On Nov 1, 5:25 pm, Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> But it is visually stunning and > one of the most beautiful films ever made.
I'm not going to debate whether it is good or bad opera. To me, visually stunning and beautiful without context is empty. While I am not going so far to say that "Tales of Hoffman" is empty, there is nothing in the film that involves me as a viewer other than the artistry of the production. Granted, that isn't the usual yardstick of a film but it is mine.
Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >As much as I love Hoffmann I'll have to disagree with you there. They >practically emasculate the opera to make it into a film and it ends >bearing all most no relation to the opera it is based on.
"bearing almost no relation to the opera" is a wild exaggeration.
____ On the question of playing continuo during a Mozart concerto, I can only reaffirm my belief that it is perfectly fine as long as it is inaudible.
On Nov 1, 4:36 pm, william <wlahe...@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 1, 5:25 pm, Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > But it is visually stunning and > > one of the most beautiful films ever made.
> I'm not going to debate whether it is good or bad opera. To me, > visually stunning and beautiful without context is empty. While I am > not going so far to say that "Tales of Hoffman" is empty, there is > nothing in the film that involves me as a viewer other than the > artistry of the production. Granted, that isn't the usual yardstick of > a film but it is mine.
I'd say that it is, for me, "one" yardstick of a film. I do agree that "Hoffman" is not as emotionally rich as most of their work. It is visually stunning. As someone who has studied the opera for many years -- in its many versions -- they do badly butcher the piece rather badly which is why I don't think it is a good opera film. Of course, not nearly as bad as what they did to "Fledermaus." But I still like the piece because the re-interpretation works for me on a different level. But if I want to see "Hoffmann" the opera I'll go to the MET.
On Nov 1, 4:50 pm, David Oberman <dober...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >As much as I love Hoffmann I'll have to disagree with you there. They > >practically emasculate the opera to make it into a film and it ends > >bearing all most no relation to the opera it is based on.
> "bearing almost no relation to the opera" is a wild exaggeration.
You must not know Les Contes d'Hoffmann very well. They butcher the piece. There is, for instance, no dance in the opera. They turn it mostly into a dance film which is fine but it's not a representation of the opera by any stretch. They use maybe 1/4 of the music from the opera, if that.
On 1-Nov-2009, Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Is this a perfect film or what?
> > I dont think so. Here is my review (posted in this NG several months > > ago).
> You are, of course, entitled to your opinion as wrong-headed as it may > be!
Well...at least there is no disagreement about the relevance of my response.
Im curious what you make of the depiction of heaven. You obviously like the visual style:
"The cinematography is simply breathtaking and earth as color and heaven as monochrome was a master stroke."
..but offer no explination as to why you like the cold, bureaucratic depiction of heaven. Here's my objection:
*********** The depiction of heaven is probably the oddest feature of the film. Although we never see heaven proper (we see an area reserved for arrivals… and it appears to be for military only…and a vast courtroom), what we do see is anything but paradise. Not only is heaven bereft of color, but it is rigid, bureaucratic, barren, abstract, and seemingly anonymous. Workers are identified by number. Angel's wings are stacked as if the product of an assembly line. Myriad clerks toil on a lower level in a matrix of identical desks, while the upper level is an equally rigid matrix of viewing ports. The levels themselves suggest that they toil under a class system, Metropolis style. There is no indication that those present are of any special moral character. The prosecutor is openly motivated by nationalist hatred, and the jury is populated with ostensible victims of British imperialism. Heaven is neither just nor pleasing. In fact, it has all the appearance of a cold hard existence…more like a prison camp than an ultimate reward. *********** So Im curious...What do you find appealing about monochrome heaven? Is it simply (or primarily) that it is unique and eccentric? Or do you see some relevance in the choice? steve -- "DONT TREAD ON ME" Gadsden Flag
On Nov 2, 8:51 am, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> On 1-Nov-2009, Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > Don't be such a shit, Mark.
> > I was being facetious. So, in addition to being "wrong-headed" you are > > humourless as well?
> That was Dober, Mark. Im the "wrong headed" one, whereas Dober is merely > "humourless".
> :^))
Hmm. I'll try to keep straight "wrong-headed" from the "humourless" one in the future! LOL I guess I just assumed (yes, I know) that the actual person being kidded would have been the one who responded! Silly me.
> On 1-Nov-2009, Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Is this a perfect film or what?
> > > I dont think so. Here is my review (posted in this NG several months > > > ago).
> > You are, of course, entitled to your opinion as wrong-headed as it may > > be!
> Well...at least there is no disagreement about the relevance of my response.
> Im curious what you make of the depiction of heaven. You obviously like the > visual style:
> "The cinematography is simply breathtaking and earth as color and heaven as > monochrome was a master stroke."
> ..but offer no explination as to why you like the cold, bureaucratic > depiction of heaven.
I suppose part of it is that -- despite the film's silly American title -- I don't necessarily see where they are going as "heaven" at least not in a literal sense. But I also don't find wherever it is "cold and bureaucratic." Odd, indeed, but not cold. I suppose they wanted to draw a contrast by making earth so "warm" complete with naked young boy on the beach -- and what is THAT about?
> *********** > The depiction of heaven is probably the oddest feature of the film. > Although we never see heaven proper (we see an area reserved for arrivals… > and it appears to be for military only…and a vast courtroom), what we do see > is anything but paradise.
But is heaven supposed to be "paradise" in the "human" form of that word? What will heaven be like? I have no idea.
Not only is heaven bereft of color, but it is
> rigid, bureaucratic, barren, abstract, and seemingly anonymous.
I don't quite see it that way but let's accept your interpretation for sake of argument. With that many people arriving by the hour what else could it be? The Emerald City in The Wizard of Oz? I guess it just doesn't bother me at all because I don't see it as "my" version of heaven so I don't even think about it actually "being heaven." I suspend disbelief I suppose. .
> There is no indication that those present are of any special moral > character. The prosecutor is openly motivated by nationalist hatred, and the > jury is populated with ostensible victims of British imperialism.
Can we take this to mean that you don't have to be perfect to get into "heaven?"
Heaven is
> neither just nor pleasing. In fact, it has all the appearance of a cold > hard existence…more like a prison camp than an ultimate reward. > ***********
But, and I'm guessing again, we are only seeing one "part of heaven" not its entirety. Perhaps when you get past the entry and the courts system it is simply a beautiful paradise? Like Dorothy opening the door into Munchkinland? Perhaps. But the whole thing is a fantasy so I guess I'm not taking it all so literally.
> So Im curious...What do you find appealing about monochrome heaven? Is it > simply (or primarily) that it is unique and eccentric? Or do you see some > relevance in the choice?
Well, I'm not sure I find it appealing at all. I like the contrast. I'm not sure I know the relevance of their choice. I'm only guessing. On a simple level, they may have been arguing that it would be better to be alive on earth than dead in heaven? I really have no idea.
Yes, I do love the quirkiness, inventiveness, uniqueness of their choice. It just works for me. Sometimes it just can't be explained.
> On 1-Nov-2009, Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > Is this a perfect film or what?
> > > I dont think so. Here is my review (posted in this NG several months > > > ago).
> > You are, of course, entitled to your opinion as wrong-headed as it may > > be!
> Well...at least there is no disagreement about the relevance of my > response.
> Im curious what you make of the depiction of heaven. You obviously like > the > visual style:
> "The cinematography is simply breathtaking and earth as color and heaven > as > monochrome was a master stroke."
> ..but offer no explination as to why you like the cold, bureaucratic > depiction of heaven.
I suppose part of it is that -- despite the film's silly American title -- I don't necessarily see where they are going as "heaven" at least not in a literal sense. But I also don't find wherever it is "cold and bureaucratic." Odd, indeed, but not cold. I suppose they wanted to draw a contrast by making earth so "warm" complete with naked young boy on the beach -- and what is THAT about?
Since I mentioned the beach scene, I will offer that the significance of the boy probably symbolised something very much different than it does today. That is, to the vast majority. It's not that significant unless you have been sensitized by the Moral Panic and subsequent hysteria propagated by today's media. I don't see it as in any way significant or necessary to the plot, just part of a theme of a space where Heaven could be on Earth, - for a moment. Quiet, a clean beach with no barbed wire, and someone who obviously did not expect to meet anyone, so a very remote place, too. Stone me.
Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >> "bearing almost no relation to the opera" is a wild exaggeration.
>You must not know Les Contes d'Hoffmann very well. They butcher the >piece. There is, for instance, no dance in the opera. They turn it >mostly into a dance film which is fine but it's not a representation >of the opera by any stretch.
I'll say again: Your claim that the film bears "almost no relation to the opera" is a wild exaggeration. Scenes, situations, characters, & music are virtually all from the Offenbach. You're just being perverse.
Adaptations are made; filmic equivalents are found. A few settings are changed. A switcheroo here, a snitcheroo there. Ballet added to song, some dramatic shortening here, some languid lengthening there. It's still a clearly identifiable adaptation of Offenbach/Guirard.
>They use maybe 1/4 of the music from the opera, if that.
I made a page by page comparison of the score with the soundtrack.
The Prelude is present. In Act I, the Introduction is present musically, but used to underscore the dragonfly ballet instead of the Chorus & their wine & beer spirits. The biggest alterations to the score are here in Act I, granted. Lindorf is out, the couplets are out, the singing between Lindorf & Luther (although some of the music is used elsewhere). But the student chorus is present, more than half the Kleinzach tale is present, & a goodly part of the Finale is present.
In Act II, the entr'acte menuet is present, as is the recitative. The following recitative & romance (No. 7) is present. The 2nd couplet is GONE, granted, as are the following scene & couplets (No. 8). But the B scene & song are present, as are the chorus scene & couplets following.
Olympia's entire coloratura aria is present, as are the romance (No. 10) & the following scene. The finale is also present.
In Act III, the opening Barcarolle is present, as are the following recitative & couplets (No. 14). Dapertutto's air is present, as is the folowing trio.
The duo after that is cut by about half, but what's there is cherce. The following septuor is present, & in the finale, the dialog is cut but the music & the duel are retained.
My estimate of the amount of music retained in the film? 70 to 80 percent. Your estimate: Less than 25 percent.
____ On the question of playing continuo during a Mozart concerto, I can only reaffirm my belief that it is perfectly fine as long as it is inaudible.
> > On 1-Nov-2009, Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > > > > Is this a perfect film or what?
> > > > I dont think so. Here is my review (posted in this NG several months > > > > ago).
> > > You are, of course, entitled to your opinion as wrong-headed as it may > > > be!
> > Well...at least there is no disagreement about the relevance of my > > response.
> > Im curious what you make of the depiction of heaven. You obviously like > > the > > visual style:
> > "The cinematography is simply breathtaking and earth as color and heaven > > as > > monochrome was a master stroke."
> > ..but offer no explination as to why you like the cold, bureaucratic > > depiction of heaven.
> I suppose part of it is that -- despite the film's silly American > title -- I don't necessarily see where they are going as "heaven" at > least not in a literal sense. But I also don't find wherever it is > "cold and bureaucratic." Odd, indeed, but not cold. I suppose they > wanted to draw a contrast by making earth so "warm" complete with > naked young boy on the beach -- and what is THAT about?
> Since I mentioned the beach scene, I will offer that the significance > of the boy probably symbolised something very much different than > it does today. That is, to the vast majority. > It's not that significant unless you have been sensitized by the Moral > Panic and subsequent hysteria propagated by today's media.
I don't think the scene is significant in any way, and didn't say so. I just think it's an amazing scene to be found in a film made in 1946.
On Nov 2, 2:48 pm, David Oberman <dober...@socal.rr.com> wrote:
> Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> "bearing almost no relation to the opera" is a wild exaggeration.
> >You must not know Les Contes d'Hoffmann very well. They butcher the > >piece. There is, for instance, no dance in the opera. They turn it > >mostly into a dance film which is fine but it's not a representation > >of the opera by any stretch.
> I'll say again: Your claim that the film bears "almost no relation to > the opera" is a wild exaggeration. Scenes, situations, characters, & > music are virtually all from the Offenbach. You're just being > perverse.
You really don't know who to play in the playground with the other kids, huh? First, I'm a shit. Now, I'm perverse? Boy, you either need to get laid or you need to grow up.
As I said, you don't know the opera at all if you think it is a good representation of the opera. Since you don't know opera there is little point in my arguing that with you. I've seen "Hoffmann" -- which is how it's actually spelled by the way -- at least 100 times. Powell's version is NOT the opera.
> Adaptations are made; filmic equivalents are found. A few settings are > changed. A switcheroo here, a snitcheroo there. Ballet added to song, > some dramatic shortening here, some languid lengthening there. It's > still a clearly identifiable adaptation of Offenbach/Guirard.
> >They use maybe 1/4 of the music from the opera, if that.
> I made a page by page comparison of the score with the soundtrack.
Now, we are entering into the realm of hysterically funny here. I don't believe this for one minute. First of all, there is NO ONE score. There are so many different versions of the score. You obviously don't know that which is why you make this silly claim.
Mark wrote: > On Nov 2, 2:48 pm, David Oberman <dober...@socal.rr.com> wrote: >> Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote: >>>> "bearing almost no relation to the opera" is a wild exaggeration. >>> You must not know Les Contes d'Hoffmann very well. They butcher the >>> piece. There is, for instance, no dance in the opera. They turn it >>> mostly into a dance film which is fine but it's not a representation >>> of the opera by any stretch. >> I'll say again: Your claim that the film bears "almost no relation to >> the opera" is a wild exaggeration. Scenes, situations, characters, & >> music are virtually all from the Offenbach. You're just being >> perverse.
> You really don't know who to play in the playground with the other > kids, huh? First, I'm a shit. Now, I'm perverse? > Boy, you either need to get laid or you need to grow up.
> As I said, you don't know the opera at all if you think it is a good > representation of the opera. Since you don't know opera there is > little point in my arguing that with you. I've seen "Hoffmann" -- > which is how it's actually spelled by the way -- at least 100 times. > Powell's version is NOT the opera.
>> Adaptations are made; filmic equivalents are found. A few settings are >> changed. A switcheroo here, a snitcheroo there. Ballet added to song, >> some dramatic shortening here, some languid lengthening there. It's >> still a clearly identifiable adaptation of Offenbach/Guirard.
>>> They use maybe 1/4 of the music from the opera, if that. >> I made a page by page comparison of the score with the soundtrack.
> Now, we are entering into the realm of hysterically funny here. I > don't believe this for one minute. First of all, there is NO ONE > score. There are so many different versions of the score. You > obviously don't know that which is why you make this silly claim.
On 2-Nov-2009, Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Now, we are entering into the realm of hysterically funny here. I > don't believe this for one minute. First of all, there is NO ONE > score. There are so many different versions of the score. You > obviously don't know that which is why you make this silly claim.
> I'm done with this silliness. PLONK.
Dude...you've got an absurdly short fuse. And you've plonked one of the nicest and most civil participants in this NG, too. -- "DONT TREAD ON ME" Gadsden Flag
On Nov 3, 7:54 am, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> On 2-Nov-2009, Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > Now, we are entering into the realm of hysterically funny here. I > > don't believe this for one minute. First of all, there is NO ONE > > score. There are so many different versions of the score. You > > obviously don't know that which is why you make this silly claim.
> > I'm done with this silliness. PLONK.
> Dude...you've got an absurdly short fuse. And you've plonked one of the > nicest and most civil participants in this NG, too. > --
If someone calls you a "shit" for making a joke that wasn't even about him I'd hardly call that "civil" or "nice." Short fuse? How about calling me names before he even knew what I was talking about? I realize we all have our favorites but that's carrying partisanship to an absurd level.
He may find me a "shit" but I think he's a complete and total asshole and life is too short to give creatures like that another minute of my time.
On 3-Nov-2009, Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> If someone calls you a "shit" for making a joke that wasn't even about > him I'd hardly call that "civil" or "nice."
You might compare his insults to the insults you threw at me in the (admittedly trivial) "Death in the Garden" exchange. I dont think either of you came anywhere close to crossing a civility line (in the context of internet discussion, that is, where the absence of insults may be the exception), but your insults were no less aggressive and, perhaps, more extensive. YMMV, of course, but I would think any reasonable plonking standard would require the offenders behavior to be at least somewhat worse than your own.
On Nov 3, 5:40 pm, "steve" <st...@steve.com> wrote:
> On 3-Nov-2009, Mark <weiss.sl...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> > If someone calls you a "shit" for making a joke that wasn't even about > > him I'd hardly call that "civil" or "nice."
> You might compare his insults to the insults you threw at me in the > (admittedly trivial) "Death in the Garden" exchange. I dont think either of > you came anywhere close to crossing a civility line (in the context of > internet discussion, that is, where the absence of insults may be the > exception), but your insults were no less aggressive and, perhaps, more > extensive. YMMV, of course, but I would think any reasonable plonking > standard would require the offenders behavior to be at least somewhat worse > than your own.
I was puzzled, and tracked down the post. What David said was, "Don't be a shit." Although there's no arbiter of such idioms, I'm pretty sure that one's different from, e.g., "You're a shit." At least I hope it is, as I've often aimed it at good friends...
On 3-Nov-2009, moviePig <pwall...@moviepig.com> wrote:
> I was puzzled, and tracked down the post. What David said was, "Don't > be a shit." Although there's no arbiter of such idioms, I'm pretty > sure that one's different from, e.g., "You're a shit." At least I > hope it is, as I've often aimed it at good friends...
Just to put this in context, I recall hearing that exact phrase ("You're a shit.") from my little sister when she was about 8 years old. My older brother was the "shit", and, to prove it, he ran to Mom and ratted sis out for swearing. Fond memories... -- "DONT TREAD ON ME" Gadsden Flag
|
