criterionforum.org

I read the book immediately after watching Maurice back in the late 80s. Loved it. The only other Forster novel that I read is Howards End which left me in a total mess in the middle of my Greyhound trek across the country.

Never heard of Arthur Snatchfold. That sounds intriguing. Will pick it up very soon.

Again, let me thank you for bringing my attention to Come Undone. After watching it last night, Pedro and I stayed up all night - hours, hours, - talking about this movie, how we related our experiences to Mathieu, Cedric and Pierre - coming out, acceptance, boyfriends, depression, etc - my goodness, after being nearly 9 years with him, I still learn new things about him. Great, great movie. I can't wait to watch it again.

Michael wrote:Just received a comment from a good straight friend of mine and here's what she said about Brokeback Mountain: "It's a funny hybrid - trying to be all things to all people, and kind of failing on many counts".

This reminds me of Jun-Dai's perceptive comment that this can't be both a landmark gay film and not a gay film at all. That cake-and-eating-it aspect of the marketing makes me pretty queasy, as in the big piece in Time magazine where Ledger suggests that his character is "not really gay", and the target audience is identified as young girls (as if it's somehow shameful to pitch a love story between two guys at gay men).

davidhare, you can recommend as many films as you want. Please do. I don't know what I would do without having seen the Lifshitz films since they have really enriched my life and changed my outlook on my self and pretty much everything in the best way. Lifshitz's growing to become my favorite gay film director.

I will be more than happy to check out Porn Theater but first I have Three Dancing Slaves (gotta have more of Stephane Rideau!) and Son Frere for this weekend. How is Full Speed (also with Rideau)?

Another vote for Porn Theater , and the babe-a-licious Stephane Rideau who is also on view in Guiguet's sublime Les Passagers.

Just looked up Les Passagers on IMDB. No reviews, no comments. Is there a DVD?

Yes. There are DVD's available of all four of Guiguet's feature films: Les Belles Manieres, Faubourg St. Martin, Le Mirage, and Les Passagers from a company caled "K films."

None of his films were ever afforded a U.S. release. A very great French filmmaker, he died last March.

So is this all greatish queer movie can offer: "Porn theatre", "Full speed", "Three dancing slaves", and soon "O Fantasma"?

Gaël Morel was great as an actor in "wild reeds". Unfortunately, "full speed" is just a piece of pretentious crap that goes no where. "Three dancing slaves" is much better, but is just really only a decent movie.

Just curious whether any gay people on the board actually like "Voor een verloren soldaat" (for a lost soldier)? All my gay friends like it and they all love "brokeback mountain". Next time I will probably joke with them that they are probably not queer enough unless they can fully embrace the likes of 'porn theatre".

Hey, speaking of queer cinema...

[shameless threadjack]

-Toilet Dcuk

So is this all greatish queer movie can offer: "Porn theatre", "Full speed", "Three dancing slaves", and soon "O Fantasma"?

No. You either didn't read my Brokeback piece or ignored the important gay films I listed in it. There's no excuse for cinematic ignorance. If you've never heard of Todd haynes, Gus Van Sant, Tom Kalin, Greg Araki, John Greyson, Jean-Claude Guiguet, Paul Vecchiali, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Werner Schroeter, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Gregory Markopoulos, Andy Warhol, Bill Condon , Patrice Chereau, and Lionel Soukaz (that's right off the top of my head, mind you) I really don't know what to say to you.

David Ehrenstein wrote:

So is this all greatish queer movie can offer: "Porn theatre", "Full speed", "Three dancing slaves", and soon "O Fantasma"?

No. You either didn't read my Brokeback piece or ignored the important gay films I listed in it. There's no excuse for cinematic ignorance. If you've never heard of Todd haynes, Gus Van Sant, Tom Kalin, Greg Araki, John Greyson, Jean-Claude Guiguet, Paul Vecchiali, Pier Paolo Pasolini, Werner Schroeter, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Gregory Markopoulos, Andy Warhol, Bill Condon , Patrice Chereau, and Lionel Soukaz (that's right off the top of my head, mind you) I really don't know what to say to you.

You never read mine either. I have given enough rave reviews on the overall quality of works by Pasolini, Fassbinder, Techine, Van Sant, Ozon, Chereau, Haynes in the past (or should have I added Ozu and Cocteau, two masters who never bothered to make chic gay flicks?), and the first two are among my favorite directors of all time. Warhol is not my cup of tea, but I can certainly appreciate his work as a whole. The work by other directors you listed are generally a hit or miss (Araki's 'mysterious skin' is brilliant, but I cannot really say that I tremendously enjoyed his previous work. Same for Guiguet, Condon, and others. Even Haynes and Van Sant can be totally brilliant and then lay a turkey).

However, I do see a dangerous trend on this board, especially in certain threads that some really mediocre features are raved simply because they went far enough to cater for certain queer audience. That, to me, is not really fair film criticism or comment.

Peace.

However, I do see a dangerous trend on this board, especially in certain threads that some really mediocre features are raved simply because they went far enough to cater for certain queer audience. That, to me, is not really fair film criticism or comment.

I find that quite offensive.

No peace.

Anyway, last night I went out to clubs.. all of sudden, cowboy hats floated everywhere atop fellas heads. Some of them were carpeted with rhinestones and it's been only one week since
Ennis and Jack arrived in this town.

I added Ozu and Cocteau, two masters who never bothered to make chic gay flicks?

Cocteau was the essence of chic. And have you seen Le Testament D'Orphee ? "Droles de chiens" indeed!

I find that quite offensive.

No peace.

No justice, either.

Anyway, last night I went out to clubs.. all of sudden, cowboy hats floated everywhere atop fellas heads. Some of them were carpeted with rhinestones and it's been only one week since BBM arrived in this town

The camp quotient of the cowboy mythos has always been central to gay culture. Nice to know that today's club kids are keeping pace with it.

Michael wrote:

However, I do see a dangerous trend on this board, especially in certain threads that some really mediocre features are raved simply because they went far enough to cater for certain queer audience. That, to me, is not really fair film criticism or comment.

I find that quite offensive.

Ok, I'm just wondering why you find this offensive?

I am not exactly sure what you have meant by this in the first place, kieslowski_67. Care to explain further?

It sounds like he wants us to judge films without taking into consideration their social context.

Jun-Dai wrote:It sounds like he wants us to judge films without taking into consideration their social context.

It doesn't sound that way at all. It sounds more like he'd rather a film's actual quality be a larger criterion when judging it than the strength of its slant towards gay pride. I haven't seen any of the films mentioned, and I don't have much interest in gay culture personally, but his point seems fairly obvious.

obloquy wrote:

Jun-Dai wrote:It sounds like he wants us to judge films without taking into consideration their social context.

It doesn't sound that way at all. It sounds more like he'd rather a film's actual quality be a larger criterion when judging it than the strength of its slant towards gay pride. I haven't seen any of the films mentioned, and I don't have much interest in gay culture personally, but his point seems fairly obvious.

Thats what I thought kieslowski_67 was saying. Not sure about 'cater for certain queer audience' meaning specifically 'gay pride', though. If this is right, why is this offensive?

It doesn't sound that way at all. It sounds more like he'd rather a film's actual quality be a larger criterion when judging it than the strength of its slant towards gay pride. I haven't seen any of the films mentioned, and I don't have much interest in gay culture personally, but his point seems fairly obvious.

How do you separate a film's "actual quality" from it's "slant"? Would you say Triumph of the Will is entirely about abstract visual designs invoving larger groups of people -- and nothing else?

It doesn't sound that way at all. It sounds more like he'd rather a film's actual quality be a larger criterion when judging it than the strength of its slant towards gay pride

Please explain what "actual quality" is and how your statement differs from mine (aside from perjorative connotations).

Jun-Dai wrote:It sounds like he wants us to judge films without taking into consideration their social context.

Jun-Dai who are you talking about when you say 'he'?

kieslowski_67

I don't see how he wants us to judge a film without taking its social context into account, though.

It sounds more like he'd rather a film's actual quality be a larger criterion when judging it than the strength of its slant towards gay pride.

I think what obloquy suggesting, that kieslowski_67 is suggesting (following so far?) that a film should not only be judged on one aspect (in this case obloquy is suggesting 'gay pride'). He has pointed out that a films 'actual quality' should be a criterion of more than one aspect (or 'slant'). David seems to be reading what he wants to read.

So, I am not sure how this would be judging it without taking its social contest into account. If anything it is the opposite and more.

Jun-Dai wrote:It sounds like he wants us to judge films without taking into consideration their social context.

I'm not sure he means "without". I'm more inclined to believe he means "with less emphasis upon", but until be clarifies his position I can't be sure. I believe kieslowski_67 is just not thrilled with some of the films that have been mentioned so far, not because they are considered "gay films", but more so because he doesn't think they are particularly good films (and for the sake of keeping this discussion on track can we not start up the entire issue of the problems associated with the term "good" when discussing the quality of a film). I think he's thinking that some people are lowering their standards of what they deem to be good films, so that they can simply mention more gay films.

What's kind of offensive about this line of thinking (assuming I'm correct in interpreting what kieslowski_67 was saying) is not so much that he's talking about gay films (I don't think he really has a problem with gay films), but that he's accusing the people making recommendations of lowering their standards.

So this "obvious" point still needs some explanation at least for this dimwit. I don't understand what "actual quality" is, as opposed to what a film's "fake qualities" might be, or how a film's catering to a specific audience isn't a significant part of its social context.

More importantly, kieslowski has made a fairly accusatory remark without providing any evidence of it:

However, I do see a dangerous trend on this board, especially in certain threads that some really mediocre features are raved simply because they went far enough to cater for certain queer audience. That, to me, is not really fair film criticism or comment.

This statement bears some examination. At its most honest, kieslowski's statement is critizing people here for taking what they can get as far as quality gay films are concerned (which is exactly what Ehrenstein is being accused of not doing as far as Brokeback Mountain is concerned). Further than that, kieslowski's being quite presumptuous in claiming to be able to distinguish the mediocrity of a film (where I would suggest that his inability to get into the films could just as easily be his failing as a viewer) where others fail to and then using that to accuse people of having ulterior motives.

I'm not going to say that there is never a call for this kind of comment, just that making the comment without extensively backing it up is akin to saying "you're racist because you hire mediocre Latinos when qualified white people are available" without attempting to back it up.

Jun-Dai wrote: More importantly, kieslowski has made a fairly accusatory remark without providing any evidence of it

Agreed. I'm also not sure he could provide very conclusive evidence when making this accusation, considering it's just going to boil down to a matter of taste, unless there is some overwhelming aspect of each film that he has deemed to be mediocre that makes it unquestionably mediocre to viewers.

Jun-Dai wrote:Further than that, kieslowski's being quite presumptuous in claiming to be able to distinguish the mediocrity of a film (where I would suggest that his inability to get into the films could just as easily be his failing as a viewer) where others fail to and then using that to accuse people of having ulterior motives.

Yeah, that's the part that starts to sound offensive to me.

So this "obvious" point still needs some explanation at least for this dimwit. I don't understand what "actual quality" is, as opposed to what a film's "fake qualities" might be, or how a film's catering to a specific audience isn't a significant part of its social context.

I think the 'actual quality' is referring to the 'quality' of the film when all aspects are taken into account. Instead of just taking one aspect into account (for whatever reason).

More importantly, kieslowski has made a fairly accusatory remark without providing any evidence of it

I'm not sure if you can easily point out any evidence of this, it is too subjective. But you may get the impression.

which is exactly what Ehrenstein is being accused of not doing as far as Brokeback Mountain is concerned

Actually, I would think that one of the main reasons David doesn't like Brokeback is simply because it doesn't 'slant' the exact way he wants (or possibly just not enough). Without taking 'all' aspects into account, he dislikes it.