i've never been a big de palma fan though i did love scarface. i haven't seen all his movies, not even such a pop culture icon as carrie. why? i'm just not attracted. still, he's not nobody-- love him or hate him he stands for something (though what is that "something" is up for debate)

so after reading everyone's comments i was looking at his quotes on imdb today and i thought they might be relevant:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000361/bio#quotes

namely this one:

I don't think I do referencing, I use ideas which I think are effective in this particular piece at the moment. If they've been used before, fine. I mean, who cares? To me, it's all grammar. If I've got that word available and it was used before and if I can use it again more effectively for my piece - why not? It's the history of art from the beginning of time. Why do you think painters still paint Chartres Cathedral? Do you think they should be painting some rock in a garden? But they have this incredible architectural thing in front of them! Are they copying, are they simulating it? Well, maybe they have a different interpretation of the piece of art that's in front of them. I mean, how unusual...

he also said (it's a bit above that):

[on Alfred Hitchcock] He is the one who distilled the essence of film. He's like Webster. It's all there. I've used a lot of his grammar.


He calls it grammar, but funny thing, his Untouchables version of the Odessa steps was not the same grammar at all as Eisenstein's-- for Eisenstein, the baby cart was a metaphor for the budding revolution, for De Palma, it was a cheesy device to the make the audience gasp-- grammar my ass.

Interesting point about his version of the Odessa Steps. I've never looked at it that closely and so always took it to be quite faithful to the original. Ultimately though, like your thing with Carrie (which is actually very good, btw) I don't particularly care because I don't think The Untouchables is that interesting a film anyway or DePalma that interesting a filmmaker. And I can never decide whether Scarface is a really good film or a pretty bad one that just happens to be really enjoyable.

Anyway following the discussion of Bava, I just watched a erm Roger Vadim film ...



Barbarella

If nothing else, I suppose it's definitely one of the most 'sixties' films out there but where say Danger Diabolik is simply too well made to be written off simply as a kitsch historical artefact of swinging Europe, I'd say that's pretty much the sum of Barbarella's appeal these days. The film equivalent of a lava lamp.

I found out what it was. She's apparently one of the most ruthless for blocking her stuff from being made available on forums. So she's alienated a large section of her fanbase, who've started bad mouthing her as a result. |That's how the rumours started, about her being some out of control drug fiend who no photographer would work with. A case of porn fans turning nasty when they can't get what they want for free.

You should seriously think about trying to cast her in something. I doubt very much if she's that expensive and seems far more open to doing something different than a lot of the others.

it's probably a bad movie, cheesy all around, but pacino is awesome in it and that carries the movie, plus it's full of memorable lines like "sey hellow to my littul frenn", etc.

potemkin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps-v-kZzfec
soldiers crushing the budding revolution

untouchables:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJpRSf4q-hI
nice prop for a 'hero" shootout and cool slow-mo edit, but that's all-- not really the "grammar" of soviet montage at all.


ha ha @ lava lamps

i did see that movie some years ago, can't remember anything about it except for jane fonda's fabulous legs. and i just watched the trailer and still.. that's all i remember.

i know nothing of bava, having never seen anything by him (i think, anyway). gonna check him out after this maybe.





you guys are aware that these pornettas can't act for shit, right? which is why they work out of the san fernando valley and not hollywood. srsly, some people can act, some people have a great ass, some intersect both groups--the first set are the character actors, the second set are the porno people, and the intersection are the potential movie stars-- those are very long odds. even the legendary marilyn chambers, whose memory i adore, was quite shit in cronenberg's early movies.

Well I do think everyone should watch Danger Diabolik at least once.



That used to be far truer than it is now. Once you get into the more mainstream end, the competition is so high that while some of that 70s wooden thing is still there, it's by no means 'industry standard' anymore, and definitely not with the the bigger companies. I'm not saying any of them are gonna worry Judi Dench or Helen Mirren come oscar time but I definitely don't see much of a leap in acting skills between say Megan Fox and a girl signed to Vivid.

wow, i surprisingly enjoyed the avengers a lot.

Me, Myself & Irene - 6.9/10

I've always wanted to check out Barbarella

It'd probably look great projected at some retro 60s psych club or something but, I dunno, as a film in its own right I just found it really tedious.

oh yeah i watched the Lawnmower Man too

10/10 - masterpiece

lawnmowerman is now
if cities ad more technology
and people can learn to navigate with modern technology
the beyond version of lawnmowerman
this can then go over into other planet city's
that makes sence
how is it going to be?
schools will change
maybe the internet will turn into a school
learning platform
school visits to space stations

Bored at work so I just watched ...



The Queen is Dead: Derek Jarman

Really just a pop video that Jarman made for The Smiths but it's my favourite thing he ever did. Great song too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz5IFl7uCis&ob=av2n

i'll check it out, thanks!


i don't know. when you look at old marylin chambers movies (behind the green door or that one on the pool table, i forget the name) she looked like she was really enjoying the sex-- really, that happy fucky face had a delicious expression, she's wonderful and you can *relate* to her as a character. she was less wooden than anything you'll see today.

on the other hand when you watch a sasha grey with her dead eyes or a bobbi starr porn video, their screams are so contrived it's painful to listen-- best to watch them with the volume turned off. jenna jameson has a studio now, yes? and her porns try to have a storyline-- but they are just so bad it's a waste of footage. someone should please put just jaeckin back to work ("just' is his name, not an english word); those 70s soft porns were superior to most "erotic" shit made today, though i'm open to changing my mind if there's evidence in favor of that.

anyway so i checked out ariel rebel after reading your post, and while i'll agree the lady has a tight hot little body (really, yummy, and thank fuck no fake tits), i also noticed that all ther photos had the same facial expression-- which in the acting department puts her below fashion models. i haven't seen her "act" in pornos but perhaps she's not as terrible as the others i mentioned. megan fox is on movies mainly for good looks but at least she has 3 or 4 possible faces-- same thing w/ the lady with the gorgeous butt, what's her name, jessica biel.

but the stereotyped expression of ariel's photos doesn't really bode well unless you're casting her in something that specifically calls for that fake girlie look (just like the girlfriend experience called for grey's flat affect).

I know you're only picking up on something that i actually said but I wouldn't want to make too much of the acting issue. I stand by my defence of some individuals in porn being able to act but I'd obviously be lying if I said that was a major factor behind my general fascination with that world. To be honest with you I'm still trying to work it out myself. It's obviously more than just its tittilation factor that I like. Maybe its that in many ways it's actually closer to a kind of Hollywood that I love but which Hollywood itself has long since moved away from. Certainly, I'd say that an iconic figure ftom the period of Hollywood that I most like, say Jean Harlow, has more in common with someone like Taylor Wane (don't bother googling, you'll likely throw up) than she does with say Sandra Bullock.

I suppose in that sense I'm only thinking a variation of what a lot of underground film was doing when it turned to the idea of 'superstars'. (Although it's another argument entirely as to what the superstars were really meant to represent.)

holy mother of mother fuck

i just watched this:



felikson! you must watch this! you fucking MUST!

it will give your heart a movie boner

--

demoño: i'll answer later! just stopped by to post this. (and this is fun btw)

sorry i don't know what you mean here-- i do read most of your posts here so which one are you referring to?



yeah there are people in porn who can act. not too many but there are some.



i googled-- she's a fucking plastic monster!

but i think i get what you mean about jean harlow-- a sex symbol more than a "girl next door" actress? sure. but mang it takes more charisma than that silicone bundle.

if anything, i'd like to nominate brooklyn lee. i just found her doing "research" for this post-- she got some AVN award recently (i was looking for "best porn actresses") and she's got awesome curves, plus an actual ability to morph. unfortunately ugly tat on the belly ruins the view but she's hot








(yesssss)


you mean warhol's? i've never much watched his movies. they make me wanna pull my eyes out. but if you're thinking maybe of a kind of kenneth anger film where actors are more models than actual actors, then yeah it could work. damn, i wanna make a movie with pornettas now. haaa ha haa. oh! russ meyer! russ meyer!! RUSS MEYER IS THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

I only meant that you're right, I did say that but that I wasn't being that serious. Without being totally un-serious, either.


Exactly. That was me getting defensive about it. Some can, most can't but, either way, it has no real bearing on my enjoyment or interest in porn.


See?!? Curiosity killed the cat. Haha.


I'm probably fair to say that I'm not a big fan of girl-next-door types, either in porn or regular cinema. (Joan Crawfords famous response to being asked to tone down her makeup, "if you want the girl next door, go next door"). I love the sheer constructedness of a lot of stars. So I see Taylor Wane as a kind of grotesque equivalent to the kind of things Hollywood stars like Crawford or Rita Hayworth had to endure to maintain their 'industry standard' beauty. In one sense then, I'm basically celebrating a quite prohibitive and narrow period of Hollywood history and I certainly wouldn't like to justify it on any moral grounds, bit a fascination is a fascination. Like Lemmy collecting nazi memorabilia. By charisma, I maybe should've said 'presence' instead. It's fair to say that someone like Taylor Wane may not be the most charismatic of people but I do think she possesses a definite 'aura'. But that's likely just me.


Yeah, Warhol is the obvious one, and Jack Smith. Warhol was disappointed at how bland Hollywood stars were becoming and cultivated his own stable of alternative stars that he felt far better embodied that early Hollywood thing he missed - while likely making some kind of critical point about stardom in general but, being Warhol, nobody's quite sure. But in essence, yeah, my fascination with Taylor Wane et al probably has some parallels with Warhol's fascination with say Candy Darling - although if anything, he was far more interested in charisma than I am.

Kenneth Anger's obsession with Hollywood overall has had a massive influence on how I look at cinema but I've never thought of him as being that interested in performers. He never cultivated 'stars' the way that Warhol or Smith did, being ultimately only really interested in directing.

An obvious factor in this is that Warhol, Smith and Anger were gay and that since then that kind of Hollywood re-appropriation thing has been pretty much marginalised as a kind of queer camp thing. As a straight guy, I find it interesting that I'm fascinated with something very similar but from a quite different perspective and set of motivations.

The big book on all this for me, and which remains my favourite book ever on Hollywood is Parker Tyler's Magic and Myth of the Movies. It was written in the 40s and is long out of print, but if you ever see it cheap, don't hesitate to get it. Besides anything else, Tyler was an amazing writer and the book's basically a very beautifully written fleshing out of some of the points I've tried to make here (as well as apparently being the inspiration behind Gore Vidal writing Myra Breckinbridge.) Although Tyler too was gay, his take on cinema seems motivated far more by an interest in surrealism than sexuality which makes it far more interesting from my point of view.

Any road, just watched this again ...



Duel

I've stopped giving marks out of ten but would otherwise give this a 9 or a 10. I just think it's a perfect film. In many ways a better example of many of Godard's ideas about low budget economy and efficiency than he ever managed before. No doubt Spielberg has his faults but I'm a huge fan and when he's able to make simple minimal frees movies like this, few can touch him, I think. Plus I love Dennis Weaver.

Sorry. Didn't see this.

I think I actually will. I don't think I'm quite at that point just yet though. Give me a year or two, heh. But yeah, she's definitely my fav.

Also, !@#$! I just wanted to let you know that while filming the second episode of Nobody's Laughing, one of my lights of the 3-piece kit I've been using for years now has officially died on me. That, combined with my new-found frustration for just how much my lights suck - I've decided to finally upgrade.

Just thought I'd cue you in ha. ALready picked up my diffusion papers. :)

6/10

10/10

9/10

9/10

8/10

7/10

6/10

Yes and I agree with demonrail that it's the best role she played in any movie. To be honest I never thought much of her as an actress before, just ok I guess.

Glad you liked Shock. There's nothing spectacular about it, just really well done, I think. It's Daria Nicolodi who really stands out in it for me. And Vigilante!! Blimey, I've not seen that in years. I remember liking it but can't remember much about it. I can't believe I still haven't seen Spasmo.

I hadn't watched ''Vigilante'' in a few years and I have to admit I am a sucker for the sort of movie where an entire city seems besieged by out of control gangs. Add to that that it's filmed in what looks like a derelict NYC and I am bought in a second. When you eventually get to watch ''Spasmo'', let me know if it was just me hallucinating while watching movie after movie in a row, or the first scene seems to have no particular relevance to the whole film at all. It's the one where the amorous couple get out of the car and are confronted by the hanged doll. I am not one to object to nice touches the director uses because they add to the atmosphere of the movie, but that seems like a whole scene aimed to serve a purpose the film doesn't really need. Of course it would be a different story if the director was someone like David Lynch or Werner Schroeter, but not ''Spasmo'', which is a very plot-dependent movie.

After re-watching ''Christiane F.'' I decided that what makes me love this movie more than anything is how it portrays Berlin as this very urban, nocturnal place inhabited by half-dead smackheads. I don't think the book is better, it just contains so much more dialogue which Uli Edel left out in favour of the cliched language you'd normally associate with someone naive falling flat on their arse because of drugs. Some of the humour on the book, as well as the mean language, is so cut out it always makes it more enjoyable for me to watch as a landscape sort of film.

Yeah, I've also got a thing for 70s urban dereliction. And I know what you mean when you talk about them as sort of 'landscape films'. There's a specific atmosphere to those settings.

I remember as a teenager going to the Scala in Kings Cross, when that area was still really sleazy. I'd never seen a prostitute or a junky before I went to Kings Cross and I'd always love coming out of the cinema after watching something like Maniac or Vigilante to see my own equivalent on the walk back to the station. It's criminal how clean Kings Cross now looks. Along with Soho it used to be my favourite part of London. (Soho's another area that's had much of its soul polished out of it now. Vegetarian options at the Coach & Horses?!?)

Yeah, there are loads of movies from that era which really focused on that seedier side. Besides the ones already mentioned my favourite ones centred on NYC would be Mean Streets; Taxi Driver; Basket Case; Midnight Cowboy; The French Connection and almost anything by Paul Morrissey or Abel Ferrara. A lot of blacksploitation movies from that era also have a lot of that atmosphere.

For a similar sleaziness but from a more European perspective, some Fassbinder and very early Almodovar are great. Also, albeit more recently, Gary Oldman's Nil By Mouth has that atmosphere in spades.

Another great one is the Brazillian film, Pixote.

Daaaammn.... Genteel's getting the job done.

It is a shame that those kinds of theatres have now pretty much vanished. The great thing about the Scala in particular was that it was really cheap and used to do all-nighters so half the audience would be tramps who'd use the place as a cheap warm shelter or insomniacs just looking to kill time. It was great watching a film like Basket Case surrounded by people who looked like they could've had a part in the film. A genuine grindhouse experience.

I saw this Japanese film called Love Exposure, it's running time is like 5 hrs. Great film.

Also another Japanese film called Confessions. Depressing and ace!

Dr. Strangelove.

9/10

a lot of artwork put into this movie
very good

Awesome shit right here, even the Jarmusch parts. I think I'm gonna back off on hating him so much, despite his goofy haircut and dull pacing in his films. I actually did enjoy Stranger Than Paradise and Dead Man, for what it's worth. It's fun to see Buscemi, Thurston, Kern, Lunch, Nick Zedd, and John Waters all in the same doc.

Also really makes me wanna check out Amos Poe and Eric Mitchell films. I had never even heard of them before.

I've not seen any of Amos Poe's films but I think you'd really like Mitchell's Underground USA.

I'd only seen bits and pieces of this before. Great to finally watch this in full; a wonderful introspective look into the craft - which is especially helpful when I'm currently in the process of editing myself. Nice big-name cameos, as well.



This is still easily one of my absolute favorites of John's. I fell in love with this movie when I was about 6 or 7 years old, making it my introduction to the man I'd now (probably) consider my favorite director of all-time.

Three Colours Red

It seems almost cliched to heap praise on Kieslowski but I really do think this is an out and out masterpiece and, for me, his best film. And definitely one of my favourite climaxes (assuming you've also seen Blue and White) of any film I've seen.

The Take

starring


Billy D Williams

Its been awhile since I've seen the Three Colors Trilogy, I liked it. I wish Kieslowski had a chance to do his Heaven/Hell/Purgatory trilogy. I haven't seen "Hell", did they ever make it? Did they ever make Purgatory?

The Heaven Hell and Purgatory films were written with the intention that other filmmakers would direct them but as far as I know, nobody's made Purgatory yet. I haven't seen Heaven or Hell. Is Heaven any good?

I thought "Heaven" was good. Its directed by Tom Tykwer who directed "Run Lola Run" and "The Princess and the Warrior". I think given his interest in movies about fate and a couple overcoming obstacles to be together, its right up Tykwer's alley.