Right you are, John. Whenever I think
of Charlotte Rampling, I think of her in "The Night Porter" and then
her appearances in "Darling" and "The Swimming Pool." Always hot, even
as a senior citizen with her cobra eyes. I think "The Night Porter"
will be her legacy, though, because her character in that picture is so
depraved; hell that whole movie is depraved but not enough for me to
desire renting it every few years, reliving my salacious youth.
-----Original Message-----
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 10:56:23 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: OT - Evan Zweifel and David Kusumoto in Public
To: [email protected]
Woody Allen cast one of my favorite actors in his movie Stardust Memories.
Charlotte Rampling. So the guy is OK in my book.
JW
-----Original Message-----
Date: Tue, 13 Mar 2012 12:59:21 -0400
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: OT - Evan Zweifel and David Kusumoto in Public
To: [email protected]
Let's lighten the mood a bit by slightly changing the subject. I blow hot and
cold on Woody's films but there's one character so beautifully drawn in Crimes
and Misdemeanors that it moved me to belly laughs because this character was
someone right out of my life. It's no secret that Woody Allen is not a fan of
public television. He's had an on-going feud with Channel 13 in NYC for years.
Well, I worked for public television as Head of the Business Affairs and Legal
Department for years and I worked alongside a Production Head who kept trying
to pitch his "great" idea for a series to anyone who'd listen: he wanted to
film the great thinkers and their lectures. Just one camera with one person
each week delivering his "great thinker" lecture straight-on for an
hour....that was the whole idea. I went to see Crimes and Misdemeanors in the
theater and sure enough there's a character in that film who wants to make a
public television film about the lectures of a great thinker. I never laughed
so much in my life and I have no idea if Woody based this character on the
Production Head I worked with but I always suspected he might of. FRANC
-----Original Message-----
Date: Mon, 12 Mar 2012 15:52:02 +0000
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent
To: [email protected]
I'm pretty sure you are familiar with the "Reply" button and the difference
between it an the "Reply All" button.
I still pay to see his films in the theater and especially enjoyed "Vicky
Christina Barcelona", "Whatever Works", "Match Point", "Curse of the Jade
Scorpion", "Deconstructing Harry", "Bullets Over Broadway" and "Mighty
Aphrodite".
I am sorry that you have been let down. Perhaps if you wrote him a polite
letter he would refund your tickets.
-----Original Message-----
Date: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 21:29:49 -0700
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent
To: [email protected]
@Evan -
What? I'm the biggest Woody Allen fan in the world! I'm CONSTANTLY defending
him among work colleagues. However, I consider "Annie Hall," "Manhattan,"
"Hannah and Her Sisters" and "Crimes and Misdemeanors" to be his quartet of
"comedy-drama masterpieces" that he'll never top even if he lives to be 100,
which is likely, given the genes for longevity he inherited from his parents.
Going to a Woody Allen movie used to be a major event; we never missed paying
to see a Woody picture from 1971's "Bananas" to 1997's "Deconstructing Harry."
I got my wife, who hated to even see him on the screen, to fall in love with
him. (Her favorite film is "Hannah and Her Sisters.") We still liked him in
lesser pictures like "Mighty Aphrodite" and the "Curse of the Jade Scorpion."
The "stake in the heart" was sitting through three pictures that made us feel
ripped off at the box office: 1) "Hollywood Ending" (despite a great promo
poster featuring 52 images of the endings of great film classics), 2) "Anything
Else" and, 3) "Whatever Works."
OTHER than "Midnight in Paris," when is the last time anyone you know has PAID
to see one of his films in a THEATER? You're damn right I'm bragging. If
there is a Woody Allen picture that I've missed, I'd like to know. I've seen
all of them and I don't consider "Midnight in Paris," for which he won his 4th
Oscar, worthy at all. But my opinion does not matter; the Academy chose. I
had a stone face watching that picture. (I'll never forgive the Academy
picking "Platoon" as the Best Picture in 1986 over "Hannah," despite "Hannah"
having 9 nominations and picking up awards for best screenplay and best
supporting actor and actress (Michael Caine and Dianne Wiest.) Honestly, the
BEST Woody Allen picture I've seen during the past 20 years (other than "Small
Time Crooks" and "Match Point," which I like a lot) - wasn't even directed by
him. It's a 2011 picture called, "Woody Allen: A Documentary." This
three-hour opus flies by in a flash, features Woody being interviewed about
EVERYTHING, warts and all, and includes clips from all of his movies including
"Midnight in Paris." It's a sophisticated, big budget documentary that aired
on PBS late last year in two parts - and is now available on DVD. This is a
film that's worth BUYING, it's that damn good. Hell, we even saw Woody in
person during one of his rare visits to Los Angeles - when we scored tickets to
watch him play a one-hour jazz concert at the Jazz Bakery in Culver City during
his "Jade Scorpion" publicity tour. Please visit the two links below; even
though the quality of his output, in my view, has been erratic since about
1990, I still think Woody Allen is a living legend.
http://www.amazon.com/Woody-Allen-A-Documentary/dp/B0064NTZKI/
-----Original Message-----
Date:
Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:33:11 -0500
From: [email protected]
Subject: Re: John Carter: excellent
To: [email protected]
It's funny, because I was just going to ask if it was "be kind to Woody
Allen" day, because I personally think his last really fine movie was in
1980!
But I imagine that we can agree that his streak of ten straight incredible
movies from 1969 to 1980 was something no one could live up to:
1980 Stardust Memories
1979 Manhattan
1978 Interiors
1977 Annie Hall
1975 Love and Death
1973 Sleeper
1972 Every Thing You
Always Wanted to Know About Sex * But Were Afraid to Ask
1971 Bananas
1969 Take the Money and
Run
On Sun, Mar 11, 2012 at 7:12 PM, Evan Zweifel <[email protected]> wrote:
Is it pick on Woody Allen day? Mostly mediocre output since 1989? Really?
He's been nominated for 11 Oscars since 1990. Granted 8 of them were writing
-- suggesting that he's doing something right.
Evan----- Original Message -----
From: David Kusumoto <[email protected]>
To: [email protected]
Sent: Sun, 11 Mar 2012 22:04:21 -0000 (UTC)
Subject: Re: [MOPO] John Carter: excellent
That's an excellent point, Dave. I hadn't thought of that. Meanwhile, the NY
Times delivered its verdict today. Despite better returns expected from the
overseas market, "John Carter" is going to be one of the biggest financial
disasters in film history. The AP also grimly noted that most of "Carter's"
fans are men OVER 25, which is terrible news from a business standpoint for a
film the NY Times now says cost $350 million to make AND to market. How can
you make a profit from that? You need younger patrons who are more avid movie
goers than older people, who tend to stay home.
This afternoon's article further infers that while Disney is today adopting a
"point no fingers" stance, director Andrew Stanton was given a blank check
based on his past performance with "Finding Nemo" and "WALL-E." Disney
apparently so feared angering a box office golden boy like Stanton - that the
result was a Mike Cimino-like "Heaven's Gate" fiasco (which occurred after UA
gave Cimino a blank check after his prior success with the "The Deer Hunter" in
1978-79).
While Hollywood has always cared about overseas box office, production chiefs
still craft their films foremost with U.S. audiences in mind. This is a
country, after all, of 300 million. This explains the American-centric drive
of U.S.-financed pictures that puzzle sophisticated audiences in the U.K., for
example, e.g., the casting of William Holden in "Bridge Over the River Kwai,"
the singular U.S. perspective of the D-Day landing in "Saving Private Ryan,"
the casting of Steve McQueen and James Garner in "The Great Escape," etc. Even
today, a U.S. film that does poorly here but makes up its investment overseas
is considered a blemish to its prestige in the industry, e.g., Costner's
"Waterworld," last year's "Cowboys and Aliens" and 1963's "Cleopatra" - the
latter which nearly destroyed Fox. (Incredibly, the #1 overseas market for
U.S. films is not in Europe - but in Asia, specifically Japan.) In the end,
for all the clamor for better made pictures, the Hollywood model is still
geared towards making money by targeting young people, resulting in an overall
poorer quality product unless you purposely chase mature audiences (as in
temperament, and not necessarily age) - such as independent films which can
still make money because of low production budgets. It's why Woody Allen is
still making films despite a mostly mediocre output since 1989. One thing for
sure - despite the quality of "John Carter," Disney's and director Stanton's
original plans to make two sequels of this film in the years ahead are dead.
http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/12/business/media/ishtar-lands-on-mars.html?_r=1&pagewanted=all
Visit the MoPo Mailing List Web Site at www.filmfan.com
___________________________________________________________________
How to UNSUBSCRIBE from the MoPo Mailing List
Send a message addressed to: [email protected]
In the BODY of your message type: SIGNOFF MOPO-L
The author of this message is solely responsible for its content.
