[!@#$%!]

i've never been a big de palma fan though i did love scarface. i haven't seen all his movies, not even such a pop culture icon as carrie. why? i'm just not attracted. still, he's not nobody-- love him or hate him he stands for something (though what is that "something" is up for debate)

so after reading everyone's comments i was looking at his quotes on imdb today and i thought they might be relevant:

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000361/bio#quotes

namely this one:

I don't think I do referencing, I use ideas which I think are effective in this particular piece at the moment. If they've been used before, fine. I mean, who cares? To me, it's all grammar. If I've got that word available and it was used before and if I can use it again more effectively for my piece - why not? It's the history of art from the beginning of time. Why do you think painters still paint Chartres Cathedral? Do you think they should be painting some rock in a garden? But they have this incredible architectural thing in front of them! Are they copying, are they simulating it? Well, maybe they have a different interpretation of the piece of art that's in front of them. I mean, how unusual...

he also said (it's a bit above that):

[on Alfred Hitchcock] He is the one who distilled the essence of film. He's like Webster. It's all there. I've used a lot of his grammar.


He calls it grammar, but funny thing, his Untouchables version of the Odessa steps was not the same grammar at all as Eisenstein's-- for Eisenstein, the baby cart was a metaphor for the budding revolution, for De Palma, it was a cheesy device to the make the audience gasp-- grammar my ass.

[demonrail666]

Interesting point about his version of the Odessa Steps. I've never looked at it that closely and so always took it to be quite faithful to the original. Ultimately though, like your thing with Carrie (which is actually very good, btw) I don't particularly care because I don't think The Untouchables is that interesting a film anyway or DePalma that interesting a filmmaker. And I can never decide whether Scarface is a really good film or a pretty bad one that just happens to be really enjoyable.

Anyway following the discussion of Bava, I just watched a erm Roger Vadim film ...

 

Barbarella

If nothing else, I suppose it's definitely one of the most 'sixties' films out there but where say Danger Diabolik is simply too well made to be written off simply as a kitsch historical artefact of swinging Europe, I'd say that's pretty much the sum of Barbarella's appeal these days. The film equivalent of a lava lamp.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by Dr. Eugene Felikson

Fucked up individual - how exactly?

I'd cast her in heartbeat. Difficult to work with or not.

I found out what it was. She's apparently one of the most ruthless for blocking her stuff from being made available on forums. So she's alienated a large section of her fanbase, who've started bad mouthing her as a result. |That's how the rumours started, about her being some out of control drug fiend who no photographer would work with. A case of porn fans turning nasty when they can't get what they want for free.

You should seriously think about trying to cast her in something. I doubt very much if she's that expensive and seems far more open to doing something different than a lot of the others.

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Interesting point about his version of the Odessa Steps. I've never looked at it that closely and so always took it to be quite faithful to the original. Ultimately though, like your thing with Carrie (which is actually very good, btw) I don't particularly care because I don't think The Untouchables is that interesting a film anyway or DePalma that interesting a filmmaker. And I can never decide whether Scarface is a really good film or a pretty bad one that just happens to be really enjoyable.

it's probably a bad movie, cheesy all around, but pacino is awesome in it and that carries the movie, plus it's full of memorable lines like "sey hellow to my littul frenn", etc.

potemkin:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ps-v-kZzfec
soldiers crushing the budding revolution

untouchables:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QJpRSf4q-hI
nice prop for a 'hero" shootout and cool slow-mo edit, but that's all-- not really the "grammar" of soviet montage at all.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Anyway following the discussion of Bava, I just watched a erm Roger Vadim film ...

 

Barbarella

If nothing else, I suppose it's definitely one of the most 'sixties' films out there but where say Danger Diabolik is simply too well made to be written off simply as a kitsch historical artefact of swinging Europe, I'd say that's pretty much the sum of Barbarella's appeal these days. The film equivalent of a lava lamp.

ha ha @ lava lamps

i did see that movie some years ago, can't remember anything about it except for jane fonda's fabulous legs. and i just watched the trailer and still.. that's all i remember.

i know nothing of bava, having never seen anything by him (i think, anyway). gonna check him out after this maybe.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I'm sure I read somewhere that she had some falling out with the industry over some kind of drug-related lifestyle issues. Although I haven't found anything to substantiate it on a search I just did. She changed her image for a while and went pretty much all-out goth/fetish and was almost unrecognizable from her previous, more clean-cut/nerdy/manga look. So maybe the rumour was started by some disgruntled fan of the 'old Ariel' who took her new image as an indication that she was on drugs, or something. She also changed website and I know some site owners spread rumours about girls who, for whatever reason, stop working for them. She got an AVN nomination last year so I'm guessing things can't be all bad for her.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

You should seriously think about trying to cast her in something. I doubt very much if she's that expensive and seems far more open to doing something different than a lot of the others.

you guys are aware that these pornettas can't act for shit, right? which is why they work out of the san fernando valley and not hollywood. srsly, some people can act, some people have a great ass, some intersect both groups--the first set are the character actors, the second set are the porno people, and the intersection are the potential movie stars-- those are very long odds. even the legendary marilyn chambers, whose memory i adore, was quite shit in cronenberg's early movies.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

i know nothing of bava, having never seen anything by him (i think, anyway). gonna check him out after this maybe.

Well I do think everyone should watch Danger Diabolik at least once.

you guys are aware that these pornettas can't act for shit, right? which is why they work out of the san fernando valley and not hollywood.

That used to be far truer than it is now. Once you get into the more mainstream end, the competition is so high that while some of that 70s wooden thing is still there, it's by no means 'industry standard' anymore, and definitely not with the the bigger companies. I'm not saying any of them are gonna worry Judi Dench or Helen Mirren come oscar time but I definitely don't see much of a leap in acting skills between say Megan Fox and a girl signed to Vivid.

[fugazifan]

wow, i surprisingly enjoyed the avengers a lot.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Me, Myself & Irene - 6.9/10

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

I've always wanted to check out Barbarella

[demonrail666]

It'd probably look great projected at some retro 60s psych club or something but, I dunno, as a film in its own right I just found it really tedious.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

oh yeah i watched the Lawnmower Man too

10/10 - masterpiece

[gast30]

lawnmowerman is now
if cities ad more technology
and people can learn to navigate with modern technology
the beyond version of lawnmowerman
this can then go over into other planet city's
that makes sence
how is it going to be?
schools will change
maybe the internet will turn into a school
learning platform
school visits to space stations

[demonrail666]

Bored at work so I just watched ...

 

The Queen is Dead: Derek Jarman

Really just a pop video that Jarman made for The Smiths but it's my favourite thing he ever did. Great song too.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wz5IFl7uCis&ob=av2n

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

Well I do think everyone should watch Danger Diabolik at least once.

i'll check it out, thanks!

Originally Posted by demonrail666

That used to be far truer than it is now. Once you get into the more mainstream end, the competition is so high that while some of that 70s wooden thing is still there, it's by no means 'industry standard' anymore, and definitely not with the the bigger companies. I'm not saying any of them are gonna worry Judi Dench or Helen Mirren come oscar time but I definitely don't see much of a leap in acting skills between say Megan Fox and a girl signed to Vivid.

i don't know. when you look at old marylin chambers movies (behind the green door or that one on the pool table, i forget the name) she looked like she was really enjoying the sex-- really, that happy fucky face had a delicious expression, she's wonderful and you can *relate* to her as a character. she was less wooden than anything you'll see today.

on the other hand when you watch a sasha grey with her dead eyes or a bobbi starr porn video, their screams are so contrived it's painful to listen-- best to watch them with the volume turned off. jenna jameson has a studio now, yes? and her porns try to have a storyline-- but they are just so bad it's a waste of footage. someone should please put just jaeckin back to work ("just' is his name, not an english word); those 70s soft porns were superior to most "erotic" shit made today, though i'm open to changing my mind if there's evidence in favor of that.

anyway so i checked out ariel rebel after reading your post, and while i'll agree the lady has a tight hot little body (really, yummy, and thank fuck no fake tits), i also noticed that all ther photos had the same facial expression-- which in the acting department puts her below fashion models. i haven't seen her "act" in pornos but perhaps she's not as terrible as the others i mentioned. megan fox is on movies mainly for good looks but at least she has 3 or 4 possible faces-- same thing w/ the lady with the gorgeous butt, what's her name, jessica biel.

but the stereotyped expression of ariel's photos doesn't really bode well unless you're casting her in something that specifically calls for that fake girlie look (just like the girlfriend experience called for grey's flat affect).

[demonrail666]

I know you're only picking up on something that i actually said but I wouldn't want to make too much of the acting issue. I stand by my defence of some individuals in porn being able to act but I'd obviously be lying if I said that was a major factor behind my general fascination with that world. To be honest with you I'm still trying to work it out myself. It's obviously more than just its tittilation factor that I like. Maybe its that in many ways it's actually closer to a kind of Hollywood that I love but which Hollywood itself has long since moved away from. Certainly, I'd say that an iconic figure ftom the period of Hollywood that I most like, say Jean Harlow, has more in common with someone like Taylor Wane (don't bother googling, you'll likely throw up) than she does with say Sandra Bullock.

I suppose in that sense I'm only thinking a variation of what a lot of underground film was doing when it turned to the idea of 'superstars'. (Although it's another argument entirely as to what the superstars were really meant to represent.)

[!@#$%!]

holy mother of mother fuck

i just watched this:

 

felikson! you must watch this! you fucking MUST!

it will give your heart a movie boner

--

demoño: i'll answer later! just stopped by to post this. (and this is fun btw)

[!@#$%!]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I know you're only picking up on something that i actually said but I wouldn't want to make too much of the acting issue.

sorry i don't know what you mean here-- i do read most of your posts here so which one are you referring to?

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I stand by my defence of some individuals in porn being able to act but I'd obviously be lying if I said that was a major factor behind my general fascination with that world.

yeah there are people in porn who can act. not too many but there are some.

Originally Posted by demonrail666

To be honest with you I'm still trying to work it out myself. It's obviously more than just its tittilation factor that I like. Maybe its that in many ways it's actually closer to a kind of Hollywood that I love but which Hollywood itself has long since moved away from. Certainly, I'd say that an iconic figure ftom the period of Hollywood that I most like, say Jean Harlow, has more in common with someone like Taylor Wane (don't bother googling, you'll likely throw up) than she does with say Sandra Bullock.

i googled-- she's a fucking plastic monster!

but i think i get what you mean about jean harlow-- a sex symbol more than a "girl next door" actress? sure. but mang it takes more charisma than that silicone bundle.

if anything, i'd like to nominate brooklyn lee. i just found her doing "research" for this post-- she got some AVN award recently (i was looking for "best porn actresses") and she's got awesome curves, plus an actual ability to morph. unfortunately ugly tat on the belly ruins the view but she's hot

 

 

 

 

(yesssss)

Originally Posted by demonrail666

I suppose in that sense I'm only thinking a variation of what a lot of underground film was doing when it turned to the idea of 'superstars'. (Although it's another argument entirely as to what the superstars were really meant to represent.)

you mean warhol's? i've never much watched his movies. they make me wanna pull my eyes out. but if you're thinking maybe of a kind of kenneth anger film where actors are more models than actual actors, then yeah it could work. damn, i wanna make a movie with pornettas now. haaa ha haa. oh! russ meyer! russ meyer!! RUSS MEYER IS THE ANSWER TO THIS QUESTION.

[demonrail666]

Originally Posted by !@#$%!

sorry i don't know what you mean here-- i do read most of your posts here so which one are you referring to?

I only meant that you're right, I did say that but that I wasn't being that serious. Without being totally un-serious, either.

yeah there are people in porn who can act. not too many but there are some.

Exactly. That was me getting defensive about it. Some can, most can't but, either way, it has no real bearing on my enjoyment or interest in porn.

i googled-- she's a fucking plastic monster!

See?!? Curiosity killed the cat. Haha.

a sex symbol more than a "girl next door" actress? sure. but mang it takes more charisma than that silicone bundle.

I'm probably fair to say that I'm not a big fan of girl-next-door types, either in porn or regular cinema. (Joan Crawfords famous response to being asked to tone down her makeup, "if you want the girl next door, go next door"). I love the sheer constructedness of a lot of stars. So I see Taylor Wane as a kind of grotesque equivalent to the kind of things Hollywood stars like Crawford or Rita Hayworth had to endure to maintain their 'industry standard' beauty. In one sense then, I'm basically celebrating a quite prohibitive and narrow period of Hollywood history and I certainly wouldn't like to justify it on any moral grounds, bit a fascination is a fascination. Like Lemmy collecting nazi memorabilia. By charisma, I maybe should've said 'presence' instead. It's fair to say that someone like Taylor Wane may not be the most charismatic of people but I do think she possesses a definite 'aura'. But that's likely just me.

you mean warhol's? i've never much watched his movies. they make me wanna pull my eyes out. but if you're thinking maybe of a kind of kenneth anger film where actors are more models than actual actors, then yeah it could work.

Yeah, Warhol is the obvious one, and Jack Smith. Warhol was disappointed at how bland Hollywood stars were becoming and cultivated his own stable of alternative stars that he felt far better embodied that early Hollywood thing he missed - while likely making some kind of critical point about stardom in general but, being Warhol, nobody's quite sure. But in essence, yeah, my fascination with Taylor Wane et al probably has some parallels with Warhol's fascination with say Candy Darling - although if anything, he was far more interested in charisma than I am.

Kenneth Anger's obsession with Hollywood overall has had a massive influence on how I look at cinema but I've never thought of him as being that interested in performers. He never cultivated 'stars' the way that Warhol or Smith did, being ultimately only really interested in directing.

An obvious factor in this is that Warhol, Smith and Anger were gay and that since then that kind of Hollywood re-appropriation thing has been pretty much marginalised as a kind of queer camp thing. As a straight guy, I find it interesting that I'm fascinated with something very similar but from a quite different perspective and set of motivations.

The big book on all this for me, and which remains my favourite book ever on Hollywood is Parker Tyler's Magic and Myth of the Movies. It was written in the 40s and is long out of print, but if you ever see it cheap, don't hesitate to get it. Besides anything else, Tyler was an amazing writer and the book's basically a very beautifully written fleshing out of some of the points I've tried to make here (as well as apparently being the inspiration behind Gore Vidal writing Myra Breckinbridge.) Although Tyler too was gay, his take on cinema seems motivated far more by an interest in surrealism than sexuality which makes it far more interesting from my point of view.

Any road, just watched this again ...

 

Duel

I've stopped giving marks out of ten but would otherwise give this a 9 or a 10. I just think it's a perfect film. In many ways a better example of many of Godard's ideas about low budget economy and efficiency than he ever managed before. No doubt Spielberg has his faults but I'm a huge fan and when he's able to make simple minimal frees movies like this, few can touch him, I think. Plus I love Dennis Weaver.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Originally Posted by demonrail666

You should seriously think about trying to cast her in something. I doubt very much if she's that expensive and seems far more open to doing something different than a lot of the others.

Sorry. Didn't see this.

I think I actually will. I don't think I'm quite at that point just yet though. Give me a year or two, heh. But yeah, she's definitely my fav.

[Dr. Eugene Felikson]

Also, !@#$! I just wanted to let you know that while filming the second episode of Nobody's Laughing, one of my lights of the 3-piece kit I've been using for years now has officially died on me. That, combined with my new-found frustration for just how much my lights suck - I've decided to finally upgrade.

Just thought I'd cue you in ha. ALready picked up my diffusion papers.

[Genteel Death]

 

6/10

 

10/10

 

9/10

 

9/10