ChiO

I made a count and, assuming that I was reasonably accurate, more of Woolrich's writings were made into movies than Hammett's, Chandler's & Cain's -- combined! I assume the reasons he is not as well known are (1), as Dewey wrote, until REAR WINDOW, his stories "made it to the big screen, emanating either from the B units of the major studios or dispatched directly from the depths of Poverty Row" and (2) he did not personally engage in screenwriting or other more "public" endeavors.

Steve Buscemi would be my choice to play _any_ bizarre life, but especially good for Mr. Woolrich. Instead of a biopic, I see a movie based on one of his works, but with Cornell added, appearing as the Greek chorus. Directed by...David Lynch, David Cronenberg or Werner Herzog? Or, maybe, Guy Madden?

I'm behind on my reading, so in case others are too, from the Bright Lights Film Journal: http://www.brightlightsfilm.com/60/60grahame.html

Now that Phase I of the torture is over: (1) The Cubs are now 7-0 against the Bucs this season (10-0 if one reaches back to last year), and (2) The Gene Siskel Film Center is showing 35mm archival prints from 20th Century Fox from June 6 through July 2 of: *THE DARK CORNER* (June 13 & 16) *FALLEN ANGEL* (June 28 & July 2) *KISS OF DEATH* (June 21 & 23) *LAURA* (June 27 & 28 ) *NIGHTMARE ALLEY* (June 6 & 9) *NIGHT AND THE CITY* (June 14 & 18 ) *PANIC IN THE STREETS* (June 7 & 12) *PICKUP ON SOUTH STREET* (June 7 & 11) *ROAD HOUSE* (June 20 & 21) *THIEVES' HIGHWAY* (June 14 & 19) Fox archivist *Schawn Belston* will attend on June 14 to discuss his work with *Jules Dassin* in restoring NIGHT AND THE CITY. Need more? From June 21 to July 26, the Siskel will be presenting (in addition to the above, Romanian Film Rising and various other movies) a series devoted to Luchino Visconti: *DEATH IN VENICE* (June 21 & 26) *ROCCO AND HIS BROTHERS* (June 22 & 24) *THE DAMNED* (June 28 & July 1) *SANDRA* (June 29 & July 2) In July (dates not yet announced): BELLISSIMA, SENSO, THE LEOPARD, LUDWIG, CONVERSATION PIECE and THE INNOCENT. It's going to be a nice summer here. Join us. Maybe you can catch a game at Heaven, aka Wrigley Field, too.

I have enjoyed every *Welles* feature film that I've seen (Disclosure: He is my favorite director.), but *F FOR FAKE* is the one I find to be the most F for Fun. Aside from being visually stunning, it may be his most subversive. I find it terrible, and have long had the impression that the reason it gets the undeserved reputation it has is because it was made by Orson Welles. That may be the very point/question *Welles* was making/asking. What is Art? Who is an Artist? Is it all a sham? Is it determined by who declares something or someone to be Art or an Artist? With this movie, he is going back to his roots as a magician and The War of the Worlds broadcast and showing how tenuous social beliefs can be and challenging our perceptions, even of *Welles* himself. He does this with a movie that is part essay, part documentary, and totally Fake. Aren't all movies Fake? And, the more Fake they are, are they more capable of getting to deeper Truths?

Hammett, Cain & Chandler get the press, but Woolrich is da man.

I haven't seen alot of his films, but (with all due respect to Ark & Miss G) I generally have not found him compelling, with the following exceptions: *Force of Evil* (far and away my favorite Garfield performance as a lead) *Gentleman's Agreement* (I do not like the movie, but Garfield nails his small role - it looks, and probably is, personal) *Humoresque* (since I like this, maybe I'm missing something in the others)

Watch the Powell/Pressburger films of the period that were British movies intended to get the U.S. involved in Europe: *Contraband* & *49th Parallel*.

Some '70s films that I don't think that have been mentioned and that I think may stand the test of time (translation: I really like them): *Tristana* (Bunuel) *Woodstock* (Wadleigh) *McCabe & Mrs. Miller* (Altman) (one of the few of his I like) *Two Lane Blacktop* (Hellman) *Wanda* (Loden) (in my Top 15 of all time) *Aguirre, The Wrath of God* (Herzog) (another one in the Top 15) *Avanti* (Wilder) *Fat City* (Huston) (maybe his best - yes, better than The Maltese Falcon) *Last Tango in Paris* (Bertolucci) *F For Fake* (Welles) (32 years after *Citizen Kane* + another 35 years = GENIUS) *Martha* (Fassbinder) (after *Rear Window*, my favorite adaptation of a Cornell Woolrich story) *Bring Me the Head of Alfredo Garcia* (Peckinpah) *Celine and Julie Go Boating* (Rivette) *The Conversation* (Coppola) (when I think he's overrated, I watch this) *Lancelot du lac* (Bresson) *Phantom of Liberty* (Bunuel) *A Woman Under the Influence* (Cassavetes) (still shattering 34 years later) *Barry Lyndon* (Kubrick) *The Killing of a Chinese Bookie* (Cassavetes) *The Devil, Probably* (Bresson) *Eraserhead* (Lynch) *That Obscure Object of Desire* (Bunuel) *Killer of Sheep* (Burnett) (another Top 15 -- no, Top 10) *All That Jazz* (Fosse) (my favorite "musical") *Apocalypse Now* (Coppola)

As Director _and_ Actor: 1. *Citizen Kane* 2. *Touch of Evil* 3. *F For Fake*

lzcutter, *I had the pleasure a long time ago, of meeting Cassavettes and Gena Rowlands at the end of a film tribute that we did for him....Cassavettes and Rowlands were two of the best.* As is probably clear from a number of posts, I am in awe of Cassavetes as a director (and almost as much so as an actor). I choke-up just thinking of him, his films, and his struggles and integrity in getting his films made (and his support of Timothy Carey doesn't hurt). When Rowlands was in one of his films, it is magic. Being married to him was probably far more difficult than acting for him. If you ever have contact with her again, please, on my behalf, beg, plead, cajole her for the release of *Husbands* and *Love Streams* on DVD. *The best was an incredibly humble and modest Don Siegel* That reinforces what I've heard and read elsewhere; that he is 180 degrees from what one would expect based on his films.

*Everyone seems to feel that way about Bergman, I know I once I did. Then I saw Fanny and Alexander and I finally understood.* I loved Bergman...but it was a phase I outgrew. Wait until I get to lead a Fuller/Cassavetes class with the discussion starter of "Compare and contrast the acting techniques of Gene Evans and Timothy Carey, and explain why chewing the scenery is better than chewing the cigar."

*I'm thinking June will be the kick-off and I'll start with Ford* I just knew that you and MissG would get me to watch Ford again...and again...and again. _Hey, Hey FrankG_ -- Did you see who's in first in the NL Central with the second-best record in the NL? Didya, huh, huh? Now we're beating up NY teams. Oh, we know it can't last, but already the second 100 years is looking better than the first. Maybe we can pass baseball notes in class while the others are discussing Fordian slips.

_lzcutter_ -- All seriousness aside and back to the real subject: Education, but definitely no class. Some thoughts on one possible approach: (1) _You_ start at time of your choosing. (2) Two or three weeks in advance of the "start," (a) post the director or theme (no actors as topics, unless, of course, it's Timothy Carey), and ( 3-5 suggested films that are reasonably readily available by the director or within the theme. (3) At the designated "start", post 2 or 3 discussion starters and let the students in the front of the classroom post away (while a couple of the girls in back are passing notes about "do you think Gary C. likes me, or does he really really likes me?"). (4) After a couple weeks, _you_ choose one of the participants to moderate the next class (either as a reward or punishment), and it starts all over again. We'll know it's time to quit when the chosen topic is The Function of Mise-en-Scene in the Transgressive Feminist Cinema of Doris Wishman.

*But I'd still rather watch the Bucs get shellacked every game than watch one single Gary Cooper film.* I knew it! You _are_ a Cubs fan! I think your first extra-credit assignment (not that I mean to imply you'll need extra-credit) should be: *Why THE PRIDE OF THE YANKEES is my favorite baseball movie and how Gary Cooper played first base better than Willie Stargell.*

If you see any fast cool kids, please point them out for me. I wanna know what they look like.

_Frank-The-Cubs -Are-Finally-Leaving-Grimes_ -- The Murnau films being screening are: *Nosferatu* (1922) *The Last Laugh* (1924) *Tartuffe* (1926) *Faust* (1926) *Sunrise* (1927) *City Girl* (1928) So that's two of my favorite films of all-time (The Last Laugh & Sunrise), two that I like alot (Nosferatu & Faust), and two I haven't seen. *So you are a Sci-Fi guy then. This I didn't know.* Actually, I don't consider myself as a Sci-Fi guy, but...I love '50s paranoia movies, from *Panic in the Streets* to Earth vs. Flying Saucers. They remind me of my carefree youth of ducking under the school desk for bomb drills, begging my Father to build a bomb shelter, knowing Sputnik would destroy us all, and Birchers ferreting out Commies.

_Frank-Cubs-13-Bucs-1-Grimes_ -- You know me too well. _Bergman_ -- Would've been a possibility with the early films, but not the post-Scenes from a Marriage stuff. _1950s Sci-Fi_ -- I actually have a draft proposal on the topic that I was going to submit to Facets, and this class is nearly identical, so...nevermind. _Ford at Fox_ -- I was momentarily tempted, but I feared that _MissG_ would lose all respect (if any remains) for me. Murnau! Murnau! Murnau! -- I've seen four (Nosferatu, The Last Laugh, Faust, Sunrise) of the six films, but seeing Tartuffe and City Girl and, one hopes, digging deeper into his art is too much to pass up. _lzcutter_ & _MissG_ -- Will there be any homework, will boys be forced to carry the books of any icky girls, and who is the Vice Principal imposing the discipline? Subject to your responses, my hand is in the air (and it's not to ask for permission to go to the washroom).

Dear Frank-We-Wish-the-Cubs-Could-Play-the-Bucs-All-Season-Grimes: Unlike many of your so-called friends, I have not participated in this sleazy little game of torturing you. I now, as a friend and compatriot, turn to you for advice. Which one of the following classes should I take this summer at Facets Multimedia? Ingmar Bergman: *Scenes from a Marriage* and Beyond Watch the Skies!: Science Fiction, 1950's and Us Ford at Fox: The Emergence of a Hollywood Master Silent Shadows: The Films of F.W. Murnau

Lionel Stander narrating in the second-person in Blast of Silence. Tom Neal in Detour.

I have found *The Dark Past* to be disappointing as well, and I like Rudolph Mate. The lecture at the end is worse than that in *Psycho* and not nearly as much fun (or educational) as that in Glen or Glenda. Whenever I watch it, I wonder how it would work with Holden and Cobb switching roles. Somehow, William Holden with a pipe explaining a dream to a raging Lee J. Cobb seems more appropriate.

*Did you enjoy Basinger's book on Anthony Mann, ChiO?* Absolutely, although I have 15 more pages to go (but I doubt that they'll change my mind). *Was there anything surprising revealed in it?* You mean something like, "Gary Cooper was a difficult star to work with, incapable of giving to his fellow actors, and turning what could have been a classic film of the Western genre into a mediocrity"? Oh...that wouldn't have been surprising? Nah, nothing like that. There is no biography -- it is straight-ahead film analysis. Not even any behind the scenes gossip. The quote below about Ray & Ryan is about as deep into acting as it goes. It did confirm my sense of the impact of John Alton on his films, and it provides lots of ideas, themes, technique, etc. to look for in his movies. It is going to be an excellent reference book as I watch and rewatch his films. It has made me really want to see some of his films that I've missed, especially: Devil's Doorway, The Furies (it's coming soon from Criterion, I understand), The Tall Target, Men in War, and, yes, Man of the West. I also need to rewatch: Bend of the River, Strategic Air Command and El Cid. I guess that's what a good book is suppose to do.

The DVD is on Kino International. No commentary, but the special feature is a long, very insightful essay by Ginsberg. The push-pull that you noted was autobiographical, but I imagine it is nearly universal. There are two early episodes that are very emotionally painful, but moving, with a woman who has cigarette burns on her chest from a man she dated. She begs Joe to "do whatever you want to do to me." He says he'll "do whatever you want." She won't tell him what to do because that ruins the experience for her; he is clueless as to what to do because her desire makes him disinterested. Neither can satisfy the other on any level. The emotional and physical luridness is Fuller, but the look, subject and tone are '60s NYC independent filmmaking at its best (or, for some, its worst). Think Garfein (SOMETHING WILD), Clarke (THE CONNECTION), and Cassavetes. I hope you like it. I think you will.

From *Anthony Mann* (Jeanine Basinger, 2007): (discussing GOD'S LITTLE ACRE) The primitive quality of Aldo Ray as an actor suits the role of Will. His desire to "pull the switch and light up the whole world" defines his desire to make their small-town world active by starting the closed-down cotton mill working again. Ryan, who is contrasted so well with Ray in MEN AT WAR, seems less perfectly cast here. He was more believable as an urban type (Nicholas Ray's ON DANGEROUS GROUND) or a stark western hero (Andre De Toth's DAY OF THE OUTLAW) or even as a villain (Mann's THE NAKED SPUR) than he is as a lusty, rural southern patriarch.

(Not a film that makes me think immediately of film noir, but it clearly is not any of the genres listed and, if anyone else would want to see this film, it most likely would be a reader of the film noir threads.) Question: Is *COMING APART* (Ginsberg, 1969) (a) a pretentious, self-conscious attempt at an important "arty" movie, or ( a raw, frank dissection of the duplicity consuming a man's soul? Answer: Yes. I loved it. Milton Moses Ginsberg's first movie as a director (he made only three more) is a product of the late-'60s (the drugs, sex and clothing are dead giveaways), with *Cassavetes* as the most obvious stylistic point of reference. A psychiatrist, Joe (Rip Torn) has an apartment where he meets young female patients, young female neighbors, and young female pick-ups (see a trend?)...and his wife. Joe films the encounters -- or, at least some or portions of them. His profession is, naturally, known to his patients and wife, but may be unknown or hidden to others. Those women who want him cause him to pull away; those who spurn him results in him wanting them. Joe's duplicity: He acts as if he cares about each of them when, in fact, it appears that he cares about nothing. The entire movie takes place in the living room of Joe's apartment. The camera is static with long takes. The lower third of the frame is the back of a white sofa; the top two-thirds is a mirror. Most of the "action" is a two-shot of people on the sofa, with them, the rest of the room and the NYC skyline reflected in the mirror. When people are not on the sofa, usually their reflection is seen, but sometimes nothing but the sofa and mirror (and the reflection of objects) are visible. The filming is surreptious. The camera is hidden in, what he tells one woman, a piece of kinetic art. The camera angle changes occasionally when he moves the "art." Takes end when either Joe turns the camera off or when it runs out of film. Joe films the encounters so he can study or relive them, purportedly for a book. When he turns a camera back on or puts in more film, however, it is often unclear how much time has elapsed. A few seconds, 24 hours, a month? Are the gaps purely coincidental, intentional attempts not to re-experience an emotion (and is that emotion pleasurable or not), or merely to hide something from the viewer who is truly a voyeur? The one time Joe expresses rage is when a recurring young female ex-patient visitor has a camera with her and acts as if she's going to take pictures. Rip Torn's performance is phenomenal -- forcing one to care about someone who appears to care about nothing. Ginsberg's construct of making the audience watch a character who is later going to watch what the audience is watching implicates the audienceas a participant in the character's duplicity. Seldom has a movie on a single viewing moved me -- emotionally and intellectually -- as *COMING APART* has. It does what many great movies do -- forces you to love it or hate it. Being disinterested is not possible.