ChiO
-
Posts
749 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Never
Posts posted by ChiO
-
-
_Bargar_ has provided an excellent summation. (You're all teacher's pets here.)
*X: THE MAN WITH THE X-RAY EYES* owes more than a bit to FRANKENSTEIN. As _Bargar_ notes, there is the medical researcher wanting to improve the life of humankind and does so by subjecting himself to experiments that enable him to see inside people for quicker diagnoses. He is even embarassed to realize that his power could be used for the sleazy side of voyeurism. But his ability to see inside people (in a purely physical sense, not in an emotional sense) drives him mad, culminating in "And if your eye causes you to sin, PLUCK IT OUT."
So we have the "eye" (voyeurism) as the cause and perpetuation of sin and guilt. Not quite THE INCREDIBLE SHRINKING MAN in terms of Humankind/Nature/Eternal Cosmos, but more pertinent to this discussion.
-
A _FrankG_ pick is: *Lawrence Tierney's "Sam Wild" in Born to Kill and Farley Granger's "Martin Lynn" in Edge of Doom are my runner-ups.*
Excuse me until my tic subsides. There. Okay...have the names Lawrence Tierney and Farley Granger ever appeared in the same sentence before?
Have you seen Tierney in The Hoodlum? Directed my Max Nosseck, who also directed Tierney in Dillinger. You've made your disdain of PD movies clear, but...it is a white hot performance. Tierney's not so much "under-the-radar" as "radar...hell...let's smash through the damn thing". Whatta guy.
-
*For those who enjoy their film noir a bit on the exotic side, ALLOTMENT WIVES is must viewing, especially for those with a predisposition for down and dirty unpretentious poverty row entertainment.*
Really baited that trap, didn't you. The alarm will be set. Thanks for the tip -- I would have never caught it.
-
*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!"
-
*I?d like to add the 1969 Haskell Wexler movie ?Medium Cool? to your list. This movie seems to have dropped out of sight lately and needs to be revived. A prime example of ?News Media? voyeurism.*
Good point. Now I have to go rent it since I haven't seen it since...well, it's been awhile. Maybe a little compare and contrast with *NETWORK* and THE TRUMAN SHOW. And, maybe, MAN BITES DOG and DEATH WATCH
Message was edited (twice) by: ChiO (because his brain is slower than his fingers)
-
Maybe the most under-the-radar director with the most wonderful under-the-radar films noir is (with the possible exception of Anthony Mann) Chicago native Phil Karlson.
*Kansas City Confidential* (1952)
*Tight Spot* (1955)
*Five Against the House* (1955)
*The Phenix City Story* (1955)
And those are just the ones I've seen. Would love to see:
*Scandal Sheet* (1952) (based on a novel by an ex-Army, ex-reporter, cigar chompin', pistol shootin' director auteur extraordinaire)
*99 River Street* (1953) (Dewey included this on his list)
*The Brothers Rico* (1957) (Italian crooks? With Richard Conte?)
Quite an impressive body of work for a director who is remembered, if at all, primarily for *Walking Tall* (1973).
-
I've only seen four: Bob le Flambeur, Le Samourai, Army of Shadows, and Le Circle rouge. Liked each of them, but *Le Samourai* is the tops for me -- mystical crime noir.
-
Every one of my records means something! The label, the producer, the year it was made. Who was copying whose style... who's expanding on that, don't you understand? When I listen to my records they take me back to certain points in my life, OK? Just don't touch my records, ever! You! The first time I met you? Modell's sister's high school graduation party, right? 1955. And Ain't That A Shame was playing when I walked into the door! -- Shrevie (Daniel Stern) in *Diner* (1982)
Do you ever get the feeling that there's something going on that we don't know about? -- Fenwick (Kevin Bacon) in *Diner* (1982)
I'm a stranger here myself. -- Johnny 'Guitar' Logan (Sterling Hayden) in *Johnny Guitar* (1955)
-
Great list, Molo, especially for adding two more movies that used Cornell Woolrich stories as the source material: *The Window* and Deadline at Dawn.
Quicksand: Ya know, the concept seems obvious and I always find Mickey Rooney difficult to watch, but I really enjoy it (except for the ending that is too darn happy). Nice pick.
Message was edited by: ChiO
-
"Lasivious" probably is a tad strong, but "salacious" may be on the money. No, Jefferies doesn't "see" anything immediately with his eyes, but he does see clues: carrying over the threshold, drawn blinds, weary cigarette smoking. He (and the audience) put those clues together and "know" what's happened. Except we don't really. Which gets back to Ark's earlier comments on "perception" and piecing together what we see (and don't see) and fill in the gaps to create a picture that may be greater (and possibly very different) than the sum of its parts.
*But Stewart's voyeurism invites the outside world into his life.*
Love that observation. Interesting corollary to the idea of voyeurism as an invasion of the other's (outsider's) world. Invasion vs. invitation. Distance and attempts to maintain it (objectivity) vs. distance and attempts to bridge it (subjectivity).
-
There's only one story, and it's in Phenix City.
-
Phenix City.
-
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?
-
Along that same line, regarding the sewer sequence, I wonder whether Reed or Welles (Reed said in the same interview as I previously quoted from that Welles improvised that sequence) had seen *He Walked by Night* (1948).
-
*There are some who say the fingers coming up through the grate are Reed's own.......*
Reed said that the fingers were his own.
The Films of Samuel Fuller
in Films and Filmmakers
Posted
I saw a less than pristine copy of *Run of the Arrow* (1956) a couple of days ago. The rhythm was much slower than many of his films, but the message had Fuller's usual in-your-face boldness. It follows the protagonist's journey to find his Self, which takes him from being a lonely Confederate soldier who fires the last shot of the Civil War, to abandoning his family and hometown (Where's your pride, Ma? Where's your pride?), to trying to become a Sioux, to returning to the White Man's world. With Rod Steiger, Ralph Meeker, Jay C. Flippen and Charles Bronson.
According to Fuller (who produced, wrote and directed), Raoul Walsh and Mervyn LeRoy wanted to direct it. The actress who played the role of Steiger's Sioux wife was Sarita Montiel, who was married to Anthony Mann. Because of her thick Spanish accent, her lines were re-recorded by Angie Dickinson, who then played the lead in Fuller's next movie, *China Gate* (1957).