Favorites Of 1999

[Johann]

You're very very welcome.

We can't ever forget the Master.

Your eyes will be widened with Chion's book.
He's thinks Eyes Wide Shut & Barry Lyndon are Kubrick's best films. Can't argue with that...

It's a small book, but it's jammed from cover to cover with intellectual (illuminating) & relevant info.

It's the best book I've read on the movie.

He also tells us why Tom Cruise's performance is remarkable.
That role goes against his whole "persona".
He's homogenic, he speaks and acts slowly, etc..
I can see why Tom got an ulcer making the film.


There's a line in Barry Lyndon that corresponds with Nicole's in EWS:

Nora Brady to Redmond:
You haven't looked properly

[oscar jubis]

Your eyes will be widened with Chion's book.
He's thinks Eyes Wide Shut & Barry Lyndon are Kubrick's best films. Can't argue with that...

It's a small book, but it's jammed from cover to cover with intellectual (illuminating) & relevant info.

It's the best book I've read on the movie.

He also tells us why Tom Cruise's performance is remarkable.
That role goes against his whole "persona".
He's homogenic, he speaks and acts slowly, etc..
I can see why Tom got an ulcer making the film.

Well you were right. Chion's book on EYES WIDE SHUT is everything you say it is. Thanks.

On another note, that refers to my original topic of Best Films of 1999: I have changed my opinion about a film I listed as #5 in the foreign-language list: HUMANITE (Bruno Dumont/ France). I watched the film again tonight. I still think Dumont is a very interesting filmmaker and I hope to catch up with his last two films soon. I still appreciate the absurdist touches in the film and I find reasons to justify the close-ups of vaginas some may find gratuitous. My issue is that I don't believe in the protagonist. Rosenbaum's admiring review states: "I'll concede that he's not entirely believable...", which is for me is a serious flaw given his constant presence, centrality to the narrative, etc. The '99 foreign list has been edited to mark this change of opinion.
I still think EYES WIDE SHUT and THE WIND WILL CARRY US were the best in cinema that year.

[Johann]

I agree.

And I'm glad you read Chion's BFI book- it sits on a shelf in my house with pride.
BTW, can I buy your book from you directly? Signed? :)

[oscar jubis]

So nice of you to show interest in it. I'd send you a signed book but all that's left is my own copy. Martel's trilogy is definitely a must-watch and well worth studying. The book is a revised version of a thesis I wrote in 2009 which I insisted on making available for free because of the institutional pricing adopted by the publisher.
Free download here:
http://scholarlyrepository.miami.edu/oa_theses/234/

My most recent publication consists of a couple of essays included in this book, released 2 mos. ago on Intellect Press:
http://www.amazon.com/Directory-Worl.../dp/1841505633
If you like French cinema, or are curious about it, I highly and prejudicially recommend it.

I am in the tortuous process of writing a second book, with the very provisional title:
Freedom and Closure in Modernist Cinema: Antonioni/Resnais/Duras/Haneke/Martel
I expect to finish it next spring and then submit to editors and peers for review.
If all goes well, that is.

[Johann]

Fair enough.
I don't think I'd have enough to say to fill out a whole book, on one film one director or many.
So Bravo to you for being able to do it!

[Chris Knipp]

Thanks for this info, Oscar. I'll look into the open access 2009 download. Have you written about Antonioni, or is that coming?

[oscar jubis]

Thanks Chris and Johann. I've written an introduction and I'm about 20 pages into the Antonioni chapter. I've read a lot of Antonioni material lately and perhaps the key Antonioni debate in film studies is how one should read the images he uses to narrate. There is a group who advocates reading the images as simple metonyms, which goes hand in hand with thinking of him as a realist/documentarist director vs. others who advocate a more symbolic and metaphorical approach to interpretation that think of M.A. predominantly as a visual poet. There are many nuances to this issue, but I explain it in a dialectic, either/or fashion for the sake of clarity.