[!@#$%!]

SO, in performance, check it out

who is lit brighter, and from a higher angle?

 

whose features are made softer?

 

not all the time, of course

 

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i.. disagree with your last shot evaluation. i definitely said “what was that about” but did not feel tricked or conned or cheated nor think now in retrospect that i was.

we’ve taken enough shrooms to get a whole vietnam platoon high. we’ve been already in psychedelic space for more than half the movie. we’ve talked about performance and the demon that has left them. we’ve swapped hair, roles, clothes, genders, everything. the whole foundation of the gangster genre has been shattered. i mean the narrative style of the beginning should suffice to show that, but it goes way beyond into a whole questioning of “reality”.

the gunshot? turner (turner! not a random name) offers himself rather than... the shot is... what the fuck is it? the head, opening like a tunnel? the randy newman lyrics? sure, shootin my supply through my demon’s eye could just be read in the ejaculate sense or maybe something else? i don’t think it’s a simple swap, i think it’s meant to be a lot more ambiguous and have you wonder. has the demon moved on/swapped heads? is chas going to his greatest performance having taken on turner’s demon? is chas doing a turner performance after turner did a chas performance?

also “persona” came way first, with psychoanalysis i stead of shrooms. it’s not a completely new thing it’s just more colorful. per so na per for mance

also this reminds me of the cortázar story, la noche boca arriba. lml @ translation... i can’t find it. roughly “the night lying prone” or something, great little short story. if “blow up” came from him i wonder if this text had some sort of influence here. i’d suspect it had, said or unsaid.

anyway it’s not that, was my point, it’s not a “trick”, it’s a larger mindfuck overall, which is why it’s fucking great. it’s really not reducible to explanations... but if it is i wouldn’t wanna.

I think it was always meant to be a riddle but Cammell had constant interference from Warners while editing it and I think the final version we've all seen (and which I think is the only version we'll ever see) was full of holes.

Some rumours circulating about the actual shoot:

Mick and Anita were really at it in the sex scenes.

Keef apparently heard about this and had a one-night-stand with Marianne Faithful to get revenge.

Kenneth Anger was a constant presence on the set and was supposedly Jagger's inspiration for Turner.

William Burroughs was meant to play the judge

James Fox was in the midst of becoming a born again Christian and had a nervous breakdown straight after the film was finished.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I think it was always meant to be a riddle but Cammell had constant interference from Warners while editing it and I think the final version we've all seen (and which I think is the only version we'll ever see) was full of holes.

Some rumours circulating about the actual shoot:

Mick and Anita were really at it in the sex scenes.

Keef apparently heard about this and had a one-night-stand with Marianne Faithful to get revenge.

Kenneth Anger was a constant presence on the set and was supposedly Jagger's inspiration for Turner.

William Burroughs was meant to play the judge

James Fox was in the midst of becoming a born again Christian and had a nervous breakdown straight after the film was finished.

yeah i edited above to add that i thought the ending was central to the movie. i read that they [jagger/pallenberg] had fucked but i wasn’t aware of the wider (hilarious) soap opera.

as for the edit, i could see what would be holes in it i guess, but i suppose i’m willing to accept them as a complete expression of a fluid reality, ha ha ha.

[demonrail666]

I don't think the final edit hid any huge revelation in terms of meaning. Cammell did it himself and I think Warners was more concerned with cutting down on the sex than anything to do with the story. But it all adds to its esoteric charm.

Anger in London at the time of the shoot:

 

You can definitely see where Jagger got his look from.

[!@#$%!]

wow i had never seen anger with long hair

where is that photo from/ what head is that?

[TheDom]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

anyway...

robert bresson

 

pickpocket (1959)

the year is the oddity there. it feels like a much older film. but also... timeless.

ah damn, and he knew how to pick his non-actors (who went on to act..)

 

Love this film. The final scene, with the embrace and the music that plays out of the silence of the film always hits me profoundly. Bresson! So bleak but so graceful.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

wow i had never seen anger with long hair

where is that photo from/ what head is that?

It's from the set of Invocation, in London, at the same time Performance was being made.

No idea what the head is.

[HenryHill51]

Originally Posted by Severian

Has anyone else seen this?
For some reason it’s being streamed as an “Amazon Original” on Prime, even though it definitely wasn’t an Amazon Original.

Anyway, curious.

It did get a fairly limited release in theaters late last year. One of my faves of 2018. It rambles a bit (especially with the Swinton "other" character) but it's an assured remake that fosters the original's eerie 70's vibe while creating something wholly new in the process. Identity, repressed guilt (which allows Guadagnino to survey the whole history of German nationalism, basically) and some wicked bloodshed all make for an underrated movie.

[choc e-Claire]

 

Shrek Retold - over 200 animators and actors collaborating for a remake of the Internet's favourite movie. Will alienate anyone older than 30, so be warned if you look for it (it's free on YouTube)

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

MEGASPOILERS


haha yeah la pallenberg was something

i don’t know that it was ahead of its time with the crossdressing specifically. people had been there long before

 

if anything the revolution is this was more explicit where old hollywood was more coded, but that was the glorious 70s letting it all hang out.

it wasnt just the clothes, check out the way jagger was lit on some of those scenes. it’s the kind of glamour light that was used for (again) marlene dietrich, or lauren bacall.

 

 

i.. disagree with your last shot evaluation. i definitely said “what was that about” but did not feel tricked or conned or cheated nor think now in retrospect that i was.

we’ve taken enough shrooms to get a whole vietnam platoon high. we’ve been already in psychedelic space for more than half the movie. we’ve talked about performance and the demon that has left them. we’ve swapped hair, roles, clothes, genders, everything. the whole foundation of the gangster genre has been shattered. i mean the narrative style of the beginning should suffice to show that, but it goes way beyond into a whole questioning of “reality”.

the gunshot? turner (turner! not a random name) offers himself rather than... the shot is... what the fuck is it? the head, opening like a tunnel? the randy newman lyrics? sure, shootin my supply through my demon’s eye could just be read in the ejaculate sense or maybe something else? i don’t think it’s a simple swap, i think it’s meant to be a lot more ambiguous and have you wonder. has the demon moved on/swapped heads? is chas going to his greatest performance having taken on turner’s demon? is chas doing a turner performance after turner did a chas performance?

also “persona” came way first, with psychoanalysis i stead of shrooms. it’s not a completely new thing it’s just more colorful. per so na per for mance

also this reminds me of the cortázar story, la noche boca arriba. lml @ translation... i can’t find it. roughly “the night lying prone” or something, great little short story. if “blow up” came from him i wonder if this text had some sort of influence here. i’d suspect it had, said or unsaid.

anyway it’s not that, was my point, it’s not a “trick”, or a gimmick, it’s a larger mindfuck overall, and central to the movie, which is why it’s fucking great. it’s really not reducible to explanations... but if it is i wouldn’t wanna.

Nah man, a female crossdressing to a male was nowhere near as controversial as the other way round. Hence why you can find the examples of Dietrich doing it in that period and not guys.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Nah man, a female crossdressing to a male was nowhere near as controversial as the other way round. Hence why you can find the examples of Dietrich doing it in that period and not guys.

sure

 

but...

 

 

 

theatre used to be a bunch of men in drag and that never completely went away

eta: i was looking for some photographic evidence (e.g. encyclopaedia britannica shows a picture of laurence olivier age 15 dressed as katharine for the taming of the shrew) and found this link among others. some cool stuff:
https://www.littlethings.com/vintage-drag/?vpage=1

-

i think it was the production code which ruled the 40s and 50s that caused the temporary glitch in gender adventures but demonyo is the one who knows this stuff in depth. plus i dont know how if at all that affected the british film industry.

eta: now im reading about the motherfucking production code.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion...roduction_Code

i fucking hate censors. and well played, hitchcock, well played...

[h8kurdt]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!
i think it was the production code which ruled the 40s and 50s that caused the temporary glitch in gender adventures but demonyo is the one who knows this stuff in depth. plus i dont know how if at all that affected the british film industry.

eta: now im reading about the motherfucking production code.

[url

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Motion_Picture_Production_Code[/url]

i fucking hate censors. and well played, hitchcock, well played...

Surprised you didnt know more about that already. The silent film era was recognised as being pretty out there for boundary pushing until the Hayes code put a stop to a lot of it.

As for Some Like It Hot, you can't deny that whole thing is using them cross dressing as the butt of the joke. And I say this as a massive fan of that film. My point about Performance pushing boundaries is that the whole thing is his cross dressing is a way of finding his identity and trying to figure out who he is. It isn't the punchline to anything. Rocky Horror Picture show delved more into that a bit later.

[h8kurdt]

And c'mon, the Shakespeare thing was purely because in that period female actors weren't allowed so female characters were played by a smaller group of male actors.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by h8kurdt

Surprised you didnt know more about that already. The silent film era was recognised as being pretty out there for boundary pushing until the Hayes code put a stop to a lot of it.

As for Some Like It Hot, you can't deny that whole thing is using them cross dressing as the butt of the joke. And I say this as a massive fan of that film. My point about Performance pushing boundaries is that the whole thing is his cross dressing is a way of finding his identity and trying to figure out who he is. It isn't the punchline to anything. Rocky Horror Picture show delved more into that a bit later.

yeah i knew about the production code which is why i mentioned it, but never read about it a lot with an eye to gender issues. a refresher is always good.

i was trying to figure out why performance seemed so revolutionary to you (this before your explanation as quoted here, i was just guessing) and i thought maybe it was about censorship making it invisible for the previous period to that film, whereas i thought i was taking a longer view. regardless, now i see we were talking about different things.

and yes male drag is often either comedy or “perversion”, not just in previous eras but also afterwards (think dressed to kill or silence of the lambs), but still, “message” aside, with film there is a thing about the image itself which often subverts the intended story.

e.g., comedy or not, chaplin is way too pretty in drag.

and jack lemmon, sure, funny guy, making his stupid faces, but tony curtis’s image was often very subversive in the gender department

 

 

 

i get what you’re saying about the male/female identity, the idea of which in the last century can be traced back to at least jung (animus/anima) and his followers (e.g. hesse’s steppenwolf) but really it’s something that has always been there one way or another, regardless of the gender politics of the moment, all the way into antiquity and beyond, myths, deities, etc.

[Severian]

 

Goddamn.

This was ... really goddamn good.

[choc e-Claire]

^
I was super impressed with Get Out, but I am not a horror movie person and I probably wouldn't be able to make it through without breaks/company. Maybe for some other time.

---

 

Watching this in English Language, because we'll be talking about the history of English. It's an...interesting watch; some of us have reacted to some unexpected scenes.

[Severian]

Originally Posted by choc e-Claire

^
I was super impressed with Get Out, but I am not a horror movie person and I probably wouldn't be able to make it through without breaks/company. Maybe for some other time.

I liked Get Out but I didn’t think it was brilliant. It didn’t stick with me after the fact. Also I figured out the plot about 17 minutes in.

Us is smarter and tripped me up a couple times.

It’s also just plain scarier. Not that it’s just a horror movie — there’s SO much going on in this thing.

Plus, picking “I got 5 on it” by Luniz as the main musical signifier was BRILLIANT, and the remix of the track used in the film is seriously never going to leave my brain.

Get Out had better writing, perhaps, but Us is better.

[tw2113]

IT Chapter 1.

[demonrail666]

 

Venus in Furs

The sixties Italo-sexploitation version (rather than the recent Polanski one, which I haven't seen, or the other 60s one, by Jess Franco, which I have). No surprises here. You get the usual 80-odd minutes of jet-set Euro types hopping from sunny location to sunny location and indulging in various acts of softcore kinkiness. Needless to say it's all about as sexy as warm beer but who's really watching this stuff in 2019 to get turned on?

[Rob Instigator]

I watched three very long movies while my wife was out of town last week.

Avengers Infinity (I have not yet seen the last one, so I was catching back up)

 

Independence Day extended cut

 

and the best one for last,

Conan the Barbarian extended cut on HBO