It is currently Wed Oct 22, 2014 10:14 pm

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next
Author Message
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jun 28, 2005 5:53 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
Now for a serious reply - this can't be an answer as no-one has asked any questions yet.

I am not arguing for a canon, But I am arguing for a response to the canons. Obviously everything Lang made is affected by not only his will but by circumstances, casting, the system, his crew, his relationships with the actors etc..

I still find you are expressing opinions about the movies you don't like. As for Liliom (which I can assure you I don't like!) I don't have the luxury like you of having my pleasures or fears confirmed by a fellow Melbourne audience of "100 other buffs". I had the melanchloy pleasure of watching Gus van Sant's very fine new movie, Last Days in Paris last month with an audience of six (I counted 'em.) And later that week Clare Denis' "L'Intrus" with an even smaller audience. Regardless of that I don't need their walkouts, or their opinions. I have watched a hallowed "Film Society" audience walk out of a screening (of a Techniclolor print) of Rancho Notorious because - I assume - they were embarrassed by the "corny" music. So what! I don't care about them, I trust my own repsonses, and more than ever at my age, I really do feel free to confirm that.

Here's a test. Sit down, watch the Lang TIger movies and analzye the sequences, shot by shot (pure formal analysis.) Then go and play the soundtrack - you will find it as amazing and unexpected as M or Testament. Then watch the movies again wihtout soundtrack. and count the closeups and counter shots. What does he make of Debra Paget? What does he make of Paul Hubschmidt and his bourgeois entourage? At what point does the mytholgy of story telling overtake the day-to day "reality" of the setting? Indeed was it ever there? Then get out Moonfleet and watch it from the same perpsective. What diffences do you notice? The exclusion of the boy from the adult's world? The boy's last gaze on the dead man? Do you see some consistency here? The work of a great artist?

Another - watch Secret Beyond the Door (hopefully you have the gorgeous French disc) and turn off the sound. Watch his direction of actors. Watch the elision from dream to dream. Watch the apparently routine ending (just like Rebecca.) In Hitchcock's movie, Hitch underscores all the psychological points (Judith's lesbianism, Joan's Masochism, Larry's sadism and disfunctional personality.) what a comparison the Lang makes. Redgrave (lile Larry a gay actor always willing to play ambivalence for a sympa director) plays it all subtle, Larry plays it for ham. The real winning performance is Judith who has to carry the burden of al this sexual perversity for both Hitchcock, the three principals AND and the censors. In the Lang, Joan Bennet carries it all like a Siegfried character through to the studio ending (which still ends oneirically.) And Lang was never so vulgar or condescending as to vividly portray homosexuals as patholigcal character "types" (despite claims of such in Hangmen also Die.) In one case Hitchcock's clear signals to the audience, on Lang's side the implications of dream, fate,the "what if".

Now tell me how you feel about Lang! And argue more clearly!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Tue Jan 03, 2006 10:29 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Apr 06, 2005 4:31 pm
Location: Greensboro, NC
this thread has me wishing I owned more Lang than M and Metropolis.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:30 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Location: schreckbabble.wordpress.com/
Alonzo the Armless wrote:
I'm guessing most people who watch this today see it as an art film, but I'd love to know how it was perceived when it forst came out. Was it seen as an exciting action film with moments of terror,...


It was seen as a Fritz Lang film, which was a globally recognized genre (and product) back then even more than it is today. He is a global legend today, but he was a global celebrity back then, a household name the way any blockbuster director is today... as well as being a living legend.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:38 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Location: schreckbabble.wordpress.com/
unclehulot wrote:
JusteLeblanc wrote:
I've been emailing Image getting them to either do something with the new Der Spieler print of hand it off to Criterion. Of course, they wont listen.


You're assuming that Image has a relationship with Transitfilm, the rights holder for that version. As far as I know, Kino is the only one to have such a relationship in the US. Criterion hasn't dealt with them either. .


TF is exactly where Criterion acquired TESTAMENT OF. That was a full-blown Murnau Foundation restoration, with the same lab/restoration network utilizing the Italian Cineteca Bologna and L'Immagine Ritrovata.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 1:55 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Location: schreckbabble.wordpress.com/
blindside8zao wrote:
this thread has me wishing I owned more Lang than M and Metropolis.


From THE SPIDERS all the way thru to the end, you can never go wrong with a Fritz Lang film (except for some of the US stuff i e WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS which, interestingly was one of his more successful films). I still watch my copy of the SPIDERS regularly... do NOT miss HANGMEN ALSO DIE (Lang & Berthold Brecht & James Wong Howe an de kamera... paranoiac heaven!)... and DEFINITELY do not miss (before supply dries up because Fantoma lists this set as discontinued, I hear) the truly sublime INDIAN TOMB 2 dvd set / KirchMedia restoration, bringing the complete film to the US for the first time in history. This film, on my MultiVideo Labs 900+ line monitor, is the absolute best color image I've ever seen a DVD produce. It is just stunning, and it is a full-blown, two-part Lang heroic epic in the true tradition of his silent NIBELUNGEN/SPINNEN. WOnderful that Germany gave him such a beautiful project upon his return back home, whereby he acquired the control he was used to enjoying back in his glory days w Pommer & Nebenzal.

FURY, SCARLET STREET, NIBELUNGEN, SPIONE, DR. MABUSE DER SPIELER, MINISTRY OF FEAR, DER MUDE TOD (anybody out in the non R1-zone know of a release of the non-cropped version of this film visible in the METROPOLIS disc's doc? Of course the Shepard/Image disc that we have here in R1, in addition to it's contrast/detail problems, was produced from an old French print which had a variable density soundtrack printed on the left side, slicing off a piece of the image.), and on and on and on... I even loved FRAU IM MOND, despite it's sappy love story.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 10:43 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 8:57 pm
HerrSchreck wrote:
Alonzo the Armless wrote:
I'm guessing most people who watch this today see it as an art film, but I'd love to know how it was perceived when it forst came out. Was it seen as an exciting action film with moments of terror,...


It was seen as a Fritz Lang film, which was a globally recognized genre (and product) back then even more than it is today. He is a global legend today, but he was a global celebrity back then, a household name the way any blockbuster director is today... as well as being a living legend.


Thanks for that info. The only director I can think with that kind of status today might be Spielberg. Audiences back then sure had better taste.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 5:48 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 pm
HerrSchreck wrote:
From THE SPIDERS all the way thru to the end, you can never go wrong with a Fritz Lang film (except for some of the US stuff i e WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS which, interestingly was one of his more successful films). I still watch my copy of the SPIDERS regularly... do NOT miss HANGMEN ALSO DIE (Lang & Berthold Brecht & James Wong Howe an de kamera... paranoiac heaven!)... and DEFINITELY do not miss (before supply dries up because Fantoma lists this set as discontinued, I hear) the truly sublime INDIAN TOMB 2 dvd set / KirchMedia restoration, bringing the complete film to the US for the first time in history. This film, on my MultiVideo Labs 900+ line monitor, is the absolute best color image I've ever seen a DVD produce. It is just stunning, and it is a full-blown, two-part Lang heroic epic in the true tradition of his silent NIBELUNGEN/SPINNEN. WOnderful that Germany gave him such a beautiful project upon his return back home, whereby he acquired the control he was used to enjoying back in his glory days w Pommer & Nebenzal.

He didn't acquire control over anything. Lang was disappointed with the German postwar film industry and the people, hated the conditions and was only offered sure fire remakes of old classics. He gave up after making two films and dismissed later his Indian epic as large scale silliness and rightly so. Lang was pretty much tired by the mid 50s and his return to Germany was a far less successful one than e.g. Siodmak's or Odwald's.
The bad joke is that his films are among the extremely few available and known German ones in the time span from 1945 to 1965 outside of Germany while far superior films by directors like Käutner, Staudte and others are virtually unknown.
Lang is a memorable visual director but a rather debatable one if you have to deal with stories and actors, both areas in which he wasn't always successful.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 6:05 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina
lubitsch wrote:
He gave up after making two films and dismissed later his Indian epic as large scale silliness and rightly so. Lang was pretty much tired by the mid 50s.
Lang is a memorable visual director but a rather debatable one if you have to deal with stories and actors, both areas in which he wasn't always successful.


I agree in large part with you except for two points:

1.) Lang, like Ford, was a notoriously unreliable source of information and evaluation of his own work. So we have to be careful automatically agreeing with his dismissals of some of his own films.

2.) While Lang's ill health was probably a factor in the decline of his output (both quantity and quality), he was still a solid craftsman. I think his 1000 Eyes of Dr. Mabuse is an excellent thriller, and for all its laughable special effects, his "Indian Epic" is still a lot of fun -- and quite powerful and creepy in places.

I've never known exactly what to think of Lang's treatment of his actors or some of the clunky storytelling in even his most famous films (Metropolis being the most obvious example). But then again, there are a lot of directors we tend to excuse for these same shortcomings.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 7:31 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
I don't know where to begin in replying to Lubitsch or the last poster and I'm in no mood for argument but I will try.

Re HerrSchrek's comments on Lang's return to Germany. The only producer inflicted "interference" on the Indian duo was the impostion of the cameraman, whom Lang complains about in the Eisner book for one. But, to repeat Tryvana's point, Lang was one of THE most unreliable commentators on his own work (and life) to the point of being a fabulist.

As for the value of his work overall - from Die Spinne to the Indian epic, I can only refer unconvinced readers to numerous critical evaluations, starting perhaps with Eisner, Luc Moullet, certainly Bogdanovich's book on the American movies, and much much more. Clearly Lang, despite his constant problems with producers, genuinely flouished under a studio system, as example the Wanger/Bennett/Diana productions. Even compeltely B-grade fare like House by the River, can now be seen in a very good DVD for the fine work that it is - a significantly related but altogether differently written and played variation on the equally remarkable, dreamlike Secret Behind the Door, and the psychology of the leads in both. Two sides of the murderous coin. Both movies have long been considered minor by too many writers, but one feels the same writers simply haven't looked at them. I could go on about this, but perhaps at some other time.

As for some "paucity" in directing actors???? Let's take something "minor" like House again. Thus Louis Hayward. I am hard pressed to think of a better perforrmance from him in any other movie. Michael Redgrave, Dan Duryea, Bennett of course. Fonda and Sidney in You Only Live Once, Tracey in Fury, Willy and Gerda in Die Frau im Mond and Spione. here's a doozy - another "minor" work, While the City Sleeps - actually a masterfully minimalized setting, staging and utterly razor sharp mise-en-scene. And the cast - Sanders, Lupino, Rhonda Fleming, Dana Andrews (already showing clear signs of his alcoholism but totally uner control with Lang's direction), Howard Duff, Thomas Mitchell.

I am not asking people to unquestioningly accept Lang's status as a master as some sort of "received wisdom", but I particularly want to steer any serious discussion about such a major auteur as Lang far away from the biographical/"cultural studies" realm in order to focus on the works. This means watching the movies.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:17 pm 

Joined: Thu Nov 04, 2004 11:41 am
Location: Florie-dah
I think there's also a huge cultural blindspot in regards to Lorre in M. We're so used to him showing up and doing the "Peter Lorre thing" that we forget that his performance in M had to come from somewhere. Although we know Lang and Lorre didn't get along, given how deeply Lorre's performance in M is seeped in Langian symbols and gestures and how integrated into the entire artistic piece it is, I have to conclude that he was directed to that place by Lang. It's one of film's great performances. A poor director of actors wouldn't have gotten it.

I think a key example here also is Tracy in Fury. He'd never acted that way before, and if he had, I haven't seen the picture yet (I am not a bottomless fount of knowledge, sadly). I defy anybody who has seen the picture to be able to shake his monologe when he returns from the dead. That didn't come out of thin air.

I also think that there's a general disinterest in Lang as an actor's director due to his most infamous work and, let's face it, most of our first exposure to him being Metropolis. It's a film that plays out on a hysterical level, and the actors behave accordingly. Even in this context they're played right over the top, and I think a lot of these opinions about the value of Lang as an acting director are residue of our modern distaste for this kind of stylization.

I don't mean to make assumptions and perhaps I'm mistaking the exceptions as the indicators here, but that's what I suspect is going on whenever I hear about Lang being "only visually interesting."


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Wed Jan 04, 2006 8:32 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
You've made a very important point about Lang and preconceptions based on pictures like M and the Harbou scripted "ecstatic" school.

Re Lorre, it's very interesting to follow a vieiwing of M with the two Hitchcocks from 35/36, particularly Secret Agent. Even Hitch is somewhat dismissive of the movie, but he shouldn't be, insofar as the two "evil" or "ambivalent" characters, Robert Young and Lorre, are both different and in some ways complementary personifications of the capacity for evil. Where Young's character and performance are generally true to Hitch's "attractive villian" mode, Lorre's performance seems to come from some profound level of the id. It's almost maniacal, and completely amoral. Indeed it's like an impossible extension of the M persona into what must have been a dead end for an actor.

Back to actors generally - youa re right, clearly Lang "gave" us Tracy's performance in Fury, just as he conceived and gives us Duryea and Bennett, and - another film on which he supposedly clashed with her - Dietrich in Rancho Notorious, in one of her only two fine performances, after Foreign Affair (the other obviously Touch of Evil.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 1:20 am 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina
I just wanted to clarify that I wasn't saying that Lang was a poor director of actors in any aesthetic sense. Rather, what I meant by his "treatment of his actors" and what I thought (perhaps incorrectly) that Lubitsch was referring to was Lang's infamous ill treatment of actors in general. You know, the sort of stuff that Bogdanovich himself has serious ethical reservations with in his commentary tracks -- Lang's whole tyrannical posturing that alienated more than just big bad producers.

No, I think Lang could and did elicit superb performances from some of his actors. Just watch Clash by Night again. Or any of the Edward G. Robinson's performances in his films for Lang. On the other hand, it's obvious some actors and actresses simply did not respond to his style. Stewart Granger, for example, who was nobody's idea of a model thespian, seems to be going through the paces even more than usual in Moonfleet.

I absolutely adore Lang's films -- even the weaker ones -- so I didn't want my earlier post to be viewed as a case of damning Lang with faint praise. Though I think we ought to admit when one of his films is genuinely weak, as in Moonfleet, or has a serious flaw, as in the script for Metropolis.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Thu Jan 05, 2006 5:28 am 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
Hmm youre probably right about Granger, although I'd still argue this point in view of his scenes with the boy. For one thing Lang holds Granger in wide shot for most of his big scenes (and this is Lang's only Scope film), and for another Granger rises to the big challenges of the script.

This leads me to think there are always films from Lang, for any admirer, that will seem like secondary exercises, in the first viewings. I dont care that much for Clash for instance, but their genre identities, I think, are probably distracting me from what Lang does with them, regardless of completely minor considerations like th studios after 1949, or the deficiencies of the German industry post 1950. His stamp is on every film - even the weakest, like the two Fox Westerns, Return of Frank James and Western Union. Although both these seem devoid of much Langian meaning, they shine with his pleasure at the chance to invoke American genre, and Technicolor (and you have to see them in decent prints).

So I am arguing myself into a corner as a pure Langian auteurist, and for that I make no apologies. (Nor do you I suspect.)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 4:25 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Location: schreckbabble.wordpress.com/
lubitsch wrote:
HerrSchreck wrote:
INDIAN TOMB 2 dvd set / KirchMedia restoration, bringing the complete film to the US for the first time in history. This film, on my MultiVideo Labs 900+ line monitor, is the absolute best color image I've ever seen a DVD produce. It is just stunning, and it is a full-blown, two-part Lang heroic epic in the true tradition of his silent NIBELUNGEN/SPINNEN. WOnderful that Germany gave him such a beautiful project upon his return back home, whereby he acquired the control he was used to enjoying back in his glory days w Pommer & Nebenzal.

He didn't acquire control over anything. Lang was disappointed with the German postwar film industry and the people, hated the conditions and .



Wow... I just caught this one. You just came barreling in shot out of a cannon...

He didn't acquire control over anything? Wow-- here I was thinking all this time that Lang directed this film. Who was the director, then? Lit those scenes, moved the actors around, you know... did that really nice looking very fun to watch epic film?

Lube, Lang was disappointed with everyone everywhere... was his own worst enemy, created horrible working conditions for himself due to saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. You're entititled to your (ahem, unique) opinion of course-- but the general revised critical opinion is this film marked a return to the kinds of film, the scale of filmmaking, that marked his hi-control silent years.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 6:36 am 
User avatar

Joined: Fri Oct 07, 2005 4:20 pm
HerrSchreck wrote:
Lube, Lang was disappointed with everyone everywhere... was his own worst enemy, created horrible working conditions for himself due to saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. You're entititled to your (ahem, unique) opinion of course-- but the general revised critical opinion is this film marked a return to the kinds of film, the scale of filmmaking, that marked his hi-control silent years.

Whose general revised opinion? Frankly if I read the posts in this thread I'm more than mildly amused. The last posters give in to such a funny auteurism ... oh boy one would think that's gone since the ridiculous days of the nouvelle vague critics who picked their auteurs and then stated that every film by an auteur is a great affair.
First it should be bloody obvious that Lang had varying degrees of control in USA and it's silly to try to elevate completely routine works like e.g. his two Fox westerns through his auteur status. Lang couldn't write screenplays, the ones he did in his beginnings are wildly melodramatic trash see THE SPIDERS or other early scripts. He was interested in creating pictures and composing effective scenes, that's the main point. His major and favored plot point was the lone man crushed by destiny or circumstances and the stories he filmed about this theme could be completely hollow, trivial stories like Harbou's scripts or very good ones. But it's often hilarious to read how critics consider every film an auteurs work. The flatly lit and completely unimaginative last two films WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS and BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT show a very tired director of two low budget productions with mediocre acting all around which generates no interest in the story. The solution of one French critic was to call this films not films noirs but films gris (grey films) in order to find a good term for the development of the beloved auteur.
Regarding his Indian films I strongly suggest that you also consider the versions of 1921 and 1937 as equal masterpieces, they are no better or worse. the screenwriter and the actors all felt that the film was outmoded stuff as did all reasonable critics who didn't try to consider it as expressions of an auteur. Brauner has made many of such large scale epics which are equally silly or good. It's a trashy story with exotic cliches (snakes, statues and ritual dances, sinister Asians, the love of an European to an exotic women and so on), wooden actors, a wildly melodramatic plot and stereotyped characters. The one mildly interesting point are a few effective scenes like the lepers in the cave.
If there wouldn't be the name of Lang and Brauner had chosen another director like e.g. Dieterle who also remade another originally silent epic for him, you would never rave about the film. But that's what happens if your only view of films is the simple way of auteurism.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:08 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Location: schreckbabble.wordpress.com/
lubitsch wrote:
HerrSchreck wrote:
Lube, Lang was disappointed with everyone everywhere... was his own worst enemy, created horrible working conditions for himself due to saying the wrong thing at the wrong time. You're entititled to your (ahem, unique) opinion of course-- but the general revised critical opinion is this film marked a return to the kinds of film, the scale of filmmaking, that marked his hi-control silent years.

Whose general revised opinion? Frankly if I read the posts in this thread I'm more than mildly amused. The last posters give in to such a funny auteurism ... oh boy one would think that's gone since the ridiculous days of the nouvelle vague critics who picked their auteurs and then stated that every film by an auteur is a great affair.
First it should be bloody obvious that Lang had varying degrees of control in USA and it's silly to try to elevate completely routine works like e.g. his two Fox westerns through his auteur status. Lang couldn't write screenplays, the ones he did in his beginnings are wildly melodramatic trash see THE SPIDERS or other early scripts. He was interested in creating pictures and composing effective scenes, that's the main point. His major and favored plot point was the lone man crushed by destiny or circumstances and the stories he filmed about this theme could be completely hollow, trivial stories like Harbou's scripts or very good ones. But it's often hilarious to read how critics consider every film an auteurs work. The flatly lit and completely unimaginative last two films WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS and BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT show a very tired director of two low budget productions with mediocre acting all around which generates no interest in the story. The solution of one French critic was to call this films not films noirs but films gris (grey films) in order to find a good term for the development of the beloved auteur.
Regarding his Indian films I strongly suggest that you also consider the versions of 1921 and 1937 as equal masterpieces, they are no better or worse. the screenwriter and the actors all felt that the film was outmoded stuff as did all reasonable critics who didn't try to consider it as expressions of an auteur. Brauner has made many of such large scale epics which are equally silly or good. It's a trashy story with exotic cliches (snakes, statues and ritual dances, sinister Asians, the love of an European to an exotic women and so on), wooden actors, a wildly melodramatic plot and stereotyped characters. The one mildly interesting point are a few effective scenes like the lepers in the cave.
If there wouldn't be the name of Lang and Brauner had chosen another director like e.g. Dieterle who also remade another originally silent epic for him, you would never rave about the film. But that's what happens if your only view of films is the simple way of auteurism.


What crawled up your ass & died? You're out of control and furious about something I'm not actually interested in identifying. I never said DAS INDISCHE GRABMAL was a masterpiece-- I said it was a lot of fun & gorgeous to look at.

There are some gals & gents who think I totter in the realm of extreme posts once every here & there... but even my most nuclear ideological opponents come to my defense because I am careful about neutralizing the offense of my points by prefacing statements with "In my opinion this film is _______," and "There is absolutely nothing wrong with your liking/disliking ______".
I happen to absolutely fucking LOVE SPIDERS... I own it, I own the Joe May INDIAN TOMB as well as the Lang.

You come on with these supersonic jolts saying

"are wildly melodramatic trash see THE SPIDERS or other early scripts"

Well guess what? I love the SPIDERS. I adore DER MUDE TOD. So you just directly said I like trash. I find that pretty fucking tedius. That's the kind of sophomoric lack of worldliness that sucks the fucking exquisite fun right out of a high stakes intellectual argument (and believe me, I'm chomping at the bit but hold back because I can forsee the result)-- like OOPS, WRONG ROOM, BYE NOW. Who wants to discuss intangibles with someone genuinely fucking furious before the exchange begins?

Outa here.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:13 am 
"Without obsession, life is nothing"
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
HerrSchreck wrote:
Outa here.


You will not be missed.


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:44 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Location: schreckbabble.wordpress.com/
Annie Mall wrote:
HerrSchreck wrote:
Outa here.


You will not be missed.


Ahh Tra--, I uh mean Annie... The opportunities are such a roaring tidal flood it woouldn't be fair. Cottage industry what?

And what in god's name, may I ask, did ever do to you?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:52 am 
"Without obsession, life is nothing"
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
hint: Val Lewton thread. Not that I am holding any grudge...but please stop with the swearing and attacking and bitching. Is old age such a bad place to be? I sure hope I don't turn out this bitter.

The thing is, you seem to have such an enormous background of information and first-hand knowledge of things and this is invaluable stuff for me and others that are threading the same path you did years back. But you just don't accept any opinions that seem to be contrary to yours and that is not a healthy conversation principle.

I would love to hear what you have to say about lots of other things currently in discussion on this forum if only you start to back off your guard a little bit. Please say you will consider this, ok?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:17 am 
User avatar

Joined: Sun Sep 04, 2005 11:46 am
Location: schreckbabble.wordpress.com/
Annie Mall wrote:
hint: Val Lewton thread. Not that I am holding any grudge...but please stop with the swearing and attacking and bitching. Is old age such a bad place to be? I sure hope I don't turn out this bitter.

The thing is, you seem to have such an enormous background of information and first-hand knowledge of things and this is invaluable stuff for me and others that are threading the same path you did years back. But you just don't accept any opinions that seem to be contrary to yours and that is not a healthy conversation principle.

I would love to hear what you have to say about lots of other things currently in discussion on this forum if only you start to back off your guard a little bit. Please say you will consider this, ok?


How old do you think I am?

I'm 38. Is that that old?


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 8:24 am 
"Without obsession, life is nothing"
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
I'm 31. No, 38 is not THAT old. Maybe I'm confusing you with David Frankenstein, oh, sorry, Ehrenstein...

Anyway, back to Fritz Lang, boys! Class is not dismissed yet!


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 12:47 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Wed Mar 30, 2005 4:38 pm
Location: North Carolina
lubitsch wrote:
The last posters give in to such a funny auteurism.


Not sure if this slam is directed at me or not. I thought I was distancing myself somewhat from hard-core auteurism by admitting both that Lang's later career does indeed show a falling-off of productivity (probably due as much to his ill health as to his irascibility) and that we ought to acknowledge those serious shortcomings in his work that do exist. At the same time, however, Lang is one of those directors for whom the auteur theory was created -- hence it fits him very well. That means that if you like his kind of movies, then each one has something interesting to offer. It's just like Hitchcock. Neither director made a truly unwatchable movie (except maybe for Hitch's Paradine Case) simply because both men were too good as craftsmen for that to happen.

Maybe "craftsman" is a less loaded term than "auteur"? I don't know. But I do know that I've derived a great deal of pleasure from all the all the movies directed by Lang that I've seen. I honestly can't say the same for most other "auteurs": there are a few entries in the canons of Hitchcock, Ford, et al that bore me. Maybe I'm just on Lang's same wavelength. But I never held up his "Indian Epic" as some sort of neglected masterpiece. In my opinion, it's just good trashy fun when viewed from the proper perspective.

Wow! When the days come that you're accused of being a snob (i.e., an "auteurist") for liking a guilty pleasure every now and then....


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Fri Jan 06, 2006 7:03 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
Tryvana, I think Lubitsch is roaring with laughter at the pathetic folly of both you and I (and Shrecko) wallowing in auteurist induced ecstasy. Tough fucking shit.

Annie if posters like Schrek left this board I doubt I would have much left to read. Unlike too many posters here, he argues his points. Far too many people here just spout opinionated drivel and wait for a reaction. I wish there was a much stronger moderator involvement or even a statement of purpose, like a_f_b. (As for age, I'm 56 and PROUD! Does that make people here who are older more nasty by definition? Is this the war of the boomers and x-y geners?)


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 4:35 am 
"Without obsession, life is nothing"
User avatar

Joined: Wed Nov 03, 2004 6:18 am
Location: Sitting End
I haven't got a single thing against older people (you should know that) but there is one thing I'm totally against: offending people in a nasty and vicious way.

Back to Lang and Mabuse now...


Top
 Profile  
 
 Post subject:
PostPosted: Sat Jan 07, 2006 7:43 pm 
User avatar

Joined: Tue Nov 02, 2004 8:01 pm
Location: WellyYeller
Yes and I have a thing about mindlessly negative posts from idiots deigned to elicit strong reactions to indefensible positions and statements. This garbage is from the land of "Lang sucks" or Altman's a dude." "Auteurists are retards", etc. PUHLEEZ!! LOUISE!!!! (to quote your bete noir.)

Never mind the language , hon. We're not in that other site y'know.


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 127 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6  Next

All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group




This site is not affiliated with The Criterion Collection