys don't lead up to dramatic payoffs. The luscious colors, expressive use of lights, unexpected jump cuts and attractive image composition make Passions a pleasure to watch from first to last frame. Regrettably, as it is apparently their custom, the folks at RUSCICO (Russian Cinema Council) have released the film on a pan-and-scan version that robs you of about 30 % of the visual information originally served up by Ms. Muratova.

Wouldn't it cost a lot for shipping from amazon.fr?

Yes, it's expensive. EUR 10.90 to the USA.

Monday June 6th

Eunjangdo (South Korea, 2003) on region 3 dvd
The title refer to a type of pocket knife, usually made of silver, that women used in the past "to protect their reputation from unscrupulous men". The movie's protagonist is a girl whose stern father gives her a "eunjangdo" when she lives her small town to attend college in Seoul. Billed as a sex comedy, Eunjangdo is neither sexy nor funny.

Cinderella Man (USA, 2005) at AMC CocoWalk.

I'm a sucker for a working-class hero and that's exactly what pugilist James J. Braddock (Russell Crowe) was to millions of Americans (and Irish) during the Great Depression. Then again, it's Ron Howard directing so I knew not to expect any deviation from mainstream moviemaking formulas. More problematically, it's a script by Akiva Goldsman, who excised everything remotely controversial from John F. Nash's life and misrepresented schizophrenia's symptomatology in the reductive and dishonest A Beautiful Mind.

Cinderella Man's protagonist was, by all accounts, a remarkably decent family man, thus a more appropriate subject for Howard and Goldsman. Braddock's riches-to-rags-to-riches tale, particularly his unlikely victory over Max Baer for the title, is quite inspirational. It was very moving to witness his struggle to provide for his wife (Renee Zellweger) and kids during some very lean years. As Rosenbaum states, "despite the effective fight sequences, it's more about what it means to have your electricity shut off". Cinderella Man is both a boxing flick and a Depression drama and it succeeds on both counts. It's an old-fashioned, "A" production that breaks no new ground, but it will move you and entertain you for a short 144 minutes.

I am sure the word "manipulative" will make an appearance on a review or two. It's not out of place. For starters, I have a personal distaste for the wall-to-wall musical scoring that accompanies this type of Hollywood film. To me, it feels like watching a comedy with a laugh track. It feels dictatorial and overly emphatic to me, at least this time. There are other problems. Chief among them is how Max Baer (Craig Bierko) is depicted as an outright villain; a hulking, murderous monster half-a-foot taller than Crowe's Braddock . The real Baer was a more complex individual, and no taller than Braddock (this is relevant because the size discrepancy between the actors is utilized to make Braddock's victory practically miraculous). Cinderella Man's flaws and limitations did not detract from my overall enjoyment of the film. I recommend it.

I enjoyed the movie (I don't know if that comes through in my review at all, though I do compliment various elements in what I wrote) but I found some of the ideas at least mildly offensive. "Working class hero" is somewhat a misnomer for Crowe. Is a champion boxer really working class? Wasn't Crowe's aim to become a property owner? His giving back of his public assistance money to the state is symbolic of a pro-capitalist, free enterprise stance. That was my reaction anyway. I found that gesture and the emphasis on it offensive. Similar with the taking of the son back to the meat and poultry store with the sausage he stole. Sure, you can't teach your son to steal. But the message being telegraphed is that private property is more important than human misery, poverty and hunger. Hence in a socialist sense, and is this any surprise? Ron Howard's movie is not celebrating a working class hero but coopting the concept of one. On the other hand, the scene of Joe Gold's empty apartment sheds a tear for the bourgeoisie. But the boxing commissioner, with his burtal veniality and greed for money -- very much a Forties style black and white villain, much like Max Baer, whom you point out the weaknesses of that I only hinted at -- is definitely the working class point of view.

First of all I would question whether Braddock in fact is a working class hero in the classic sense or rather a hero of American capitalism. Second whatever you answer to that I would question whether Ron Howard's ultra conventional mainstream American middle class white views can properly be considered germane to the concept of a real working class hero. We live in a country where the working class hero, the union organizer or union leader, has gone steadily down the tubes along with the major unions. How about a sentimentnal melodrama about that? But what has sentimental melodrama got to do with the elucidation of class issues? The phrase, "working class," does contain the word "class."

I know that your views are not that different from mine. My aim isn't to try to start an argument or contrast our positions. I am only trying to bring up these issues for further discussion.

Originally posted by Chris Knipp
. "Working class hero" is somewhat a misnomer for Crowe. Is a champion boxer really working class? Wasn't Crowe's aim to become a property owner? His giving back of his public assistance money to the state is symbolic of a pro-capitalist, free enterprise stance. That was my reaction anyway. I found that gesture and the emphasis on it offensive. Similar with the taking of the son back to the meat and poultry store with the sausage he stole. Sure, you can't teach your son to steal. But the message being telegraphed is that private property is more important than human misery, poverty and hunger. Hence in a socialist sense, and is this any surprise? Ron Howard's movie is not celebrating a working class hero but coopting the concept of one.

We can debate about whether Crowe's Braddock is a "working class hero" (but I'd say Braddock was inarguably a hero to the working classes). Braddock as portrayed was no activist and had little or no class consciousness. He was law-abiding and self-reliant (when he had the means). Does any of this disqualifies him as a "working class hero"? Isn't it sufficient to have no means to support your family, experience abject poverty, have the courage to take advantage of a small window of opportunity, and provide inspiration and solace to millions?

Tuesday June 7th

Las Aventuras de Robinson Crusoe (Mexico, 1952)
English-language feature by Luis Bunuel, shot in Manzanillo on the Mexican west coast, based of course on Daniel Dafoe's 18th century novel. A lamentably forgotten quantity until it was digitalized and restored on the occassion of its 50th anniversary. Now available on dvd for your pleasure and edification. Robinson Crusoe is a remarkable adventure film in gorgeously quaint PatheColor, faithful to Dafoe's prose_no attempt is made to obscure the fact that Crusoe was a slave trader who, not unlike the average 17th century European, regarded his racial and cultural superiority as a given. Irish actor Dan O'Herlihy got a deserved Oscar nomination from the Academy and Jaime Fernandez is very good as Friday. A couple of events provide Bunuel opprtunities to indulge his skills as a purveyor of surreal imagery, and of course, it's Friday who stumps Crusoe during a theological debate.
This is my third viewing of it since its release last fall. This time, at my son's insistence.

A very good point about Braddock: he may very well have been a "hero of the working classes." The more fool they. In a way you are also right that Braddock's story as presented by Howard's movie is of a "working class hero." But that is to take the phrase out of its usual context of having relation to socialist ideas, which neither your reading of the film nor Braddock's life bears out, I believe. Even the most common use of the phrase in current popular discourse, John Lennon's song, is a clear allusion to socialist ideas, which he was always aware of and influenced by, despite drifting away from the British context of his original socialst influences and becoming a millionaire. "They hate you if you're clever and despise a fool. Till you're so fucking crazy you can't follow their rules. A working class hero is something to be." The phrase even in Lennon's song suggests social revolution and awareness of the exploitation of the underclass by the establishment. Braddock shows no such awareness or impulses.

I agree that within the context of the term "working class hero" as having "relation to socialist ideas", Braddock does not qualify as one. Whether this is the "usual" context is debatable. Certainly that is the context provided by John Lennon in that fierce song.

Wednesday June 8th

The Magnificent Amberson (1942) on Japanese dvd

Orson Welles' follow-up to Citizen Kane is the best American film not available on dvd in the USA. Ambersons is the most detestable example of a studio butchering a sound film as delivered complete by its director. Then again, how is it possible that a 131-minute film is cut by about 45-50 minutes, then have a new ending added and still be a masterpiece?

"About 45 minutes were cut out_the heart of the picture ,really_for which the first part had been a preparation. It looks as if somebody had run a lawn-mower through the celluloid" (Welles) "It is known, for example, that Welles shot a lot of footage of the growing, ever-industrializing town, clearly it was to have been used as a counterpoint to the Amberson's decline. Ambersons is a mutilated work. It is the most amazing that so much of Welles' conception survived the release print" (Bogdanovich)
RKO directed editor Robert Wise to cut the film after a sneak preview. "He also wrote and directed two short scenes to bridge some major eliminations and a closing sequence" that drasticaly changes the tone. (Doug McClelland, "The Unkindest Cuts", 1972)
"We had a picture with major problems, and I feel all of us tried sincerely to keep the best of Welles" concept and still lick the problems. Since Ambersons has become a classic, I think it's now apparent we didn't mutilate Orson's film". (Robert Wise)

My interpretation of what Wise meant by "major problems", based on my multiple viewings and the research I've done, is that these problems are in terms of the perceived commercial viability of a "gloomy" film longer than two hours, who documents the gradual fall of an aristocratic family and the multi-faceted changes caused by industrialization and new technologies. A lot of what it was cut out by RKO was this type of material. Moreover, scenes that do not necessarily propel the narrative, such as one in which "the camera roamed the sheeted , empty rooms of the once lively Ambersons household" (McClelland), were destroyed to prevent the original cut from being reassembled. What seems to have been left fairly intact are scenes that pertain to the double, thwarted romances between Morgans and Ambersons, which were thought to have more audience appeal. Every scene shot by Welles is absolutely masterful, and the love stories have an awesome emotional impact, but the larger context and the counterpoint intended by Welles are minimally present on the final cut. Despite Wise's assertions to the contrary, there are at least two scenes that were crudely shortened in a way that clashes with the fluidity of the scenes that were left intact. Paramount among the latter, the scene of the Winter's Ball, during the first half of the film, with its long uninterrupted takes and intricate choreography.

I'm sorry; I used the wrong word. Concerning "working class hero, its "usual" context is not the issue. What I ought to have said is that no matter how it gets watered down in current usage, its proper context is socialist. The phrase by its very nature is socialist, conscious of class and of a working class, which is the core Marxist concept. I was describing this Ron Howard process as co-opting. That is the nature of his game. There is no doubt about his skill at it. And above all his sincere manner. And one can enjoy the movie while still noting what's going on.

The Magnificent Ambersons--an impressive film, but (of course?) not as much so as Citizen Kane. Welles's carreer is a long catalogue of disasters, I gather, and that's not unrelated to his obviously destructive lifestyle, so everyone is to blame, not just the studio -- which he chose to buck in Quixotic fashion? But nonetheless he did produce masterpieces.

My views on Welles will probably appear one-sided to you. I think he had the "Midas touch" so to speak. Because of Hollywood and its henchmen, and lazy writers who regurgitate a distorted view of Welles as an artist and as a man, I get angry when it gets propagated. I'm trying to give the most benign interpretation possible to your description of his career as "a catalogue of disasters". Otherwise, it sounds to me like you're not quite well informed regarding Welles and his films, or you have not had enough experience with them. I'm game, but it could get quite pointed.
I've always wanted to quote the great Andre Bazin. This is from his "Orson Welles: A Critical View":

" The Magnificent Ambersons is probably no less important than Citizen Kane; it's even possible to prefer it. This in fact is the opinion of Orson Welles, whom I have heard contrast the unity and simplicity of Ambersons' style to the bric-a-brac of Citizen Kane. Basically, what is essential in the stylistic inventions of the first recurs with greater mastery and is more intelligently pared down in the second, even pushed even further. The social impact of the subject, turns up again, with perhaps more subtlety and depth in this evocation, at once realistic and critical, of America at the end of the 19th and the beginning of the 20th century."

Basically, I think every film directed by Welles is a masterpiece of one kind or another (or they all come quite close to it). That is if one's concept of a masterpiece can accomodate mutilated films and fragments of films.

I've really enjoyed reading your comments on Welles, Oscar. I've watched a couple of his films recently, and I'm struck at how ahead of his time he was. Touch of Evil and The Lady from Shanghai are remarkably different types of films than was typical of that era. The freedom he gave his actors (including himself) and the unique camera work were groundbreaking. The Hollywood studios at the time didn't know what to do with him. What if he were alive making movies today? I watched Touch of Evil twice back to back just to be sure I wasn't missing anything. It's a fascinating film, beyond just the story. Watching Welles reinforces my appreciation of film.

I also appreciate your comments on Othello in another thread. I've got the DVD now, but I want to read the play first. I'll post my thoughts (surely to be positive) after viewing the film.

And surprisingly I've never seen The Magnificent Ambersons, primarily for the reason that it's not available on DVD here (as you stated.)

Well, I have seen The Magnificent Andersons, several times, in a theater and at home. Believe me, I love Orson Welles and his directing. You should give the most benign interpretation possible of my phrase "catalogue of disasters." I didn't mean Welles's work was that. I meant his career was, particularly as time went on. Obviously he was a genius and a filmmaking and theatrical prodigy. He was also a remarkable actor, who could be hammy but was always compulsively watchable. As a director he obviously did produce masterpieces, but to say that everything Welles ever did was one, or nearly one, is overzealous -- under-selective -- thoough given the force of his personality it's easy to see how someone could go that way. I personally don't know that I'd say that of anybody. Vermeer is arguably a perfect painter, but not all of his paintings are equally fine. I don't know of any artist who produced nothing of clearly lesser quality to his best work. "Even Homer nods," as the saying goes. You may also have a reply to wpqx's recent entry apropos of F Is for Fake (http://www.filmwurld.com/forums/show...1179#post11179):

Quote:

---

Welles spent the majority of his life running out of patience. He seemed to have the attention span of a perpetually 8 year old boy. Welles at the source was also seldom if ever original. Come to think of it, I don't think there is an Orson Welles film not based on the work of someone else, closest being Citizen Kane, which in turn was more the brainchild of Mankiewicz, at least the sotry of it. . . .I will always feel a slight melancholy watching the work of Welles, because it is so damn tragic, and Welles wasn't the victim. He welcomed his own destruction, and had the ambition to make the greatest films of all time, but lacked the determination to finish anything.

---

Myth? Or reality? Am I ignorant? Do I make you mad -- or does wpqx? I'm sorry. As usual, you've probably seen or read everything you could get your hands on by or about Orson Welles, while I've seen only a few and read little. This is the IMDb's list of his directing work, with the TV ones excluded, and I've marked those few I have seen. Some of them are masterpieces, not all. Some of the fine ones show visible and audible signs of production problems, due to funding shortfalls -- a fact that makes your use of the phrase "Midas touch" rather ironic. The ones JustaFied lists are safe bets. I also liked and remember The Chimes at Midnight, Othello (though its patchwork production aspect makes it feel a bit chaotic), The Trial. Bazin says it is possible to prefer The Magnificent Andersons to Citizen Kane. He doesn't say you have to. As one of his great early films it's certainly as important though. I think I saw Don Quijote; but I don't remember it very well; maybe I'm wrong. Some of Welles's cameos are masterpieces; certainly the one in The Third Man is one and I believe the key lines of it he wrote. I'm not sure if a masterpiece concept can accomodate mutilated film, but it might. The trouble though is that the presence of mutilated film may be a sign of problems of other kinds.

One wouldn't want to so heavily idolize Wellse as to neglect the collective aspect of his filmmaking. He's a "great personality," but his collaborations with the Mercury Theater, Eric Ambler, Joseph Cotton and others are important to emphasize, I'd think. I understand that his images in Citizen Kane and Ambersons owe a lot to the visual and lighting style of the period (which his work transcends but very much grows out of) and the cinematography of Greg Toland. wpqx also notes that he was, in effect, not a creative storyteller but an adapter. But then, of course, so was Shakespeare -- let me anticipate that argument. The point is thouth, that as a filmmaker he dependon on others and worked from the ideas of others to an even greater than average degree. He is a stylist, and a stager.


Moby Dick (1999)
*It's All True (1993)
*Don Quijote de Orson Welles (1992)...
The Spirit of Charles Lindbergh (1984)
Filming 'Othello' (1978)
*F for Fake (1974)
The Other Side of the Wind (1972)
London (1971)
The Deep (1970)
The Southern Star (1969) (opening scenes; uncredited)
The Immortal Story (1968)
*The Chimes at Midnight (1965)
*The Trial (1962)
No Exit (1962) (uncredited)
David and Goliath (1960) (his own scenes; uncredited)
*Touch of Evil (1958)
*Mr. Arkadin/Confidential Report (1955)
*The Tragedy of Othello: The Moor of Venice (1952)
Black Magic (1949) (uncredited)
Macbeth (1948)
*The Lady from Shanghai (1947)
The Stranger (1946)
Journey Into Fear (1943) (uncredited)
*The Magnificent Ambersons (1942)
*Citizen Kane (1941)
Too Much Johnson (1938)
The Hearts of Age (1934)

I think it's exceedingly apparent from watching his fiction films that Welles was most creative and innovative. To say otherwise, based on the fact that Mr. Arkadin is his only fiction feature not stemming from existing text, constitutes a negation of the creativity inherent in the long process of turning words into images. I know this is not your opinion Chris, and I'm not sure the other member's comments argue so precisely.

I have a lot to say about F For Fake and it's dialectic cousin It's All True. Look for my comments on this thread, as I plan to watch both again. I hope to also discuss Welles' tendency to juxtapose and combine fiction and documentary within the same film. I think any film buff who neglects to experience his essay films and his European, made-for-tv stuff is missing out.

There are more than 3 hours of Don Quijote footage in the hands of different people, most of them European former collaborators. Portions of this footage have been assembled twice, with most Welles scholars preferring the 40 minutes Costa-Gavras edited for exhibition at '86 Cannes to the longer one edited by Jess Franco from footage belonging to the Cinemateca de Madrid. The major problem with the latter appears to be the total absence of the framing devise: Welles as himself relating the story to a 12 year-old actress who plays a small role in the fiction scenes. There are efforts underway to release a more complete version.

Thursday June 9th

Persona (Sweden, 1966) on dvd
A Poem in Images (2004) documentary short.

Ingmar Bergman states that, during a hospital stay, he was anesthetized and for 6 hours he lost his sense of time-passage and his self-consciousness. During the following fourteen days, her wrote the screenplay for Persona, practically a soliloquy. Nurse Alma is assigned to care for actress Elizabeth, who has apparently developed a psychosomatic illness and become mute and withdrawn. This story has a prologue and epilogue consisting of a variety of briefly seen images that impact on the main story and may affect your interpretation of it. Interpretations vary, and I'd argue that not any single one explains it all satisfactory. Among them: a story of psychic vampirism, a lesbian romance, the depersonalization of a nurse when isolated with a patient with a dominant personality, the projection of a bespectacled pre-teen boy's imagination, a treatise of portrait photography, a unique case of personality transference, etc.
The documentary directed by Greg Carson and featuring interviews with actresses Bibi Andersson and Liv Ullman, Bergman, Bergam historian Marc Gervais and others yields no clues. It helps deepen its many mysteries.
An absolute must-watch. On Ebert's Top 10 All Time. He's not the only one.

I didn't leave the TV Welles things out because I thought they were insignificant; I was just not very sure what most of them were and I was trying to simplify the list to post here. You are obviuosly a great devotee of Welles; I too have always considered him one of the great American directors. No one will challenge you there, I don't think. I don't know what David Thompson would say. He seems to be a kook.

Cool. I enjoy good stuff like the BBC series Around the World with Orson Welles but Filming "Othello" (made in Germany in '78) is reportedly brilliant but yet unseen by me.

Originally posted by JustaFied
I've really enjoyed reading your comments on Welles, Oscar. I've watched a couple of his films recently, and I'm struck at how ahead of his time he was. I also appreciate your comments on Othello in another thread. I've got the DVD now, but I want to read the play first. I'll post my thoughts (surely to be positive) after viewing the film.

Thanks. I'm glad you enjoyed them. I also posted regarding Welles on the "Last Film" thread. I plan to watch other Welles films again this year and post here. I am very much looking forward to your comments regarding Othello. I plan to buy it on dvd from Korea because it includes English subs along with the same extras as the Region 1 disc. Given the abridgment, one wouldn't want to miss a single word.

Friday June 10th

The Lost Patrol (USA, 1934) on PAL dvd (France)
John Ford's tale of a British patrol lost in a Mesopotamian desert in 1917 that comes under attack by an unseen enemy. Well-written dialogue throughout. Anti-Arab sentiments respectably subdued. Ford regular Victor McLaglen wonderful, as usual, as the Sergeant. Boris Karloff should have been embarrased by his over-the-top, hysterical perf as the "born-again" Sanders. This one told me all I need to know about Karloff's acting range.