Arkadin

The breakdown of a marriage is not a light subject. John Cassavetes *Faces* (1968) is downright harrowing, while Igmar Bergman?s *Scenes From a Marriage* (1973) is realistic and hopeful, but neither could ever be called beautiful. *Contempt* alone can make such a claim. Showing tomorrow night on TCM (10/5), Godard uses the camera to tell a story about two people, but the context of their relationship is heightened by a tyrannical director who creates a romantic triangle. *Contempt* is also a triangle of filmmaker, subject and audience, but which of us is the interloper? This is an amazing film with many layers. I can?t begin to describe them in this short space?nor will I attempt to. Instead, I offer a few observations: Note how the film begins with the camera over the opening credits, which finally comes to rest on us. Actors, director, even film crew is mentioned. Finally at the end, we the audience are being photographed, including us as participants. Also important are the American film references here. While French New Wave directors often loved to show their influences, in this film those influences tend to have actual connections with the story. One such incident is when Paul gets in the bathtub with his hat on. Camille asks what he is doing and he replies: ?I?m Dean Martin in *Some Came Running* (1958).? This link gives us insight into Paul?s character, as Dean Martin?s ?Bama? is clearly a misogynist who treats women as little more than toys. *Some Came Running* and *Contempt* also have ties in that both films deal with relationships and hypocrisy. As for Palance?s character, he is a stand-in for the actual American producer who demanded Godard show Bardot in various states of undress to titillate viewers and sell the film. Godard acquiesced by showing Bardot?s naked body at the beginning of the film, slapping us in the face with her curves. By doing this, he removes expectations of sex and lets us see Camille as a real person instead of Bardot playing a character. Observe how the widescreen process is used to exaggerate the gulf between Camille and Paul. They are often at opposite ends of the frame. In the apartment, they often walk in and out of the frame showing us an empty home. In the theater, the camera has to actually pan back and forth between them as the bitterness deepens. Fritz Lang plays himself as a director making a film version of The Odyssey, which again has all kinds of references and links to our characters. When they look at the rushes, pay attention to what is said about the characters and do a little research on Greek myth and tragedy if you haven?t studied it before. Lang says very few words in this film, but they are all very important. He is its moral compass and has many interesting things to say about life (as well as the filmmaking process). Finally, it would be impossible to separate Georges Delerue?s masterful score from the rest of the movie. This is what gives the film its depth, making these characters real to us. Without the music, Contempt is a daring experiment. Its inclusion is what causes the film to live and breathe, turning it into a work of art. Have fun watching and I hope we can discuss this one.

Before we wrap things up, I would suggest that there is a lot that has not been covered. We have not explored films like Keaton's *The Cameraman* (1928) or *Sherlock Jr.* (1924) that show how voyeurism works in comedy. *The Decalogue* (1988) is an incredible set of one hour films that deal with self and objective examination--humanistic as well as spiritualistic. *Network* is an in depth look at the power of media. We were supposed to discuss this, right? *8 1/2* (1963)? *Persona* (1966)? Don't forget *Contempt* (1963) showing this weekend (anyone up for a watching party field trip?)! This film literally begins with the camera dissecting not only the creation of a film, but the dissolution of marriage. What about *The Blue Angel* (1930) where a schoolteacher begins as voyeur and ends as subject?

Since it hasn't been mentioned yet, I'll throw my hat in the ring for Roger Vadim's beautiful color vampire film *Blood and Roses* (1961). I have requested this for over two years now.

> {quote:title=MissGoddess wrote:}{quote} But the one I have never seen is the one > I'm most curious about, *Down Three Dark Streets*. I really like both Ruth Roman and > the Brod. I recorded it when it showed and it's a nice little film.

> {quote:title=ChiO wrote:}{quote} > Then comes one of my favorite terms for almost any film discussion: manipulation. Who in the movie is doing the manipulating? Is the filmmaker manipulating the audience? Is manipulation a pejorative term or one of praise as it relates to a filmmaker?[/b]. Since the Prof. admitted he'd recently viewed *Man Bites Dog* (1992) at SSO, I wrote the following reply. I'll tackle *Network* in another post (that film needs its own thread!): A good example of audience manipulation might be *Psycho*. In the bathroom scene, the knife never touches flesh. The editing and sound effects (as well as the wonderful soundtrack) create the illusion, and we use our own minds to fill in the gaps we cannot see. From here to the end of the film, the violence is lessened, yet the film continues to grow more and more intense. Why? Hitchcock is using that initial death to manipulate our senses, and the suspense occurs in our own minds as we watch the film. Films like *Man Bites Dog* work in a different way. Just as Hitchcock used humor to make many violent scenes palatable, *MBD* also uses humor to desensitize our skepticism. Ben is charming and comedic--not what we expect. In initial stages, the film plays more like comedy than satire, with many of Ben?s crimes looking almost slapstick in nature. It?s in the final part of the movie where we see him unmasked and are shocked?at him and with ourselves?to find vileness. It was always there, but we often choose to rationalize truth, especially in its relationship to our own lives. This indicates that sight is not simply vision, but perception.

> {quote:title=ChiO wrote:}{quote} > *Which brings us to "X: THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES."* > > Last night I was wondering why nobody had bit on X: THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES. I know that there are a lot of fans of Corman's Poe cycle, but give me *X: THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES* and THE WASP WOMAN. > > So, _CineMaven_ (and others), talk to us about "Pluck it out!" To my great shame, I've never seen this one, but plan to (Nina's Discount Oldies has it for $7). Start my education please.

> {quote:title=ChiO wrote:}{quote}I watched *PLACE DE LA REPUBLIQUE* at Mr. Arkadin's suggestion in preparation for this thread. The willingness of people to discuss personal details on camera because, after all, "we're making a movie" was fascinating. We, along with Louis Malle, were being voyeurs, watching strangers expose their histories. As _Bargar_ wrote regarding actors, here regular folks left their inhibitions behind with the camera rolling. It raised many questions for me that I "perceived" only because I was watching with a specific focus, but those questions are generally applicable to any documentary. While some people did refuse to talk on camera and were filmed refusing, how many others refused but whose "moment" didn't make the final cut? *Malle* gives us the impression that the vast majority of people were willing to talk, but could it have really been a small minority? Who has primacy in the film: *Malle* and I as voyeurs, or the people as exhibitionists? And why do we "perceive" them as telling us the truth any more than we perceive *Malle* to be telling us the truth? (/quote) *Place De Republique* is one of those rare films that seems completely authentic. Is it? I think so. Sure, there was editing and people who didn?t want to be interviewed. They probably shot miles of film and just took the cream, but the difference between this and today?s ?unscripted documentaries/reality TV? is shocking to say the least. You see these people thinking and opening up their lives in a way that?s rarely seen on screen. Are they completely honest? That's a question that deals more with morality than voyeurism. As Sam Spade in *The Maltese Falcon* says: "Everybody's got something to hide." One of my favorite scenes is when they have the camera trained on a pretty blonde girl who remarks: ?We?re attracting quite a crowd.? When asked if it makes her uncomfortable, she merely shrugs: ?They?re watching you?not me.? Here we see the completed circle: *We watch the girl through the lens, while bystanders watch the film crew watching her, which enables us to see the girl.* This indeed is the very nature of art, whereby the artist creates and the viewer interprets and responds. Message was edited by: Arkadin

> {quote:title=CineMaven wrote:}{quote} I'm ready for your book of essays on films. When's it coming out??(/quote) You are too kind. I'm actually working on a book idea, but it's still in early stages at this point. You make films don't you? I'll trade you a book for a film sometime if it ever gets published!

Criterion has released a box set of some of his better directorial efforts. I would start there. Although some great films are still OOP (notably *Husbands* (1970), *Gloria* (1980), and *Love Streams* (1984)) most of his works are available. My personal favorite? The *Killing of a Chinese Bookie* (1976). While there are many great things about this Cassavetes film (color, shots, framing, story), probably the number one reason you should see this film is the incredible performance of Ben Gazzara. Noir protagonists are usually sympathetic in that we identify with them on some level, but have they ever been loveable as Cosmo Viteli? Cosmo owns The Crazy Horse, a bottom barrel strip club. The performances range from silly to pathetic and Cosmo writes all the material himself. When a customer gives him an invitation to his gambling establishment, Cosmo makes it a night on the town with his ladies in high style. Things turn sour when he loses and ends up owing the house over 20 grand. Unable to pay and not willing to give up his club, the owners (who turn out to be the mob!) offer him an alternative--kill a well-known bookie who has been causing them trouble. As always, there is no perfect crime and Cosmo is no professional hit man. What's worse, the mob has no intention of leaving him alive. Gazzara does some amazing work here, particularly long stretches with no dialogue where it's his expressions and mannerisms that give us insight into his character. A sleaze ball with few scruples, Cosmo genuinely loves his club and performers. Whether it's calling from a pay phone to check on the acts while waiting for a taxi (the car the mob provided has a blown out tire), or going backstage to settle a squabble between the girls and his bizarre emcee Mr. Miracle (what film might that name reference?), the character of Cosmo is a stand in for director Cassavetes who prostituted himself as an actor to make films that were important to him. With *The Killing of a Chinese Bookie*, Cassavetes suggests that while man living in corruption is flawed, he is still a human being with passion, hopes, and dreams which he will fight to protect, no matter how tattered they may be.

> {quote:title=CineMaven wrote:}{quote0 > Riefenstahl's politics are yucky, but I find the film aesthetically beautiful, in my humble opinion. In fact to quote Wikipedia on Leni Riefenstahl: "...The propaganda value of her films made during the 1930s repels most commentators but many film histories cite the aesthetics as outstanding."(/quote) Whatever one might think about Triumph, I don't think anyone can say it's a poorly shot film. The fact that we are manipulated by images, framing, and the staged scenes, says a lot about how easily context can be changed and mass public can be controlled. This picture of Hitler, places him in the guise of a Greek god or perhaps Christ at the Second Coming, which--although a major lie and distortion of truth--caused thousands of people to commit their lives (and deaths) to his cause. LR's shooting from low angles to give Hitler great height or panning the camera around him while he talks (giving a hypnotic effect), lure us into a total fantasy world which from today's perspective is somewhat akin to an Orwellian nighmare. I find connections in other films such as *Network* (1976) and *Face in the Crowd*, but the difference is that these are works of fiction that many people view as satire, something that could never happen in real life. *Triumph of the Will* is a historic reminder that it did happen, and for that reason alone, I think it deserves to be seen (perhaps on a double bill with *Night and Fog* [1955]?).

Since we are still discussing physical use of camera, take a short space here to talk about documentaries and how the camera becomes our window into various subjects. Does our perception of the subject change in the way the camera is used? Films for discussion (feel free to add your own): *Triumph of the Will* (1934) *F For Fake* (1973) *The Thin Blue Line* (1981) *Place de la R?publique* (1974) *Land Without Bread* (1933) *Gates of Heaven* (1978) *Hoop Dreams* (1994) *Fata Morgana* (1969) *Burden of Dreams* (1982)

Why do I feel like that old *Star Trek* episode Trouble with Tribbles ? Let?s look at some of these questions one at a time and remember as Frank said: they hold different answers for different people. That is true for individual films and now might be a good time to run through some of our movie lists for examples: *Binoculars/Telescope: These bridge the distance between the viewer and the viewed, making the viewed appear closer. Does that create an intimacy (at least from the voyeur's perspective) that wouldn't otherwise exist? Or, does their use accentuate that distance and act as a reminder to the voyeur (and audience) that any sense of intimacy is false?* Since the idea of such devices is to make objects appear closer, I personally feel one develops a false sense of intimacy in relation their object. In *Rear Window*, Jeff becomes involved in the lives of his neighbors precisely because he has no life of his own (as he is helpless in a wheelchair, they become a substitution for his life). His concern over Miss Lonelyheart?s well-being as well as Miss Torso?s (he even has names for them!) endless parade of what seem to be suitors, are just two examples of his emotional investment in the lives of people he watches, but has never met. In *The Conversation* (1974), Harry?s previous failure predisposes him to consider his client?s targets as people rather than just a job. His inability to be objective (harm came to a person he once observed) causes him to misread the entire situation, causing another tragedy. *Type of Camera: A photograph captures a moment; a movie or television camera captures a process. Does it matter?* I believe it does matter. A photograph is a tiny glimpse of time suspended in space. In that space, one can take an intense look and possibly ascertain many things from facial expression, body positioning, even thoughts that would be impossible with film unless the frame was frozen or the film was slowed down. However, it is also much more easy to misread a photograph than a film, because a person is in motion and we see their habits from which we can draw conclusions. While a photograph is a possible opening to the mentality (expression translates motivation or thought) of a person, film seems more grounded in physicality (we determine who they are by their actions). *In BLOW-UP, some of the photos are for mass consumption, others for private (or very nearly so) consumption. In NETWORK, live mass consumption -- and the bigger, the better -- is clearly the goal (DEATH WATCH is similar, except the film is not shown live). In PEEPING TOM, there are photos for niche consumption and film for mass consumption (his work as a cameraman), semi-private consumption (the family film) and private consumption (the murders). What, if anything, does the use of the camera's output tell us about the voyeur, his audience, and the watcher of the movie? Ever notice that in PEEPING TOM, Mark's **** has one chair? A director's chair -- with his name on it (shiver).* Let?s take two of the films you mention, *Network* and *Peeping Tom*. A lot can be taken from just the titles as the former indicates pluralism and the latter is singular (giving rise to the question: who is really the ?peeping tom??). Both films deal with manipulation, but while *Network* shows us how corporations manipulate the public for monetary profit, *Peeping Tom* reveals Mark to be the manipulated. Thus the camera in *Network* is a tool to control the masses, while Mark?s camera is a living, breathing, entity that literally controls him (They cannot stand to be separated, although Helen makes him believe it might be possible for a short while.). *"Camera"/voyeurism as catalyst for danger or protection from danger, or both?* I would say both. In many instances voyeurism is seen (from the looker? s perspective) to be passive, non-intrusive, when in fact the opposite is true. *Man Bites Dog* (1992) is an incredible example of this where filmmakers document the life of a serial killer and actually end up becoming involved in his crimes. Even if the subject never realizes they are being viewed, the result is that the viewer is always changed. *For me, the real Yikes! moment of terror in PEEPING TOM is when we realize that Mark's movie camera has a mirror on it. A mirror, often associated with narcissism or the dual nature of the person we see looking in it, becomes as, if not more, important than the movie camera. Knowing one is about die and capturing that on film is not horrific enough; the perfect horror is capturing one watching oneself die and converting the victim into a self-reflective voyeur. Which leads to...* An interesting thing about Mark?s mirror, is that it distorts the features of it?s viewer?much like a funhouse device. The victim is therefore revealed to themselves in an unflattering way. A monstrosity. They are not only frightened by fear of death, but a reflection that seems to reveal their flawed souls in their faces. This is why they stay frozen. They never see the spike coming until it?s too late because they are paralyzed by a mirror that comes ever closer with their own twisted faces, horrified by what they see in themselves. Mark knows this. That?s why he must look into the mirror and accept his own death. It?s his way of facing the truth about himself, coming to grips with all he?s done, and finding some sense of understanding in the way he was made. *So, Who Is the Voyeur?: Setting aside the filmwatcher as voyeur for now, how many other voyeurs are there within the four corners of the frame? Jacques Tati used the idea to comic effect, but as any film noir fan knows, the whole world is (or is thought to be) watching. L.B. Jefferies isn't the only voyeur in REAR WINDOW; Lisa and Stella, at first are embarassed by Jefferies' voyeurism, then they relunctantly, and later enthusiastically, join in. PEEPING TOM: who's the only person who "sees" Mark Lewis; what about Helen? PSYCHO: Norman or "his mother"? Does any film about voyeurism really have only one voyeur?* *Psycho* is filled with voyeurism. When Sam talks with Marion about having a respectable dinner he says ?and afterwards when we send (your) sister home and turn Mother?s picture to the wall?" This indication that ?Mother? is watching is a grisly foreshadowing of what is to come. Marion?s employer?s customer leers at her. After she leaves town a cop (who never shows his eyes) watches her. She also arouses the suspicions of a car salesman. After all this, the Bates motel seems like a haven! The front of Norman?s house looks like a huge face that looks down upon the cabins and Mother is there in the window, waiting. I could go on here, but I doubt we have room? Mark?s equal in *Peeping Tom* is clearly Helen?s mother Mrs. Stephens who lives above his viewing room ( I visit this room every night ) and is blind ( what am I seeing Mark? ). Although sightless, she reveals a superior vision to the other tenants and possibly even Mark himself as she is able to guess his thoughts. Finally, although all films have different perspectives, a voyeur?s very nature invites discovery. To our great shame we are a society becoming obsessed with ourselves. With the rise of reality shows, MySpace/Facebook/Youtube, today?s culture enjoys being watched and will actually suffer ridicule or humiliation simply to be seen. The attentions of others have become our mirror, reflecting our own narcissism and we bask in their light. Good Night and God Bless P.S. Don?t *EVER* ask this many questions again in a single post.

Actually, I was looking at what you guys wrote and was rather inspired. Keaton and Hulot both used voyeurism in unique ways. One thinks of the early part in *Sherlock Jr*. (1924) where he watches the film and then jumps into the frame effectively transitioning from voyeur to object. *The Cameraman* (1929) is another interesting film where it's Keaton's monkey whose filming provides perspective (the only true one) where he is exonerated and his heroism realized. All of Hulot's films are about looking, especially *Playtime* (1967) where we must literally hunt for him in the widescreen frame! You guys are doing a great job and I love the pics!

I think there are certain ingredients that create situations that allow voyeurism to take place: 1.*Distance* - Distance creates speculation, which may be reality or fantasy. Voyeurism is essentially bridging the gap between two points. Distance can remove humanistic view (reducing a personality to an object) or build one where none exists. 2.*Perception* ? while seeing is important, how we perceive things gives them context. If you?ve ever seen an optical illusion, magician, or slow motion replay cameras from different angles at sporting events, you know that many times our eyes can decieve us. 3.*Point of View* ? While similar to perception, POV is essentially different in the fact that it can correspond with what we, or the characters see, or be a totally detached entity. POV is also an indicator to motivation. For instance, not all gaze is sexual pleasure, nor are we connected with the person watching. When a person is using a camera, they are capturing an image. This can also be associated with possession. For instance, Mark in *Peeping Tom* (1960) is a collector. What is he collecting? Does ownership give him power or relief from the troubles that plague him? Another example of camera might be *Contempt* (1963). Dealing with the art of filmaking and Cinema's place in the world, Fritz Lang plays himself as a director creating a film version of The Odyssey. The camera not only documents the film (we see rushes and clips), but also the demise of a young screenwriter's marriage. The camera here acts as a supporting player and Godard uses many instances in panning, space, and widescreen to show the deepening gulf between man and wife. Binoculars or telescope, magnify their targets. Thus as gaze is concentrated or intensified, so too is connection between viewer and the viewed. In *Pushover* (1954), two different men fall in love with two different women they are spying on. Lives become intermingled until the men are infatuated and their objects literally become part of their lives. In *Witness to Murder* and *Rear Window* (all made the same year!) the connection is one of polar twins that struggle against one another while revealing similarities in their characters, resourcefulness, and abilities. Mirrors are essentially a way for characters and even viewers to see themselves. *Psycho* (1960), which is filled with mirrors, uses them to indicate duality on the part of Norman, but also every other major player who are all seen as imperfect and having their own dark side. In *The Unbearable Lightness of Being* (1989), Sabina, a free spirit, keeps a full-length mirror in her living room and often has sex and dresses for role playing in front of it. In this case the mirror is a superficial device, presenting her as she wishes to be seen (powerful and sexy), but in fact, is not the reality of her heart (tender and easily hurt). *Persona* (1966) has Alma and Elisabeth mirroring each other and meshing separate identities to try and create a whole person from two flawed characters.

> {quote:title=molo14 wrote:}{quote} > Alright, I'll try. Maybe someone can explain *Blow-up* to me. I've never seen *Peeping Tom* so I might finally watch that one too.(quote) I really don't think anyone has all the answers here. Even Prof. ChiO says that he will be learning along with us. The idea of anything of this nature is to encourage discussion and get people thinking, as well as introducing them to new films. Perhaps you will see some of your old favorites in a new way, or it might be you who sees *Peeping Tom* for the first time and gives observations I have missed. It's basically just a jigsaw puzzle and everybody has a few pieces. With your input, we'll have a much bigger (and clearer) picture. No cheating allowed though: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uKfw41wtv1M

Glad you guys enjoyed the film. It's definitely a rarity. TCM played it once about five years ago when I first saw it, but it wasn't shown again for awhile. Last year they played it one time and I guess Wednesday was this year's annual showing. A very unique film and while not perfect by any means, it's well worth viewing. All the actors do a great job, Massey and Daniell especially. The article was a nice read. Incredible to even find someone willing to write about this film--much less analyze it.

*Grand Hotel* (1932) was certainly a blockbuster film in every sense of the word, but I?ve always gravitated toward novelist Vicki Baum?s darker sequel, *Hotel Berlin* (1945). A suspense film dealing with Nazis, a hunted resistance fighter, and two women of shifting loyalties, this late propaganda work is an unsung gem, rarely forgotten by those who?ve seen it. The movie also attempted to tackle difficult and daring subjects such as the failed assassination attempt on Hitler and Jewish persecution. Warner Brothers put together a great cast with Raymond Massey, Henry Daniell, Faye Emerson, Andrea King, and Peter Lorre among others. *Hotel Berlin* is a unique American film in that Germany is realistically depicted as a divided nation. Not everyone is a Nazi sympathizer here, which makes trust a very delicate thing indeed. *Hotel Berlin* shows early Wednesday morning on TCM

*Bonnie and Clyde* Often touted as the first modern American film and you can see why. Sex and violence are unleashed here in a way never seen by U.S. audiences previously. The death scene where the Bonnie and Clyde are ripped apart by the crossfire in a slow motion ballet was also something that would haunt audiences and influence Peckinpah's *The Wild Bunch* only two years later. As a film though, I don't think it measures up to previous couple on the run films such as *You Only Live Once*, *They Live By Night*, or *Gun Crazy*. *Dr. Dolittle* I won't even dignify this with a response. *Guess Who's Coming to Dinner* Often claimed to be a great race barrier breaking film, but actually quite tame even by 60's standards when you consider films like *The World, The Flesh, and The Devil*, *A Raisin in the Sun*, *Take a Giant Step*, etc. As for Poitier, his work in 1965's *Patch of Blue* far surpasses this movie in every respect. *In The Heat of the Night* A good crime/mystery film with Rod Steiger pulling out all the stops and finally winning the Oscar he deserved for *The Pawnbroker* two years before. One thing that is truly amazing about his work is how he builds his characters with many quiet moments. Steiger is often considered volcanic and blustery, but if that's all you can see, you are missing his genius. *The Graduate* One of those films that was a product of its time and is best viewed in that context. I find everything about the picture hopelessly dated and creaking under its own weight. Hoffman and Bancroft do a good job in their roles, but the film as a whole is poor.

Before you watch *Vertigo*, Be sure and check out *Pushover* (1954). This great little noir (playing tomorrow on TCM) has its feet in two worlds. Fred MacMurray reprises his sucker role in *Double Indemnity* (1944) as a detective who falls in love with a murder suspect. The film also shares voyeuristic themes with Hitchcock?s *Rear Window*, which came out the same year. Don?t miss this one!

*Cross of Iron* (1976) is a wonderful film. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RdaJgFGIXec&feature=related

*Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia* (1974)!! Can *The Wild Bunch* be far behind?

Other films that might be useful for discussion: *The Decalogue* (1988) Kieślowski's modern day take on the Ten Commandments deals not only with God's viewpoint of us, but our perceptions of others. If you want an actual literal take, Volume Six ( Thou Shalt Not Commit Adultery ), and Volume Nine ( Thou Shalt Not Covet Thy Neighbors Wife ) deliver the goods in more ways than one. *Pushover* (1954) This noir was released the same year as *Rear Window*, but is a much deeper work revealing that sometimes the predator is indeed the prey. Will be showing on TCM this month on Kim Novak's day with some other film called *Vertigo*. Might I suggest a field trip? *Contempt* (1963) Godard's use of film to document disintegrating love while making another film completes the circle from viewer to artist. *Bird With the Crystal Plumage* (1971) *Deep Red* (1976) Dario Argento's films are in essence, about sight and point of view. Is what we see reality or illusion? Do we see the truth or what we want to see? *Man Bites Dog* (1992) Like *Funny Games*, *Man Bites Dog* is a stinging satire of our obsessions with violence. It might be hypocritical to watch a violent film that criticizes violence, but what a way to hammer a point home. *Place de la R?publique* (1974) Louis Malle sets up a camera in a Paris square and starts filming. We view people we have never met through the lens and learn about their lives. *Taxi Driver* (1976) Travis is an unwilling observer who wants to be part of society, but is unable to find any place in it. The solution? Here is a man that stood up... *Claire's Knee* (1970) Not a story of fetishism, but motivation. *Claire's Knee* is truly one of those wheel within wheel films where everything is not what it seems and those who think they are clever only end up fooling themselves. *8 1/2* (1963) Fellini's journey of self discovery picks up where *La Dolce Vita* (an interesting voyeuristic film in itself) leaves off. Where the previous film's view was external, 8 1/2 looks to the internal, or spiritual. *Persona* (1966) Perhaps the ultimate voyeur/obsession/possession film. We could talk this one ten ways till Sunday!

*ROUGHSHOD* is available in Region 2 http://tinyurl.com/58899j I have a copy of *NAKED ALIBI* taken from an old AMC broadcast. *RIDE OUT FOR REVENGE* was also shown on the old AMC. *THE GLASS WALL* has not been shown to my knowledge. You would think with a thread that goes for twenty-five pages that Gloria would have her own day on SUTS (Hello, TCM Programmer?). Another way to make requests known might be for the contributers of this thread to continually post these films in Suggest A Movie at least once a month. If TCM can reprint archives and box sets of other artists they could surely create one for GG.

Kino has it: http://tinyurl.com/5d4qmk

I recieved the Kino print for Xmas last year, but still haven't had a chance to view it! Everything goes on the pile and eventually gets seen though (although some films do seem to cut in line).