Jump to content


  • Posts

  • Joined

  • Last visited

Previous Fields

  • Occupation
  • Favorite movies
    1. Once Upon a Time in America (Leone) 2. King Kong (Cooper and Schoedsack) 3. I Fidanzati (Olmi) 4. Prince of the City (Lumet) 5. Un Grand Amour de Beethoven (Gance) 6. Robin and Marian (Lester) 7. Cockfighter (Hellman) 8. Song of Summer / Delius (Russell) 9. Two English Girls (Truffaut) 10. The Shanghai Gesture (Sternberg)
  • Favorite music
    Steve Reich Sibelius Late Liszt Richard Strauss Operas John Adams Billy Joe Shaver Lefty Frizell Hank Williams, Sr. Lloyd Cole New Order Robbie Fulks James McMurtry Townes Van Zandt
  • Favorite creative writing
    Ford Madox Ford Thomas Hardy Hermann Broch Shakespeare Racine Ibsen
  • Favorite visual art
    Robert Smithson Stan Brakhage Grunewald Tarkovsky Bresson Frederick Sommer Goya Kurt Schwitters

goneganesh's Achievements


Member (5/5)

  1. Herzog: "It was not so much a remake as an homage to Murnau. But I don't feel like doing an homage to Abel Ferrara because I don't know what he did
  2. Using the Great Lester Bangs to beat on Anonymous CD reviewer X and his 200 words seems like brutal overkill. The fact is if LB showed up today readers would call him a long winded, digressive geezer and lazy editors would massacre his writing until it screamed "yes, I am a consumer guide..." That said, I think that many of our young "critics" do tend to be over-enamoured with their own opinions and don't work very hard at trying to communicate effectively what a piece of music feels like -- their jargonist writing tends to be a function of their consumer narcissism. What is objectionable about phrases like "mancunian post-rock" is that they are so unthinkingly borrowed from the language of advertising. You can say what you want about Ol' Lester Bangs, he wouldn't have been blurbable or successful on Madison Avenue. This is much in contrast to the average review monkey, who seems, at least to me, to be born thinking in glossy superlatives or their opposites, and which possess a fundamental monotony. And as always: Good writers should read at least once a year, Orwell's "Politics and the English Language" which destroys with quick speed any rationalizations as I've seen above about the necessity for Jargonized writing. http://www.mtholyoke.edu/acad/intrel/orwell46.htm
  3. Excellent post, Buckeye! As I read over your summary of the Fordian themes in Fort Apache, I can't help but notice how many of them are re-capitulated in Eastwood's Flags of our Fathers -- and particularly the haunting line of Mrs. Collingwood's: "I can't see him. All I can see is the flags." Flags also ends with a similar re-writing of what we have seen in the course of the film -- but in Flags, it is memory itself that is re-writing history.
  4. Doug: I know you're not suggesting this, but Rohmer's films aren't abstract at all. If you want to see abstraction, watch a modern action film like Mann's Miami Vice or a Tony Scott movie. The logos/talk/bad -- image/action/good antinomy (which is a kind of a propagandistic re-statement of Hollywood's hegemonic practice anyway) becomes meaningless in films by great filmmakers. It only matters when we talk of bad films that are somehow out of balance. Just like in life, in Rohmer, taking his cue from Mankiewicz and Shakespeare, "talk" is action. And I would put Rohmer, as a film stylist, in the same rarefied category as Dreyer, Ozu, or Tati. Why? Because he is so rigorous and precise, yet subtle, almost invisible, that most people can't really see what he is doing as something profoundly "filmic". You can take as much pleasure in examining a Rohmer film structurally on the DVD as you can with Eisenstein, Ford or any 800 pound gorilla you can name.
  5. I agree. It's a masterpiece, a grand summation of both Noir (Ellroy) and Italian Giallo (De Palma) style. But it's not a film to be lightly unleashed on the unsuspecting. It is truly perversely outrageous and disturbing -- because its' violence and reflexive fetishism is reinforced by precise aesthetic "shocks" of imagery. And even though it is pure DePalma, it's also the most faithful to the grotesque, brutal, romantic spirit of Ellroy of all the adaptations.
  6. Apparently Fox has announced a slate of 10-12 "faith based" films for this boutique label... http://www.foxhome.com/foxfaith/ The chase for "passion dollars" goes on....
  7. A mild dissent here -- Dents and Shells is as good as Devotion + Doubt (and perhaps a little stronger) -- Since is a fairly anomalous record in the parade as it's really a "band record" -- From my live experiences with him, Buckner seems uneasy as a a rockn'roller. Since feels like Buckner's version of Wilco's Being There, which has a similarly undecided feel texturally. Buckner's record with Jon Langford, Sir Dark Invader, etc... is also worth looking out for...
  8. I would definitely second the suggestion of the Double Life of Veronique -- and also send you to look at the book The Secret Life of Puppets by Victoria Nelson - a book length essay-meditation on puppets (starting with the Kleist essay) and all the forms they take in modern life and pop culture. Also The Ghost in the Shell animes.... A.I. Blade Runner
  9. Sara: Here's the link to the thread for that movie.... http://artsandfaith.com/index.php?showtopi...hl=L'enfant
  10. I heartily second Acquarello's recommendation of this seminal, oddly overlooked film. Melville, in a characteristically self-dramatizing act, only got the rights to film the novel by offering to burn the negative if the film didn't meet Vercors' (the author) standards. In any case, it is a haunting, beautiful film -- unfortunately only available on VHS right now.
  11. Thanks for getting me back on topic, Doug. Where'd you see this? And what's it like?
  12. You said "probably" apocryphal...and that fatal "probably" is why I put you in in 2. But my taxonomy is a taxonomy of freedom, so you can apply in a private IM to be moved to either alternate hatred position. The paperwork takes a few weeks to process, though.
  13. Good line, Alan. There's basically three schools of criticism on this movie -- I'm putting you down in 1: 1) The "Jesus wasn't Swedish" school. 2) The "Isn't John Wayne funny as the Centurion?" School 3) The "it's long and underexciting" school. Call me a heretic, but to me, there's more to art than audience identification. But maybe this is a good subject for an A&F poll.... Too late, Steven, you're already in 2.
  14. Forget smoking! Isn't anthromorphizing animals a form of cruelty? Where's PETA on this?
  • Create New...