tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post116416477870133824..comments2023-11-05T04:31:48.615-05:00Comments on Elusive Lucidity: Counter-Canon: A Viewing ListZChttp://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comBlogger41125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-34556498484912109062012-08-06T09:31:08.468-04:002012-08-06T09:31:08.468-04:00"Obtaining a quality content articles are tri..."Obtaining a quality content articles are tricky. Basically only few featured essential data. Right After I came across your Marketing Agency Brisbane web page, I pondered it to be one of the best. The knowledge is wonderful and great! "Bollywood sareeshttp://www.inmonarch.com/collections/product/8/34/0/womens-wear/bollywood-saree/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-85856026420237877012012-07-28T01:14:28.497-04:002012-07-28T01:14:28.497-04:00"I've been searching for this topic for y..."I've been searching for this topic for years. I'm glad of having finding it. It's a fantastic issue, and a beautiful photograph. Thanks for everything you have taught me!"collarless mens shirthttp://www.inmonarch.com/collections/product/3/19/0/nehru-collar-outfits/nehru-shirtsnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-60546180618115048532011-12-11T06:14:19.062-05:002011-12-11T06:14:19.062-05:00You have a very good blog that the main thing a lo...You have a very good blog that the main thing a lot of interesting and useful!<br /><a href="http://hfeel.org/buy-drugs-erectile-dysfunction-en.html" rel="nofollow">buy drugs erectile dysfunction</a>Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-53602326294624681362011-11-20T04:16:07.711-05:002011-11-20T04:16:07.711-05:00Gosh, there's a great deal of useful material ...Gosh, there's a great deal of useful material above!www.avila-3d.comhttp://www.avila-3d.comnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-43844052086286617792011-09-16T04:01:12.084-04:002011-09-16T04:01:12.084-04:00Good to know someone I could share my ideas. Looki...Good to know someone I could share my ideas. Looking forward to know and learn some more from you. I'll be glad to share my own thoughts to you soon.sex bondage videoshttp://www.lesbianbdsmsex.com/page/6/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-16980767819380195742010-10-07T08:46:44.008-04:002010-10-07T08:46:44.008-04:00Good list! I will do it!Good list! I will do it!Clenbuterolhttp://rxheads.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-69034529001692953282010-09-06T16:47:02.308-04:002010-09-06T16:47:02.308-04:00I don't believe in movie awards either because...I don't believe in movie awards either because I've seen many stupid and bad movies that those can be compare with a home video.<a href="http://www.safemeds.com/generic-viagra.htm" rel="nofollow">Generic Viagra</a> <a href="http://www.safemeds.com/viagra/buy.html" rel="nofollow">Buy Viagra</a>Viagra Onlinehttp://www.safemeds.com/noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1165026612715801012006-12-01T21:30:00.000-05:002006-12-01T21:30:00.000-05:00Alex--yeah, Bourdieu has been on my to-read list f...Alex--yeah, Bourdieu has been on my to-read list for some time now, it's a shame I haven't already. I like the films on your list; the ones I've seen anyway, which is half of them. <BR/><BR/>If I made a fiction film, it might be a lot like an F.J. Ossang production.ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164975123111984402006-12-01T07:12:00.000-05:002006-12-01T07:12:00.000-05:00Well my exposition to Ossang is only this one film...Well my exposition to Ossang is only this one film (which was a surprise screening at a festival), even though there was a full retrospective last year, but I didn't know anything about his work at all. He's pretty obscur in France too.<BR/>Thanks for expanding your ideas on the list, really illuminating.HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164935757743443392006-11-30T20:15:00.000-05:002006-11-30T20:15:00.000-05:00Everybody needs to read Bourdieu. The book you're ...Everybody needs to read Bourdieu. The book you're thinking of is his thick brown chunk of a volume, Distinction: A Social Critique of the Judgement of Taste, weighing in at over 600 pages.<BR/><BR/>I suppose what I want to see in a canon (or list, rather) is what films are most useful, or immediately meaningful to a person, rather than simply what's best. To give an example: I like Deren's movies very much, but Deren is not particularly massively useful to me in my own film-making. Deren simply doesn't have much impact on my own work.<BR/><BR/>Here's what's especially meaningful to me:<BR/><BR/>Cassavetes' Faces<BR/>Naruse's Daughters, Wives and a Mother<BR/>Naruse's Repast<BR/>Ozu's Tokyo Chorus<BR/>Olmi's Il Posto<BR/>Mankiewicz's A Letter to Three Wives<BR/>Leigh's Who's Who?<BR/>May's The Heartbreak Kid<BR/>Linklater's Before Sunset<BR/>Jose Ferrer's The High Cost of Loving<BR/>Buljaski's Funny Ha Ha<BR/>Roemer's The Plot Against Harry<BR/><BR/>Even though there are many films that are probably equal to or better to The High Cost of Loving, that film is more useful to my own work.Alexhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/16615199937354749817noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164765170884412032006-11-28T20:52:00.000-05:002006-11-28T20:52:00.000-05:00Cole, thanks for commenting. Regarding brow heigh...Cole, thanks for commenting. Regarding brow heights, I think that it's certainly more a matter of cultural rhetoric than intrinsic property--as you indicate. I myself, probably sloppily, alternate two usages, one which has to do with the demands and rigor of a work of art (which may be alternately embraced or rejected by a given social class), and in this case I admittedly cling to an old-fashioned assignation of terms ... as a matter of convenience or convention more than anything else. Stan Brakhage is highbrow (in a good way), Lars Von Trier is highbrow (in a bad way), Laurel & Hardy are lowbrow (in a good way), Michael Bay is lowbrow (in a bad way). That kind of shorthand. The other usage has to do with class values, e.g., opera is considered a highbrow form of art or leisure because, these days, it is an expensive and inefficient art form, hence, opera's history as a populist artform is subsumed by the conditions of the present. Painting is highbrow because collectors shell out beaucoup bucks for it; illustration in magazines, not so much. (That's a massive generalization of course, with sure exceptions.)<BR/><BR/>For this we may want to read Bourdieu. I haven't yet. (You?) Anyone want to help us out?<BR/><BR/>Jim, thanks for dropping by. Once again I would like to mention that I don't propose my viewing list as a canon; in my title, "counter" is a very important word! It's meant to shed light on some (<I>some</I>) of the deficiencies that a trumpeted canon like Schrader's presents. It is my contention that a canon with high standards, rigor, knowledge, wisdom, etc.--if it is possible at all, which is not a question I'm getting into really here--will <I>need</I> to be one that takes into account certain factors that Schrader (echoing Bloom in a way) dismisses as so much multiculturalist special pleading. But as I tried to indicate with my example of India earlier in this comments thread, we cannot pretend we have great standards with such obvious ignorances and biases stamped across our forehead.ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164750436847204502006-11-28T16:47:00.000-05:002006-11-28T16:47:00.000-05:00It's always fascinating to see good alternative ca...It's always fascinating to see good alternative canons. I've seen 19 of these films. This is not to show off, just to admit that I've been film-obsessed for 35 years now. I especially endorse <I>Make Way for Tomorrow</I> (maybe the most humanist of Hollywood films) and <I>Edward II</I> (a landmark of queer cinema).<BR/><BR/>As others have said, I think Rosenbaum's 1000-film personal canon is the best around, and has led me to some great discoveries I never would have made on my own (just recently, Alex Cox's marvelous <I>Highway Patrolman</I>). It's expansive enough to include the acknowledged classics and the relative obscurities (such as <I>Tower of the Seven Hunchbacks</I>, coming to the Walter Reade in December). Contrary to Schrader's assertion, the rationale for many of Rosenbaum's choices can be found in his capsule reviews on the Chicago Reader website. Slant Magazine's canon, "100 Essential Films," is also a great multi-author list with accompanying mini-reviews. And Senses of Cinema has an ongoing series of Ten-Best lists which indicate the vast range of personal canon formation.<BR/><BR/>Schrader's canon at least started dialogues such as this, which is good. It is disappointingly limited to mostly dead white Western males, plus Ozu and Mizoguchi, and the inclusion of Almodovar's <I>Talk to Her</I> is particularly annoying. Film Comment gave readers an opportunity to suggest their own list of directors omitted by Schrader, which is available online.<BR/><BR/>I could spend hours trying to devise my own list, but I'll just put another plug in for my favorite neglected film, Terence Davies's <I>The Long Day Closes</I>, which I was delighted to see the Museum of Modern Art put on the cover of its new book of photos from their film collection.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164706766578978662006-11-28T04:39:00.000-05:002006-11-28T04:39:00.000-05:00I'm more of a lurker than a poster/blogger in the ...I'm more of a lurker than a poster/blogger in the whole film blogosphere, but I just came out of hiding to say kudos to an intriguing counter-canon (and a wonderful blog). Personally, I don't subscribe to the idea of a "canon" in any form (be it in literature, sculpture, video games, comic books, whathaveyou), but I agree with your point in reacting to Schrader: his "essential list" is too static, too limited in its point of view. Rosenbaum's remains the most invaluable (in my opinion) and is the only list I really turn to (and I like how he avoids proposing it as a canon for all of filmdom).<BR/><BR/>Unfortunately, I think I'm all alone with my disdain for the tendency to differentiate between "highbrow, middlebrow, and lowbrow", concepts that smack too closely of class consciousness (but now class has been replaced by "intellect"). For me, art is art is art is art (yes, I'm a postmodernist). It seems to me that the difference between, say, Naruse and Looney Tunes or the Shaw Brothers is superficial and suspect at best (in terms of "highbrow" and "lowbrow"). If Looney Tunes appeals to a snooty film academic with all his theories and someone who hasn't gone to college at all or made the effort to read up on art history/theory/critcism is moved by Naruse, doesn't Looney Tunes then become "highbrow" and Naruse "lowbrow"? One could very well use semiotics to elevate the Road Runner cartoons and nearly all chopsocky films into the realm of the highbrow. If it's with regards to the values and tastes of the "highbrow, middlebrow, or lowbrow", I myself don't believe that the lines separating them are as distinct, especially in this day and age. In fact, it can come across as quite condescending, particularly if someone places himself/herself in the axis of the "highbrow" (as Schrader does). I'd rather see the individual, specific, and intrinsic values each film has to offer rather than see them as occupying a place in a swathe of culture-class conciousness.<BR/><BR/>I prefer the outlook that Rosenbaum expresses along with his list: the 1000 films he chose were simply films that he liked. To hell with an awareness of the "highbrow, middlebrow, lowbrow", let's just watch the goddamn films and like what we like :)<BR/><BR/>Sorry for the long post. I really shouldn't babble on. I return to the business of lurking.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164682854591188092006-11-27T22:00:00.000-05:002006-11-27T22:00:00.000-05:00Thanks, Jen!Thanks, Jen!ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164646612373789272006-11-27T11:56:00.000-05:002006-11-27T11:56:00.000-05:00I think that your counter-canon discussion is esse...I think that your counter-canon discussion is essential. Cinema is consciousness!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164631815362123602006-11-27T07:50:00.000-05:002006-11-27T07:50:00.000-05:00Andy, I don't know how exactly people find this si...Andy, I don't know how exactly people find this site or specific posts. (I don't use Sitemeter.)<BR/><BR/>Tod, thanks for posting, it looks like you've got a very worthy blog (looking forward to perusing the archives), and I'm happy that my list has provided you with a few ideas. I'm sure you've got a kickass videostore.<BR/><BR/>Harry, I'm so jealous you saw that Ossang film. (<I>Docteur Chance</I> is the only one I've seen, or even been able to see.) As for what the list represents to me ... that would be a whole new post (at least)! It's cinema taken to pop delerium (<I>Times Square</I>) or gentle decency (<I>Arigato-san</I>) or cruel sadness (<I>We Won't Grow Old Together</I>). It's cinema that dreams of revolution (the Dovzhenko, Eisenstein, and Gomez Yera). Cinema that reflects the concreteness of a person's craft and its projection (Breer). It's cinema shedding light on (drum roll please) the human condition, but not necessarily in the most celebrated ways of doing so. That's for starters.<BR/><BR/>Jim, I had a strange moment when I saw your comment here, maybe you'll hear about it from a mutual friend of ours! About re-watching: it's not that it's bad to delve deeply into one film, sometimes it's vital to do so, but you're right, I think one should understand that the decision to revisit a film is usually an election not to see something else. Often this takes the form of a 'fortification' of these comfort zones. Had my movie love not developed beyond the age of 15 or so, I would have been doomed to a life of watching & re-watching Oscar-winners over and over again. (As I've mentioned on EL before, I think, my cinephilia started from a very mainstream position, no cult movie geekiness for me. Which I kind of regret!) Your list of film suggestions--spoken for!--is great, I've only seen the Ruiz among them, and yet again I find myself wishing that I saw <I>Themroc</I> when it showed up at Anthology months ago ...ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164581160098328882006-11-26T17:46:00.000-05:002006-11-26T17:46:00.000-05:00Some interesting thoughts on canon formation here,...Some interesting thoughts on canon formation <A HREF="http://www.miriad.mmu.ac.uk/visualculture/inc/nightmares/abstract.php?id=8" REL="nofollow">here</A>, if you think in terms of expanding the focus a bit. Be sure to click on the link to "Abstracts and online videos of papers" when you're through -- lots of interesting stuff there.<BR/><BR/>Re Zach's comment about Indian cinema and "comfort zones" ... I confess I have similar feelings when I see people bragging on how many times they've seen individual films: if someone's seen <I>The Searchers</I> or <I>Nashville</I> 15 times, even being generous that's 10 <B>other great</B> films that they haven't seen. (Is it only because I've just turned 50 that I see every screening in terms of its opportunity cost? How to choose this Tuesday between <I>Pitfall</I> and <I>Ici et ailleurs</I>?)<BR/><BR/>Zach's and Harry's lists have so many bingo!s between them it feels redundant to me to make my own list ... but then who will speak up for <I>Arrebato</I>? For <I>Themroc</I>? For <I>Le Couple témoin</I>? For Sondheim & Acker's <I>Blue Tapes</I>? For <I>The Cut Ups</I>? For <I>Razor Blades</I>? For <I>Requiem pour un beau sans-coeur</I>? For <I>Shoot for the Contents</I>? For <I>Low Visibility</I>? For <I>On Top of the Whale</I>? Aaaaaaaaaahhhhhh!Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164524510623143382006-11-26T02:01:00.000-05:002006-11-26T02:01:00.000-05:00I admire your list, if only for mentioning the obs...I admire your list, if only for mentioning the obscur F.J. Ossang! (I saw a sneak preview of his latest short film <I>Aguas Contaminada</I>, fresh from the editing table last september). And be sure I'll be using it for my future researches. I don't pretend to diminish the meaning of your list (it works well as a signpost and better than Schrader's) I just tried to come up with my own humble <A HREF="http://screenville.blogspot.com/2006/11/another-counter-canon.html" REL="nofollow">counter-canon</A>. Mine can't compete with Schrader's canon, but I liked your idea of suggesting titles that don't make all the same consensual list. <BR/><BR/>Now if you feel so inclined, it would be interesting to know what this list represents to you. What does it say about your vision of the cinema map or about you... I don't know, why did you pick these 60 and not 60 others? Do you see a coherence in the ensemble or is it just an unrelated companionship? (Well, only if you have the time)HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164486024591113862006-11-25T15:20:00.000-05:002006-11-25T15:20:00.000-05:00I actually own a video store and was at first intr...I actually own a video store and was at first intrigued by Schrader's idea. My hope was he would put forward a list that expands the boundaries of great films. I was quickly disabused of that notion. <BR/><BR/>I don't know whether I found his list more boring or annoying because of its conservatism. Your list, on the other hand, was far more to my liking. Not only does it give me new ideas, but I could imagine it doing the same for my customers and other intrepid movie watchers. If there's one thing I can't stand, it's people who complain about having seen everything. I don't believe anyone can even see everything worth watching -much less everything - and Schrader's list validates that very kind of arrogance.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164475712103831212006-11-25T12:28:00.000-05:002006-11-25T12:28:00.000-05:00Let's assume that someone is looking up Schrader's...<EM>Let's assume that someone is looking up Schrader's canon online in order to have a nice checklist for the cinema. Perhaps Google or somebody else's website will direct them, in their search, to my blog? My criticism of Schrader's rhetoric and his choices is already up & available, so now what I want to do is propose a counter-canon.</EM><BR/><BR/>The more I think on it, the more I like this idea...<BR/><BR/>And I'm sure you've noticed that this post is one of the first few hits for a Google search of "Schrader" and "canon." Are you actually starting to get hits from this and similar searches?Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164464862830024422006-11-25T09:27:00.000-05:002006-11-25T09:27:00.000-05:00Harry, you're certainly correct. Which is why, if...Harry, you're certainly correct. Which is why, if many others decided to post their own 'counter-canons,' my list would be diminished in meaning. Consider it this way: my list is a rhetorical gesture, 60-for-60, sixty intended to send people searching rather than sixty indended to stand on a mythic pedastal. (Of course, people can <I>treat</I> my viewing list like a canon, "alternative" or otherwise, if they wish. I can't stop them. But it goes against the accompanying text.) My list makes the most sense only insofar as it is taken as a correlative response to Schrader's list: someone can say, 'Oh, this blogger online has taken issue with Schrader's endorsement of a canon and its specific titles, here are sixty more films he suggests seeing.' Obviously my list can't offer what I <I>really</I> want it to offer. I am aware of this shortcoming. I only produced it as a tactic specifically in dialogue with Schrader's salvo into film culture.<BR/><BR/>Anon--I know how you feel about the 'other film' experience. Happens to me all the time!<BR/><BR/>Mike--OK, I apologize for too quickly suggesting the Coens don't belong in a canon. I'm no longer a huge Coens fan, say, but the prospect isn't that bad to me. I guess I just wanted to say that it didn't appear to me that they seemed to belong in Schrader's type of canon.ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164456473358197652006-11-25T07:07:00.000-05:002006-11-25T07:07:00.000-05:00While I totally agree with your analysis of Schrad...While I totally agree with your analysis of Schrader's dubious "highbrow" canon, your exercice of a "counter-canon" is endless, or open-eneded, like you admit yourself, and shouldn't take the form of a top60. You want to open up the spectrum and you choose the limiting format of a narrow listing. Rosenbaum's top1000 reaches such a number that he's able to fit in shorts, AG, alternative standards and middlebrow classics without leaving out the major films we expect to see in a consensual canon. So he succeeds in offering new territories without suggesting his non-conventional favorites are better than the critically acclaimed masterpieces. Your list is confusing as a standalone guideline and doesn't really contradict Schrader's canon.<BR/>The exercice of the high-standard canon is an operation of convergence toward a concensus, which might be too consensual, too conventional by nature. So the process is to weed-out progressively and come up with the unquestionned chosen few. Not that the left-out titles are unworthy, but they are controversial or less of a landmark that influenced cinema as a whole. That's the reason why AG is in contradiction with the establishment of a canon. A canon is meant to be boring, unsurprising, classical... and timeless.<BR/>Your bulimic counter-canon however is an operation of divergence (centrifuge), therefore shouldn't result in the proposal of such a short finite sampling. Because your assortment is too disparate to be meaningful and coherent like a canon is. Rosenbaum's alternative AFI top100 functioned as a complement/contradiction of every choice made in the original list, which was itself limited by one nationality. The scope of your counter-canon is too ambitious make 60 titles representative of anything in particular, but your personal taste. Precisely because the process of substitution with the "other film", or the "other auteur", or the "other country" is endless.<BR/>My quibble is less with your intention (which I agree) than with the form it takes, although I admit the bulimic approach (I don't share) might explain too.<BR/>(Just my uneducated 2 cents)HarryTuttlehttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10721542203087536185noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164440616687260732006-11-25T02:43:00.000-05:002006-11-25T02:43:00.000-05:00I personally agree about Lebowski (which I also li...I personally agree about <I>Lebowski</I> (which I also like), but you parenthetically extended your incredulous reaction to encompass the Coens' entire oeuvre. I think <I>Fargo</I>—a film I <I>don't</I> especially like—would fit quite snugly in Schrader's canon. And there are two or three Coen films I'd put in my own.md'ahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06055853987416332662noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164439478295336062006-11-25T02:24:00.000-05:002006-11-25T02:24:00.000-05:00A very small aside from a moviegoer but not, proba...A very small aside from a moviegoer but not, probably, a cinephile: I always have the "other film" experience whenever reading a list like this one. Namely, I've seen -- all on a big screen, no less -- _Earth_ (putting me in Schrader's good graces) but not _Arsenal_, _It Happened Here_ but not _Winstanley_, _Two Lane Blacktop_ but not _Cockfighter_, _A Brighter Summer Day_ but not _The Terrorizer_, _L'Age D'or_ but not _Las Hurdes_, _The Awful Truth_ but not _Make Way for Tomorrow_ (though in the last case I admit I <A HREF="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Make_Way_for_Tomorrow" REL="nofollow"> saw the wrong picture</A>, and I've been trying to make up for it). It always feels like the ante's just been upped to separate the dedicated from the punters...And in this case, I suppose, it is true. But it always hurts a little bit. You would have killed me if you have suggested _Symbiopsychotaxiplasm: Take 2 1/2_ (which I just missed seeing theatrically) instead of _Take One_ (which I managed to catch). However, both might soon appear on Schrader's middlebrow canon, since Criterion is releasing it soon.<BR/><BR/>AnonAnonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-10161060.post-1164431947058953642006-11-25T00:19:00.000-05:002006-11-25T00:19:00.000-05:00Mike--understood now. My problem was that The Big...Mike--understood now. <BR/><BR/>My problem was that <I>The Big Lebowski</I> doesn't belong on the highbrow canon as Schrader conceives of it--<I>Persona</I>, <I>Citizen Kane</I>, claims for reeeeally high standards ... and then the Dude!? It's an incredibly idiosyncratic choice as far as Schrader's criteria and tastes are concerned, and it boggles the mind that it's included on there when almost everything else in the article and the lists points toward consensus, time-honored classics, meaningful and moral entertainment, etc. Are you saying you don't draw the same conclusion about <I>Lebowski</I>'s placement!?<BR/><BR/>(And for the umpteenth time now, let me reiterate that I <I>like</I> this film!)<BR/><BR/>Jeff--as far as home viewing formats go, some are available on video, some show on TV occasionally, and some you can find online.ZChttps://www.blogger.com/profile/10211734319629732065noreply@blogger.com