Kenneth S Nolley | 1 Jul 06:14 2004

Henry de la Falaise

From:    MileFilms <at> aol.com

Dear friends,

Forgive me for the cross-posting, but I'm desperate -- I hope you kind
people can help me. We're preparing with UCLA a DVD release of Henry de la
Falaise's LEGONG: DANCE OF THE VIRGINS (1935) and KLIOU THE KILLER (1937),
shot in two-color Technicolor in Bali and Indo-China (Vietnam)
respectively. Both were produced by de la Falaise's then current wife
Constance Bennett. We have been really trying to research the films (the
AFI catalog led us to some reviews and a couple of brief articles we found
at the Academy and MoMA, a very kind archivist has already sent me a
contemporary article from "Man," and I have purchased about every book
written on Bali from the 1930s looking for Henry's name to pop up). We
have even talked to Constance's son who remembers "Uncle Henry" fondly but
has no memory of the films as he was only seven at the time.

So, the making of these films remain an enormous mystery. And it's odd
because LEGONG seems to have had some success around the world. Have any
of you lovely, smart people -- especially those with the taste for
extremely obscure cinema -- come across anything about these films? LEGONG
is actually a terrific film (KLIOU is only so-so at best but it does show
a rare view of Vietnam in the 1930s) and they deserve a far better
"history" than I can provide them right now. Thank you!

Dennis Doros
Milestone Film & Video
PO Box 128
Harrington Park, NJ 07640
Phone: (800) 603-1104 or (201) 767-3117
(Continue reading)

Kenneth S Nolley | 1 Jul 06:37 2004

Re: film and presidential politics--multiple responses

MODERATOR'S NOTE:  IT HAS COME TO MY ATTENTION THAT THIS GROUP OF POSTS
DID NOT MAKE IT OUT TO THE LIST YESTERDAY; I SUSPECT THAT I FAILED TO
CONFIRM THE NOTE TO THE SERVER AFTER I SENT IT ON.  I APOLOGIZE TO THE
WRITERS WHOSE POSTS DID NOT APPEAR YESTERDAY.
AT THE SAME TIME, I WOULD LIKE TO REQUEST THAT WE TURN TO A DISCUSSION OF
A FILM THAT MANY OF US HAVE CONCEDED ALREADY MIGHT BE DESERVING OF
DISCUSSION.
SOME SUBSCRIBERS WHO DEFEND MOORE CONCEDE THAT THEY HAVE RESERVATIONS
ABOUT SOME THINGS IN MOORE'S WORK; WHAT ARE THOSE THINGS AND WHAT IN HIS
WORK IS DESERVING OF SUBSTANTIAL PRAISE? OTHERS WHO DO NOT LIKE MOORE'S
WORK ALLEGE (AS HAS BEEN ARGUED OFTEN BEFORE BY HIS DETRACTORS) THAT HE IS
INACCURATE AT BEST, AND DELIBERATELY MISLEADING AT WORST.  IF THAT IS AN
ISSUE IN THIS FILM, WHAT SPECIFICALLY IS MISLEADING OR WRONG AND WHAT IS
THE EVIDENCE FOR SUCH A CLAIM? --k

---------------------------- Original Message ----------------------------
Subject: Re: film and presidential politics--multiple responses
From:    "Kenneth S Nolley" <knolley <at> willamette.edu>
Date:    Tue, June 29, 2004 10:33 am
To:      h-film <at> h-net.msu.edu
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

MODERATOR’S NOTE:  If necessary, we can have a discussion about what a
documentary is and is not, though I assume that not too many subscribers
to H-Film assume that fiction can be completely expunged from documentary
(or any human utterance, for that matter) or that any documentary is the
literal truth.  There are other issues here, though.

One issue led me to the initial inquiry in the first place—my concern
about the relationship between film and presidential politics.  The NY
(Continue reading)

Kenneth S Nolley | 2 Jul 03:31 2004

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

From:    "john matviko" <johnwlsc <at> comcast.net>

Some thoughts on “herd mentality,” “truthfulness,” and Michael Moore‘s
movie:

Let me first attempt a possible explanation for the applause and
cheering during and at the end of the film (something Robert Lindsey has
a problem with). From the beginning of the run-up to the Iraqi war,
America’s mass media accepted just about everything the Bush
Administration said as the truth. There was no questioning or looking  for
alternate views and those opposed to the war who made it to the  cable
talk shows were there to be ridiculed and called unpatriotic.

For those who found other points of view from internet or foreign sources,
it was often difficult and sometimes scary to speak up and be heard.  (The
masscom people call this “spiral of silence.”) Moore’s film gave  these
viewers an alternative to the facts presented by the major news  outlets
-- one that comes closer to their own findings from other  sources. It
seems to me that for some viewers of Moore‘s film, the  cheers were for
someone finally validating their truth and for helping them to realize
that they were not alone. Robert Lindsey doesn’t like this kind of
partisanship because “both sides have given up reasoned debate.” I don’t
disagree but I would ask when was there ever a “reasoned debate” on the
issue of attacking Iraq in the popular culture?  (I realize that some of
us may have debated the issues with our colleagues or at a website but for
the most part that debate never made  it to the mainstream media.) Until
this spring, big media never seriously questioned the Bush Administration
on its Iraq policy and  critics were always marginalized. There simply was
never an opposing  viewpoint given any credibility. Michael Moore found
the right medium  and the right method of providing a different viewpoint.
(Continue reading)

Kenneth S Nolley | 2 Jul 03:21 2004

Final CFP - Propaganda Films

From:    "Cynthia Miller" <Cynthia_Miller <at> emerson.edu>

FINAL CALL FOR PAPERS AND SESSIONS!!
        DEADLINE - JULY 30, 2004

        Call for Papers and Sessions
        WAR IN FILM, TV, AND HISTORY
        November 11-14, 2004
        www.filmandhistory.org

        Area CFP:  Propaganda Films

        The heavy hands of patriotism and propaganda have left their imprints on
war films since the medium's early days.  Whether crafted to create
consensus about a common enemy, agitate emotions over ideologies, or
exploit uncertainties and insecurities, propaganda films have attempted
to steer the hearts, minds, bodies, and resources of their audiences for
over a century.  This call for papers seeks submissions of work from a
wide range of historical time periods and orientations, examining the use
of propaganda in the depiction of war.

        Possible topics for consideration include, but are not limited to:
nonfiction and documentary propaganda, films focused on specific wars
(WWI, WWII, the Boer War, the Russian Revolution, etc.), propaganda films
produced within particular nation-states (Russian, American, Italian,
German, etc.), the works of particular propaganda filmmakers (Eisenstein,
Capra, Rossellini, and others), as well as in-depth analysis of
particular films ("Triumph of the Will, " "Wiping Something Off the
Slate," "Hitler's Madman," etc.), or an analysis of the use of various
propaganda techniques and strategies across the genre.
(Continue reading)

Kenneth S Nolley | 2 Jul 18:48 2004

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

From:    "Jason McKahan" <jgm8530 <at> mailer.fsu.edu>

I think there are a two key additions to the analysis of Fahrenheit 9/11:

First, if we want to talk about representations that contain historical
accuracy of the War on Terror, we'll have to admit that it will probably
take some time to get at least one accurate historical account of the war,
let alone multiple viewpoints.  I say this because the access to important
documents and verification of sources are proving increasingly difficult
to obtain, especially since the presidential administration has
continually resisted to "testify" and claim to be helping in 9/11
inquiries, yet simultaneously restrict access to important documents and
records.  I have to admit the last three years have been a "dream,"
whether I were in my pessimist nightmare of "collateral damage" and
torture (of both Americans and foreign peoples), or if I were in the
conservative dream to destroy radical Muslims and spread democracy.  With
so much omission and
disinformation, each citizen must awake with critical expertise in order
to understand exactly what is going on.

Second, many reviews on Fahrenheit 9/11, especially those by admittedly
conservative writers, have complained about the affiliate/family links
that Moore connects.  Suddenly, Bush Sr. and Jr., then Wolfowitz, Cheney,
Perle, Rumsfeld, Haliburton, Carlysle, et al. are part of a grand
conspiracy to control the productive resources of Iraq and imbed corporate
American industries. Yet, isn't this essentially how the administration
has led the War on Terrorism - i.e. linking the Taliban, Bin Laden, Al
Quaeda , Saddam Hussein, Zarquaway, Iraqi insurgents, et al. into a grand
conspiracy to destroy democracy, and the very American "way of life?"
Linkage is the present mode of historical narration. That's a fact. This
(Continue reading)

Kenneth S Nolley | 2 Jul 18:55 2004

Fox and Fahrenheit 9/11

MODERATOR'S NOTE:  DARRYL IS QUITE RIGHT; THE MATERIAL FROM DOYLE IS
LENGTHY...k

From:    "Darryl Wiggers" <darryl <at> internet.look.ca>

> how about comparing the accuracy of Moore¹s film with the accuracy of
> one of our primary television news services - I think using Fox News
> would provide an interesting comparison.

In April the TV critic for the Globe and Mail (a national newspaper here
in Canada) wrote a column about the attempts to bring Fox News to Canada,
which caught the attention of Bill O'Reilly and eventually the New York
Times. Though at the time the subject matter of Fahrenheit 9/11 was
furthest from anyone's mind, it does seem to fit the current debate.

The following excerpts are a complete chronicle from Doyle's column, and
quite lengthy, but I suspect a useless perspective.

Reprinted by permission of John Doyle

-------------------------------------

Who's afraid of the big bad Fox? Certainly not us

By JOHN DOYLE
Monday, April 19, 2004 - Page R2

The other day I read in this newspaper -- an abidingly reliable source --
that some honchos in the cable-TV racket are applying for permission to
offer the Fox News Channel in Canada.
(Continue reading)

Kenneth S Nolley | 2 Jul 18:58 2004

Hitchcock's THE 39 STEPS more 'Sapper' than Buchan?

From:    muffin <at> labyrinth.net.au

Actually, the above is one of several questions currently being asked in
the "Editor's Day" feature of the Hitchcock
Scholars/'MacGuffin' website.

Other matters that are currently featured include (1) the biggest
'scandal' involving Hitchcock (never mentioned in McGilligan's perhaps
too-rosy bio - btw, a review of that book is coming soon); (2) the 'Master
Bates' pun in film (e.g., PSYCHO) and literature; (3) new
scholarship from the UK re BLACKMAIL's status as the first British talkie
feature; (4) the source of the torture scene in Hitchcock's FOREIGN
CORRESPONDENT.

For all of the above, go to:

http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/news-home_c.html

Also, a couple of  reviews of film-and-philosophy items (including Irving
Singer's 'Three Philosophical Filmmakers') have lately been added

to the same site's New Publications page:

http://www.labyrinth.net.au/~muffin/publications_c.html

Thanks for reading this, fellow members of H-Film!

- Ken Mogg (Ed., 'The MacGuffin').

(Continue reading)

Kenneth S Nolley | 2 Jul 19:04 2004

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

From:    "Robinson, Mike" <MRobinso <at> schosp.org>

I am not quite sure why this hasn't been discussed yet, but in many
regards Mr. Moore's film is nothing new. Documentary film owes a great
deal to founding fathers like John Grierson and FDR's New Deal filmmakers
who were overtly political (if not polemical, as is Mr. Moore). While THE
POWER AND THE LAND (1940) does not attempt to discredit detractors of the
rural electrification program, it certainly does not discuss drawbacks to
this plan (such as the massive public expenditures). Similarly, THE RIVER
(1938) does not discuss the problems that must have been created in
damming rivers, creating lakes out of valleys, and costing the public
enormous amounts of money. Politicians in Congress vigorously attacked
FDR's filmmaking as highly partisan, forcing him to shift the films from
one part of the government to the next, and finally to abandon the
program.

Other examples of politically controversial documentaries might include
CBS' "The Selling of the Pentagon" (1971), a documentary accusing the
Pentagon of propagandizing the American people (at the expense of the
American taxpayer), based on the book of a sitting US Senator (Democrat J.
William Fulbright), and leading to a tense confrontation between some
Congressmen and CBS. Or HEARTS AND MINDS (1974), perhaps more clearly an
antecedent of FAHRENHEIT 9/11 in terms of politics, if not in style.

Additionally, I think we should consider the political polarization of
other media, from magazines and newspapers to radio (especially the AM
dial) and TV (from networks on Iraq to, say, Rush Limbaugh's TV show a few
years ago). How did the fairness doctrine affect (still affecting?)
reportage in America? Have concerns about appearing "objective" and fear
of being labeled "politically partisan" stifled reporting on political
(Continue reading)

Kenneth S Nolley | 2 Jul 19:06 2004

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

From:    "Robert Lindsey" <mrpontiac <at> yahoo.com>

I would like to thank John Matviko for his post.  It clarified
for me why some people are so attached to Moore’s film.
Apparently, *everyone* thinks they are in the minority no matter
what the issue.  Of course, everyone is probably correct because
in a pluralistic society there doesn’t seem to be a majority for
any one thing.

As to the mass media, news is probably the best example of “herd
mentality” that I know of.  I don’t have cable and have never
seen Fox News, but the “big 3” news programs seemed show
protests without ridiculing.  Though I have no doubt that news
sources thought a war would improve ratings, they wasted no time
in using the word “quagmire” so I’m not convinced that they were
all for it.  I think they are all, ultimately, more interested
in ratings than truth or debate or even their own agenda (if
they have one).

I fully agree that there was little to no reasoned debate in
popular culture before or during the war.  Not much now either,
and Moore isn’t helping raise the level.

Lastly, Hitchins didn’t address inaccuracies?  Moore
contradicting himself is not an inaccuracy?

=====
Robert M. Lindsey
Pittsburg State University, KS
mrpontiac <at> yahoo.com
(Continue reading)

Kenneth S Nolley | 2 Jul 19:17 2004

Re: Fahrenheit 9/11

From:    "Robert Lindsey" <mrpontiac <at> yahoo.com>

>I also find it interesting (as I am writing this) that none of
>the critics of the film in this discussion have actually listed
> or explained the factual inaccuracies of the film.

I just ran across this from Brent Bozell
http://www.townhall.com/columnists/brentbozell/bb20040702.shtml
"ABC and NBC, after promoting Moore and the film for days, also
greeted the film's debut with a "truth squad" feature pointing
out a few inaccuracies. Newsweek's Michael Isikoff and Mark
Hosenball have done the same."

=====
Robert M. Lindsey
Pittsburg State University, KS
mrpontiac <at> yahoo.com
"I am a sworn enemy of the saccharine, and a believer in grace over
karma." Bono 2001 "People have no morals, I swear to God." Madonna 2002


Gmane