User:KWatson/sandbox: Difference between revisions

Line 115:

In “A Course in Filmmaking,” Mailer argues that after the advent of sound, film started to mimic theater, and that the work of film should be to get away from this mimicry in order to accomplish things that can only be accomplished on film. As films that are uniquely filmic, Mailer gives the example of ''The Maltese Falcon'', but also of the Marx Brothers’ films, in which the brothers “stampeded over every line of a script and tore off in enough directions to leave concepts fluttering like ticker tape on the mysterious nature of the movie art” (“Course” 129). The Marx brothers are important ancestors in Mailer’s filmic genealogy, in part because they too are Jews who remix ethnicity on film, as Chico becomes Italian and Zeppo becomes the brothers’ WASPy foil. And like Mailer’s films, much of the chaos and anarchy that unfurls in the Marx Brothers’ films stems from sound, in the form of elaborate musical numbers, Groucho’s wordplay, Chico’s Italian accent and piano playing, Harpo’s horn-honking, and even his silence. For both the Marx Brothers and Mailer, the work of cinema is to unravel itself, to make and unmake a universe in the same space, to challenge conventions. Where the Marx brothers wreak havoc, for example, upon the university in ''Horse feathers'', and upon dictatorship in ''Duck Soup'', Mailer wreaks havoc upon language and good taste as he attempts to create the film with the most “repetitive pervasive obscenity of any film ever made” with ''Wild, 90'' and upon both his own voice and the human eardrum with the perpetual yelling of Lt. Pope in ''Beyond the Law''. Mailer even tells us, “''Wild 90'' seems close to nothing so much as the Marx Brothers doing improvisations on ''Little Caesar'' with the addition of a free run of obscenity equal to ''Naked Lunch'' or ''Why Are We in Vietnam?''” (“Some Dirt” 90). It is as though Mailer sees ''Wild 90'' as an almost unimaginable supplement to the Marx Brothers’ oeuvre—a vision of what their tough Jewish contribution to cinema would look like had they ever assumed the roles of mafiosi.

In Mailer’s universe, the borders between Mailer and his characters are always fragile. He tells us in the Boulenger interview that in the making of ''Beyond the Law'' he would torture the actors playing the crooks, who were all friends of his, by interrogating them about things they had done in their real lives. 16 In his writing and his introductory remarks included on the French DVDs of his films, Mailer repeatedly tells us that the goal of existential acting is to create a fictional documentary (“A Course” 107,109). Here is an ex-

page break

ample,taken fromhisdiscussion of the successes and failures of cinéma vérité

in “A Course on Filmmaking”: “It was as if there was a law that a person

could not be himself in front of a camera unless he pretended to be some

one other than himself. By that logic, cinéma vérité would work if it pho

tographed a performer in themidstof hisperformance”( ).Mailer’sfilms

elaborate upon his ideas about existential filmmaking: it is only in the act of

performing as a character (Lieutenant Pope) that the actor reveals himself

(Norman Mailer). Pope/Mailer’s sarcastic comment about not respecting

the Jews until they showed the Arabs their military might is a line almost

directly out of Breines’ Tough Jews, or vice versa, Pope/Mailer’s comment is

part of the discourse surrounding the

war that inspired Tough Jews.Ei

ther way, with this line, Mailer introduces himself into the lineage of tough

Jews—butwithhisownspin.WhenPopetellsusthatLeeRayRogersbrings

out the Italian in him, he speaks for Mailer as well. Because Jewish mas

culinity for Mailer is always borrowed from and channeled through other

ethnic masculinities, Pope’s words are as good as Mailer’s saying that Rogers

brings out the Jew in him, and Mailer’s (via Pope’s) tough Jew is always al

ready fighting,whether he is pushingArabs out of Palestine or fighting to de

fend his dog’s honor. Thus,much as Mailer helped to unmake cinema as he

madeit,Mailer makesJewishness as heunmakesit—masculinityunravels as

the film does the same, moving from real to reel

@@ Line 115: / Line 115: @@
 In “A Course in Filmmaking,” Mailer argues that after the advent of sound, film started to mimic theater, and that the work of film should be to get away from this mimicry in order to accomplish things that can only be accomplished on film. As films that are uniquely filmic, Mailer gives the example of ''The Maltese Falcon'', but also of the Marx Brothers’ films, in which the brothers “stampeded over every line of a script and tore off in enough directions to leave concepts fluttering like ticker tape on the mysterious nature of the movie art” (“Course” 129). The Marx brothers are important ancestors in Mailer’s filmic genealogy, in part because they too are Jews who remix ethnicity on film, as Chico becomes Italian and Zeppo becomes the brothers’ WASPy foil. And like Mailer’s films, much of the chaos and anarchy that unfurls in the Marx Brothers’ films stems from sound, in the form of elaborate musical numbers, Groucho’s wordplay, Chico’s Italian accent and piano playing, Harpo’s horn-honking, and even his silence. For both the Marx Brothers and Mailer, the work of cinema is to unravel itself, to make and unmake a universe in the same space, to challenge conventions. Where the Marx brothers wreak havoc, for example, upon the university in ''Horse feathers'', and upon dictatorship in ''Duck Soup'', Mailer wreaks havoc upon language and good taste as he attempts to create the film with the most “repetitive pervasive obscenity of any film ever made” with ''Wild, 90'' and upon both his own voice and the human eardrum with the perpetual yelling of Lt. Pope in ''Beyond the Law''. Mailer even tells us, “''Wild 90'' seems close to nothing so much as the Marx Brothers doing improvisations on ''Little Caesar'' with the addition of a free run of obscenity equal to ''Naked Lunch'' or ''Why Are We in Vietnam?''” (“Some Dirt” 90). It is as though Mailer sees ''Wild 90'' as an almost unimaginable supplement to the Marx Brothers’ oeuvre—a vision of what their tough Jewish contribution to cinema would look like had they ever assumed the roles of mafiosi.
+In Mailer’s universe, the borders between Mailer and his characters are always fragile. He tells us in the Boulenger interview that in the making of ''Beyond the Law'' he would torture the actors playing the crooks, who were all friends of his, by interrogating them about things they had done in their real lives. 16 In his writing and his introductory remarks included on the French DVDs of his films, Mailer repeatedly tells us that the goal of existential acting is to create a fictional documentary (“A Course” 107,109). Here is an ex-
+page break
+ample,taken fromhisdiscussion of the successes and failures of cinéma vérité
+ in “A Course on Filmmaking”: “It was as if there was a law that a person
+ could not be himself in front of a camera unless he pretended to be some
+one other than himself. By that logic, cinéma vérité would work if it pho
+tographed a performer in themidstof hisperformance”( ).Mailer’sfilms
+ elaborate upon his ideas about existential filmmaking: it is only in the act of
+ performing as a character (Lieutenant Pope) that the actor reveals himself
+ (Norman Mailer). Pope/Mailer’s sarcastic comment about not respecting
+ the Jews until they showed the Arabs their military might is a line almost
+ directly out of Breines’ Tough Jews, or vice versa, Pope/Mailer’s comment is
+ part of the discourse surrounding the
+war that inspired Tough Jews.Ei
+ther way, with this line, Mailer introduces himself into the lineage of tough
+ Jews—butwithhisownspin.WhenPopetellsusthatLeeRayRogersbrings
+ out the Italian in him, he speaks for Mailer as well. Because Jewish mas
+culinity for Mailer is always borrowed from and channeled through other
+ ethnic masculinities, Pope’s words are as good as Mailer’s saying that Rogers
+ brings out the Jew in him, and Mailer’s (via Pope’s) tough Jew is always al
+ready fighting,whether he is pushingArabs out of Palestine or fighting to de
+fend his dog’s honor. Thus,much as Mailer helped to unmake cinema as he
+ madeit,Mailer makesJewishness as heunmakesit—masculinityunravels as
+ the film does the same, moving from real to reel