[English] All About Eve

Tue Dec 10 22:03:29 EST 2013

Dear Jackson, 
I really am not
arguing for the “snappier pacing and editing that modern movies rely upon”. Many
of my favourite directors use long takes and a slow rhythm- Antonioni, Malick,
Miklos Janco, Chabrol, Resnais. Nor am I arguing for “modern” films. The
problem is not the film’s age. There were plenty of films made during and long
before the 50s that had a visually exciting style- think of Marcel Carne’s or those
of German expressionist cinema, of Eisenstein, Welles, Lean, Mizoguchi, etc. etc. And
there are plenty of brilliant contemporary films which do not have “snappy”
pacing – those of Godard, Robert Altman, Malick, Ozon, Rohmer. I fear you are making
another false dichotomy between old = slow and classic/modern = fast and
snappy. I am not denying that some of the acting in “All About Eve” is terrific
but that doesn’t make it a masterpiece nor make up for some serious failings. And re
lists, is there a more respected film magazine than “Sight and Sound”? I only referred to that to suggest one really needs to consider one's criteria and the place of a text amongst others before one elevates it to "masterpiece" status. 
Regards,
Lyle

On Tuesday, 10 December 2013 7:15 PM, Jackson Bates <bates.j at wcc.vic.edu.au> wrote:

Hi all,

I for one have no problem loosely describing the film as a masterpiece. It depends what criteria you use to determine this status.

The values that it ultimately reflects are of course backwards by today's standards. The beauty in studying a text like this with students today is that it allows you to shine a light on the darker recesses of their own values and prejudices. You may not like a film's message, but message alone does not endow a film with masterpiece status, in my view.

It may not be listed on one specific list of best movies, but that "ain't worth a hill of beans" either. It is on other "best of" lists, which still doesn't mean much.

The wit may be heavy handed - but wit in this style usually is. Wildean bon mots have a healthy tradition in the theatre and it is the voice of the theatre the film attempts to capture. It may be unrealistic, but it's elevated register and expression are far less tedious than the banalities of language we are subjected to with 'reality TV.' I'm aware this is a false dichotomy, but I don't look to cinema for reality nor assess it on its ability to simulate it.

A merit of the film you have not mentioned, maybe because you do not rate it, is the acting. The pedestrian camera work brings the dialogue and acting to the fore. Take for example Anne Baxter's sublime turn as she is rebuffed by Bill and then turns on the charm for Addison. She doesn't express much in her usual dealing with people and could be described as wooden, but in these few moments she expresses a whole range of feeling that is quite remarkable to watch.

I might not go so far as to call the movie a masterpiece, I do think it is a very strong film. It was heavily imitated in many ways for many years after and has stood the test of time. It lacks the snappier pacing and editing that modern movies rely upon, but this hardly makes it mediocre. It simply adopts a different style, one rarely used now, that is a suitable vehicle for achieving the aims of the director.

I can't wait to start this film with my students next year and tearing its politics to shreds.

Regards,

Jackson Bates
Head of English
Waverley Christian College

(Sent via phone)

> On 10 Dec 2013, at 5:45 pm, "english-request at edulists.com.au" <english-request at edulists.com.au> wrote:
>
> Send english mailing list submissions to
>    english at edulists.com.au
>
> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the World Wide Web, visit
>    http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/english
> or, via email, send a message with subject or body 'help' to
>    english-request at edulists.com.au
>
> You can reach the person managing the list at
>    english-owner at edulists.com.au
>
> When replying, please edit your Subject line so it is more specific
> than "Re: Contents of english digest..."
>
>
> Today's Topics:
>
>   1. All About Eve (Lyle Stebbing)
>   2. Re: All About Eve (inhouse)
>   3. Re: All About Eve (Skidmore, Kathy L)
>
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
>
> Message: 1
> Date: Mon, 9 Dec 2013 19:09:07 -0800 (PST)
> From: Lyle Stebbing <lylestebbing at yahoo.com.au>
> Subject: [English] All About Eve
> To: "VCE English Teachers' Mailing List" <english at edulists.com.au>
> Message-ID:
>    <1386644947.22833.YahooMailNeo at web161501.mail.bf1.yahoo.com>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> I have been
> bemused by the fact that several students I tutor have been authoritatively told by their
> teachers that ?All About Eve? is a ?masterpiece?. I?m wondering on what
> criteria this judgement is based and to which canon of cinematic ?masterpieces?
> the film belongs. Certainly it?s not included in ?Sight and Sound?s? list of
> the best hundred films ever made. Is it, like other American films that have been
> on the list, given this status simply because it?s old, it?s in black and white
> and it?s spoken in English?? I can see
> that the film has historical interest as a reflection of its society?s prevalent
> ideology regarding gender. But its ?critique? of Hollywood stardom, celebrity
> culture and competitiveness is really just a vehicle for the old argument that
> a career damages a woman?s femininity and natural role in life. It is specifically
> female careerism and competitiveness that the film targets. The central claim
> is this: ?Funny business, a woman's career. The things
> you drop on your way up the ladder so you can move faster. You forget you'll
> need them again when you get back to being a woman. There's one career all
> females have in common - whether we like it or not: being a woman. Sooner or
> later, we've got to work at it, no matter how many other careers we've had or
> wanted. And, in the last analysis, nothing is any good unless you can look up
> just before dinner or turn around in bed - and there he is. Without that,
> you're not a woman. You're something with a French provincial office or a - a
> book full of clippings, but you're not a woman. ?How tediously reactionary is that? Margo finds
> ?real? success when she gives up her career and marries. Those who don?t see
> the light but pursue roles outside marriage will be punished, the film?s assures
> us. I can?t see that it has many other virtues, either. The film?s celebrated
> ?wit? is very heavy-handed; the script is weighed down by ?clever? one-liners
> and allusions designed to show off its ?cultured? credentials but which
> undermine its realism. The cleverness of a middlebrow studio film with
> pretensions to being highbrow. And its visuals ? camera work and editing - are
> pedestrian and dull. Rather than?a film as text this is?a filmed screenplay. I can
> see that teachers might want students to study this film as a text that so
> obviously embodies and endorses the cultural biases and values of its time. But
> to insist on it being viewed as a masterpiece with ?classic? status tends to
> preclude real analysis and discourages students? from critiquing it. ?It?s understandable that the film would be judged
> a classic inside Hollywood by its own self-regarding standards (and Oscars are
> hardly a sign of real worth) but it seems to me that some teachers encouraging
> students to equate cinema with the American film industry and themselves reinforcing
> Hollywood?s cultural domination.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/english/attachments/20131209/511ddab0/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 2
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 15:53:06 +1100
> From: "inhouse" <inhouse at mira.net>
> Subject: Re: [English] All About Eve
> To: "'VCE English Teachers' Mailing List'" <english at edulists.com.au>
> Message-ID: <004701cef563$b7164320$2542c960$@mira.net>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="utf-8"
>
> Goodness me Lyle; hope you feel better now.  But a seriously great way to start a discussion.
>
>
>
>
>
> From: english-bounces at edulists.com.au [mailto:english-bounces at edulists.com.au] On Behalf Of Lyle Stebbing
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 December 2013 2:09 PM
> To: VCE English Teachers' Mailing List
> Subject: [English] All About Eve
>
>
>
> I have been bemused by the fact that several students I tutor have been authoritatively told by their teachers that ?All About Eve? is a ?masterpiece?. I?m wondering on what criteria this judgement is based and to which canon of cinematic ?masterpieces? the film belongs. Certainly it?s not included in ?Sight and Sound?s? list of the best hundred films ever made. Is it, like other American films that have been on the list, given this status simply because it?s old, it?s in black and white and it?s spoken in English?  I can see that the film has historical interest as a reflection of its society?s prevalent ideology regarding gender. But its ?critique? of Hollywood stardom, celebrity culture and competitiveness is really just a vehicle for the old argument that a career damages a woman?s femininity and natural role in life. It is specifically female careerism and competitiveness that the film targets. The central claim is this:  Funny business, a
 woman's career. The things y!
ou!
>  drop on your way up the ladder so you can move faster. You forget you'll need them again when you get back to being a woman. There's one career all females have in common - whether we like it or not: being a woman. Sooner or later, we've got to work at it, no matter how many other careers we've had or wanted. And, in the last analysis, nothing is any good unless you can look up just before dinner or turn around in bed - and there he is Without that, you're not a woman. You're something with a French provincial office or a - a book full of clippings, but you're not a woman.  How tediously reactionary is that? Margo finds ?real? success when she gives up her career and marries. Those who don?t see the light but pursue roles outside marriage will be punished, the film?s assures us. I can?t see that it has many other virtues, either. The film?s celebrated ?wit? is very heavy-handed; the script is weighed down by ?clever? one-liners and allusions
 designed to show off its ?cult!
u!
> red? credentials but which undermine its realism. The cleverness of a
> middlebrow studio film with pretensions to being highbrow. And its visuals ? camera work and editing - are pedestrian and dull. Rather than a film as text this is a filmed screenplay. I can see that teachers might want students to study this film as a text that so obviously embodies and endorses the cultural biases and values of its time. But to insist on it being viewed as a masterpiece with ?classic? status tends to preclude real analysis and discourages students? from critiquing it.  It?s understandable that the film would be judged a classic inside Hollywood by its own self-regarding standards (and Oscars are hardly a sign of real worth) but it seems to me that some teachers encouraging students to equate cinema with the American film industry and themselves reinforcing Hollywood?s cultural domination.
>
>
>
>
>
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/english/attachments/20131210/9bb59818/attachment-0001.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> Message: 3
> Date: Tue, 10 Dec 2013 06:40:52 +0000
> From: "Skidmore, Kathy L" <skidmore.kathy.l at edumail.vic.gov.au>
> Subject: Re: [English] All About Eve
> To: "VCE English Teachers' Mailing List" <english at edulists.com.au>
> Message-ID: <A9A2869F-1D5F-447D-80BC-612CF30C15FE at edumail.vic.gov.au>
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset="windows-1252"
>
> Yes, "masterpiece" IS overstating it somewhat. However, it's worth reading some of the discussion threads on IMDB to look at the gender issues...particularly as Mankiewicz saw them. More good discussion starters there, too.
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On 10 Dec 2013, at 3:54 pm, "inhouse" <inhouse at mira.net<mailto:inhouse at mira.net>> wrote:
>
> Goodness me Lyle; hope you feel better now.  But a seriously great way to start a discussion.
>
>
> From: english-bounces at edulists.com.au<mailto:english-bounces at edulists.com.au> [mailto:english-bounces at edulists.com.au] On Behalf Of Lyle Stebbing
> Sent: Tuesday, 10 December 2013 2:09 PM
> To: VCE English Teachers' Mailing List
> Subject: [English] All About Eve
>
> I have been bemused by the fact that several students I tutor have been authoritatively told by their teachers that ?All About Eve? is a ?masterpiece?. I?m wondering on what criteria this judgement is based and to which canon of cinematic ?masterpieces? the film belongs. Certainly it?s not included in ?Sight and Sound?s? list of the best hundred films ever made. Is it, like other American films that have been on the list, given this status simply because it?s old, it?s in black and white and it?s spoken in English?  I can see that the film has historical interest as a reflection of its society?s prevalent ideology regarding gender. But its ?critique? of Hollywood stardom, celebrity culture and competitiveness is really just a vehicle for the old argument that a career damages a woman?s femininity and natural role in life. It is specifically female careerism and competitiveness that the film targets. The central claim is this:  Funny business, a
 woman's career. The things y!
ou!
>  drop on your way up the ladder so you can move faster. You forget you'll need them again when you get back to being a woman. There's one career all females have in common - whether we like it or not: being a woman. Sooner or later, we've got to work at it, no matter how many other careers we've had or wanted. And, in the last analysis, nothing is any good unless you can look up just before dinner or turn around in bed - and there he is. Without that, you're not a woman. You're something with a French provincial office or a - a book full of clippings, but you're not a woman.  How tediously reactionary is that? Margo finds ?real? success when she gives up her career and marries. Those who don?t see the light but pursue roles outside marriage will be punished, the film?s assures us. I can?t see that it has many other virtues, either. The film?s celebrated ?wit? is very heavy-handed; the script is weighed down by ?clever? one-liners and allusions
 designed to show off its ?cul!
t!
> ured? credentials but which undermine its realism. The cleverness of a
> middlebrow studio film with pretensions to being highbrow. And its visuals ? camera work and editing - are pedestrian and dull. Rather than a film as text this is a filmed screenplay. I can see that teachers might want students to study this film as a text that so obviously embodies and endorses the cultural biases and values of its time. But to insist on it being viewed as a masterpiece with ?classic? status tends to preclude real analysis and discourages students? from critiquing it.  It?s understandable that the film would be judged a classic inside Hollywood by its own self-regarding standards (and Oscars are hardly a sign of real worth) but it seems to me that some teachers encouraging students to equate cinema with the American film industry and themselves reinforcing Hollywood?s cultural domination.
>
>
> _______________________________________________
> http://www.edulists.com.au/- FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe
> VCE English Teachers' Mailing List kindly supported by
> http://www.vate.org.au/- Victorian Association for the Teaching of English VATE and
> http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/english/index.html- Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority
>
> Important - This email and any attachments may be confidential. If received in error, please contact us and delete all copies. Before opening or using attachments check them for viruses and defects. Regardless of any loss, damage or consequence, whether caused by the negligence of the sender or not, resulting directly or indirectly from the use of any attached files our liability is limited to resupplying any affected attachments. Any representations or opinions expressed are those of the individual sender, and not necessarily those of the Department of Education and Early Childhood Development.
> -------------- next part --------------
> An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
> URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/english/attachments/20131210/c8a56239/attachment.html
>
> ------------------------------
>
> _______________________________________________
> english mailing list
> english at edulists.com.au
> http://www.edulists.com.au/mailman/listinfo/english
>
>
> End of english Digest, Vol 79, Issue 2
> **************************************
>
> Scanned by the Netbox from Netbox Blue
> (http://netboxblue.com/)
>

________________________________

------------------------------------------
DISCLAIMER: This email and any files transmitted with it are confidential and intended solely for the use of the individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you have received this email in error please delete it immediately and notify the system administrator on srvadm at wcc.vic.edu.au.
WARNING: Although the College has taken reasonable precautions to ensure no viruses are present in this email, the College cannot accept responsibility for any loss or damage arising from the use of this email or attachments.
------------------------------------------

Scanned by the Netbox from Netbox Blue
(http://netboxblue.com/)

_______________________________________________
http://www.edulists.com.au/- FAQ, resources, subscribe, unsubscribe
VCE English Teachers' Mailing List kindly supported by
http://www.vate.org.au/- Victorian Association for the Teaching of English VATE and
http://www.vcaa.vic.edu.au/vce/studies/english/index.html- Victorian Curriculum and Assessment Authority 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.edulists.com.au/pipermail/english/attachments/20131210/bc061464/attachment-0001.html 