tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post4494136271179632709..comments2024-03-12T12:38:23.542-04:00Comments on The Kind of Face You Hate: Healthy and Adorablebill r.http://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comBlogger32125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-73827254989096006202009-04-14T18:04:00.000-04:002009-04-14T18:04:00.000-04:00Goddamn blogger and their weird spacing issues! Wh...<I>Goddamn blogger and their weird spacing issues! What's going on here?</I>---<br /><br />Hit "RETURN", then "---" then RETURN twice. It's a temporary solution to whatever is going on with Blogger right now. It's annoyin' ain't it???Foxhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08067136509248849744noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-78045930781423271392009-04-14T15:47:00.001-04:002009-04-14T15:47:00.001-04:00Goddamn blogger and their weird spacing issues! W...Goddamn blogger and their weird spacing issues! What's going on here?bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-3792721757480275852009-04-14T15:47:00.000-04:002009-04-14T15:47:00.000-04:00Bill, part of it may be that Tierney's playing of ...<I>Bill, part of it may be that Tierney's playing of a hypnotized woman is just a few steps removed from the arms-in-front sleepwalking of a cartoon character.</I>That would have been awesome.<br /><br /><I>The shot I'm thinking of was elegant and clinical, but not especially revealing in terms of theme or character.</I>But it doesn't have to be to be good, does it? And is it the same shot that reveals O'Neil on the couch? Because that's a wonderful shot! Really elegant, and it pays off the suspense beautifully.<br /><br /><I>Overall, though, for me Whirlpool is too plodding to be an involving melodrama, and too on-the-nose to be taken as anything more subtle.</I>Well, in the case of this particular film, I'm not claiming subtlety, although I think certain aspects of Conte's character are handled pretty quietly (and I must be in the minority in thinking he's really not all that bad in this). "Plodding" I do take great exception to, however, and I will probably challenge you to a duel at some point, when I can get around to it. I thought this movie whisked along, and was, for me, both gripping and unusual.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-86372332457891979722009-04-14T15:09:00.000-04:002009-04-14T15:09:00.000-04:00Bill, part of it may be that Tierney's playing of ...Bill, part of it may be that Tierney's playing of a hypnotized woman is just a few steps removed from the arms-in-front sleepwalking of a cartoon character. The scene where she is breaking and entering is her worst. The shot I'm thinking of was elegant and clinical, but not especially revealing in terms of theme or character. I'd compare it to something like Ophuls swirling around Madame de... on the dance floor, with the camera managing to become her very giddiness at being in love, a common enough trope--but somehow the swoop of the shot also signals her recklessness. <br /><br />I did like Barbara O'Neil in Whirlpool, I should add that. And Ferrer was most enjoyable. That voice of his was so beautiful that you could understand his hold on women and believe that he could make a specialty of hypnosis. I liked your point about the importance of Korvo's physical ugliness. Overall, though, for me Whirlpool is too plodding to be an involving melodrama, and too on-the-nose to be taken as anything more subtle.The Sirenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13587505433284584391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-60871127766226850242009-04-14T14:38:00.000-04:002009-04-14T14:38:00.000-04:00Bill said: "but everyone seems to be in agreement ...Bill said: "but everyone seems to be in agreement that this first clutch of films from Preminger is the best of him."<br /><br />Just to be contrarian, I <I>don't</I> actually agree with that. I love the early noirs but for me the mid-50s through mid-60s period (roughly, <I>Saint Joan</I> through <I>In Harm's Way</I>) is where Preminger's absolute best films mostly lie. That may be a true minority opinion, though.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-32276630313914324542009-04-14T14:12:00.000-04:002009-04-14T14:12:00.000-04:00The direction kept emphasizing the obvious. Look a...<I>The direction kept emphasizing the obvious. Look at how Ferrer is hanging over Tierney like a vulture! see the camera come in tight on them because she's trapped by him, get it? Now let's have the camera track her in a robotic fashion as she walks around a room, hypnotized...</I>I don't know, Campaspe...what you call "obvious" I see as "appropriate". I'm also not seeing what is so robotic about the tracking shot. What could be done to make it less so?<br /><br />It's starting to become clear that I'm coming to Preminger from the best possible angle. That doesn't mean that when I get around to his later films that I might not like those more than most people, but everyone seems to be in agreement that this first clutch of films from Preminger is the best of him. So okay, if that's true, shouldn't that still be enough to bump the guys credibility up a couple of notches? I think so. At the very least, he had about ten years of stellar work. About the same as F. Scott Fitzgerald. I know, bad comparison. Maybe.<br /><br /><I>an anti-Ford tear</I>I didn't know there was such a thing.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-50799664412532629002009-04-14T13:46:00.000-04:002009-04-14T13:46:00.000-04:00At the risk of provoking not only my host's di...At the risk of provoking not only my host's displeasure, but Ed's and the not-inconsiderable wrath of Glenn Kenny, I confess to being more in the Greg (and James Wolcott/Pauline Kael) camp on Preminger. I am not really part of the wave of yes, re-evaluation there has been lately. I personally trace the Preminger revival to the resurfacing of Daisy Kenyon. Zach Campbell, for one, wrote a wonderful piece about at his blog after seeing a screening in his home town. Anyway, since then it's been fascinating to see so many critics take up the topic of Preminger. I may not be a fan myself but shaking up the conversation is a good thing. Preminger made a couple of reputedly dreadful movies in the 60s--I say reputedly because I haven't seen Skidoo or Hurry Sundown, maybe they're really swell, although Exodus was ghastly. Anyway, Otto fell out of the conversation for a long while. I see the point about Lewton and Boetticher, although they both got attention from David Thomson, for one. But even the big-name guys go through periods of being less fashionable. I can recall in the 1980s when Billy Wilder was routinely dismissed as lightweight and cynical. And Richard Schickel has been on an anti-Ford tear for yonks. <br /><br />Where was I? Oh yes, Whirlpool. Bored me, frankly. I found my mind wandering to questions about why Gene Tierney isn't better remembered (although this wasn't her best performance, I think we all agree), why her hairstyle was so frumpy and why Richard Conte was so stone-faced even when told his wife killed someone because she was cheating on him. The direction kept emphasizing the obvious. Look at how Ferrer is hanging over Tierney like a vulture! see the camera come in tight on them because she's trapped by him, get it? Now let's have the camera track her in a robotic fashion as she walks around a room, hypnotized ... Wolcott cites this as one of the few Premingers he likes, and I don't know what he sees that I don't. Other than Gene Tierney.<br /><br />I still say Laura is Preminger's best, with Angel Face a close second and Anatomy of a Murder and Advise & Consent excellent codas. (Must re-watch Bonjour Tristesse, liked it but saw it so young I remember little.) As Greg says, sometimes conventional wisdom is correct--but I am still enjoying the new writing on Preminger, including this post.The Sirenhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/13587505433284584391noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-19901222351040001442009-04-14T12:11:00.000-04:002009-04-14T12:11:00.000-04:00I'm glad you've come around.I'm glad you've come around.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-80257326359001933242009-04-14T12:06:00.000-04:002009-04-14T12:06:00.000-04:00Okie dokie.Okie dokie.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-16342779721702172692009-04-14T11:53:00.000-04:002009-04-14T11:53:00.000-04:00Greg, you didn't say it, but it's implied by what ...Greg, you didn't say it, but it's implied by what you <I>did</I> say. If an artist's work has been available and assessed and come up short, there's no need to reevaluate it. That's clearly implied by what you said.<br /><br />And I know you like some of his movies, which is irrelevant to our discussion.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-18603712254276301192009-04-14T11:52:00.000-04:002009-04-14T11:52:00.000-04:00Ed, I haven't seen it but it is now, along with Wh...Ed, I haven't seen it but it is now, along with <B>Whirlpool</B>, at the top of my queue. I look forward to watching them both. I'll let you and Bill know if I have a major urge to re-evaluate Preminger afterwards. I'm sure I'll enjoy them though regardless.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-28083618498360009612009-04-14T11:41:00.000-04:002009-04-14T11:41:00.000-04:00Greg: "Does that mean "American" or by Hollywood d...Greg: "Does that mean "American" or by Hollywood do you mean studio produced? Either way, I assume you're being rhetorical right?"<br /><br />Just a bit of rhetorical exaggeration on my part. I love that film and think the treatment of the three main characters is exhibit A in the argument against Preminger being "unsubtle" or not good at dealing with complex characters. There are so many psychological and emotional layers to all three -- including the character who is at first treated as the "villain" of the piece and soon comes to be viewed in a much different light -- that I find it hard to countenance the idea of Preminger's characters being superficial. I don't know if you've seen <I>Bonjour Tristesse</I> or not, but I think it's a masterpiece.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-91311377146069194492009-04-14T11:34:00.000-04:002009-04-14T11:34:00.000-04:00Your argument implies that the reputation of every...<I>Your argument implies that the reputation of every artist is currently as it should be, providing we have access to their work, and no reevaluation is necessary, </I>...<br />First, I really should have emphasized in <B>BIG BOLD LETTERS</B> that I liked many of his films because that has either been forgotten or conveniently ignored. I will not make that mistake again. <br /><br />Second, do you really, honestly believe I was making that argument? Seriously? You know what I was saying. I was saying that there has been no shortage of evaluation of his work. With Budd Boetticher and Val Lewton there was a shortage. I've been reading film books since I was six or seven and I can tell you (and I still have the old film books to prove it) that Boetticher and Lewton were barely if ever mentioned. Not so with Preminger. He has had ample evaluation and so I'm just saying I don't buy into an argument that paints him as a forgotten figure whose time has come to be rediscovered.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-2280825280699639432009-04-14T11:33:00.000-04:002009-04-14T11:33:00.000-04:00Haven't seen the film in question, so can't commen...Haven't seen the film in question, so can't comment too much at length, but I'll certainly concur that Preminger was more than just a technician. Every cut, every piece of staging, the lighting...everything in his films is a flawless merging of style and substance, his visuals move the plot along economically as well as establishing character psychology and motivation. Great appreciation of the movie.Ryan Kellyhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18054550377681273142noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-13348948444113364342009-04-14T11:27:00.000-04:002009-04-14T11:27:00.000-04:00it seems obvious to me that when he opts for "flat...<I>it seems obvious to me that when he opts for "flat" lighting, it's probably a conscious stylistic choice. </I>...<br />Ed, I completely agree with that and fully admit I'm concentrating on his later efforts. And I think he opted for that style of lighting to achieve a more "realistic" look. I put that in scarequotes because I think you can have gorgeous shadows and still be realistic. <br /><br />But you're right about it being a purposeful choice. <br /><br />Over time I'm sure I will see many of his films again and think about this conversation. But I really don't think there is much to Preminger. I'm sorry, but I don't. <br /><br />And this: <I>And I'd challenge anyone to find a more nuanced and emotionally complex set of characters in Hollywood film.</I>...<br />Does that mean "American" or by Hollywood do you mean studio produced? Either way, I assume you're being rhetorical right?Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-12797031248530802202009-04-14T11:25:00.000-04:002009-04-14T11:25:00.000-04:00I don't think it "their problem" for deciding ther...<I>I don't think it "their problem" for deciding there is not much too him</I>Of course it's "their" problem, if I don't agree with them, which I don't. Your argument implies that the reputation of every artist is currently as it should be, providing we have access to their work, and no reevaluation is necessary, but I don't buy that at all. Vladimir Nabokov has the reputation he has today -- the one he deserves -- because of reevaluation. Same with Budd Boetticher, same with Val Lewton, and on and on. Some of Boetticher and Lewton's work was hard to come by, but the major critics certainly had access to it in prints and screenings, and those guys have been raised up to their appropriate place over time. I believe the same will happen to Preminger.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-50457083886855819622009-04-14T11:14:00.000-04:002009-04-14T11:14:00.000-04:00And Marilyn, I think you're right about Tierney. W...And Marilyn, I think you're right about Tierney. What I like about her in <I>Whirlpool</I> is precisely the blankness she emanates, like a porcelain doll. It comes across in the film like a satire of the "model wife," so Tierney is perfect for this film, but maybe not so much for roles that might require more nuance.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-25557983961757398072009-04-14T11:11:00.000-04:002009-04-14T11:11:00.000-04:00Not to keep flogging my favorite Bonjour Tristesse...Not to keep flogging my favorite <I>Bonjour Tristesse</I> too hard, but the camera indubitably moves through that film with purpose, weaving power relationships between the characters. And I'd challenge anyone to find a more nuanced and emotionally complex set of characters in Hollywood film. Preminger also makes very interesting use of the contrast between the sunny, lurid Technicolor of the scenes set in the past, against the noirish, moodily lit black and white of the present (the reverse of the usual tropes about memory and nostalgia, where the past appears in b&w - Godard picks up on Preminger's trick for <I>In Praise of Love</I>). This is the film I'd hold up as the prime example of Preminger's visual genius. <br /><br />I do see what you mean about the flat lighting of some of Preminger's later films, like <I>Anatomy</I> or <I>Advise & Consent</I> (his noirs tend to have typical noir lighting schemes, as does the melodramatic <I>Daisy Kenyon</I>, and the photography on <I>Bunny Lake</I> is sumptuous). Given the variety of Preminger's visual approaches, it seems obvious to me that when he opts for "flat" lighting, it's probably a conscious stylistic choice. I think it works to promote the leveling of different perspectives that Preminger is aiming for in these films, which are both essentially filmed arguments. The fluidity of Preminger's camera and the unobtrusive lighting schemes work together to create an atmosphere in which ideas can compete on even ground.<br /><br />If elevating Preminger is a lost cause, so be it, but I don't buy the argument that just because his films are readily available that he's achieved his "proper" reputation. Critical reputation is formed on the basis of a complicated set of factors, availability of films being only one of them.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-24150581273457615462009-04-14T11:04:00.000-04:002009-04-14T11:04:00.000-04:00Well, I'm thinking of Advise and Consent too. I t...Well, I'm thinking of <B>Advise and Consent</B> too. I think his earlier works were much better than his later works. <br /><br />Anyway, I apologize for baffling you and Ed. I don't think it "their problem" for deciding there is not much too him, I think that there is in fact, not much to him. I am in agreement with the critical consensus here and have seen all too often, a decent or good or mediocre filmmaker elevated to the level of greatness by the blogs that was undeserving. I feel that is what is happening with Preminger as well.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-32326811815128456142009-04-14T10:56:00.001-04:002009-04-14T10:56:00.001-04:00Marilyn, I have no doubt that you've seen more Fer...Marilyn, I have no doubt that you've seen more Ferrer films than I have, but, for me, I think he's superb in at least <B>Whirlpool</B> and <B>The Caine Mutiny</B>.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-92020554543370387702009-04-14T10:56:00.000-04:002009-04-14T10:56:00.000-04:00Greg, I'm as baffled as Ed. Have you checked out ...Greg, I'm as baffled as Ed. Have you checked out any of the particular movies I've mentioned recently? You're hammering on <B>Anatomy of a Murder</B>, which I haven't seen in years so I can't defend it, but his crime films with Dana Andrews, as well as <B>Whirlpool</B> and the non-genre <B>Daisy Kenyon</B> are really beautifully made. The lighting is good in all of them, I promise.<br /><br />If the majority of the critical establishment has decided there's not much to him, then honestly that's their problem.bill r.https://www.blogger.com/profile/17748572205731857892noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-56680571464157293372009-04-14T10:45:00.000-04:002009-04-14T10:45:00.000-04:00Really? When I think of Preminger, I think of the ...<I>Really? When I think of Preminger, I think of the incredibly nuanced emotions and relationships</I>...<br />You're thinking of another director then. I'm thinking of Otto Preminger, the guy with the sledgehammer. <br /><br /><I>And "visually flat" is just plain baffling. Nobody moved the camera as fluidly or as purposefully as Preminger, whose roving, inquisitive camera is one of his trademarks. </I>...<br />And now if I may bitch for a second. I tire (not of you Ed, I'm speaking generally) of people forgetting about lighting. The camera may mofe but if the lighting is flat (see <B>Anatomy of a Murder</B>) it's visually uninteresting. Also, a camera can move all over the place without purpose. Just because someone moves the camera doesn't mean it's interesting. <br /><br /><I>He's as far from "flat" or "static" (!!!) as it's possible to be.</I>...<br />Not to me but clearly we disagree. I think elevating Preminger is a bet that's going to ultimately lose. It's not like the guys films were lost for decades and are now being rediscovered. His films have been readily available for years. His work has been pretty thoroughly assessed and come up short. He's entertaining and I like several of his films as I stated in my previous comment. But elevating him beyond the level of "decent to good" filmmaker is just a dead end as far as I'm concerned.Greghttps://www.blogger.com/profile/05730146625671701859noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-39060136001895619892009-04-14T10:42:00.000-04:002009-04-14T10:42:00.000-04:00Tierney is beautiful, but she's a fairly mediocre ...Tierney is beautiful, but she's a fairly mediocre actress. Jose Ferrer really is not one of my favorites. <I>Cyrano</I> and <I>Moulin Rouge</I> are two examples of his rather hysterical style that I find grating.Marilynhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15730000155687661753noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-62869317848553341872009-04-14T10:36:00.000-04:002009-04-14T10:36:00.000-04:00Greg said: "I have to say that I don't agree that ...Greg said: "I have to say that I don't agree that Preminger has ever had a feel for "emotional and psychological underpinnings" or was possessed of even subtlety. I find him visually flat and his stories filled with characters who are surface layered and astonishingly unsubtle."<br /><br />Really? When I think of Preminger, I think of the incredibly nuanced emotions and relationships on display in something like <I>Bonjour Tristesse</I> (the complex triangle between Jean Seberg, Deborah Kerr and David Niven) or the characterization of James Stewart's washed-up lawyer in <I>Anatomy of a Murder</I>. His stories were often unsubtle -- especially something like <I>The Cardinal</I> with its checklist of social issues -- but his characters were usually complex and well-drawn.<br /><br />And "visually flat" is just plain baffling. Nobody moved the camera as fluidly or as purposefully as Preminger, whose roving, inquisitive camera is one of his trademarks. To me, his style gives the impression of an investigation, the camera probing over the details of a given scene in order to explore its meanings and emotional texture. He's as far from "flat" or "static" (!!!) as it's possible to be.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-2856547151523423474.post-71497258980715576652009-04-14T10:27:00.000-04:002009-04-14T10:27:00.000-04:00Bunny Lake is pretty interesting, though I'm reall...<I>Bunny Lake</I> is pretty interesting, though I'm really not too sure what to think of the ending.<br /><br />I think Preminger and Hitchcock were primarily similar -- beyond their shared status as prominent producer/directors and two of the few directors to be box office draws at the time -- in their treatment of actors, a rough, demanding way of shaping performances and getting what they want. Their visual aesthetics and thematic interests are quite distinct, though.Ed Howardhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/18014222247676090467noreply@blogger.com