From: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org (fegmaniax-digest) To: fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Subject: fegmaniax-digest V9 #152 Reply-To: fegmaniax@smoe.org Sender: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Errors-To: owner-fegmaniax-digest@smoe.org Precedence: bulk fegmaniax-digest Sunday, June 11 2000 Volume 09 : Number 152 Today's Subjects: ----------------- Re: oh, you wanna talk movies? ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: 195 random comments, because-- [Jason Thornton ] Re: oh, you wanna talk movies? [steve ] Re: Tourist WHAT??? [Chris Gillis ] re: really whatever Vivien wants [Eb ] Re: oh, you wanna talk movies? [dmw ] Re: fake critters ["Russ Reynolds" ] Re: The Eternal Breakfast [Aaron Mandel ] white wine with RH? fah! ["Russ Reynolds" ] bay area shows [Eleanore Adams ] Re: oh, you wanna talk movies? ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: The Eternal Breakfast ["Andrew D. Simchik" ] Re: oh, you wanna talk movies? [steve ] ---------------------------------------------------------------------- Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 11:42:49 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: oh, you wanna talk movies? - --- dmw wrote: > but inherently unfilmable. there's too much there that relies on your > own > visual imagination; no one else's frodo or minas tirith is going to look > exactly like *your* frodo or minas tirith. making it concrete is going > to > deaden it and take all the magic away. phooey. I don't know...I find this a tough position to accept. By these standards there's no point in filming _any_ novel ever, because you'll always be spoiling someone's precious personal mental images. I guess I enjoy seeing others' fully realized mental images, which always interest me at least even if they aren't quite what I had in mind. And it's not the case for me that I have an inviolate personal image that no one can approximate; I have a pretty good sense of whether someone's "nailed it" or not (and of course two different visual designers can "nail it" in two different ways). I'm only really bothered when they simply cheat. Antonio Banderas as Armand in Interview with the Vampire was simply wrong, wrong, wrong in so many ways. He ceased to be the character in the book for me. Brad Pitt worked as Louis, Tom Cruise astonishingly worked as Lestat, but Banderas was simply miscast. However: my mental pictures of all three are intact and I don't feel that the film deadened anything or took the magic away. I feel the same way about the notion that what is left to the imagination is always sexier or scarier (or both, depending on the circumstances). I really don't feel so well acquainted with the causes of fear and horror that I could dream up something scarier than reality; real-life images of gore and murder always disturb me much more than imagining what happened based on a news story. Likewise for sex: I don't feel that I've seen so many people in so many configurations that I can dream up the sexiest combination ever, the ideal man, the ideal woman. Seeing actual details in real life or portrayed on screen still works for me. I like enjoying what someone else's imagination has dreamed up. > also many of the > creatures encountered will lend themselves too easily to cheesy > special-effectsing. the whole point of a barrow wight is that you never > do get a good look at it, and the spiders should be neither stop motion > animation nor enlarged photography. What would you like? Real giant spiders? Looks like they'll probably be CGI, which won't be great but it'll do. > experience. what i remember bugging me, other than kr's dreadful > acting, I thought the three suitors, with the _possible_ exception of Richard E. Grant, were the worst offenders in this category after Reeves. > and not the mere fact of lovestory, actually, but that the lovestory was > dumb and dreadful, was the inconsistency of visual tone -- i thought the > cinematographic bag-o-tricks was distracting, especially the > spielbergian > action scene on a storm-tossed boat, and oldman's stupid mutating shadow > (not to mention shifting age). I loved all that -- it contributed to the sense of nightmare, for me. > the bard: i expected to hate luhrman's modern-day take on R&J, and wound > up being unexpectedly delighted. Likewise! Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:14:37 -0700 (PDT) From: Jason Thornton Subject: Re: 195 random comments, because-- At 03:11 PM 6/9/00 -0400, Allen B. Ruch wrote: >>>What other movies have lucious visuals, but if you take that >>>away,you find yourself in negative space? >> >>"The Pillow Book," and just about anything else by Peter Greenaway... > >Yes, but isn't that 90% of the point of Greenaway's movies? I mean, >who looks for a plot in Kandinsky's The Four Seasons? You have to >approach a Greenaway film with a different attitude than most other >movies, I think. I certainly agree that the point of Greenaway films are the luscious visuals, and that in some sense they are "moving paintings" rather than "moving pictures." Unfortunately, there is not much else in his movies to hold my interest for very long. Trailers for his flicks make me drool, the films themselves bore me to tears. If I could visit his movies for a few minutes on screens on gallery walls, or hang them on my own like inexpensive IKEA Kandinsky prints, I surely would. Or if he condensed them into three or four minute music videos, they would be brilliant. Speaking of films that go on far too long, I should have mentioned him in this context as well - - remove a few frames from his movies and print them in books, and that's about all you really need. Actually, what really bothers me most about Greenaway is his occassional reliance on low-brow Cronenbergian gross-out shock-jockery, and the cheap, mediocre, heavy-heanded Clive Barker symbolism that usually comes along with it. >And as someone (jason t ?) said before, Tom Waits was a perfect Renfield. Twas not I, sweet Randi, although I agree wholeheartedly - but I had completely forgotten about Waits's (or Waits') Renfield until someone else brought it up. Coppola's "Dracula" didn't leave a huge impression on me; I wasn't overly impressed by the performances or the adaptation of the tale. I was never drawn into the story - it felt more like a refresher for the novel than a film. I do remember being haunted by the visuals long after, however. Another pretty shell of a movie, in my book. Gary Oldman is waaaay fucking cool... >i can't understand the excitement about more tolkein movies, peter jackson >(and i've seen _meet the feebles_...oof!) or no peter jackson. i think >the books are overrated, actually, love them though i did when i was 17, >but inherently unfilmable. I always thought that the Lord of the Rings would work *better* as films - movie versions, I hope, would cut out all the boring pseudo-historical bits and the silly ballads and focus on the meat of the story. Speaking of meat... >>When in San Francisco, YOU MUST have a sourdough boat filled with delicious, >>mouth watering clam chowder. > >ack... tourist food! We never eat that stuff here! I don't really equate San Franscisco with clam chowder or vice versa. When I think of clam chowder, I think of Boston. But perhaps it is tourist food there as well... > Who on earth actually >COOKS their seafood?!? Um... just about everybody, including the Japanese much of the time. ;) Someone brought up sea urchin here a few weeks ago, and I've been craving it ever since. The last two times I went out to sushi, they were out of it! Blast! - --Jason "Me. Next weekend. New York City. Bowie!" Thornton "Only the few know the sweetness of the twisted apples." - Sherwood Anderson ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 14:19:23 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: oh, you wanna talk movies? dmw: >i can't understand the excitement about more tolkein movies, peter jackson >(and i've seen _meet the feebles_...oof!) or no peter jackson. i think >the books are overrated, actually, love them though i did when i was 17, >but inherently unfilmable. there's too much there that relies on your own >visual imagination; no one else's frodo or minas tirith is going to look >exactly like *your* frodo or minas tirith. making it concrete is going to >deaden it and take all the magic away. phooey. also many of the >creatures encountered will lend themselves too easily to cheesy >special-effectsing. the whole point of a barrow wight is that you never >do get a good look at it, and the spiders should be neither stop motion >animation nor enlarged photography. All points taken, I think you should give jackson his shot. Maybe he'll take on Little, Big after his LOTR trial run. ;) There's a teaser trailer at >www.lordoftherings.net< or >www.apple.com< that's worth looking at. There are four sizes, including full screen if you've got QuickTime 4 plus enought horsepower and connection. - - Steve _______________ We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 12:36:19 -0700 From: Chris Gillis Subject: Re: Tourist WHAT??? BLATZMAN@aol.com wrote: > > WHAT? Sourdough Boats are tourist food? Ha! I spent over 23 years of my > life in the Bay Area and I SAY IT'S DELICIOUS!!!! It's what I miss most > about the bay area... Ahh, fresh sourdough and cheese... I could live on it > (oh please... somebody ring the...) > I think many are forgetting how Dave loves to eat this local treat: with tongue firmly in cheek. .chris ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 13:50:11 -0700 From: Eb Subject: re: really whatever Vivien wants I loved the visual effects in Coppola's "Dracula," but the love story became pretty silly by the end. I have this lingering cringe-memory of Winona (way out of her depth) looking up at her love Gary and moaning "Take me away from all this *death*" in her nice-try British accent -- that was a real howler. Still, it was probably the best Coppola film of the past 15 years (which doesn't speak very well for his recent efforts). Eb, who recently saw a small portion of "Bride of Chucky," which made "The Waterboy" seem like "Battleship Potemkin" ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 17:56:35 -0400 (EDT) From: dmw Subject: Re: oh, you wanna talk movies? On Sat, 10 Jun 2000, steve wrote: > All points taken, I think you should give jackson his shot. Maybe he'll > take on Little, Big after his LOTR trial run. ;) oh, now that's scary! has it come up here already that i'm a Crowley fan, or was that a shot in the dark? > There's a teaser trailer at >www.lordoftherings.net< or >www.apple.com< > that's worth looking at. There are four sizes, including full screen if > you've got QuickTime 4 plus enought horsepower and connection. hrm. i took a look...but the previews for _star wars_ didn't look bad either; i'm reserving judgment until i see the finished product. ...if it's as good as _princess mononoke_ i'll be well pleased. Drew makes the point that my objection to treading on the reader's visual imagination could be used against any adaptation. well, that's true enough, but i think that's less of a problem for something set in the real world. i mean, we all know what new york city looks like, y'know? likewise praying mantises, tugboats, and jelly beans. in the case of _lord of the rings_, i think the reader's imagination has had to work harder than usual, making it more likely that the film's creative team will strike a completely wrong note. i interviewed john petkovic from cobra verde not long ago, and he strongly urged me in the course of our talk to watch _the iron giant_, assuring me that despite its kidvid marketing it was subtle, smart & subversive. i read enough of his film writing to feel that we had some common ground, and decided, despite the derisive hoots of some of my chums, to give the flick a shot, and by gum, i'm with JP on this one. it were swell. - -- d. np universe zero _1313_ - - oh no, you've just read mail from doug = dmw@radix.net - get yr pathos - - www.pathetic-caverns.com -- books, flicks, tunes, etc. = reviews - - www.fecklessbeast.com -- angst, guilt, fear, betrayal! = guitar pop ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 16:03:06 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: Re: fake critters > they're TOTALLY fake-looking dinoFUCKINGsaurs, ESPECIALLY when in motion > and/or in "interaction" with "live" actors. The problem I have with computer animation is that in every case I've seen the critters in question are *constantly* in motion. In much the same way that 3-D movies always feature way to many shots of things coming towards you, computer animation tends to rely far to much on those realistic looking body movements to the point where bodies that would normally be keeping perfectly still in certain situations are instead weaving about like they're high on shrooms at a grateful dead concert. - -rUss ------------------------------ Date: Sat, 10 Jun 2000 21:11:32 -0400 (EDT) From: Aaron Mandel Subject: Re: The Eternal Breakfast On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: > I disliked Laura intensely in the movie. She came across as > thoroughly insincere. i didn't quite find her insincere, but she definitely seemed somewhat self-absorbed, albeit in a confident way. i found it hard to imagine her understanding Rob; she treated him more like a promising but recalcitrant student. i was also annoyed that Hjejle did such a poor job of hiding her accent. if they thought she was right for the part, they should have let Laura have an accent or reshot some of the scenes she blew. > Is there a cult? I thought the book/movie would be some sort of > music-geek Odyssey, but that really wasn't the focus. I'm assuming > the cultists thought it was. you mean that music geeking wasn't the focus of the movie? i entirely disagree. a ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 00:23:37 -0700 From: "Russ Reynolds" Subject: white wine with RH? fah! > Great American Music Hall is so wonderful. I suggest a bottle > of their finest white wine, brought to your table. I think white goes better > with Robyn. Not if you've got a skull and a suitcase with you. And if you're listening to Groovy Decay it's got to be a chianti. Anyway, forget wine. Beer goes better with RH. If you want the SF flavor have an Anchor Steam. The best damn beer in the world. - - rUss ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 02:31:41 -0700 From: Eleanore Adams Subject: bay area shows Is the Sweetwater (marin) show sold out yet? I need 2 tix...... eleanore ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:02:24 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: oh, you wanna talk movies? - --- dmw wrote: > hrm. i took a look...but the previews for _star wars_ didn't look bad > either; i'm reserving judgment until i see the finished product. > ....if it's as good as _princess mononoke_ i'll be well pleased. I really had mixed feelings about _Mononoke_. Really fine visuals, some fantastic scenes, but whole stretches of the movie left me kind of cold and, well, bored. It was BORING ARTHOUSE FARE! (No, not really.) > Drew makes the point that my objection to treading on the > reader's visual imagination could be used against any adaptation. well, > that's true enough, but i think that's less of a problem for something > set > in the real world. I guess so. To me it's all a matter of degree. I still enjoy seeing the creative team's visual imagination -- I already know what mine looks like! Drew ===== Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 11:08:59 -0700 (PDT) From: "Andrew D. Simchik" Subject: Re: The Eternal Breakfast - --- Aaron Mandel wrote: > On Fri, 9 Jun 2000, Andrew D. Simchik wrote: I agree with your comments on Laura... > > Is there a cult? I thought the book/movie would be some sort of > > music-geek Odyssey, but that really wasn't the focus. I'm assuming > > the cultists thought it was. > > you mean that music geeking wasn't the focus of the movie? i entirely > disagree. ...but I really can't agree here. You're welcome to try and convince me if you like but I felt it ultimately boiled down to window dressing. Not that I can really imagine a movie where music geeking is the focus. Rob goes to -- what? One concert throughout the course of the film? By a musician he's never even heard of? He puts on records to make himself feel better in the book. Does that happen here? We hear very little about the musical tastes of his legendary lost loves. And so on. Drew, who just dropped yet another triple-figure sum at Amoeba ===== Andrew D. Simchik, schnopia@yahoo.com __________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Yahoo! Photos -- now, 100 FREE prints! http://photos.yahoo.com ------------------------------ Date: Sun, 11 Jun 2000 15:50:34 -0500 From: steve Subject: Re: oh, you wanna talk movies? Andrew D. Simchik: >I really had mixed feelings about _Mononoke_. Really fine visuals, some >fantastic scenes, but whole stretches of the movie left me kind of cold >and, well, bored. > >It was BORING ARTHOUSE FARE! (No, not really.) Seems to me that a lot of (most?) Japanese films have a slower pace than Hollywood fare. Princess Mononoke will be out for rental on tape sometime this fall, and on DVD for purchase by the end of the year (if Buena Vista doesn't change plans again). Disney evidently has Miyazaki's Laputa: Castle in the Sky (they're dropping the Laputa part) done. Why they haven't released it is anybody's guess (or fodder for conspiracy theories). If memory serves, it's a good bit faster paced than PM. If you want some crazy adventure, check out the Miyazaki directed The Castle of Cagliostro (newly released on tape and DVD). Makes John Woo seem like a sissy. - - Steve _______________ We're all Jesus, Buddha, and the Wizard of Oz! - Andy Partridge ------------------------------ End of fegmaniax-digest V9 #152 *******************************