Judith's Review "I'm Your Man"

[Alan Alda]

Yeah. I don't know why Tom S. deleted his humane post. Maybe because he realized it was in part addressed to me? So much for impartial editing.

[lizzytysh]

Hi Tim ~

Your perspective is approximately the same as mine. I generalized the target audience as simply being the younger, 'now' generation, as opposed to particular performers... though, your "etc." may bring it into that realm, anyway.

As to the inclusions of particular people in the film, the ones I've cited were ones whom I knew to be at Sydney; yet, may not have the notoriety amongst that target audience, like those chosen do. I don't know... I doubt that Perla and Julie do... but, I do know that their performance of "Anthem" would have gone a very long way toward turning people on to Leonard.

Aside from the current [ahem ] discussion, it's great to see you here, Linda !! Are you going to be going to see Anjani with Leonard introducing her?


~ Lizzy

[linda_lakeside]

There is nothing I'd like more than finally seeing Leonard wearing all his glorious flesh (and hear Anjani sing), but the big T.O. is about 3,000 miles East of my pad. That involves some cold cash, too, as I didn't even know this gig was happening until just now! But, TO is def. a better LC venue than some, uh, other places. Well, I'm sure he and I will meet up in that big pie in the sky one day. We were meant to be together for all of eternity, you see. Anjani can sing her heart out. I really do like her, but Leonard takes top billing.

See you fine folks,
Linda.

[tomsakic]

Yeah, Laurie, because I decided that there's no need to mention what everybody sees, that you're here under new/old ID, like anybody would have anything against it. YdF and Tchocolatl never left, and Kush is also back now, so everything's like in the old days and we can again have merry go-round. But I don't feel like to, I have better things to do than dance Dilanesque.

Also, I don't see why I cannot erase my post a minute after I wrote it. I am not one of those who stays by the screen watching to jump when the message appears. But I'm glad that you saw it.

[Diane]

I know I must be being really obtuse, but where is this review of JF's?

I loved IYM for the footage of Leonard. Some of the covers were OK, some I thought were awful. But I would climb a very high mountain to hear Leonard say, in the way only he can, such things as (copied from what I wrote way back in BoM thread cos I have not watched it again since then):

He says we have certain expectations of ourselves that we feel guilty we have not had the courage to fulfil, but "the deeper courage was to stand guiltless in the predicament in which you find yourself". He also says, "You abandon your masterpiece and sink into the real masterpiece". And somewhere else in the film he repeats something he says in one of the older films (Harry Rasky?), quoting from the Bhagavad Gita, "You will never untangle the circumstances that brought you to this moment. Embrace your fate."

There is treasure to be mined from the film. Think about these things this wise and beautiful old man is saying for his audience! Why get your knickers in a twist about the bits you don't like? (Sorry Alan, bad choice of words).

Diane

[Boss]

I know I must be being really obtuse, but where is this review of JF's?

I asked myself the same question!

[Tim]

Diane, you can find it by going to the front page of http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com and scrolling down a bit to 'Latest News' or something like that.

[Diane]

Diane, you can find it by going to the front page of http://www.leonardcohenfiles.com and scrolling down a bit to 'Latest News' or something like that.

I knew it would be somewhere obvious. Thank you Tim! Now I can read it tonight, and see what everyone's talking about.

[Partisan]

Diane, I never actually read the review, and I doubt that many posting here did either.

p.

[harry13]

I', 2 frkn tired to continue posting like I did. I sure had my fun and I sure hope you, the audience, also enjoyed.
Judy, my dear, and I go back an long time and we share many hugs. Judy is quite capable of taking care of herself but nonetheless I've seen the vultures in this forum attacking her, not once by many times.
That inspired me to do what I did. Kick the board Judy has loved so much. I'm totally surprised my postings weren't moderated out of the forum but otoh the vicious attacks on Judy weren't modded out of the forum either.
I'm saddened to see how low this forum has sunk and my minor contribution has proved this point.
I see plenty of hope for this forum. Many people didn't participate in the organised mud throwing towards Judy. The mud on me, well, I'm sort of used to that.
I tried to copy Judy's way of posting on Usenet, a helloffa job (send compliments towards alt.config). Try to compare that with the way she behaves on this forum. The difference shows how much she values this forum and how good she is capable of restraining herself.
Now get back to your threads and try to behave this time. I'd hate to see either Judy of Leonard disappointed in you again.
I'm going back to lurk mode.
Oh, and Lizzy, you can end this thread with your usual Judy impersonation, I know you just can't resist.

[lizzytysh]

Natalie used to come here more frequently; it seems marriage and house projects may have rearranged her time and gotten in the way . However, she came to the N.Y. Event, and was active in organizing the Poetry Jam Session there; was instrumental in the organization of the Victoria L.C. Event, and was successful in getting Leonard's permission for publishing one of his poems in the Victoria Writers' Society magazine, Write Away. This was on the Victoria L.C. Event, on September 26, 2002, in celebration of Leonard's 68th birthday:

SUCCESS!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!


We had a sell-out at 2 o'clock in the afternoon. There were over 130 people at the event, and the house was packed. We were told that next year we need a bigger venue.

The performers were superb. Victoria's own talent, professional musicians and amateurs (I'm referring to only myself, in that category), as well as spoken word performers, and poets paid tribute to Leonard Cohen for his 68th birthday(we know we're a little late). Dr. Stephen Scobie had the audience roaring with his Top Ten Reasons to Pay Tribute to Leonard Cohen. Kathleen Barnes talked about meeting Leonard Cohen in Victoria after he performed here in 1993.

Our magazine, Write Away, featuring "This isn't China" by Leonard Cohen was well-received, too. We were lucky enough to get Andrew McGeever to allow us to print "Mythologies and Oranges" in the magazine, too.

Anyway, I will have a longer report later; it will be detailed.

I'm pretty exhausted.

Thanks to everyone for their interest. And of course, thanks to Leonard Cohen, and Jarkko Arjatsalo.

Cheers,
Natalie Fuhr

As one who would love to hear Leonard accompany himself on his guitar, this poem of Natalie's touched me:

Leonard's Guitar

Leonard
take your guitar
like a woman
caught between your
soul and your clothes

you needed her hopeless
and broke and made
her sing loneliness
for a meagre supper of
red wine and toast

you left her too
when she was old and out of
tune and out of fashion

you wrote poetry to her
like she was the
sighing instrument of your
passion
now flat and cold

you're so polished now
that platinum voice trimmed
and sewn into excellent sound
your fingers go to
other things
while she aches for you
like Marianne
to change her strings

your ghost of metal and wood
thinks that you will
knows that you should
touch her like an old friend
to make her
breathe like a woman again

Natalie Fuhr

Now, where the strength of her reaction to Judith's review emanated from, I can't say... perhaps, simply a match to Judith's vehemence toward Lian's production of "I'm Your Man." It was atypical expression from what I've seen of Natalie... a pretty mild mannered one... and, though I can relate to some of the things Judith has isolated out regarding the filming, I guess [perhaps, as an unschooled, film aficionado] I was more forgiving of the film techniques. If I had my druthers, Leonard would be in a simple setting, outside in nature; or, inside, against white walls, at a simple table, in a simple chair, you know the drill... no need of the red dots and glitz... still, for me, "target audience" cannot be excised when considering this film.

Best wishes to everyone as they express their opinions on this film. Everyone has the right to love it or hate it... like it or feel lukewarm on it. It seems some things took an inadvertent and unintentional turn toward the personal. My comment on the review's structure would be that, perhaps, some things could have grouped differently. As for me, I enjoyed, as always, reading Judith's writing, and learned some things about filming in reading her review.


~ Lizzy

[lizzytysh]

Well, there we go... missed another one. Just now saw Harry13's last posting.

Oh, and Lizzy, you can end this thread with your usual Judy impersonation, I know you just can't resist.

Hope I did okay with this Judith ["Judy"? And you're a friend ?? You know a different Judith than I do... ] impersonation I'm being credited with having done in the past [?] , hence doing again... well, okay:

< *Lizzy takes bow; nah, multiple, deep bows... confused look on face* >

OR

< *Lizzy dodges rotten apples, exiting stage left... confused look on face* >

< *Lizzy trips and almost falls at each position; going into bow, as well as exiting; as she searches faces of observers, hoping to see one lip-synching an explanation* >

Just not sure of the assignment, parameters, or expectations; so, certainly unsure of how I did, don't know which way to go... maybe neither [?]... < *confused look on face* >.




~ Lizzy

< *thoroughly confused look on face* >

Ah! Perhaps, I should split open a war/d, in hopes of under/stand/in/g all that has gone beef/or/E? Nah... doesn't have the same ring to it.

[~greg]

I would not have read Judith's review of "I'm Your Man"
if not for Natalie's comments about it here.
And I would not have watched "I'm Your Man" a second time
if not for Judith's review.

It's just fortunate that I am not a conspiracy theorist
or I would have to think that, - since there is no effective daylight between
Natalie, Judith, and Lian, in terms of getting me to see the thing again
("any publicity is good publicity",)
- then they must all therefore be the same person.
And that "harry13" is just a red herring. Like the red lights
that float around in the movie for no apparent reason.

In any case, here are my conclusions:
1) The movie is not so bad;
2) Judith's review of it is not so bad;
and
3) Natalie's comments about Judith's review
are not so bad.

(Natalie did after all say that she loved Judith.
And we already know that love is strange.)

And Judith's review was not at all like "harry13".
It was not the ugly incomprehensible tirade that
I was expecting it to be from some of the comments here
and from some past experience with certain of Judith's posts.
In fact, Judith's review is coherent and comprehensible
and even plausible, if you read it with an open mind.
I may even have actually enjoyed some of her portmanteaus,
although usually too many of that kind of thing spoil them all.

The first Cohen song occurring in the movie is
"waiting for the miracle".

And I think that that's it.

That is, that Judith was, as others were, hoping for
the miracle that this movie would, finally, be the thing
to bring Cohen to the unvaccinated masses
( so that we would not all have to feel so all-alone
about him anymore.)

Whereas it just isn't that miracle.
Which is why and how some of us
were a little bit disappointing in it.

But miracles are funny things. Some people have
seen Jesus in a pancake, and you can't argue with
them about it. While others still haven't seen Beelzebub
in Pres. Bush. (Although the Guatemalan Mayan have.
And many others are coming around.)

Anyway, here are my impressions, and conclusions,
about the first one minute of the movie:

~~~
star-wars-like adventure music

rotating clockworks
dollyed out through a keyhole
and then (oddly) through closed doors,
with lions relief, that then open.
(- how we dollyed out through closed doors,
that only then open, after we've passed through them,
and that open in the direction we just came from no less,
- i have no idea. )

All of the above is in gold.
(slightly greenish yellow)

then:
"LIONS GATE" over clouds,

then:
lightning strikes over an eye painted on cracked something
(canvas or plaster)

(there is a crack in everything.
that is how the lightning gets in.
i guess.)

An horrible shrill drone noise,
like a subway train.

zoom out on the icon.
now it has a thin Byzantine nose for company:
"ICON PRODUCTIONS",

a white horse galloping in slow motion
"HORSE PICTURES",

Indistinct red lights on a black background.
"LIONSGATE
AND
SUNDANCE CHANNEL
PRESENT
A FILM BY
LILAN LUNSON"

"baby i've been waiting...."

pan down a Byzantine Madonna wood carving
over grapes (probably sour; -it's a Cohen tribute)
and leaves.

"In January 2005,
an ensemble of the world's
finest performers came together
to pay tribute to the great
Leonard Cohen"

black and white image of Cohen on
the right side of the screen,
facing up in the classic Pete Seeger style,
(a nice touch is that he blinks once in slow motion)

Then the performers are introduced
by way of brief scenes in black and white
(slightly greenish tint) performing or rehearsing.

The indistinct red lights mentioned earlier
begin to float around. Their red is, initially,
pleasant against the greenish tint.

These red lights may be the blurred beads
of a bead curtain.

Or they may be jelly fish tentacles.

Whatever they are (they may be what Judith
means by "the scarlet-raginess of the visuals")
-they are very annoying when they begin to deface
some of the Cohen scenes.

They remind me of the zooming in and out
(in bad time keeping with the music) that
used to be done in cheap psychedelic rock videos.

They are an attempt to create a coherent style for the movie,
but they make no sense at all. And they are actually
dropped at some point.

However the truly most annoying thing about this movie
is its random introjections of that shrill drone-noise
mentioned earlier. Like a train in a tunnel. Audio out of focus.

It is of course a well known effect
that is very often used to create tension in drama.

But what is the point of it in this movie?

(In the cheapest documentaries and news reports about musicians,
the point in using sounds and music completely unrelated to the
musician-subject, is simply to avoid having to pay royalties.)

These noises in this movie make us anticipate some kind
of upcoming atrocity. And if the movie was about, say,
Federico Garcia Lorca, then we would know what
that upcoming tragedy is. And then these noise-tensions
might be doing our hearts a favor, by preparing us
ahead of time for it. But in this movie the only possible
upcoming atrocities this noise can be referring to
and preparing us for - are the tribute performances
themselves! Which is really not fair. Because
if you listen to the performances a few times,
then they begin to grow on you. They are really
not so bad. (Not as bad as the killing of Lorca anyway.)

(Anyone who's seen "The Situation Room,"
anchored by Wolf Blitzer, on CNN, knows the
extreme case of this kind of annoyance.
All through the first quarter of the hour
an incredibly annoying drum beat continuously
runs, with no variation whatsoever. It builds tension,
but why they use it is a complete mystery.)

The tribute performers in the "I'm Your Man" movie
are called an "ensemble". But that word suggests a group
of people performing simultaneously to achieve an artistic
whole, such as a play. Whereas the only point that this tribute
needs to build to, if not up to a tragedy such as Lorca's,
is that Cohen really is "great".

And just in case anyone might miss the point from the performances,
the movie actually spells it out for us, in the first minute,
when it writes:
"An ensemble of the world's
finest performers came together
to pay tribute to the great
Leonard Cohen."

It is hard to imagine any other great guy needing
to have it spelt out like that.

Eg in the Bangladesh concert-flick
George Harrison introduces Dylan as:
"A friend of us all: Mr. Bob Dylan".
And not as:
"A friend of us all: the great Mr Bob Dylan."

~~~
Next following is a silhouette of Cohen
that reminds me of nothing so much as Dylan's
1st greatest hits cover - the one with the psychedelic hair -
"LEONARD COHEN
I'M YOUR MAN".

This silhouette is quite jarring
and out of place anywhere in the movie.

~~

That's pretty much the first minute.

~~~

Judith's title of her review is
"CONTENT AND GEOMETRY MISS AN APPOINTMENT".

- which Natalie expresses an opinion about.

But the title is not meaningless.
By "geometry" Judith must mean all those half-hearted
and inconsistent and aborted tricks used to try to create
the impression of a coherent style, - out of cliches
such as the repeatedly floating red lights, and that
pointlessly anticipatory violin noise (or shrill drone
of trains in tunnels) etc.

Whereas on the other hand Judith did say some nice
things about the "content"; - the performances and
Cohen clips.

So, in Judith's opinion, the "content" on the one hand,
and the "geometry" on the other, didn't come together
very well in the movie. The "content" is good, but the
"geometry" is a bunch of dead-end roads that don't
lead up to any coherent "ensemble" effect. Judith coins
a word: "trybrid", which apparently means that she
identified 3 different conflicting vectors in the movie
that were each trying to go in different directions,
and that consequently tore up the movie's coherence .

What I noticed is that I very much liked hearing Nick Cave,
for example, talk about the way he got turned on to Cohen.
And I started out hoping and expecting more
of that kind of thing in the movie. But the movie doesn't
really go whole hearted in that direction. And then
there are the Cohen clips, -very annoyingly defaced at times
by artiste effects. But the movie doesn't really go whole-heartedly
in that direction either. So I don't know if there are 3 vectors,
but the movie definitely does not make one single, clear,
and coherent artistic statement. Not that it had to,
to be enjoyable.

Yet one of Natalie's criticisms was:
---"I am interested to learn what Judith would have done."

And I think that it's pretty obvious how Judith would have
answered that. She would have made, or wanted to be made,
a movie that was less of a "trybrid", and more of a perfection
of just one particular thing. Rather than a conglomerate of three
different things, more of an ensemble, aimed at one good effect.
Less of a collection. More of a whole.

In any case, for Judith the miracle appointment
between geometry and content was a miss appointment.
And her title makes perfect sense for the gist of her review.

~~~

Natalie wrote:
"Obviously Leonard endorsed this documentary, too.
I think it's important to remember that."

and

"I reacted very strongly to the docu with a positive reaction.
So did the majority of Leonard Cohen fans."

~~

Those are the kinds of assertions that tend to bother me.

Nevertheless, on that same logic, I think that it is at least
equally important to remember that Galileo's real crime
was not his advocacy of the Copernican theory.

It was that he did it in vernacular Italian. And not Latin.

As the Church put it, "Not only does he provide the Copernican opinion
with new weapons, which no foreigner has ever thought of, but he
does so in Italian, the language which is most likely to bring to his side
the ignorant people, those among whom errors find the most fertile ground."

But Judith did not write her review in vernacular English.
She wrote it in a dialect of literary-criticism.
Which not too many know how to read very well.

And so therefore she can't be held guilty of trying to corrupt the masses.

[Natalie]

Hi everyone,

I am so glad that we're all participating in this discussion.

After reading Greg's post, I just wanted to add that I have a Masters degree in English literature, so I am somewhat familiar with the study of literary criticism (yes, and it's somewhat tragic), and how to read, as well as interpret it. The criticism of Judith's title is such that I felt she could have said the same thing, but instead of literally describing what her article was going to be about, I thought she could have been a little more metaphorical, given that she's a wonderful poet. I just didn't like the title. I think most writers would agree with me that a title can say so much about a piece. Words like "geometry" and "content" fail to inspire me to read more, and if it wasn't Judith's article, and it wasn't on the Front Page, then I probably would have passed it by, to be quite honest. There have been many reviews written about this documentary, but I haven't read all of them, nor do I intend to.

I agree with Greg, that Judith is quite courageous to write a review such as the one she penned. As mentioned before, I adore Judith. I haven't met her in person, but I have such tremendous respect for her as a writer and poet and I can only dream of being in her place in a few years. She is amazing. I had to comment on her review, because her feelings about the 'documentary' were so dramatically different from mine. The film just resonated with me so deeply and powerfully.

There have been many criticisms of the musicians who performed. I agree with some of you; there were a few that weren't my favourites. With Leonard's commentary decorating the entire script, my thoughts were that the songs were like the subplot. Leonard's words were the main deal. The songs ran like a thread throughout the piece, but really, we all wanted Leonard. More Leonard.

I think that the people who vehemently criticize this work are those who had tremendously high expectations. I pose the following question: so, you're picked to do the next documentary for Leonard. Sky's the limit. You have a generous budget. Go to it. What would you do?

I have some ideas. I won't share them here, because I plan on actually making a film some day. Not necessarily of Leonard, but who knows?

Regarding Lian Lunsen's lack of geometry, I think that it's a technique. Many of us here do not understand the art of filmmaking -- myself included. But, I understood her methods to be technique. Some people love it; some hate it. I'm in the group that obviously loved it.

Re: Lizzy's comments about it was geared towards a younger audience, I have to ask, how many "young" people even know who he is. I know a few 20 year olds who have never heard of him. Canadian 20 year olds who evidently had lousy English teachers. . .

Well, that's all that I have to say for now.

Really enjoying the discussion,

Natalie

[tomsakic]

Because if you listen to the performances a few times,
then they begin to grow on you. They are really
not so bad. (Not as bad as the killing of Lorca anyway.)

This, and many other lines oif this meta-review, just made my day excellent. I am wondering about other 101 minutes, ~greg, if this was only the first one;-)