<?xml version="1.0" encoding="ISO-8859-1" ?>




































































  <rss version="2.0" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom">
    <channel>
      <title>Comments On: What&apos;s old: Lola Montes
    
      by Kate Schmidt</title>
      <link>http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/11/10/whats-old-lola-montes</link>
      <atom:link href="http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/Rss.xml?oid=943214&amp;id=comments" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />      <description>Comments On: What&apos;s old: Lola Montes
    
      by Kate Schmidt</description>
      <language>en-us</language>
      <copyright>Copyright 2009 Chicago Reader. All rights reserved. This RSS file is offered to individuals, Chicago Reader readers, and non-commercial organizations only. Any commercial websites wishing to use this RSS file, please contact Chicago Reader.</copyright>
      <webMaster>wil@desert.net (Chicago Reader Webmaster)</webMaster>
      <pubDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 00:00:01 -0600</pubDate>
      <lastBuildDate>Sun, 22 Nov 2009 01:15:00 -0600</lastBuildDate>
      <generator>Foundation</generator>
      <docs>http://blogs.law.harvard.edu/tech/rss</docs>
      
        
          <item>
    
    <title><![CDATA[Re: What's old: Lola Montes]]></title>
    
    
    <link><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/11/10/whats-old-lola-montes/#956812]]></link>
    
    <guid isPermaLink="true"><![CDATA[http://www.chicagoreader.com/TheBlog/archives/2008/11/10/whats-old-lola-montes/#956812]]></guid>
    <author><![CDATA[pat g.]]></author>
    <description>
      
      <![CDATA[glad you posted this, something had to be done ...
    
    re martine carol's impassivity: not sure it's a problem, not conceptually anyway, though dramatically it obviously doesn't offer much--which may actually be intended on ophuls's part, since the historical lola's an enigma in much the same way: why her, why then, where's the "magic" coming from, the presumed charismatic allure? * it's long been a historian's puzzle, and arguably ophuls's decision NOT to dramatize, to leave a vacancy at the center of the film, acknowledges this paradox * we've also other instances of the same strategy at work, conceptual "black holes" around which a dramatic world takes form, tom cruise in EYES WIDE SHUT being one recent example, a principle of entropy at the dynamic heart of things * and it's apparently true that ophuls didn't set much store in lola's character anyway: just an excuse to hang the "real" movie on, and most of the "cinematic" interest lies elsewhere * arguably the only time we're invited to empathize with her, invest emotionally in her situation, is just before the trapeze plunge--which on the immediate evidence works superbly: my dearest companion almost went into shock!
        
        <br />
        
          Posted by pat g.]]>
    </description>
    <pubDate>Mon, 10 Nov 2008 18:31:28 -0600</pubDate> 
    <source url="http://www.chicagoreader.com">Chicago Reader</source>
  </item>
        
      
    </channel>
  </rss>




