Vintage Video of Joni Mitchell Performing in 1965 — Before She Was Even Named Joni Mitchell

From 1963 to 1967, folk singer Oscar Brand host­ed “Let’s Sing Out” on Cana­di­an tele­vi­sion. Filmed on uni­ver­si­ty cam­pus­es across Cana­da, the show launched the careers of impor­tant folk singers — singers like Gor­don Light­foot and Joni Mitchell, to name just two. In the com­pi­la­tion above, all shot in black and white, you can watch Joni Mitchel­l’s career come into bloom. In the first clip, record­ed at The Uni­ver­si­ty of Man­i­to­ba in 1965, Joni Ander­son — as she was named before her mar­riage to Chuck Mitchell in ’66 — sings “Born To Take The High­way.” On the same episode, Dave Van Ronk appeared along with The Chap­ins (Har­ry includ­ed).

We also find Joni in 1966, tak­ing on a dif­fer­ent look and a dif­fer­ent last name and per­form­ing for stu­dents at Lau­rent­ian Uni­ver­si­ty. The next year, the Cana­di­an singer-song­writer moved to New York, then onto LA where, with the help of David Cros­by, her career got off the ground. Find more ear­ly Joni Mitchell per­for­mances in the sec­tion right down below.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book, BlueSky or Mastodon.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Young Joni Mitchell Per­forms a Hit-Filled Con­cert in Lon­don (1970)

James Tay­lor and Joni Mitchell, Live and Togeth­er (1970)

Watch Clas­sic Per­for­mances of “Both Sides Now” & “The Cir­cle Game” (1968)

by | Permalink | Make a Comment ( 32 ) |

Werner Herzog Offers 24 Pieces of Filmmaking & Life Advice

Image by Erinc Salor via Wiki­me­dia Com­mons

There are few film­mak­ers alive today who have the mys­tique of Wern­er Her­zog. His fea­ture films and his doc­u­men­taries are bril­liant and messy, depict­ing both the ecstasies and the ago­nies of life in a chaot­ic and fun­da­men­tal­ly hos­tile uni­verse. And his movies seem very much to reflect his per­son­al­i­ty – uncom­pro­mis­ing, enig­mat­ic and quite pos­si­bly crazy. How else can you explain his will­ing­ness to risk life and limb to shoot in such for­bid­ding places as the Ama­zon­ian rain for­est or Antarc­ti­ca?

In per­haps his great­est film, Fitz­car­ral­do — which is about a dream­er who hatch­es a scheme to drag a river­boat over a moun­tain — Her­zog decides, for the pur­pos­es of real­ism, to actu­al­ly drag a boat over a moun­tain. No spe­cial effects. No stu­dios. In the mid­dle of the Peru­vian jun­gle.

WERNER HERZOG TEACHES FILMMAKING. LEARN MORE.

The pro­duc­tion, per­haps the most mis­er­able in the his­to­ry of film, is the sub­ject of the doc­u­men­tary The Bur­den of Dreams. After six pun­ish­ing months, a weary-look­ing Her­zog described his sur­round­ings:

I see it more full of obscen­i­ty. It’s just — Nature here is vile and base. I would­n’t see any­thing erot­i­cal here. I would see for­ni­ca­tion and asphyx­i­a­tion and chok­ing and fight­ing for sur­vival and… grow­ing and… just rot­ting away. Of course, there’s a lot of mis­ery. But it is the same mis­ery that is all around us. The trees here are in mis­ery, and the birds are in mis­ery. I don’t think they — they sing. They just screech in pain. […] But when I say this, I say this all full of admi­ra­tion for the jun­gle. It is not that I hate it, I love it. I love it very much. But I love it against my bet­ter judg­ment.

His world­view brims with a hero­ic pes­simism that is pulled straight out of the Ger­man Roman­tic poets. Nature is not some har­mo­nious anthro­po­mor­phized play­ground. It is instead noth­ing but “chaos, hos­til­i­ty and mur­der.” For those sick of the cyn­i­cal dis­hon­esty of Hollywood’s cur­rent crop of Award-ready fare (hel­lo, The Imi­ta­tion Game), Her­zog comes as a brac­ing ton­ic. An icon of what inde­pen­dent cin­e­ma should be rather than what it has large­ly become.

Below is Herzog’s list of advice for film­mak­ers, found on the back of his lat­est book Wern­er Her­zog – A Guide for the Per­plexed. (Hat tip goes to Jason Kot­tke for bring­ing it to our atten­tion.) Some max­ims are pret­ty spe­cif­ic to the world of moviemak­ing – “That roll of unex­posed cel­lu­loid you have in your hand might be the last in exis­tence, so do some­thing impres­sive with it.” Oth­er points are just plain good lessons for life — “Always take the ini­tia­tive,” “Learn to live with your mis­takes.” Read along and you can almost hear Herzog’s malev­o­lent Teu­ton­ic lilt.

1. Always take the ini­tia­tive.
2. There is noth­ing wrong with spend­ing a night in jail if it means get­ting the shot you need.
3. Send out all your dogs and one might return with prey.
4. Nev­er wal­low in your trou­bles; despair must be kept pri­vate and brief.
5. Learn to live with your mis­takes.
6. Expand your knowl­edge and under­stand­ing of music and lit­er­a­ture, old and mod­ern.
7. That roll of unex­posed cel­lu­loid you have in your hand might be the last in exis­tence, so do some­thing impres­sive with it.
8. There is nev­er an excuse not to fin­ish a film.
9. Car­ry bolt cut­ters every­where.
10. Thwart insti­tu­tion­al cow­ardice.
11. Ask for for­give­ness, not per­mis­sion.
12. Take your fate into your own hands.
13. Learn to read the inner essence of a land­scape.
14. Ignite the fire with­in and explore unknown ter­ri­to­ry.
15. Walk straight ahead, nev­er detour.
16. Manoeu­vre and mis­lead, but always deliv­er.
17. Don’t be fear­ful of rejec­tion.
18. Devel­op your own voice.
19. Day one is the point of no return.
20. A badge of hon­or is to fail a film the­o­ry class.
21. Chance is the lifeblood of cin­e­ma.
22. Guer­ril­la tac­tics are best.
23. Take revenge if need be.
24. Get used to the bear behind you.

via Kot­tke

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Por­trait Wern­er Her­zog: The Director’s Auto­bi­o­graph­i­cal Short Film from 1986

Errol Mor­ris and Wern­er Her­zog in Con­ver­sa­tion

Wern­er Her­zog Picks His 5 Top Films

Wern­er Her­zog and Cor­mac McCarthy Talk Sci­ence and Cul­ture

Wern­er Herzog’s Eye-Open­ing New Film Reveals the Dan­gers of Tex­ting While Dri­ving

Jonathan Crow is a Los Ange­les-based writer and film­mak­er whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter, and oth­er pub­li­ca­tions. You can fol­low him at @jonccrow. And check out his blog Veep­to­pus, fea­tur­ing lots of pic­tures of bad­gers and even more pic­tures of vice pres­i­dents with octo­pus­es on their heads.  The Veep­to­pus store is here.

Edward Said Recalls His Depressing Meeting With Sartre, de Beauvoir & Foucault (1979)

Image via Wiki­me­dia Com­mons

I have not had the occa­sion to meet my intel­lec­tu­al or lit­er­ary heroes, those still alive, of course. And from most of the accounts of those who have, it’s prob­a­bly for the best. I’ve heard sto­ries from men­tors and friends—of drunk­en indis­cre­tions, boor­ish rude­ness, unfor­give­able utter­ances, arro­gance, pet­ti­ness, petu­lance, and every oth­er kind of off­putting behav­ior. Our idols, after all, are only human.

Such dis­ap­point­ment was the expe­ri­ence of Pales­tin­ian Amer­i­can schol­ar and writer Edward Said when he met three intel­lec­tu­al French giants—Jean Paul Sartre, Simone de Beau­voir, and Michel Fou­cault—in 1979. Invit­ed to France by Sartre and de Beau­voir for a con­fer­ence on Mid­dle East peace after the end of the war between Egypt and Israel, Said leapt at the chance, although not before ensur­ing that the telegram he had received was gen­uine.

“At first I thought the cable was a joke of some sort,” wrote Said in the Lon­don Review of Books in 2000, “It might just as well have been an invi­ta­tion from Cosi­ma and Richard Wag­n­er to come to Bayreuth, or from T.S. Eliot and Vir­ginia Woolf to spend an after­noon at the offices of the Dial.”

Image via Wiki­me­dia Com­mons

The invi­ta­tion was for real, and weeks lat­er, Said was off to Paris. Upon arrival, he learned that for unde­fined “secu­ri­ty rea­sons,” the con­fer­ence had been moved to Foucault’s apart­ment, and once there, he encoun­tered de Beau­voir, who quick­ly left an unfa­vor­able impres­sion on him, then dis­ap­peared.

Beau­voir was already there in her famous tur­ban, lec­tur­ing any­one who would lis­ten about her forth­com­ing trip to Teheran with Kate Mil­lett, where they were plan­ning to demon­strate against the chador; the whole idea struck me as patro­n­is­ing and sil­ly, and although I was eager to hear what Beau­voir had to say, I also realised that she was quite vain and quite beyond argu­ing with at that moment. Besides, she left an hour or so lat­er (just before Sartre’s arrival) and was nev­er seen again.

Not long after­wards, Said writes, Fou­cault informed him he would be leav­ing as well, “for his dai­ly bout of research at the Bib­lio­thèque Nationale.” Said describes Fou­cault as a “soli­tary philoso­pher” and “rig­or­ous thinker” but also “unwill­ing to say any­thing to me about Mid­dle East­ern politics”—with the excep­tion of the Iran­ian Rev­o­lu­tion (for which he was part­ly present). Fou­cault described his time in Iran as “very excit­ing, very strange, crazy.” “I think (per­haps mis­tak­en­ly) I heard him say that in Teheran he had dis­guised him­self in a wig,” Said writes, “although a short while after his arti­cles appeared, he rapid­ly dis­tanced him­self from all things Iran­ian.” Fou­cault also, appar­ent­ly, dis­tanced him­self from the dis­cus­sion at hand because, Said sur­mis­es, of his sup­port for Israel.

Sartre, it appears from Said’s account, was very much at the cen­ter of the event. And yet, he seemed “old and frail,” and “was con­stant­ly sur­round­ed, sup­port­ed, prompt­ed by a small ret­inue of peo­ple on whom he was total­ly depen­dent.” At lunch, Said finds the “great man” almost as absent men­tal­ly as his part­ner was phys­i­cal­ly. Where “Beau­voir had been a seri­ous dis­ap­point­ment,” he was lat­er “con­vinced she would have livened things up.”

Sartre’s pres­ence, what there was of it, was strange­ly pas­sive, unim­pres­sive, affect­less. He said absolute­ly noth­ing for hours on end. At lunch he sat across from me, look­ing dis­con­so­late and remain­ing total­ly uncom­mu­nica­tive, egg and may­on­naise stream­ing hap­less­ly down his face. I tried to make con­ver­sa­tion with him, but got nowhere. He may have been deaf, but I’m not sure. In any case, he seemed to me like a haunt­ed ver­sion of his ear­li­er self, his prover­bial ugli­ness, his pipe and his non­de­script cloth­ing hang­ing about him like so many props on a desert­ed stage.

In his sole dis­course at the event, Said tells us, Sartre read “a pre­pared text of about two typed pages” full of “the most banal plat­i­tudes imag­in­able” and “about as infor­ma­tive as a Reuters dis­patch.” After­wards, “Sartre resumed his silence, and the pro­ceed­ings con­tin­ued as before.” The pol­i­tics of the con­fer­ence were by nature com­pli­cat­ed and sen­si­tive, to say the least. Relationships—such as that between Fou­cault and Gilles Deleuze, it seems (or so Deleuze told Said)—have bro­ken off after dis­agree­ments over Israel and Pales­tine.

said foucault

Image by Wiki­me­dia Com­mons

Nev­er­the­less, on the basis of Sartre’s for­mer anti-colo­nial, anti-war stance and pas­sion­ate defense of Alger­ian independence—a posi­tion “which as a French­man must have been hard­er to hold than a posi­tion crit­i­cal of Israel”—Said had hoped Sartre would have at least some sym­pa­thy for the Pales­tin­ian cause. He was mis­tak­en. “Gone for­ev­er, he writes, “was that Sartre.” In a con­clud­ing rumi­na­tion, he attempts to explain what he observed:

I guess we need to under­stand why great old men are liable to suc­cumb either to the wiles of younger ones, or to the grip of an unmod­i­fi­able polit­i­cal belief. It’s a dispir­it­ing thought, but it’s what hap­pened to Sartre. With the excep­tion of Alge­ria, the jus­tice of the Arab cause sim­ply could not make an impres­sion on him, and whether it was entire­ly because of Israel or because of a basic lack of sym­pa­thy – cul­tur­al or per­haps reli­gious – it’s impos­si­ble for me to say.

For all its unpleas­ant­ness, how­ev­er, the encounter did not lessen Said’s fond­ness for Sartre. The author of Ori­en­tal­ism and The Ques­tion of Pales­tine (who is not with­out his own fierce crit­ics) begins his rec­ol­lec­tion of the meet­ing with a glow­ing appraisal of Sartre’s work, which had fall­en far out of favor at the time of the meet­ing. “A year after our brief and dis­ap­point­ing Paris encounter Sartre died,” he con­cludes, “I vivid­ly remem­ber how much I mourned his death.”

You can read Said’s com­plete diary entry here.

via Crit­i­cal The­o­ry

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Edward Said Speaks Can­did­ly about Pol­i­tics, His Ill­ness, and His Lega­cy in His Final Inter­view (2003)

Philosophy’s Pow­er Cou­ple, Jean-Paul Sartre and Simone de Beau­voir, Fea­tured in 1967 TV Inter­view

Jean-Paul Sartre Breaks Down the Bad Faith of Intel­lec­tu­als

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

John Landis Deconstructs Trailers of Great 20th Century Films: Citizen Kane, Sunset Boulevard, 2001 & More

If you call your­self a film fan, you may have heard of Trail­ers from Hell, a video series where­in famous direc­tors intro­duce and pro­vide com­men­tary on trail­ers of the films they love, the films they’ve made, or both. You’ve def­i­nite­ly heard of it if you call your­self a fan of schlock film, since some of the Trail­ers from Hell include that of The Giant Claw with com­men­tary by Joe Dante, that of Teen Wolf with com­men­tary by Ti West, and that of One Mil­lion Years B.C. with com­men­tary by John Lan­dis.

Lan­dis, direc­tor of come­dies like Ani­mal HouseThe Blues Broth­ers, and (some­how, his favorite of the bunch) Com­ing to Amer­i­ca, has record­ed a great many episodes, and no sur­prise, since he enjoys schlock so much that he actu­al­ly made a film of that name at the age of 21 — and then did a Trail­er from Hell on it at the age of 63. But as one of those film­mak­ers pos­sessed of a cinephil­ia as strong as his mas­tery of the craft itself, his love for movies extends to the widest pos­si­ble spec­trum of theme and sen­si­bil­i­ty: hence his episodes here on the decid­ed­ly non-schlocky Cit­i­zen KaneSun­set Boule­vard2001: A Space Odyssey, and La Stra­da.

Much about Lan­dis makes him exact­ly the kind of guy you want to hear talk­ing about movies, be they movies like Felli­ni Satyri­con or movies like King Kong vs. Godzil­la. Not only does his sheer enthu­si­asm for film­go­ing come through in his every obser­va­tion, but he brings to bear plen­ty of expe­ri­ence with the nuts and bolts of film­mak­ing. He dis­cuss­es, in the brief time these trail­ers allow, not just the qual­i­ties of the fea­tures but of the trail­ers them­selves. He also throws in, when rel­e­vant, fas­ci­nat­ing anec­dotes from his life as a movie­go­er and moviemak­er. And above it all, he does it with a wonki­ly cinephilic sense of humor, as you’ll under­stand right when you hear him intro­duce him­self in each episode — and as you’d prob­a­bly expect from the guy who direct­ed Ken­tucky Fried Movie.

You can watch all the Trail­ers from Hell from Lan­dis, Dante, West, Karyn Kusama, Mick Gar­ris, John Bad­ham, and oth­ers on their Youtube chan­nel.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Moviedrome: Film­mak­er Alex Cox Pro­vides Video Intro­duc­tions to 100+ Clas­sic Cult Films

Watch Orson Welles’ Trail­er for Cit­i­zen Kane: As Inno­v­a­tive as the Film Itself

Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey Gets a Brand New Trail­er to Cel­e­brate Its Dig­i­tal Re-Release

Watch 25 Alfred Hitch­cock Trail­ers, Excit­ing Films in Their Own Right

700 Free Movies Online: Great Clas­sics, Indies, Noir, West­erns, etc.

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture as well as the video series The City in Cin­e­ma and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Hear Hemingway Read Hemingway, and Faulkner Read Faulkner (90 Minutes of Classic Audio)

Hemingway.Faulkner

Images via Wiki­me­dia Com­mons

Hem­ing­way and Faulkn­er, Faulkn­er and Hem­ing­way…. The Amer­i­can lit­er­ary canon has expand­ed so much in the past thir­ty years or so that it almost spans the globe, like Amer­i­can busi­ness, draw­ing in writ­ers from every pos­si­ble cor­ner. With greater inclu­sion comes the pass­ing out of fash­ion of many a for­mer icon (does any­one read Dreis­er or Dos Pas­sos any­more?). And yet, no mat­ter how much crit­i­cal tastes and schol­ar­ly mea­sures change, it seems we’ll nev­er be able to do with­out our Hem­ing­way and Faulkn­er.

Per­haps it’s their deep takes on history—Hemingway’s sen­ti­men­tal war cor­re­spon­dence and trag­ic sense of a chang­ing Europe; Faulkner’s sense of a South held in thrall to squalid delu­sions of grandeur and epic colo­nial vio­lence. Geopo­lit­i­cal­ly rel­e­vant they still may be, but there’s much more to both than geopol­i­tics. Per­haps it’s the time­less styl­is­tic dialec­tic, or the Nobels, or the trad­ed insults, or that the names them­selves, like Roo­sevelt and Kennedy, trig­ger instant recall of the “Amer­i­can cen­tu­ry.” Of course, devo­tees of Faulkn­er (I am one), of Hem­ing­way, or of Faulkn­er and Hem­ing­way need no ratio­nale, and it is to such peo­ple prin­ci­pal­ly that today’s post is addressed.

For today, we bring you Hem­ing­way and Faulkn­er, read­ing Hem­ing­way and Faulkn­er. In the Spo­ti­fy playlists above (down­load Spo­ti­fy here), we have both authors read­ing from their Nobel accep­tance speech­es, then excerpts from their lit­er­ary works. These record­ings were orig­i­nal­ly released as vinyl albums by Caed­mon Records, that pre-audio­book phe­nom­e­non found­ed by Bar­bara Holdridge and Mar­i­anne Roney in 1952. Caed­mon released albums of read­ings by dozens of major writ­ers, like Dylan Thomas and Eudo­ra Wel­ty, and we have fea­tured many of them here before—such as those from T.S. Eliot, Sylvia Plath, W.H. Auden, and Ten­nessee Williams (read­ing Hart Crane). But today, it’s Hem­ing­way and Faulkn­er, who despite—or because of—their dif­fer­ences, belong togeth­er for­ev­er as great Amer­i­can lit­er­ary patri­archs, even if patri­archy is ter­mi­nal­ly passé.

If you need the Spo­ti­fy soft­ware, please down­load it here.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Down­load 55 Free Online Lit­er­a­ture Cours­es: From Dante and Mil­ton to Ker­ouac and Tolkien

William Faulkner’s Review of Hemingway’s The Old Man and the Sea (1952)

18 (Free) Books Ernest Hem­ing­way Wished He Could Read Again for the First Time

Rare Audio: William Faulkn­er Names His Best Nov­el, And the First Faulkn­er Nov­el You Should Read

Josh Jones is a writer and musi­cian based in Durham, NC. Fol­low him at @jdmagness

Federico Fellini’s List of His 10 Favorite Films … Including One of His Own

Film fans have few stronger vices, I would sub­mit, than the mak­ing of lists. But we can take some small mea­sure of con­so­la­tion from the fact that cer­tain auteurs have occa­sion­al­ly done it too. Yes they make their own lists of favorite films. Quentin Taran­ti­no has done it. So have Stan­ley Kubrick and Woody Allen. Same with Andrei Tarkovsky, Susan Son­tag and Aki­ra Kuro­sawa. And then there’s one of the most inter­est­ing lists — that of Fed­eri­co Felli­ni, which orig­i­nal­ly appeared in Sight and Sound. It runs as fol­lows:

  1. The Cir­cus/City Lights/Monsieur Ver­doux (1928,31,47, Charles Chap­lin)
  2. Any Marx Broth­ers or Lau­rel and Hardy
  3. Stage­coach (1939, John Ford)
  4. Rashomon (1950, Aki­ra Kuro­sawa)
  5. The Dis­creet Charm of the Bour­geoisie (1972, Luis Bunuel)
  6. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968, Stan­ley Kubrick)
  7. Paisan (1946, Rober­to Rosselli­ni)
  8. The Birds (1963, Alfred Hitch­cock)
  9. Wild Straw­ber­ries (1957, Ing­mar Bergman)
  10. 8 1/2 (1963, Fed­eri­co Felli­ni)

Nev­er a slave to restraint, Felli­ni bends the tac­it rules of list-mak­ing in a few dif­fer­ent ways here. He includes not one but three films, all by Char­lie Chap­lin, in the top spot, ranks the com­plete comedic works of both the Marx Broth­ers (whose 1928 The Cir­cus you can watch above) and Lau­rel and Hardy in third place, and, in the most auda­cious act of all, adds a movie of his own to the list. Maybe the fact that he puts it at num­ber ten scores him a humil­i­ty point?

Then again, the direc­tor of La Dolce VitaSatyri­con, and Juli­et of the Spir­its could have found his dis­tinc­tive­ly grotesque and cel­e­bra­to­ry world­view real­ized nowhere but in his own work. And upon reflec­tion, putting 8 1/2 in last place looks over­mod­est. “I have seen 8 1/2 over and over again, and my appre­ci­a­tion only deep­ens,” wrote Roger Ebert in a piece on the film. “It does what is almost impos­si­ble: Felli­ni is a magi­cian who dis­cuss­es, reveals, explains and decon­structs his tricks, while still fool­ing us with them. He claims he does­n’t know what he wants or how to achieve it, and the film proves he knows exact­ly, and rejoic­es in his knowl­edge.” And he knew he was damn good.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book, BlueSky or Mastodon.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Andrei Tarkovsky Cre­ates a List of His 10 Favorite Films (1972)

Ing­mar Bergman Eval­u­ates His Fel­low Film­mak­ers — The “Affect­ed” Godard, “Infan­tile” Hitch­cock & Sub­lime Tarkovsky

Woody Allen Lists the Great­est Films of All Time: Includes Clas­sics by Bergman, Truf­faut & Felli­ni

Mar­tin Scors­ese Reveals His 12 Favorite Movies (and Writes a New Essay on Film Preser­va­tion)

Stan­ley Kubrick’s List of Top 10 Films (The First and Only List He Ever Cre­at­ed)

Roger Ebert’s Final List of His Top 10 Favorite Films (2012)

Col­in Mar­shall hosts and pro­duces Note­book on Cities and Cul­ture as well as the video series The City in Cin­e­ma and writes essays on cities, lan­guage, Asia, and men’s style. He’s at work on a book about Los Ange­les, A Los Ange­les Primer. Fol­low him on Twit­ter at @colinmarshall or on Face­book.

Neil Gaiman Reads “The Man Who Forgot Ray Bradbury”

man who forgot ray bradbury

Neil Gaiman sent Ray Brad­bury a gift for what turned out to be his last birth­day, his 91st. It was a sto­ry called “The Man Who For­got Ray Brad­bury.” And when Brad­bury’s edi­tor read it to the bed-rid­den author, he report­ed­ly took great plea­sure in it.

What could have been bet­ter? I guess only hear­ing Neil Gaiman read the sto­ry him­self. Which is pre­cise­ly what you can do with the audio below.

Gaiman’s read­ing was taped at the Aladdin The­ater in Port­land, Ore­gon. You can read the text of the sto­ry over at i09. We have many more instances of Gaiman read­ing Gaiman in our col­lec­tion of Free Neil Gaiman Sto­ries.

If you would like to sign up for Open Culture’s free email newslet­ter, please find it here. Or fol­low our posts on Threads, Face­book, BlueSky or Mastodon.

If you would like to sup­port the mis­sion of Open Cul­ture, con­sid­er mak­ing a dona­tion to our site. It’s hard to rely 100% on ads, and your con­tri­bu­tions will help us con­tin­ue pro­vid­ing the best free cul­tur­al and edu­ca­tion­al mate­ri­als to learn­ers every­where. You can con­tribute through Pay­Pal, Patre­on, and Ven­mo (@openculture). Thanks!

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Neil Gaiman’s Free Short Sto­ries

Neil Gaiman Reads Dr. Seuss’ Green Eggs and Ham

Watch Steven Soderbergh’s Re-Edited Version of Kubrick’s 2001: A Space Odyssey Free Online

kubrick soderbergh 3

In 2013, Steven Soder­bergh told me dur­ing an inter­view that he was retir­ing. “Five years ago, as we were fin­ish­ing Che, I said, ‘OK, when I turn 50, I want to be done. I’m going to jam in as much as I can, but when I turn 50, I want to be done.’ ”

Yet Soderbergh’s con­cept of retire­ment must be dif­fer­ent from most mor­tals. In the past year, he not only exec­u­tive pro­duced the Show­time series The Knick but he also direct­ed all ten episodes. Using the han­dle @Bitchuation, he wrote an entire nov­el on Twit­ter called Glue. And he pro­duced and direct­ed a Broad­way show star­ring Chloë Grace Moretz called The Library. And in his copi­ous free time, he’s been pro­duc­ing var­i­ous cin­e­mat­ic exper­i­ments on his web­site Exten­sion 765, which includ­ed a piece that spliced togeth­er Alfred Hitchcock’s Psy­cho with Gus Van Sant’s bizarro shot-by-shot remake, a black and white ver­sion of Raiders of the Lost Ark and an edit of Michael Cimino’s famous­ly bloat­ed Heaven’s Gates.

In his lat­est work, Soder­bergh takes a crack at Stan­ley Kubrick’s mas­ter­piece 2001: A Space Odyssey. You can watch it here. As he writes on his site:

i’ve been watch­ing 2001: A SPACE ODYSSEY reg­u­lar­ly for four decades, but it wasn’t until a few years ago i start­ed think­ing about touch­ing it, and then over the hol­i­days i decid­ed to make my move. why now? I don’t know. maybe i wasn’t old enough to touch it until now. maybe i was too scared to touch it until now, because not only does the film not need my—or any­one else’s—help, but if it’s not THE most impres­sive­ly imag­ined and sus­tained piece of visu­al art cre­at­ed in the 20th cen­tu­ry, then it’s tied for first. mean­ing IF i was final­ly going to touch it, i’d bet­ter have a big­ger idea than just trim­ming or re-scor­ing.

What that big­ger idea is, how­ev­er, isn’t imme­di­ate­ly clear. Soderbergh’s ver­sion is a good 50 min­utes short­er than the orig­i­nal. Unlike the orig­i­nal, which unfolds in a delib­er­ate pace, Soderbergh’s ver­sion moves briskly. Most of the cuts aren’t imme­di­ate­ly missed.

But there is one clear, and jar­ring dif­fer­ence between the two – he drops HAL’s unblink­ing elec­tron­ic red eye into unex­pect­ed scenes. It pops up right in the begin­ning, then again when the tribe of ear­ly humans first encounter the mono­lith, and then again dur­ing the film’s trip­py light show deep at the end. Where­as Kubrick used the HAL’s eye as a sin­is­ter exam­ple of the per­ils of tech­nol­o­gy and mankind’s hubris, Soder­bergh turns it into some­thing else, some­thing more spir­i­tu­al. Does it work? I don’t know. But it’s inter­est­ing.

Soder­bergh goes on to argue that Kubrick, were he alive, would be a big fan of dig­i­tal video and he makes a pret­ty com­pelling case.

i believe SK would have embraced the cur­rent crop of dig­i­tal cam­eras, because from a visu­al stand­point, he was obsessed with two things: absolute fideli­ty to real­i­ty-based light sources, and image sta­bi­liza­tion. regard­ing the for­mer, the increased sen­si­tiv­i­ty with­out res­o­lu­tion loss allows us to real­ly cap­ture the world as it is, and regard­ing the lat­ter, post-2001 SK gen­er­al­ly shot mat­te perf film (nor­mal­ly reserved for effects shots, because of its added steadi­ness) all day, every day, some­thing which dig­i­tal cap­ture makes moot. pile on things like nev­er being dis­tract­ed by weav­ing, splices, dirt, scratch­es, bad lab match­es dur­ing changeovers, changeovers them­selves, bad fram­ing and focus exac­er­bat­ed by pro­jec­tor vibra­tion, and you can see why i think he might dig dig­i­tal.

Again, you can watch Soder­bergh’s re-edit of 2001 here. More films can be found in our col­lec­tion, 4,000+ Free Movies Online: Great Clas­sics, Indies, Noir, West­erns, Doc­u­men­taries & More.

Relat­ed Con­tent:

Watch Steven Soderbergh’s Cre­ative Mashup of Hitch­cock and Gus Van Sant’s Psy­cho Films

Steven Soder­bergh Cre­ates Silent, Black & White Recut of Raiders of the Lost Ark to Explain the Art of “Stag­ing”

Steven Soder­bergh Cre­ates a Big List of What He Watched, Read & Lis­tened to in 2014

Jonathan Crow is a Los Ange­les-based writer and film­mak­er whose work has appeared in Yahoo!, The Hol­ly­wood Reporter, and oth­er pub­li­ca­tions. You can fol­low him at @jonccrow. And check out his blog Veep­to­pus, fea­tur­ing lots of pic­tures of bad­gers and even more pic­tures of vice pres­i­dents with octo­pus­es on their heads.  The Veep­to­pus store is here.

« Go BackMore in this category... »
Quantcast
Open Culture was founded by Dan Colman.