> I am curious what Dan and other Hawks people here think of my take on

  > Hawks -- which indirectly addresses the problems of Red River.

  >

  > Vidor, Hawks, Ford ("American Tryptych"): http://www.filmint.nu/eng.html



It's a very good article, with a lot of insights.  I'm especially

interested in your idea (via Zanuck) that Ford's shots somehow suggest a

comprehensive picture of the world, and that the collision between these

shots can be jolting.  Partly this is a result of Ford liking to work

with archetypes, but there is of course more to it - it will be

interesting to think about when I resee the films.  One of my favorite

moments in all of cinema is the sequence in FORT APACHE where Wayne says

goodbye to the doomed troops before the climax - there's something

amazing about the way each of those shots interacts with the next, as if

we were being ripped again and again into a different instance of the

universe.



I'm also impressed with your short paragraph that shows the

complications in Chaplin's self-presentation.



I do wonder whether you overstate the case in making Ford sound like a

critic of society.  The ending of FORT APACHE is very striking, for

instance, but I don't register it as a statement about nice people

becoming killers.  There is absolutely a kick to Ford holding the full

shot as Wayne puts on Fonda's headdress: a conventional film would cut

to medium-close-up at this moment.  The matter-of-factness of the full

shot is certainly disorienting and leaves us in an unresolved state.

But I don't think the long shot qualifies as a judgment on Wayne's

transformation, or on the cavalry's mission.  The moment is still

suspended somewhere between expose and endorsement, I'd say.  Which is

enough for me.



The Hawks section is quite good also.  I have a way of looking at Hawks

which I've become accustomed to, and so I tend to filter everything

through it: namely, that Hawks sets up a familiar level of movie realism

keyed to conventions, and then plays the action out at a different,

faster and more detailed level of realism that releases some of the

energy stored in the dramatic conventions.



Therefore, instead of observing that Hawks doesn't add a lot to genre or

use it very interestingly, I'd say that he has a stylistic interest in

reproducing genre elements in a familiar form, as they are the backdrop

that makes his style work.  Hawks without genre is hard to imagine, even

if he doesn't transform genre from the inside - he is constantly working

against genre expectations, making actors talk a little more casually

and move a little faster, making action unfurl without the abstraction

of dramatic buildup.



Similarly, instead of saying that there's "no world" in Hawks' films,

I'd say that there's a movie world, movie sets.



And, in addition to emphasizing the importance of gesture, I'd observe

that what's really striking in a Hawks film is the *scale* of the

gesture, and that this microcosmic scale is part of Hawks' attempt to

contrast the action with our expectation of what the action would

normally be.



Your point about the destabilizing effect of women on Hawks' men is of

course accurate, but I think the male and female forces in his world are

a bit more balanced than that account suggests.  Bogart, Wayne, Grant

are disoriented by the women in the films, but Hawks also gets pleasure

from watching them maintain equilibrium, and in some cases assert dominance.



Hawks' comedies tend to put a comic, devastating, larger-than-life id

figure next to a representative of normality who registers the

outlandish nature of the comic character, expresses exasperation as the

comic figure leads the film away from sanity, devotes energy to

reestablishing sanity in the face of this challenge.  (In other words, a

character from a more abstract movie is confronted with a character from

a less abstract one.)  This dynamic accounts for at least part of the

disorienting nature of the woman in the Hawks universe.  Note, for

instance, that the male has the disorienting role in HIS GIRL FRIDAY,

and the female has the stabilizing role - and things play out much the

same as they do in other Hawks comedies.



- Dan

Dan Sallitt wrote



> <http://www.filmint.nu/eng.html>

>

>   One of my favorite

> moments in all of cinema is the sequence in FORT APACHE where Wayne says

> goodbye to the doomed troops before the climax - there's something

> amazing about the way each of those shots interacts with the next, as if

> we were being ripped again and again into a different instance of the

> universe.



Precisely.  I urge you to watch early 30s Ford with this in mind,

particularly when close shots of people are being exchanged.  e.g., AIR

MAIL (a really supergreat movie that passes most people by ompletely).



>

>

>

>

> The Hawks section is quite good also.  I have a way of looking at Hawks

> which I've become accustomed to, and so I tend to filter everything

> through it: namely, that Hawks sets up a familiar level of movie realism

> keyed to conventions, and then plays the action out at a different,

> faster and more detailed level of realism that releases some of the

> energy stored in the dramatic conventions.



My problem with what you write is that I wish you would not use words

like realism and genre.



I do not think they have meaning.



"Genre" simply does not exist -- other than as an academic conspiracy.

  It's an artistic form of racism...   Croce damned "genre" as a

"pseudo-concept" (along with a bevy of other cherished academicisms,

like "myth").  You'd be fascinated by this, I think.  Try Gian N.G.

Orisni, "Benedetto Croce" (Southern Illinois Press).



>

>   Hawks without genre is hard to imagine,



Not for me!

What I cannot imagine is "genre."  "Hawks" is infinitely easier!  I

suspect what people mean is that they imagine genre without Hawks.



> even

> if he doesn't transform genre from the inside - he is constantly working

> against genre expectations, making actors talk a little more casually

> and move a little faster, making action unfurl without the abstraction

> of dramatic buildup.





Do you really believe that someone writing a story or directing a scene

or playing a part is studiously contemplating what everyone else has

done and deliberately striving to do it differently?  Isn't this a

shoddy kind of "originality," "being yourself" or "being unqiue"  --

when actually one is simply conforming to conventional models?



The problem is that this sort of thinking assumes that poetry is a sign,

whereas (says Croce) a sign stands for something other than itself,

poetry stands only for itself.  It's the uniqueness of the poetic that

attracts us in art; not its location within a nexus of superficial

similarities with "conventions" (also a pseudo-concept, for Croce).



>

>

> Similarly, instead of saying that there's "no world" in Hawks' films,

> I'd say that there's a movie world, movie sets.



That's probably what I meant when I said a stage backdrop.  But

"realism" is more your bottleneck than mine.



>

>

> And, in addition to emphasizing the importance of gesture, I'd observe

> that what's really striking in a Hawks film is the *scale* of the

> gesture,



Yes!



> and that this microcosmic scale is part of Hawks' attempt to

> contrast the action with our expectation of what the action would

> normally be.



No!

Can you imagine, in real life, having a conversation with a beautiful

woman who constantly consciously strove to contrast her actions with our

expectations of what she was going to do?  How long before the game gets

stale?



>

>

> Your point about the destabilizing effect of women on Hawks' men is of

> course accurate, but I think the male and female forces in his world are

> a bit more balanced than that account suggests.  Bogart, Wayne, Grant

> are disoriented by the women in the films, but Hawks also gets pleasure

> from watching them maintain equilibrium, and in some cases assert

> dominance.



When?  I mean: okay, maybe they "assert," but do they ever do dominance?

Am I wrong, or don't they all fall down rather frequently?



>

>

> Hawks' comedies tend to put a comic, devastating, larger-than-life id

> figure next to a representative of normality



Who? for example?  Usually such reps are also outrageous, no?



> who registers the

> outlandish nature of the comic character, expresses exasperation as the

> comic figure leads the film away from sanity, devotes energy to

> reestablishing sanity in the face of this challenge.



Is sanity truly a goal or even a desideratum in Bringing Up Baby, The

Big Sky, Red River ... ?



> (In other words, a

> character from a more abstract movie is confronted with a character from

> a less abstract one.)  This dynamic accounts for at least part of the

> disorienting nature of the woman in the Hawks universe.  Note, for

> instance, that the male has the disorienting role in HIS GIRL FRIDAY,

> and the female has the stabilizing role - and things play out much the

> same as they do in other Hawks comedies.





I've always felt that Hawks was a bit gay.  In His Girl Friday isn't the

girl perpetually destablizing the boy?



>

>

> - Dan

>

>

>

>

> Yahoo! Groups Sponsor

> ADVERTISEMENT

> Click Here!

>

<http://rd.yahoo.com/M=244522.3656190.4921519.1261774/D=egroupweb/S=1705021019:H\

M/A=1595054/R=0/SIG=1246b0b92/*http://ashnin.com/clk/muryutaitakenattogyo?YH=365\

6190&yhad=1595054>

>

>

>

> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:

> a_film_by-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com

>

>

>

> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service

> <http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/>.









[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]

> My problem with what you write is that I wish you would not use words

> like realism and genre.

>

> I do not think they have meaning.

>

> "Genre" simply does not exist -- other than as an academic conspiracy.



Interesting.



I'd certainly go as far as saying that realism is a relative concept:

that there's no such thing as an absolute standard of realism in any

representation.  There's a well-known book called MIMESIS by Erich

Auerbach that goes through the history of literature and examines the

impact of successive concepts of realism.  It constitutes a pretty good

demonstration of how realism only seems to have meaning relative to

existing standards.  But it also shows that art does feel the impact of

these shifts in representational convention.



As for genre, I guess I need more info from you or Croce.  Academics

didn't invent genre.  People say, "Let's go to a Western."  And then

they go and say, "That was a good Western," or "That was a strange

Western," of "I've never seen that in a Western before."



> Do you really believe that someone writing a story or directing a scene

> or playing a part is studiously contemplating what everyone else has

> done and deliberately striving to do it differently?  Isn't this a

> shoddy kind of "originality," "being yourself" or "being unqiue"  --

> when actually one is simply conforming to conventional models?



Well, yeah, people think about what went before.  But I'm not really

interested in getting into Hawks' head - God knows what you'd find

there.  Looking at the films, I see a collision between a background

that is a bunch of signs that say "genre," and a more playful, reflexive

set of actions in the foreground.  I think this is what David Thomson

was referring to when he compared THE BIG SLEEP to a home movie, and

made a connection between Hawks and cinema verite.



Certainly there's nothing conformist about this.  No one else does it,

except maybe for people influenced by Hawks (Tarantino, Dan O'Bannon).



> The problem is that this sort of thinking assumes that poetry is a sign,

> whereas (says Croce) a sign stands for something other than itself,

> poetry stands only for itself.



Poetry isn't just a representation of something else, of course.  But it

uses signs, it's full of signs.  Everything is.  The idea of poetry is

to arrange them so you haven't just wound up representing when you're done.



> Can you imagine, in real life, having a conversation with a beautiful

> woman who constantly consciously strove to contrast her actions with our

> expectations of what she was going to do?



This happens to me all the time....



> How long before the game gets

> stale?



There's infinite variety in the ways one can play off of other things.

It certainly doesn't diminish one's individuality.  Hawks is a quirky

guy, and he gets opportunities to indulge all his quirky pleasures when

making films.



> When?  I mean: okay, maybe they "assert," but do they ever do dominance?

> Am I wrong, or don't they all fall down rather frequently?



Sure they fall.  But Bogart takes complete charge of the action in TO

HAVE AND HAVE NOT; Grant never stops calling the shots with Jean Arthur

in ONLY ANGELS; etc.  There are various male-female motifs in Hawks, and

they aren't all to the male's disadvantage.



>>Hawks' comedies tend to put a comic, devastating, larger-than-life id

>>figure next to a representative of normality

>

> Who? for example?  Usually such reps are also outrageous, no?



Sometimes they have an aspect of the outrageous.  David Huxley in BABY

starts out as an eccentric comic type, but he quickly develops into a

Hawks hero using exasperation and humor to keep himself level against

Susan's destabilizing effect.  Henri Rochard in MALE WAR BRIDE is more

or less exclusively concerned with self-stabilization; Hildy in HIS GIRL

FRIDAY knows that Walter Burns is a force of nature and narrates the

conflict for us.



In TWENTIETH CENTURY, I'd say the reps are both outrageous.  And so a

whole lot of weight is thrown on Roscoe Karns and Walter Connelly -

because they are trying to cling to sanity, they become more important

to the film.



> Is sanity truly a goal or even a desideratum in Bringing Up Baby, The

> Big Sky, Red River ... ?



I'm talking about a model for the comedies, so I'd like to throw RED

RIVER and THE BIG SKY out of court.  In BABY, I'd say yes, absolutely -

what makes the film feel like Hawks is the way David Huxley reacts to

his plight.



> I've always felt that Hawks was a bit gay.  In His Girl Friday isn't the

> girl perpetually destablizing the boy?



You mean Hildy destabilizing Walter?  Not much, I'd say.  What are you

thinking of? - Dan

Dan Sallitt wrote:



> > My problem with what you write is that I wish you would not use words

> > like realism and genre.

> >

> > I do not think they have meaning.

> >

> > "Genre" simply does not exist -- other than as an academic conspiracy.

>

> Interesting.

>

> I'd certainly go as far as saying that realism is a relative concept:

> that there's no such thing as an absolute standard of realism in any

> representation.  There's a well-known book called MIMESIS by Erich

> Auerbach that goes through the history of literature and examines the

> impact of successive concepts of realism.  It constitutes a pretty good

> demonstration of how realism only seems to have meaning relative to

> existing standards.  But it also shows that art does feel the impact of

> these shifts in representational convention.



So can you give me a short concise definition of "realism" à la

Auerbach, one which I can repeat the people on the street which they'll

all understand quickly?



And is this the same as "realism" in Méliès or Ford?  Is Rossellini's

realism the same as De Sica's?  Is there anyway to tell what you meant

when you spoke of realism in regard to Hawks?  Is realism in cinema when

you have real things in front of the camera?  or does it refer to the

sense that there is someone real looking through the camera?  Is a film

about an historical event realistic if it convinces people or conveys

some truth, despite having the facts wrong?



Is there not a better way to say what you mean than to use a word whose

meanings shift like desert sands, never to be defined ever, anywhere?



>

>

> As for genre, I guess I need more info from you or Croce.  Academics

> didn't invent genre.  People say, "Let's go to a Western."  And then

> they go and say, "That was a good Western," or "That was a strange

> Western," of "I've never seen that in a Western before."



Most people who talk about "westerns" have never heard of genre.  Genre

is an academic invention.  The concept didn't exist in French until

Anglo-Americans took over the word.



I have never found anyone who can define what a "western" is.

  Everyone's denotation seems to be completely different.  I've spent my

life going around pissing people off like Socrates trying to get them to

define western and in EVERY case it ends up with them growling

defiantly:  "I can't put it into words.  But I KNOW WHAT IT IS!!!"  This

is the state of academia.



About Croce, I gave you a great source, Orsini's book, which takes

somewhat of a lit crit approach; he has a lot about pseudo-concepts.  I

think you would find it extremely exciting and useful.



>

>

> > Do you really believe that someone writing a story or directing a scene

> > or playing a part is studiously contemplating what everyone else has

> > done and deliberately striving to do it differently?  Isn't this a

> > shoddy kind of "originality," "being yourself" or "being unqiue"  --

> > when actually one is simply conforming to conventional models?

>

> Well, yeah, people think about what went before.



Sure.  But people who are truly original don't become so simply by

perversion.  There is a great difference between wearing a white hat

simply because everyone else wears a black hat; and wearing a white hat

because you like it and don't care what everyone else wears.  That's my

point.  Be yourself.





> But I'm not really

> interested in getting into Hawks' head - God knows what you'd find

> there.



Especially with the state of things these days!



> Looking at the films, I see a collision between a background

> that is a bunch of signs that say "genre," and a more playful, reflexive

> set of actions in the foreground.  I think this is what David Thomson

> was referring to when he compared THE BIG SLEEP to a home movie, and

> made a connection between Hawks and cinema verite.



Oh, I can see cinéma vérité in anyone who points a camera at anything.

  Can't you?

Do you think Hawks ever heard the word genre before, say, 1970?



>

>

> > The problem is that this sort of thinking assumes that poetry is a

> sign,

> > whereas (says Croce) a sign stands for something other than itself,

> > poetry stands only for itself.

>

> Poetry isn't just a representation of something else, of course.  But it

> uses signs, it's full of signs.  Everything is.  The idea of poetry is

> to arrange them so you haven't just wound up representing when you're

> done.





That's one way of looking at it.  The trouble with academia is that they

assume this is a religious truth certified by the pope and NASA combined.



Croce denies all of this.  To repeat: a sign stands for something other

than itself, poetry stands only for itself.  I cite this because by

analogy a piece of art, like a genuine person, is not art (or a person)

because of its differences or commonalities, but because of its

uniqueness.



Croce admits signs into prose, which he does not regard as language but

as a degeneration of language into a sign system.  "Born as poetry,

language was afterwards twisted to serve as a sign."



I suggest to you that this is quite inspiring and exciting to

investigate, to liberate people's minds from the shackles and chains of

academic slavery which, like the guys in Plato's cave, they don't even

know are binding them.



Incidentally, I'd go so far as to say that about 99 percent of what's

good in "Culture Theory" is basically Croce's "historicism."







>

>

> > Can you imagine, in real life, having a conversation with a beautiful

> > woman who constantly consciously strove to contrast her actions with

> our

> > expectations of what she was going to do?

>

> This happens to me all the time....

>

> > How long before the game gets

> > stale?

>

> There's infinite variety in the ways one can play off of other things.

> It certainly doesn't diminish one's individuality.  Hawks is a quirky

> guy, and he gets opportunities to indulge all his quirky pleasures when

> making films.



Yes.  But is there life beyond quirkiness?  Is art only an indulgence in

the grotesque?



My point is that I think your adhearance to genre THEORY does what Fritz

Lang claimed theory does to him.



>

>

>

> ?

>

> Sometimes they have an aspect of the outrageous.  David Huxley in BABY

> starts out as an eccentric comic type, but he quickly develops into a

> Hawks hero using exasperation and humor to keep himself level against

> Susan's destabilizing effect.



He doesn't succeed, does he?



> Henri Rochard in MALE WAR BRIDE is more

> or less exclusively concerned with self-stabilization; Hildy in HIS GIRL

> FRIDAY knows that Walter Burns is a force of nature and narrates the

> conflict for us.



She does?  Have you come up with an unexpurgated edition of the movie

I've not heard of?



>

>

> In TWENTIETH CENTURY, I'd say the reps are both outrageous.  And so a

> whole lot of weight is thrown on Roscoe Karns and Walter Connelly -

> because they are trying to cling to sanity, they become more important

> to the film.



I'm not sure that people are trying to cling to sanity, but I suspect

that sanity is an illusion in Hawks, and that biology rules all, and

from a male point of view (Hawks's) that's the power of women.  Sanity

may be a possibility, but it's irrelevant ultimately.



>

>

> > Is sanity truly a goal or even a desideratum in Bringing Up Baby, The

> > Big Sky, Red River ... ?

>

> I'm talking about a model for the comedies, so I'd like to throw RED

> RIVER and THE BIG SKY out of court.  In BABY, I'd say yes, absolutely -

> what makes the film feel like Hawks is the way David Huxley reacts to

> his plight.



Red River is a comedy.  So is Big Sky.  You may wish they were not.  But...

David reacts to his plight by clinging to Hepburn no matter what.



>

>

--- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher <tag@s...> wrote:

>   Genre

> is an academic invention.  The concept didn't exist in French until

> Anglo-Americans took over the word.

>

> Do you think Hawks ever heard the word genre before, say, 1970?





Do you mean this literally?  He would have heard it in the (possibly unlikely)

event that he'd read, say, V.F. Perkins' pre-'65 review of HATARI! (later

collected in "The Movie Reader"):  "...equally noticeable is the way in which

Hawks has, on occasion, destroyed genre.  In _Hatari!_ sequences which

(according to the rules of the African genre) ought to be menacing are played as

comedy...", etc.  Also, Perkins is expanding here on a passage from Rivette: 

"...if he has ennobled each genre by making in turn the best gangster film

(_Scarface_), the best air film (_Only Angels Have Wings_), the best war film

(_Air Force_), the best western (_Red River_), and finally the best comedies ...

it is because he has always known, in each case, how to take what is essential

and great from the genre and to mix his personal themes with those which

American tradition had already deepened and enriched."  (Was the French word for

"genre" something else?)





> > > Do you really believe that someone writing a story or directing a scene

> > > or playing a part is studiously contemplating what everyone else has

> > > done and deliberately striving to do it differently?



Wasn't RIO BRAVO supposed to have been a response to HIGH NOON?

jess_l_amortell wrote:



> --- In a_film_by@yahoogroups.com, Tag Gallagher <tag@s...> wrote:

> >   Genre

> > is an academic invention.  The concept didn't exist in French until

> > Anglo-Americans took over the word.

> >

> > Do you think Hawks ever heard the word genre before, say, 1970?

>

>

> Do you mean this literally?  He would have heard it in the (possibly

> unlikely) event that he'd read, say, V.F. Perkins' pre-'65 review of

> HATARI! (later collected in "The Movie Reader"):  "...equally

> noticeable is the way in which Hawks has, on occasion, destroyed

> genre.  In _Hatari!_ sequences which (according to the rules of the

> African genre) ought to be menacing are played as comedy...", etc.

> Also, Perkins is expanding here on a passage from Rivette:  "...if he

> has ennobled each genre by making in turn the best gangster film

> (_Scarface_), the best air film (_Only Angels Have Wings_), the best

> war film (_Air Force_), the best western (_Red River_), and finally

> the best comedies ... it is because he has always known, in each case,

> how to take what is essential and great from the genre and to mix his

> personal themes with those which American tradition had already

> deepened and enriched."  (Was the French word for "genre" something else?)





So we can date "genre" to the time of HATARI in both languages.  Now:

how far back can we date it in either language?   As applied to movies.





>

>

>

> > > > Do you really believe that someone writing a story or directing

> a scene

> > > > or playing a part is studiously contemplating what everyone else has

> > > > done and deliberately striving to do it differently?

>

> Wasn't RIO BRAVO supposed to have been a response to HIGH NOON?



I'm not suggesting that moviemaking occurs in a vacuum of influences and

reasons!  I am sorry if I gave this impression.  Emails.



   I'm saying that the art of the thing, when there is art, is not

prompted in order to do something just to be different, but rather to do

something to do what one wants to do.  Are you saying that the big

reason Hawks made Rio Bravo was to counter High Noon?  (He must have had

great faith in the perspicacity of American film criticism.)  Are you

saying that he needed Zinnemann for inspiration?  Or that the

inspiration for the movie is to show that a hero doesn't go it alone?

  If so, arguably Rio Bravo was a response to Sergeant York, with the

same Gary Cooper going it alone and making the High Noon Cooper look

like a pip-squeak, no?



I concede that artists are in a dialogue with a zillion things, and that

Rio Bravo relates to everything that ever happened in the world prior to

its existence, and that artworks personify in some way their

civilization and culture, etc.  But I do not think artists do art simply

by "defying" conventions.  MTV always seems that way to me: films by

filmmakers who think they're genuine and aren't.  The point is to go

your OWN way, not to imitate others in "defiance."



,

> And most academics seem to me far worse.  There are genre "laws."  There

> are conventions that are being "defied."  Etc., etc., etc.  This is all

> utter blarney, IMHO.



If we stopped using all words that academics abuse, we'd have to talk in

monosyllables.



  > Terms which essentially have no meaning

> (like "genre") are not useful.  That some people THINK they are useful

> (outside of informal conversation, if there) suggests to me the degree

> to which "theory" destroys and inhibits experience.



I don't think we're talking theory here.  Filmmakers know about genre

and use it.  When Mann starts THE NAKED SPUR with Stewart moving in on

his prey, he knows that he doesn't have to explain why people are

settling disputes with guns, or why people are in the middle of nowhere;

when Stewart takes Ryan prisoner, he expects people to understand that

Stewart is a law officer (which eventually proves false).  He could have

done all the same things outside of a set of genre expectations, but the

scene would play differently, be more of a mystery, with lots of loose

ends to tie up.  Genre affords Mann the opportunity to start a story in

the thick of the conflict, for his own artistic reasons, while swimming

under the surface of accessible storytelling.  You're missing out on an

analytical tool if you ignore genre.



> So can you give me a short concise definition of "realism" à la

> Auerbach, one which I can repeat the people on the street which they'll

> all understand quickly?



Auerbach's point is that the particulars of what feels realistic changes

with context.  Homer made readers feel he was rendering unvarnished

reality because he did one thing differently than authors before him,

and so on.



> And is this the same as "realism" in Méliès or Ford?  Is Rossellini's

> realism the same as De Sica's?  Is there anyway to tell what you meant

> when you spoke of realism in regard to Hawks?  Is realism in cinema when

> you have real things in front of the camera?  or does it refer to the

> sense that there is someone real looking through the camera?  Is a film

> about an historical event realistic if it convinces people or conveys

> some truth, despite having the facts wrong?

>

> Is there not a better way to say what you mean than to use a word whose

> meanings shift like desert sands, never to be defined ever, anywhere?



You can get a definition out of the dictionary, and it won't satisfy

you.  What's the definition of art?  Of religion?  To pick just two

words that you are not boycotting.  Abstract nouns are generally used in

a cloud of connotations.



I stated expressly that I thought realism was usable only as a relative

term, and yet you ask me if realism is the same in Hawks, Melies and

Ford.  You don't seem to be paying attention to me.



> Most people who talk about "westerns" have never heard of genre.  Genre

> is an academic invention.  The concept didn't exist in French until

> Anglo-Americans took over the word.



Most people who die of diseases don't know the medical terms for them

either.  That doesn't mean that diseases are an invention of the medical

profession.



> I have never found anyone who can define what a "western" is.

>  Everyone's denotation seems to be completely different.  I've spent my

> life going around pissing people off like Socrates trying to get them to

> define western and in EVERY case it ends up with them growling

> defiantly:  "I can't put it into words.  But I KNOW WHAT IT IS!!!"  This

> is the state of academia.



No, it's the state of life.  I think the fact that everyone feels they

know what a Western is should make you think twice.  Maybe you're trying

to make definitions do something that they're not meant to do.  They

don't determine the border conditions of a concept.



> Sure.  But people who are truly original don't become so simply by

> perversion.  There is a great difference between wearing a white hat

> simply because everyone else wears a black hat; and wearing a white hat

> because you like it and don't care what everyone else wears.  That's my

> point.  Be yourself.



So you feel that if I were right and Hawks were in fact reacting to

genre, he would be a conformist and unoriginal?  Some people would

consider this a level of formal sophistication beyond most other filmmakers.



> To repeat: a sign stands for something other

> than itself, poetry stands only for itself.



I can't figure out how this branch of the conversation got started.  I

gather you are taking me for some postmodernist.



> Croce admits signs into prose, which he does not regard as language but

> as a degeneration of language into a sign system.  "Born as poetry,

> language was afterwards twisted to serve as a sign."

>

> I suggest to you that this is quite inspiring and exciting to

> investigate, to liberate people's minds from the shackles and chains of

> academic slavery which, like the guys in Plato's cave, they don't even

> know are binding them.



You know, I do find this interesting, and would like to know more

someday, at a calmer time.  You're aware that this flies in the face of

what almost everyone believes about language?  That a word is the first

example people usually give to illustrate the concept of what a sign is?

   I'd feel more comfortable if you acknowledged this discrepancy.



>>Sometimes they have an aspect of the outrageous.  David Huxley in BABY

>>starts out as an eccentric comic type, but he quickly develops into a

>>Hawks hero using exasperation and humor to keep himself level against

>>Susan's destabilizing effect.

>

> He doesn't succeed, does he?



Oh, he does pretty well, I'd say.  Better than most people would.



>>Henri Rochard in MALE WAR BRIDE is more

>>or less exclusively concerned with self-stabilization; Hildy in HIS GIRL

>>FRIDAY knows that Walter Burns is a force of nature and narrates the

>>conflict for us.

>

> She does?  Have you come up with an unexpurgated edition of the movie

> I've not heard of?



You mean you haven't seen the "voice" version?  Just kidding.  Hildy

gives Bruce a running commentary on what to expect from Walter in the

first part of the film, a commentary that serves as exposition for us.



> Red River is a comedy.  So is Big Sky.  You may wish they were not.



It won't ruin my life if they are.  MONKEY BUSINESS is a comedy, and

BALL OF FIRE, and I wouldn't try to fit them into my little thesis.

It's a pattern, not a rule.



You know, when Robin Wood proposed SCARFACE as a comedy, he acknowledged

that it wouldn't sound right at first hearing.  I find it odd that you

seem to assume that everyone understands that RED RIVER and THE BIG SKY

are comedies.  Anyway, whenever you have time, I'd be interested in

hearing why. - Dan

Tag Gallagher wrote:



>So we can date "genre" to the time of HATARI in both languages.  Now:

>how far back can we date it in either language?   As applied to movies.

>

"With regard to the genre, I am of the opinion that an English audience

will not relish it so well as a more characteristic kind of comedy."

                                                                  - C.

Jenner, 1770:



"It is a genre little interesting when the works of the great Italian

artists are at hand."

                                                                  - A.

Young, 1790



These are the first two citations for the word "genre" in the sense we

are using it here in the 1987 supplement to the First Edition of the OED.



Some college students on this list may have free access to the online

in-progress third edition, which, outrageously, is $500 a year for

individuals, and may wish to see if there are earlier or additional

citations of interest. Warning: if I learn who you are, I may email you

very occasionally for a current set of definitions and citations for a word.



Tag, sometimes your opposition to fixed ideas can itself seem like a

fixed idea. There's a pretty long history of artists in all fields

making works in response to, and under the influence of, other artists.

Bach literally based many composition on works by others. One of the

biggest trends in contemporary art has to do with artists commenting on,

or trying to "humanize," the forms of minimalism in a variety of ways.

There's a hilarious video called "Bouncing in the Corner #36DDD" that's

a takeoff on Bruce Nauman's hour long repetitive body movement videos,

such as one of the same title (and which are really good, by the way,

even if tedious in the extreme), by Dara Greenwald, in which by doing

the same thing Nauman did with a similarly bare chest she injects her,

um, bouncing breasts into the picture, thus disrupting the monotony. But

this is only one of many, many examples -- growing plants arranged in a

grid, for example. Part of the meaning of such things is offering

commentary on other art. And it happens in film all the time too.



Cezanne is supposed to have said that he was oriented to the

intelligence of God -- but he also said that he wanted to "make of

impressionism" something as lasting as the art of museums, and mentioned

Poussin in particular. Yeats began his great last poem, "Under Ben

Bulben," in angry response to Rilke's thoughts about death. And I

thought Hawks was pretty clear in interviews that he made "Rio Bravo" in

part in response to "High Noon." There are many, many films that take

other films as their starting point, Ken Jacobs's "Tom, Tom, the Piper's

Son" for one.



Just keep repeating, there are no rules in art. An art work can be made

primarily in response to another, partly, or not at all. And this is one

reason that I share your dubiousness about synoptic theories of film,

and art. But you're making one in denying the possibility that a film

may be responding to a set of conventions that have accrued over the

decades in films with similar subjects, or perhaps even commenting on

those conventions.



- Fred

Fred:



> These are the first two citations for the word "genre" in the sense

we

> are using it here in the 1987 supplement to the First Edition of

the OED.

>

> Some college students on this list may have free access to the

online

> in-progress third edition



I have access to the online edition and there aren't any earlier

citations for this entry in the sense you're talking about.  No

update.



- Paul

Dan Sallitt wrote:



> > And most academics seem to me far worse.  There are genre "laws."

> There

> > are conventions that are being "defied."  Etc., etc., etc.  This is all

> > utter blarney, IMHO.

>

> If we stopped using all words that academics abuse, we'd have to talk in

> monosyllables.



So?

And who said "all words that academics use"?

How many words did I fault?  Two?  Three?

Now suddenly according to you I'm against all words that aren't

monsyllabic.  If this is an example of polysyllbbic communication, we

should go back to monos.



>

>

> > Terms which essentially have no meaning

> > (like "genre") are not useful.  That some people THINK they are useful

> > (outside of informal conversation, if there) suggests to me the degree

> > to which "theory" destroys and inhibits experience.

>

> I don't think we're talking theory here.  Filmmakers know about genre

> and use it.  When Mann starts THE NAKED SPUR with Stewart moving in on

> his prey, he knows that he doesn't have to explain why people are

> settling disputes with guns, or why people are in the middle of nowhere;

> when Stewart takes Ryan prisoner, he expects people to understand that

> Stewart is a law officer (which eventually proves false).  He could have

> done all the same things outside of a set of genre expectations, but the

> scene would play differently, be more of a mystery, with lots of loose

> ends to tie up.  Genre affords Mann the opportunity to start a story in

> the thick of the conflict, for his own artistic reasons, while swimming

> under the surface of accessible storytelling.  You're missing out on an

> analytical tool if you ignore genre.





"Genre" does not exist.  So you might as well be discussing diddles.



The events you describe above could equally begin a scifi film on

another planet, a gangster melodrama in NYC, a toga story in Troy, a

musical, etc.  I guess you are referring not to a particular genre but

to any movie, right?



Do you have any evidence to suggest that THE NAKED SPUR is NOT

intelligible to someone who has never seen a "western" before?



>

>

> > So can you give me a short concise definition of "realism" à la

> > Auerbach, one which I can repeat the people on the street which they'll

> > all understand quickly?

>

> Auerbach's point is that the particulars of what feels realistic changes

> with context.  Homer made readers feel he was rendering unvarnished

> reality because he did one thing differently than authors before him,

> and so on.



The street won't understand this.  What does it mean "to feel

realistic"?  How can you "render" "unvarnished reality"?  And what is

"reality?  And what is "varnish"?



Is a Beethoven piano sonata realistic?  Is a given performance an

unvarnished reality?





>

>

> > And is this the same as "realism" in Méliès or Ford?  Is Rossellini's

> > realism the same as De Sica's?  Is there anyway to tell what you meant

> > when you spoke of realism in regard to Hawks?  Is realism in cinema

> when

> > you have real things in front of the camera?  or does it refer to the

> > sense that there is someone real looking through the camera?  Is a film

> > about an historical event realistic if it convinces people or conveys

> > some truth, despite having the facts wrong?

> >

> > Is there not a better way to say what you mean than to use a word whose

> > meanings shift like desert sands, never to be defined ever, anywhere?

>

> You can get a definition out of the dictionary, and it won't satisfy

> you.



I don't expect satisfaction.  Simply sentences I can understand.  Maybe

I'm particularly stupid.  But I do not understand.  I have been thinking

about realism and reality all my life and with each passing year the

actual reality is that I recognize I understand much less than I thought

I did the year before.  Perhaps you are young and have the advantage.



> What's the definition of art?  Of religion?  To pick just two

> words that you are not boycotting.  Abstract nouns are generally used in

> a cloud of connotations.



Art is when the cloud dissipates.



>

>

> I stated expressly that I thought realism was usable only as a relative

> term, and yet you ask me if realism is the same in Hawks, Melies and

> Ford.  You don't seem to be paying attention to me.



I admit I do not follow you.  It's not that I'm not paying attention.  I

don't understand what you mean when you write "realism was usable."  I

don't understand what it is that is being used -- or for what.



>

>

> > Most people who talk about "westerns" have never heard of genre.  Genre

> > is an academic invention.  The concept didn't exist in French until

> > Anglo-Americans took over the word.

>

> Most people who die of diseases don't know the medical terms for them

> either.  That doesn't mean that diseases are an invention of the medical

> profession.



Ah, so you too believe that "genre" is a Platonic Idea, and that only

the Ideas are really real?  Is this what you mean by "realism"?



>

>

> > I have never found anyone who can define what a "western" is.

> >  Everyone's denotation seems to be completely different.  I've spent my

> > life going around pissing people off like Socrates trying to get

> them to

> > define western and in EVERY case it ends up with them growling

> > defiantly:  "I can't put it into words.  But I KNOW WHAT IT IS!!!"

> This

> > is the state of academia.

>

> No, it's the state of life.  I think the fact that everyone feels they

> know what a Western is should make you think twice.  Maybe you're trying

> to make definitions do something that they're not meant to do.  They

> don't determine the border conditions of a concept.



Concepts sans frontières!



If you admit we cannot define "western," then what meaningful definition

can we give to "genre"?

I can invent the cigarette genre -- movies in which people smoke

cigarettes -- and I can go on for pages about conventions in how to

hold, how to manipulate, how to blow, how John Wayne throws a cigarette

away, Bogart's snuff.  I can write something just as intelligent as

what's been written about westerns.  So what?



Imagine the possibilities of the genre of films containing the color red.



>

>

> > Sure.  But people who are truly original don't become so simply by

> > perversion.  There is a great difference between wearing a white hat

> > simply because everyone else wears a black hat; and wearing a white hat

> > because you like it and don't care what everyone else wears.  That's my

> > point.  Be yourself.

>

> So you feel that if I were right and Hawks were in fact reacting to

> genre, he would be a conformist and unoriginal?  Some people would

> consider this a level of formal sophistication beyond most other

> filmmakers.



I never implied Hawks does not relate to other movies.  I asked when he

would have heard the word genre for the first time.



>

>

> > To repeat: a sign stands for something other

> > than itself, poetry stands only for itself.

>

> I can't figure out how this branch of the conversation got started.  I

> gather you are taking me for some postmodernist.



It's not a branch.  It's an argument against genre criticism.  Genre

criticism is based on signs; art is not.  I thought this would appeal to

you.



>

>

> > Croce admits signs into prose, which he does not regard as language but

> > as a degeneration of language into a sign system.  "Born as poetry,

> > language was afterwards twisted to serve as a sign."

> >

> > I suggest to you that this is quite inspiring and exciting to

> > investigate, to liberate people's minds from the shackles and chains of

> > academic slavery which, like the guys in Plato's cave, they don't even

> > know are binding them.

>

> You know, I do find this interesting, and would like to know more

> someday, at a calmer time.  You're aware that this flies in the face of

> what almost everyone believes about language?  That a word is the first

> example people usually give to illustrate the concept of what a sign is?

>   I'd feel more comfortable if you acknowledged this discrepancy.



Croce is a discrepancy.  He's wonderful.

If you want to know more, get hold of the Orsini book.  It's well

written.  If you want to know more about Croce as a historist, begin

with the chapter in R.G. Collingwood, The Idea of History -- which shows

up in every used book store an Oxford paperback, a really great book!



>

>

>

> You know, when Robin Wood proposed SCARFACE as a comedy, he acknowledged

> that it wouldn't sound right at first hearing.  I find it odd that you

> seem to assume that everyone understands that RED RIVER and THE BIG SKY

> are comedies.



They have happy endings.  Everybody gets what they want.

Scarface doesn't get what he wants, but we do, don't we?

But I'd call Scarface a tragedy -- Tony has a tragic flaw, no?

Fred Camper wrote:



>

> Just keep repeating, there are no rules in art. An art work can be made

> primarily in response to another, partly, or not at all. And this is one

> reason that I share your dubiousness about synoptic theories of film,

> and art. But you're making one in denying the possibility that a film

> may be responding to a set of conventions that have accrued over the

> decades in films with similar subjects, or perhaps even commenting on

> those conventions.

>

> - Fred





I think that a film is a reponse to, possibly, everything that has gone

in the world prior to its existence. I never said anything to the

contrary. I've written about movies influencing each other all my life!

I simply said that art isn't prompted by a desire to be different but

rather by a desire to be oneself.





The question was when "genre" was used in regard to film.



In trade journals as early as 1907, westerns were divided into distinct

subgenres, each of which was known to possess its own specific

conventionsamong them, frontier dramas, Indian dramas, Civil War

dramas, western comedies. Films were made by quasi-indepentent

production units (same director, stars, writers), one film a week or

more, clearly in these genres. And they knew what their rivals were

doing because of long plot summaries in the journals. Instruction

booklets were available by mail order for nascent scenarists, in which

all the basic plots and their many variations within each genre were

carefully outlined.



>