XPost: rec.arts.movies.past-films, rec.arts.movies.current-films   
   From: madkevin@golden.net   
      
   "Calvin Rice"  wrote in message   
   news:22680de.0401101721.4d6458e4@posting.google.com...   
   > "madkevin"  wrote in message   
   news:...   
   > > "Calvin Rice"  wrote in message   
   > > news:22680de.0401091745.22bdb8fa@posting.google.com...   
   > > > "madkevin"  wrote in message   
   > >  news:...   
   > > > > The opening scene of "Stardust Memories" is lifted directly - and I   
   mean   
   > >  shot   
   > > > > for shot - from the original opening sequence to "8 1/2" that was   
   filmed   
   but   
   > > > > never used. What do you call that? If I went out and made a movie that   
   opens   
   > > > > with black 'n' white images of New York set to Gershwin music, did I   
   just   
   > >  make a   
   > > > > masterpiece? Or did I just rip-off "Manhattan"?   
   > > >   
   > > > Interesting analogy.  Can anyone in the class spot the flaw?   
   >   
   > > That doesn't answer my question. No matter what you feel personally about   
   the   
   > > quality of "Stardust Memories", there's simply no avoiding the fact that   
   Allen   
   > > lifted this scene directly from Fellini.   
   >   
   > The flaw in the analogy is that people who haven't seen the UNUSED FOR GOD'S   
   > SAKE footage from 8 1/2 just have to take your word for Woody Allen's   
   > 'ripoff'.  Could you possibly refer us to some ACTUAL footage of 8 1/2   
   > that Woody 'ripped-off'?   
      
   Check out the Criterion "8 1/2" DVD, then ask yourself this important question:   
   Did Woody Allen ever see that footage before making "Stardust Memories"?   
      
   >   
   > > Call it homage, call it post-modern   
   > > appropriation, call it rip-off, it amounts to the same thing. A   
   "masterpiece",   
   > > in my books, is not a movie that apes the style and content of another   
   extremely   
   > > well-known film-maker. If "Stardust Memories" is a masterpiece, then what   
   do   
   you   
   > > call the actual Fellini movies he's ripping-off - uber-masterpieces?   
   > > Super-duper-masterpieces? Ultra-amazing-masterpieces?   
   >   
   > Having watched 8 1/2 today, it's obvious to me that it is a greater work   
   > of art than Stardust Memories, but I still say that SM is one of the   
   > Woody Allen masterpieces.  Having watched it yesterday, it's obvious to me   
   > that the movie is no 'ripoff' of 8 1/2.  You are welcome to your view.   
   > Neither of us will change the other's mind.   
      
   I could care less about changing your mind. I grok that you like "Stardust   
   Memories". Bully for you. What I question is the cavalier and (still)   
   unwarranted use of the terms "original" and "masterpiece" when describing what   
   at the very least a heavily-Fellini-inspired film.Why this question is enough   
   to   
   generate personal attacks, I have no idea.   
      
   Would "Stardust Memories" exist without "8 1/2"?   
      
   > > Don't get me wrong - I loooove Fellini. All told, I'd rather than people   
   try   
   to   
   > > be Fellini than try to be Bergman. Being the cineaste that Allen is, it   
   would   
   > > seem almost a requirement that he try his hand at "8 1/2" at least once. To   
   you,   
   > > "Stardust Memories" may be wonderful, but original it ain't.   
   >   
   > It's quite original.  Being a reference to 8 1/2 doesn't make it unoriginal.   
   > The play, 'Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead', since you like analogies,   
   > was original as hell, but it still contained actual scenes from Hamlet,   
   dozens   
   > of Hamlet characters, and was largely concerned with the plot of Hamlet.   
      
   If "Stardust Memories" was as good as Stoppard's play, you'd have something   
   there, sort of. But it isn't. It's at best a rehash of thematic elements from   
   Fellini, "8 1/2" and "La Dolce Vita" in particular. It doesn't add anything of   
   tremendous value to these elements. And, more importantly, it isn't presented   
   as   
   a companion piece to an already existing work of art; in other words, I do not   
   believe the audience is *supposed* to recognize the lifts from Fellini.   
   Stoppard's play is clearly intended to be understood within the context of   
   Shakespeare's "Hamlet" - it cannot be understood without that context.   
   "Stardust   
   Memories", on the other hand, is presented as a Woody Allen movie, a   
   stand-alone   
   product.   
      
   So, it would appear, Stoppard's play and "Stardust Memories" are only alike in   
   the most superficial of ways.   
      
   >   
   > > > As a matter of fact I'm not completely alone, as Stardust Memories has   
   been   
   > > > reconsidered and re-evaluated by the 'critics'.  You might want to look   
   into   
   > > > that, since 'critical consensus' matters so much to you.   
   >   
   > > Feel free to link me up with some of those re-evaluations, and I'd be happy   
   to   
   > > read them.   
   >   
   > 'Woody Allen on Woody Allen, in Conversation with Stig Björkman',   
   > Grove Press softback edition, January 1995.   
      
   So, one citation makes the statement "Stardust Memories has been reconsidered   
   and re-evaluated by the 'critics' " true how? That is hardly what I would call   
   a   
   grand critical reversal on the merits of one of Woody Allen's least successful   
   movies.   
      
   >   
   > > > Let me get this straight:   
   > > > My way - like what I like, and give my own reasons.   
   > > > Your way - like what most 'critics' like, and use their reasons.   
   > >   
   > > Since we're doing math, it's more like:   
   > > Your way = defining terms (like "masterpiece" and "original") any way you'd   
   like   
   > > regardless of actual meaning.   
   > > My way = watching films with a working knowledge of historical film   
   context.   
   >   
   > > Out of curiousity, any specific "reason" you put "critics" in "quotations"?   
   >   
   > Because of biased elite snobs like Mr. Harkness here, who call themselves   
   > critics, but don't seem to like to like movies, and who seem to care more   
   > about their reputations than saying what they really think, and who will post   
   > lies, as he did above, and then say he will not lower himself to actually   
   > back up his lies with examples, on the grounds that the movie in question   
   > is just so very far beneath him.   
      
   John's work is very easily accessed on-line (look for Now Magazine's (out of   
   Toronto) website). I've been reading him for years, and John very much likes   
   movies. He also likes thinking about them. The two things are not mutually   
   exclusive. Even a cursory examination of John's critical work is enough to   
   disprove your seemingly baseless assumptions. He certainly doesn't me to back   
   him up, but perhaps you'd like to do a bit of research yourself.   
      
   >   
   > > > I think I'll continue with my way, until a more inspiring second-hander   
   > > > than you comes along.   
   > > I would probably take offense at this, as was no doubt the intention, if I   
   had   
   > > any inkling as to what a second-hander was. Don't let me stop you from   
      
   [continued in next message]   
      
   --- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05   
    * Origin: you cannot sedate... all the things you hate (1:229/2)