Print

Print


Dear List members:

    Can anyone give me an idea of how much money editors make for working on
very large Hollywood films such as Titanic.

Thank you.

Julian Samuel

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:04:28 -0800
Reply-To:     [log in to unmask]
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Edward R. O'Neill" <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: UCLA
Subject:      Re: _Elizabeth_ Influences?
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Where dos Ed Johnson-Ott publish?  Perhaps I'm seriously out
of the loop, but I've never heard of him.

I agree that "MTV style" is very vague.  Todd Haynes went on
record complaining about uses of the term by conventional
critics to bash anything with avant garde leanings.

If it's a synonym for "rapid edits," then it's terribly
misapplied to _Elizabeth_.

Sincerely,
Edward R. O'Neill
UCLA

[log in to unmask] wrote:
>
> Ed Johnson-Ott was the one I was referring to specifically--saying it was
> why he didn't think it should win best picture.  I haven't read a great
> deal of criticism toward _Elizabeth_, so I couldn't say how common it is.
> I do know, however, that anytime something is stylized, it's described as
> MTV, which really is menaingless in itself.  I don't think there are any
> reviews of Luhrmann's R & J that didn't do this, and my film criticism
> professor at the time commented on mine that that statement is really
> rather meaningless.  The only exception I can think of is Phil Hardy, who
> suggested it had more to do with HK action and gangster films than MTV,
> despite the alternative rock soundtrack.  I must admit the fact that both
> films had the same editor, Jill Billcok, is not surprising.
>
> Scott
>
> ================================================================================
> Scott Andrew Hutchins
> http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
> Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
>
> "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky
>
> On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Edward R. O'Neill wrote:
>
> > Are the accusations against the current film
> > _Elizabeth_--that the style derives from MTV--really
> > common?  Can anyone refer me to an example in print?
> >
> > Isn't the more obvious comparison to _The Godfather_?  I.e.,
> > family rivalries, chiaroscuro lighting, young scion of
> > family assumes patriarchal responsibility at the cost of
> > personal happiness, penultimate cross-cutting bloodbath,
> > etc.  Isn't it all just lifted straight from _The
> > Godfather_?
> >
> > Granted _The Godfather_ gets a lot of its thematic material
> > from treating what had previously been gangster iconography
> > as post-Elizabethan drama (specifically Webster)--as a UCLA
> > Theater major, the director would hardly have been unaware
> > of these references--and _Elizabeth_ just returns the favor
> > by borrowing the visual and editing strategies back to the
> > proper time period in order to "update" the visual style and
> > to differentiate itself from the Masterpiece Theater
> > tradition.
> >
> > Whence the excuse for comparing _Elizabeth_ to MTV?
> >
> > Sincerely,
> > Edward R. O'Neill
> > UCLA
> > General Education Program
> >
> > [log in to unmask] wrote:
> > >
> > > Considering the accusations of _Elizabeth_ being MTV, I'm sure I'll get
> > > attacked with that, and assumed because of my age to have been weaned on
> > > MTV.  In truth, it was inspired primarily by 1920s avant-garde cinema,
> > > plus Maya Deren and others, and around a particular theme.
> >
> > ----
> > Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
> > University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
> >

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:55:37 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         [log in to unmask]
Subject:      Re: autobiographical film
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Try viewing _The Wizard of Speed and Time_, with just about everything by
Mike Jittlov.

Scott

 ===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky



On Thu, 18 Mar 1999, Robin Curtis wrote:

> I'm beginning to research the term autobiographical film (with all of its literary and film aesthetic repercussions) and have found surprising little literature which deals specifically with this topic.  I suspect I'm touching on a huge number of topics (including just plain old representations of subjectivity) which are given other titles.
> I would greatly appreciate any tips on literature regarding film which can be considered "autobiographical" - whatever that might mean.
> Yours,
> Robin Curtis
> Wissenschaftliche Mitarbeiterin
> AV Medienwissenschaft
> Hochschule für Film und Fernsehen
> Potsdam-Babelsberg
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Mar 1999 14:22:48 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         [log in to unmask]
Subject:      Re: Oscar nominees
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I don't know, I thought LIB seemed pretty original, but SIL didn't seem as
fresh to me as everyone seemed to think it was.  I don't think the writing
necessarily saved it, particularly when compared to stoppard's earlier
_Rosencrantz & Guildenstern Are Dead_.  The reason the latter film didn't
get nominated, I think, is probably because it was just too quirky.

Scott



 ===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky



On Fri, 19 Mar 1999 [log in to unmask] wrote:

> scott hutchins says something that may help us think more
> clearly about, if not resolve, the conflict over LIFE IS BEAUTIFUL
> . . . comparing that film to SHAK IN LOVE scott says . . .
>
>       The story of that film  [SIL] was really stale, enlivened
>      by good writing, acting, costume design, and music, but
>      the plot was still dead tired
>
> and i think that scott is absolutely right, but that his argument
> misses the point . . . the creators of SIL of  course know all too
> well how cliched their plot is taken by itself, but they also know that
> such a plot can be invigorated by good writing, which they do
> wonderfully well . . . cognoscenti can enjoy the kind of self-irony
> that pervades the film's well marked awareness of how trivial the
> plot itself is, while others can simply enjoy the ride provided
> by the writing on the back of a tired but eternal plot . . .
>
> the makers of LIB, on the other hand, might well have thought
> that they have come up with a new plot . . . they haven't . . . i'm
> not even sure if really new plots are possible . . . what matters is
> the fit of the plot to the context and the writing itself . . . i
> hope no one wants to make the case that LIB is wonderfully
> written . . . which leaves only the matter of the fit of that plot to
> the death camp setting . . . for many of us that was a bad fit, not
> because [or not only because] of anything inherent in the material
> itself, but because of the skill in bringing the pieces together . . .
> whereas in SIL the pieces fit splendidly . . .
>
> to put it another way, LIB thinks it's saying something new--but
> it's not . . . SIL knows that it's not saying anything new, winks at
> us about the impossibility of saying anything both new and true,
> and goes on to tell its old story with sublime panache and wit
>
> when [he asked disingenuously] was the last time a film that
> trafficked in wit won an oscar??
>
> mike frank
>
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
>

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date:         Sun, 21 Mar 1999 13:06:07 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         [log in to unmask]
Subject:      Re: _Elizabeth_ Influences?
Comments: To: "Edward R. O'Neill" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Ed Johnson-Ott was the one I was referring to specifically--saying it was
why he didn't think it should win best picture.  I haven't read a great
deal of criticism toward _Elizabeth_, so I couldn't say how common it is.
I do know, however, that anytime something is stylized, it's described as
MTV, which really is menaingless in itself.  I don't think there are any
reviews of Luhrmann's R & J that didn't do this, and my film criticism
professor at the time commented on mine that that statement is really
rather meaningless.  The only exception I can think of is Phil Hardy, who
suggested it had more to do with HK action and gangster films than MTV,
despite the alternative rock soundtrack.  I must admit the fact that both
films had the same editor, Jill Billcok, is not surprising.

Scott

 ===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky



On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Edward R. O'Neill wrote:

> Are the accusations against the current film
> _Elizabeth_--that the style derives from MTV--really
> common?  Can anyone refer me to an example in print?
>
> Isn't the more obvious comparison to _The Godfather_?  I.e.,
> family rivalries, chiaroscuro lighting, young scion of
> family assumes patriarchal responsibility at the cost of
> personal happiness, penultimate cross-cutting bloodbath,
> etc.  Isn't it all just lifted straight from _The
> Godfather_?
>
> Granted _The Godfather_ gets a lot of its thematic material
> from treating what had previously been gangster iconography
> as post-Elizabethan drama (specifically Webster)--as a UCLA
> Theater major, the director would hardly have been unaware
> of these references--and _Elizabeth_ just returns the favor
> by borrowing the visual and editing strategies back to the
> proper time period in order to "update" the visual style and
> to differentiate itself from the Masterpiece Theater
> tradition.
>
> Whence the excuse for comparing _Elizabeth_ to MTV?
>
> Sincerely,
> Edward R. O'Neill
> UCLA
> General Education Program
>
> [log in to unmask] wrote:
> >
> > Considering the accusations of _Elizabeth_ being MTV, I'm sure I'll get
> > attacked with that, and assumed because of my age to have been weaned on
> > MTV.  In truth, it was inspired primarily by 1920s avant-garde cinema,
> > plus Maya Deren and others, and around a particular theme.
>
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
>

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:08:31 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Sean Desilets <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Kubrick on Clockwork Orange
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-version: 1.0
Content-type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7BIT

I've never read any intereviews in which Kubrick speaks at any length
about pulling Clockwork Orange, but I think there's a brief exchange about
it in one of the interviews in _Perspectives on Stanley Kubrick_, which
was edited by Mario Falsetto (I think). He says essentially what people
have already said, that he pulled the film because of the copycat stuff
but still stands behind it.

I sometimes don't pay close enough attention to the list, so maybe I
missed something, but I'm a little surprised by the silence with which
Kubrick's death has been met here. Is that because everybody's tear ducts
were worn out by Kurusowa's death, because we've all finally realized the
 "death of the author" so that individual authors' deaths aren't such a
big deal, or because Kubrick is "dated" (or at least out of critical
favor)?


*******************************************************************************
Sean Desilets                   *               "The only people who
                        *               *       believe that there is
Department of English           *               a language that is
East Hall               *               *       not theoretical are
Tufts University                *               professors of
Medford, MA 02155       *               *       literature."
[log in to unmask]              *                       Paul de Man

*******************************************************************************

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 23:33:33 -0000
Reply-To:     [log in to unmask]
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Richard Davies <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Shakespeare in Love
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=ISO-8859-1
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hi all,

Have just watched replay of Oscars, and have to say that I'm rather glad
SIL won. Not a great movie, but one with a good deal going for it - well
written and excellent art direction, music to cover the uneven editing,
some nice acting, and above all a sense of momentum that sets it apart from
the more lugubrious movies released last year.
Also, and I think this is the crucial point, a very clever concept.

SPR got its just reward - as well directed as anything by Mr S, but
lumbered with a dreadfully leaden script in its second half. TRL also got
what it deserved - not a whole lot - since it craved the indulgence of its
audience a little too much. Shame Sean Penn didn't get best actor.

I thought Pleasantville would appeal to the retro crowd, and was delighted
it got nothing. Sorry to be negative.

Benigni (sp?) showed how far Jerry Lewis could have got had he been
Italian, and my personal choice for best movie - Central Station - never
stood a chance.

Richard Davies
London
----------
> From: [log in to unmask]
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Shakespeare in Love
> Date: 22 March 1999 19:16
>
> I rest my case about its overrating, since most of us saw that last
night.
>
> It made my ten best list, but barely, when I decided it was better than
> _Bulworth_.  all the other best pcture nominees did, too, but that
doesn't
> mean a whole lot when I only got to see (I think) seventeen 1998 films,
> the only really bad one being Emmerich's _Godzilla_, which as a fan of
> Ishiro Honda, Yoshimitsu Banno, and Takao Okawara, I had been dreading it
> so much that it was actually better than I expected it to be, but not
> much.
>
> My belated ten-best list of 1998, as meaningless as it might be, and
> however changeable it will be in the future, goes to (in alphabetical
> order, because quibbling among very different films is tough):
>
> Buffalo 66
> Dark City
> Elizabeth
> Saving Private Ryan
> Shakespeare in Love
> A Simple Plan
> Smoke Signals
> The Thin Red Line
> The Truman Show
> La Vita E Bella
>
> Ther others I saw were _Bulworth_ (pretty good), _Godzilla_ (entertaining
> ONCE-and that's giving it too much credit), _Small Soldiers_
> (Dante--witty), _T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous_ (starring a fellow former
> NCHS student whom I've seen on stage--pretty decent first film role, not
> counting her cameo in _Can't Hardly Wait_), _One True Thing_ (good, but
> nothing special), _Waking Ned Devine (sweet and funny), and _What Dreams
> May Come_ (visually splendid, but I didn't think it was all that great).
> I wish I had gotten to see more indie films.
>
> Of this years films, I've seen _Ravenous_ and _Trekkies_.  I hope one of
> Antonia Bird's goals in that film was to make the audience vegetarians,
> because the though of eating red meat, especially ribs, has made me
> nauseous, like the Ludovico Method, ever since I saw the film Saturday.
> Everything about it was exceptionally well done except the story, which
> was reasonably good.  It's a quirky little film that's obviously not
going
> to do well.  Go buy the soundtrack (if you can find it):  it's worth it.
> A les brief, a little more scholarly, review should show up on the IMDb
> page for it soon.
>
> Scott
>
>
 ===========================================================================
====
> Scott Andrew Hutchins
> http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
> Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
>
> "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 18 Mar 1999 15:42:17 -0800
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Jennifer M. Bean" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: narcosynthesis
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Hi Scott -- Yes, I did manage to find two copies of 16mm prints.  One is
held at NYU, and one at the Medical Archive Center/Library in Maryland.
Thanks for remembering this request -- Best,

Jennifer M. Bean
Assistant Professor of Cinema Studies
Dept. of Comparative Literature
Box 354338
University of Washington-Seattle
Seattle, WA  98195-4338
Fax: 206.685.2017

----------
>From: [log in to unmask]
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: narcosynthesis
>Date: Wed, Mar 17, 1999, 2:32 PM
>

>Did anyone ever find this?
>
>Scott
>
>================================================================================
>Scott Andrew Hutchins
>http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
>Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
>
>"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky
>
>
>
>On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Jennifer M. Bean wrote:
>
>> I am doing research on a psychiatrist, Cornelia Wilbur, and I am trying to
>> track down a movie she made in 1945.  The reference I have is:
>> "Narcosynthesis, Pennsylvania Cinema Register, State College, Pennsylvania
>> (1945)."  Has anyone heard of this film?  Is it extant?  Any information or
>> research tips you might have would be most appreciated.
>>
>> I hope all are well in the holiday season.
>>
>> Jennifer M. Bean
>> Assistant Professor of Cinema Studies
>> Box 354338
>> University of Washington-Seattle
>> Seattle, WA  98195-4338
>>
>> ----
>> To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
>> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
>>
>
>----
>Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
>http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Mar 1999 08:00:04 -0600
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "curry ramona (by way of Jeremy Butler <[log in to unmask]>)"
              <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      UDC call for participation
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

The Union for Democratic Communications (UDC) invites participation in its
next international meeting, October 14-16, 1999 in Eugene, Oregon at The
University of Oregon.  The conference theme is "Communication, Culture and
Environments."

UDC welcomes papers, audiovisual works, panels, workshops and projects
which promote dialogue and interaction around questions of critical
communications scholarship and media activism, as suggested below.  Please
send proposals for presentations no later than April 30th, 1999 to:

Ellen Riordan
Journalism and Communication
University of Oregon
Eugene, OR  97403-1275

email:  [log in to unmask]

The conference theme "Communication, Culture and Environments" is intended
to be broadly interpreted to address issues of communication and culture as
they relate to specific environments -- not only natural, but also social,
political, institutional, technological, legal, urban, local, and global.
Presentations exploring the intersection of class, race, gender and
sexuality with communication environments are also encouraged.  Possible
areas of concern include but are not limited to:  how communication and
specific environments intersect; the role of communications technology such
as radio, cable access, video and the Internet in environmental and other
activism; the role of communication technologies in creating cultural and
social environments;  the role of mainstream media in reporting
environmental issues.

A limited number of scholarship funds are available for low income
participants.  For an application, please contact Bernadette
Barker-Plummer, [log in to unmask] or Department of Communication,
University of San Francisco, 2130 Fulton Street, San Francisco, CA 94117.

Please contact Ellen Riordan with any questions about the conference:
[log in to unmask]

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:37:37 +0200
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Timo Matoniemi <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: jewish docs  otra vez
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

The title was Tala! det är så mörkt / Talk! It's so dark
AKA Speak up! It's do dark.

Director Suzanne Osten, screenwriter Nikalas Rådström. 83 min.
Produced by Götafilm for the Sweidsh Film Institute, 1993.
See Variety Feb 22, 1993.

Yours,

Timo Matoniemi

At 09:23 18.3.1999 EST, you wrote:
>looking to identify a film seen about ten years ago     docudrama type  about
>psychiatrist who is asked to treat a skinhead delinquent with ominous results
>was a Swedish film  psychiatrist is Jewish   any info appreciated   thanks hrg
>md endit
>
>----
>Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
>http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>

*  **  *
*  Suomen elokuva-arkisto / Finnish Film Archive
*  Kirjasto / Library
*  P.O.Box 177
*  FIN-00151 Helsinki
*  FINLAND
*  Tel: + 358 - (0)9 - 615 40 213 ; Fax: + 358 - (0)9 - 615 40 242
*  E-Mail:      [log in to unmask]
*  URL:         http://www.sea.fi/


* **

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 19 Mar 1999 09:57:56 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         paul wiener <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Oscar nominees
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Scott, I would be the first to second your opinion of "Shakespeare in Love"
as overrated. I nearly walked out of it several times (anyone care to write
about the joys of walking out on movies - 5, 30 or 70 minutes into it?) ;
not until the last 20 minutes did I like it, though the acting was
terrific. Just another feel good movie. "Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are
Dead" was far far superior in every respect. "Thin Red Line" is a much more
interesting film than "Ryan" but doesn't hold together well or make you
feel good, except for cinematography. "Ryan" would be nothing without Hanks
and the first bloody 25 minutes. I don't even like to choose anymore among
Oscar nominess. They're almost always all hyped crapola. At least "Life Is
Beautiful" was original.

By the way, where's the discussion of the Kazan Oscar honors? It seems once
you turn 70 no one is allowed to criticize you anymore? Kazan could do a
lifetime of good by saying something important about his decision at the
Oscars. My money says he won't. He's already been professionally honored
enough, so don't believe ANYTHING anyone says: this honor is purely political.


Paul B. Wiener
Special Services Librarian
SUNY at Stony Brook
516/632-7253
[log in to unmask]

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Mar 1999 09:46:56 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Ressel, David Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Concentration camp comedians (!!??)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"

        "Benigni (sp?) showed how far Jerry Lewis could have got had he been
        Italian, and my personal choice for best movie - Central Station -
never
        stood a chance."



        the above quote brought to mind Jerry Lewis's Holocaust film  "The
Day the Clown Cried" (1972) from the early seventies, which in he wrote
produced and stared

        And, has  Robin Williams begun the American version of Jakob the
Liar?

        Has anyone seen this film? I don't believe it has been released, but
i thought it had been completed.  I vaguely recall "Spy" magazine doing a
piece on it years ago.  Anyone know any good sources anent this title?

        David






> -----Original Message-----
> From: Richard Davies [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 6:34 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Shakespeare in Love
>
> Hi all,
>
> Have just watched replay of Oscars, and have to say that I'm rather glad
> SIL won. Not a great movie, but one with a good deal going for it - well
> written and excellent art direction, music to cover the uneven editing,
> some nice acting, and above all a sense of momentum that sets it apart
> from
> the more lugubrious movies released last year.
> Also, and I think this is the crucial point, a very clever concept.
>
> SPR got its just reward - as well directed as anything by Mr S, but
> lumbered with a dreadfully leaden script in its second half. TRL also got
> what it deserved - not a whole lot - since it craved the indulgence of its
> audience a little too much. Shame Sean Penn didn't get best actor.
>
> I thought Pleasantville would appeal to the retro crowd, and was delighted
> it got nothing. Sorry to be negative.
>
> Benigni (sp?) showed how far Jerry Lewis could have got had he been
> Italian, and my personal choice for best movie - Central Station - never
> stood a chance.
>
> Richard Davies
> London
> ----------
> > From: [log in to unmask]
> > To: [log in to unmask]
> > Subject: Shakespeare in Love
> > Date: 22 March 1999 19:16
> >
> > I rest my case about its overrating, since most of us saw that last
> night.
> >
> > It made my ten best list, but barely, when I decided it was better than
> > _Bulworth_.  all the other best pcture nominees did, too, but that
> doesn't
> > mean a whole lot when I only got to see (I think) seventeen 1998 films,
> > the only really bad one being Emmerich's _Godzilla_, which as a fan of
> > Ishiro Honda, Yoshimitsu Banno, and Takao Okawara, I had been dreading
> it
> > so much that it was actually better than I expected it to be, but not
> > much.
> >
> > My belated ten-best list of 1998, as meaningless as it might be, and
> > however changeable it will be in the future, goes to (in alphabetical
> > order, because quibbling among very different films is tough):
> >
> > Buffalo 66
> > Dark City
> > Elizabeth
> > Saving Private Ryan
> > Shakespeare in Love
> > A Simple Plan
> > Smoke Signals
> > The Thin Red Line
> > The Truman Show
> > La Vita E Bella
> >
> > Ther others I saw were _Bulworth_ (pretty good), _Godzilla_
> (entertaining
> > ONCE-and that's giving it too much credit), _Small Soldiers_
> > (Dante--witty), _T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous_ (starring a fellow
> former
> > NCHS student whom I've seen on stage--pretty decent first film role, not
> > counting her cameo in _Can't Hardly Wait_), _One True Thing_ (good, but
> > nothing special), _Waking Ned Devine (sweet and funny), and _What Dreams
> > May Come_ (visually splendid, but I didn't think it was all that great).
> > I wish I had gotten to see more indie films.
> >
> > Of this years films, I've seen _Ravenous_ and _Trekkies_.  I hope one of
> > Antonia Bird's goals in that film was to make the audience vegetarians,
> > because the though of eating red meat, especially ribs, has made me
> > nauseous, like the Ludovico Method, ever since I saw the film Saturday.
> > Everything about it was exceptionally well done except the story, which
> > was reasonably good.  It's a quirky little film that's obviously not
> going
> > to do well.  Go buy the soundtrack (if you can find it):  it's worth it.
> > A les brief, a little more scholarly, review should show up on the IMDb
> > page for it soon.
> >
> > Scott
> >
> >
> ==========================================================================
> ==
> ====
> > Scott Andrew Hutchins
> > http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
> > Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
> >
> > "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky
> >
> > ----
> > Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> > http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite

----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 21:52:27 -0800
Reply-To:     [log in to unmask]
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Edward R. O'Neill" <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: UCLA
Subject:      Re: narcosynthesis
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

I for one would love to know--is this a feature?  a short?
a documentary?  Who produced it?

Sincerely,
Edward R. O'Neill

Jennifer M. Bean wrote:
>
> Hi Scott -- Yes, I did manage to find two copies of 16mm prints.  One is
> held at NYU, and one at the Medical Archive Center/Library in Maryland.
> Thanks for remembering this request -- Best,
>
> Jennifer M. Bean
> Assistant Professor of Cinema Studies
> Dept. of Comparative Literature
> Box 354338
> University of Washington-Seattle
> Seattle, WA  98195-4338
> Fax: 206.685.2017
>
> ----------
> >From: [log in to unmask]
> >To: [log in to unmask]
> >Subject: Re: narcosynthesis
> >Date: Wed, Mar 17, 1999, 2:32 PM
> >
>
> >Did anyone ever find this?
> >
> >Scott
> >
> >================================================================================
> >Scott Andrew Hutchins
> >http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
> >Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
> >
> >"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky
> >
> >
> >
> >On Tue, 15 Dec 1998, Jennifer M. Bean wrote:
> >
> >> I am doing research on a psychiatrist, Cornelia Wilbur, and I am trying to
> >> track down a movie she made in 1945.  The reference I have is:
> >> "Narcosynthesis, Pennsylvania Cinema Register, State College, Pennsylvania
> >> (1945)."  Has anyone heard of this film?  Is it extant?  Any information or
> >> research tips you might have would be most appreciated.
> >>
> >> I hope all are well in the holiday season.
> >>
> >> Jennifer M. Bean
> >> Assistant Professor of Cinema Studies
> >> Box 354338
> >> University of Washington-Seattle
> >> Seattle, WA  98195-4338
> >>
> >> ----
> >> To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
> >> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
> >>
> >
> >----
> >Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> >http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite

----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 22:04:59 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Irene Upshur <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Kubrick on Clockwork Orange
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Kubrick dated? You are not hearing laments because we freakin' can't
believe he's gone!



On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, Sean Desilets wrote:

> I've never read any intereviews in which Kubrick speaks at any length
> about pulling Clockwork Orange, but I think there's a brief exchange about
> it in one of the interviews in _Perspectives on Stanley Kubrick_, which
> was edited by Mario Falsetto (I think). He says essentially what people
> have already said, that he pulled the film because of the copycat stuff
> but still stands behind it.
>
> I sometimes don't pay close enough attention to the list, so maybe I
> missed something, but I'm a little surprised by the silence with which
> Kubrick's death has been met here. Is that because everybody's tear ducts
> were worn out by Kurusowa's death, because we've all finally realized the
>  "death of the author" so that individual authors' deaths aren't such a
> big deal, or because Kubrick is "dated" (or at least out of critical
> favor)?
>
>
> *******************************************************************************
> Sean Desilets                   *               "The only people who
>                         *               *       believe that there is
> Department of English           *               a language that is
> East Hall               *               *       not theoretical are
> Tufts University                *               professors of
> Medford, MA 02155       *               *       literature."
> [log in to unmask]              *                       Paul de Man
>
> *******************************************************************************
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>

Irene C. Upshur, Director
Instructional Media Center
Marymount University
2807 N. Glebe Rd.
Arlington, Virginia 22207

----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 21:10:56 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         [log in to unmask]
Subject:      Re: Oscar nominees
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I walked out of SIL twenty minutes in--but just to go to the rr during the
dance scene--Did I miss anyhting significant?  It was Christmas Day, I was
sick and had to go even more frequently than usual--a horrible condition
for a film student.

Scott

 ===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky



On Fri, 19 Mar 1999, paul wiener wrote:

> Scott, I would be the first to second your opinion of "Shakespeare in Love"
> as overrated. I nearly walked out of it several times (anyone care to write
> about the joys of walking out on movies - 5, 30 or 70 minutes into it?) ;
> not until the last 20 minutes did I like it, though the acting was
> terrific. Just another feel good movie. "Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are
> Dead" was far far superior in every respect. "Thin Red Line" is a much more
> interesting film than "Ryan" but doesn't hold together well or make you
> feel good, except for cinematography. "Ryan" would be nothing without Hanks
> and the first bloody 25 minutes. I don't even like to choose anymore among
> Oscar nominess. They're almost always all hyped crapola. At least "Life Is
> Beautiful" was original.
>
> By the way, where's the discussion of the Kazan Oscar honors? It seems once
> you turn 70 no one is allowed to criticize you anymore? Kazan could do a
> lifetime of good by saying something important about his decision at the
> Oscars. My money says he won't. He's already been professionally honored
> enough, so don't believe ANYTHING anyone says: this honor is purely political.
>
>
> Paul B. Wiener
> Special Services Librarian
> SUNY at Stony Brook
> 516/632-7253
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>

----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 21:02:58 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         [log in to unmask]
Subject:      Re: _Elizabeth_ Influences?
Comments: To: "Edward R. O'Neill" <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Ed Johnson-Ott writes for Nuvo Newsweekly in Indianapolis.  A quote of
his about _Trekkies_ was run in the national ad.  Last night his colleague
told me he was gay (though it wan't a surprise), but I don't remember why
she told me that.  Maybe it was when we were discussing that I'd read in
_Video Watchdog_ that those who knew James Whale think he would have been
outraged at the camp excesses of _Gods and Monsters_, which was so poorly
marketed here I didn't get to see it (it played for two weels with ads
pointing to the wrong theatre).

> of the loop, but I've never heard of him.
>
I always thought it was kind of silly attaching some of the most artistic
cinematic work compared to an aesthetic regarded with scorn.

> I agree that "MTV style" is very vague.  Todd Haynes went on
> record complaining about uses of the term by conventional
> critics to bash anything with avant garde leanings.

Certainly, but the style of editing and use of crosscutting may influence
the name-tossing.
> If it's a synonym for "rapid edits," then it's terribly
> misapplied to _Elizabeth_.
>
Scott

----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Mar 1999 16:25:35 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Michael Boedicker <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      film reviews vs. criticism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Hello, I'm new to the list.  Does anyone know of an academic source
which clearly explains the differences between film reviewing and film
criticism (they're often erroneously lumped together).

Thanks...
        Mike

----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:16:09 +0100
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Adrian <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Oscar nominees
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Another interesting thing is that Truman Show received no prizes. On the
other hand it wasn't any hit in the box-office...

/Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Film and TV Studies Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of paul wiener
Sent: den 19 mars 1999 15:58
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Oscar nominees


Scott, I would be the first to second your opinion of "Shakespeare in Love"
as overrated. I nearly walked out of it several times (anyone care to write
about the joys of walking out on movies - 5, 30 or 70 minutes into it?) ;
not until the last 20 minutes did I like it, though the acting was
terrific. Just another feel good movie. "Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are
Dead" was far far superior in every respect. "Thin Red Line" is a much more
interesting film than "Ryan" but doesn't hold together well or make you
feel good, except for cinematography. "Ryan" would be nothing without Hanks
and the first bloody 25 minutes. I don't even like to choose anymore among
Oscar nominess. They're almost always all hyped crapola. At least "Life Is
Beautiful" was original.

By the way, where's the discussion of the Kazan Oscar honors? It seems once
you turn 70 no one is allowed to criticize you anymore? Kazan could do a
lifetime of good by saying something important about his decision at the
Oscars. My money says he won't. He's already been professionally honored
enough, so don't believe ANYTHING anyone says: this honor is purely
political.


Paul B. Wiener
Special Services Librarian
SUNY at Stony Brook
516/632-7253
[log in to unmask]

----
Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite

----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Mon, 22 Mar 1999 21:58:10 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         gerardo herrera <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Silent Films
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

To Whom It May Concern,

I am seeking information on any research that has been done or is currently
being done on the contributions made by Hispanic filmmakers (i.e., writers,
directors, producers, editors, cameramen, set designers, etc.) in the
United States during the silent film era.

I am interested only in Hispanic filmmakers who worked BEHIND the camera.
I am not interested in Hispanic actors and actresses. I have found plenty
of information on them, but there appears to be virtually no information on
those who worked out of sight of the camera lense.

If this is an area of film history that is currently being researched,
could you give me the names and email addresses of those persons doing the
research so that I may be able to contact them?

Your help in this matter will be greatly appreciated.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Sincerely,

Gerardo Herrera

----
For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:31:50 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Kino International Corporation <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Tin Drum Update
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Well here is the latest
 In a series of rulings the federal judge reaffirmed that the tape was not
child pornography and the seizure was illegal. For a variety of technical
reasons he ruled that the neither the police nor DA could be held liable
for punative damages for the seizure of the tape from the stores.

  Last week the Oklahoma City council members approved a payment of
$575,000 to pay for the LEGAL fees of the stores who defended the tape.
The loser was responsible for the legal fees. $400,000 of this will come
from the city which will now have to have a property tax assesment to pay
for
their idiot police & DA. Some angry people have suggested that Oklahoman's
for Children and Families (OCAF) the group started all this should pay for this.
but they of course will not. As part of the settlement the City has agreed
to put into place new procedures for determining pornography and seizing
tapes to make sure this does not happen again. OCAF objected to this but
the city council refused to hear them.

  The other $175,000 in damages will be paid by the office of district attorney
Bob Macy. Macy applied for state funds to cover this. They turned him down.
Please remember both Macy and the judge who issued the order that the tape
was child pornograpy were re-elected without opposition in the last
election.

 Most importantly for now, IT IS NOT OVER. The second part of the case
which involves the man who is suing the police for seizing the tape from
his house is SCHEDULED for trail on June 15. Right now the judge has ruled
that he can only sue for damages under the VIDEO PRIVACY PROTECTION  law (
the bork law) which allows for
a $2500 dollor fine. I had a nice chat with the ACLU lawyer and their a
still a lot of unresolved issues in the case. The judge has ruled that the
case will basically only involve the whether the tape was given up
"voluntarily" as the police claim or under threat of arrest as the
plaintiff claims. As of now their will be no questions of the first
amendment or child pornography, but it is likely that these will be brought
up on appeal. Trust me this is going to keep going for a long time and
hopefully in the end we will have a major first amendment video precedent

Regards

Jessica Rosner
Kino

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:19:36 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Jim Marsden <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: film reviews vs. criticism
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

The 1997 text by Stephen Prince, _Movies and Meaning_ (Allyn and Bacon),
has a good, clear discussion. Chapter 10 under "Modes of Criticism"
discriminates among "newspaper/television reviewing," "general-interest
journal-based criticism," and "scholarly criticism."

Michael Boedicker wrote:

> Hello, I'm new to the list.  Does anyone know of an academic source
> which clearly explains the differences between film reviewing and film
> criticism (they're often erroneously lumped together).

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:52:23 -0800
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Brian Mudd <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Oscar nominees
In-Reply-To:  <000801be7559$399a3860$0100a8c0@ford1>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

Adrian:

Odd, isn't it?  I remember reading several articles early last summer that
"The Truman Show" was the only film -- at that time -- worthy of
"Best Film" nomination....that Carrey was a shoe-in for Best Actor
consideration.....and that the ONLY film "even on the horizon" for the
remainder of '98 was July's "Saving Private Ryan".

Funny how the Academy always seems to have a short memory, particularly
once the film distributor marketing machines kick in.


Brian Mudd
SVSU



On Tue, 23 Mar 1999, Adrian wrote:

> Another interesting thing is that Truman Show received no prizes. On the
> other hand it wasn't any hit in the box-office...
>
> /Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Film and TV Studies Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of paul wiener
> Sent: den 19 mars 1999 15:58
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Oscar nominees
>
>
> Scott, I would be the first to second your opinion of "Shakespeare in Love"
> as overrated. I nearly walked out of it several times (anyone care to write
> about the joys of walking out on movies - 5, 30 or 70 minutes into it?) ;
> not until the last 20 minutes did I like it, though the acting was
> terrific. Just another feel good movie. "Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are
> Dead" was far far superior in every respect. "Thin Red Line" is a much more
> interesting film than "Ryan" but doesn't hold together well or make you
> feel good, except for cinematography. "Ryan" would be nothing without Hanks
> and the first bloody 25 minutes. I don't even like to choose anymore among
> Oscar nominess. They're almost always all hyped crapola. At least "Life Is
> Beautiful" was original.
>
> By the way, where's the discussion of the Kazan Oscar honors? It seems once
> you turn 70 no one is allowed to criticize you anymore? Kazan could do a
> lifetime of good by saying something important about his decision at the
> Oscars. My money says he won't. He's already been professionally honored
> enough, so don't believe ANYTHING anyone says: this honor is purely
> political.
>
>
> Paul B. Wiener
> Special Services Librarian
> SUNY at Stony Brook
> 516/632-7253
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>
> ----
> For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
> http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
>

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 07:43:32 -0800
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Carlo Celli <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Concentration camp comedians (!!??)
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Toto', Prezzolini, and De Filippo were all Italian and never received an
Oscar. If any of them had been American, they would be as famous as Chaplin,
actually in Toto's case, more famous.
If you are interested in Benigni-bashing look for Giuliano Ferrarra in the
newspaper Il Foglio. He has been campaigning against the film due to
Benigni's closeness to the present Italian government.

Carlo Celli
Bowling Green State University


t 05:18 PM 3/23/99 -0500, you wrote:
>
>
>        "Benigni (sp?) showed how far Jerry Lewis could have got had he
>been
>        Italian, and my personal choice for best movie - Central Station -
>never
>        stood a chance."
>
>
>
>        the above quote brought to mind Jerry Lewis's Holocaust film  "The
>Day the Clown Cried" (1972) from the early seventies, which in he wrote
>produced and stared
>
>        And, has  Robin Williams begun the American version of Jakob the
>Liar?
>
>        Has anyone seen this film? I don't believe it has been released,
>but
>i thought it had been completed.  I vaguely recall "Spy" magazine doing a
>piece on it years ago.  Anyone know any good sources anent this title?
>
>        David
>
>
>
>
>
>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Richard Davies [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
>> Sent: Monday, March 22, 1999 6:34 PM
>> To:   [log in to unmask]
>> Subject:      Re: Shakespeare in Love
>>
>> Hi all,
>>
>> Have just watched replay of Oscars, and have to say that I'm rather glad
>> SIL won. Not a great movie, but one with a good deal going for it - well
>> written and excellent art direction, music to cover the uneven editing,
>> some nice acting, and above all a sense of momentum that sets it apart
>> from
>> the more lugubrious movies released last year.
>> Also, and I think this is the crucial point, a very clever concept.
>>
>> SPR got its just reward - as well directed as anything by Mr S, but
>> lumbered with a dreadfully leaden script in its second half. TRL also got
>> what it deserved - not a whole lot - since it craved the indulgence of
>its
>> audience a little too much. Shame Sean Penn didn't get best actor.
>>
>> I thought Pleasantville would appeal to the retro crowd, and was
>delighted
>> it got nothing. Sorry to be negative.
>>
>> Benigni (sp?) showed how far Jerry Lewis could have got had he been
>> Italian, and my personal choice for best movie - Central Station - never
>> stood a chance.
>>
>> Richard Davies
>> London
>> ----------
>> > From: [log in to unmask]
>> > To: [log in to unmask]
>> > Subject: Shakespeare in Love
>> > Date: 22 March 1999 19:16
>> >
>> > I rest my case about its overrating, since most of us saw that last
>> night.
>> >
>> > It made my ten best list, but barely, when I decided it was better than
>> > _Bulworth_.  all the other best pcture nominees did, too, but that
>> doesn't
>> > mean a whole lot when I only got to see (I think) seventeen 1998 films,
>> > the only really bad one being Emmerich's _Godzilla_, which as a fan of
>> > Ishiro Honda, Yoshimitsu Banno, and Takao Okawara, I had been dreading
>> it
>> > so much that it was actually better than I expected it to be, but not
>> > much.
>> >
>> > My belated ten-best list of 1998, as meaningless as it might be, and
>> > however changeable it will be in the future, goes to (in alphabetical
>> > order, because quibbling among very different films is tough):
>> >
>> > Buffalo 66
>> > Dark City
>> > Elizabeth
>> > Saving Private Ryan
>> > Shakespeare in Love
>> > A Simple Plan
>> > Smoke Signals
>> > The Thin Red Line
>> > The Truman Show
>> > La Vita E Bella
>> >
>> > Ther others I saw were _Bulworth_ (pretty good), _Godzilla_
>> (entertaining
>> > ONCE-and that's giving it too much credit), _Small Soldiers_
>> > (Dante--witty), _T-Rex: Back to the Cretaceous_ (starring a fellow
>> former
>> > NCHS student whom I've seen on stage--pretty decent first film role,
>not
>> > counting her cameo in _Can't Hardly Wait_), _One True Thing_ (good, but
>> > nothing special), _Waking Ned Devine (sweet and funny), and _What
>Dreams
>> > May Come_ (visually splendid, but I didn't think it was all that
>great).
>> > I wish I had gotten to see more indie films.
>> >
>> > Of this years films, I've seen _Ravenous_ and _Trekkies_.  I hope one
>of
>> > Antonia Bird's goals in that film was to make the audience vegetarians,
>> > because the though of eating red meat, especially ribs, has made me
>> > nauseous, like the Ludovico Method, ever since I saw the film Saturday.
>> > Everything about it was exceptionally well done except the story, which
>> > was reasonably good.  It's a quirky little film that's obviously not
>> going
>> > to do well.  Go buy the soundtrack (if you can find it):  it's worth
>it.
>> > A les brief, a little more scholarly, review should show up on the IMDb
>> > page for it soon.
>> >
>> > Scott
>> >
>> >
>>
>==========================================================================
>> ==
>> ====
>> > Scott Andrew Hutchins
>> > http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
>> > Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!
>> >
>> > "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky
>> >
>> > ----
>> > Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
>> > http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>>
>> ----
>> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
>> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>
>----
>For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
>http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
>

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:05:00 -0800
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Jennifer M. Bean" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: film reviews vs. criticism
Mime-version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII"
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Try Timothy Corrigan's _Writing About Film_ (Longman Pub.) -- a textbook
designed for the lower division writing classroom, but one with a nicely
succinct description of these categorical differences.

Jennifer M. Bean
Assistant Professor of Cinema Studies
Dept. of Comparative Literature
Box 354338
University of Washington-Seattle
Seattle, WA  98195-4338
Fax: 206.685.2017

----------
>From: Michael Boedicker <[log in to unmask]>
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: film reviews vs. criticism
>Date: Tue, Mar 23, 1999, 1:25 PM
>

>Hello, I'm new to the list.  Does anyone know of an academic source
>which clearly explains the differences between film reviewing and film
>criticism (they're often erroneously lumped together).
>
>Thanks...
>        Mike
>
>----
>For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
>http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 00:36:01 EST
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         [log in to unmask]
Subject:      Kazan award
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Paul Wiener was right that Kazan would say nothing to undo any damage.
This would seem to indicate he is unrepentent about naming names.

My question is why he seems a particular target for hatred by leftist
intellectual whereas, unless I have missed something, other "friendly
witnesses" to the hearings like Sterling Hayden, Robert Rossen and Jerome
Robbins (to name a few) seem rarely villified in print.  Does anyone know
if Kazan behaved considerably worse than some of the others?

Mark Netter
[log in to unmask]

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Mar 1999 23:56:06 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Lang Thompson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Oscar nominees
In-Reply-To:  <000801be7559$399a3860$0100a8c0@ford1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

>Another interesting thing is that Truman Show received no prizes. On the
>other hand it wasn't any hit in the box-office...

"The Truman Show" was one of 1998's biggest hits with a US gross around
$125 million.

----------------------------------------------
Lang Thompson
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/wlt4

World Cinema Review
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/wlt4/wcr.htm

"The heavy bullets sounded like howitzers in
the dry, airless late-afternoon air."
from Michael Avallone's The Patridge Family

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Mar 1999 19:10:29 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Ressel, David Lee" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Oscar nominees
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain

Not a hit?  Truman Show au contraire?   For 1999, I have it w/ a North
American Gross of $125.556 million and a Foreign of  $122.800.  At a
production cost of aprox. $65.0 ( I could be off), and P+P of $25.0 I say
they broke even on domestic alone, and gravy on foreign, plus more foreign
receipts to be counted and a big video receipts.

 I think, Truman's  June release hurt its Oscar awards most of all, plus who
can stop Harvey & Corky's Miramax Juggernaut! On trade ads alone, I am sure
Variety & HR made beaucoup coin. Not to mention, the dinners,
disinformation, development deals, a flurry of flacking and who knows what
else!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 1:16 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Oscar nominees
>
> Another interesting thing is that Truman Show received no prizes. On the
> other hand it wasn't any hit in the box-office...
>
> /Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Film and TV Studies Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of paul wiener
> Sent: den 19 mars 1999 15:58
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Oscar nominees
>
>
> Scott, I would be the first to second your opinion of "Shakespeare in
> Love"
> as overrated. I nearly walked out of it several times (anyone care to
> write
> about the joys of walking out on movies - 5, 30 or 70 minutes into it?) ;
> not until the last 20 minutes did I like it, though the acting was
> terrific. Just another feel good movie. "Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are
> Dead" was far far superior in every respect. "Thin Red Line" is a much
> more
> interesting film than "Ryan" but doesn't hold together well or make you
> feel good, except for cinematography. "Ryan" would be nothing without
> Hanks
> and the first bloody 25 minutes. I don't even like to choose anymore among
> Oscar nominess. They're almost always all hyped crapola. At least "Life Is
> Beautiful" was original.
>
> By the way, where's the discussion of the Kazan Oscar honors? It seems
> once
> you turn 70 no one is allowed to criticize you anymore? Kazan could do a
> lifetime of good by saying something important about his decision at the
> Oscars. My money says he won't. He's already been professionally honored
> enough, so don't believe ANYTHING anyone says: this honor is purely
> political.
>
>
> Paul B. Wiener
> Special Services Librarian
> SUNY at Stony Brook
> 516/632-7253
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>
> ----
> For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
> http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:27:12 +1100
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Kate Butler <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Best Actress Oscar
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Does anyone else think it's strange that Gwyneth Paltrow won the Best
Actress Oscar over Cate Blanchett? I know Gwyneth is a popular choice but I
don't think she's a very versatile or convincing actor, she was adequate
for the part in SIL but it didn't seem to be a difficult or deep role.
Cate's performance in Elizabeth was very convincing and I lost all
awareness that it was a part she was playing. It makes me question the
purpose of the award, I know it is driven by studio PR but I thought there
was some pretence at giving it for the best performance in the films
nominated.

Kate Butler

_____________________________________________________
Kate Butler
Department of Visual Communication
RMIT University, Australia
[log in to unmask]
_____________________________________________________
 "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
   -- Vice President Dan Quayle.

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:33:24 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         paul wiener <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Oscar nominees
In-Reply-To:  <000801be7559$399a3860$0100a8c0@ford1>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Why is this interesting? It was a beautifully-made movie, just not a good one.

At 07:16 PM 3/23/99 +0100, Adrian wrote:
>Another interesting thing is that Truman Show received no prizes. On the
>other hand it wasn't any hit in the box-office...
>
>/Adrian
>
>-----Original Message-----
>From: Film and TV Studies Discussion List
>[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of paul wiener
>Sent: den 19 mars 1999 15:58
>To: [log in to unmask]
>Subject: Re: Oscar nominees
>
>
>Scott, I would be the first to second your opinion of "Shakespeare in Love"
>as overrated. I nearly walked out of it several times (anyone care to write
>about the joys of walking out on movies - 5, 30 or 70 minutes into it?) ;
>not until the last 20 minutes did I like it, though the acting was
>terrific. Just another feel good movie. "Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are
>Dead" was far far superior in every respect. "Thin Red Line" is a much more
>interesting film than "Ryan" but doesn't hold together well or make you
>feel good, except for cinematography. "Ryan" would be nothing without Hanks
>and the first bloody 25 minutes. I don't even like to choose anymore among
>Oscar nominess. They're almost always all hyped crapola. At least "Life Is
>Beautiful" was original.
>
>By the way, where's the discussion of the Kazan Oscar honors? It seems once
>you turn 70 no one is allowed to criticize you anymore? Kazan could do a
>lifetime of good by saying something important about his decision at the
>Oscars. My money says he won't. He's already been professionally honored
>enough, so don't believe ANYTHING anyone says: this honor is purely
>political.
>
>
>Paul B. Wiener
>Special Services Librarian
>SUNY at Stony Brook
>516/632-7253
>[log in to unmask]
>
>----
>Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
>http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>
>----
>For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
>http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
>
>
Paul B. Wiener
Special Services Librarian
SUNY at Stony Brook
516/632-7253
[log in to unmask]

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 09:32:40 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         paul wiener <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: film reviews vs. criticism
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

It's the same difference as between reviewing and criticizing any medium. A
film reviewer gets PAID. A film critic gets TENURE.

At 04:25 PM 3/23/99 -0500, Michael Boedicker wrote:
>Hello, I'm new to the list.  Does anyone know of an academic source
>which clearly explains the differences between film reviewing and film
>criticism (they're often erroneously lumped together).
>
>Thanks...
>        Mike
>
>----
>For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
>http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html
>
>
Paul B. Wiener
Special Services Librarian
SUNY at Stony Brook
516/632-7253
[log in to unmask]

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 10:03:24 +1000
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Felicity Meakins <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Concentration camp comedians (!!??)
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

>
>
>         the above quote brought to mind Jerry Lewis's Holocaust film  "The
> Day the Clown Cried" (1972) from the early seventies, which in he wrote
> produced and stared


To my knowledge the Jerry Lewis film was never released due
to
the sensitive nature of the subject.

Of course I may have the wrong film.

>
Felicity

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Mar 1999 14:51:38 -0800
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         saul steier <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Benigni
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Does anybody have a verbatim transcript of roberto's first acceptance
speech? he referred to a poem about"Kissing the joy" that i'd like to run
down

Saul Steier
Department of Humanities
San Francisco State University
1600 Holloway Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94132
(415) 338-3129
[log in to unmask]

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Mar 1999 12:08:36 -0800
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         saul steier <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      benigni's poem on oscar night
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

anybody know text and/or author for the poem from which benigni quoted
during his first acceptance speech?  "he who kisses the joy as it flies
                   leaves an eternity of sunrise."
?????(transcription of speech on official oscar website is garbled and
innacurate)
thanks in advance.

Saul Steier
Department of Humanities
San Francisco State University
1600 Holloway Avenue
San Francisco, CA 94132
(415) 338-3129
[log in to unmask]

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Mar 1999 13:29:53 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         [log in to unmask]
Subject:      Re: Request for Information
Comments: To: Esther Yau <[log in to unmask]>
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

The Hidan of Maukbeiangjow, but don't ask me where to find a copy.


On Tue, 2 Feb 1999, Esther Yau wrote:

> A senior gender studies student, Jenna Skinner, is doing a comps.
> project on "Cultural Representation of White Trash and Red-Neck Women in
> Media."  Would anyone suggest any film titles in addition to the
> following ones?
>
> The titles are:
> River's Edge
> Love and A 45
> The Sadist
> 2000 Maniacs
> Near Darks
> Raising Arizona
> Beverly Hillbillies
> Urban Cowboy
> Natural Born Killers
> Lawn Dogs
> Gone with the Wind
> Deliverance
> Bonnie and Clyde
> Kalifornia
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Mar 1999 07:46:00 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Abe-Nornes <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Japanese film studies workshop
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=iso-2022-jp

JAPANESE CINEMA STUDIES IN THE REAR VIEW MIRROR: RE-VIEWING THE DISCIPLINE

The 1999 Workshop of the Kinema Club

************************************************************************
PAPERS ARE ONLINE (until next week):
http://pears.lib.ohio-state.edu/Markus/Workshop.html
************************************************************************

March 27-28, 1999

PLACE: School of Social Work, Room 1644
            University of Michigan, Ann Arbor

Organizers:
        Mitsuhiro Yoshimoto (The University of Iowa)
        Abe' Mark Nornes (The University of Michigan)


The purpose of this workshop is to enable participants to engage in
collaborative reflection on a series of papers on the subject of Japanese
cinema studies. It will use the occasion to prepare this work for a
publication in the form of a journal issue or edited book.

The idea of a workshop with a publication as the final objective took shape
over the last year, however, it has been the culmination of several years
of discussion about the state of Japanese cinema studies in the United
States. It is evident to all researchers and teachers in the field that we
are in a state of flux. While the scholars who established the field came
from film studies proper or from without academia, there are now people
approaching Japanese cinema from a variety of disciplines including
history, literature, area studies, anthropology, and comparative
literature. It is apparent that the study of Japanese cinema now has no
"home"----this may be a unique strength, but it also has serious implications
for anyone seriously interested in Japanese cinema as a research topic. At
this moment of blurring disciplinary boundaries, many have come to feel the
need to take stock of the situation: ask where we have come from and where
we are going. What is the shape of our field, and what are the most pressing
issues for future work?

Unlike film conferences where papers present research projects or analyze
films, this workshop will deal specifically with meta-critical and
methodological issues concerning the disciplinary and institutional
problems of Japanese film scholarship.

This workshop will feature five papers, which will be distributed and read
beforehand. The papers are available online in html and Adobe Acrobat
versions. To read them, please go to the Kinema Club website
(http://pears.lib.ohio-state.edu/Markus/Workshop.html).

On Saturday, the workshop consists of five 70 minute sessions. Each session
starts with the presenter's 5 minute opening remark, followed by the
discussants' 10 minute commentary, 50 minute group discussion and debate,
and a few minute summation by one of the discussants. The workshop concludes
on Sunday morning with an informal session on the current state of cinema
studies in Japan and an open discussion on various issues and topics which
go beyond the scope of any individual paper.

All sessions are free and open to the public.

Friday, March 26:

4:00-6:00:  Participants who arrive early are invited to
                The Center for Japanese Studies reception
                for Professor Mikiro Kato, Toyota Visiting Professor
                (Social Work Building, Suite 3603, 1080 S. University).

Saturday, March 27:

9:00-9:30: Breakfast

9:30-10:00: Welcome and Introduction
                Abe' Mark Nornes

10:00-11:10: "Is There a Discipline Called Japanese Cinema Studies?"
                Joseph Murphy (University of Florida)

                Discussants:
                Edward Fowler (University of California, Irvine)
                Joanne Izbicki (Wake Forest University)

11:15-12:25: "Japanese Cinema Studies Here and There: The Academic Subject in
Global Culture"
                Aaron Gerow (Yokohama National University)

12:25-1:30: Lunch

1:30-2:40: "Film Historiography's Other: Nation, Narrative and Capital in Japan"
                Eric Cazdyn (University of Oregon)

2:45-3:55: "Re-igniting Japanse Tradition with Hana-Bi"
                Darrell William Davis (University of Hong Kong)

4:00-5:10: "Cramping: Sexual Fields in the National Body, the
        Dilemma of Psychoanalytic Criticism, and the Stakes of Theory"

                Jonathan M. Hall (University of California, Santa Cruz)

6:30: Dinner, Home of Leslie Pincus (1131 W. Washington; 332-0270)


Sunday, March 28:

8:30-9:00: Breakfast

9:00-9:45: Presentation on the State of Cinema Studies in Japan
                Kato Mikiro, University of Kyoto

9:45-11:30: Open Discussion


The 1999 Kinema Club workshop was made possible by generous support from The
University of Michigan:

Center for Japanese Studies
Department of Asian Languages and Cultures
International Institute
Program in Film and Video Studies
Horace H. Rackham School of Graduate Studies
Office of the Vice President for Research

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Mar 1999 01:38:33 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Lang Thompson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      QUERY: "Saving Private Ryan" Inspiration
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

This is from the H-War military history list and is forwarded with the
writer's permission.  LT


>Date: Wed, 24 Mar 1999 06:17:16 PST
>From: "Christine Langille" <[log in to unmask]>
>
>I read in ENTERTAINMENT WEEKLY, in an article entitled, "Message in a
>Battle," (dated July 24th, 1998) that a New Hampshire war memorial inspired
>Robert Rodat to write the "Saving Private Ryan" Screenplay (pg32).  The
>memorial was reported to be in the small NH village of Putney Corners. But
>Putney Corners DOES NOT EXIST!! The only thing close is a Putney Hill in
>Hopkinton, NH or Putney, VT. I have talked to the NH State Historic
>Preservation Office, The NH State Library, and the NH State Veterans
>Council, just to name a few. Nobody that I've talked to here in NH has
>heard of Putney Corners or of this memorial.
>
>The memorial was described, in the article, as "...a monument to men who
>died in conflicts from the American Revolution to the Vietnam War."(pg
>32)The memorial in Hopkinton, NH has the names of the men from the town who
>died in conflicts from the Revolution to the Spanish-American War.
>
>I have already e-mailed my query to the editors of Entertainment Weekly,
>but if anyone knows where Rodat's monument is located, please let me know.
>I am working on my Master's Thesis in American Studies, the topic of which
>is war memorials.  I am arguing that war memorials are reflections of
>public grief that both influence and illustrate the complexities of
>American culture. The memorial that inspired Rodat will help illustrate one
>of the ways in which war memorials can have an impact on the culture.
>
>-Christine Langille
>Graduate student American Studies (University of Wyoming)
>currently living in Concord, NH.
>[log in to unmask]
>
----------------------------------------------
Lang Thompson
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/wlt4

World Cinema Review
http://www.tcf.ua.edu/wlt4/wcr.htm

"The heavy bullets sounded like howitzers in
the dry, airless late-afternoon air."
from Michael Avallone's The Patridge Family

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 23:08:15 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Michael Boedicker <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Thanks
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Many thanks to all who answered my request for an explanation between
film reviewing and criticism!
                                Mike

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 21:36:17 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Ed Owens <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Benigni
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
              x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

saul steier wrote:

> Does anybody have a verbatim transcript of roberto's first acceptance
> speech? he referred to a poem about"Kissing the joy" that i'd like to run
> down

I don't know if anyone has answered this yet, but here are both his
speeches.  Excuse the formatting.

Ed

For Actor:
Roberto Benigni: Thank you! This is a terrible mistake because I used up all
my
                                 English. I don't know! Oh how can I, I am
not able to express all my gratitude,
                                 because now, my body is in tumult because it
is a colossal moment of joy so
                                 everything is really in a way that I cannot
express. I would like to be Jupiter and
                                 kidnap everybody and lie down in the
(inaudible) making love to everybody
                                 because I don't know how to express - it's a
question of love. You are really, this is
                                 a mountain of snow, so delicate, the suavity
and the kindness, it is something I
                                 cannot forget. From the bottom of my heart
and thank you for the Academy
                                 Awards for the, who really loved the movie.
Thank you to all the, in Italy, the Italian
                                 cinema, grazie a Italia who made me, I am
really, I owe to them all my, if I did
                                 something good, so gracia a Italia i gracia
a America, land of the lot of things here.
                                 Thank you very much and, I hope, really I
don't deserve this. But, I hope to win
                                 some other (inaudible). Thank you!

For Foreign Language Film:
Roberto Benigni: Thank you! Thank you! Sophia, (inaudible) I want to be
                                 rocked by the waves of your beauty. Come
here. Thank you! Thank you! This is a
                                 moment of joy and I want to kiss everybody
because you are the (inaudible) of the
                                 joy. Here you kisses the joy as it flies -
leaves an eternity sunrise - the said poet.
                                 And this is wonderful to be here. Wonderful,
I feel like, now really to, to dive in this
                                 ocean of (inaudible) genorisity, this is too
much. Your generosity, this is, and uh,
                                 how do you say when the rain, the, the
hailstorm, it's a hailstorm of kindness of
                                 gratitude for you. And really I would like
to thank everybody that did the movie
                                 because, without them, I couldn't fly with
this movie - everybody who did, the
                                 producer, the screenwriter, Cerami, Nicola
Piovani, Vittorio Cecchi Gori. Harvey
                                 Weinstein, Miramax film, for, thank you very
much for what you did. And also I
                                 would like to thank my parents in Vergaio in
the little village in Italy they gave me
                                 the biggest gift, the poverty and I want to
thank them for the rest of my life. Really,
                                 but thank you mama and papo. Thank you! And
thank you for your love, because
                                 it, if I am here, it is because people love
the movie so it is always the question of
                                 love. I would like to dedicate this prize to
those that because the subject of my
                                 movie, those who are not here, they gave
their life in order that we can say, "Life is
                                 beautiful." And I would like to also say, a
kiss to Giorgio Cantarini, the little boy, and
                                 because we are talking the love, (inaudible)
and love is divinity, and sometimes if
                                 you are afraid, like all the divinities you
can appears. That's why I want to dedicate
                                 this prize to Nicoletta Braschi. Thank you!

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 17:31:53 -0800
Reply-To:     [log in to unmask]
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Edward R. O'Neill" <[log in to unmask]>
Organization: UCLA
Subject:      Politicizing the Oscars
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Good topic--even more broadly construed than stated.

The LA Times reported yesterday that there was some kind of
grumbling against Miramax for 'debasing' the Oscar process
by placing too many ads on behalf of _Shakespeare in Love_
and thus pre-empting the purportedly more morally worthwhile
_Saving Private Ryan_.

Of course, Miramax has done that for the last few years, so
it's absolutely nothing new.  But I love the way Hollywood
complains about filthy lucre only when a sacred cow
(Spielberg) suffers a blow.  The idea that the process is
apolitical and based on artistic merit rather than financial
factors is quite absurd, and Paltrow's win is a good
example.

The complaints make a nice counterpoint to the Academy's
decision to give an honorary Oscar to Kazan.  For what
reason could such an event be contrived if not to convince
American that Hollywood is apolitical, or even a bit right
wing, and hence to defend against the identification of
Hollywood with liberal democracts?

Sincerely,
Edward R. O'Neill
UCLA
General Education Program/Dept. of Sociology

Kate Butler wrote:
>
> Does anyone else think it's strange that Gwyneth Paltrow won the Best
> Actress Oscar over Cate Blanchett? I know Gwyneth is a popular choice but I
> don't think she's a very versatile or convincing actor, she was adequate
> for the part in SIL but it didn't seem to be a difficult or deep role.
> Cate's performance in Elizabeth was very convincing and I lost all
> awareness that it was a part she was playing. It makes me question the
> purpose of the award, I know it is driven by studio PR but I thought there
> was some pretence at giving it for the best performance in the films
> nominated.
>
> Kate Butler
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Kate Butler
> Department of Visual Communication
> RMIT University, Australia
> [log in to unmask]
> _____________________________________________________
>  "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
>    -- Vice President Dan Quayle.
>
> ----
> To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 20:12:44 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         [log in to unmask]
Subject:      Re: Best Actress Oscar
In-Reply-To:  <l03130301b31dd2a5b0e0@[203.34.13.152]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

I think I understood the excuse was that Paltrow played four roles--Viola,
the guy she pretended to be, Romeo, and Juliet.  I, too, found that it was
not a particularly deep role.  I don't think Robert Carlyle will win Best
Actor for Colquhoun/Ives in _Ravenous_, though that was a role much more
striking.  I thought Blanchett should have won without question.  I had
never heard of her prior to _Elizabeth_, and I think others may have felt
the same way, and that proved an impact on the votes, if a silly one.

Scott

 ===============================================================================
Scott Andrew Hutchins
http://php.iupui.edu/~sahutchi
Oz, Monsters, Kamillions, and More!

"Colorless green ideas sleep furiously."--Noam Chomsky



On Wed, 24 Mar 1999, Kate Butler wrote:

> Does anyone else think it's strange that Gwyneth Paltrow won the Best
> Actress Oscar over Cate Blanchett? I know Gwyneth is a popular choice but I
> don't think she's a very versatile or convincing actor, she was adequate
> for the part in SIL but it didn't seem to be a difficult or deep role.
> Cate's performance in Elizabeth was very convincing and I lost all
> awareness that it was a part she was playing. It makes me question the
> purpose of the award, I know it is driven by studio PR but I thought there
> was some pretence at giving it for the best performance in the films
> nominated.
>
> Kate Butler
>
> _____________________________________________________
> Kate Butler
> Department of Visual Communication
> RMIT University, Australia
> [log in to unmask]
> _____________________________________________________
>  "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
>    -- Vice President Dan Quayle.
>
> ----
> To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
> in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
>

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 19:00:54 EST
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Harvey R Greenberg Md <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Kazan award
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

i think it was his utter unregeneracy  and a general slipperiness of character

re Sterling Hayden: he was deeply conflicted about testifying  went to a
psychotherapist who unbeknownst to him was a hireling of  HUAC and or the FBI
this piece of work persuaded him -- and several other characters -- that it
would morally appropriate for them to name names   as a result of his
testimony, Hayden as I recall went into a very deep depression  which nearly
ruined his career  years later he was haunted by the event   mentioned it in
his autobiography and evinced his hatred of what he had done and for the
doctor

I myself thought it was utterly inappropriate 1  for the award to be given
and 2 for Kazan to have a standing ovation   what a craven bunch
hrgreenberg md endit

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 16:06:20 -0700
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Sharon Knolle <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Kazan award
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit

Kazan is still vilified because he never apologized OR showed remorse.
(Unlike, say, Sterling Hayden). He still stands by the ridiculous
"communist menace"
defense. Considering that he already won his Best Director Oscar for On the
Waterfront, he should not have been singled out for additional awards.
He's already been recognized by the Academy for his artistic merit.
My 2¢.

Sharon Knolle
Entertainment and Technology Writing
http://www.projectionmag.com/projection/sknolle.htm


At 10:36 PM -0700 3/23/99, [log in to unmask] wrote:
>Paul Wiener was right that Kazan would say nothing to undo any damage.
>This would seem to indicate he is unrepentent about naming names.
>
>My question is why he seems a particular target for hatred by leftist
>intellectual whereas, unless I have missed something, other "friendly
>witnesses" to the hearings like Sterling Hayden, Robert Rossen and Jerome
>Robbins (to name a few) seem rarely villified in print.  Does anyone know
>if Kazan behaved considerably worse than some of the others?
>
>Mark Netter
>[log in to unmask]
>

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Mar 1999 18:47:31 GMT
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         [log in to unmask]
Subject:      We require your help please
Comments: To: [log in to unmask]

My Friend and I are trying to trace the following information:

1. The Lyrics to a song called "Somewhere in Time"    (from a musical not sure.)
contact [log in to unmask]
http://www.vandaking.com

2. The Sheet Music to a song called OH HAPPY DAYS a gospel song from sister act film I think?
contact [log in to unmask]
http://user.super.net.uk/~garryg



Thanks  Garry

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Wed, 24 Mar 1999 22:14:15 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         mleidig <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Best Actress Oscar
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; x-mac-type="54455854";
              x-mac-creator="4D4F5353"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Gwyneth Paltrow is a wan waste of celluloid. She won because she cried
at the Golden Globes. She used her father's illness as well as her
grandfather's illness to win her the Oscar. The Golden Globe speeches
are calculated attempts at votes. Before the Golden Globes, Blanchett
was the front runner. After the waterworks, Paltrow had it locked.
Perhaps, Susan Lucci should do that sometime.

Chris

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Tue, 23 Mar 1999 17:32:01 EST
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Ira Joel Haber <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Oscar nominees
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-type: text/plain; charset=US-ASCII
Content-transfer-encoding: 7bit

Basically the Oscars were business as usual in every sense of the word. Their
choices, although not to my liking, were a bit better than last year, which
were one of the low points in a long history of  low points. Lets face it, the
Oscars's long history  of award giving is littered with forgotten & dreadful
films & performances. Do I need mention The Greatest Show On Earth, Grand
Hotel, Cimarron, Cavalcade,The Great Ziegfeld & quite recently the absolute
disgraceful choices of Dances With Wolves & BraveHeart. At least Shakespeare
In Love didn't make me want to vomit, although Princess Gwyneth  & Benigni
came close.

Ira Joel Haber
Cinemage Books

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Mar 1999 13:40:06 -0800
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Edward R. O'Neill" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Three Cheers
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

Dear Dr. Greenberg,

Three cheers for your points.

I find "craven" to be just the right word!

Sincerely,
Edward R. O'Neill
UCLA

At 07:00 PM 3/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
>i think it was his utter unregeneracy  and a general slipperiness of
character
>
>re Sterling Hayden: he was deeply conflicted about testifying  went to a
>psychotherapist who unbeknownst to him was a hireling of  HUAC and or the FBI
>this piece of work persuaded him -- and several other characters -- that it
>would morally appropriate for them to name names   as a result of his
>testimony, Hayden as I recall went into a very deep depression  which nearly
>ruined his career  years later he was haunted by the event   mentioned it in
>his autobiography and evinced his hatred of what he had done and for the
>doctor
>
>I myself thought it was utterly inappropriate 1  for the award to be given
>and 2 for Kazan to have a standing ovation   what a craven bunch
>hrgreenberg md endit
>
>----
>Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
>University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
>

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Mar 1999 21:31:24 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         gerardo herrera <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Best Actress Oscar
In-Reply-To:  <l03130301b31dd2a5b0e0@[203.34.13.152]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I too was hoping that Cate Blanchett would win the Oscar for Best Actress.
I thought her performance in Elizabeth was far better than Gwyneth's in SIL.

I'm glad to learn that I am not alone in my opinion.

Gerry Herrera
Script and Screenwriting
Regent University
Virginia Beach, Virginia

P.S. I also enjoyed Cate's performance in Oscar and Lucinda.


At 10:27 AM 3/24/99 +1100, you wrote:
>Does anyone else think it's strange that Gwyneth Paltrow won the Best
>Actress Oscar over Cate Blanchett? I know Gwyneth is a popular choice but I
>don't think she's a very versatile or convincing actor, she was adequate
>for the part in SIL but it didn't seem to be a difficult or deep role.
>Cate's performance in Elizabeth was very convincing and I lost all
>awareness that it was a part she was playing. It makes me question the
>purpose of the award, I know it is driven by studio PR but I thought there
>was some pretence at giving it for the best performance in the films
>nominated.
>
>Kate Butler
>
>_____________________________________________________
>Kate Butler
>Department of Visual Communication
>RMIT University, Australia
>[log in to unmask]
>_____________________________________________________
> "If we don't succeed, we run the risk of failure."
>   -- Vice President Dan Quayle.
>
>----
>To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
>in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]
>

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Mar 1999 17:58:02 -0500
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Irene Upshur <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: benigni's poem on oscar night
In-Reply-To:  <l03130301b32045ad9f93@[130.212.243.110]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; charset=US-ASCII

William Blake 1757--1827

"He who binds to himself a joy
Does the winged life destroy;
But he who kisses the joy as it flies
Lives in eternity's sunrise."




On Thu, 25 Mar 1999, saul steier wrote:

> anybody know text and/or author for the poem from which benigni quoted
> during his first acceptance speech?  "he who kisses the joy as it flies
>                    leaves an eternity of sunrise."
> ?????(transcription of speech on official oscar website is garbled and
> innacurate)
> thanks in advance.
>
> Saul Steier
> Department of Humanities
> San Francisco State University
> 1600 Holloway Avenue
> San Francisco, CA 94132
> (415) 338-3129
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----
> Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
> University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
>

Irene C. Upshur, Director
Instructional Media Center
Marymount University
2807 N. Glebe Rd.
Arlington, Virginia 22207

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Mar 1999 14:20:18 -0800
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         "Edward R. O'Neill" <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Best Tears in an Acceptance Speech
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="us-ascii"

I *do* think it's important to point out the total insignificance of the
Oscars as anything other than an index of popular trends in the film
industry, most notably the industry's desire to represent itself to the
public--as artistic, as independent-oriented and not studio-controlled,
etc.  Heavy-duty outrage is a bit beside the point with the regular
awards--the special lifetime awards, however, being different matter.

That said, I was actually more compelled by Paltrow's Oscar tears than by
the performance that supposedly merited the very award which provoked those
tears.  (It is ironic that feelings of authenticity emerge retrospectively
from exactly such ironies.)

If one wanted to criticize Paltrow's "Oscar-winning" performance for lack
of depth, her acceptance speech could be entered to make a prima facie
case.  While in the comment below Chris downgrades these speeches as
"calculated," I would say the televised performances were less calculated
than the celluloid one.

The fact that Paltrow's contorted facial expressions during her Oscar
acceptance speech were terrifically unbecoming (even on someone so easy on
the eye) only called to my attention the way the same actress will not let
herself do anything that is not pretty and even calculated to be pretty in
her filmed performances.  For me this constitutes the lack of depth of
those performances, although it does not mitigate their (rather limited)
charms.  (On these criteria, she was better in _Hard 8_.)

But Paltrow is still young, and there's no reason she shouldn't grow.
Let's not forget that Jessica Lange's performance in _King Kong_ could
hardly have alerted us to the full extent of her talents.

Also, if the Golden Globes speech was PR, was there really any need for the
Oscar speech to be so as well?  After all, by that point the campaign was
over and the goal achieved.

Sincerely,
Edward R. O'Neill
UCLA


At 10:14 PM 3/24/99 -0500, you wrote:
>Gwyneth Paltrow is a wan waste of celluloid. She won because she cried
>at the Golden Globes. She used her father's illness as well as her
>grandfather's illness to win her the Oscar. The Golden Globe speeches
>are calculated attempts at votes. Before the Golden Globes, Blanchett
>was the front runner. After the waterworks, Paltrow had it locked.
>Perhaps, Susan Lucci should do that sometime.
>
>Chris
>
>----
>Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
>University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
>

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Thu, 25 Mar 1999 16:04:52 -0600
Reply-To:     [log in to unmask]
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Donald Larsson <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Politicizing the Oscars
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: TEXT/PLAIN; CHARSET=US-ASCII

Edward O'Neill comments:


> Of course, Miramax has done that for the last few years, so
> it's absolutely nothing new.  But I love the way Hollywood
> complains about filthy lucre only when a sacred cow
> (Spielberg) suffers a blow.  The idea that the process is
> apolitical and based on artistic merit rather than financial
> factors is quite absurd, and Paltrow's win is a good
> example.

Has everyone on SCREEN-L forgotten last year's big winner already?
Q.E.D.!

>
> The complaints make a nice counterpoint to the Academy's
> decision to give an honorary Oscar to Kazan.  For what
> reason could such an event be contrived if not to convince
> American that Hollywood is apolitical, or even a bit right
> wing, and hence to defend against the identification of
> Hollywood with liberal democracts?

Kazan aside (and Whoopi's asides aside), the whole show smacked of that
political air, even to the point of bring Verifiable Real Male Heroes
(Glen and Powell) as presenters!

It made one miss Kubrick all the more.

Don Larsson


----------------------
Donald Larsson
Minnesota State U, Mankato
[log in to unmask]

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu
=========================================================================
Date:         Fri, 26 Mar 1999 00:35:16 +0100
Reply-To:     Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
Sender:       Film and TV Studies Discussion List <[log in to unmask]>
From:         Adrian <[log in to unmask]>
Subject:      Re: Oscar nominees
In-Reply-To:  <[log in to unmask]>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit

Ooops, I wouldn't say anything agains anyone who can name all those figures,
can you name all the people who saw it as well? :) Seriously though, I heard
that it was not hit, but the maybe meant here in Sweden. I personally though
it was a very good movie, something in the same heart as Altman's The
Player. Anyway much more original than most movies released last year. And
that Gwyneth, well, what can I say that hasn't been said? Not much...

/Adrian

-----Original Message-----
From: Film and TV Studies Discussion List
[mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of Ressel, David Lee
Sent: den 24 mars 1999 01:10
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: Oscar nominees


Not a hit?  Truman Show au contraire?   For 1999, I have it w/ a North
American Gross of $125.556 million and a Foreign of  $122.800.  At a
production cost of aprox. $65.0 ( I could be off), and P+P of $25.0 I say
they broke even on domestic alone, and gravy on foreign, plus more foreign
receipts to be counted and a big video receipts.

 I think, Truman's  June release hurt its Oscar awards most of all, plus who
can stop Harvey & Corky's Miramax Juggernaut! On trade ads alone, I am sure
Variety & HR made beaucoup coin. Not to mention, the dinners,
disinformation, development deals, a flurry of flacking and who knows what
else!
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Adrian [SMTP:[log in to unmask]]
> Sent: Tuesday, March 23, 1999 1:16 PM
> To:   [log in to unmask]
> Subject:      Re: Oscar nominees
>
> Another interesting thing is that Truman Show received no prizes. On the
> other hand it wasn't any hit in the box-office...
>
> /Adrian
>
> -----Original Message-----
> From: Film and TV Studies Discussion List
> [mailto:[log in to unmask]]On Behalf Of paul wiener
> Sent: den 19 mars 1999 15:58
> To: [log in to unmask]
> Subject: Re: Oscar nominees
>
>
> Scott, I would be the first to second your opinion of "Shakespeare in
> Love"
> as overrated. I nearly walked out of it several times (anyone care to
> write
> about the joys of walking out on movies - 5, 30 or 70 minutes into it?) ;
> not until the last 20 minutes did I like it, though the acting was
> terrific. Just another feel good movie. "Rosenkrantz and Guildenstern Are
> Dead" was far far superior in every respect. "Thin Red Line" is a much
> more
> interesting film than "Ryan" but doesn't hold together well or make you
> feel good, except for cinematography. "Ryan" would be nothing without
> Hanks
> and the first bloody 25 minutes. I don't even like to choose anymore among
> Oscar nominess. They're almost always all hyped crapola. At least "Life Is
> Beautiful" was original.
>
> By the way, where's the discussion of the Kazan Oscar honors? It seems
> once
> you turn 70 no one is allowed to criticize you anymore? Kazan could do a
> lifetime of good by saying something important about his decision at the
> Oscars. My money says he won't. He's already been professionally honored
> enough, so don't believe ANYTHING anyone says: this honor is purely
> political.
>
>
> Paul B. Wiener
> Special Services Librarian
> SUNY at Stony Brook
> 516/632-7253
> [log in to unmask]
>
> ----
> Online resources for film/TV studies may be found at ScreenSite
> http://www.tcf.ua.edu/ScreenSite
>
> ----
> For past messages, visit the Screen-L Archives:
> http://bama.ua.edu/archives/screen-l.html

----
To sign off Screen-L, e-mail [log in to unmask] and put SIGNOFF Screen-L
in the message.  Problems?  Contact [log in to unmask]

----
Screen-L is sponsored by the Telecommunication & Film Dept., the
University of Alabama: http://www.tcf.ua.edu