The Guardian asked a bunch of brainy Brits what the ‘most hated movies of all time’ are. I say, who knows, especially if you don’t see them all? But there are some very funny answers.
Showgirls (a So Bad It’s Good movie, actually) gets multiple mentions, but Battlefield Earth gets none. Neither does Midnight in the Garden of Good & Evil, of that pirate movie that sunk Renny Harlan. Castaway Island Cutthroat Island [which, Deborah protests, is “a perfect pirate film.” And since it was only the biggest moneyloser ever, it was probably only “most hated” by studio accountants. Duly noted.] Citizen Kane‘s in there, though, which is entertaining, but too “bad-boy” an answer, even if it were true.
Leave it to Julie Burchill to come up with the right answer, though: of Guy Ritchie’s Swept Away, starring his wife, Burchill says, “If I was responsible for something this bad, I’d change my name, too.” Mazel Tov.
Ono, Jishu Eiga, Kore-eda
I met Satoshi Ono in New York, when his excellent DV doc, Danchizake (Homemade Sake), played at MoMA’s Documentary Fortnight Dec. 2002. Danchizake is an elliptical, self-effacing, yet powerful story of the filmmaker’s own family and the emotional rifts caused by years of economic hardship. Midnight Eye reviewed it in the Spring of 2001.
In the latest issue, ME does a roundup of jishu eiga, selfmade films, a burgeoning genre in which Ono is cited as a leading practitioner. [His 2003 short, Good Morning Yokohama, just screened in Dallas at the Asian Film Festival.]
ME also includes a technique-heavy interview with Japan’s most successful documentary-style filmmaker, Hirokazu Kore-eda. I’ve admired Kore-eda’s work since seeing the quiet, beautiful small-footprint Maboroshi at New Directors/New Films almost ten years ago. And After Life is one of my favorite films ever.
Now, with the coming release of his fourth feature Nobody Knows (#3, Always, wasn’t distributed in the US), Kore-eda seems ready for a change: he’s making a jidai geki (costume drama) for Shochiku. “To be natural doesn’t automatically mean to be real,” he says. “So far I’ve tried to use naturalism to search for reality, but now I will try total fiction to search for that reality.” [via greencine, of course]
Yeah, good thing you got a transcript
I heard Newsweek’s Michael Isikoff barking on WBUR last night about how the shifty Michael Moore has not released a transcript of Farenheit 9/11, the easier to dispute the points he makes in the film.
[Is irony really, truly dead after all, that so many of the tortillas being flung at F9/11 from the right-field bleachers are because Moore “makes inaccurate insinuations from unrelated facts and dishonestly leads people to jump to conclusions that are otherwise unsupported?” Matthew Continetti, the Weekly Standard water carrier on On Point kept making that argument, and I’m like, what veep-in’ Vice President have you been listening to the last three years?
As I see it, the only possible vindication worse than Michael Moore’s is Graydon Carter’s, my glass-house-livin’ slavishly administration-supportin’ friends.]
Anyway, waxy and daily.greencine.com point out that Drew at Script-o-rama has found and documented self-serving inaccuracies and bias in the transcript used by many Moore critics, including Isikoff. I certainly feel better when I say it: go factcheck yourself.
Artist-not-Bioterrorist Update
Mail fraud charges–for improperly ordering high school science-level lab samples–were announced yesterday against Prof. Steve Kurtz, a member of Critical Art Ensemble and a colleague.
Despite absence of ball, game, playbook, rules, Feds decide to keep kicking.
A To Do for my LA Reader
Mike Mills will be at an AFI screening of his Air documentary Eating, Sleeping, Waiting and Playing Wed. 6/30 at ArcLight Hollywood. 8 o’clock. It’s being shown as part of an AFI series of music documentaries, which until last weekend, people thought made a lot of money.
A To Do for my LA Reader
Mike Mills will be at an AFI screening of his Air documentary Eating, Sleeping, Waiting and Playing Wed. 6/30 at ArcLight Hollywood. 8 o’clock. It’s being shown as part of an AFI series of music documentaries, which until last weekend, people thought made a lot of money.
Pained Observer
Pained Observer
Jocelyn Bell, the woman who discovered pulsars
After discovering an inexplicable pulsing signal (a “sniggling quarter inch” blip that showed up for 5 min/day) in her PhD radio astronomy data (thousands of feet of paper charts) at Cambridge, Jocelyn Bell and her adviser Tony Hewish, wondered if it was a stellar phenomenon or some man-made interference. If the signal was indeed real, its source was unknown to science at that time. They took to calling it “little green men.”
There was a meeting just beofre Christmas 1967 which I stumbled upon. I went down to Tony’s office to ask him something and unusually, the door was shut. I knocked and a voice said, “Come in.” I stuck my head around the door and Tony said “Ah, Jocelyn, come in and shut the door.” So I went in and shut the door. It was a discussion between Tony Hewish (my supervisor), Martin Ryle (the head of the Group), and probably John Shakshaft (one of the other senior members of the Group). The discussion was along the lines of “how do we publish this result?”
Then the night before leaving for Christmas break, Bell locked herself in the lab, pored over her data, and found another signal in another part of the sky, confirming that the signal was not caused by human interference.
I went off on holiday and came back to the lab wearing an engagement ring. That was the stupidest thing I ever did. In those days, married women did not work…My appearance wearing an engagement ring signalled that I was exiting from professional life. Incidentally, it is interesting to notice that people were much more willing to congratulate me on my engagement than congratulate me on making a major astrophysical discover. Society felt that in getting engaged I was doing the right thing for a young woman. In discovering pulsars, I wasn’t…
In 1968, Ryle called Nature and told them to “hold the presses.” “Observation of a Rapidly Pulsating Radio Source,” listed Bell and Hewish and two other colleagues as authors, although current citations differ on who was lead author.
What IS certain, however, is that Ryle and Hewish were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1974, Hewish for his decisive role in the discovery of pulsars.” Although some argue differently, Bell is widely thought to have been robbed of a Nobel Prize. She is currently Dean of Science at the University of Bath.
Bell’s fascinating first-hand account of the discovery was reprinted in the June 2004 issue of Status: A Report on Women in Astronomy, which is published by the American Astronomical Society [PDF only].
In her telling, the N-word never comes up, even indirectly, but it looms large as day-to-day details of the players’ actions and theories build up. The excerpts above are about as close as Bell comes to explaining why she thinks she didn’t share the Nobel.
The only woman to win a Nobel Prize for Physics was Marie Curie in 1903, for discovering radiation. (She won again for Chemistry in 1911, for discovering radium.)
Jocelyn Bell, the woman who discovered pulsars
After discovering an inexplicable pulsing signal (a “sniggling quarter inch” blip that showed up for 5 min/day) in her PhD radio astronomy data (thousands of feet of paper charts) at Cambridge, Jocelyn Bell and her adviser Tony Hewish, wondered if it was a stellar phenomenon or some man-made interference. If the signal was indeed real, its source was unknown to science at that time. They took to calling it “little green men.”
There was a meeting just beofre Christmas 1967 which I stumbled upon. I went down to Tony’s office to ask him something and unusually, the door was shut. I knocked and a voice said, “Come in.” I stuck my head around the door and Tony said “Ah, Jocelyn, come in and shut the door.” So I went in and shut the door. It was a discussion between Tony Hewish (my supervisor), Martin Ryle (the head of the Group), and probably John Shakshaft (one of the other senior members of the Group). The discussion was along the lines of “how do we publish this result?”
Then the night before leaving for Christmas break, Bell locked herself in the lab, pored over her data, and found another signal in another part of the sky, confirming that the signal was not caused by human interference.
I went off on holiday and came back to the lab wearing an engagement ring. That was the stupidest thing I ever did. In those days, married women did not work…My appearance wearing an engagement ring signalled that I was exiting from professional life. Incidentally, it is interesting to notice that people were much more willing to congratulate me on my engagement than congratulate me on making a major astrophysical discover. Society felt that in getting engaged I was doing the right thing for a young woman. In discovering pulsars, I wasn’t…
In 1968, Ryle called Nature and told them to “hold the presses.” “Observation of a Rapidly Pulsating Radio Source,” listed Bell and Hewish and two other colleagues as authors, although current citations differ on who was lead author.
What IS certain, however, is that Ryle and Hewish were awarded the Nobel Prize in 1974, Hewish for his decisive role in the discovery of pulsars.” Although some argue differently, Bell is widely thought to have been robbed of a Nobel Prize. She is currently Dean of Science at the University of Bath.
Bell’s fascinating first-hand account of the discovery was reprinted in the June 2004 issue of Status: A Report on Women in Astronomy, which is published by the American Astronomical Society [PDF only].
In her telling, the N-word never comes up, even indirectly, but it looms large as day-to-day details of the players’ actions and theories build up. The excerpts above are about as close as Bell comes to explaining why she thinks she didn’t share the Nobel.
The only woman to win a Nobel Prize for Physics was Marie Curie in 1903, for discovering radiation. (She won again for Chemistry in 1911, for discovering radium.)
Bloghdad.com/Reagan
If you are going to call yourself a Christian — and I don’t — then you have to ask yourself a fundamental question, and that is: Whom would Jesus torture? Whom would Jesus drag around on a dog’s leash? How can Christians tolerate it? It is unconscionable.
Bloghdad.com/Reagan
If you are going to call yourself a Christian — and I don’t — then you have to ask yourself a fundamental question, and that is: Whom would Jesus torture? Whom would Jesus drag around on a dog’s leash? How can Christians tolerate it? It is unconscionable.
Meanwhile, Leo Steinberg c1960 on WPS1
So now my big complaint about WPS1 is that you can’t link to broadcasts very easily.
I’ve been listening to a series of lectures the art historian Leo Steinberg gave at MoMA in 1960 about contemporary art and the public’s reception/perception of it. There are three hour-long lectures; the first appeared last week (6/15), so work your way back through the ‘previous broadcast’ section to them.
I’m a lazy fan of Steinberg, whose unabashedly erudite tone I find very engaging. He invariably uses it to deliver extremely smart insights, all the while bringing you along his observational and analytical path. His method and criticism still strike me as entirely applicable to art-seeing and -making today.
It’s about as much fun as an audio recording of a slide lecture can be, I imagine. And it’s fascinating to listen back on a time when artist like Jasper Johns or John Chamberlain were seen as controversial provocateurs. Check it out.
Meanwhile, Leo Steinberg c1960 on WPS1
So now my big complaint about WPS1 is that you can’t link to broadcasts very easily.
I’ve been listening to a series of lectures the art historian Leo Steinberg gave at MoMA in 1960 about contemporary art and the public’s reception/perception of it. There are three hour-long lectures; the first appeared last week (6/15), so work your way back through the ‘previous broadcast’ section to them.
I’m a lazy fan of Steinberg, whose unabashedly erudite tone I find very engaging. He invariably uses it to deliver extremely smart insights, all the while bringing you along his observational and analytical path. His method and criticism still strike me as entirely applicable to art-seeing and -making today.
It’s about as much fun as an audio recording of a slide lecture can be, I imagine. And it’s fascinating to listen back on a time when artist like Jasper Johns or John Chamberlain were seen as controversial provocateurs. Check it out.
The Walker Channel
It’s like WPS1, but it’s almost two years old. The Walker Art Center operates The Walker Channel, an online collection of streamable artist interviews and other programming.
This is one prong of the museum’s strategy to maintain and expand their presence while their building is receiving a Herzog & deMeuron makeover.
Most of the recordings are interviews with people I’ve never heard of, and there are no explanations. But there IS a 2002 interview with Yoshiharu Tsukamoto, one of the principals in the cool Tokyo architecture firm Atelier Bow-Wow. They published Pet Architecture, which is a very cool book and site.
It’s simultaneously heartening and depressing to note that this interview with an architect I’m very interested in is almost as excruciatingly underproduced as the early WPS1 bits I whined about earlier.