1039 Town Bloody Hall

[domino harvey]

Town Bloody Hall



On April 30, 1971, a standing-room-only crowd of New York's intellectual elite packed the city's Town Hall theater to see Norman Mailer—fresh from the controversy over his essay "The Prisoner of Sex" and the backlash it received from leaders of the women's movement—tangle with a panel of four prominent female thinkers and activists: Jacqueline Ceballos, Germaine Greer, Jill Johnston, and Diana Trilling. Part intellectual death match, part three-ring circus, the proceedings were captured with crackling, fly-on-the-wall immediacy by the documentary great D. A. Pennebaker and a small crew, with Chris Hegedus later condensing the three-and-a-half-hour affair into this briskly entertaining snapshot of a singular cultural moment. Heady, heated, and hilarious, Town Bloody Hall is a dazzling display of feminist firepower courtesy of some of the most influential figures of the era, with Mailer plainly relishing his role as the pugnacious rabble-rouser and literary lion at the center of it all.

DIRECTOR-APPROVED SPECIAL EDITION FEATURES

• New 2K digital restoration, supervised by director Chris Hegedus, with uncompressed monaural soundtrack on the Blu-ray
• New interview with Hegedus
• Audio commentary from 2004 featuring Hegedus and author Germaine Greer
• Footage from a 2004 celebration of the film, which brought together participants Greer, Jacqueline Ceballos, and Jill Johnston and directors Hegedus and D. A. Pennebaker
• Appearance from 1971 on The Dick Cavett Show by author Norman Mailer, promoting his book The Prisoner of Sex
• Archival interviews with Greer and Mailer
• English subtitles for the deaf and hard of hearing
• PLUS: An essay by film critic Melissa Anderson

[colinr0380]

Great! I have been interested to see this ever since Mr Deltoid mentioned where the Germaine Greer footage in a recent documentary about her was sourced from

[therewillbeblus]

This is up on YT (in pretty rough quality) for those who want to check it out before purchase.

[WmS]

Interesting! Never heard of this, but I can't think of another cultural figure who has so completely evaporated from "The Discourse" than Norman Mailer. Maybe things look different in New York, like that Saul Steinberg drawing, but maybe they could have a menu option where you can skip the parts where he talks.

[domino harvey]

Interesting! Never heard of this, but I can't think of another cultural figure who has so completely evaporated from "The Discourse" than Norman Mailer. Maybe things look different in New York, like that Saul Steinberg drawing, but maybe they could have a menu option where you can skip the parts where he talks.

The whole point of the event being filmed is what he says and how he winds everyone else up, though

[knives]

That seems to miss the point of discourse let alone the film.

[criterionoop]

but maybe they could have a menu option where you can skip the parts where he talks.

He's literally the whole reason that Town Hall was held. If you take him out, the film loses a lot of its antagonistic charm.

[Fortisquince]

Does anyone know how many appearances Dick Cavett has made in the Collection? At this point, he may deserve his own box set...with commentary by Peter Cowie.

[swo17]

I figure WmS was jokingly referring to how we all would have preferred the Norman Mailer Eclipse set

[domino harvey]

That’s not a joke, that’s a threat and you’ve been reported

[swo17]

That’s not a joke, that’s a threat and you’ve been reported

Not sure my wording was clear--I meant that we all would have preferred the Eclipse set to have a "no Norman Mailer" option, not that anyone would favor the Eclipse set over this release

[knives]

Hey, if it had a no Mailer option how would we get to see Rip Torn almost kill him? That would take away the set's lone pleasure.

[swo17]

Fine, "no Norman Mailer unless being attacked with hammers"

[knives]

I'll pay internet money to whomever makes that a gif.

[therewillbeblus]

As someone who intellectualizes by default, yet continually strives to sit in the emotional space of empathy divorced from philosophy, I found Norman Mailer to be incredibly obnoxious here in his lack of empathic provision. He's playing the role of a contrarian, but his points (some of them actually great- especially promoting the peripheral concept that people can fit stereotypes and transcend them within the same day, encouraging complexities that themselves contrast rigid uniform identities) come across as condescending and his own intellectual jargon at times is intentionally demeaning. Then he'll come in and invalidate entire arguments, interrupt, and generally becomes a walking paradox (my favorite is at the end saying we need to be kind, talking about paradoxes in mankind, after being so mean and pejorative... whether unaware or finger-wagging-preachy to 'prove a point,' it doesn't matter). The film itself is interesting because what his rudeness does is poke holes in some of the grand statements of the women as thin and unrelated to any topic at hand, other than to be a head-nodding inspirational speeches; and they give it right back and do the same to him.

Still, Mailer's disrespect to the audience (literally calling them stupid) and admission to tricking people with logical argument, refuses to meet anyone on a plain of experiential acknowledgement and compassion. I love a good debate, and this one has moments of greatness, but there is so much ego, and so little heart, in the room that this ultimately left me shrugging. Mailer and the four women are all reduced to solipsistic preachers by audience questions and the objectivity of the camera watching them strip each other of value. Within the caustic struggle between the participants are some gems of important psychological and philosophical ideas and theories, and in those moments the film really shines.

I'm curious about the commentary though, which if good, may make this worth picking up. “The Prisoner of Sex” seems like a strange omission given its existence igniting this debate, and film.

[criterionoop]

Mailer and the four women are all reduced to solipsistic preachers by audience questions and the objectivity of the camera watching them strip each other of value.

My favorite moment of the film is Germaine Greer responding to, I believe, Anatole Broyard asking that ridiculous question about "responding in the form of a one-act play" about what the liberation wants. And Greer just saying "Listen you may as well relax because whatever it is they're asking for, honey, it's not for you."

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah it’s the last question

SpoilerShow

he asks what a women’s idea of a sexual experience would be post-liberation, which is ridiculous on many levels (trying to gain mastery over a woman’s perspective, showing his desperate curiosity in a blind spot he can’t access with a dominant position, and just all around a nonsensical aim that he thinks he can possibly know another’s experience). Her response is perfectly curt, and actually aligns with the spirit of the debate with Norman, defending his participation while further emasculating Broyard (who begins his questions by saying something like ‘now we can finally get down to the particulars of the evening’ before asking about idealistic sex, perhaps the most demeaning and pathetic moment of the whole movie, which is saying something!)

He says that he didn’t “find anything in the research” (about a future-oriented, hypothetical/suppository question, mind you) and Greer says, “Norman describes the state of affairs that exists- you ask me to describe a state of affairs that doesn’t exist, it’s a perfectly unreasonable demand. What makes you think liberation has happened?” He timidly replies that he wants to know what women are asking for so he can give it to them (put a bandaid on it, protect his dominance, hold onto his fragile masculinity) and then she says that wonderful dis.

It really is the highlight of the film.

[WmS]

Not sure my wording was clear--I meant that we all would have preferred the Eclipse set to have a "no Norman Mailer" option

Total Eclipse of the Norm

[Saturnome]

[domino harvey]

I love this board

[Rayon Vert]

Watched it on YT. I really didn't find it that distinctive either as an intellectually stimulating dialogue (points of view not all that well articulated or profound), nor as an entertaining cultural historical "antagonistic charm" piece (really not all that "bloody"). Really quite underwhelming and I can't see it deserving the merit of a stand-alone release.

[therewillbeblus]

Yeah every point that did seem to hold weight, or be an isolated significant observation, ultimately was tossed aside by either the next speaker, the person who said it, or both. I agree with you, RV, though the inclusion of the commentary makes me cautiously curious, because if it’s great and doesn’t have any dead air, the release could be worth picking up as a completely different film recontextualized. It’s an old one so there’s probably a way to find out its merit.

[knives]

[CSM126]

Town Beaver Hall

[cdnchris]

The 2001 Mailer interview is more about Maidstone and those "other films" than Town Bloody Hall (with the latter being him admitting that he didn't understand the movement and how serious it was). His discussion on those films prove more interesting than the finished products by a wide margin, and the poor guy laughs at how he really thought Maidstone was going to change how films were made.