{THE PILL BOX } spacer
powered by blogger


At some point I really want to have a major grouse about FILM 4...

The handful of decent / interesting / brilliant / rarely screened / European films that they actually have - why are they ALL, without exception, put out after midnight, whilst the prime time spot is reserved for the likes of 4 Weddings & A Funeral, Mickey Blue Eyes, etc, etc, etc... even 'classics' like Apocalyspe Now and Godfather - I mean, is there anyone in the world who HASNT seen them, and seen them a few times? Shouldnt part of their remit - especially as they already have E4 to punt out the junk and floss - be ...
O, I was going to do a proper entry about this, with names, dates, examples and a great quote I found somewhere earlier today...

(God, I was SO pissed off with them this week: not only La Belle et Le Bete, but a fantastic rare Sergio Corbucci which I REALLY wanted to see (... but just couldnt stay awake for). I mean - it's not like these are violent quasi-porn or anything, is it? They could put them on ANY time ...

And I mean: how hard could it be to whip up a bit of interest in something like Cocteau's Belle et la Bete? Or brilliant recent Almodovar? If they just put a BIT of thought and flair into advertising these films, they could soon develop a little core audience. It's complacent - and it undervalues the audience's intelligence and broadmindedness. There are LOADS of ways of 'selling' non-mainstream films, and... o, LOVEJOY's on. More later.

posted by Ian 9/07/2006 07:21:00 PM

'This week on film4 : Tough Guys!'
'This week on film4 : Icons!'
Yawn. They expected me to pay for this?

Until the mid-80s, BBC2 and C4 used to have all kinds of great stuff on filmwise. Looks like that was an 'old-fashioned' 'Reithian' move to show Stroszek or Los Ovalvidos (or even non-Zombie Romero). Last outlet for that kinda stuff was Alex Cox Moviedrome seasons (remember them? film seasons? Ealing, Welles, Brando, Lang etc. now your best bet is to see all 3 Indiana Jones movies in a row).

But modern market logic doesn't provide anything 'free' when you can buy it instead (look at libraries). Probably why the record shops are becoming DVD shops nowadays.
Now TV's idea of 'outre' is documentaries about people who's lives were ruined by being on TV. Even their best sitcoms are on after 11.oopm, at irregular hours.
Buy a VCR.
Why 'buy' TV when it was once 'free'?
Not unlike 'radio on records' - also known as DJ 'mixes'. Filling a gap in the market, cos of the pisspoor standards of radio shows these days...
Remeber when TV and radio was meant to INTRODUCE the public to new music/movies - not assume that we make our entertainment choices within the safe confines of previous tastes?
I dont want to 'tape' everything (and never watch it "later"). I want to be sucked into its logic NOW. I want the CHOICE. Besides, its Film4 thats making a BIG DEAL in its current advertising campaign, whats the tag line, 'Great Films ... FOR FREE'. With the FOR FREE in bold. But then they give you their list of films - Lock Stock and Two SMoking Barrels, L.A. Confidiential, Cose Encounters ... I've seen all these films, countless times, already, on Tv, "FOR FREE". SO whats the big deal here? The big deal WOULD be if they had the guts to go against the post-Loaded 'consensus' grain and be a genuinely international film channel. Instead, lets call a spade a spade - whats in operation here is CULTURAL APARTHEID. If it speaks English - no matter how crass or lame or straight to video it is - it gets prime time. If it doesn't, it's literalyl EXILE to the hinterlands of no-one-will-bother. Christ - lookit this Friday - a fantastic double of Wong Kar Wei's IN THE MOOD FOR LOVE / 2046. (I've seen the former, but not the latter. This is not "difficult" cinema. ) But again - it gets the post midnight slot. Christ, if they cant or cant be bothered, to sell Wong Kar Wei or Almodovar, what chance has other, risky, cinema got? I'm not saying risky cinema is "better for us" - in any way shape of form - I'm just saying I would like one or two nights a week where I had the CHOICE.
BBC 4 seems to treat their films better, so maybe Film four (and channel four) has become populated with callow Endemol trainees...
Filmfour/C4 seems obsessed with the afterpub 18-35 bachelor boy audience. They're not that much of a majority/tyranny (despite what advertisers/programmers/brewers etc. keep telling us).
p.s. '2046' has to be the most disappointing movie I've seen this century so far...
The irony is, these are not boring or overly 'cerebral' films, some of them. the rare Corbucci Western they threw away after midnight the other weekend - mega mega mega MEGA 'cool', by ANYONE's lights. But because its never been mentioned in dispatches... well, who knows.
in my new role as MR ECONOMICS i wonder if there isn't a relationship between the niche-market availability of all these films on DVD -- essential to their viability in the first place, in the case of the recent ones anyway -- and the deals cut by the licensers w.TV

ie a primetime showing on a reasonably accessible "arty" channel = loses "billions" (well thousands) in sales, so they whack up their cut in the licensing negotiations, which makes it only broadcastable at a million o'clock

the lads demographic is about the ad slot, i presume -- advertisers still bein synergy-simple abt their new-found ability to target* male insecurity EVEN MORE FIERCELY than women's mag have targeted female ditto lo these many decades

*like almost all advertising, the reality behind the marketing potential it is barely there, but too much hope is invested for them to acknowledge this yet
Yes but surely thats what E4 is for (and, increasingly, sadly, the main channel, not to mention E4+1 or whatever it's called, out on the periphery)...

Besides which, you would have to be more specific around some of these terms.
LAD/ette at its purest would be like, 14 year old kids up to mid 20s social animals I presume; and they will be out boozing, picking up sex partners, or nicking cars, or whatever it is the Young Folk do these days.
They already have KNOCK OFF copies of all the classics they want, both past and present - so FILM $'s current roster holds NIL interest for them.
A step up from this, (unmarried) lads and ladettes with disposable income, the sort of audience that the glossier film mags have tapped into quite successfully, ARE interested in 'cinema' - the cinema going and mag reading stats show this.
My point is that it is precisely THIS audience that could be TEMPTED into slightly stronger or stranger fare, without too much trouble. I suspect that this audience - cine literate to a large degree - would actually find far more PLEASURE in certain modern Asian or European films, than they would with, I dunno, Mickey Blue Eyes or poor remakes of already poor movies (like Italian Job, which Film 4 had the sheer audacity to trumpet as something exciting!). Something like CORBUCCI, again - I doubt that is even available on DVD; or if it is, very few people would know enough about Corbucci to take a risk on spending money on it. It is VERY niche. Which is perhaps where your supposition wobbles, Mark - surely the better otpion for ALL concerned (economically) wold be if FILM 4 worked slightly in concert with DVD companies and BFI or whoever - to CULTIVATE an audience which CURRENTLY doesnt know much about Non-UK/USA cinema, but, which might BEGIN to spend money on stuff they wouldnt previously have known or thought about.
I mean, there are only so many times even someone who likes it can watch Lock Stock & Two More Mockney Accents - and if advertised properly, this same viewer would, I think, EMBRACE the new wave, say, of stlyishly violent Asian cinema; or old skool Melville, say. And rather than spoiling their (at best, niche) DVD sales - this would act, in a sense like unpaid advertising for future releases from these same smaller DVD companies.
Everyone wins.
well that all makes sense EXCEPT i think this demographic (as an ad-sales-pitch not as a reality) is about the fostering of insecurity -- there's a "wouldn't be seen dead in a polo-neck readin poetry" fear-of-curiosity element to its defn of maleness which makes for tremendous UNriskiness and hence contraction of what's on offer not expansion

whoever realise that the reality is -- bcz human and therefore quickly bored and naturally curious -- more open to exploration than not will make a little killing (maybe)

however the licensing argument is abt bottom line and therefore harder to game (if remotely correct) (which as it's just a guess it vmay not be!)
Another problem with DVD niche marketing is that the foriegn or almost-forgotten 'cult classics' seem to retail at a higher price in the shops (why do all BFI releases cost 20 quid?) - further alienating the casual consumer, especially if they haven't been introduced in any way by TV or the press.

Another problem is newspaper reviews - even the floppiest of 'blockbusters' seem to warrant more column inches than movies we may actually wish to know about (i.e. the ones that don't enjoy saturation advertising in all media).

Broadsheets seem the worst offenders in trying to be young and 'cool' (who the hell hired Peter Bradshaw?!?).
The more high profile reviewers seem way too easily impressed by tits 'n' knives trash (Mark Commode) or presold 'franchise' machines (Wossy). It's like film critics are learning to regurtitate PR bullshit with the minimum of critical faculties.
i. they cost more bcz that proves they are "high end" aesthetically
ii. they cost more bcz they sell less copies and have to be priced higher to cover costs in the first place


(i agree that this is short-sighted and tiresome btw)

the revisionist resurrection of "the italian job" is lad-mag-world's ONE CRITICAL ACHIEVEMENT i think!! i am torn abt the film's value ever since a wise pal (and no lad) said to me that merely reactively hating on it (my default position till then) was the WORST KIND OF FILM ROCKISM -- and it IS a slightly fascinating artefact i think, subtext-wise*, even tho i DETEST MICHAEL CAINE w.a passion only slightly less than my j.nicholson hatred

actually i would like to be see IJ PROPERLY CARMODISED -- esp.in ref.its politics (cultural AND economic), and plus its attitude to europe (!) (minis vs the roman storm-drain system! WHERE IZ ZIZEK WHEN WE NEED HIM!)

*benny hill is in it! in a straight role! and what's that noel coward cameo abt??!

(yes i am sort of just bein contrary here but it IS an odder film than it seems to be)
"Something like CORBUCCI, again - I doubt that is even available on DVD; or if it is, very few people would know enough about Corbucci to take a risk on spending money on it. It is VERY niche."

it IS on DVD but it's high-end, £20 or so. i saw it poking out of the schedules at 12.20am too, on a monday: bastards.

it has two big stars ffs; they could have pushed it easily you would have thought.
'arty' dvds cost more coz of economies of scale. fewer units cost more. and you need big cojones to knock out the extra 5,000 of whatever it is to get the price down.

i don't think it's about confirming them as arty. (ok, sometimes it is: i spent insane money on warhol dvds from italy via ohio. but noshame is ok price, and given the added-value (ie fkn awesome transfer, extras, ect), criterion discs are WELL WORF IT)

FUNNILY ENOUGH it is the bfi that retails melville dvds. (actually bfi dvds are regularly cheapish...) but yeah if c4 grew a pair i'm sure they could do melvilles at 10pm.
the thing that confirms them as arty is that bit of yr id that lives in yr wallet

mark s: £45 -- i'm not paying that!
wallet superego: QUITE RIGHT TOO
wallet id: it's ok it's for ART!
all: HURRAH!
NB Mark - I was talking about the recent hollywood REMAKE of The Italian Job; another pointless remake of a 'classic' (argue that definition or value how we may) which seemed *especially* pointless if all that sustained the original WAS vaguely 'political' euro subtext and english camp value - take those out and all youre left with is another (yawn) car chase with ENTOURAGE style leads.
yes sorry i forgot yr actual point in my frenzy of gleeful contrarianism

this is i am still recovering from the discovery this mornin that tori amos has done cover version of CHAS N DAVE songs!! human culture has peaked and can now be wound down i think

Endless Japanese horror films
Endless American Horror films from the 70s
Point Blank (Payback - Mel ain't no Lee Marvin, who at least fought in wars instead of encouraging them)
Get Carter (Newcastle, Newcastle, Newcastle!)
Planet of the Apes (with that lame premise & hideous 'new' twist')
King Kong (So drawn out, none of the dreamlike beauty of the original, but the same racism. Hurrah!)
Superman returns (it even recycles jokes from the '78 version, without any of the original stars' charisma, charm or script)
The Whicker Man (with updated mysoginy, and a star so hammy he make Ed Woodward seem like Clint)
The godawful fucking Pink Panther
The Mean Machine/The Longest Yard (Vinnie Jones?!? ADAM SANDLER?!?)
Alfie (is it just me or is Jude Law in more films than any of the public wish him to be? Even more than 'the black Michael Caine' Samuel L. Jackson?)

A Fistfull of Dollars (Yojimbo)
Magnificent Seven (Seven Samaurai)
Scarface ("Say 'ello to my lil' fren')
Invasion of the Body Snatchers '78

The Italian Job
Casino Royale
War of the Worlds

p.s. I've noticed Jude Law and Samuel Jackson figure a lot in Film4's adverts. Those two names usually make me AVOID a film like the plague...
You left out the POINTLESS remake of Assault on Precinct 13 (hard to believe they bothered, but oh they did); and OCEANS 11 - which is in a category of its own, being rubbish and overrated to start with, and rubbish and overrated (VERY overrated) as a smug smug remake.

I avoid anything with Ewan Macgregor in. Is it just me - or, er, can he actually Not Act At All, within any real definition of acting? He was good in Trainspotting - but everything ever since, he just does that TWINKLY SMILE, and thinks it excuses everything...
What actually is the point - from the Studios point of view - of such remakes? Because snobs like me wont go to see them (in ANY format) ON PRINCIPLE; and it is (presumably) only such snobs who RECOGNISE the titles. The young movie going demographic (presumably) wouldnt know Lee Marvin (or John Boorman) (or the concept 'Nixonian allegory') from a hole in the ground. You take out all the original ingredients that made the fims what they were - youre just left with violent crime movies. So why not just commission a new violent crime movie? At first I thought this might be economics - that it could be cheaper to get a lease on an old property/script - but then, these idiotic remakes often employ whole TEAMS of extravagantly paid new writers to 'update' the original properties. So that cant be it, either.

And they all - well, 99% - seem to flop, critically and commerically. But they keep on churning them out...
Along similar lines... just trying to watch - yes, on Film 4 - League of Gentlemans Apocalypse. Oh dear oh dear oh dear. Oh dear. British cinema, eh?

I quite liked the original programmes. But making a film of it seems to make about as much sense as, i dont know, CORONATION STREET: THE MOVIE.

Who would have thought that 'post modernism' would have ended here: Chas n Dave songs, and lazy Dick Emery innunendo in overdrive.
turns out the chas and dave versions are GOOD tho!! (no, i didn't think they would be either)

i think the problem in movies is that restaging of an earlier era's stuff is LESS usual and routine than it should be -- it was common practice in the 20s and 30s and 50s -- but everyone's now so insecure and self-loathing and film-school oedipal towards the greats that any remake has to be pre-sold as a bizarre high-budget SPECIAL HOMMAGE TRANSFORMATION-ERADICATION THINGY

(anyway i blame HERZOG! nosferatu is the first of the post common-practice species of remake!)
Lock Stock & Two Smoking Barrles; 'Oh, isnt gun crme so awfully frightfully funny and chic!!'

Middle class scum.
Funny thing about remakes and oedipal self consciousness. I was watching this high tone arty slow as treacle film (oh, and it WAS a film , and not a movie) with Tilda bleedin Swinton the other night (The Deep End); and then about half, two thirds the way through, I realised I'd seen it before - it was a rip off (aka 're write') of some really good 50s film noir I saw last year.
So even when you dont KNOW it's a remake - it's still SHIT.
Oh, another category of Remake, with a field of one: the remake that I absolutely one hundred percent approved of IN THEORY, and so so so SO wanted to love... but, you know, guerilla contrarian that I am, I STILL just couldnt even sit through to the end of Gus Van Sant's PSYCHO remake, never mind rave about it.

(I *suppose* you *could* argue that *in its very failure* it tells us immense and crucial things about the difference between then and now, between movie actors then and now, and so on ... mmm?
'assault on precinct 14' was okay, i thought. ('13' was a remake of 'rio bravo' already.)

'the deep end' is based on an ophuls film, can't remember which. VERY boring remake.
i think these quiet under-the-radar restagings are more what i'm getting at, as the way into the potential richness -- if you keep the narrative shape but change the title and the mise-en-scene, then you don't put yourself in the position of some stupid dick-waving front-office sell, where you have to pimp off the energy of the original at the same time as outplaying it

velvet goldmine is a remake of citizen kane AND the man who fell to earth (which makes MWFTE a remake of kane! did anyone spot that before VG?) (ok i know many people think VG is terrible but i like it so bug-off)

(nic roeg? what does that remind me of? oh yes! bad timing = "columbo: the movie"!!!) (you will buckle and fold you will you will)

as clockwork caper movies go -- not a genre i like anyway -- the remake of "the thomas crown affair" was more watchable than the original (disclaimer: i am more allergic to steve mcqueen than to pierce brosnan) but it is entirely negligeable both times

has hollywood -- in fact cinema generally? -- entirely lost the ability to make films that are small and cheap and quick and strong? sam fuller-type movies, i guess i mean
does anyone still prefer the howard hawks "thing" to john carpenter's "thing"?
"has hollywood -- in fact cinema generally? -- entirely lost the ability to make films that are small and cheap and quick and strong? sam fuller-type movies, i guess i mean"

i think it lost this at the end of the grindhouse era (=late 70s?), if not before. migrated to tv...

i've seen the odd one that fits the profile, but seldom, and it's always obvious how much effort's gone into it.
presumably it's an economies-of-scale thing again -- this is only pointful at all if you make one a week

(presumably also the money that used to back exploitation quickies has gone into porn) (or else the fangoria end of horror)
I'm getting very sick of drawn out epics when what's required is brevity (remember storytelling?).
A case in point is the two versions of 'The Talented Mr. Ripley' the 1959 one with Alain Delon is 'small and cheap, quick and strong', tense, edgy and 80 minutes; with enough 'craft' to suggest all the themes that that awful Minghella version weakly laboured on with for three hours (with Jude fucking Law again).
Look at King Kong - for all its noise and bluster it was soooo boring and sooo long (note to peter Jackson the point is that Kong is a MONSTER not an 'authentic' ape).

One thing about Howard Hawks (unlike Hitchcock) is that his movies are easily translatable as remake material - he even remade his own movies. 'Red River' was remake of 'Mutiny on the Bounty'.'Assault on Precinct 13' was a remake of 'Rio Bravo'. And so on.

Now all the super heroes and the horror movies have been used up, I reckon we can expect to see 're-imaginings' of all the 70s conspiracy thrillers, The Wild Bunch, Chinatown, and a gulf vet Taxi Driver (and other 'edgy' Viet Nam era classics) sometime soon...
'homicide: life on the street' is probably the fuller equiv (rather than 'the sopranos' which is more... nick ray) 'these days'.

but i've not really seen it so that could be bollocks.
Actually, THE SHIELD is probably far more in the spirit of SAM FULLER than anything else extant;
a series which i absolutely loved, until this current series, when I tired of it (despite a series stealing 'cameo' from Forest Whitaker).
This raises interesting points, actually.
About how the complexity and urgency and fracturedness and violence of social reality is portrayed - something like the SHIELD doesnt try and 'sublimate' the often unappetising complexity into already extant genres (buddy buddy) as Hollywood persists in doing. In this respect, as in many others, the innovation and example of HILL STREET BLUES was crucial. (HILL STREET in turn, owed much to Altman; but an Altman that wasnt stoned and leisurly, but over caffeinated and of-the-minute in-yer-face.
Since HILL ST, television has been able to stage - in some ways - the REVENGE OF THE AUTEUR. (Sopranos, Curb Your Enthusiasm, South Park - you name it.) Whereas Hollywood fell prey to increasingly ridiculous and deadening influence of ACTOR POWER (and, within that, agent power) - putting 'packages' together that had NAMES that could weekend OPEN it (economic constraints again), HBo and others allowed this crack to open and develop for exercises that had all the 'depth' and technical quality of 70s cinema, but with the SPEED and jab and turnover of TV.
Here, one might lalso hazard a mention of BERLIN ALEXANDERPLATZ too - a big influence, so Michael Mann claimed at the time, on MIAMI VICE.

After HBO, the next big influence on thgns is going to be DVD - in ways that arent yet clear. (In 2003 in the USA, only $9.2 billion was spent at cinemas, compared to $22.5 billion on DVDs & videos.)
(The elephant in the room here, maybe, is PORN.)
yeah the dvd market (this is what i meant by FACTS in the other place) and how far hbo factor that into things, what proportion of income it is... this would be a fascinating story, no?

(because at a certain point the 100-min 'feature' film won't be the gold standard of moving-image entertainment?)
My guess is today's Hollywood 'openers' are tomorrows HBO leads. Larry David's or James Gandofilini's salaries probably dwarf that most of today's movie stars. The critical kudos and DVD revenues will probably attract a lot of 'name' actors into TV. The best directors and writers are there already - and the roles for women put most movies to shame (e.g. Glenn Close had her best role for decades in The Sheild).

We may see a sixtysomething Tom Cruise playing a preening egotistical twat in some legal drama (like William Shatner is now), Jim Carrey as a malevolent basket case, and Reese Witherspoon as a ruthless political operator. Less pressure to be lovable saviours could put some meat on their tiresome screen personas.
TV may also curb the excesses of the most indulged cinema 'auteurs' as well - let us pray for HBO to save us from another Oliver Stone 'message', or another overpriced, over-egged Terry Gilliam flop. And am I alone in thinking Tarantino's 'CSI' episodes were the best thing he's ever written?
i don't know whether it's overpriced -- it looks quite small -- but terry gilliam's recent TIDELAND is the best film he's made, by a long way

OH!! Dont even get this COMMENT BOX started on much CSI MIAMI has been RUINED by precisely what I was talking about above: Actorly ego getting in the way of autuer-led collectivity. (Is that last phrase an oxymoron? So be it!). I forget the actors name now (HUURRAAAY!) but Horatio has gotten further and further away each week from being a convincing CSI, and more and more just a dud xerox of some Hollwood actioner's improbably saintly gruff buddy cop. Whereas Wiliam Petersen (in CSI VEGAS) has put together a really odd, interesting persona... (the first 'Lady Heather' episode was brilliant!).
Re: Gilliam.

The one with Jeff Bridges and Robin Williams in was HALF a great film.

Just to make you jealous - this week's programme for my local cinema (Helsinki's Orion). 4 euros a pop. I love living here. Can't even imagine switching on the TV any more.

12.9. tiistai
(La Charme discret de la bourgeoisie/Borgerskapets diskreta charm), Ranska/Espanja/Italia 1972
Fernando Rey, Paul Frankeur, Delphine Seyrig o svenska texter o K15 o 102 min o 2. esitys

19:00 · René Allio: VANHA HÄVYTÖN NAINEN
(La vieille dame indigne/En otacksam gammal dam), Ranska 1965
Sylvie, Malka Ribovska, Etienne Bierry o suom. tekstit/svenska texter o S o 96 min o uusinta: 15.9.

20:45 · John Cassavetes: AVIOMIEHET
(Husbands/Äkta män), USA 1970
Ben Gazzara, Peter Falk, John Cassavetes o suom. tekstit/svenska texter o K11 o 132 min o uusinta: 15.9.

13.9. keskiviikko
(I dokumentärens kärna 30: Sväng och toner 1928-1939), Suomi
o o koonneet Ilkka Kippola, Jari Sedergren ja Juha Seitajärvi o esittelee Juha Seitajärvi o S o 85 min

18:45 · John Cassavetes: MINNIE JA MOSKOWITZ
(Minnie and Moskowitz/Minnie och Moskowitz), USA 1971
Gena Rowlands, Seymour Cassel, Val Avery o K15 o 115 min o uusinta: 16.9.

(Le Moïne/Munken och djävulen), Ranska/Italia/BRD 1972
Franco Nero, Nathalie Delon, Nadja Tiller o käsikirjoitus Luis Buñuel, Jean-Claude Carrière - Matthew Gregory Lewisin romaanista o original in English o K15 o 94 min o 2. esitys

14.9. torstai
17:00 · Luis Buñuel: VAPAUDEN AAVE
(Le Fantôme de la liberté/Frihetens fantom), Ranska 1974
Adriana Asti, Julien Bertheau, Jean-Claude Brialy o svenska texter o K15 o 104 min o 2. esitys

19:00 · Gleb Panfilov: ALKU
(Natshalo/Debuten), NL 1970
Inna Tshurikova, Leonid Kuravljov, Mihail Kinonov o käsikirjoitus Jevgeni Gabrilovitsh o suom. tekstit/svenska texter o K11 o 90 min o uusinta: 19.9.

21:00 · Walerian Borowczyk: MORAALITTOMIA TARINOITA
(Contes immoraux/Omoraliska historier), Ranska 1974
Lise Danvers, Fabrice Luchini, Charlotte Alexandra, Paloma Picasso o tekstitys suomeksi (E) o K18 o 104 min o uusinta: 16.9.

Ranska 1973
o K15 o 14 min o uusinta: 16.9.

15.9. perjantai
17:00 · Luis Buñuel: NAZARIN
Meksiko 1958
Francisco Rabal, Marga López, Rita Macedo o suom. tekstit o K11 o 95 min o 2. esitys

18:45 · John Cassavetes: AVIOMIEHET
(Husbands/Äkta män), USA 1970
Ben Gazzara, Peter Falk, John Cassavetes o suom. tekstit/svenska texter o K11 o 132 min o 2. esitys

21:15 · René Allio: VANHA HÄVYTÖN NAINEN
(La vieille dame indigne/En otacksam gammal dam), Ranska 1965
Sylvie, Malka Ribovska, Etienne Bierry o suom. tekstit/svenska texter o S o 96 min o 2. esitys

16.9. lauantai
(Le Journal d'une femme de chambre/Kammarjungfruns dagbok), Ranska 1964
Jeanne Moreau, Michel Piccoli, Georges Geret o Octave Mirbeaun romaanista o svenska texter o K15 o 97 min o 2. esitys

18:45 · John Cassavetes: MINNIE JA MOSKOWITZ
(Minnie and Moskowitz/Minnie och Moskowitz), USA 1971
Gena Rowlands, Seymour Cassel, Val Avery o K15 o 115 min o 2. esitys

21:00 · Walerian Borowczyk: MORAALITTOMIA TARINOITA
(Contes immoraux/Omoraliska historier), Ranska 1974
Lise Danvers, Fabrice Luchini, Charlotte Alexandra, Paloma Picasso o tekstitys suomeksi (E) o K18 o 104 min o 2. esitys

Ranska 1973
o K15 o 14 min o 2. esitys

17.9. sunnuntai
16:00 · Päivi Hartzell, Liisa Helminen: KUNINGAS JOLLA EI OLLUT SYDÄNTÄ
(Kungen som inte hade något hjärta), Suomi 1982
Esko Salminen, Kari Franck, Aino Seppo, Tom Pöysti o Mika Waltarin sadusta o S o 92 min

18:00 · Luis Buñuel: PÄIVÄPERHO
(Belle de jour/Dagfjärilen), Ranska/Italia 1966
Catherine Deneuve, Jean Sorel, Michel Piccoli o Joseph Kesselin romaanista o suom. tekstit/svenska texter o K15 o 100 min o 2. esitys

20:00 · John Cassavetes: ENSI-ILTA
(Opening Night/Premiärkvällen), USA 1977
Gena Rowlands, John Cassavetes, Ben Gazzara, Joan Blondell o svenska texter o K11 o 144 min o uusinta: 23.9.
or, the consequences of love. My companion and I thought that one was pretty good.
You posted a week of cinema listings? I stopped watching Cassavetes movies for the same reason I stopped dropping acid: it wasn't as big and clever as I had been led to assume, and I just ended up with a dirty headache.

With their wealth and health, I've always suspected a streak of smugness in the Scandanavian psyche...
Is Borowczyk the one who made the animal-shagging film? The bit with the chicken was a particular favourite...
I'm ambivalent about Cassavetes. I admire the man, his passion, his obstinacy, his one track vision. But it's true - the films can be gruelling in all sorts of ways to actually *sit through* as opposed to discuss and prtend you love them. But all the reasons Cassavetes himself thought KILLING OF A CHINESE BOOKIE was a sell-out make it a fantastic achievment in my book. I love that film. And I have something of a soft spot for HUSBANDS (its like the gruesome Mailer-esque Real behind the fancy schmancy pretend world of The Rat Pack), even if it has all the flaws you would expect of an actor directing himself and his actor pals in a three hour Acting exercise.
"Smug" scandinavians? Oh, how to retort to that...fuck it, I can´t. I do not debate National Character on a friday night.

Re Cassavetes: I love MINNIE AND MOSKOWITZ, and OPENING NIGHT the most. As a Swedish critic exclaimed once, about ON: Dogme before Denmark could be found on a map! But, then again, maybe Dogme 95 ISN`T the ontological unravelling of cinema´s true nature that it´s made up to be. Whatever, I love it, for various reasons. Re HUSBANDS: I really like both Cassavetes (not just a little Bogart there) and Ben Gazzara, but I can´t get around to enjoying Peter Falk, not here nor in the equally wonderful WOMAN UNDER THE INFLUENCE. Just too scruffy and loving and decent and regular working Joe for my taste. I want alienation! And Cassavete´s wrestling match with the english girl on the bed is just wonderful.

BTW, Le Tigre can go fuck themselves...

All for now!
In JC's Gloria, isn't the acting strange? The way she keeps saying 'yeah, come on then, I'd love it" when confronted with a villain. I've seen that style, this kind of very loud forced acting in a few other Seventies films, usually cop movies - Is it Method acting? The original film of Streets of San Francisco's got it too - Karl Malden shouting all the time. If it was supposed to approach realism it was very unrealistic
I know what you mean about the supposedly 'method' acting in 70s movies - I find it hard not to laugh at Pacino's grimaces (and costumes) in 'Serpico', for instance. 'French Connection' has a lot of 'realist' posturing that dates somewhat now. Often all the method bullshit stop the narratives dead.
If you look at the C-listers who acted like that (usually 'streetwise' cops and crims), they get even more laughable in a lot of those movies - Robert Forrester, Michael Morairty, Roy Schieder, Stacy Keach, Armand Assante, that priest from 'The Excorcist'.
There seems to be a major misreading of Brando's appeal going on - where a lot of moody mumbling is mistaken for 'great' acting (James Dean being the first offender) Look at that '50 best' that was on recently - Dennis Hopper and Brad Pitt but no James Cagney or Peter Lorre?!?.
I find hilarious all those actors who spend months 'living' their role; only to end up pretty much as they've always been. Apparently Scott Glenn spends months on research - but he's always exactly the same in every bloody film! And has anyone noticed how Robert Deniro ('the greatest actor in the world'?!?) has as limited a pallate than Clint Eastwood? Face it - he's got two fuckin' expressions in every bloody film, can't be funny, can't be charming, can't be meek, and can't do another accent.
I recall watching the 'Poseidon Adventure' once and my much younger brother starts yelling at the top of his voice: "GODDAMMIT! GENE HACKMAN GODDAMMIT!"
I've noticed that De Niro's acting technique seems to consist solely of saying each line twice
McClaren is, however,Lottery Resultsผลบอล keen to ensure that they are provided with the right kind of service.
so cool

Post a Comment