PS sorry, you have to use this link to watch the films: http://www.hulu.com/search?q=chantal+akerman
> On 08.10.2015, at 20:51, Jana Debus <[email protected]> wrote: > > Dear All, > > > Criterion has made Chantal Akerman’s films available online, > you can watch them for free at this time of mourning, > and be close to her, through her work. > > And, have you ever heard her reading “A family in brussels”? > it’s beautiful, she was such a gifted writer, too. > It’s on CD. > > > https://www.criterion.com/explore/151-chantal-akerman > <https://www.criterion.com/explore/151-chantal-akerman> > > > > Jana > > >> On 08.10.2015, at 20:20, Elizabeth McMahon <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >> I cannot speak for Film maker's Cooperative or Canyon, but The New York >> Public Library has a 16mm print of "Jeanne Dielman" for those who are close >> by, or otherwise interested in seeing it on film. It was distributed at the >> time of acquisition by New Yorker, so it did indeed have a stateside >> distributor, and one with quite a distinguished reputation. If you are >> interested in screening it on site, please call ahead to arrange the time. >> >> Elizabeth McMahon >> >> On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 9:41 PM, Chuck Kleinhans <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> I appreciate Gene Youngblood’s observations. I would point out in addition >> some of the decisions Akerman made which shaped the reception of her work. >> >> First, and I think incredibly importantly, was her choice of Babette >> Mongolte to be her cinematographer on Jeanne Dielman. Mongolte had already >> done the camerawork on Rainer’s Lives of Performers and Film About a Woman >> Who. Seeing those works as connected by visual sensibility gives the works >> at least a second “authorship” in the cinematographer. >> >> Second, Jeanne Dielman arrived in 1975-6. It was screened at some film >> centers and then the print left the country. Yeet during its brief >> appearance it inspired almost all the emerging feminist film makers, >> critics, scholars, teachers, and intellectuals to rave about it. And the >> writers wrote about it with a strong femiist analysis >> >> I think this was due to at least two factors, One was that feminist film >> criticism was looking for new work that escaped the Hollywood expectations. >> Remember this is the exact moment when Laura Mulvey’s landmark essay on >> "Visual Pleasure and Narrative CInema" hit the scene. Jeanne Dielman was >> the perfect film to see after or before reading Mulvey.. This was also the >> time of emerging feminist film festivals, feminist film courses in colleges >> and universities, feminist film programming being a regular part of film >> center programming, etc. >> >> Second, there was at that time a certain momentum in the women’s movement >> for thinking anew about housework and domestic space. In the UK one high >> profile group of feminists led a campaign for “Wages for >> Housework”—demanding recognition of women’s unpaid labor. In N. America >> there was an active discussion of the “double day” and women working outside >> the home but also then being totally responsible for domestic chores, >> cleaning, child-rearing, etc. So within the political wing of the women’s >> movement there was interest in this and Jeanne Dielman, although in one >> sense one of the “least likely” films to appeal to feminist activists >> unfamiliar with art film narrative in fact when they did get to see the film >> found it often intriguing and made them rethink what feminist film might be. >> >> But, as I said, that rare print disappeared from N. America and Akermann >> essentially rejected the genuine enthusiastic audience for her film and >> wasn’t interested in having it placed with some logical upstart feminist >> film distributors nor was she willing to deposit a copy with the NY Coop or >> Canyon, which would have at least kept it alive for those who wanted to show >> it. I never heard the story from her side of why she made this decision. >> The gossip I heard was that she had a very high opinion of herself and >> wanted to be treated as a Major European Film Artist like Wenders or >> Fassbinder. She was holding out for Big Time art film distribution in N. >> America. And that never happened. >> >> There’s an excellent (if kind of lopsided by her enthusiasms) presentation >> of that Ackerman moment in Ruby Rich’s book Chick Flicks: Theories and >> Memories of the Feminist Film Movement. >> >> The point being that artists have some role to play in their own >> reputation/success and some decisions end up shaping their critical horizon >> and artistic capital. >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> On Oct 6, 2015, at 1:26 PM, Gene Youngblood <[email protected] >> <mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: >> >>> Unless I’m mistaken, the American premiere of Jeanne Dielmann was at Filmex >>> in 1976. That’s the Los Angeles International Film Exposition, which was >>> the largest festival in the world at that time except for Cannes, which we >>> considered to be a market, not a festival. I saw it twice, first on the >>> selection committee, then at the festival, where it impressed me even more >>> the second time. I met Chantal for lunch immediately after, somewhat >>> disoriented that such a reserved, shy little person could have made this >>> work of monumental intelligence and power. She was with Lloyd Cohn, whose >>> fledgling company, World Artists (I think that’s the name), was the >>> American distributor of the film. I met Lloyd ten years earlier when he was >>> doing publicity for Monte Hellman’s remarkable westerns, The Shooting and >>> Ride In the Whirlwind, which I reviewed in the Los Angeles Herald-Examiner. >>> The review attracted a considerable audience for the films (Cameron >>> Mitchell took out a full page ad in Variety to thank me and Jack Nicholson, >>> who wrote, co-produced and starred in both), and because of that Lloyd was >>> “loyal” to me over the years, which is how I ended up having lunch with him >>> and Chantal Akerman. Lloyd was a small person too, about the same height as >>> Chantal, and I remember feeling conspicuous, being more than a foot taller >>> than them, as we entered the restaurant. I don’t remember much of the >>> conversation except about Godard and Michael Snow, and how perceptive >>> Chantal’s observations were. (As an aside, I prefer her “One Day Pina >>> Asked…” over Wim Wenders’ piece on Bausch). I’m not sure about this, but I >>> think Lloyd Cohn distributed some of Chantal’s experimental shorts for a >>> brief period of time, and maybe The Meetings of Anna, and then I lost track >>> of him. I showed Jeanne Dielmann, The Meetings of Anna, Hotel Monterey, Je >>> tu il elle, and I’m Hungry I’m Cold in various classes every year for about >>> 20 years, first at Calarts, then the College of Santa Fe. There were always >>> lively discussions, and a handful of students invariably wrote term papers >>> on Jeanne Dielmann or Meetings of Anna or both. Chantal affected me as >>> profoundly as she did many others, maybe even a few of my students. By the >>> way, if anyone knows what Lloyd Cohn is doing these days, please contact me >>> off list. >>> >>> >> >> Chuck Kleinhans >> >> >> >> >> >> _______________________________________________ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >> <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks> >> >> >> >> >> -- >> Elizabeth >> _______________________________________________ >> FrameWorks mailing list >> [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> >> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks >
_______________________________________________ FrameWorks mailing list [email protected] https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
