<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: Even An Oath Can Be Amputated</title>
	<atom:link href="http://blog.sfmoma.org/2008/06/14/even-an-oath-can-be-amputated/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://blog.sfmoma.org/2008/06/14/even-an-oath-can-be-amputated/</link>
	<description>............................................................................................."Take your pleasures seriously."....................Charles Eames............................</description>
	<pubDate>Tue, 06 Jan 2009 15:07:38 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: Lego</title>
		<link>http://blog.sfmoma.org/2008/06/14/even-an-oath-can-be-amputated/#comment-342</link>
		<dc:creator>Lego</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Fri, 20 Jun 2008 01:11:38 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sfmoma.org/?p=285#comment-342</guid>
		<description>are there discussions associated with the screening? thank you!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>are there discussions associated with the screening? thank you!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fabrizio</title>
		<link>http://blog.sfmoma.org/2008/06/14/even-an-oath-can-be-amputated/#comment-314</link>
		<dc:creator>Fabrizio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 16 Jun 2008 03:19:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sfmoma.org/?p=285#comment-314</guid>
		<description>I don't understand why we have two different blog pages here.  Seems cumbersome to have to enter each one separately.

Anyway, this was posted last week on the other page:    re music

Music
The comedic aspects of the passing of the women, the scene with the newspaperman (the new reciipient of Franze),

the dishwater coffee and laughable trumped up quarrel are accompanied throughout by a most ominous music undercurrent, implying that someone will get hurt, perhaps even killed.

Often music is in opposition to the scenes, a Brechtian technique, but in this case, to expand the emotional state, rather than to prevent one.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I don&#8217;t understand why we have two different blog pages here.  Seems cumbersome to have to enter each one separately.</p>
<p>Anyway, this was posted last week on the other page:    re music</p>
<p>Music<br />
The comedic aspects of the passing of the women, the scene with the newspaperman (the new reciipient of Franze),</p>
<p>the dishwater coffee and laughable trumped up quarrel are accompanied throughout by a most ominous music undercurrent, implying that someone will get hurt, perhaps even killed.</p>
<p>Often music is in opposition to the scenes, a Brechtian technique, but in this case, to expand the emotional state, rather than to prevent one.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Suzanne</title>
		<link>http://blog.sfmoma.org/2008/06/14/even-an-oath-can-be-amputated/#comment-311</link>
		<dc:creator>Suzanne</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 22:22:03 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sfmoma.org/?p=285#comment-311</guid>
		<description>Fabrizio, I am so much appreciating your comments. I think the laughter at the appearance of Reinhold is because of the coy and sultry way he's sucking on the straw (a grown man? in a bar? in 1929 Berlin?) and giving the eye to Franz. It's so cruisy, as Stephen said. And pure Fassbinder. No?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Fabrizio, I am so much appreciating your comments. I think the laughter at the appearance of Reinhold is because of the coy and sultry way he&#8217;s sucking on the straw (a grown man? in a bar? in 1929 Berlin?) and giving the eye to Franz. It&#8217;s so cruisy, as Stephen said. And pure Fassbinder. No?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Tony</title>
		<link>http://blog.sfmoma.org/2008/06/14/even-an-oath-can-be-amputated/#comment-310</link>
		<dc:creator>Tony</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:25:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sfmoma.org/?p=285#comment-310</guid>
		<description>This is a diversion but I think an important one

I was particularly struck by the music on the sound track - the way it changes in relationship to the events and its evocative nature. For example haunting piano music appears to dominate in the romantic and erotic scenes and a jazz score in other situations. Have not really tracked it systematically as I've been too engrossed by the movie but would welcome some discussion on the music, and any information on the score, composer etc - is it available too?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>This is a diversion but I think an important one</p>
<p>I was particularly struck by the music on the sound track - the way it changes in relationship to the events and its evocative nature. For example haunting piano music appears to dominate in the romantic and erotic scenes and a jazz score in other situations. Have not really tracked it systematically as I&#8217;ve been too engrossed by the movie but would welcome some discussion on the music, and any information on the score, composer etc - is it available too?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Fabrizio</title>
		<link>http://blog.sfmoma.org/2008/06/14/even-an-oath-can-be-amputated/#comment-309</link>
		<dc:creator>Fabrizio</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 21:11:39 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sfmoma.org/?p=285#comment-309</guid>
		<description>What does it mean?

hard to say about losing a testicle, a ball,

laughter floats through the room whenever the subject is mentioned

guess that is funnier than losing your gall bladder?

why can’t it be a statement of a physical condition rather than something requiring analysis?

In Doblin, the entire Job - Satan sequence  exists solely as dialogue,
the candlelit card game is Fassbinder’s addition

In Doblin we simply read most descriptive passages, few are in quotes.

Biberkopf presents them, as dispassionately as they appear in the book.  It isn’t about his understanding them, or ‘ingesting’ them, or even having an opinion about them.  He is simply the mouthpiece device through which we get the information as originally presented by Dublin

these are not gossip lines, they are the bits giving us Berlin at that time     
inside heads 
and  out    of     mind. 
No more toxic than life itself

The first time Reinhold appears in the café people in the audience laugh  . . . .  at what?

Because he may have feminine attributes?  
In the book Reinhold is not a handsome character, he is sloppy, shuffles, his socks are always hanging over his shoes.

Biberkopf has always been lost . . his early relationship with Meck may have had some father-son aspects, so when he loses Meck he may feel like he is losing a father.  Expresses that idea by asking Meck if he ever lost his father.

The fabric of book and film:
refraction   -  kaliedescope  -   reflection  - dispersion

all centrality sprinkled  into bits and shards
Joyce
dos Passos
Dublin
Virginia Woof
whose head am I in now?

the slaughter house scene  -  lacks the intensity and vividness, shock, of Dublin.  Only scene thus far to be less powerful than the book

Allegory for Franz himself

That lamb  (sacrificial?)  substituting for Dublin’s  calf.  To help make his allegorical point?</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>What does it mean?</p>
<p>hard to say about losing a testicle, a ball,</p>
<p>laughter floats through the room whenever the subject is mentioned</p>
<p>guess that is funnier than losing your gall bladder?</p>
<p>why can’t it be a statement of a physical condition rather than something requiring analysis?</p>
<p>In Doblin, the entire Job - Satan sequence  exists solely as dialogue,<br />
the candlelit card game is Fassbinder’s addition</p>
<p>In Doblin we simply read most descriptive passages, few are in quotes.</p>
<p>Biberkopf presents them, as dispassionately as they appear in the book.  It isn’t about his understanding them, or ‘ingesting’ them, or even having an opinion about them.  He is simply the mouthpiece device through which we get the information as originally presented by Dublin</p>
<p>these are not gossip lines, they are the bits giving us Berlin at that time<br />
inside heads<br />
and  out    of     mind.<br />
No more toxic than life itself</p>
<p>The first time Reinhold appears in the café people in the audience laugh  . . . .  at what?</p>
<p>Because he may have feminine attributes?<br />
In the book Reinhold is not a handsome character, he is sloppy, shuffles, his socks are always hanging over his shoes.</p>
<p>Biberkopf has always been lost . . his early relationship with Meck may have had some father-son aspects, so when he loses Meck he may feel like he is losing a father.  Expresses that idea by asking Meck if he ever lost his father.</p>
<p>The fabric of book and film:<br />
refraction   -  kaliedescope  -   reflection  - dispersion</p>
<p>all centrality sprinkled  into bits and shards<br />
Joyce<br />
dos Passos<br />
Dublin<br />
Virginia Woof<br />
whose head am I in now?</p>
<p>the slaughter house scene  -  lacks the intensity and vividness, shock, of Dublin.  Only scene thus far to be less powerful than the book</p>
<p>Allegory for Franz himself</p>
<p>That lamb  (sacrificial?)  substituting for Dublin’s  calf.  To help make his allegorical point?</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Dominic</title>
		<link>http://blog.sfmoma.org/2008/06/14/even-an-oath-can-be-amputated/#comment-305</link>
		<dc:creator>Dominic</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Sun, 15 Jun 2008 00:00:44 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://blog.sfmoma.org/?p=285#comment-305</guid>
		<description>I must be missing a lot that's in the background.  I saw episode 4 again this afternoon and only then noticed that it ends with the camera holding on a poster announcing 'Carl von Ossietzky Condemned'.  This must refer to his conviction for publicizing secret German rearmament (in violation of the Treaty of Versailles) and campaigning against the government's toleration of paramilitary groups. See the link here:

http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1935/ossietzky-bio.html</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>I must be missing a lot that&#8217;s in the background.  I saw episode 4 again this afternoon and only then noticed that it ends with the camera holding on a poster announcing &#8216;Carl von Ossietzky Condemned&#8217;.  This must refer to his conviction for publicizing secret German rearmament (in violation of the Treaty of Versailles) and campaigning against the government&#8217;s toleration of paramilitary groups. See the link here:</p>
<p><a href="http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1935/ossietzky-bio.html" rel="nofollow">http://nobelprize.org/nobel_prizes/peace/laureates/1935/ossietzky-bio.html</a></p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
