ChiO

Saw it today for the first time and it happened to be at our neighborhood we-are-trying-to-be-a-revival-house theater. Not going to replace *Gun Crazy* as my favorite noir...and probably not break into my Top 40, but it is fun. The characters are right out of Central Typecasting: Harry "Tight-Lipped" Morgan, Elsa "The Eccentric" Lancaster, George "Is It a Sneer or a Smirk" MacCready, Charles "Harsh and Sophisticated" Laughton, and Ray "Watch Me Sweat Bullets" Milland. And John Seitz's cinematography was on the money...as usual.

As the three latest posters have discerned, I certainly am not using "voyeurism" (or "scopophilia", which really sounds nasty to me) in a clinical or strict sense. More in the vein of "anything beyond the casual glance (or hearing) that attracts one's attention and keeps it". Now...have at it.

This has gotten seriously off-topic. Dear Mr. FrankGrimes, The classes that I have to chose from at Facets for the Sept/Oct session are: Dangerous Seductions in the Dark: RICHARD WIDMARK, THE LAST FILM NOIR GIANT Films screened and discussed: *Kiss of Death* (Henry Hathaway, 1947) *The Street with No Name* (William Keighley, 1948) *Road House* (Jean Negulesco, 1948) *Night and the City* (Jules Dassin, 1950) *No Way Out* (Joseph L. Mankiewicz, 1950) *Pickup on South Street* (Sam Fuller, 1953) Through the Mirror: TIME AS SUBSTANCE IN THE FILMS OF ANDREI TARKOVSKY Films screened and discussed: *Ivan's Childhood* (1962) *The Mirror* (1975) *Stalker* (1979) *Nostalgia* (1983) *The Sacrifice* (1986) Destiny and Fate in Film Noir: FRITZ LANG, FILM DIRECTOR Films screened and discussed: *Destiny* (1921) *Metropolis* (1927) *Testament of Dr. Mabuse* (1933) *The Big Heat* (1953) *While The City Sleeps* (1956) *Beyond a Reasonable Doubt* (1957) There's also a class on Steven Soderbergh, but.... Then, for Nov/Dec, there's: John Ford at Fox Redux: FURTHER INTO FORD Films screened and discussed: *Four Sons* (1928) *Hangman's House* (1928) *Steamboat Round the Bend* (1935) *The Prisoner of Shark Island* (1936) *Drums Along the Mohawk* (1939) *Young Mr. Lincoln* (1939) Reel Law: DOCUMENTARY NARRATIVES OF JUSTICE Films screened and discussed: *Murder on a Sunday Morning* ("Un Coupable Id?al") (Jean-Xavier de Lestrade, 2001) *Love & Diane* (Jennifer Dworkin, 2002) *Capturing the Friedmans* (Andrew Jarecki, 2003) *Brother's Keeper* (Joe Berlinger & Bruce Sinofsky,1992) *The Corporation* (Mark Achbar & Jennifer Abbott, 2004) *The Thin Blue Line* (Errol Morris, 1988) Through a Technicolor Mirror: THE FILMS OF DOUGLAS SIRK Films screened and discussed: *La Habanera* (1937) *Lured* (1947) *Sleep, My Love* (1948) *All that Heaven Allows* (1955) *Written on the Wind* (1956) *Imitation of Life* (1959) Wounded Men and Codes of Violence: THE FILMS OF SAM PECKINPAH Films screened and discussed: *Ride The High Country* (1962) *The Ballad of Cable Hogue* (1970) *Straw Dogs* (1971) *Junior Bonner* (1972) *Pat Garrett and Billy the Kid* (1973) *Bring Me The Head of Alfredo Garcia* (1974) We have a spare room.

Mon CineMaven, Absolutely not. My post was "regularly scheduled", not merely a response to your post. *BLOW-UP* is a must-see for anyone who hasn't seen it (not just as it relates to this topic, but as it relates to film generally) and an oughta see for anyone who hasn't seen it recently (I popped my copy in the weekend before the class started as a refresher). In retrospect, one could make a case that REAR WINDOW, *PEEPING TOM* and *BLOW-UP* are sufficient for this topic -- they are that good and that significant.

Not to cut off the ongoing discussion or to forget where it has led us, here is another approach for discussion. The profession of some of the major characters who are overt practitioners of voyeurism has been mentioned. To follow that line, and as an excuse to put some more films into the discussion, here are some examples: *REAR WINDOW* ? photojournalist *PEEPING TOM* ? movie cameraman & cheesecake photographer *X: THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES* ? scientist *BLOW-UP* ? fashion and candid photographer *THE CONVERSATION* ? surveillance expert *WITNESS TO MURDER* ? interior decorator *PUSHOVER* ? police detective *SISTERS* ? newspaper reporter *DEATH WATCH* ? television cameraman *MONSIEUR HIRE* ? tailor *THE 1000 EYES OF DR. MABUSE* ? criminal mastermind *RED* ? judge *ONE HOUR PHOTO* ? photo clerk *THE LIVES OF OTHERS* -- agent of secret police Is there any significance to the character?s profession and the voyeurism? How might that relate to the person(s) being viewed, or to others who get involved in viewing. What are their relative positions of power? Do those positions change or shift and, if so, what does that do to our perception of the voyeur? Message was edited by: ChiO

I would also suggest that with Cassavetes, as a director, start at the beginning with *Shadows* and then go in order to the extent possible. Unfortunately, for me at least, my favorite film, *Husbands*, is unavailable and my next favorite, *Love Streams*, is only available on VHS. Nevertheless, the Criterion box set is a godsend. I anxiously await a Vol. II with those two and Minnie and Moskowitz. Also, *Accidental Genius: How John Cassavetes Invented the American Independent Film* (Marshall Fine, 2005) is a nice introduction to his life and films.

Non-fiction is Lies masquerading as Truth. Fiction is Truth masquerading as Lies. -- (wish I could remember where I read or heard it) I'll let you be in my dream if I can be in yours. -- *Bob Dylan* Everything was a lie. There wasn't anything that wasn't. -- *Orson Welles* (commenting on F FOR FAKE) The above capture my ambivalence over documentaries. A documentary often has lies, but by labelling it a "documentary", those lies are perceived by many to be truths, which I find potentially insidious (TRIUMPH OF THE WILL being the prototype). But as _Dewey_ points out, *Errol Morris* is an excellent example of one who molds the "true lies" to get to a greater Truth (the anti-Michael Moore?). And, of course, there is F FOR FAKE, which *Jonathan Rosenbaum* has astutely observed is not a documentary, but a documentary plus essay plus fiction, and which I find to be the most exciting examination of the nature of art and reality I have ever seen. (NOTE: We must discuss F FOR FAKE, BLOW-UP and *PEEPING TOM* in this context down the road). 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? Another *Malle* documentary on the same DVD, VIVE LE TOUR, had a profound voyeuristic moment for me. Early on, for probably 30 seconds, *Malle* and I are watching the bikers in the race while a voiceover says that the bikers look for family and friends in the crowd, then the camera shows the crowd looking at the bikers as the bikers look at the crowd. Try diagramming that. Message was edited by: ChiO

> {quote:title=CineMaven wrote:}{quote} > Can there even be a violation of privacy if the voyeurism is unbeknownst to the person being viewed? > > If a tree falls in the woods and there was no one around to hear it does it make a sound? YES. > > Just because I don't know I'm being spied on in the ladies room by the late great Chuck Berry doesn't mean my privacy was not invaded. > And what is the sound of one hand clapping? No, Grasshopper, this is not a Zen mind game (though I don't rule out the possibility that I may be delusional). This is Real! This is Life!! This is MOVIES!!! (Sorry...got carried away after watching *THE MEN WHO MADE MOVIES: SAM FULLER* yesterday.) Of course privacy was invaded, propriety was violated. But from whose perspective? My arcane and muddled way of asking: Until the viewed knows he or she is being viewed, does it matter? And if it does, to whom?

Some excellent insights have been tossed out, so let's probe a little deeper. _Binoculars/Telescope_: These bridge the distance between the viewer and the viewed, making the viewed appear closer. And, my reaction, too, initially is that the bringing of the viewed into sharper focus is a greater violation of privacy, especially since viewing with the eyes may be happenstance or subconscious, but using artificial means implies an overt conscious desire to watch. Do these artificial enhancers of vision create an intimacy (at least from the voyeur's perspective) that wouldn't otherwise exist? Is that forced intimacy disconcerting to the filmwatcher? Or, does their use actually accentuate the distance, serving as a visible obstruction or intermediary, and act as a reminder to the voyeur (and audience) that any sense of intimacy is false? Can there even be a violation of privacy if the voyeurism is unbeknownst to the person being viewed? _Type of Camera_: Pictures, regardless of the apparatus used, as our astute posters state, can raise issues of "possession" and "reliving the memory." A photograph captures a moment; a movie or television camera captures a process. Does it matter? In BLOW-UP, some of the photos are for mass consumption, others are taken assuming they will be for mass consumption, but become ones 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, as is THE TRUMAN SHOW). In PEEPING TOM, there are photos for niche consumption (girlie magazines) and film for mass consumption (his work as a movie 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). Long aside: I find it fascinating that L.B. Jeffries, award-winning photojournalist in REAR WINDOW, never uses his camera as a camera. He uses his unencumbered eyes, binoculars, and a 'scope lens, but he never takes a picture. And he uses the camera's flash first as the signal for warning Lisa of coming danger, then uses it as a weapon against Lars. "Camera"/voyeurism as catalyst for danger or protection from danger, or both? Mirror: Ah, the one-way glass. It is also used effectively in *DEATH WATCH* when two characters watch for a woman's reaction to being told she has two months to live as she looks into the "mirror" for her own reaction (if she appears "strong", which she does, they want to continue watching and televise her death process). 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... 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? Special note to Molo: Did you watch PEEPING TOM? Participate here and I'll share my interpretation of BLOW-UP, and *PEEPING TOM* makes for an interesting comparison.

Will the class please come to order. Welcome to Here?s Looking At You, Kid: Voyeurism ? Implicating and Transforming the Audience. I am your faithful guide, ChiO. Class Rules & Guidelines: 1. Feel free to arrive and walk in and out at anytime. 2. Food and beverages must be shared (I like martinis up with an olive & salty snacks). 3. Office hours are open ? except during Cubs games. 4. Writing anything negative about CITIZEN KANE, a cheaply made film noir, Samuel Fuller, John Cassavetes, Barbara Stanwyck, Robert Ryan, John Alton or ? and this is extremely important ? Timothy Carey is grounds for disciplinary action. 5. Please try to stay on topic (though tangents that are on topic are encouraged). 6. If films are cited as examples, please do not feel restricted to those examples in your post. 7. PLEASE BE RESPECTFUL OF EACH OTHER. Dissection is always better with a scalpel than an ax. Here are the kick-off questions: Voyeurism generally involves use of the voyeur?s eyes, but in several films the voyeur uses additional artificial means of looking. Does use of a camera add any meaning and does the meaning vary among the films in which it is a factor? Is there any significance to the type of camera used (for example, a photograph camera vs. a television or movie camera)? Does any meaning change by use of binoculars or telescope? How does such meaning(s) differ, if at all, from that of a mirror, which is a common trope in many movies?

As always, Ark's got my back. He's absolutely right. This will be about questions, not answers, and looking at old favorites and, one hopes, some new favorites in different ways. As for Peeping Tom, that's on my long list of films I need to revisit this weekend. Molo, I hope you have a chance to view it; this topic aside, it is a fascinating movie, especially when one considers that it came out very shortly before Psycho and, whereas *Peeping Tom* is often credited as effectively bringing Powell's career to an end, *Psycho* enhanced Hitchcock's. As for Blow-Up, some of my best tennis was played without a ball.

*So what's your best "under the radar" performance in film noir?* Actors? Shouldn't they be treated like cattle (or, is it "treated as cattle"?)? They merely get in the way of the auteur. Assuming the question is "best performance by relative unknowns in an 'under the radar' film noir", then... Is *The Naked Kiss* (Samuel Fuller, 1964) under the radar? If so, then Constance Towers (best regardless of gender). Runners-up: Allan Baron and Larry Tucker in *Blast of Silence* (Allan Baron, 1961), and Marshall Thompson, Leon Ames, Virginia Field and Andrea King in *Dial 1119* (Gerald Mayer, 1950).

But, look...he l-o-v-e-s puppies.

As of this moment... 1. Barbara Stanwyck 2. James Stewart 3. Robert Ryan 4. Humphrey Bogart 5. Robert Mitchum 6. Edward G. Robinson 7. Lee Marvin 8. Renee (Marie) Falconetti 9. Sterling Hayden 10. Timothy Carey aka Timothy William Carey aka Timothy Aoglia Carey aka Timothy Agolia Carey aka Timothy Agoglia Carey

CineMave said: *I'm not sure he did "OUT OF THE PAST" but that is another noir film with great music. Actually, I always wait for the scene with Mitchum and Huston talking by the river. The music there is so sweet.* Roy Webb composed the music for Out of the Past (and The Magnificent Ambersons, Cat People, The Leopard Man, Murder, My Sweet, The Spiral Staircase and Notorious).

CineMaven said: *my apologies to those Mid-Westerners in the know!* Apology accepted (or, is that "excepted"?). For the record, those delightful denizens of Wisconsin are not "hayseeds"...they are "Cheeseheads." From Chicago, Caught Between My Homestate Hoosier Hayseeds and Wisconsin Cheeseheads, ChiO

Add *Monsieur Hire* (1989) and *Death Watch* (1980) as highly relevant movies, having now seen them. Unfortunately, *Death Watch* is only on VHS and Region 2 DVD. A TV station, headed by Harry Dean Stanton, wants to televise the death of a young attractive woman (ratings, you know) who has only two months to live. So the station has a TV camera implanted in Harvey Keitel's eyes, thereby making it possible to broadcast whatever Keitel sees, and assigns him to watch Romy Schneider once she agrees to the deal. She finally agrees to being filmed, but doesn't know that Keitel is the means of filming. After getting the money from Stanton, Schneider goes on the lam with a man she just happens to meet (Keitel). Sense of guilt galore as the relationship evolves. *Monsieur Hire* delves into the relationship of a friendless voyeur and the woman he looks at and how that relationship evolves once she knows he's watching. Constantly shifting sympathies. Beautifully filmed.

1967. Sixteen, with a license to drive to the Big City and see movies before they hit our local second-run theater. And I took advantage. Bonnie and Clyde: Ark nailed it on this one, though for me it compares favorably with THEY LIVE BT NIGHT and YOU ONLY LIVE ONCE. Loved it then and still do, even though GUN CRAZY is now preferred. I still marvel at Gene Hackman's performance and I was convinced that Michael J. Pollard would be huge. Both were nominated for Best Supporting Actor; Beatty and Dunaway were nominated for Best Actor and Actress, respectively, Arthur Penn for Best Director, and Estelle Parsons won Best Supporting Actress; it won for Best Cinematography. Doctor Doolittle: The one of these movies that I didn't see and still haven't, even though MrsChiO thinks we rented it for our little one 10 or so years ago. I must have walked out. The Graduate: It was our generation's REBEL WITHOUT A CAUSE, or so it seemed. Doesn't have REBEL's timeless or near-universal qualities, seeming almost quaint to me now, though I still enjoy watching it; however, maybe rather than it not aging well, it is I who has not aged well. Outstanding performances by Dustin Hoffman (weren't he and Hackman NYC roommates?) and Anne Bancroft. Guess Who's Coming to Dinner: Seemed like a Stanley Kramer movie then and haven't watched it since. I'll take Sidney Poitier in ODDS AGAINST TOMORROW and EDGE OF THE CITY and... In the Heat of the Night: Wonderful performance by Poitier, but Rod Steiger's is brilliant. I agree with Ark completely. Along with Sterling Hayden (his polar opposite?), he seems to be one of the most often criticized actors, but I'm mesmerized by both of them.

The pre-class discussion has been illuminating and very gratifying. Thanks to everyone participating. As you continue to think about the on-topic films you?ve seen, maybe watch again, and check out some you haven?t seen, here are a few questions to ponder: What are the characteristics of the voyeur(s) in the movie? What are the characteristics of the person being viewed? Their genders? Their professions? Their societal status? What are the circumstances of the voyeurism? Premeditated? Accidental? Do the circumstances change? Is there any significance in how the voyeur effectuates the viewing? What is the reaction (if any) to the voyeurism by the person(s) being viewed? By others who become aware of the voyeurism? Where does the film place the film viewer relative to the voyeur(s) and the person(s) being viewed? Remember: We start in earnest on September 2.

I saw *The Saddest Music in the World* at a screening about 3 years ago where Maddin discussed that film and his life as a director. Enjoyed it immensely and want to see more, but... Have you seen My Winnipeg? Do you have any recommendations?

You folks are too much. I may not even moderate and just let you all go and I'll sit back and...watch. Here's another one that I just got around to today despite my aversion to any movie with a knife: *Sisters* (DePalma, 1973). Luckily, only two knife scenes. There is looking a la Candid Camera, premeditated looking, inadvertent looking, spying, cameras, binoculars and split screens (there, you now have some hints regarding potential discussion topics). Even if you might not otherwise want to watch it, turn it into a parlor game to find his references to (surprise, surprise) Hitchcock (not to mention the Bernard Herrmann score) and even some to Powell and Fuller. Found *Monsieur Hire* and *Death Watch* last night...just trying to keep up with everyone here.

Oh-my-goodness: peeping through a window _and_ a mirror -- how many symbols (that's "tropes" for those seeking graduate credit) do you want? I looked for *Monsieur Hire* a couple of years ago and couldn't find a Region 1 copy to rent, then forgot about it. Thanks for the tip! Ditto with *Death Watch* (Bernard Tavernier, 1980). I'll try to snag that one now, too.

Frank-the-Cubs-take-2-out-of-3-from-the-Bucs: I was counting on you to mention *VERTIGO* and the 1,000 EYES OF DR. MABUSE, the Kings of Obsessions. And _Ark_ does it again! The "Eyes" have it. I'm just going to sit back and moderate when the time comes. Everyone who has commented here is going to make this very interesting for all of us (and teach me alot).

Ray Danton was married to the lovely Julie Adams, most memorable as the Gill Man's love interest in The Creature from the Black Lagoon.

CineMaven: It can't be a Ph.D class. "Deconstruction" and "post-modern" were not used in the description. Film Fatale: I love Wings of Desire. Use it to your and our heart's content (but please try to avoid positing Henry Travers as a voyeur...that would change my Christmases forever).