Bertolucci

Started by SoNowThen, October 01, 2003, 11:57:42 AM

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Print
Go Down Pages1 2 3 4
User actions

SoNowThen

October 01, 2003, 11:57:42 AM
What a fuckin' master. I've now seen Before The Revolution, The Conformist, and pieces of Partner and Last Tango In Paris. He's got a new one coming out in the fall.

Paul Schrader said of him: "it's like he put Godard and Antonioni in bed together, held a gun to their heads, and said 'you two guys fuck, or I'll shoot you'." That's some high praise.

Let's talk about this demigod of cinema...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

meatwad

#1
October 01, 2003, 01:02:47 PM
just saw The Conformist a few days ago. Beautiful film. They need to have a dvd release of it

SoNowThen

#2
October 01, 2003, 01:09:10 PM
Yeah, we need to organize one of those online petitions to get this on disc. Did you see it with the english dub? I'm usually against that sort of thing, but I find the unmatching voices really lent something to the movie. Made it more eery or something, I dunno. I really hope that when the disc does come out they have an option for both original Italian and english dub.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

soixante

#3
October 01, 2003, 01:09:52 PM
Bertolucci is great.  He has a new film coming out either this year or early next year, set in 1968.

Last Tango in Paris is a masterpiece.  That film, along with The Conformist, has influenced many American filmmakers.  Bertolucci's cinematographer, Vittorio Storaro, has been hired by American directors like Coppola and Warren Beatty.  Apocalypse Now owes a lot of its distinct look to Storaro, as does Reds.

1900 is a cool film that should be put on DVD.  I haven't seen Luna, which barely got released back in 1979.  Stealing Beauty was pretty good.

Bertolucci is one of the greats.
Music is your best entertainment value.

ono

#4
October 01, 2003, 03:19:31 PM
Last Tango is great, if a little misguided at the end, and meandering in the middle.  But still, it's one of those films that once you see, you'll never forget.  So yeah, for that alone, Bertolucci gets :yabbse-thumbup:  I SO want to see The Last Emperor and 1900 (in its original uncut state on DVD whenever it eventually, hopefully comes out).

Alethia

#5
October 01, 2003, 04:44:27 PM
ive only seen last tango and i loved it.

SoNowThen

#6
October 03, 2003, 09:54:34 AM
So I watched Partner last night. I'll be honest, I didn't understand 80% of it. Like some Godard, you have to go out and read the 10 books the director is referencing, and see the 20 films he's paying homage to. So it's not that I disliked the movie, but I'll need to put another 20 or 30 hours into reference material, then watch it again. Oh well...

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

Bertolucci's new film is called The Dreamers, and is set in Paris in '68. Sounds pretty interesting. A dramatic time and place, anyway...
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#7
October 03, 2003, 11:05:28 AM
Great Bertolucci: The Conformist and Before the Revolution.

Good Bertolucci: The Last Emporor, Besieged.

Culturally important but vastly, vastly overrated Bertolucci: Last Tango in Paris. Same category as I Am Curious... and The Night Porter. Breaking taboos, but dragged down by being so focused on that. Some beautiful moviemaking in those, but all are dated at best.

I haven't seen 1900 or Stealing Beauty. Or Little Buddha. I'm a Bertolucci "fan," but not die-hard. I need to complete my exposure to his body of work, though.

Apparently, the MPAA is butchering his new movie...? Anyone hear anything about that?
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

MacGuffin

#8
October 03, 2003, 11:10:55 AM
"The Dreamers"

Release Date: March 19th, 2004 (LA/NY); expands to other cities at later dates

Release Date Note: Fox Searchlight was originally aiming for a platform release starting on October 3rd, 2003, but they have decided to hold it back five months until March 19th, 2004. The primary reason for the move is to allow Bertolucci time to make drastic cuts to the film, because of concern that the amount of sex and nudity in the European version would make it impossible for this movie to get anything but an NC-17 in the U.S. (Fox Searchlight wants an R).

Cast: Michael Pitt (Matthew), Louis Garrel (Theo), Eva Green (Isabelle), Jean-Pierre Kalfon (himself), Jean-Pierre Leaud (himself).

Based Upon: The novel, "The Holy Innocents", by Gilbert Adair, who also wrote the screenplay. Another film based upon a novel by Gilbert Adair was 1997's Love and Death on Long Island.

Premise: An American college student, Matthew (Pitt), pursuing his education abroad in Paris in 1968 becomes friends with a French brother, Guillaume (Garrel), and sister, Danielle (Green), through a shared love of the cinema, while the May, 1968 Paris student riots (which eventually shut down most of the French government) are happening in the background.
"Don't think about making art, just get it done. Let everyone else decide if it's good or bad, whether they love it or hate it. While they are deciding, make even more art." - Andy Warhol


Skeleton FilmWorks

SoNowThen

#9
October 03, 2003, 11:16:24 AM
Why is it that porn is the biggest growing business in North America, all over everywhere, and yet we have to insist on tampering with works of masters like Kubrick and Bertolucci. Why? Because a 17 year old might sneak in to this movie made for adults? As if anybody under 18 even knows about this movie. And if they do, chances are they're pretty damn more mature than your average college crowd. Let the man make the film he wants to make for fucks sakes. Aaaaarrrghhhhhhhh!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! Sorry, ranting...

Anyway, I agree on the Best Bertolucci column. They need to put more of him on dvd.
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

Gold Trumpet

#10
October 03, 2003, 11:19:23 AM
Quote from: godardianApparently, the MPAA is butchering his new movie...? Anyone hear anything about that?

Yes, Yes I have.

Bertolucci Says Fox Wants To "Mutilate" His Film

Italian director Bernardo Bertolucci, who received critical acclaim following the screening of his latest film The Dreamers at the Venice Film Festival on Sunday, angrily accused 20th Century Fox Monday of demanding that cuts be made in the film that, he said, would leave it "amputated and mutilated." The film includes frontal nudity and explicit sex scenes that involve teenage college students. As reported in today's (Tuesday) Los Angeles Times, Bertolucci suggested that a rift between the studio and its art-house subsidiary Fox Searchlight may have occurred over the film. Bertolucci said that when he originally delivered the film to Fox Searchlight, "They were enthusiastic and began preparing trailers. Then in July something odd happened, like lightning out of the blue. They told [me and producer Jeremy Thomas] that Fox could not release the film as it was." Representatives of the companies did not attend the press conference and were not available for comment.

This sucks because some compromises likely will happen and we won't see Bertolucci's full version for a while.

~rougerum

SoNowThen

#11
October 03, 2003, 11:23:34 AM
Quote from: MacGuffinThe primary reason for the move is to allow Bertolucci time to make drastic cuts to the film, because of concern that the amount of sex and nudity in the European version would make it impossible for this movie to get anything but an NC-17 in the U.S. (Fox Searchlight wants an R).

Ah man, stupid Bertolucci. Doesn't he realize that by having the NC-17 rating he can't cash in on all the kids that parents over 17 are gonna bring to the R rated version? What an idiot.

Fuck. For serious. In a movie of this nature, what is the thinking behind this butchery? Are they really gonna make that much more with an R rating, in an American release of a European director's non-English film?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#12
October 03, 2003, 11:49:04 AM
Quote from: SoNowThenWhy is it that porn is the biggest growing business in North America, all over everywhere, and yet we have to insist on tampering with works of masters like Kubrick and Bertolucci. Why?

I'd say the two things have very much to do with each other, the return of the repressed and so on... I ambivalently like porn, but I think its hugeness as a business is due to the lack of open scrutiny and discussion of sex, which would lead to more "real," flawed, person-to-person sex rather than endless, unrealistic masturbation fantasies. Much of what passes in our culture for sexual openness is nothing but a manifestation of (reaction to) repression.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.

SoNowThen

#13
October 03, 2003, 12:06:45 PM
But see, what I'm saying is that I don't think it's a repression problem, but a marketing one. The ratings board doesn't stop films from being made (directly, anyway), it just applies its rating (which I will admit is 99% bullshit most of the time). But why won't Fox Searchlight just figure out a marketing strategy for NC-17 of this movie? Wasn't it done with a film in the last couple years, and they did alright with NC-17? Just try and make this work as an adult film. Because, I mean, cutting nudity aside, is this really gonna be a mainstream America "R" release? Why not sell it as Adult European counter-programming? Is there not any chance at all to turn profit with NC-17? Can all these marketing whiz kids not find an answer?
Those who say that the totalitarian state of the Soviet Union was not "real" Marxism also cannot admit that one simple feature of Marxism makes totalitarianism necessary:  the rejection of civil society. Since civil society is the sphere of private activity, its abolition and replacement by political society means that nothing private remains. That is already the essence of totalitarianism; and the moralistic practice of the trendy Left, which regards everything as political and sometimes reveals its hostility to free speech, does nothing to contradict this implication.

When those who hated capital and consumption (and Jews) in the 20th century murdered some hundred million people, and the poster children for the struggle against international capitalism and America are now fanatical Islamic terrorists, this puts recent enthusiasts in an awkward position. Most of them are too dense and shameless to appreciate it, and far too many are taken in by the moralistic and paternalistic rhetoric of the Left.

godardian

#14
October 03, 2003, 12:23:17 PM
Quote from: SoNowThenBut see, what I'm saying is that I don't think it's a repression problem, but a marketing one. The ratings board doesn't stop films from being made (directly, anyway), it just applies its rating (which I will admit is 99% bullshit most of the time). But why won't Fox Searchlight just figure out a marketing strategy for NC-17 of this movie? Wasn't it done with a film in the last couple years, and they did alright with NC-17? Just try and make this work as an adult film. Because, I mean, cutting nudity aside, is this really gonna be a mainstream America "R" release? Why not sell it as Adult European counter-programming? Is there not any chance at all to turn profit with NC-17? Can all these marketing whiz kids not find an answer?

Ah, but it IS a problem with repression, with the MPAA represnting the "standards" of the "people" and acting as the agent of repression. Because of the same "standards" and "people," the business arm of Fox Searchlight will not allow an NC-17 rating. I don't know if this is true for Bertolucci, but many filmmakers must agree to an R rating in their contract, and if they don't get one, the distributor is not obligated to release their film.

They way they see it, any film that did "alright" with an NC-17 would absolutely and inarguably have done better with an R.

I say abolish the whole bullshit rating system.
""Money doesn't come into it. It never has. I do what I do because it's all that I am." - Morrissey

"Lacan stressed more and more in his work the power and organizing principle of the symbolic, understood as the networks, social, cultural, and linguistic, into which a child is born. These precede the birth of a child, which is why Lacan can say that language is there from before the actual moment of birth. It is there in the social structures which are at play in the family and, of course, in the ideals, goals, and histories of the parents. This world of language can hardly be grasped by the newborn and yet it will act on the whole of the child's existence."

Stay informed on protecting your freedom of speech and civil rights.
Print
Go Up Pages1 2 3 4
User actions