As if there were not enough lists...Rouge presents some favourites [Archive]

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 12:29 AM

Extra credit if you actually start the top 100 on the first page.
Easy pie :P

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s173/Justine_Smitha/thevirginsuicides.png

100.
The Virgin Suicides
Director: Sofia Coppola
Year: 2000

I don't think there is anyone to blame in the Virgin Suicides. Not the girls, not their parents, not Trip or any of the other boys. Coppola never tries to put blame, she never tries to sensationalize (although there is no doubt the media does). The reason is essentially unimportant, as it's the idea of the Lisbon girls and the imaginary world of adolescence that sustains and drives the film. Like most of Coppola's work, the film is driven my mood and atmosphere rather than plot or character, and in the end the film feels more like a dream than a true account of a tragedy that strikes a small town, which is exactly what it should be.

Most films about adolescence have little appeal to me, not only because they fail to capture my own emotions and lack the self conscious realization that so much of this period of our lives lies in the mind. There is no sense of fantasy and, even in the films that set out to show the "truth" fall short because they forget the magic (the only other film that comes close in my mind is Fast Times at Ridgemont High). The boys fascination with the Lisbon girls is immortalized by their suicide. Like many cult heroes of today (namely James Dean), they are preserved forever in a youthful, idealized state. They are the image of innocence and youth, and in this they lose their sense of humanity. Reflecting over the film, the only daughter who stands out is Lux. The others symbolically, are almost nameless and shadows... while Lux is beyond human. She is the image of beauty, youth and passion; she's every boy's dream girl. She's not robbed of emotion, but she is robbed of personality and true distinction.

While, perhaps, the direction of the film is not as confidant as Coppola's later efforts it still stands out as ambitious and understanding of the subject matter. The film falls together so beautifully because of her sense of fantasy. The most memorable images of the film are like commercials, or fashion shoots. They're often shot in slow motion and are repeated as motifs. They exist only in the minds of the boys who are recounting the story, a reminder that the film is not to be taken at face value, as it's an impression of adolescence not a true account. Coppola even treats the tragedy with an air of indifference, while events like Lux waking up alone in the football field are dealt with more significant emotional potency. The last half hour, once the girl's have been locked away, I think we drift fully into the minds of the boys. Here events are muddled and speculative, even their supposed involvement in the suicide, is in my esteem a far cry from what really happened; it's a further perpetuation of the mythology of the girls.

Marley

11-13-2007, 01:47 AM

Bah, I need to find time to sit down and watch this film. I bought it a while ago based on your enthusiastic praise. I've bookmarked your review for later. :)

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 03:04 AM

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s173/Justine_Smitha/shadowofadoubt.png

#99
Shadow of a Doubt
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
Year: 1943

Few directors have had as much critical and popular success as Alfred Hitchcock. With over 60 film credits to his name, many of his films never fail to top favourite and consensus lists, while even some of his lesser known and appreciated work like I Confess (1953) and the Birds (1963) are heralded as masterpieces by niche communities (in this case Les Cahiers du Cinema, and the critical French community). With so many great films, for most of us it's difficult to choose a clear cut favourite, and while Hitchcock himself lists Shadow of a Doubt as his favourite of his own work, I have no doubt this was tentative and conditional to mood.

The film is (arguably) the most noir of Hitchcock's efforts, although it doesn't quite fit into the genre. As with most of his work, he balances his dark sense of humour with the genuine thrills and the final product is an astonishing and thrilling portrait of the horror that lies in small town life. Uncle Charlie is more than a murderor as he represents everything that small towns feared in war stricken America. There is little hint a war is going on, except we know that Charlie is a veteran somehow and a brief interlude in a "seedy" bar that's populated with drunk and virile soldiers. This is our first encounter with a darker side of the town that we were previously were unaware even existed. Uncle Charlie drags his niece inside despite her insistance that she would never go into a place like that, and it's in this scene that we are truly sure of Uncle Charlie's identity. He represents the cynisism of the city and the veteran that the towns people so fear, and yet they idolize him and ignore the depracity that's just around the corner.

In Young Charlie we find a heroine unlike any other in a Hitchcock film, Theresa Wright doesn't even look the part of the icy, sophisticated woman. Rumour was though, that initially Hitchcock wanted Fontaine for the role to reprise her nervous incarnation of conflicted young woman. I'm happy things didn't work out. Wright brings the necessary confidance to the role that was needed to better parallel her character with her uncle. They are supposed to be similar, and that means she had to be strong (this also serves as an important contrast though, as she is stronger than her Uncle in that she can look past the ugliness of the world, and appreciate what makes it wonderful). It makes her confrontations with her uncle all the more tense, as we know how strong she is, inside and out, and to see her voice waver and tremble as she tries to match her Uncle's threats would not have had the same impact had she been a more feeble character.

Having seen this rather recently, and for the third or fourth time I truly had a chance to appreciate Hitchcock's subtle but powerful use of mise-en-scene and cinematography. The camera is in almost constant movement as it swerves around corners and tracks down streets. I had never noticed it before, but it really works to create a sense of anxiety and restlessness that's so important to the mood of the film, and Uncle Charlie's character and influence.

ledfloyd

11-13-2007, 03:07 AM

my favorite hitchcock right there. i love joseph cotton.

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 03:11 AM

my favorite hitchcock right there. i love joseph cotton.
The more I see of Cotten, the more I like. Have you seen Love Letters by any chance? It's next on my Cotten viewing list.

Raiders

11-13-2007, 03:14 AM

Joseph Cotten is very good. My favorite film with him is Portrait of Jennie.

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 03:15 AM

Joseph Cotten is very good. My favorite film with him is Portrait of Jennie.
YES. I hate to spoil my own list, but it's one of my favourites. An absolutely beautiful film.

Raiders

11-13-2007, 03:17 AM

:eek:

I thought I was the only one here enamored with that film. Your list is already teh awesome.

MadMan

11-13-2007, 03:20 AM

Both films listed are on my long ass To View list. Keep 'em comin' Rouge :cool:

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 03:23 AM

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s173/Justine_Smitha/BattleRoyale-1.png

#98
Battle Royale
Director: Kinji Fukasaku
Year: 2000

I never would have thought I’d love Battle Royale as much as I did. It’s hip, it’s Asian and it’s bloody. Not that I don’t like Bloody Asian Hippies, it’s just not what I regularly watch. It’s a film that in many ways, reminds me of the frantic anarchy of Inland Empire. I felt somehow I was in my nightmares (no doubt, the characters felt similarly) and amidst the wild entertainment I was battling with how I myself would handle a similar situation. I quickly came to the conclusion that I had no hope of survival and would be best to jump off a cliff (although, I doubt I would be able to even do that, I’d still somehow have the hope that I would by some miracle survive despite myself). It’s also a film that reminds me so much of my high school experiences, not that they were nearly as terrible as this, but the fears, the interrelations and the unexpected cruelty are all too real. It’s almost an all too easy metaphor, as high school is too often about the survival of the fittest, and resembles more of a jungle of wild, ravenous animals than an institution populated with students ready and eager to learn.

Has a dystopian vision of the future ever been so bleak (despite the presence of more than a few laugh out loud funny gags)? Even crueller than Children of Men we have a society that sacrifices it’s young for entertainment in a futile attempt to weed out the strongest and best equipped for society. Throw in one maniac, who enjoys senseless murder and the mantra that life is but a game reaches epic and ridiculous proportions. Is life a game? It’s clearly nothing like chess, where reasoning and foresight are essential… is living really like Battle Royale? A survival of the cruellest and the most devious, with a whole lot of luck put into the mix? Perhaps it is. I myself have encountered far too much senseless violence and cruelty to believe that life is pure, and fair. It isn’t. The film points at hope though, in our protagonists Noriko and Nanahara we find virtues that make their survival possible. Their love, their trust, and their unwillingness to “play” the game. Again though, other characters exhibit these qualities but are not as lucky. It’s not always enough to save yourself. Even if life isn’t a game, it is cruel and it is difficult.

In most of the characters and situations we can find archetypical interactions. However, they play out beautifully as Kinji Fukasaku allows them to unfold at their own pace, and channelling into characters emotions and motives we get a clear picture of why they react. There is nothing senseless, thoughtless or predictable in the film’s unfolding. To keep this all in balance, humour is strategically interjected so as not to drop too far into melodrama and beyond the audience’s capacity of suspended disbelief. We recognize in the characters ourselves, as well as the people we know. While the situations can’t possibly match exactly our own existence they are precise and vague enough to remind us that we all have had experiences that have shaped who we are, and that nothing is truly black and white.

The two stories that stand out for me the most are Teacher Kitano’s and Mitsuko. These are the type of people I tend to hate in the real world, they are sadists, cruel, passive aggressive, and angry. Even in the film, both go through extraordinary steps to crush the people around them for similar motives. Kitano is tired, he’s tired of being pushed around, mocked and held back. Nobody likes him, and he likes nobody. This is his chance to exact revenge and he does. He makes a joke of it, finally laughing back in their faces. Mitsuko is similarly frustrated with her existence, and the hatred she inspires. However, she is determined to survive and to show the world she is not a loser and never will be. When she says “What’s wrong with killing? Everyone’s got their reasons”, I can’t help shuddering. It’s a stark and clinical statement that not only permeates the whole film, but encompasses so much of the human experience. It doesn’t justify her actions, or any actions… but it does make one think. It’s her flashback that gets me though. It’s almost out of nowhere, and it’s uncomfortable and painful. I don’t want to go into it because it’s spoilertastic, but if you’ve seen it you know what I’m talking about. Again the theme of youth is brought up, as we see a world that is afraid and careless about it’s future. “Children are our future” is not the moral of this story, as the adult world seems to believe they will be it’s downfall. I don’t think anything in this film justifies this belief, even in the cold blooded murders. Kitano is far worse than any of the students, as he has been bittered by the sterile society that has entrapped him. As I said though, he fascinates me as well. His obsession with Noriko is puzzling and I don’t truly understand it even now (even as the only person that shows him respect, it's uneasy). It’s the dream/flashback that bothers me the most though, like Mitsuko’s it’s almost out of place (although perfectly so, I wouldn’t have the film without it), and it truly disturbs me. It’s probably the most important scene though, revealing the film’s central themes and messages about youth and survival.

This is the exchange that goes on,

Teacher Kitano: Are my classes boring?
Noriko Nakagawa: Yes.
Teacher Kitano: How dare you!
Noriko Nakagawa: [chuckles]
Teacher Kitano: I go into class, you guys look like a pile of potatoes. Slapping them around helped me tell them apart, even got to like them. But now not anymore. Now you touch a student, you’re fired. Can’t even lose it when a student stabs you!
Noriko Nakagawa: I’ll tell you just one thing.
Teacher Kitano: What?
Noriko Nakagawa: That knife that stabbed you… actually I keep it in my desk at home. When I picked it up, I wasn’t sure… but now, for some reason, I really treasure it. It’s our secret, okay? Just between us.
Teacher Kitano: Listen, Nakagawa.
Noriko Nakagawa: Yes?
Teacher Kitano: What do you think a grown-up should say to a kid now?

This film that feels so centered on youth may very well be about the adults and their malaise. There is no doubt, even in Japan culture is youth obsessed. Throw in social unrest and difficulties, there is a misplacement of emotion and confusion to one’s place in such a society. As the concept of the adolescent is relatively new (emerging as something of a post WW2 phenomena) the acknowledged difference between generations is wider than ever. We don’t know our place, and we don’t know how to breach this gap. This film is about this struggle, and these fears. What happens when the students and children no longer fear and respect the adults? When youth becomes the most prized “virtue” someone can possess? On the other hand, what happens when youth becomes a commodity. Something beyond life, but a source of carnal entertainment, nothing more than an object or doll. Battle Royale asks these questions in it’s own subversive way. It’s a film I crave to see again, while I can’t help cringing to think of how the action unfolds. It’s a film that works as pure entertainment but also challenges the viewer emotionally and intellectually. It’s clearly not for everyone, but well worth seeking out if you are curious.

Bosco B Thug

11-13-2007, 03:26 AM

Having seen this rather recently, and for the third or fourth time I truly had a chance to appreciate Hitchcock's subtle but powerful use of mise-en-scene and cinematography. The camera is in almost constant movement as it swerves around corners and tracks down streets. I had never noticed it before, but it really works to create a sense of anxiety and restlessness that's so important to the mood of the film, and Uncle Charlie's character and influence. Excellent! It's been a while since I've seen this one, but I wouldn't be surprised if a rewatch revealed the very deliberate virtuosity you speak of and that I consistently see in all the films of his I've recently seen.

Shadow is one of his bests, for sure! The dynamic between the Charlies is fascinating, and the head-to-head in the bar is a great scene; great insight with the soldiers being in the bar and the time this film was made! I also love Wright's palpably awkward run-in with the old schoolmate, an incident that everyone could probably relate to.

Slick pictures, also.

Rowland

11-13-2007, 03:28 AM

I like all three of these a lot, and your commentaries are thoughtfully written, so you're off to a promising start.

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 03:30 AM

Excellent! It's been a while since I've seen this one, but I wouldn't be surprised if a rewatch revealed the very deliberate virtuosity you speak of and that I consistently see in all the films of his I've recently seen.

Shadow is one of his bests, for sure! The dynamic between the Charlies is fascinating, and the head-to-head in the bar is a great scene; great insight with the soldiers being in the bar and the time this film was made! I also love Wright's palpably awkward run-in with the old schoolmate, an incident that everyone could probably relate to.

Slick pictures, also.
I couldn't figure out a way to mention the schoolmate, but she is hilarious. The most unenthousiastic character I've ever seen. She has me in absolute stitches.

Rowland

11-13-2007, 03:32 AM

What did you make of the occasional dissolves to ballroom dancing in Shadow?

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 03:34 AM

What did you make of the occasional desolves to ballroom dancing in Shadow?
I'm a little mixed on it actually, it's not enough to push down my appreciation for the film but I found it a little sloppy and too obvious. The music was very nice though :P

D_Davis

11-13-2007, 03:36 AM

Yay, another list! :)

Cool!

I can't stand Virgin Suicides, one of my least favorite films, but props for BR.
Nice reviews as well.

Have you read the book?

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 03:38 AM

Yay, another list! :)

Cool!

I can't stand Virgin Suicides, one of my least favorite films, but props for BR.
Nice reviews as well.

Have you read the book?
I haven't, I tried to read the Manga... but it was pretty terrible. Is the book worth seeking out?

D_Davis

11-13-2007, 03:42 AM

I haven't, I tried to read the Manga... but it was pretty terrible. Is the book worth seeking out?

I think the book is brilliant. As much as I like the film, I think it fails to capture the greatness of its original source. It is an incredibly fast read. Normally, I don't usually care for reading action, but here the author handles it all with great skill. I definitely recommend it, especially because you like the film so much.

Qrazy

11-13-2007, 03:43 AM

Hate virgin suicides, battle royale is average and I like Shadow of a doubt but would rank it in the lower half of Hitchcock's ouevre. Still really looking forward to the rest of the list though.

Rowland

11-13-2007, 03:47 AM

Already two people who don't just dislike, but HATE Virgin Suicides. I love the exquisite airiness Coppola infuses the movie with... it's so compelling, in a lowkey way.

Bosco B Thug

11-13-2007, 03:49 AM

What did you make of the occasional dissolves to ballroom dancing in Shadow?
I'm a little mixed on it actually, it's not enough to push down my appreciation for the film but I found it a little sloppy and too obvious. The music was very nice though :P
Haha, whenever I think of Shadow of a Doubt, I think about that overlay and how I don't like it. But yeah, one scene, doesn't hurt the pic!

Great Battle Royale review. I need to rewatch it. I've seen it once, and I enjoyed it, but it also bewildered me and confused my thematic subtext radar. Your review sounds like it's captured the film's tapestry that I recall, so hopefully it sticks with my re-view.

soitgoes...

11-13-2007, 04:34 AM

:eek:

I thought I was the only one here enamored with that film. Your list is already teh awesome.
I only gave it a 9.0. :sarcasm: One of strangest and most inventive films to come out during Hollywood's "Golden Age".

Lucky

11-13-2007, 04:47 AM

I don't have much to say about the films you've chosen so far, but I really like what you're doing with the banners and your commentary is excellent.

D_Davis

11-13-2007, 04:48 AM

Already two people who don't just dislike, but HATE Virgin Suicides. I love the exquisite airiness Coppola infuses the movie with... it's so compelling, in a lowkey way.

Airiness is a good way of describing the tone of Coppola's films, although I would go for a negative spin and add slight, forgettable, and insignificant as well.

Sycophant

11-13-2007, 04:53 AM

I have yet to see either Virgin Suicides or Shadow of a Doubt, both of which I feel kinda lame for not getting to yet. But I do love me some Battle Royale.

Grouchy

11-13-2007, 05:35 AM

I'm also a devoted Virgin Suicides hater. If that's not a vapid movie, I don't know what is. And yet, it's still Sofia Coppola's best - she only went downhill from there.

But your other two pics I love. Shadow of a Doubt is my second favorite Hitchcock after Vertigo, and I agree that the bar sequence is one of the most dramatic and powerful Hitch ever filmed. Cotten's "you're a blind sleepwalker" speech to Little Charlie is very hard-boiled.

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 12:25 PM

Hate virgin suicides, battle royale is average and I like Shadow of a doubt but would rank it in the lower half of Hitchcock's ouevre. Still really looking forward to the rest of the list though.
I think it speaks volumes for Hitchcock's career that a film like Shadow of a Doubt could be considered "slight"... I'm not disputing your opinion, but I feel similarly to films like North by Northwest, or even Rebecca although perhaps I'd appreciate them more if they didn't have Hitchcock's name attached.

I don't have much to say about the films you've chosen so far, but I really like what you're doing with the banners and your commentary is excellent.
Thanks :)

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 12:26 PM

Marley

11-13-2007, 12:41 PM

Battle Royale I'm still on the fence about despite liking the thematic aspects and the comedic violence. Something about it that I can't quite put my finger on is preventing me from fully embracing it. Shadow of a Doubt I really need to see still.

Your reviews are seriously some of the best I have had the pleasure of reading. Great work as always Rouge.

Gizmo

11-13-2007, 02:12 PM

This looks like a 100 list that I may actually know and like quite a few of after this start. Looking forward to more.

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 08:16 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/lastrada.jpg

#97
La Strada
Director: Federico Fellini
Year: 1954

La Strada was my first encounter with Giulietta Masina. I had somehow managed to avoid seeing any of her films for years, and I don't think anything, not even a week long Chaplin marathon could have prepare me for her vibrant screen presence. Combining something of the old, the pantomime and a Chaplinesque innocence (the comparison between the two may be tired, but it is so apt one would think they were built from the same mould) with something of a tomboy with a feminine fragility, Masina with her unforgettable wide eyes becomes an icon in her own right.

In Masina, Fellini is able to find the perfect figure for childhood, and a tool to explore the themes and motifs that fascinated him throughout his career. His interest in the circus, innocence and dreams had to be seen through the eyes of an innocent, at least within the story he's trying to tell in La Strada. Why though use a woman-child, when he could have used a child actor? Is it solely because it was the role Masina was born to destined to play, or was there a deeper reasoning behind it? Much of Gelsomina's conflict is centered on her limited understanding of the world, including the fact she has a woman's body but is treated no better than a dog or a child. This struggle between adulthood and childhood is integral to the thematic exploration of innocence and dreaming from Fellini's POV. There is also a good tonal reason for this choice, assuming much of the story would be preserved. Could a child with a similar disposition grow to love even, "lust" over Zampanò despite his monstrosity... perhaps, but even on that basic level it would dilute Fellini's intention, and the film would shift from tragedy to horror. While Fellini is interested in the baroque and the cruelty of this dream world, within the context of the characters and story he didn't want the characters and situations to overcome his ideas. A child in Masina's place would be too much of a victim, and while there is no doubt that Masina shares those same sensibilities she is stronger than most children ought to be.

To fully round out the film, La Strada has an excellent supporting cast and one of the most hauntingly beautiful musical scores composed for the screen. Quinn is an actor who unfortunately is underused despite his tremendous talent. His face was built for character parts, and as even his nationality was difficult to pin down he was cast in a wide variety of parts that no one else was quite qualified for. Unfortunately, this robbed him of many lead parts (although there was little opportunity for him as he didn't quite fit the lead male part), this gave him an opportunity like no other. Suffice to say, he dominated the part. He was forceful, over the top, and dangerous, yet never veers into the realm of unbelivability. Even Richard Basehart as the fool is a standout, and against his absolutely dominating co-stars has a chance to shine. Long before the Godfather, Nino Rota creates one of the best film scores there are. It's haunting and whimsical, and instead of gauging emotions with it's pacing, it acts as a trigger for dreams and memories. It's use in the last few scenes is especially potent.

Watashi

11-13-2007, 08:18 PM

Shadow of a Doubt rules.

That's all I can really say right now. :sad:

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 08:19 PM

Shadow of a Doubt rules.

That's all I can really say right now. :sad:
I know you'll like some of my later choices, fo sho!

Raiders

11-13-2007, 08:20 PM

Hmmm, I have always been a little 'meh' towards La Strada, even in my Fellini fanatic days. I have always found both Fellini and Masina much more powerful and affecting in Nights of Cabiria.

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 08:24 PM

Hmmm, I have always been a little 'meh' towards La Strada, even in my Fellini fanatic days. I have always found both Fellini and Masina much more powerful and affecting in Nights of Cabiria.
I really like Nights of Cabiria, but La Strada had a more profound emotional effect on me. I even think Cabiria slightly more interesting, at least in relation to Masina's character and it's construction, ordering, etc. I think I owe it a rewatch, as I saw it in class. While the advantage of seeing it on a big screen is wonderful, I have a difficult time really emerging myself when in those tiny little desks.

Boner M

11-13-2007, 08:24 PM

I think Il Bidone is my favorite of Fellini's realist films. Nobody ever talks about it though.

Raiders

11-13-2007, 08:26 PM

I think Il Bidone is my favorite of Fellini's realist films. Nobody ever talks about it though.

:cool:

That one is outstanding as well. Not my very favorite, but among the best of his for sure.

Boner M

11-13-2007, 08:35 PM

Marry me, Raiders.

I admittedly haven't seen a Fellini film in a while and only 5 of his in total (I've liked all that I've seen, but he slipped off my viewing radar at one point), but I find Nights of Cabiria and Il Bidone tend to resonate with me more than 8 1/2 or Amarcord, even though his surrealist films appeal to my overall sensibilties in theory more. Maybe Masina is the key.

Marley

11-13-2007, 08:55 PM

La Strada is another film on your list I have yet to see even though I do own it. After being disappointed with 8 1/2 I've found it difficult to get in the mood to watch it.

Qrazy

11-13-2007, 09:14 PM

I think it speaks volumes for Hitchcock's career that a film like Shadow of a Doubt could be considered "slight"... I'm not disputing your opinion, but I feel similarly to films like North by Northwest, or even Rebecca although perhaps I'd appreciate them more if they didn't have Hitchcock's name attached.

Thanks :)

I agree with you about Rebecca. North by Northwest I find to aesthetically tight and emotionally tense to write off but I also agree it's not as thematically complex as his greatest work.

Qrazy

11-13-2007, 09:16 PM

La Strada is sheer brilliance, great pick.

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 09:29 PM

I agree with you about Rebecca. North by Northwest I find to aesthetically tight and emotionally tense to write off but I also agree it's not as thematically complex as his greatest work.
N by Nwest is great, but The 39 Steps did it better and first... that's my justification at least. Otherwise I'm inclined to agree that my favourite of his work has a little more than West offers, although I think it's a great exercise in self-parody/homage.

Qrazy

11-13-2007, 09:39 PM

N by Nwest is great, but The 39 Steps did it better and first... that's my justification at least. Otherwise I'm inclined to agree that my favourite of his work has a little more than West offers, although I think it's a great exercise in self-parody/homage.

I agree, 39 steps is the cat's pajamas... gotta love the handcuffs scene.

Rowland

11-13-2007, 09:47 PM

N by Nwest is great, but The 39 Steps did it better and first... OMG yes. I am so repping you.

Philosophe_rouge

11-13-2007, 09:51 PM

I agree, 39 steps is the cat's pajamas... gotta love the handcuffs scene.
I adored it! Madeleine Carroll and Robert Donat have amazing chemistry... which reminds me that I need to see more of his films.

Philosophe_rouge

11-14-2007, 07:12 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/loveaffair.png
#96 Love Affair
Director: Leo McCarey
Year: 1939

Leo McCarey is an unheard of director in most discussions of the great Hollywood directors. Not until recently, when something of a McCarey cult has emerged, has his name been mentioned in the same breath as the likes of Lubitsch or Hawks. Yet, he's in the running for the director with the most films on my list, and not once have I not enjoyed one of his films. Even when I was unable to finish An Affair to Remember, because of time constraints I was saddened because it's a film that completely sweeps you up and doesn't let go. While many people know of An Affair to Remember as one of the great romances of the screen, few are aware it's a remake of McCarey's own Love Affair, that was made nearly twenty years beforehand. Starring Charles Boyer and Irene Dunne, it's a story we're all too familiar with as two people, who seem to have little in common, meet on a boat and fall in love.

It's difficult to say what sets this film apart from the rest of the the romances I've seen (although this is hardly the last that will appear on my list), it's really a combination of factors that meld together to create something truly memorable and unique. First there is Dunne and Boyer, who are arguably the classiest of the classic film stars. Even when either was being silly, they had an air of gracefulness that was unparalleled. They connect onscreen like few other couples, and while this can rarely be attributed to talent, one must give credit to whoever decided to match them. They play off each other with grace and elegance, taking comedic blows, while also making those moments of silence together as memorable as the quickest verbal blow. It's their comfortable and joyous interractions in the first part of the film that make the shift into melodrama much easier. It's a rare thing that a romance is so mature and genuine as this.

The one scene that stands high and above the rest as, in my humble opinion, one of the greatest scenes in classic cinema is the meeting of Michel's widowed grandmother on a brief stop during their journey. Maria Ouspenskaya plays Grandmother Janou, in perhaps the best role a woman over sixty could ever dream of having. She's the centrepiece for the success of their relationship, and allows the audience (and Terry) to fall in love with Michel all over again. It's not so much a revelation of his softer side, but rather peeling back all inhibitions and filters that prevented them from truly connected. Janou plays something of the cinematic clairvoyant as she sees that Terry is the perfect woman for her grandson, she offers them both advice, and allows Michel to take the first step in becoming his own man once again, dropping the playboy image he was so famous for. This scene doesn't sound too good on paper, but onscreen it's magical and I've cried everytime I've seen it. This is top tier Hollywood cinema for me, it doesn't get much better than this.

Sycophant

11-14-2007, 07:16 PM

Raiders

11-14-2007, 07:20 PM

McCarey is wonderful. Make Way for Tomorrow is still the best classic Hollywood film I have seen.

Philosophe_rouge

11-14-2007, 07:25 PM

Oh! I'm watching this next week!

The only Leo McCarey film I've seen is the recently-discussed The Awful Truth. I was really impressed with his work there and queued up everything else I could get my hands on. More Dunne is also good news. :)
You haven't seen Duck Soup? I hope you enjoy Love Affair too!

McCarey is wonderful. Make Way for Tomorrow is still the best classic Hollywood film I have seen.
I've heard NOTHING but rave things about this, the only copy I've been able to find is a torrent, but the quality looks terrible and I'm not sure if I want to see it in that state.

Sycophant

11-14-2007, 07:29 PM

You haven't seen Duck Soup? I hope you enjoy Love Affair too!I did, once, but it doesn't count, as I was suffering a terrible fever and remember nothing of it except a bizarre sense of dread and mortality (it was also my first Marx Brothers film).

Raiders

11-14-2007, 07:30 PM

I've heard NOTHING but rave things about this, the only copy I've been able to find is a torrent, but the quality looks terrible and I'm not sure if I want to see it in that state.

The quality of the bootleg DVD I have ain't great, but it is almost a necessary evil just to see this film.

Philosophe_rouge

11-14-2007, 07:59 PM

The quality of the bootleg DVD I have ain't great, but it is almost a necessary evil just to see this film.
I may just get it then.

Cult

11-14-2007, 08:39 PM

Love the images!

I've only seen Virgin Suicides and Battle Royale so far. Don't care for the former, like the second.

Philosophe_rouge

11-15-2007, 05:50 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/invasionofthebodysnatchers.png
#95 Invasion of the Body Snatchers
Director: Don Siegel
Year: 1956

While seen as one of the best indictments on the communist fear of the 1950s, Invasion of the Body Snatchers is far more than a reflection of the time. Much of these specific comparisons are made after the fact, and I don't think the director or filmmakers were going after one particular societal note, but rather capturing a foreboding paranoia that was felt for countless reasons. Any post-war state vying to be the dominant world power (or sustaining that title), has more fears and concerns than one could imagine. These concerns may begin with the red scare, but extend above and beyond as a nation of men and women are struggling to find a place in the rigidity of 1950s culture. I think the reason why this goes over so well though, is Siegel's decision to treat the film as a noir. While on the surface it's a science fiction, he focuses on the individual and his struggle to come to terms with the horrors that surround him. The only major fault of the film is in it's ending, which can be blamed on studio interference. It was too much of a downer, and too much of an indictment on the current state of affairs.

Beginning at the end, the viewer is first introduced Dr. Miles J. Bennell, who is in a hospital, frantic and dishevelled. It's here he begins his story of how he came to be this way, and why he needs help. Using voice over, we come to understand that he's a doctor who has just returned to his small town because of an influx of patients. While seemingly independent, they all have the same paranoia that someone they love has been behaving differently, as if they were replaced. He shrugs off it off as "mass hysteria", even as nearly all his patients begin to cancel appointments, his scepticism only fades away when his friends find a half formed human body in their home. The film trots along in this progressive manner, relying on mystery and the general atmosphere of fear and paranoia. We are given only hints and pieces that keep us involved until the big reveal. However, by the time we know what's going on, it already seems to late. The rest of the film plays as an epic chase as Dr. Miles and Becky try to escape the town that has been "replaced".

With most B-movies, and in many ways, this one is no different, the dialogue can be blunt, forced and obvious. Somehow here though, the obvious nature of the exchanges work better than anything subverted or poetic could have. There is a very disturbing note as Miles is confronted with one of the "pod" people who used to be his friend, who, trying to appeal to him says that without emotion and individuality there is no conflict, no wars, etc. He adds, "Love, desire, ambition, faith... without them life is so much simpler." In many ways, this reminds me of a film I recently saw, the Fountainhead (Vidor, 1949), where the protagonist says that the sacrifice of freedoms and individuality leads to totalitarianism, and it's those who dared to stray from the norm that leave a positive mark on society. This film, even through it's "villains", offers the alternative: peace. Although it's far too simple an evaluation it really got the gears moving, and knowing the intended ending of the film I actually find it a frightening suggestion. I generally find the entire film to be horrifying actually, thanks to this film, pod people are up there in terms of fears.

Raiders

11-15-2007, 05:53 PM

YES.

Watashi

11-15-2007, 05:59 PM

All these nifty-looking filtered banners are making the movies look a lot cooler than they originally are.

Philosophe_rouge

11-15-2007, 05:59 PM

All these nifty-looking filtered banners are making the movies look a lot cooler than they originally are.
I love you too Wats :pritch:

MadMan

11-15-2007, 06:35 PM

A film I have seen! w00t as the kids say :P
Invasion of the Body Snatchers is indeed a great film. It also bears the distinction of being the first horror movie to scare me when I was a kid watching AMC for the first time back in middle school. The idea still creeps me out a good deal, and I still remember the pod seeds that McCarthy and co. find in the basement. Man that scene was freaky and weird.

Don Siegel rarely gets mentioned around which is a shame considering that it was him and Sergio Leone that gave Clint Eastwood two of his iconic roles (Siegel directed Dirty Harry, and in the credits to Unforgiven Clint dedicates the film to Siegel and and Leone). Plus he also made John Wayne's last film, The Shootest which I plan to finally view this Thanksgiving break or around Christmas.

Philosophe_rouge

11-15-2007, 06:46 PM

Philosophe_rouge

11-15-2007, 06:46 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/AFishcalledWanda.png
#94 A Fish Called Wanda
Director: Charles Crichton
Year: 1988

I have so many comedies on my list, and I still struggle to really talk about them. It's a very difficult genre to pull off, and it's easily one of the most subjective. Not everyone will find Monty Python funny, just as some people will never find Lubitsch funny. If you don't laugh, it's near impossible to praise the film for it's other virtues, in many ways, it's a genre that people feel doesn't even have to be good in other ways. Often, without realising how painstaking editing and blocking comedy may be. How long do you hold a scene after the punch line, when do you cut to the reaction, etc. While these are questions that have to be asked in any film, they are usually "invisible", and hold special importance in making comedy work. So often, what you don't see is more frightening, and the same works with comedy (it works beyond the visuals, but really is the classic "Comedy of Errors" scenario). A Fish Called Wanda uses these techniques (and more) to make for one of the funniest films I've ever had the pleasure of seeing.

As I mentioned about "not seeing" and deception, as an ingredient that can be used in comedy few films do it better than this one. We don't see Kline eat ALL the fish, and many scenes are intercut so that we only understand one side of the story, only to have it revealed that Cleese is dangling from his ankles outside of a window. It even works in the context of what the characters themselves fail to see, even if it's right in front of their faces. Otto in particular has a way to be evasive despite his overbearing personality. He's sneaking around a room as Cleese and Curtis are getting hot and heavy, or is outside a window as they're getting even hotter trying to diffuse the situation. Then of course, there is the constant duplicity in action for means of gain. In other words, some glorious lies and manipulation to get MONEY... and sex. It's ironic though, that the only character who is plainly wealthy (Archie Leach), has no sex life, and contrary to the other characters he's willing to give up material goods for it, while they seem to be using it as a means to get what they want.

While the entire cast shines with excellence, my favourite performer is probably Palin as Ken. If anything, he underplays his role, never allowing himself to become a caricature like those who surround him, but still manages to be consistently funny. His love for animals proves to be his downfall, as it's used consistently as a tool against him. He's given the eliminate the only witness, an old lady with three pet dogs. Unfortunately he fails as in trying to do her off he accidentally kills the dogs, one by one. When he kills off the last one though, the scene plays out so beautifully as the old woman collapses from a heart attack. Ken, so overjoyed he has succeeded is laughing and jumping around the streets, horrifying all those around him. There is also the iconic, "fish and chips" scene. Otto wants to know where the key is, and tortures poor Ken by stuffing chips up his nose and eating Ken's beloved fish, one by one. In the end though, this comes back to haunt Otto as it's this incident that sparks something in Ken that allows him to get his revenge.

rocus

11-15-2007, 07:12 PM

Absolutely agree. A fantastic, and often forgotten, comedy.

MadMan

11-15-2007, 07:20 PM

The only other Siegel film I've seen is the Beguiled, which is a mixed bag. I thought it was unintentionally hilarious when I first saw it frankly. Those scenes were great, all the pod people "in development" and the actual pods were well done, even if it's a bit easy to get how.I'd recommend Dirty Harry and Charlie Varrick which are the other ones I've seen from him. I doubt either are up your alley though especially the former. I think Dirty Harry is one of the best police action/thrillers ever made, although its not as good as The French Connection or Point Blank.

Rowland

11-15-2007, 07:39 PM

Philosophe, what do you think of the Body Snatcher remakes?

Philosophe_rouge

11-16-2007, 03:01 AM

Absolutely agree. A fantastic, and often forgotten, comedy.
I'm happy it's getting love, just a film I can watch forever.

I'd recommend Dirty Harry and Charlie Varrick which are the other ones I've seen from him. I doubt either are up your alley though especially the former. I think Dirty Harry is one of the best police action/thrillers ever made, although its not as good as The French Connection or Point Blank.
Thanks! I'll also see the French Connection.

Philosophe, what do you think of the Body Snatcher remakes?
I haven't seen any of them.

Rowland

11-16-2007, 03:13 AM

I haven't seen any of them.You should amend that, pronto. Philip Kaufman's remake is amazing (and my favorite of the bunch), while the 90's remake directed by Abel Ferrara isn't half-bad either.

Philosophe_rouge

11-16-2007, 03:17 AM

You should amend that, pronto. Philip Kaufman's remake is amazing (and my favorite of the bunch), while the 90's remake directed by Abel Ferrara isn't half-bad either.
I've heard great things about Kaufman's version, and I'll definetely try and see it ASAP.

Eleven

11-16-2007, 03:26 AM

Philosophe_rouge

11-16-2007, 03:31 AM

Everyone in Wanda is uniformly great, but I tend to agree with the Academy in citing Kline as the best, which is saying something when he's up against two Pythoners for the honor. But Cleese is the veritable straight man, and really, the character of Otto is one of the funniest figures of modern screen comedy, a ruthlessly deluded stranger in the strange land of England.

The original Body Snatchers is one of the great sci-fi movies, fulfilling any kind of allegorical framework you want to impose on it. Having recently seen the Kaufman remake, it's a toss-up as to my favorite, but they each acutely capture the paranoias of their respective cultural eras. But the later one has Robert Duvall on a swing in a priest outfit, so that may tip the scales in its favor.
Kline is BRILLIANT, ever since I've seen this film I have an urge to see everything he's in. I even saw French Kiss with Meg Ryan, and yes I laughed. He also deserved his Oscar, is much more of a standout than Palin, even though I slightly prefer him. I'm happy to see roles going to roles in comedies, and one this good more than deserves it.

dreamdead

11-16-2007, 04:10 AM

MadMan

11-16-2007, 04:32 AM

A Fish Called Wanda is one of those films I'm ashamed to admit I haven't seen. I think I would love it.

baby doll

11-16-2007, 02:33 PM

Wanda is indeed great. I remember watching the film and crying with laughter at how the dog incidents are resolved. :lol:Skimming through, I assumed you meant Barbara Loden's Wanda (which I've just seen parts of), and was all like: What the hell?

Raiders

11-16-2007, 03:24 PM

Loden's Wanda is wonderful as well, but that's neither her nor there.

D_Davis

11-16-2007, 03:36 PM

Good choice with Fish.

jesse

11-16-2007, 11:14 PM

I too want to compliment the pretty images! That in itself is enough to keep my returning... plus I've always dug your taste in general.

I really like Virgin Suicides (and Coppola in general, much more than her father actually) and Invasion is a great pick, but I've gotta say, Shadow of a Doubt is one of my least favorite Hitchcock flicks. I like Teresa Wright quite a bit but there's something about it that falls really, really flat for me every time.

La Strada couldn't live up to Cabiria unfortunately.

Philosophe_rouge

11-17-2007, 01:20 AM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/gentlemenpreferblondes.png
#93
Gentlemen Prefer Blondes
Director: Howard Hawks
Year: 1953

Earlier this year a Montreal art-house had a Monroe festival, and while she is one of my favourite actresses I only had the opportunity to see two of the films playing, including Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (I can't tell you how much I regret missing the barren and affecting The Misfits, and Monroe at her most twisted in Don't Bother to Knock... let alone the few films of hers I still haven't seen) . Even though I had seen it before, I can't tell you how sad I was when a champagne incident made us late, and we missed the opening scene. It's one of my favourite in the film, and really sets the tone and energy for all that follows. I consider this a minor work by Howard Hawks, so considering it's placement on my list, I think you ought to have a good hint that some of his films are to follow. Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is tremendous fun, and one of the most interesting film about women to come out of Hollywood, much thanks due to Anita Loos novel of the same name, as well as Hawks' own fascination with gender roles.

In this musical adaptation of Anita Loos' novel, Lorelei Lee (Marilyn Monroe) is on a quest, with her friend Dorothy, to find the right man to marry. It's no secret that she wants diamonds, not love because diamonds last forever, love is not guaranteed. While the time period is updated from the Roaring Twenties to the not so roaring 1950s, the character dynamics remain the same. While, one could argue the liberation of the women of the 1920s, especially the flapper girls was formitative to the original story, there was the other side of the coin that women were not as liberated as they believed themselves to be. It was about taking control of your own sexuality, but because of the patriarchal nature of society, someone women educated or unedecated, like Lorelei (Loos' novel was told in diary format, and is sprinkled with spelling mistakes and colloqualisms), could not support themselves financially. The film does take some liberties though, and presents Lorelei as a little dimmer than what the novel suggests, however as we aren't in her mind we can't really gauge her intentions, and there is no doubt she uses her own set of skills to get what she wants.

Dorothy is clearly the smart woman, at least comparitively. She has wit, charm, and is well read. At the same time she doesn't have the same ambition and strategic thinking as Lorelei. Under normal circomstances, I think I'd be upset at this transference and I think it does take away from the original but as I mentioned, Lorelei has her own strengths and she uses them well. The actual text is viewed as a great piece of feminist work, and I think the film captures this wonderfully. It's about women's power and powerlessness in society and relationships. I think it holds a lot more relevance at the time, when women could not make a living for themselves and if they wanted to live the best life this was probably the only alternative. At the same time though, Lorelei and Dorothy are taking control of their life and sexuality, using their own skills and intelligence to get what they want. While some could argue, that both Dorothy and Lorelei are relying on men for their survival, I think this is not only innacurate, but disregarding the fact it's on their own terms. They are in control of their relationships and their sexuality, they are not going to let any man step all over them. Even without men, they are not dejected and hopeless but making ends meet, and doing it well.

Probably the most important factor in female empowerment has to be the relationship between Lorelei and Dorothy. Above all the men and difficulties they have a strong friendship and they are always there for one another. They are occasionally competing with one another, but that doesn't destroy their relationship. They are willing to sacrifice everything for each other, even Dorothy's rather hilarious impersonation of Lorelai is a scene tinged with danger, as if caught, she could wind up in prison. This is a big step, and an interesting one that we still don't often see in films or television today. Too often, the storylines are about women competing against one another without compromise or care, this goes against the grain. Both actresses really take control of their roles, and have great onscreen chemistry together. They are witty, beautiful and downright funny.

Hawks injects in the film is trademark sense of adventure and humour. The musical scenes are lively, memorable and visually stunning. I've seen this film several times now, and it never fails to get old. A damn good time.

Philosophe_rouge

11-17-2007, 01:24 AM

Wanda is indeed great. I remember watching the film and crying with laughter at how the dog incidents are resolved. :lol: I should own that film. Hmm.

Despite a massive crush on Dunne, I was underwhelmed by Love Affair. Can't pinpoint the exact problem, beyond the uniformity of the plot in every successive romantic film. It didn't ever quite contain the magic and freshness of The Awful Truth, but I'll revisit it at some later date since the viewing experience wasn't as ideal as it could've been.
I understand what you mean, it's really such an archetype for romantic films, that it can lose some of it's power. Perhaps you'll enjoy it more on another viewing, because you might not be as caught up in the plot. The Awful Truth is still better though, no doubt.

I too want to compliment the pretty images! That in itself is enough to keep my returning... plus I've always dug your taste in general.

I really like Virgin Suicides (and Coppola in general, much more than her father actually) and Invasion is a great pick, but I've gotta say, Shadow of a Doubt is one of my least favorite Hitchcock flicks. I like Teresa Wright quite a bit but there's something about it that falls really, really flat for me every time.

La Strada couldn't live up to Cabiria unfortunately.

Thanks!

Another Coppola fan! I'm not sure if I prefer her work to her father, but I did include more of her films on the list than his. I probably need to rewatch some of his staples though, and I've never even seen the Godfather Pt. 2. I've never heard anyone who was particularly dissapointed with Shadow of a Doubt, any thoughts why in particular?

Yxklyx

11-17-2007, 02:51 AM

Philosophe_rouge

11-17-2007, 03:08 AM

I liked the Virgin Suicides
Shadow of a Doubt is very good, even for Hitchcock
Battle Royale I just saw - thought that much more could have been done with it
La Strada is fine
Love Affair - not seen probably because I don't care much for Boyer
Is that screen shot really from Invasion of the Body Snatchers? Need to see that again.
A Fish Called Wanda was lots of fun
The highpoint of Gentlemen Prefer Blondes is the major musical number which you make no mention of!
You don't care for Boyer! He's one of my favourites, what films of his have you seen?

As for Gentlemen, there are a few I didn't mention... I think I only directly reference Little Girls from Little Rock... are you talking about the gyrating males? Or somethine else ?

SpaceOddity

11-17-2007, 11:39 AM

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s173/Justine_Smitha/thevirginsuicides.png

Yay. I love The Virgin Suicides.
Even thought it's condemnation masquerading as reverence.
But, I guess that's kinda the nature of idealisation, anyway. *shrug*

Sycophant

11-20-2007, 01:57 PM

So I watched Love Affair last night. And YES.

Philosophe_rouge

11-20-2007, 09:58 PM

Yay. I love The Virgin Suicides.
Even thought it's condemnation masquerading as reverence.
But, I guess that's kinda the nature of idealisation, anyway. *shrug*
I agree with you, but I don't think I'd ever be able to put them in words that are so "smart".

So I watched Love Affair last night. And YES.
:pritch:

Philosophe_rouge

11-21-2007, 01:16 AM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/lesdiaboliques.png

#92 Diaboliques
Director: Henri-Georges Clouzot
Year: 1955

I had a hard time finding the motivation to write this one, general lethargy rather than my opinion of the film I assure you. Les Diaboliques is one of the most frightening films I've ever seen, and while part of me regrets that Hitchcock never had his go at the script (as a consolation for him losing out on the bidding, Boileau and Narcejac authors of the novel that the film is based on, wrote "D'Entre les Morts" especially for him. It would become Vertigo... so I probably shouldn't be complaining!) I somehow doubt even Hitchcock could have captured the tension, paranoia and scares that Clouzot squeezes out of this film. I had been unfortunately disappointed with his earlier effort, the much acclaimed Wages of Fear, but looking at both films I see Clouzot as a true master of suspense and tension. Few filmmakers have the patience or the capabilities to make this film more than just a standard thriller.

Two young teachers in a French boy's boarding school scheme together to murder the headmaster. Respectfully one is his wife, the other is his mistress. A complex, but reasonable plan is devised where they will lure him away to a home in a distant village, murder him and then make it look like an accident. The murder is far from the climax though, as soon the body disappears, and his wife begins to worry that perhaps he isn't dead. The film is psychologically one of the most compelling, and frightening I've seen. We truly find ourselves in the same state of mind as the wife, as things are not what they seem, and the fear of being found out escalates with every moment. She's rather sympathetic, if not particularly charismatic, but it only adds to the interest of the film. It's the supporting cast that liven up the picture, from the sadist husband to the know-it-all detective, Inspector Fichet, who's one step ahead of everyone.

The atmosphere is dark and seedy, and water is ever present as a reminder of the crime and the character's mental states. From the constant downpour, to the dark, dirty, seemingly bottomless pool, few motifs are executed with the same beautiful grace as this. If anything, Clouzot has a great feel for environments, and each set is wonderfully constructed with intense care and detail. From the elaborate "caged" bedroom, to the noisy house in the village, setting plays an essential role to the film's atmosphere. Filmed in black and white, it's absolutely delicious.

Raiders

11-21-2007, 02:40 AM

Great choice. Though I'm confused, is your list too chic for a #92?

Philosophe_rouge

11-21-2007, 02:41 AM

Great choice. Though I'm confused, is your list too chic for a #92?
#92 is bad luck in Quebec?

I mislabelled Diaboliques, should be #92 :P

monolith94

11-21-2007, 02:47 AM

Cool new avatar - I use that very same shot of Marlene as one of my livejournal's icons!

Rowland

11-21-2007, 02:50 AM

I need to see this again. The impact of my first viewing was compromised by guessing the twist way ahead of time.

Qrazy

11-21-2007, 02:54 AM

Les Diaboliques is great, but I prefer Les Salaires du Peur.

Boner M

11-21-2007, 09:58 AM

Philosophe_rouge

11-21-2007, 08:08 PM

Cool new avatar - I use that very same shot of Marlene as one of my livejournal's icons!
Have you seen Morocco? I have it sitting around here, will get to it sometime...

I need to see this again. The impact of my first viewing was compromised by guessing the twist way ahead of time.
I wish I could sympathise, but I rarely am able to guess the twist, and I didn't here. I do recommend a rewatch though.

Les Diaboliques is great, but I prefer Les Salaires du Peur.
I saw Salaires first, didn't have a huge impact on me, although there is no doubt it's a very well made film.

Philosophe_rouge

11-21-2007, 08:10 PM

Diabolique is in my top 50, excellent choice. I watched it with my mum a few months ago and she loved it too; ditto for a friend several years ago who wasn't much of a cinephile at the time. I think that film is a great primer for newbies to classic foreign cinema.
It certainly is, I always find well made mysteries/thrillers are a great introduction to films outside people's general comfort zone. Same with older Hollywood stuff, Hitchcock is one of the best director's to win people over.

Derek

11-21-2007, 08:24 PM

Les Diaboliques is a great choice, but I slightly prefer the somewhat overlooked Quai des Orfevres. Any Clouzot fan who hasn't seen it should correct that ASAP.

monolith94

11-21-2007, 10:09 PM

Have you seen Morocco? I have it sitting around here, will get to it sometime...

I sure have, and it's a pretty good one, although not Sternberg's boldest outing, visually. The Marlene nightclub scene is essential cinematic viewing.

Philosophe_rouge

11-26-2007, 01:38 AM

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s173/Justine_Smitha/MarieAntoinette-1.png

#91 Marie Antoinette
Director: Sofia Coppola
Year: 2006

To get the ball rolling, as I've found little time for this next review I'm just posting my original one... doesn't quite stand up to my current standards but it'll do.

Beautifully shot, Marie Antoinette captures the futility of the Versailles court. However, it doesn't lampoon Antoinette herself, and I would say Dunst and her portrayal represent more than just the Queen of France, but a reflection of a generation of women lost in a world of glamour and disappointment.

Coppola humanizes and exposes Marie Antoinette in all her mystery, as one of the most notorious historical figures of perhaps all times. Right from the beginning we realize she is under constant watch and scrutiny. The innocent young teenager who arrives in France is shunned and criticized for everything she does or doesn't do. In one scene, where she is being dressed Antoinette stands there naked as the ridiculous rules of the court make for a few uncomfortable minutes where the responsibility shifts from person to person to dress her as someone of higher rank continually enters the room. There is no privacy for her, and the subject of her sex life or lack thereof is openly discussed among all members of the court. She walks down the hall and hears these fragmented conversations about her inadequacy although behind closed doors we know it's not her fault. Marie Antoinette is never even afforded friendship; those she associates with talk behind her back just like the rest and call her "that Austrian girl". Not equipped to deal with this, Antoinette turns to escapism and excess. I honestly felt incredible sympathy for her throughout the entire film. She was lost in a world she wasn't ready for, but when she was forced to be strong she was. This has to be Dunst's best performance. She goes from child, to outcast, to escapist, to mother and it ends with her as a real Queen. All these changes are felt more through her performance than anything else, after becoming a mother we feel this incredible change in her demeanor and attitude, and the final tumultuous act this new determination and dedication as a failed monarch.

Coppola effectively captures Marie Antoinette's existence and especially her loneliness with her skillful direction. There is so much distance between herself and the world of the court and the world around her. There are many shots of her in these enormous rooms or corridors all alone, or separated from the group. She's framed and trapped by doorways, and there is at least in the first half an almost constant overlay of dialogue and criticism that floats around as the backdrop for almost every scene. It's easy to not even notice most of it, as it is so constant. Versailles itself is so excessive, and surreali that it is a world on it's own. It's like it's own isolated country that doesn't need the outside world, it lives by it's own rules (90% of them ridiculous formality), we see why the monarchy was able to get caught up with themselves while forgetting the plights of the people. Sound and image are tied up with the defining of this film and what it stands for.

The use of modern music is heavily criticized, but I think I have to agree with Ebert on this one, he says it best: "Coppola has been criticized in some circles for her use of a contemporary pop overlay -- hit songs, incongruous dialogue, jarring intrusions of the Now upon the Then. But no one ever lives as Then; it is always Now. Many characters in historical films seem somehow aware that they are living in the past. Marie seems to think she is a teenager living in the present, which of course she is -- and the contemporary pop references invite the audience to share her present with ours. Forman's "Amadeus" had a little of that, with its purple wigs."

Okay... I wasn't able to explain properly why I think this film is so good. To me, it captures as much Marie Antoinette as it does "the female existence", if such a thing can be defined. I think this film's worth will be appreciated over time, at least by members of my own generation whose life of futility, loneliness and boredom is reflected so perfectly on the screen. Maturity and meaning will come, but it's not there yet. This film is also stunningly beautiful, the costumes, makeup, cinematography is amazing.

jesse

11-26-2007, 11:28 PM

#91 Marie Antoinette
Director: Sofia Coppola
Year: 2006 Ohhh... I don't love it enough to consider it for a personal top 100 list, but I love that you chose it! A terrific, misunderstood film (though that seems to be changing already); I think time and future generations of film viewers are going to be quite kind to it as well.

Sycophant

11-26-2007, 11:46 PM

I think I really, really owe Marie Antoinette a second viewing. I thought it was fairly meh, with some definite high points and some points where I felt Coppola herself wasn't all that interested in the material. Perhaps some distance from the hype will be to its benefit.

Bosco B Thug

11-27-2007, 12:13 AM

The film's so very thin and by the ending, you realize it's not very ambitious, but I agree that it's mental and emotional representation of Antoinette is quite affecting and implicative.

Spinal

11-27-2007, 12:23 AM

One of the best films of last year. Good choice.

Philosophe_rouge

11-27-2007, 12:24 AM

Ohhh... I don't love it enough to consider it for a personal top 100 list, but I love that you chose it! A terrific, misunderstood film (though that seems to be changing already); I think time and future generations of film viewers are going to be quite kind to it as well.
Yup, I seem to be noticing a lot more people who like the film than when it was first released. I don't see it having the same turnaround as The New World, but I do hope it's appreciated a little more.

I think I really, really owe Marie Antoinette a second viewing. I thought it was fairly meh, with some definite high points and some points where I felt Coppola herself wasn't all that interested in the material. Perhaps some distance from the hype will be to its benefit.
I hope you let me know your thoughts when and if you get to rewatching it.

The film's so very thin and by the ending, you realize it's not very ambitious, but I agree that it's mental and emotional representation of Antoinette is quite affecting and implicative.
I agree at least on the ambitious stand point, it's little more ambitious than Coppola's previous efforts although I think people expected something so much more, or at least very different that they attached adjectives and ideas to it that just weren't there.

Philosophe_rouge

11-27-2007, 12:26 AM

My least favourite write-up yet... bleh.

http://i152.photobucket.com/albums/s173/Justine_Smitha/diaryofalostgirl.png

# 89 Diary of a Lost Girl
Director: G.W. Pabst
Year: 1929

I've seen Diary of a Lost Girl many times. I blind bought it over two years ago, and every once in a while I have an urge to pop it into the DVD player to watch the ghosts of the past. More than any other film, I feel like I'm watching the dead and the gone drifting silently across the screen. At the same time I feel so close to the characters and the actions, that I'm torn between sadness and fear. Part of this is due to Pabst's expressionistic direction, which is too often forgotten because of Brook's enigmatic presence. His own direction is subtle despite the outlandish nature of the stories he tackles. His use of extreme close-ups, long passageways and jarring editing is really what creates this sense of hopelessness that always grips me. Combine this with the overpowering presence of Brooks, it's a film that draws out so many emotions from me, and in the end is quite exhausting.

Louise Brooks is Thymiane, a young innocent girl draped in white for her communion, on this very day she is raped by the clerk who works in her father’s store. She gets pregnant, and so as not to bring shame to the family she is sent away to a horrid “school” for girls. This is only the beginning of the film, and already you have a sense of how compact and absurd it is, yet somehow it never seems outrageous and ridiculous. Part of this is because the film, much like in Pandora's Box, points out the hypocrisy of the current patriarchal society. From sexual liberation to innocence, women are condemned and mistreated. The hypocrisy is made especially apparent in the promiscuity of Thymiane's father. The family's rejection of their daughter is frightening, especially since it's quite apparent that she is so loved and she is so absent of guilt. The man who raped her is never brought to court, he even continues to work for the family, even advancing in his position.

The second half of the film continues to get worse before it gets better, but Thymiane seems to survive despite her apparent fragility. From the three Pabst films I've seen, he seems to really hold women in high regard. Even as they experience hardships, and abuse they somehow are empowered, however indirectly. It isn't a case where he believes women are more virtuous by men, an ideal to be held on a pedestal, but important figures that are cast aside because of double standards and antiquitated ideals. There seems to be an acknowledgment that Thymiane is even luckier than most despite all the horrors she's had to live through. In the end, what didn't kill her, made her stronger and she couldn't abide abuse of any kind any longer. Brooks balances this transition with so much ease, that there isn't a moment of doubt that this is a believable character arc. Pabst takes a similar rode as Lang, in that he sees this as a fundamental problem with a corrupt and cruel society, rather than something fundamentally human (although there is no doubt, there is a battle within us all between the "good" and the "evil" and perhaps we don't always have a choice). In Pabst though, we find a light, not only in Thymiane, but in the children she encounters, and in the men and women who help her along the way.

Melville

11-27-2007, 01:47 AM

Marie Antoinette was great. I can't get enough of movies crafting characters out of progressions of mood.

D_Davis

11-27-2007, 03:47 AM

Man, I've hardly seen any of these films. I need to dive into some of these older films more often. I should keep track of the film's you've mentioned, as they are typically not films I turn to.

Philosophe_rouge

11-27-2007, 03:50 AM

Man, I've hardly seen any of these films. I need to dive into some of these older films more often. I should keep track of the film's you've mentioned, as they are typically not films I turn to.
I feel the same way about your list, we're evenly matched I think!

Duncan

11-27-2007, 04:01 AM

I need to see a film by Pabst. I agree that time will most likely be kind to Marie Antoinette. It was somewhere in the lower half of my top 10 last year.

lovejuice

11-27-2007, 03:22 PM

#91 Marie Antoinette
Director: Sofia Coppola
Year: 2006

i don't like it either, but yes, it's worth mentioning. i'm glad that someone like it.

Philosophe_rouge

12-05-2007, 10:45 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/nottibianche.png

#88 Le Notti Bianche
Director: Luchindo Visconti
Year: 1957

I think I can only attribute my low placement of this film to my bad memory, and otherwise my lack of time (entries have been sparse becomes every waking moment has been devoted to school in the last little while), because otherwise I might rewatch this for a refresher. Le Notti Bianche feels like a faint memory, defined by mood rather than by it's actions (not that there are many). That intense sense of loss permeates far beyond the confines of the film, falling into urban loneliness, or perhaps something far more undefineable... I don't know, I'm struggling for words here... I don't think "urban" is the right word, and has little to do with the film from my own standpoint. It's about people who are just so alone, living their mundane lives and waiting for something to sweep them away. They are both silent and shy, and while Natalia opens up completely to Mario it seems like she's just letting it all flow from her. She draws from him something entirely different, more than adoration and affection she gives him warmth, even if she doesn't realise it. They both feel as though they have found their escape, she in a sailor who said he'd return to her in a year and him in her presence. Their romance is non-traditional, it's something of a love triangle but one of the parties is absent, the other is unwilling and the girl too naive. Nonetheless, in their interractions is something far more poignant than what I usually am able to draw from screen couples; at least one some level they have a deep understanding of the other. They share the same mallaise, and as I mentioned, the same isolation. The film runs on a sort of panicked energy that stems from the situation, and what feels like a lack of time, as well as the wonderfully claustorphobic visuals.

Stylistically the film balances between surreal and expressionistic, however not in any outlandish way. It's a strikingly beautiful film, that despite appearances is all indoor sets. The coldness of the stone and the bridge, as well as how generally empty the surroundings are strengthen their connection. However, even when they're in crowds, or in the famous cafe scene they don't quite fit in, on an aesthetic level as well, thanks to damn good acting(both actors have tremendous body language, it really helps carry the picture). Although, to date, this is the only Visconti film I've truly loved (I liked The Leopard and really disliked Death in Venice), one thing that really stands out in his films are their sumptuous visuals, his adoration of the male form and the use of music. Le Notti Bianche excels in all three areas, notably in the cafe scene and the film's final act. I'm including VIA youtube the rather famous dance scene, I love how the dynamism of the dancers; their confidance, sexuality and extrovertness contrasts with Mario and Natalia, while also drawing them out. Movement has rarely been so earthy and dominating.

I just have to mention that Marcello Mastroianni is absolutely wonderful in this film. He's probably my favourite actor, so it's no surprise that I'm saying it... but it's so different from his Fellini work, or La Notte or Divorce, Italian Style. His character is so modest and dare I say, virtuous and sincere? Blah. I love me some Marcello.

Yea, that was random and rantful. I excuse any and all innacuracies.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCopMCPpvwI

origami_mustache

12-09-2007, 05:35 AM

I need to see more of Visconti's work. I saw his first film, Ossessione and loved it. I suppose I'll visit La Terra Trema along with this film next.

Philosophe_rouge

12-09-2007, 03:39 PM

I need to see more of Visconti's work. I saw his first film, Ossessione and loved it. I suppose I'll visit La Terra Trema along with this film next.
I haven't seen either of those, but Ossessione is probably the next film of his I'll see as on paper it interests me the most. Also his version of Camus' L'Etranger but it's damn near impossible to find :evil:

jesse

12-09-2007, 06:15 PM

I haven't seen either of those, but Ossessione is probably the next film of his I'll see as on paper it interests me the most. Also his version of Camus' L'Etranger but it's damn near impossible to find :evil: Visconte has been so hit-and-miss for me so far--really dug the decadance on display in The Damned, and found the bizarre combination of realism and melodrama in Rocco and his Brothers really, really compelling. Death in Venice, on the other hand, was a massive dud in my estimation.

Still, there's not much in his filmography that doesn't interest me, from La Terra Tremma on down to L'Innocente. Notti bianche sounds like a film I'd love.

Philosophe_rouge

12-09-2007, 08:22 PM

Visconte has been so hit-and-miss for me so far--really dug the decadance on display in The Damned, and found the bizarre combination of realism and melodrama in Rocco and his Brothers really, really compelling. Death in Venice, on the other hand, was a massive dud in my estimation.

Still, there's not much in his filmography that doesn't interest me, from La Terra Tremma on down to L'Innocente. Notti bianche sounds like a film I'd love.
I'm happy we're on the same page with Venice, everyone I encounter seems to love it, but I am impressed I even finished it...

Qrazy

12-09-2007, 08:38 PM

I'm happy we're on the same page with Venice, everyone I encounter seems to love it, but I am impressed I even finished it...

Really? I haven't met anyone yet who's actually liked it. Apparently the book is quite good but the film is one of the worst things I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. However, I do like the opening shot with Mahler playing in the background.

Philosophe_rouge

12-09-2007, 08:51 PM

Really? I haven't met anyone yet who's actually liked it. Apparently the book is quite good but the film is one of the worst things I've ever had the displeasure of viewing. However, I do like the opening shot with Mahler playing in the background.
We hang around different crowds then, I've gotten into a few arguments over it's merits frankly. It is a beautiful film, but wow, otherwise painful

Qrazy

12-09-2007, 09:26 PM

We hang around different crowds then, I've gotten into a few arguments over it's merits frankly. It is a beautiful film, but wow, otherwise painful

I didn't even really like it's aesthetic to be honest. It has moments but my god those slow zooms. MY GOD.

Philosophe_rouge

12-10-2007, 06:43 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/mccabeandmrsmiller.png

#87 McCabe & Mrs. Miller
Director: Robert Altman
Year: 1971

I watched McCabe and Mrs. Miller for the first time at a friend's house. I had brought it over to watch for one of our bi-monthly film marathons, and thought it would be an interesting change of pace. I think she enjoyed it, but I also think she was convinced I hated it. It really drew me in, and the film's darkness and just it's dirt hung on me. It was almost as if I couldn't cast it away. Perhaps it was my grim expression as a result that made her think I didn't enjoy or like it... understandable, but oh so wrong. Altman's exploration and deconstruction of the western mythology is incomparable in it's depth and insight into the genre and it's characters. In this way, I put him in the same league as Howard Hawks, although they are somewhat antithetical in their approaches. Both tackle a variety of different genres while maintaining their distinct styles, when they're through with it, the genre is somewhat invigorated or a new light is shed upon it.

Taking the example of Hawks' Red River, stylistically the film is not so different from his other films, and thematically he's continuing to explore, deconstruct and archetyping his ideas of masculinity (he also tries the same with femininity, and his fantasy woman is far different than what we usually find in cinema, I feel it fails in this film because of poor casting). However, compared to Hawks' other works Clift's character comes off as (arguably) the weakest representation of his male ideal, and this is more than just because of the effeminate nature of his performance (Hawks' has always been one to play with gender roles) but his inability to truly resolve his conflicts in an Hawksian idealised was, although that perhaps is due to the sanitized ending. Taking McCabe, however, we have a character that Hawks would never dare portray. He is something of a coward, and even if he's good with words he's struck with a nervous desperation that works against his talents. I don't think Altman is as concerned with masculinity as Hawks, although I always found it interesting that they tackle similar characters and situations (notably both of their Phillip Marlowe's which are very far removed from each other, while also being far removed from Chandler's novels). He's more interested in setting and how it shapes a character's personality and their actions.

They also both share a distinction of exploring strong, or at the very least interesting women. As I mentioned earlier, I truly believe Red River fails on this level, and McCabe and Mrs. Miller excels beyond any reasonable expectations. Hawks however is usually on the ball with his portrayal of women, they are strong, intelligent and feminine... although most often their respect is earned through male initiation, or the adoption of male traits and characteristics. Mrs. Miller fits somehow into this thesis on the modern woman, and on the surface she exceeds being McCabe's equal to be his better. She's smarter, more powerful, and has a better sense of business than he does. All the talents he claims to have are better exhibited in her. Many of her roles and talents are usually associated with men, at least within the western genre. Her character is not as idealized as the Hawksian woman however, she is self destructive among other things, which is strange considering what appears to be her passion and talents for survival. Mrs. Miller is one of the most fascinating characters of cinema of the 1970s, and possibly Julie Christie's best role. It's her presence that drives the film and drives McCabe.

It is setting that so defines the characters in Altman's films rather than incidental workings of dialogue or plot. The small, budding town is claustrophobic. There are only a few scattered buildings, and they're poorly built, poorly lit and cramped together. The film is set during fall and winter, and this forces the residents to commune in the already tight indoors. Anybody can feel big in a town like that, which plays into McCabe's fatal egoism. It also has a deep effect on Mrs. Miller who feels cramped and confined, her desire to return to San Francisco has less to do with being in a place worthy of her calibre, and more with the anonymity and the means of escape a big city offers.

Bosco B Thug

12-11-2007, 03:08 AM

#87 McCabe & Mrs. Miller
Director: Robert Altman
Year: 1971 Oooh. Great one.

Duncan

12-11-2007, 03:47 AM

Apparently there are a lot of really good American films that I haven't seen. This one in highest on my Altman "to see" list, along with 3 Women.

ledfloyd

12-11-2007, 04:30 AM

you skipped 90!

Philosophe_rouge

12-11-2007, 04:36 AM

you skipped 90!

I noticed that, but I don't know where that number went honestly.

ledfloyd

12-11-2007, 05:53 AM

I noticed that, but I don't know where that number went honestly.
hmm... i'll keep an eye out and let you know if i find it.

Philosophe_rouge

12-12-2007, 06:46 PM

hmm... i'll keep an eye out and let you know if i find it.
Thank you, I'll catch that bugger if it's the last thing I do :frustrated:

Watashi

12-17-2007, 03:34 AM

This list rules. Much better than mine.

That is, if she finishes it of course

Philosophe_rouge

12-17-2007, 03:36 AM

This list rules. Much better than mine.

That is, if she finishes it of course
I will :frustrated: I'm just slow.

MacGuffin

12-17-2007, 03:37 AM

Much better than mine.

I'm not sure how you could say such a thing. This sort of logic is rather confusing. How could someone's favorites list possibly be better than you're own? Unless you're putting movies on your list that aren't actually your favorites.

Melville

12-17-2007, 03:41 AM

I'm not sure how you could say such a thing. This sort of logic is rather confusing. How could someone's favorites list possibly be better than you're own? Unless you're putting movies on your list that aren't actually your favorites.
This one has prettier pictures.

Philosophe_rouge

12-17-2007, 09:38 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/importance.png

#86 The Importance of Being Earnest
Director: Anthony Asquith
Year: 1952

Translating plays to screen is so difficult, even more than novels they often feel confined and contrived. They feel in essence, like someone put down a camera and let the actors perform as if they were on stage, or on the opposite side of the spectrum they feel the need to overcompensate visually, often losing what made the original work worth adapting in the first place. This film finds a comfortable middle ground, moving far beyond just a filmed play without overcompensating. The charm of Wilde's work comes through because of the talented actors, but also the intricate framing and set pieces.

I feel (and fear) that in talking about this film, it''ll simply turn into a literary essay on the brilliance of Wilde's work... so even though that will probably mean a shortened review, I'm going to focus on how the film is constructed. As a rule, I don't think it's a type of film that demands a lot of show. It's the dialogue and the performances that are the centre of the film, but having seen a few bad adaptations I know that it's far more difficult to pull off then one would think. Aside from relying on some of the best and most accomplished actors he could get his hands on Asquith uses costumes, setting and a theatrical bookend to sell the film.

Unlike the most recent film interpretation where costumes aesthetics are valued over personality, conscious efforts are made in this adaptation to have the characters reflected in what they wear. Our Earnests are always wearing heavily patterned suits, something of an evasive measure... a camouflage, so to speak. It's most evident with Lady Augusta, who's garish purple costume couldn't be more over the top, not more appropriate to her proud and domineering personality. Even in her wearing purple suggests royalty, a perception she seems to have of her own importance.

The opening and closing scene play as if us, the audience, are going to see a play. A program is opened and a curtain rises revealing the actors on set. Instead of this being something of an excuse or defence for the nature of the film, it establishes the fantasy world we are about to enter. In many ways, a lot of films with a similar style could benefit from this idea, at least in part. Powell and Pressburger borrow heavily from this, often using memories, comas, and quite literally stages to bring the audience into their surreal fantasies without losing them on the dreaded "true to life" arguments.

I only briefly touched on the actors, but they’re all divine. Especially Michael Redgrave who is quickly becoming a favourite of mine.

lwilson85

12-18-2007, 12:09 AM

Qrazy

12-18-2007, 12:14 AM

I really really like McCabe & Mrs. Miller and it was my favorite Altman/Western until I saw Images and Fassbinder's Zombie Western Whity. I should start a top 100 list again sometime, but who knows if I'll ever finish it or if anyone would be interested.

You should copy/paste the major list on RT here and finish the rest.

Images was well crafted but probably one of my least favorite Altman's. It really loses it's momentum by the end.

Philosophe_rouge

12-18-2007, 03:11 AM

monolith94

12-18-2007, 04:04 AM

Nice choice: an example where the old British film is about ten times better than the new American version. Leave "Earnest" to the Brits please.

Philosophe_rouge

12-18-2007, 04:27 AM

Nice choice: an example where the old British film is about ten times better than the new American version. Leave "Earnest" to the Brits please.
Agreed, I still enjoyed the British version because it's really hard to truly mess up a play as brilliant as Earnest, but it pales so fully in comparison that they're barely worth mentioning in the same breath.

jesse

12-18-2007, 04:31 AM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/importance.png

#86 The Importance of Being Earnest
Director: Anthony Asquith
Year: 1952 Oh you're going to love Pygmalion. Most definitely. Same director, best-of-the-Brits casting, etc.

Philosophe_rouge

01-01-2008, 01:11 AM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/diaryofachambermaid-1.jpg

#85 Diary of a Chambermaid
Director: Luis Bunuel
Year: 1964

If Diary of a Chambermaid proves just one thing, it's that a remake can be better than the original. I had seen Renoir's original incarnation several years ago, and had enjoyed it quite a bit. Paulette Goddard starred in one of his few American films as a chambermaid who decides to use her beauty to gain wealth and reputation. While an interesting venture it lacks spark and really offers nothing new in terms of commentary on social classes and cinematically doesn't really go to "11". Bunuel takes this story, and really doesn't change much of the plot. It's essentially the same story injected with Bunuel sensibilities. Taking hard hits on religion, politic and social order with an ironic and unpredictable sense of humour, the film becomes a tale of obsession, sexual perversity and misled politics.

Jeanne Moreau stars as Celestine, a sophisticated Parisian domestique who comes to work in the country for an eccentric bourgeois family. Before her arrival she mourns the excitement of the city, musing that country life is too clean and unrefined for her taste. Her attitude is that even though she is a servant, being from the city she will be more cultured, educated and refined than her employers; she was half right. Unexpectedly for her, the family turns out to be more interesting than she could have imagined. The lady of the household is something of a hermit, her husband a philanderer, the grandfather a dirty old man and the gardener a fascist. Celestine takes advantage of every situation as she adapts and manipulates all those who are around her. She seems to treat everything with indifference; from acting out the grandfather's fetish oriented sexual fantasies to using sex to find a murderer. The performance itself seems to run against what Celestine's motives (however ambiguous) seem to be, as it's rather clear her ambition is to become the leader of her own household.

In a strange turn of events, Bunuel puts the peasants at the same level as the bourgeoisie making them as close minded and deviant as the eccentrics of the household. Fascism is not rooted in one entity, but in an unlucky combination of indifference, ignorance and corruption. While it's only really the gardener who dedicates himself to fascist beliefs, it's a cause and effect created by his situation. His military pride disgusts Celestine as he seems to use it as a defence for his actions. At the same time though, she seems somewhat aroused by it. While it's clear she wants to get him to confess to his crime, the ambiguous nature of her character suggests she's attracted by his sadism while at once repulsed by it.

jesse

01-01-2008, 03:28 AM

Interesting choice... can't say I liked it much though.

dreamdead

01-01-2008, 03:38 AM

Philosophe_rouge

01-01-2008, 03:45 AM

Yeah, I kinda fall in with jesse on this choice, though That Obscure Object of Desire is still the only Bunuel to fully impact me (I've still got plenty of his filmography to dig into, though). I was expecting either a bit more explicit discussion of fascism or of sexuality, and both ideas were relatively repressed to such an extent that their themes became submerged in their own insularity.
It's atually my favourite Bunuel, although I've only seen three (including Obscure Desire yesterday). I can see where you're coming from, it is very much buried under the strange decision of subtlety by Bunuel's part. I personally feel it was effective in so much that it was blatant, sex and violence go hand in hand. It was Celestine's character and her reactions towards it that I found particularly fascinating, although Moreau's performance is very restrained that it's difficult to read what she's thinking or reacting at any given moment.

jesse

01-01-2008, 04:15 AM

Philosophe_rouge

01-01-2008, 04:48 AM

Chambermaid was actually my first experience with Bunuel's cinema, and I'm pretty sure I wasn't aware what I was getting into at the time, so I might like it more if I watched it again. But it seemed pretty muted--and rather dull--to me.

I've only scratched the surface of Bunuel's films, and if Viridiana is technically the best I've seen (it's a masterpiece, most definietly), the one I responded to most strongly was actually Nazarin.
It was my first Bunuel too, but my favourite artist was Salvador Dali, so in my readings I came across Bunuel quite a bit and was somehow prepared for his work. I watched Un Chien Andalou second. Viridiana is going to be the next of his films I've see. I'm excited :D

Spinal

01-01-2008, 06:00 AM

Philosophe_rouge

01-02-2008, 09:53 PM

I love seeing Bunuel appreciation (he's my favorite director), but this was not one that really left much of an impression on me. I enjoyed reading your breakdown of the film and would be curious to read your reactions to more of his work. Los Olvidados is my favorite.
I really need to see more of his work, I always have a good time watching his films and enjoy thinking over them long after they're over. A rare quality indeed :)

Philosophe_rouge

01-02-2008, 09:56 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/thebodysnatcher.jpg
#84
The Body Snatcher
Director: Robert Wise
Year: 1945

I love me some old school horror, and it's unfortunate this is the only one to make my list. Under serious consideration at one point or another, The Bride of Frankenstein, I Walked with a Zombie, and Dr. Jekyll nearly made my list. If I were to reassemble it, there is a damn good chance at least one if not all three would make an appearance; they're all just so damn good. When I started sifting through the Val Lewton collection (I'm still not done :( ), I was at least familiar with Cat People and Zombie but in all honesty I had thought of skipping over this one. Based on a short story by Robert Louis Stevenson, a doctor running his anatomy classes must rely on a ruthless criminal to supply him with extra cadavers so that he can properly run his school. What raises this film (and really all the Lewton films) above the rest of the pack is their reliance on psychological turmoil and uncertainty for their horror.

Unlike most films of it's type, the acting is what holds the film together. Unlike Cat People, or even I Walked With a Zombie there is little reliance on the supernatural. The horror is almost exclusively based on the capacity for good and evil within the individual. Unfortunately for Doctor MacFarlane, his fate and the measure of his own morality is linked (quite literally) eternally with that of grave robber/cabman Gray. Boris Karloff play Gray, and suggesting this is probably the best performance if his career is not a compliment to be taken lightly. Arguably the great actor of a generation, his incarnation of Gray is twisted and ambiguous. While clear his motives are clear his intentions and performance is riddled with ambiguity. Henry Daniell is Dr. MacFarlane, he's an actor who has been a character or supporting player in countless Hollywood pictures and I have to say, he holds his own against Karloff. It's essential that their performances be on par, as the film plays out in a Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde manner. While two clearly separate entities, they are two halves of the same soul. Gray is everything MacFarlane fears he has become, while also serving as that nagging voice in all of our minds to remind us of our mistakes and reduce us to our weakest state. Gray is elusive, only appearing when MacFarlane, or as he teasingly calls him "Toddy" is emotionally at his worst or least wants to see him. MacFarlane is an authoritative and even frightening figure on his own, but while he speaks to Gray he's reduced to nothing, a shadow of a man. In the end Gray drives MacFarlane to becoming all that he fears, ironically just as he succeeds in the operation of his career.

From a visual standpoint, the film is wonderful. It's especially amazing considering all the limitations Lewton's productions had. The set is from the Hunchback of Notre Dame, redressed to look like Scotland instead of France. To create the cramped illusion of twisted streets and much larger/longer sets deep focus is used extensively. Everything is dimly lit, even daylight is dark and overcast. It's one of the films most successful at really creating a gothic ambiance that suits the macabre nature of the story. The final half hour in particular are brilliantly crafted as MacFarlane spirals faster out of control. In one Gray is slowly pursuing a street singer, we never see him but his presence is always felt. The sound of the singing is haunting and beautiful, as are the exteriors. Then, the climatic final scene in the rain is adrenaline pumping and much of this has to do with the hectic editing and the uncertainty of the surroundings.

If you're a classic horror nut like I am, this is a must. It's a shame Lewton never tackled any Edgar Allen Poe because if anything, this proves he might have been the ideal creative mind to pull it off.

Bosco B Thug

01-03-2008, 11:04 PM

#84
The Body Snatcher
Director: Robert Wise
Year: 1945 A very good film. Not quite as enigmatic as the other Lewton films, but Gray's a great character and Karloff's wonderfully distinguished here.

Philosophe_rouge

01-04-2008, 03:52 AM

A very good film. Not quite as enigmatic as the other Lewton films, but Gray's a great character and Karloff's wonderfully distinguished here.

What is your favourite Lewton film, I still have a few to see althoug the Seventh Victim is the only one I'm really anticipating at this point.

Qrazy

01-04-2008, 04:14 AM

I would also consider Diary of a Chambermaid minor Bunuel, but I still think it's quite good... Tristana is the only film I've seen from him that I have no patience for. Even Robinson Crusoe trumped that one.

Bosco B Thug

01-04-2008, 04:16 AM

What is your favourite Lewton film, I still have a few to see althoug the Seventh Victim is the only one I'm really anticipating at this point. The Seventh Victim battles with 'Zombie' for my favorite Lewton, so I hope you like 'Victim' when you get around to it! Those two as well as Cat People, The Leopard Man, and The Curse of the Cat People are all personal favorites of mine.

Qrazy

01-04-2008, 04:18 AM

The Seventh Victim battles with 'Zombie' for my favorite Lewton, so I hope you like 'Victim' when you get around to it! Those two as well as Cat People, The Leopard Man, and The Curse of the Cat People are all personal favorites of mine.

Whatever you do, don't watch Schrader's Cat People... just awful.

Bosco B Thug

01-04-2008, 05:28 AM

Whatever you do, don't watch Schrader's Cat People... just awful.
Eh, it'll happen eventually. But now I'll expect something between "Sexgorewah?" and "meh" and "awful."

Philosophe_rouge

01-10-2008, 07:44 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/willsucessspoil.jpg

#83
Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter
Director: Frank Tashlin
Year: 1957

Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter? is a film I picked up on a whim, not having ever heard of it, never having seen any work by the director or any of the first billed actors, only to be more or less struck by a fit of uncontrollable laughter as soon as the opening credits were rolling. The outrageous nature of these malfunctioning products in a series of fake advertisements set the stage for the rest of the film (not only in terms of laughs) as even through the worst humiliations and situations, the characters were always forcing their grins and couldn't help buying into artificial lifestyles that could never hope of meeting their needs.

Set in New York City, the film is a surreal satire on the advertisement, television, and celebrity culture of the late 1950s. Rock Hunter (Tony Randall) is one of the pawns of an advertising agency, he writes jingles and invents catchy slogans for a variety of products. When he finds out his job is endanger because "Stay-Put Lipstick" wants to drop the firm, he works day and night to find the perfect campaign to keep the company and his job. He finally is hit with a brilliant idea, to get a famous actress famous for her kissable lips to endorse the product. He goes up to her hotel room, and finds himself being used as a tool to make the star's jealous boyfriend angry. She agrees to sign the contract only if he pretends to be her "lover boy", suffice to say chaos, laughs and success follows. Tashlin leaves no stone unturned as he transforms an entire culture into a roaring extended parody, however the film is only bearable because they are also often sympathetic, as it becomes clear that their search for success is unfulfilling, or used to fill an empty gap in their lives.

What makes this film truly shine is Tashlin's deliciously self-conscious style. The characters acknowledge they are play acting, and usually at the end of the act the audience is addressed directly by Tony Randall who pokes more fun at television as the screen's size fluctuates;

"Ladies and gentlemen, this break in our motion picture is made out of respect for the TV fans in our audience, who are accustomed to constant interruptions in their programs for messages from sponsors. We want all you TV fans to feel at home, and not forget the thrill you get, watching television on your big, 21-inch screens"

, or in his mocking "TV voice" asks the stirring questions we all want to know, including "Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?". Even in the use of a cameo performance near the end of the film, they could not have used an actor who was more self-conscious in his cinematic performances, who made a career out of snide asides and comments to the audience who were in on the joke. As far as comedies go, few are as deliciously fun or visually interesting as this. It helps to know a little bit of American society/popular culture at the time, as the film is referencing them non-stop. Some are obvious, like Jayne Mansfield's non-too subtle Monroe impression and on the opposite side of the spectrum plays and musical artists that have faded from the popular knowledge are also lampooned by the take no prisoners attitude of the film.

MacGuffin

01-10-2008, 08:54 PM

Great choice on Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?; it's one of my favorites.

Philosophe_rouge

01-10-2008, 09:10 PM

Great choice on Will Success Spoil Rock Hunter?; it's one of my favorites.
I actually saw this while I was browsing your site today. Have you seen any other Tashlin?

MacGuffin

01-10-2008, 09:22 PM

I actually saw this while I was browsing your site today. Have you seen any other Tashlin?

Nope. Could you recommend me any in particular at all, by any chance?

Philosophe_rouge

01-10-2008, 09:24 PM

Nope. Could you recommend me any in particular at all, by any chance?

I've only seen The Girl Can't Help It, which is very good.

MacGuffin

01-10-2008, 09:25 PM

I've only seen The Girl Can't Help It, which is very good.

Okay, well, I'll queue it up then.

MacGuffin

01-10-2008, 09:26 PM

It's a... musical.

Sycophant

01-10-2008, 09:59 PM

The only Tashlin I've seen was Artists and Models, but it was so long ago that I didn't even know who the leads were. I've been meaning to see Rock Hunter for forever.

Sven

01-10-2008, 10:03 PM

It's a... musical.

You don't like musicals?

MacGuffin

01-10-2008, 10:05 PM

You don't like musicals?

I don't think I've ever watched one all the way through. I imagine it'd be very strange.

soitgoes...

01-10-2008, 10:20 PM

I don't think I've ever watched one all the way through. I imagine it'd be very strange.
I usually don't care for musicals, but I find this rather strange. Have you never seen The Wizard of Oz? Or an animated Disney movie for that matter?

Qrazy

01-10-2008, 10:20 PM

I usually don't care for musicals, but I find this rather strange. Have you never seen The Wizard of Oz? Or an animated Disney movie for that matter?

Have you ever seen him post before? How can you find this strange?

Sycophant

01-10-2008, 10:32 PM

I don't think I've ever watched one all the way through. I imagine it'd be very strange.
Q:

Do you ever cease to amaze me?

A:

No.

MacGuffin

01-10-2008, 10:33 PM

I usually don't care for musicals, but I find this rather strange. Have you never seen The Wizard of Oz? Or an animated Disney movie for that matter?

Nevermind, I've seen some musicals before.

soitgoes...

01-10-2008, 10:34 PM

Have you ever seen him post before? How can you find this strange?
:lol: Touché. Still though, I find it hard to believe that a person whose childhood probably coincided with the "Video Age" has never seen a musical all the way through.

Raiders

01-10-2008, 10:45 PM

Musicals are bizarre. People like, break out into song in the middle of a scene. And everyone MAGICALLY knows the lyrics, and sometimes they even all know the same dance routine. It's so gay... and freaky. Gay and freaky, with a capital KY.

Philosophe_rouge

01-10-2008, 11:07 PM

It's a... musical.
There is a LOT of music, but it's not one of those bursting into songs musicals... it features a lot of popular acts from the American music scene at the time. Very diverse styles. Plus the film is funny. Also, the opening credits here are some inspiration for Lynch's in Mulholland Dr.

One of my favourite musical sequences is from this film,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=141HmTUCfsg&feature=related

Qrazy

01-10-2008, 11:13 PM

I'm quite fond of Rock Hunter also, although I found the moral to be a little too trite and true. Hope to get my hands on The Girl Can't Help It soon.

MacGuffin

01-10-2008, 11:18 PM

There is a LOT of music, but it's not one of those bursting into songs musicals... it features a lot of popular acts from the American music scene at the time. Very diverse styles. Plus the film is funny. Also, the opening credits here are some inspiration for Lynch's in Mulholland Dr.

One of my favourite musical sequences is from this film,

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=141HmTUCfsg&feature=related

Yeah, I'm not sure I "understand" musicals. It's like, did the whole world have a meeting and say, 'okay, we're going to sing this song Friday at 3:00 on North Street, and this one over in Paris at the Louvre Saturday evening'?

Rowland

01-10-2008, 11:20 PM

Philosophe_rouge

01-10-2008, 11:21 PM

I'm quite fond of Rock Hunter also, although I found the moral to be a little too trite and true. Hope to get my hands on The Girl Can't Help It soon.
Really?

In the end even though they all seem to reject success, and become chicken farmers or something, there is no sincerity in those scenes to show that the characters actually convert to that existence. It's more of a sight gag, and I feel shows that while success is not as rewarding as we think we're not mature or selfless enough to reject it. Unless I'm misunderstanding you

Philosophe_rouge

01-10-2008, 11:26 PM

Yeah, I'm not sure I "understand" musicals. It's like, did the whole world have a meeting and say, 'okay, we're going to sing this song Friday at 3:00 on North Street, and this one over in Paris at the Louvre Saturday evening'?

The way I see musicals personally, is that it's a stylistic device that allows things that can't normally said to be vocalized or expressed. I've learned it has a very limited appeal as a genre, but I really love it. The most blatant example for me would be the musical episode of Buffy... which I realise most people haven't seen if they haven't watched the show. It's almost as if, once people start singing they're finally able to say and do what they couldn't in normal conversation. It's all a huge internal expression of thought, moods, and desires. Some work more or less differently of course, and it's a given that not all musicals are good... but yes.

Sycophant

01-10-2008, 11:28 PM

Yeah, I'm not sure I "understand" musicals. It's like, did the whole world have a meeting and say, 'okay, we're going to sing this song Friday at 3:00 on North Street, and this one over in Paris at the Louvre Saturday evening'?Trust you're not a big fan of asides to audiences or straight up fourth-wall breaking. What about narration? I mean, did they ever say it? Who are they talking to?

soitgoes...

01-10-2008, 11:30 PM

The way I see musicals personally, is that it's a stylistic device that allows things that can't normally said to be vocalized or expressed. I've learned it has a very limited appeal as a genre, but I really love it. The most blatant example for me would be the musical episode of Buffy... which I realise most people haven't seen if they haven't watched the show. It's almost as if, once people start singing they're finally able to say and do what they couldn't in normal conversation. It's all a huge internal expression of thought, moods, and desires. Some work more or less differently of course, and it's a given that not all musicals are good... but yes.
Pretty much. An emotional expression is how I always thought of it. When it works, it can provide some of the best moments in film. More often though, it fails and feels hokey to me. Or perhaps forced.

Sycophant

01-10-2008, 11:35 PM

Pretty much. An emotional expression is how I always thought of it. When it works, it can provide some of the best moments in film. More often though, it fails and feels hokey to me. Or perhaps forced.You know, that complaint is legitimate with some films, but I think that it's really quite unfair and overblown when it's held up as stereotypical of musicals that people break into song and dance and it's all goofy and hokey. Or maybe I just have differenet standards of hokey.

soitgoes...

01-11-2008, 12:07 AM

You know, that complaint is legitimate with some films, but I think that it's really quite unfair and overblown when it's held up as stereotypical of musicals that people break into song and dance and it's all goofy and hokey. Or maybe I just have differenet standards of hokey.
I never said all musicals are hokey. Are you telling me there aren't hokey/goofy musicals?

Sycophant

01-11-2008, 12:16 AM

I never said all musicals are hokey. Are you telling me there aren't hokey/goofy musicals?Oh, Lord no. It was a musing. It seems to me there's a type of musical that is parodied frequently that appears to have become the popular definition of screen musicals that is considered far more stereotypical than is fair to the genre as a whole.

Buffaluffasaurus

01-11-2008, 12:39 AM

I love musicals and I fail to understand people's complaints about the veracity of them. They're pure fantasy - why do they need to justify the songs? I wonder whether the same people that quibble over this can't watch stage musicals or films like Fight Club.

Qrazy

01-11-2008, 02:36 AM

Really?

In the end even though they all seem to reject success, and become chicken farmers or something, there is no sincerity in those scenes to show that the characters actually convert to that existence. It's more of a sight gag, and I feel shows that while success is not as rewarding as we think we're not mature or selfless enough to reject it. Unless I'm misunderstanding you

Well that's what I mean that it's trite... it's just a... now that we have the money and resources to do what we really want, let's do it. As you said, there's no sincerity to the scenes. Nothing is risked. I don't really think it works as meta-commentary or a satirical punchline that the characters aren't mature enough to eschew the path to success in favor of something more individually fulfilling though... to me it feels like a half-hearted wrap up, moral of the story bit... follow your dreams!

Philosophe_rouge

01-15-2008, 05:46 PM

Well that's what I mean that it's trite... it's just a... now that we have the money and resources to do what we really want, let's do it. As you said, there's no sincerity to the scenes. Nothing is risked. I don't really think it works as meta-commentary or a satirical punchline that the characters aren't mature enough to eschew the path to success in favor of something more individually fulfilling though... to me it feels like a half-hearted wrap up, moral of the story bit... follow your dreams!
I feel the opposite really, that most of our dreams are either not worth following or when we have a choice between them and social/financial success (assuming that isn't the dream) we'll opt for the latter less personally rewarding option.

Philosophe_rouge

01-15-2008, 05:50 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/thesecretgarden.jpg

Director: Agnieszka Holland
Year: 1993

I attach a lot of importance to films of my youth, sometimes when I think back on when I was younger the only happy moments I can settle on are while I was watching films. That isn't to say I didn't have a good childhood, because I do seem to forget that so easily. Much of my childhood was alone, at least away from other children. My sister was born when I was three and I though her to be useless until I was at least almost six years old. I had friends I suppose, but I don't have any significant memories of them aside from an argument or two. Most of my time was spend playing alone or watching films, so really cinema occupied an important part in my daily routine. I didn't watch The Secret Garden until I must have been five or six, but I think it's resonance with me had a lot to do with my own experiences and how they seemed to relate to Mary. She was far more desolate than I ever was, and had unattending, uncaring parents which I could never claim to have but her loneliness never failed to resonate with me, as well as her powers for "recovery".

I only read the novel well after seeing this film a few dozen times at least, and I was surprised how close they were. The only major change I can remember (not having read the book for quite a while) were the eerie opening chapters as we find out how Mary become an orphan. It's obvious in my mind why the scenes were changed, they are frankly more terrifying than an earthquake could ever hope to be. The way the film transforms the scene though is true to the idea of the book, as Mary is left alone and is effectively forgotten by her parents and her caretakers as hell breaks lose. We never find out how she escapes or survives, but next thing we know Mary is an orphan an on a boat to England to live as a ward in her uncle's home. The other children don't like her and it's clear that she will find no warmth at Misselthwaite Manor.

A good children's/"family" film is especially difficult to craft, because often filmmakers feel that they don't need to be actually make something qualitative, and generally avoid anything sombre. There is a clear effort here to make not just a story about children for children, but something greater. There is so much attention to detail, and the film seems to come to life in the same way as the title garden. The acting from the children is better to be expected and with actors like Maggie Smith in the adult cast, it's safe to say that there are good performances all around. What I most admire about the film is that there wasn't a fear of silence, and the score is memorable as well as being fantastically fitting to the story, locations and characters.

My two favourite scenes both inhabit this silence as they almost echo with loneliness and death. The first is as Mary explores an abandoned wing of the Manor following the faint sound of someone crying. The area seems to have been abandoned for years, as everything is not only desolate but covered in dust. Even animals have settled in parts of it. However, compared to the rest of the Manor light shines in to create a strange counterpoint. Mary soon finds out this must have been her aunt's quarters as she finds an irony elephant just like that of her mother's and a photo of them. Despite Mary's anger and frustration towards her mother, she tenderly reaches out to the photograph and collects the elephant to be a mate for the other one she took. It's probably the first moment we realise that Mary is a child, and as much anger and anguish that festers inside her she always has desired comfort and love. It's frightening that someone so young could be so embittered with the world.

The second sequence is a dream that Mary has, again it's without dialogue. She is much younger and in a lush green garden. Her mother is there, but she fades away into the greenery leaving Mary alone. In the opening monologue of the film, Mary says she never cried when her parents died because she didn't know how. In the dream however she's crying out for her mother in a shrill cry that eventually fades into the real world as she wakes up. Sound is very important to this film, and as mentioned earlier the score compliments it beautifully. I actually wish I knew where to get it.

The film evolves beyond the bleak and darkness to a lush colour palette, and shining light. The film, just as the book, emphasis the importance of personal healing and nature's place in that process.

jesse

01-16-2008, 04:46 AM

Philosophe_rouge

01-16-2008, 04:51 AM

Yay for childhood favorites!

Though I admit I can't remember much about this one (I was, in fact, a child the last time I saw it); The Little Princess is the Burnett adaptation that left a lasting imprint on me.
I remember The Little Princess well enough, although I only saw it once and probably about 10 years ago. I remember having a very visceral reaction to it. As much as I love the Secret Garden, I should probably revisit this one.

ledfloyd

02-02-2008, 03:42 AM

Philosophe_rouge

03-05-2008, 03:21 PM

i just watched the importance of being earnest because of your recommendation and i loved it. it's a perfect adaptation of the play. and i think the framing device is quite clever and sets the mood rather well. i especially like the shot through the binoculars opening up into the film.
Sorry a little late on this, I'm very happy you liked it and that shot is wonderful. I have an urge to go out and watch it, would be easier if I owned it.

Philosophe_rouge

03-05-2008, 03:22 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/seventh.jpg
#81 The Seventh Seal
Director: Ingmar Bergman
Year: 1957

Ingmar Bergman is one of the few film directors who has yet to disappoint me. His approach is distinct, and thrilling as it explores questions relating to faith and existence through a unique visual style. As his legacy has been of particular concern over the last year, many questions have been raised about his place in the cinematic canon. As can be expected, many admirers chimed in, from your everyday blogger to Allen, he's been ranked among the greatest. Then there was Jonathan Rosenbaum's largely disparaging piece that suggested that not only was Bergman's films were better suited for the stage than cinema (among other things). He is not the first to suggest that Bergman's films lack visual resonance, although the criticism seems more than quaint but completely insubstantial. Few directors use space, close ups or imagery to better effect that Bergman. Although this isn't my favourite of his, aside from Persona, it might be the best example of his unique visual style and how it works to translate metaphorically his ideas.

What always immediately strikes me about Bergman's films, is his use of low contrast black and white cinematography. Whereas most Hollywood filmmakers, and many European contemporaries exploit black and white for it's tonal ranges, this doesn't seem to concern Bergman nearly as much. Especially in interior scenes, more chiaroscuro effects are used, but still comparatively these are kept to a minimum. As Bergman's characters are often going through identity issues relating especially to faith, art and relationships the "greyness" of his palette reflects this crisis that often is often reflected as a strong indifference to a world that seemingly has lost all meaning. It's life without colour, without darkness or light. Good and evil don't really exist in his universe. In the Seventh Seal, issues of faith and religion are central to the character's moral dilemma, there is no answer from above or below. In terms of a fantasy element, death is a character, but he is neither good nor evil. He does bargain with the knight, but it's almost out of a human curiosity... he doesn't cheat, or judge he just exists to serve an essential purpose. He doesn't have answers. That isn't to say however that contrast is never used, especially in the last sequence of the film, light and dark, earth and sky, etc. are emphasised by the contrast between scenes and compositionally, the use of light and dark as a reflection of separation of the body and the soul.

Furthermore, Bergman is a master of the visual metaphor, although perhaps not always as blatant as others would often come to appreciate. Clearly, the image of playing chess with death in itself is one of the most striking images in cinematic, or artistic history (Bergman is hardly the first to suggest it, but his visual realization may be the best I've seen). The implications are endless, as the knight fits to rationalize and unknown and downright irrational situation. Beyond tempting fate, Bergman is being self reflective in his own interest and fascination with death. While no doubt he doesn't see the exercise as useless, there is a sense that it is as pointless as existence itself. Were those extra moments of life worth it for the knight? He was doomed from the onset to lose, but did he gain anything in the process? Regardless, his journey is as essential in some ways as having the stupid teenager explore the basement when he knows there is a murderer down there... although the effect is less a self-esteem boost, then a reflective essay, the extension of the Knight's life allows the audience to experience the very events and moments that have put him in this position. I personally love how while the Knight (and in many ways death) is our guide for the cinematic journey, we experience the world through the supporting characters. As essentially interesting his journey is, our hearts lie in the fate and the experiences of the squire or the performers. They provide a beautiful backdrop to Antonius' moral and existential dilemmas.

I don't feel like writing a book on this film (or any particular other one at the moment), but I didn't even scratch the surface on the visual implications, let alone the countless other aspects the film could be commended on.

Philosophe_rouge

03-05-2008, 03:23 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/DesperateHours2.jpg
#80 The Desperate Hours
Director: William Wyler
Year: 1955

The Desperate Hours is a unique and claustophobic film. The setting is confined for the most part to a single setting; a house in a suburban neighborhood. It fits somewhere in film noir, however in a very niche offset of the genre. Along with Shadow of a Doubt and Cape Fear, the film follows an invasion type narrative where a normal all-american family is disrupted by the presence of an outsider. He (as in my experience this character has always been a male) is often representative of the modern disillusionment urban male taken to criminal extremes. He is nihilistic, and often derives pleasure from the suffering of others. In most cases, his sexuality is also highlighted and threatening. This is not necessarily the case in this film, as Bogart does not exude that particular brand of sexual frenzy in this role, however it does emerge as a threat through his criminal partners. Unlike Cape Fear or Shadow of the Doubt where the danger is for the most part hidden, or simply lurking here it is immediate and constant as the family is literally taken hostage in their own home. Instead of coming off as something of a filmed play however, the use of high key lighting, extreme angles and what has come to be a trademark of Wyler, the use of deep focus enhences what would otherwise be a mundane setting. Shots are allowed to linger as characters move through often large spaces onscreen, this really helps mount the film's tension as every moment seems drawn out to epic proportions. My own qualms with films of this type being called noir has to do with the manner in which the narratives resolve, which personally falls out of line with my understanding and appreciation of the genre. I don't think it makes the film any less great, but when Capra's films offer more downbeat final implications I have some trouble fitting it thematically in the noir genre. I didn't mention it, but the acting is particularly good. It needed to be considering the locations, and the thrust of the suspense is placed on the shoulders of the performers.

Kurosawa Fan

03-05-2008, 03:33 PM

Awesome two entries. Especially The Desperate Hours, which never seems to get talked about.

Philosophe_rouge

03-05-2008, 03:38 PM

Awesome two entries. Especially The Desperate Hours, which never seems to get talked about.

It really doesn't, I initially rented it on a whim because Fredric March and Bogart were in it. I was very pleasently surprised

Kurosawa Fan

03-05-2008, 03:44 PM

It really doesn't, I initially rented it on a whim because Fredric March and Bogart were in it. I was very pleasently surprised

It was part of a syllabus in my film class in college, otherwise I doubt I would have seen it.

Philosophe_rouge

03-05-2008, 04:40 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/red-riverPDVD_00501.jpg
#78
Red River
Director: Howard Hawks
Year: 1948

Red River is not a perfect film, it's very close to being though...while I suppose you could argue no film is perfect (duh), some films have so few faults they are unnoticeable, or at least easy to disregard. Red River has two major problems that prevent it from ranking among the best of all time, but it's inclusion on this list is a testament to how good, the good is. If there had been a better female lead, and a different ending the film would have been as flawless as a piece of art could have been.

Tom Dunson has worked his whole life to build a cattle empire, but when things turn downward he has one chance to save it all. Together with his adopted son Matthew, they make the long journey from Texas to Missouri. Tom's tyranny gets in the way of their success, and their relationship, so Matthew has no choice but to take control. The film tackles the father son relationship, and the consequences of vengeance better than most films of it's type. This is probably the first time John Wayne is given a complex and tortured character, as much like in The Searchers he is both the hero and the villain of this film. He even transitions from the white hat to the black one as the film progresses.

Among the many stock directors Hollywood relied on during it's "Golden period" Hawks is among the few who stands out as an "auteur". Alongside Nicholas Ray and Alfred Hitchcock, he was named by the Cahiers critics as one of the true visionaries and artists of the American screen. Film after film he continued to explore the same themes and ideas, while creating a very distinct atmosphere. Like the Big Sleep, the film relies heavily on a growing sense of tension, and a strange sexual heat that is pervasive. Once again Hawks tackles his idea of masculinity, this time venturing almost quite literally into the father/son relationship. You also have a man, Tom, who embodies all the masculine ideals that Hawks champions, but taken to such an extreme that he cannot overlook his pride and ambition to show some humility. Often times this extreme pride pushes a character to prove their self worth, or emerges as a kind of daredevil, one man for himself bravery. Tom is probably the most complex Hawks hero, alongside perhaps Dean Martin in Rio Bravo, where the character doesn't seem to quite fit into the Hawks world by virtue of conquering it so completely.

This is a film that I think would benefit enormously from a big screen as the film relies heavily on it's visuals for it's visceral impact. Even shots that seem to be born out of luck, like the clouds drifting over the landscape, foreshadowing the ominous turn the relationship and the film will take. The editing, especially in the early cattle scenes are deliciously Eisenstein.

ledfloyd

03-05-2008, 04:52 PM

is 79 hanging out with 90? :lol:

good write ups.

Philosophe_rouge

03-05-2008, 05:27 PM

is 79 hanging out with 90? :lol:

good write ups.
UGH! This is why everyone should be happy I'm not pursuing and important life or death math related career... I actually just forgot #79 this time, it's not a mystery thing.

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/thebrowningversion1.jpg
#79
The Browning Version
Director: Anthony Asquith
Year: 1951

A first rate character study of a hated school teacher who comes to realise his own failures as a teacher, husband and a human being. Michael Redgrave delivers one of the best performances I’ve ever seen, and the careful direction by Asquith helps maintain the subtlety of his evolution and relationships. The film is far more than just an actor’s film though, and it reveals so much about perceptions and human nature. It’s a film I hardly see getting any mention… anywhere, and it’s a damn shame. I don’t think I am doing the film justice, or if I can give it enough praise. Do yourself a favour and see it if you haven’t already.

Watashi

03-05-2008, 05:31 PM

Woohoo! It continues!

Qrazy

03-05-2008, 06:35 PM

Really like Red River except for the last few minutes as we spoke about before, the Browning Version is fantastic.

Philosophe_rouge

03-05-2008, 06:44 PM

Really like Red River except for the last few minutes as we spoke about before, the Browning Version is fantastic.
Yea, those final minutes are probably the most frustrating in the history of cinema *hyperbole alert*... but at least up there.

Philosophe_rouge

03-07-2008, 08:10 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/CitizenKane4.jpg
#77
Citizen Kane
Director: Orson Welles
Year: 1941

Above all else, it's the wild ambition and the unhinged genius of Welles that bring me back time and time again to Citizen Kane. There are two basic levels that I enjoy films, the first as a partisan... a fan of art and cinema, the second as an aspiring artist. I don't think any other filmmaker is as personally inspiring as Welles, and it all starts with Kane. The film is an incredible exercise in style, the defied and pushed all limits to create a unified and meaningful film. While not evident the first time around, every supposed visual whim reveals and conceals aspects of Kane's life and demeanor. Watching the film again and again does little to clear up Kane's story, or motive, if anything he becomes more obscured. Kane delves into the spirit of a megalomaniac (if anything, the bombastic style of the film is an outward expression of a man bent on excess and control), who isn't just satisfied with controlling his own life, but everyone and everything around him. Rosebud does not serve as the clean-cut answer to a gap he was trying to fill, but again serves to further obscure an already complicated man. Rosebud is not so much a defining metaphor for childhood and innocence, but rather an unatainable and undefineable "something" that makes every person distant and unconnected. No one is transparent, and while Kane may be more opaque than most of us his journey and his mystery mirror fundamentally human unknowns. Life is as unknown as death, and even when we cease to exist things don't suddenly become clear. What more do we understand about a man who's last words reach out to a relic of childhood? Frankly, not too much... but as individuals, and as a collective we are drawn in by our inclination towards curiosity. There is a shallow sense of satisfaction in the discovery, and this feeling overwhelms the fact that the discovery is just that; shallow. Welles never had the same freedom as he did with this film, for the rest of his career he was burdened if not by studio interference, but by some financial difficulty. While not my favourite of his films, it's quite probably the definete. Is this the greatest film ever made? Perhaps, at the very least it's one of the most interesting.

ledfloyd

03-07-2008, 08:18 PM

76 films better than kane? i can't wait.

Sycophant

03-07-2008, 08:18 PM

It's so hard for me to find new things to say about Citizen Kane, if only because I've read about and studied it more than probably any other single film. So thanks for writing some more! It's a film that I, too, find tremendously inspiring.

And apparently the the rest of this list will consist of superior celluloidic Jesus? I can only imagine.

Derek

03-07-2008, 08:22 PM

Not a bad little film there, that Citizen Kane. I really love your inclusion of Red River as I'm a big Hawks fan (at least his westerns and dramas) myself.

Philosophe_rouge

03-07-2008, 08:28 PM

76 films better than kane? i can't wait.

Maybe not better, but at least 76 I currently prefer. I am due for a rewatch.

It's so hard for me to find new things to say about Citizen Kane, if only because I've read about and studied it more than probably any other single film. So thanks for writing some more! It's a film that I, too, find tremendously inspiring.

And apparently the the rest of this list will consist of superior celluloidic Jesus? I can only imagine.
I feel that way too, and there are a few films on my list I really am afraid to write about because I feel there is little more I can contribute.

The pressure :frustrated:

Not a bad little film there, that Citizen Kane. I really love your inclusion of Red River as I'm a big Hawks fan (at least his westerns and dramas) myself.
I love Hawks, and without counting he may have the most films on the list. At least top three.

Philosophe_rouge

03-07-2008, 09:15 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/pass.jpg

#76
La Passion de Jeanne D'Arc
Director: Carl Theodor Dreyer
Year: 1928

If any film evokes Norma Desmond's proclamation regarding silent actors, "We didn't need dialogue. We had faces!", it's the Passion of Joan of Arc. Most of the film is held in a close-up of Maria Falconetti's face as she delivers one of the most scintillating performances of all time. Unlike the traditional Hollywood close-up, Falconetti is not looking beyond the screen into the face of a lover, or even reacting to the events that surround her. With her eyes she searches above, looking for a voice that is now silent. While her outward expression of faith is unwavering, the sadness and the desperation in the face suggest that sense of doubt, and a great deal of fear. She is afterall human, and really it's easy to forget that Jeanne was little more than a child, and was burned when she was just nineteen years old.

The performance, as well as the use of the close-up draw the audience in, and the experience is jarring and surprisingly effecting. I have yet to see the Voices of Light accompaniment, but I don't think there ever was a film as suited for silence as this. Falconetti's face speaks so many volumes that almost nothing else is needed. While it's almost a shame that Falconetti didn't really make any other films, it does create that certain sense of singularity and modesty that lends itself to this role. Seeing Heston or another star play a saint, or a prophet loses at least some of it's power because you recognize them as the actor before the character, this is not an issue with this film. By the time you are invested in the film, you feel such a connection with Jeanne D'arc, there are moments you can almost reach out an touch her. I had a natural inclination to comfort and protect her. Her devotion to her God is beyond my understanding, but I feel that it is worth respecting because the film makes it clear to me that this is not easy, and she truly believes this is right. I find blind faith far more difficult to grasp, and while there is some of that here, she is still so completely human; so delicate, so fearful and so emotional, and still quite thoughtful that I don't have any trouble at all connecting with her. Very few films drew as strong an emotional reaction out of me as this, I was shaken for a few days afterward.

Kurosawa Fan

03-07-2008, 09:22 PM

Well, you've just posted my #1. Your list can only go downhill from here. ;)

dreamdead

03-07-2008, 09:23 PM

Dreyer and Welles being so high better be redeemed by The Awful Truth later... ;)

Qrazy

03-07-2008, 10:16 PM

Dreyer and Welles being so high better be redeemed by The Awful Truth later... ;)

Awful Truth can't touch the last two so it better not be appearing on this list for that reason.

Philosophe_rouge

03-08-2008, 03:35 AM

Well, you've just posted my #1. Your list can only go downhill from here. ;)
At least I know where I stand, if I'm set up to dissapoint.. then I can only impress... or something. I'm sure there is some logic involved.

Dreyer and Welles being so high better be redeemed by The Awful Truth later... ;)
Well, it's not necessarily the last we'll see of either filmmaker and generally you won't be dissapointed.

Awful Truth can't touch the last two so it better not be appearing on this list for that reason.
You, however, will

Philosophe_rouge

03-08-2008, 04:20 AM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/Annex-FrancisKayTroubleinParadise_0. jpg

# 75
Trouble in Paradise
Director: Ernst Lubitsch
Year: 1932

Trouble in Paradise is about honesty amongst thieves and lovers... or more appropriately the general lack of honesty among thieves and lovers. The film begins as two people meet in an Italian hotel; she is a naive countess, he an aristocratic romantic, and they both are con artists. It doesn't take long for either of them to catch on to the other's trick, and in feigned indignation accuse the other of being a thief, of course, moments later they are in each other's arms. Although destined to be together, the nature of their meeting and lifestyle also means they are destined to mistrust the other. However, in a Lubitsch film no one is truly innocent, lovers always lie, but in the end, love usually prevails. Partners in life and in work, they go to Paris where they come under hire of the beautiful Mme. Colet, the owner of a perfume company. Gaston tries to seduce her as a means of gaining her trust, and finally her money but also serves to inspire great jealousy Lily.

Lubitsch defies the obstacles of early sound through his use of music and visual touches. As most of his early films were musicals, he had a special understanding of sound that many of his contemporaries were not privileged too. His film never feels restricted by space or movement, as many films of the time do. His sense of visuals lend to this overall feeling, as he employs montage and what I can only call "bridging", something like a repeated motif or image that tie together scenes and characters, while also serving as jokes in themselves. The most obvious being the use of the staircase in Mme. Colet's mansion. The butler uses them throughout the picture, and as the film reaches it's climax with more and more frequency until the scene is reduced to him just running up and down before finally being caught in the middle, confused and with nowhere to go. This also mirrors Gaston's dilemma as he is caught between two women, really unsure which he is in love with (or more in love with). It's really a nice subtle touch that's easy to overlook.

The film's humour is sophisticated and quick and really work to serve the character and narrative. The actors are all first class, Miriam Hopkins especially who may be one of the more underappreciated actresses of the Golden Hollywood era. The film falls just short of being a screwball, as do most of Lubitsch's films, mostly because of it's pace. Unlike the overheated and overcharged atmosphere and speed of a film like His Girl Friday or Bringing Up Baby, his films always take their time. Lines are delivered with ease and calmness, resulting in a wonderful sensuality that I think is often called "sophistication". It seems if you slow down a love scene or sexual banter it goes from "hot" to "sophisticated", but semantics aside it's wonderful.

ledfloyd

03-08-2008, 04:47 AM

i really need to see more lubitsch. i've loved what i've seen. (ninotchka, shop around the corner, and to be or not to be)

Philosophe_rouge

03-08-2008, 04:51 AM

i really need to see more lubitsch. i've loved what i've seen. (ninotchka, shop around the corner, and to be or not to be)
One of my goals in life is to see all of Lubitsch's films. I think I'm nearly at 15 now... only one or two are not that good. I'm actually not a huge fan of Ninotchka, but it was my first of his and I saw it a few years ago. I owe it a rewatch. At least one of the other two will be on the list :pritch: I think both are great

dreamdead

03-08-2008, 04:56 AM

# 75
Trouble in Paradise
Director: Ernst Lubitsch

Hotcha! I'm watching this one on Sunday, so I'll be back to read the review and offer thoughts in a few days. This just furthers my excitement.

Sven

03-08-2008, 04:59 AM

Just watched this one again for my American Comedy class and I pulled a complete 180. The first time I saw it, I was bored. But a couple of days ago, in class, I found it absolutely delightful. It restored my desire to see more Lubitsch. Excellent review (as usual). Agree completely about Hopkins.

ledfloyd

03-08-2008, 05:10 AM

One of my goals in life is to see all of Lubitsch's films. I think I'm nearly at 15 now... only one or two are not that good. I'm actually not a huge fan of Ninotchka, but it was my first of his and I saw it a few years ago. I owe it a rewatch. At least one of the other two will be on the list :pritch: I think both are great
Ninotchka is my least favorite of the three I've seen by far. Why are there so many of his films that aren't on DVD. :frustrated: I think Heaven Can Wait is next on my list.

Bosco B Thug

03-08-2008, 05:15 AM

Excellent recent choices Red River, Citizen Kane, and Trouble in Paradise (haven't seen the ones in between). Great review of 'Trouble,' it's almost alarming how technical the Lubitsch touch is.

Philosophe_rouge

03-08-2008, 10:03 PM

Excellent recent choices Red River, Citizen Kane, and Trouble in Paradise (haven't seen the ones in between). Great review of 'Trouble,' it's almost alarming how technical the Lubitsch touch is.
Lubitsch was very technical, some of his critics argue to a fault. Beyond visuals he also liked to shape performances, telling actors how to do everything. I've never really noticed any stiffness regardless.

Hotcha! I'm watching this one on Sunday, so I'll be back to read the review and offer thoughts in a few days. This just furthers my excitement.
I really hope you enjoy it!

Just watched this one again for my American Comedy class and I pulled a complete 180. The first time I saw it, I was bored. But a couple of days ago, in class, I found it absolutely delightful. It restored my desire to see more Lubitsch. Excellent review (as usual). Agree completely about Hopkins.
I'm happy your mind was changed, this happened to me recently with the Third Man. It makes me wonder why I don't revisit films as often. You really should see more Lubitsch, incredible filmmaker.

Ninotchka is my least favorite of the three I've seen by far. Why are there so many of his films that aren't on DVD. :frustrated: I think Heaven Can Wait is next on my list.
Even many on DVD are terrible transfers (like That Uncertain Feeling), I rely on illegal means to obtain some his work because otherwise I'll have to order a copy from France, which doesn't seem entirely worth it. I hope you like Heaven Can Wait, it's not one of my favourites but still quite lovely.

Sven

03-08-2008, 10:20 PM

I'm happy your mind was changed, this happened to me recently with the Third Man. It makes me wonder why I don't revisit films as often. You really should see more Lubitsch, incredible filmmaker.

I've seen To Be or Not To Be (which is stupendous), The Shop Around the Corner (which was pretty good), Heaven Can Wait (which I didn't like too much), and Ninotchka (which I can barely recall), and a few of his silents (all good). I will take your word and seek out more.

dreamdead

03-08-2008, 10:35 PM

I'm one of the weirdos who left To Be or Not to Be more or less amused, but only in a slight way. Some of the ribald critique of WW2 worked wonders there, but the film as a whole never clicked for me. Instead, that one seems on par with Ninotchka as a representative example of good-but-not-great. I'm in love with the recent viewing of The Shop Around the Corner, though, which is a pinnacle of quality craftsmanship. Great scenario, great writing, and teh Stewart being typically awesome.

Trouble in Paradise falls in a little behind TSAtC, in that the beginning feels atypically slow for Lubitsch. The first twenty minutes seemed too ephemeral, as though too much time was being taken in the technical construction of the plot. Once all the performers are in place, though, the film becomes silky smooth. I love the tidbit with the stairs, too, as well as the constant reversals over who's behind which door. Hopkins was unbelievably dreamy in this--suggestions on where to go from here with her filmography?

Philosophe_rouge

03-08-2008, 11:13 PM

I've seen To Be or Not To Be (which is stupendous), The Shop Around the Corner (which was pretty good), Heaven Can Wait (which I didn't like too much), and Ninotchka (which I can barely recall), and a few of his silents (all good). I will take your word and seek out more.
I've actually only seen two of his silents, which I rank at the bottom of his filmography; Eternal Love and the Marriage Circle. I was doing my browsing a few days ago though, and ran into a few people who listed The Student Prince in Old Heidelberg (1927) as his best film. I will definetely be checking it out. I'm pretty much on the same page on all the films you mention, but with just a tad more enthousiasm. I highly recommend, Design for Living (1933), One Hour with You (1932) and if possible, Cluny Brown (1946).

I'm one of the weirdos who left To Be or Not to Be more or less amused, but only in a slight way. Some of the ribald critique of WW2 worked wonders there, but the film as a whole never clicked for me. Instead, that one seems on par with Ninotchka as a representative example of good-but-not-great. I'm in love with the recent viewing of The Shop Around the Corner, though, which is a pinnacle of quality craftsmanship. Great scenario, great writing, and teh Stewart being typically awesome.

Trouble in Paradise falls in a little behind TSAtC, in that the beginning feels atypically slow for Lubitsch. The first twenty minutes seemed too ephemeral, as though too much time was being taken in the technical construction of the plot. Once all the performers are in place, though, the film becomes silky smooth. I love the tidbit with the stairs, too, as well as the constant reversals over who's behind which door. Hopkins was unbelievably dreamy in this--suggestions on where to go from here with her filmography?
Interesting on To Be or Not to Be, I'm susprised how devisive it always ends up being. On another site, there was a thread rating his work and if someone didn't rate it as 10/10, it would always end up being pretty low. Strange!

In my experience, the best Hopkins tend to actually be in Lubitsch films, Design for Living and The Smiling Lieutenant are probably my favourites. She's also at least interesting in The Heiress and Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde (1931). In the latter her accent is a bit awkward, but she still exudes a wonderful presence and sexuality.

Philosophe_rouge

04-14-2008, 08:10 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/ascarfacePDVD_010.jpg

#74
Scarface
Director: Howard Hawks
Year: 1932

X marks the spot in one of the best of the early gangster films; Howard Hawks ultra-violent Scarface. Almost baroque in it's sensibilities, Hawks is unafraid to go all out to in his portrayal of the life and times of a Chicago gangster. Paul Muni stars, giving one of the most deliciously over the top performance of the decade. His scarface is crude, arrogant, and just a wee bit incestuous. What's even more impressive, is considering that while the film was released in 1932 it was made several years earlier, held back a few years because of concerns over the film's portrayal of violence.

Scarface's age in the classic Hollywood era, is only betrayed by a change in sensibilities that happened in the early part of the 1940s. It was around this time that the gangster became more of a conflicted noir hero, instead of a reckless but appealing villain that he was during the 1930s. In many ways, I think you could argue that the gangster was the city equivalent of the cowboy. Or the northern version of a southern idea... the appeal of the anti-hero during this period can be linked to a general distrust in government bodies, a lack of faith in banks, and a frenzied desperation for success. Inversely, they also hint at a suspicion of new immigrants, as well as perpetuating a fear of the urban environment. However, I this is a minor, if not completely inconsequential point as the film romanticizes the gangster lifestyle more so than any other film of the era. Even Tony Camonte's demise is in a blaze of glory, opposed to a more surprising, if not muted death like Tom Powers. I'm still basking in the ironic idea that when the gangster dies, it somehow absolves the glamorization of the rest of the film in an instant. These films were also often accompanied with a disclaimer, claiming that the film is a "realistic" and "objective" portrayal of a current and apparently, unfortunate phenomena. Anyone who watches these films though, knows this is far from the case. *tangent over*

What really sets this film apart from the pack in my books, is no doubt Hawks' idiocentric style. Even in doing something so simple, as using an "x" to mark the spot of a death creates an exciting visual dynamism, and a pervading sense of doom. Unlike most gangster films of the period, I feel that Hawks' allows for his protagonist to be, in a way, stalked by death. This dread plays against the whimsy, and the moments of outright campiness that inhabit the film resulting in a confused but highly effective tone. Lending further to this strange discomfort is the fact that the sexy female lead is no less than Tony's sister. Even what seems to be so early in cinematic history, Hawks is playing with genre stereotypes and conceptions. While their relationship is never overtly incestuous, he relies on the fact the audience will first and foremost fall on their knowledge of the gangster genre, and the necessary presence of a sexy female lead, while enough hints to let the slower audience members to catch up.

Roaring and exciting, Scarface embodies everything I love about Hawks. It's roaring and exciting, while showing his knack for character, style and genre.

Beau

04-14-2008, 08:11 PM

Still need to see Scarface.

Philosophe_rouge

04-14-2008, 10:33 PM

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc211/zombierouge/sin.jpg
#73
Singin' in the Rain
Director: Gene Kelly & Stanley Donen
Year: 1952

Whenever I find myself in a downpour, I can't resist striking some pseudo-Kelly dance move and at least whisper to myself the lyrics of Singin' in the Rain. I might be soakin wet and freezing, but for a moment I'm so caught up in the joy that moment evokes that all my troubles seem to melt away. Such is the effect of Singin' in the Rain on my mood, it never fails to inspire happiness or glee, even if it lasts little more than a moment. Singin' in the Rain is that film I watch when I want to smile, when I want to laugh, when I want to be happy. It delivers on all counts.

It's one of those films I want to share with the world! I remember back in high school, whenever my friends and I would get together to watch films this would inevitably be one of my choices. I would always be thrilled to find that everyone would share my enthousiasm for the film, and it became a perennial favourite at our little get togethers. I also remember watching it in class once, it wasn't long after a pretty big tragedy at our school, and again it had that spellbinding power to lift the entire room's mood a few octaves (do we measure moods in octaves? I don't care, we do now!). The songs get stuck in your head, and yet you don't mind humming them for days. I don't know why, but the film is just impervious to badness for me. Yes, badness.

This film = joy in a jar... or on a DVD, whatever

*sigh* rant over.