wow. after 10 min fell asleep for the next hr. awoke, saw 50 min more
and just left. couldn't see the point of watching the remaining 90
minutes.

I don't understand why you're getting so hopped up
about it.

You know, you could have walked out after your nap. Why did you go in the
first place?
Sounds like you were familiar with her work and already knew
what you'd be getting into.

Criticize the film if you want, but must you be so angry and aggressive -
and use such vile language?

That's the kind of attack I reserve for right
wing, reactionary films, where the content really matters.

Jeanne Dielman is
just a film that most people find tremendously boring and a handful
appreciate and enjoy. I don't understand why you're getting so hopped up
about it.

wow. after 10 min fell asleep for the next hr. awoke, saw 50 min more
and just left. couldn't see the point of watching the remaining 90
minutes.

this is shit. akerman is the worst, most putrid, insufferable, dumb,
pompous, moronic pile of manure ever to arise from the world of art
cinema.

what's the movie about? you get see some woman shine shoes, bake
cookies, and eat soup. actually one scene in the bathtub shows some
titties but forget about the rest.

the point of the movie? yet get sit in the dark for 3 hrs and 30
minutes to be told that life is boring and humdrum, something i kinda
knew before and after i stepped into the theater.

On 19 Feb 2004 10:48:35 -0800, fishingxnet@hotmail.com (catch of the
day) wrote:

wow. after 10 min fell asleep for the next hr. awoke, saw 50 min more
and just left. couldn't see the point of watching the remaining 90
minutes.

this is shit. akerman is the worst, most putrid, insufferable, dumb,
pompous, moronic pile of manure ever to arise from the world of art
cinema.

what's the movie about? you get see some woman shine shoes, bake
cookies, and eat soup. actually one scene in the bathtub shows some
titties but forget about the rest.

the point of the movie? yet get sit in the dark for 3 hrs and 30
minutes to be told that life is boring and humdrum, something i kinda
knew before and after i stepped into the theater.

What was the point of Rashomon? I already knew that memories and
perceptions of a particular event differed greatly depending on who
you asked.

And I knew that violence in the Old West wasn't as sanitary and heroic
as commonly portrayed by Hollywood. So why did I see The Wild Bunch?

Some of us also had a pretty good idea that postwar Italy was no
picnic. So why did De Sica keep making films about it? It's
depressing.

Leaving Las Vegas? You mean alcoholism can be destructive? Shocker.

Renoir had no new insights on humnaity. Bresson? Pointless. Ozu?
Repetitive. Mizoguchi? Boring.

Tony, you've been whipping Akerman on here for years. She's not your
thing, fine. You, no doubt, had read enough about Jeanne Dielman...
to know what you were in for. So why would you drive 40 miles to go
see it? Wasn't there a tractor pull in town or something else you
could have done that night? Just the idea of you behind the wheel of
a motor vehicle is frightening enough, but the thought of you driving
home after sitting through an Akerman film makes me glad I live
several states away.

"Randall Coleman" <randall.coleman@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<Jv9Zb.29952$5W3.23446@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
You know, you could have walked out after your nap. Why did you go in the
first place?
Sounds like you were familiar with her work and already knew
what you'd be getting into.

because there are always surprises. never liked rivette until secret
defense and va savoir. same with coens until o brother where be thou?
also, i do pay some heed to critical opinion and sometimes a
difficult movies can challenge us to see movies--and reality--in a
whole new way.
but akerman and greenaway are two filmmakers i have always virulently
hated. but, it's like a religious person dragging himself to church
because he feels obligated to. so, just to be openminded, i drove 40
miles to the screening. and, man oh man, a 80 min akerman movie is bad
enough but a a freakin' 3 1/2 hr akerman shitpile? it ruined my
evening, robbed me of my time and money, but no way i was gonna be
robbed completely so i left and went a nice long jog around the city
and felt alot of better about everything.


Criticize the film if you want, but must you be so angry and aggressive -
and use such vile language?

oh, i went easy. what akerman did was the equivalent of sticking her
ugly ass at us and taking a big smelly shit. the very conceit that we
have to see some wunkeroo go thru daily chores for 3 1/2 hrs to learn
something about art, cinema, life, and society is arrogant and smarmy
indeed.
it takes supreme decadence, contempt, flakiness, and idiocy to concoct
something like jeanne dielmann. thank god it didn't come in trilogy
ala star wars or lord of the rings. what would jeanne dielmann II been
about? 4 hr snorefest with 30 min scene of dielmann folding her
laundry, 45 min of dielmann washing her dishes, and so on and on?
this is shit.

That's the kind of attack I reserve for right
wing, reactionary films, where the content really matters.

at least they have content. if dielmann at least sang The
Internationale while kneading dough or grinding coffee, it might have
been barely tolerable.
of course, the movie's defenders will claim that jeanne dielmann has
real content, just that it's not obvious to philistines like myself.
oh, it takes a progressive, radical, righteous, do-goody,
godard-ass-kissing-slavish-mentality to really understand akerman's
profoundly radical exposition on patriarchy, bourgeois imprisonment,
structuralist network of oppression, yabba dabba do.
tell you what. you reserve your bile for stuff like red dawn. as for
me, i don't mind a leftist or rightist movie as long as it's engaging.
battle of algiers or dirty harry is fine by me. but, jeanne dielmann
is shit. it is elephant dung stretching for miles and miles.


Jeanne Dielman is
just a film that most people find tremendously boring and a handful
appreciate and enjoy. I don't understand why you're getting so hopped up
about it.


because i drove a total of 80 miles to support cinema, to be
openminded, and i was rewarded with a 3 1/2 hr movie which smarmily
pretends that the audience has something to gain by watching some dull
middle class woman do house chores. hey man, we have to do house
chores and shopping and cooking, etc, etc. why do we have to watch it
for 3 1/2 hrs? we know life is often boring. i mean, no shit!

also, it's not the subject of boredom that's the problem. antonioni's
characters are often bored but antonioni's visual expression has
always been strikingly expressive, fascinating, poetic. bresson was
not the most thrilling director around but as his films progress the
visual dust slowly settle into layerings of spiritual depth.

but akerman... shit, the bitch is just plain nasty, a totally smarmy
spoiled flake twad. and, do you really like her or do you get a kick
out of pretending to like her so all your academic and critical
slavemasters can pat you on the back for being a good 'arthouse
nigger'?

precious_mineral_frogule@hotmail.com (club that would have you as a member) wrote in message news:<71d42531.0402201227.5b11a397@posting.google.com>...
"Randall Coleman" <randall.coleman@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<Jv9Zb.29952$5W3.23446@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
You know, you could have walked out after your nap. Why did you go in the
first place?
Sounds like you were familiar with her work and already knew
what you'd be getting into.

because there are always surprises. never liked rivette until secret
defense and va savoir. same with coens until o brother where be thou?
also, i do pay some heed to critical opinion and sometimes a
difficult movies can challenge us to see movies--and reality--in a
whole new way.
but akerman and greenaway are two filmmakers i have always virulently
hated. but, it's like a religious person dragging himself to church
because he feels obligated to. so, just to be openminded, i drove 40
miles to the screening. and, man oh man, a 80 min akerman movie is bad
enough but a a freakin' 3 1/2 hr akerman shitpile? it ruined my
evening, robbed me of my time and money, but no way i was gonna be
robbed completely so i left and went a nice long jog around the city
and felt alot of better about everything.


Criticize the film if you want, but must you be so angry and aggressive -
and use such vile language?

oh, i went easy. what akerman did was the equivalent of sticking her
ugly ass at us and taking a big smelly shit. the very conceit that we
have to see some wunkeroo go thru daily chores for 3 1/2 hrs to learn
something about art, cinema, life, and society is arrogant and smarmy
indeed.
it takes supreme decadence, contempt, flakiness, and idiocy to concoct
something like jeanne dielmann. thank god it didn't come in trilogy
ala star wars or lord of the rings. what would jeanne dielmann II been
about? 4 hr snorefest with 30 min scene of dielmann folding her
laundry, 45 min of dielmann washing her dishes, and so on and on?
this is shit.

That's the kind of attack I reserve for right
wing, reactionary films, where the content really matters.

at least they have content. if dielmann at least sang The
Internationale while kneading dough or grinding coffee, it might have
been barely tolerable.
of course, the movie's defenders will claim that jeanne dielmann has
real content, just that it's not obvious to philistines like myself.
oh, it takes a progressive, radical, righteous, do-goody,
godard-ass-kissing-slavish-mentality to really understand akerman's
profoundly radical exposition on patriarchy, bourgeois imprisonment,
structuralist network of oppression, yabba dabba do.
tell you what. you reserve your bile for stuff like red dawn. as for
me, i don't mind a leftist or rightist movie as long as it's engaging.
battle of algiers or dirty harry is fine by me. but, jeanne dielmann
is shit. it is elephant dung stretching for miles and miles.


Jeanne Dielman is
just a film that most people find tremendously boring and a handful
appreciate and enjoy. I don't understand why you're getting so hopped up
about it.


because i drove a total of 80 miles to support cinema, to be
openminded, and i was rewarded with a 3 1/2 hr movie which smarmily
pretends that the audience has something to gain by watching some dull
middle class woman do house chores. hey man, we have to do house
chores and shopping and cooking, etc, etc. why do we have to watch it
for 3 1/2 hrs? we know life is often boring. i mean, no shit!

also, it's not the subject of boredom that's the problem. antonioni's
characters are often bored but antonioni's visual expression has
always been strikingly expressive, fascinating, poetic. bresson was
not the most thrilling director around but as his films progress the
visual dust slowly settle into layerings of spiritual depth.



in other words you liked antonioni despite antonioni. and you like
bresson despite bresson.

larry legallo <llegallo@usa.net> wrote in message news:<csri301dmlvb9o90cfbg4ebkavg7c9n7n1@4ax.com>...
On 19 Feb 2004 10:48:35 -0800, fishingxnet@hotmail.com (catch of the
day) wrote:

the point of the movie? yet get sit in the dark for 3 hrs and 30
minutes to be told that life is boring and humdrum, something i kinda
knew before and after i stepped into the theater.

What was the point of Rashomon? I already knew that memories and
perceptions of a particular event differed greatly depending on who
you asked.

message matters less than delivery.

there are countless movies about
the relavity of truth but only a handful have lasting value. if
rashomon had a woodcutter sharpening his axe for 3 1/2 hrs, i wouldn't
care what the hell it's about.
ordinary people and ordinary situations can be extraordinarily
interesting. take films of ozu for instance. or those of rohmer. or
cassavetes. but, akerman's affectless borefest is indulgent.

worse,
it's arrogant, as though the audience should waste 3 1/2 hrs of their
precious time to watch a dullard shine shoes and grind coffee because
we just might learn a thing or two about the imprisonment of bourgois
life in a feminist context. for chrissakes, akerman should write an
editorial, not putz about.

And I knew that violence in the Old West wasn't as sanitary and heroic
as commonly portrayed by Hollywood. So why did I see The Wild Bunch?

because we didn't have to see the bunch shine their boots, feed their
horses, and wash their underwear for 3 1/2 hrs.

Some of us also had a pretty good idea that postwar Italy was no
picnic. So why did De Sica keep making films about it? It's
depressing.

because watching ricci search for his bike for 90 min is far more
riveting and suspenseful than, say, watching him shave, clip his
toenails, tie his shoelaces, pick his teeth, and sit around for 3 1/2
hrs.

Renoir had no new insights on humnaity. Bresson? Pointless. Ozu?
Repetitive. Mizoguchi? Boring.

no, they were all visual poets. akerman is the most prosaic among
directors. she IS dull.

call me an eternal optimist. but, i finally got akerman out of my
system. she really is shit. prior to dielmann i'd seen je tu il el,
eighties, day and night, letters to home. couldn't stand any of them.
still, i read critics say jeanne dielman and 'to the east' are
genuinely great and thoughtful. bullshit. akerman is caca. i now know
100% that she is worthless and i never ever need to bother with her
again. free at last!

On 22 Feb 2004 23:23:17 -0800, precious_mineral_frogule@hotmail.com
(club that would have you as a member) wrote:

larry legallo <llegallo@usa.net> wrote in message news:<csri301dmlvb9o90cfbg4ebkavg7c9n7n1@4ax.com>...
On 19 Feb 2004 10:48:35 -0800, fishingxnet@hotmail.com (catch of the
day) wrote:

the point of the movie? yet get sit in the dark for 3 hrs and 30
minutes to be told that life is boring and humdrum, something i kinda
knew before and after i stepped into the theater.

What was the point of Rashomon? I already knew that memories and
perceptions of a particular event differed greatly depending on who
you asked.

message matters less than delivery.

No, what seems to matter to you *is* the message. Because it's not
just Akerman you bash. It's Jane Campion, it's Thelma & Louise, it's
Naomi Wolf- anything or anyone with even a mildly feminist perspective
or message. Name one piece of feminism that you doesn't disgust you.

there are countless movies about
the relavity of truth but only a handful have lasting value. if
rashomon had a woodcutter sharpening his axe for 3 1/2 hrs, i wouldn't
care what the hell it's about.
ordinary people and ordinary situations can be extraordinarily
interesting. take films of ozu for instance. or those of rohmer. or
cassavetes. but, akerman's affectless borefest is indulgent.

But it's not affectless. The seeming lack of affectation is itself a
conscious statement.

And much of the inflection is quite subtle,
right down to the unusually low camera position- at Akerman's own
height- instead of the normal angle we're used to for interior shots,
from the height of a male cinematographer (okay, I got that part from
a reivew I read-probably Amy Taubin- but it might have been
subconsciously effective when I saw the film).

worse,
it's arrogant, as though the audience should waste 3 1/2 hrs of their
precious time to watch a dullard shine shoes and grind coffee because
we just might learn a thing or two about the imprisonment of bourgois
life in a feminist context. for chrissakes, akerman should write an
editorial, not putz about.

The boredom is part of it. You're supposed to feel the boredom, the
monotony, the daily cycle of non-stop drudgery.

If you commit
yourself to the film, instead of scoffing at it, you might find
yourself drawn into Jeanne's grueling rhythm.

And then you might
empathize with her, and with all the many housewives trapped in the
same daily routine of staleness and repression. Or you could just
whine about wasting 3 hours of your own life, and ignore a social
structure in which millions of women are having their whole existences
wasted.

And I knew that violence in the Old West wasn't as sanitary and heroic
as commonly portrayed by Hollywood. So why did I see The Wild Bunch?

because we didn't have to see the bunch shine their boots, feed their
horses, and wash their underwear for 3 1/2 hrs.

Because that's not what defines those characters. Their gunfighting,
robbing, boozing, and whoring are what they are. Whareas Jeanne's
life is about grinding the coffee, scrubbing the toilet, prostituting
herself for money while she boils potatoes, walking around the block
with her son, etc. That The Wild Bunch's characters- with their
freedom and excitement and danger and maleness- is more exciting than
Jeanne's life is precisely the point.

Some of us also had a pretty good idea that postwar Italy was no
picnic. So why did De Sica keep making films about it? It's
depressing.

because watching ricci search for his bike for 90 min is far more
riveting and suspenseful than, say, watching him shave, clip his
toenails, tie his shoelaces, pick his teeth, and sit around for 3 1/2
hrs.

Once again, that's the point. There is nothing riveting or
suspenseful in the life of a housewife. Why does this truth rankle
you so much?

Renoir had no new insights on humnaity. Bresson? Pointless. Ozu?
Repetitive. Mizoguchi? Boring.

no, they were all visual poets. akerman is the most prosaic among
directors. she IS dull.

To you. To others, Akerman's works contains its own poetry. Even in
the hyper-realistic Jeanne Dielman, there are several shots and
moments that are extremely poetic. Just not to you.

But it's interesting that you're quite okay with Tarkovsky showing us
a car driving through tunnels and highway stretches for what seems
like forever in Solaris.

And how come it's okay for Ozu to hold the
camera on an empty room well after everyone has left?

When Rivette
gives us long, long, long, mostly static shots of a painter preparing
his brushes in La Belle Noiseuse, I don't hear you bellyaching about
it. Why are these techniques "poetry" while Akerman's are "manure"?

call me an eternal optimist. but, i finally got akerman out of my
system. she really is shit. prior to dielmann i'd seen je tu il el,
eighties, day and night, letters to home. couldn't stand any of them.
still, i read critics say jeanne dielman and 'to the east' are
genuinely great and thoughtful. bullshit. akerman is caca. i now know
100% that she is worthless and i never ever need to bother with her
again. free at last!

I've seen Jeanne Dielman twice, and admittedly, I'm in no rush to see
it again. But the scenes that you find so putrid- the housekeeping
scenes- have stayed with me for a long time. The "shocking" ending,
which apparently you left before seeing, is what left me cold. And
though it's significantly flawed in my opinion, it's unquestionably a
landmark piece of feminist cinema, and still one of the most important
films of the past three decades. So there.

larry legallo <llegallo@usa.net> wrote in message
news:<csri301dmlvb9o90cfbg4ebkavg7c9n7n1@4ax.com>...

I've seen Jeanne Dielman twice, and admittedly, I'm in no rush to see
it again. But the scenes that you find so putrid- the housekeeping
scenes- have stayed with me for a long time. The "shocking" ending,
which apparently you left before seeing, is what left me cold. And
though it's significantly flawed in my opinion, it's unquestionably a
landmark piece of feminist cinema, and still one of the most important
films of the past three decades. So there.

In a way, the ending doesn't seem to jive with the rest of the film. It
introduces tawdry sensationalism in a narrative which, up to that point, had
operated on the opposite end of the spectrum. It just doesn't feel right.
On an intellectual level, though, it might make some sense. It is said - I
don't know how the film supports this (and I haven't seen it for years) -
that in the last scene with her john, she experiences her first orgasm. So,
we see intense sensation unexpectedly interjected into the numbing tedium of
her routine, an opposition she can't deal with. Why it follows that she
must stab the john I don't know. It certainly cuts out the possibility of a
sequel. Anyhow, I find the long take of her rocking that ends the film very
satisfying. I think Ackerman's work is very uneven, but "Jeanne Dielman" is
one of a small handful of outstanding films from the 1970s.

If these guys think Ackerman is boring (their bitching has gone on for
days), they should be locked in a projection room and be made to watch a
Marguerite Duras triple feature. That would surely break their spirit.

If these guys think Ackerman is boring (their bitching has gone on for
days), they should be locked in a projection room and be made to watch a
Marguerite Duras triple feature. That would surely break their spirit.

only if my testasterone level was as low as yours and if i were
disposed toward masochism. but, most of us guys are grateful for the
UN charter against use of torture.

monsieurblob@hotmail.com (monsieurblob) wrote in message news:<d97b2c14.0402230156.78283a72@posting.google.com>...
precious_mineral_frogule@hotmail.com (club that would have you as a member) wrote in message news:<71d42531.0402201227.5b11a397@posting.google.com>...
"Randall Coleman" <randall.coleman@verizon.net> wrote in message news:<Jv9Zb.29952$5W3.23446@nwrddc02.gnilink.net>...
You know, you could have walked out after your nap. Why did you go in the
first place?
Sounds like you were familiar with her work and already knew
what you'd be getting into.

because there are always surprises. never liked rivette until secret
defense and va savoir. same with coens until o brother where be thou?
also, i do pay some heed to critical opinion and sometimes a
difficult movies can challenge us to see movies--and reality--in a
whole new way.
but akerman and greenaway are two filmmakers i have always virulently
hated. but, it's like a religious person dragging himself to church
because he feels obligated to. so, just to be openminded, i drove 40
miles to the screening. and, man oh man, a 80 min akerman movie is bad
enough but a a freakin' 3 1/2 hr akerman shitpile? it ruined my
evening, robbed me of my time and money, but no way i was gonna be
robbed completely so i left and went a nice long jog around the city
and felt alot of better about everything.


Criticize the film if you want, but must you be so angry and aggressive -
and use such vile language?

oh, i went easy. what akerman did was the equivalent of sticking her
ugly ass at us and taking a big smelly shit. the very conceit that we
have to see some wunkeroo go thru daily chores for 3 1/2 hrs to learn
something about art, cinema, life, and society is arrogant and smarmy
indeed.
it takes supreme decadence, contempt, flakiness, and idiocy to concoct
something like jeanne dielmann. thank god it didn't come in trilogy
ala star wars or lord of the rings. what would jeanne dielmann II been
about? 4 hr snorefest with 30 min scene of dielmann folding her
laundry, 45 min of dielmann washing her dishes, and so on and on?
this is shit.

That's the kind of attack I reserve for right
wing, reactionary films, where the content really matters.

at least they have content. if dielmann at least sang The
Internationale while kneading dough or grinding coffee, it might have
been barely tolerable.
of course, the movie's defenders will claim that jeanne dielmann has
real content, just that it's not obvious to philistines like myself.
oh, it takes a progressive, radical, righteous, do-goody,
godard-ass-kissing-slavish-mentality to really understand akerman's
profoundly radical exposition on patriarchy, bourgeois imprisonment,
structuralist network of oppression, yabba dabba do.
tell you what. you reserve your bile for stuff like red dawn. as for
me, i don't mind a leftist or rightist movie as long as it's engaging.
battle of algiers or dirty harry is fine by me. but, jeanne dielmann
is shit. it is elephant dung stretching for miles and miles.


Jeanne Dielman is
just a film that most people find tremendously boring and a handful
appreciate and enjoy. I don't understand why you're getting so hopped up
about it.


because i drove a total of 80 miles to support cinema, to be
openminded, and i was rewarded with a 3 1/2 hr movie which smarmily
pretends that the audience has something to gain by watching some dull
middle class woman do house chores. hey man, we have to do house
chores and shopping and cooking, etc, etc. why do we have to watch it
for 3 1/2 hrs? we know life is often boring. i mean, no shit!

also, it's not the subject of boredom that's the problem. antonioni's
characters are often bored but antonioni's visual expression has
always been strikingly expressive, fascinating, poetic. bresson was
not the most thrilling director around but as his films progress the
visual dust slowly settle into layerings of spiritual depth.



in other words you liked antonioni despite antonioni. and you like
bresson despite bresson.


no, not 'despite' but 'because'. their approach and sensibility render
what we call normal reality into a fascinating irreality.

themes about modern life from mundane reality or unearthed deeper
layers of emotions and consciousness from what might appear as merely
ordinary upon first glance.
you keep watching and you notice something about life and movies you
hadn't before(akerman's movies, on the other hand, have nothing under
the surface; oh sure, there's something OUTSIDE the surface, the
so-called feminist CONTEXT but that's the stuff for stupid
post-modernist academic journals no one reads,

for a movie) also, their movies are about conflict--moral, emotional,
spiritual, psychological--whereas akerman's cinema is about enclosed
solipsistic flakery. she's a putz who refuses to grapple with reality
and confuses her indulgences as profound.
she's the worst kind of flake--the pompous flake. a flake should be
like that character amelie. fanciful and ditzy in a lovable way.
similarly, adam sandler is fun because he's a dork who sticks to his
dorkhood. imagine sandler making a 3 1/2 hr art movie from a dork
perspective. ugh.

and amelie you said was what you thought the nouvelle vague was at its
best! amelie just caters to public sugar yum yum. jeunet is just a
calculator, a spielberg, calculating how much of what the public
wants, how much newness and how much already-there-ness!