Slog News & Arts

Line Out

Music & Nightlife

« New Column! | Your Pervy Right-Wing Attempt ... »

Wednesday, April 25, 2007

More Happy News

posted by on April 25 at 15:06 PM

Three Dollar Bill has added a second screening of Un Chant d’amour to the Scandalous! series that I’ve been praising to the heavens.

The only film by French professional bad boy Jean Genet is the one must-see screening in the series. It’s a stunningly photographed thinking-man’s porno, which was originally meant for private collections and later disavowed by Genet. Fairly hot, very smart, and embarrassingly romantic and beautiful.

unchant.jpg

Plus, and perhaps even more excitingly, Genet’s film will be accompanied by shorts by Kenneth Anger, including the classics Fireworks and Scorpio Rising and a brand, brand new world premiere of Anger’s latest, a film about Elliott Smith.

fireworks.jpg

Curious trivia: You might think that Genet influenced Anger, and not the other way around, but in fact Genet saw the then-teenage Anger’s Fireworks in Paris a year before he made Un Chant d’amour. (For a deluge of other meticulously researched facts, see Edmund White’s masterful biography Genet.)

Tomorrow: Thursday, April 26, 7 and 9:15 pm. Northwest Film Forum. Get your advance tickets here.

Also, check out our DVD review this week: Kenneth Anger, Vol. 1.

RSS icon Comments

1

Un Chant d'amour was not a film. It was a short. If I were to stop exercising counter-pretension, load my bong and shut off my brain, there would be a way for me to enjoy it.

df/ds I guess.

Posted by Mr. Poe | April 25, 2007 4:14 PM
2

Uh, I think you're confused. Un Chant d'amour is a film; it was shot on 35 mm. Un Chant d'amour is not a feature; it is less than half an hour long.

Posted by annie | April 25, 2007 5:03 PM
3

Yeah,

I'm pretty sure it was shot on 16mm. (Not like it matters)

I'm also pretty sure that the industry definition of 'short' is anything less than 3,000'.

Furthermore, and nevertheless, a 'film' is not defined by what it was shot on. There are mediums in the definition of film, I understand that. You singled Un Chant d'amour out as Mr. Genet's 'only film' which was followed by a 'professional' tag.

Mr. Genet was not a professional 'film'maker. Not unless you call a play/screenplay a film. Do you? You separate 'feature' from 'film', but not 'film' from 'short'?

Whatever.

Posted by Mr. Poe | April 25, 2007 6:21 PM
4

I called Genet a professional bad boy, not a professional filmmaker. Clearly he was not that.

According to Edmund White, the film (which would be a film whether it was 35 or 16) was started on 16 but after a week they changed to 35. (White 364) I assume, perhaps incorrectly, that most of the footage that made it through was on 35 for continuity's sake. I suppose I'll be able to make a better judgment after I see the film on film tomorrow.

Films are motion pictures. It's more precise to require that films be shot on film, but usually I call movies shot on video films as well.

A film is either a short or a feature. Un Chant d'amour is a short film.

Need any more help with definitions?

Posted by annie | April 25, 2007 6:38 PM
5

No. I'm not the one who needs help with definitions.

Can't say anything about the 35mm. Your little tangent has never been brought to my attention.

Clearly I'm the uneducated one in this boring argument, so au revoir.

Posted by Mr. Poe | April 25, 2007 7:05 PM

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 14 days old).