PDA

View Full Version : Films You've Never Seen - Filmmakers You've Never Visited



Boner M
11-10-2007, 06:25 AM
Stealing a thread iosos made in our old days...

As far as well known films go, my major blind spots are...

Breakfast at Tiffany's
Gone With the Wind
Ben-Hur
A Christmas Story
Braveheart

Films I actually have a desire to see...

The Apu Trilogy
Spirit of the Beehive
Woman in the Dunes
Voyage in Italy
The Mother and the Whore

I've covered a lot of filmmakers, but my major blind spots in this department are far less surprising...

Peter Watkins
Mikio Naruse
William Wyler
Vincente Minnelli
Max Ophuls
Satyajit Ray
Andrzej Wajda
Eric von Stroheim
Josef von Sternberg
King Vidor
Derek Jarman

Watashi
11-10-2007, 06:30 AM
My list for films is too many.

Filmmakers I have yet to explore:

Dario Argento
Rainer Fassbinder
Peter Watkins
Samuel Fuller
Sergei Eisenstein
Eric Rohmer
Andrei Tarkovsky

number8
11-10-2007, 06:32 AM
I'm planning on dipping my toes into Imamura.

Sycophant
11-10-2007, 06:37 AM
Confession time!

I'm going to bypass most of the films, with the exception of these:
The Godfather parts II and III

Filmmakers I have yet to explore (the ones I feel worst about):
Yasujiro Ozu
Mikio Naruse
Hiroshi Teshigahara
Chen Kaige
Powell/Pressburger
Catherine Breillat
Andrei Tarkovsky
Sergei Eisenstein
D. W. Griffiths
Eric Rohmer
Francois Truffaut
Harold Lloyd
Tsai Ming-Liang
Shohei Imamura

Ones I've begun to explore, but not nearly enough:
Seijun Suzuki
Orson Welles
R. W. Fassbinder
Werner Herzog
Fritz Lang
Martin Scorsese

Philosophe_rouge
11-10-2007, 06:38 AM
Well known films
-Chinatown
-Seven Samurai
-Alien
-Mr. Smith Goes to Washington
-Die Hard

I desire to seeeee:
-The Rules of the Game
-Madame de...
-Meet Me in St-Louis
-Sunrise
-L'Avventura

Directorrs:
Andrei Tarkovsky
Yasujiro Ozu
Satyajit Ray
Alain Resnais
Krzysztof Kieslowski
Jacques Tati
Jacques Rivette
Theo Angelopoulos
George A. Romero
Eric Rohmer
Pier Paolo Pasolini
John Cassavetes
Robert Bresson

soitgoes...
11-10-2007, 07:31 AM
Films:
La Dolce Vita
City Lights
Nashville
Fanny and Alexander
Eraserhead
The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly <--- Seen, but its been too long to remember
Decalogue

Directors:
Resnais
Bava
Cassavetes
von Stroheim
Visconti

I'm sure there are (many) others, but these stand out.

FWIW, I've only seen one film by Tarkovsky, Roeg, Rivette, Rohmer, Pasolini, and Antonioni.

origami_mustache
11-10-2007, 09:31 AM
Rainer Fassbinder
Dario Argento
Satyajit Ray
Samuel Fuller
Eric Rohmer
Olivier Assayas
Lukas Moodysson
Peter Greenaway

kamran
11-10-2007, 12:42 PM
Great topic, although potentially humiliating...

BLIND SPOTS
Vertigo
Au hasard Balthazar
The Lady Eve
Lawrence of Arabia
The Godfather Part II and Part III
Nashville
Eraserhead
Red (I've seen Blue and White though.)
Apocalypse Now

FILMMAKERS
Peter Greenaway
Rainer W. Fassbinder
Lukas Moodysson
Shohei Imamura
Jean Renoir
John Cassavetes
Nicholas Ray

And after discovering Rosemary's Baby just recently, I really want catch up with Polanski.

Raiders
11-10-2007, 02:03 PM
Filmmakers:

Mikio Naruse
Claire Denis
Chantal Akerman
Andrzej Wajda

Spinal
11-10-2007, 04:24 PM
Still haven't seen:

Dr. Zhivago
The French Connection
Breakfast at Tiffany's
Downfall
Saraband
Killer of Sheep
The Best Years of Our Lives
The Thing
Shadow of a Doubt
The Wages of Fear
Bratz

Kurosawa Fan
11-10-2007, 04:27 PM
Bratz

:|

Spinal
11-10-2007, 04:28 PM
:|

I know, I know. I'll get around to it eventually. Stop mocking me.

dreamdead
11-10-2007, 04:55 PM
Directors I've yet to see anything by:

Harold Lloyd
Vincente Minnelli
Max Ophuls
Satyajit Ray
Tyler Perry
Josef von Sternberg
King Vidor
Theo Angelopoulos

monolith94
11-10-2007, 05:10 PM
Stealing a thread iosos made in our old days...


Films I actually have a desire to see...


Voyage in Italy



Eh, actually not that interesting. I'd only see it if you've totally exhausted all other Tarkovskys.

Eleven
11-10-2007, 05:19 PM
Films I can easily get a hold of that I just haven't yet:

Children of Paradise
Chimes at Midnight
Diary of a Country Priest
Once Upon a Time in America
Rome, Open City
Shoah
Stalker

Directors etc. etc.:

Theo Angelopolous
Frank Borzage
Derek Jarman
Jerzy Skolimowski
Hiroshi Teshigahara

megladon8
11-10-2007, 05:21 PM
Never seen anything by Jacques Tati.

Still haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia, even though I've owned it for nearly a year.

chrisnu
11-10-2007, 05:41 PM
I've never seen any films by Antonioni,Tarkovsky, or Mizoguchi. I've only seen one film by Fellini and Ozu.

baby doll
11-10-2007, 07:29 PM
I've yet to see a single film by Hong Sang-soo, although I am presently downloading Turning Gate. And I'm way behind on Rossellini (I've just seen Open City).

jenniferofthejungle
11-10-2007, 08:11 PM
Never seen anything by Jacques Tati.

Still haven't seen Lawrence of Arabia, even though I've owned it for nearly a year.

You also need to see On the Waterfront and Singin' in the Rain. ;)

Llopin
11-10-2007, 08:19 PM
I've yet to see a single film by Hong Sang-soo, although I am presently downloading Turning Gate. And I'm way behind on Rossellini (I've just seen Open City).

Hmm, you should start on The Day the Pig... and keep going, I do believe his filmography tends to evolve... never gets too light, but his first movies are more "hardcore". My personal favourite is Virgin Stripped Bare....

I haven't seen any film by Straub/Huillet, Jarman or Von Trotta, and I really want to.

jesse
11-10-2007, 09:20 PM
Blind Spots:
American Beauty
Apu Trilogy
Clockwork Orange
Fight Club
The Godfather Part II
M
Rashoman
The Shawshank Redemption
etc.

The only one I really plan to ever bother with is the Lang, Ray and the Kurosawa.

Filmmakers:
Tarkovsky (probably my biggest oversight at this point)
Miyazaki
Mizoguchi
Akerman
Tarr

Qrazy
11-10-2007, 10:23 PM
I think he meant Rossellini's Voyage in Italy.

You guys need to get on Tarkovsky, Tarr, Wajda, Kieslowski and Mizoguchi asap. The best of the best.

I need to explore Fassbinder and Rohmer more thoroughly, only seen two from each. Still haven't seen any Von Stroheim and only one Visconti.

Also need to see these.

008. News from Home, 1977 (Chantal Akerman)
011. Floating Clouds, 1955 (Mikio Naruse)
022. Naked Island, 1961 (Kaneto Shindo)
025. An Autumn Afternoon, 1962 (Yasujiro Ozu)
029. Europa 51, 1951 (Roberto Rossellini)
037. Jeanne Dielman, 23 Quai du Commerce, 1080 Bruxelles, 1975 (Chantal Akerman)
044. Twenty-Four Eyes, 1954 (Keisuke Kinoshita)
046. The Insect Woman, 1963 (Shohei Imamura)
052. Late Chrysanthemums, 1954 (Naruse 1954)
055. Kuroneko, 1968 (Kaneto Shindo)
066. El Dorado, 1921 (Marcel L'Herbier)
073. Sunflower, 1970 (Vittorio de Sica)
074. The Quince Tree Sun, 1992 (Victor Erice)
075. Cria Cuervos, 1977 (Carlos Saura)
078. The Cloud Capped Star, 1960 (Ritwik Ghatak)
085. The Second Circle, 1990 (Aleksandr Sokurov)
089. A Page of Madness, 1926 (Teisuke Kinugasa)
090. La Terra Trema, 1948 (Luchino Visconti)
099. Close-up, 1990 (Abbas Kiarostami)
* Baby Face (1933)
* The Crime of Monsieur Lange (1936)
* The Last Command (1928)
* Nayakan (1987)
* Olympia, Parts 1 and 2 (1938)
* Pyaasa (1957)
* The Shop Around the Corner (1940)
* The Singing Detective (1986)
* Smiles of a Summer Night (1955)
* Swing Time (1936)
* Talk to Her (2002)

Boner M
11-10-2007, 10:28 PM
One filmmaker I'd like to explore whose works are damn near impossible to come by is Jon Jost. I'd be surprised if someone here's seen a film by him.


008. News from Home, 1977 (Chantal Akerman)
One of my best examples of cinematic minimalism ever, as broad as that term may be. Although, since you tend to hate everything I love, you'd best remove it from your list accordingly.

Boner M
11-10-2007, 10:29 PM
'One of the best', sorry. I don't have an editing function on the comp I'm on now.

Qrazy
11-10-2007, 10:34 PM
One filmmaker I'd like to explore whose works are damn near impossible to come by is Jon Jost. I'd be surprised if someone here's seen a film by him.


One of my best examples of cinematic minimalism ever, as broad as that term may be. Although, since you tend to hate everything I love, you'd best remove it from your list accordingly.

I've seen Last Chants for a Slow Dance. It was an interesting experiment but the budget really shows... but for that kind of a budget it's quite an achievement... and if you like minimalism you may well like it. Pretty sure it's torrent-able.

Haha I doubt our total appreciation for cinema is that far apart. I'm just particularly outspoken about films I don't enjoy. For instance, I love The Decalogue, and Man with a Movie Camera and I agree with your thoughts/rating of Splendor in the Grass.

Boner M
11-10-2007, 10:41 PM
Haha I doubt our total appreciation for cinema is that far apart. I'm just particularly outspoken about films I don't enjoy. For instance, I love The Decalogue, and Man with a Movie Camera and I agree with your thoughts/rating of Splendor in the Grass.
Good to hear. It's never fun to develop grudges against people with different tastes, which is one of my unfortunate traits. *glares at people with different tastes*

Qrazy
11-10-2007, 10:44 PM
Good to hear. It's never fun to develop grudges against people with different tastes, which is one of my unfortunate traits. *glares at people with different tastes*

Yeah, I hear ya.

*gives Boner a hug... prepares to knife him in the back*

Fwahahaha!

origami_mustache
11-10-2007, 10:47 PM
I'm shocked by how many haven't seen any Tarkovsky.

Qrazy
11-10-2007, 10:50 PM
Blind Spots:
American Beauty
Apu Trilogy
Clockwork Orange
Fight Club
The Godfather Part II
M
Rashoman
The Shawshank Redemption
etc.

The only one I really plan to ever bother with is the Lang, Ray and the Kurosawa.


Godfather Part II is essential.

Qrazy
11-10-2007, 10:51 PM
I also have and haven't watched yet Charulata (Ray) and Muriel (Resnais). Need to get on it.

Cult
11-10-2007, 11:06 PM
There's way too many. A big one is Kubrick, since he didn't make many and almost all are considered masterpieces, I need to see:

Barry Lyndon
Full Metal Jacket
Eyes Wide Shut (I saw it, but I was about 14 and I barely remember it)

I only just saw 2001 earlier this year. (where did the 'embarrassed' smiley go?)

soitgoes...
11-10-2007, 11:24 PM
I'm shocked by how many haven't seen any Tarkovsky.
Like I've said before, I've only seen one of his (Solaris). I had watched about half of Andrei Rublev when I first started really geting into film. That experience kinda scared me away from him until recently. I'm sure it'll only be a matter of time before I start knocking off some more of Tarkovsky's filmography. Right now though, there are some other filmmakers that are far more intriguing to me.

Spinal
11-11-2007, 12:21 AM
I've seen some Tarkovskys and I think I'm done. Not my speed.

Kurosawa Fan
11-11-2007, 02:42 AM
I've seen some Tarkovskys and I think I'm done. Not my speed.

Speed is a good adjective for why I'm done with Tarkovsky as well. :confused:

Duncan
11-11-2007, 08:55 AM
Tarkovsky is perhaps the greatest filmmaker I've ever encountered. The only one of his films I haven't managed to see is Nostalghia because it's out of print on DVD, I believe. I think he's my favorite because he's at such a different point on the philosophical spectrum as myself, but I'm still moved by his films.

In short, everyone who hasn't seen something directed by him should do so immediately.

origami_mustache
11-11-2007, 05:40 PM
Tarkovsky is perhaps the greatest filmmaker I've ever encountered. The only one of his films I haven't managed to see is Nostalghia because it's out of print on DVD, I believe. I think he's my favorite because he's at such a different point on the philosophical spectrum as myself, but I'm still moved by his films.

In short, everyone who hasn't seen something directed by him should do so immediately.

Well put. Tarkovsky's films are like no other; a completely unique and almost meditative experience for me. Although I can understand why some would be turned off by his style, I figured he'd be a favorite around here at least.

jesse
11-11-2007, 07:32 PM
Godfather Part II is essential. I didn't like the first one, so I'm not jumping very quickly for round two.

jesse
11-11-2007, 07:35 PM
I'm shocked by how many haven't seen any Tarkovsky. The really ironic thing is that I have a feeling that he's a filmmaker I'm going to love. Not sure what holds me back.

Ezee E
11-11-2007, 07:40 PM
No Ozu yet. I'll probably continue to pass because I'm sure he's a director I would not like.

Derek
11-11-2007, 09:31 PM
No Ozu yet. I'll probably continue to pass because I'm sure he's a director I would not like.

:confused:

Very open-minded of you.

soitgoes...
11-11-2007, 09:56 PM
Yeah, you should at least have a little taster of the Ozu before deciding whether or not to dismiss him. Plus by watching some Ozu there's a good chance you'll see one of the best actresses Japan, or any country for that matter, has to offer.

Qrazy
11-11-2007, 11:20 PM
I think he's my favorite because he's at such a different point on the philosophical spectrum as myself, but I'm still moved by his films.


Clarify?

baby doll
11-12-2007, 01:43 AM
Hmm, you should start on The Day the Pig... and keep going, I do believe his filmography tends to evolve... never gets too light, but his first movies are more "hardcore". My personal favourite is Virgin Stripped Bare....I tried searching for both, but Turning Gate was the earliest film I could find.

baby doll
11-12-2007, 01:59 AM
Yeah, you should at least have a little taster of the Ozu before deciding whether or not to dismiss him. Plus by watching some Ozu there's a good chance you'll see one of the best actresses Japan, or any country for that matter, has to offer.While we're on the topic, I've seen 11 of Ozu's films so far--A Story of Floating Weeds (1934), Late Spring (1949), Early Summer (1951), Tokyo Story (1953), Early Spring (1956), Tokyo Twilight (1957), Equinox Flower (1958), Good Morning (1959), Floating Weeds (1959), Late Autumn (1960) and The End of Summer (1961)--though I don't feel like I really know his work, or rather, I know his late films extremely well (only The Munekata Sisters [1950], The Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice [1952] and An Autumn Afternoon [1962] still alude me), but when it comes to the films he made before 1949, I don't know a thing, especially seeing that many critics (including David Bordwell and Jonathan Rosenbaum) consider I Was Born, But... (1932) his greatest film overall.

MacGuffin
11-12-2007, 03:14 AM
I would imagine I wouldn't be too much of an Ozu fan either, seeing as I don't see the beauty in Asian cinema up until the 20th century or so.

Watashi
11-12-2007, 03:16 AM
I would imagine I wouldn't be too much of an Ozu fan either, seeing as I don't see the beauty in Asian cinema up until the 20th century or so.

Oh, there you are Electrorain.

Boner M
11-12-2007, 03:26 AM
Oh, there you are Electrorain.
lolzords.

Raiders
11-12-2007, 03:28 AM
I would imagine I wouldn't be too much of an Ozu fan either, seeing as I don't see the beauty in Asian cinema up until the 20th century or so.

Ozu was making films in the 1900s, so I fail to see your point.

MacGuffin
11-12-2007, 03:34 AM
Ozu was making films in the 1900s, so I fail to see your point.

I'm sorry; I meant to say '21st century'. In any case, I'm implying that I'm generally not a fan of Asian films not made before 2000, save for the films of Tsai Ming-liang. However, I'll be the first to say that I haven't really given much effort in exploring such films.

Melville
11-12-2007, 03:45 AM
Stealing a thread iosos made in our old days...

As far as well known films go, my major blind spots are...

Breakfast at Tiffany's
Gone With the Wind
Ben-Hur
A Christmas Story
Braveheart
I'd say that it's best to leave these in your blind spots—except for A Christmas Story, which is great.



The Apu Trilogy
Spirit of the Beehive
Woman in the Dunes
Out of the dozens of films you watch each week, how have you not fit these in? Woman in the Dunes, especially, is magnificent (although its symbolism ranks about the same as Cries and Whispers' on the overtness scale, so you might not like it).


As for things I haven't seen, Bela Tarr's films seem the most egregiously unseen, since I'm fairly certain that I'll love them.

Qrazy
11-12-2007, 04:25 AM
I'm sorry; I meant to say '21st century'. In any case, I'm implying that I'm generally not a fan of Asian films not made before 2000, save for the films of Tsai Ming-liang. However, I'll be the first to say that I haven't really given much effort in exploring such films.

Ah wow, that's great. Thanks for sharing.

Boner M
11-12-2007, 04:44 AM
Out of the dozens of films you watch each week, how have you not fit these in? Woman in the Dunes, especially, is magnificent (although its symbolism ranks about the same as Cries and Whispers' on the overtness scale, so you might not like it).
I live in Australia, where none of them have been released locally, nor are they held at my university library or anywhere else to rent.

Duncan
11-12-2007, 04:46 AM
However, I'll be the first to say that I haven't really given much effort in exploring such films.
Then maybe you should. Especially before dismissing not just a single country's worth, but an entire continent's worth of cinema.

MacGuffin
11-12-2007, 04:50 AM
Then maybe you should. Especially before dismissing not just a single country's worth, but an entire continent's worth of cinema.

It's not one of my priorities.

Duncan
11-12-2007, 05:21 AM
It's not one of my priorities.

Well, that's fine. I don't consider exploring contemporary Asian cinema one of my priorities. But Ozu is a singular artist. He is unlike any other director I know of, regardless of geography. So to just categorize him as "20th century Asian" is a ridiculous statement, and most likely intentionally inflammatory.

Try thinking of it this way. What does calling both David Lean and Jean Luc Godard 20th century European filmmakers say about their aesthetics? What does it say about their ethics? Next to nothing. It's a worthless generalization.

MacGuffin
11-12-2007, 05:27 AM
Well, that's fine. I don't consider exploring contemporary Asian cinema one of my priorities. But Ozu is a singular artist. He is unlike any other director I know of, regardless of geography. So to just categorize him as "20th century Asian" is a ridiculous statement, and most likely intentionally inflammatory.

Try thinking of it this way. What does calling both David Lean and Jean Luc Godard 20th century European filmmakers say about their aesthetics? What does it say about their ethics? Next to nothing. It's a worthless generalization.

Films in the 21st century may explore different themes and ideas, and could have more advanced technological aesthetics when compared to the 20th century, above others things. That's not to say Jean-Luc Godard of the 20th century is any less of an auteur than say Wes Anderson of the 21st century, it's just that Wes Anderson's New York looks far more modern than Jean-Luc Godard's Paris. It's a completely different feel, and I didn't like what I saw of Ozu's Late Spring (I think it was) simply because it didn't give me any sort of atmosphere I could familiarize myself with. Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon bored the living hell out of me in that respect.

Duncan
11-12-2007, 05:53 AM
Films in the 21st century may explore different themes and ideas, and could have more advanced technological aesthetics when compared to the 20th century, above others things. That's not to say Jean-Luc Godard of the 20th century is any less of an auteur than say Wes Anderson of the 21st century, it's just that Wes Anderson's New York looks far more modern than Jean-Luc Godard's Paris. It's a completely different feel, and I didn't like what I saw of Ozu's Late Spring (I think it was) simply because it didn't give me any sort of atmosphere I could familiarize myself with. Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon bored the living hell out of me in that respect.

Ok. To be honest, I don't understand any of these arguments. Wes Anderson, for example, intentionally antiquates his films, or at least steeps them in a nostalgia for times past.

And, really, what does it matter if things look contemporary? Do you dismiss the Renaissance because painting styles have changed? Do you not read books that are more than seven years old?

MacGuffin
11-12-2007, 05:55 AM
Ok. To be honest, I don't understand any of these arguments. Wes Anderson, for example, intentionally antiquates his films, or at least steeps them in a nostalgia for times past.

And, really, what does it matter if things look contemporary? Do you dismiss the Renaissance because painting styles have changed? Do you not read books that are more than seven years old?

Did I ever say those things? I'm simply saying I don't like the feel of "classic" Asian movies. I far prefer the French films.

Boner M
11-12-2007, 06:15 AM
Did I ever say those things? I'm simply saying I don't like the feel of "classic" Asian movies. I far prefer the French films.
That's a pretty shallow way ofapproaching films, since there's far to watching them than absorbing how they 'feel' on a superficial level (and there's far more to Ozu and Kurosawa than just acquainting yourself with a different milieu to your own). To each his own, though... I guess.

Duncan
11-12-2007, 06:48 AM
Clarify?

I agree with him about a lot of things, but our opinions diverge when it comes to his ideas on God, the existence of miracles, the necessity of faith, and a number of other things along this line of thought. Nevertheless, when I watch his films I feel as though I can embrace his opinions for at least the film's duration, and will even flirt with them in the days after. So when Alexander offers up a prayer of misery to God in The Sacrifice, it evokes the part of me that is always so miserable that it wants to believe in God. In the time of that prayer I want desperately to feel God's compassion, and perhaps - just perhaps - I do feel it. Or when, in Andrei Rublev, the bell rings I am filled with the conviction that this accomplishment is of a higher nature. It evokes the part of me that is always so joyful that it wants to believe in God. Even if I am not convinced, the sound of iron at least makes me believe in something both human and eternal. I think Tarkovsky inhabited a realm of humanity that I have largely disavowed, but through his films I can explore it more fully. And that makes me love people better.

soitgoes...
11-12-2007, 09:33 AM
While we're on the topic, I've seen 11 of Ozu's films so far--A Story of Floating Weeds (1934), Late Spring (1949), Early Summer (1951), Tokyo Story (1953), Early Spring (1956), Tokyo Twilight (1957), Equinox Flower (1958), Good Morning (1959), Floating Weeds (1959), Late Autumn (1960) and The End of Summer (1961)--though I don't feel like I really know his work, or rather, I know his late films extremely well (only The Munekata Sisters [1950], The Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice [1952] and An Autumn Afternoon [1962] still alude me), but when it comes to the films he made before 1949, I don't know a thing, especially seeing that many critics (including David Bordwell and Jonathan Rosenbaum) consider I Was Born, But... (1932) his greatest film overall.
A Story of Floating Weeds, An Inn in Tokyo and There Was a Father are the only three pre-Late Spring films of his I've seen. An Inn in Tokyo is one of my favorties. A neo-realist film before the Italians "discovered" neo-realism. The other two are some of his lesser works in my opinion. I really want to see more of his silents.

Ivan Drago
11-12-2007, 01:08 PM
Films I've Never Seen

Raiders of the Lost Ark, Temple of Doom, The Last Crusade
Casablanca (without interruption)
Rashomon
My Life To Live
La Strada

Melville
11-12-2007, 01:36 PM
I live in Australia, where none of them have been released locally, nor are they held at my university library or anywhere else to rent.
How about a multi-region DVD player? Those films are all must-see.


I agree with him about a lot of things, but our opinions diverge when it comes to his ideas on God, the existence of miracles, the necessity of faith, and a number of other things along this line of thought. Nevertheless, when I watch his films I feel as though I can embrace his opinions for at least the film's duration, and will even flirt with them in the days after. So when Alexander offers up a prayer of misery to God in The Sacrifice, it evokes the part of me that is always so miserable that it wants to believe in God. In the time of that prayer I want desperately to feel God's compassion, and perhaps - just perhaps - I do feel it. Or when, in Andrei Rublev, the bell rings I am filled with the conviction that this accomplishment is of a higher nature. It evokes the part of me that is always so joyful that it wants to believe in God. Even if I am not convinced, the sound of iron at least makes me believe in something both human and eternal. I think Tarkovsky inhabited a realm of humanity that I have largely disavowed, but through his films I can explore it more fully. And that makes me love people better.I always thought the scene with the bell-maker was brilliant because it shows the beauty of the accomplishment regardless of any higher nature; the struggle itself, and the hope for the seemingly impossible result (a la Kierkegaard's knight of faith), imbue the result with Sysiphus-like meaning. But I do largely have the same feeling as you toward Tarkovsky's philosophy. I thought his one misstep was Stalker, where his view of faith-versus-science just seemed overly simplified.

Qrazy
11-12-2007, 01:56 PM
I agree with him about a lot of things, but our opinions diverge when it comes to his ideas on God, the existence of miracles, the necessity of faith, and a number of other things along this line of thought. Nevertheless, when I watch his films I feel as though I can embrace his opinions for at least the film's duration, and will even flirt with them in the days after. So when Alexander offers up a prayer of misery to God in The Sacrifice, it evokes the part of me that is always so miserable that it wants to believe in God. In the time of that prayer I want desperately to feel God's compassion, and perhaps - just perhaps - I do feel it. Or when, in Andrei Rublev, the bell rings I am filled with the conviction that this accomplishment is of a higher nature. It evokes the part of me that is always so joyful that it wants to believe in God. Even if I am not convinced, the sound of iron at least makes me believe in something both human and eternal. I think Tarkovsky inhabited a realm of humanity that I have largely disavowed, but through his films I can explore it more fully. And that makes me love people better.

Ah got ya, I share the sake outlook.

balmakboor
11-12-2007, 03:21 PM
A Story of Floating Weeds, An Inn in Tokyo and There Was a Father are the only three pre-Late Spring films of his I've seen. An Inn in Tokyo is one of my favorties. A neo-realist film before the Italians "discovered" neo-realism. The other two are some of his lesser works in my opinion. I really want to see more of his silents.

That's interesting. I consider A Story of Floating Weeds one of his best and superior to its remake.

balmakboor
11-12-2007, 03:25 PM
Plus by watching some Ozu there's a good chance you'll see one of the best actresses Japan, or any country for that matter, has to offer.

Yes, I've been in love with her for years. Something like a Japanese Katherine Hepburn.

balmakboor
11-12-2007, 03:32 PM
I'd like to see some Jacques Rivette after reading about his work in the latest Film Comment.

baby doll
11-12-2007, 04:49 PM
A Story of Floating Weeds, An Inn in Tokyo and There Was a Father are the only three pre-Late Spring films of his I've seen. An Inn in Tokyo is one of my favorties. A neo-realist film before the Italians "discovered" neo-realism. The other two are some of his lesser works in my opinion. I really want to see more of his silents.Well, the reason it's called neo-realism is because it's an off-shoot of realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_%28dramatic_arts%29).

soitgoes...
11-13-2007, 04:48 AM
Well, the reason it's called neo-realism is because it's an off-shoot of realism (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Realism_%28dramatic_arts%29).
Really? Neo-realism is an off-shoot of realism. Well fuck me. I never would have believed it if you hadn't provided that link to wikipedia. Thanks!!!

Duncan
11-13-2007, 06:22 AM
I always thought the scene with the bell-maker was brilliant because it shows the beauty of the accomplishment regardless of any higher nature; the struggle itself, and the hope for the seemingly impossible result (a la Kierkegaard's knight of faith), imbue the result with Sysiphus-like meaning. I could go on for quite a while here, but suffice to say that I think it's both. Though I'm not totally sure how Sisyphus comes in. The bell casting doesn't seem like that kind of task.


But I do largely have the same feeling as you toward Tarkovsky's philosophy. I thought his one misstep was Stalker, where his view of faith-versus-science just seemed overly simplified.

I like Stalker a lot, but I do agree with you. There's one line in particular where someone accuses the physicist of being incapable of abstract thought. If there's anyone who is capable of abstract thought, it's the modern physicist. There are also a few passages in Sculpting in Time that feel surprisingly naive. I don't think he had much scientific training.

Qrazy
11-13-2007, 06:31 AM
I could go on for quite a while here, but suffice to say that I think it's both. Though I'm not totally sure how Sisyphus comes in. The bell casting doesn't seem like that kind of task.

I like Stalker a lot, but I do agree with you. There's one line in particular where someone accuses the physicist of being incapable of abstract thought. If there's anyone who is capable of abstract thought, it's the modern physicist. There are also a few passages in Sculpting in Time that feel surprisingly naive. I don't think he had much scientific training.

I can't say I agree with you guys. Stalker is my favorite film, although I see where you're coming from. Although it becomes apparent from what we know of Tarkovsky in general that he favors the Stalker's philosophy, it's not like he endorses it as a condemnation of the roles and thoughts of the other characters. Negative capability boys, negative capability. Bear in mind the Stalker has his flaws as well (problems at home... and also it's not as if the position of his faith is ever actually metaphysically manifested).

By the way, it's the writer who makes the comment and I read it as more indicative of his character's attitude towards the professor, his frustration and bitterness in general and his overarching character psychology, than a unilateral statement by Tarkovsky.

Torgo
11-13-2007, 04:02 PM
I am ashamed to say that aside from a few scenes of Amarcord, I have yet to see an entire Fellini film!

Where do you think I should start?

Spinal
11-13-2007, 04:20 PM
I am ashamed to say that aside from a few scenes of Amarcord, I have yet to see an entire Fellini film!

Where do you think I should start?

8 1/2

Torgo
11-13-2007, 04:26 PM
8 1/2

Will do. Thanks!

(I actually rented this, but took it back within minutes after realizing that it was dubbed. No subtitles. Aren't I a snob? :P)

Llopin
11-13-2007, 05:23 PM
I do reckon Ozu's pre-1945 efforts are most intriguing and affective, particularly I was Born, But.., The Only Son and Woman of Tokyo, but they're by no means as accomplished nor as emotionally ressonant as his later pieces. Based on my viewings (of most his post-war efforts), I can safely conclude that he became more consistent with time, his films achieved more maturity and determination, his late 50s/early 60s movies being his masterworks (I think everything after BakushĂ» [incl.] is just great).

Ezee E
11-13-2007, 07:16 PM
Will do. Thanks!

(I actually rented this, but took it back within minutes after realizing that it was dubbed. No subtitles. Aren't I a snob? :P)
It's tough oon where to start with Fellini since there's really two sides to him. 8 1/2 is his most well-acclaimed work, whereas something like Amarcord may be his most personal.

I should give 8 1/2 another rewatch again.

Qrazy
11-13-2007, 09:11 PM
It's tough oon where to start with Fellini since there's really two sides to him. 8 1/2 is his most well-acclaimed work, whereas something like Amarcord may be his most personal.

I should give 8 1/2 another rewatch again.

Three sides to him.

Melville
11-14-2007, 02:22 AM
it's both.
True.


Though I'm not totally sure how Sisyphus comes in. The bell casting doesn't seem like that kind of task.
The task isn't particularly Sysiphean, since there's no repetition, but I'm just referring to Camus' idea of the struggle being worthwhile even if the consequences are irrelevant and the task has no intrinsic meaning.


I can't say I agree with you guys. Stalker is my favorite film, although I see where you're coming from. Although it becomes apparent from what we know of Tarkovsky in general that he favors the Stalker's philosophy, it's not like he endorses it as a condemnation of the roles and thoughts of the other characters. Negative capability boys, negative capability. Bear in mind the Stalker has his flaws as well (problems at home... and also it's not as if the position of his faith is ever actually metaphysically manifested).

By the way, it's the writer who makes the comment and I read it as more indicative of his character's attitude towards the professor, his frustration and bitterness in general and his overarching character psychology, than a unilateral statement by Tarkovsky.
It's not that I have a problem with Tarkovsky favoring one of the three philosophies, nor would I have a problem with him presenting their philosophical debates as irresolvable; I just think that the dichotomies and characters that he constructs are artificial and overly simplistic.

Qrazy
11-14-2007, 03:39 AM
It's not that I have a problem with Tarkovsky favoring one of the three philosophies, nor would I have a problem with him presenting their philosophical debates as irresolvable; I just think that the dichotomies and characters that he constructs are artificial and overly simplistic.

I agree that it's artificial and has a parable-esque quality, but I also feel this is intentional. I don't think it's simplistic, but that it could seem as such given taht the elucidation of the seeming simplicity is expressed primarily through visual technique. Each camera movement, every motif and the staging of each scene accentuates and shed lights on the dialogue and basic structure of the story. These characters are supposed to be archetypal, much more so than in any of his other works.

Melville
11-14-2007, 03:55 AM
I agree that it's artificial and has a parable-esque quality, but I also feel this is intentional. I don't think it's simplistic, but that it could seem as such given taht the elucidation of the seeming simplicity is expressed primarily through visual technique. Each camera movement, every motif and the staging of each scene accentuates and shed lights on the dialogue and basic structure of the story. These characters are supposed to be archetypal, much more so than in any of his other works.
It's definitely intentionally trying to be a parable and presenting the three central characters as archetypes, but I'm not sure if its parable presents anything meaningful. The writer and the scientist don't seem like good archetypal representations so much as irrelevant simplifications. And I thought that the visuals mostly seemed to encourage identification with the Stalker. However, I might just need to see it again to appreciate it more.

Qrazy
11-14-2007, 04:20 AM
It's definitely intentionally trying to be a parable and presenting the three central characters as archetypes, but I'm not sure if its parable presents anything meaningful. The writer and the scientist don't seem like good archetypal representations so much as irrelevant simplifications. And I thought that the visuals mostly seemed to encourage identification with the Stalker. However, I might just need to see it again to appreciate it more.

Well, I don't agree and I guess we'll leave it at that... But I'll cite the Writer's monologue at the sand well and the scientist's monologue as he's constructing the bomb as crucial moments for the expression of the pathos of each of these characters.

Duncan
11-14-2007, 05:30 AM
Well, I don't agree and I guess we'll leave it at that... But I'll cite the Writer's monologue at the sand well and the scientist's monologue as he's constructing the bomb as crucial moments for the expression of the pathos of each of these characters.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/donncath/Writer.gif

Because your nakedness is making me uncomfortable.

Melville
11-14-2007, 03:33 PM
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v600/donncath/Writer.gif

Because your nakedness is making me uncomfortable.
I don't even recognize that shot or that quote, so apparently I really do need to see the movie again.

Duncan
11-14-2007, 07:19 PM
I don't even recognize that shot or that quote, so apparently I really do need to see the movie again.

Well, the quote isn't from the film. It was just me telling Qrazy to wear an av. And since he's such a fan of Stalker I suggested that one.

Sycophant
11-14-2007, 07:26 PM
Put it on, Qrazy.

DSNT
11-14-2007, 07:54 PM
I've only seen 2 Tarkovsky films. Andrei Rublev I found tedious and had to fight to get through the first time. When I watched select scenes a second time, I was able to pick up on and appreciate the technique and the spiritual theme. I can't say it's a movie I enjoyed watching, but I can respect the ability.

Solaris, on the other hand, I found completely engaging and became one of my favorite films of all time.

I probably won't check out anymore of his stuff soon unless it comes up in a film studies class.

Melville
11-14-2007, 08:33 PM
Well, the quote isn't from the film. It was just me telling Qrazy to wear an av. And since he's such a fan of Stalker I suggested that one.
Oh... well, it's a nice looking av, but now I'll feel stupid every time I see it.

Qrazy
11-14-2007, 08:55 PM
Well, the quote isn't from the film. It was just me telling Qrazy to wear an av. And since he's such a fan of Stalker I suggested that one.

Ahh I was confused too.

D_Davis
11-14-2007, 11:19 PM
I could write a book on the films I haven't seen.

balmakboor
11-15-2007, 01:44 PM
I could write a book on the films I haven't seen.

I could write two books on the films you've seen and I haven't.