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 <i...@janadebus.com> 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 <elizmcma...@gmail.com 
>> <mailto:elizmcma...@gmail.com>> 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 <chuck...@northwestern.edu 
>> <mailto:chuck...@northwestern.edu>> 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 <ato...@comcast.net 
>> <mailto:ato...@comcast.net>> 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
>> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com <mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com>
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks 
>> <https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks>
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> 
>> -- 
>> Elizabeth
>> _______________________________________________
>> FrameWorks mailing list
>> FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com <mailto:FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com>
>> https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks
> 

_______________________________________________
FrameWorks mailing list
FrameWorks@jonasmekasfilms.com
https://mailman-mail5.webfaction.com/listinfo/frameworks

Reply via email to