28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[megladon8]

Yeah, Timecrimes was pretty disappointing.

One thing I've wondered about it since I saw it - what was the original incident that started it all?

[Rowland]

I liked Timecrimes okay, gave it a moderately high score. My mini-review is a few pages back.
One thing I've wondered about it since I saw it - what was the original incident that started it all?What do you mean?

[megladon8]

I liked Timecrimes okay, gave it a moderately high score. My mini-review is a few pages back.What do you mean?


Well, what started the whole loop of him going back in time over and over...the entire incident?

Was it just the existence of the time travel machine, and subsequently it being turned on?

Because all of the incidents begin because of him seeing himself, due to the time travel. And he wouldn't have ended up going back in time if he hadn't seen himself after going back in time.

So what started it all?

[Rowland]

Well, what started the whole loop of him going back in time over and over...the entire incident?

Was it just the existence of the time travel machine, and subsequently it being turned on?

Because all of the incidents begin because of him seeing himself, due to the time travel. And he wouldn't have ended up going back in time if he hadn't seen himself after going back in time.

So what started it all?Ehh, this type of paradox is typical of the time travel genre. Look at the Terminator movies, they are riddled with these same questions. I was at least gratified that, within the established laws of this picture's universe, being that every instance of time travel co-exists in the same narrative, each loop-back by Hector perfectly coheres into one consistently inevitable whole. I was more interested in his evolving psychological process, which I found to fit within a Freudian reading rather cleanly. From that perspective, the inciting incident is when Hector chooses to spy his neighboring area with binoculars and investigates the sighting of a naked woman.

[dreamdead]

Though the buddy film has a rich history, Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid is perhaps one of the precursors for the modern cop/buddy film. It's full of wit and the pacing is solid, though the contemporary music is utterly incongruous and just alienates rather than suggests any kind of contemporary link. And I worry a bit over some of the glib treatment of women in the film. But with a film so unabashedly masculine, maybe that's a product of the film's environment. Good stuff, overall.

[lovejuice]

Though the buddy film has a rich history, Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid is perhaps one of the precursors for the modern cop/buddy film. It's full of wit and the pacing is solid, though the contemporary music is utterly incongruous and just alienates rather than suggests any kind of contemporary link. And I worry a bit over some of the glib treatment of women in the film. But with a film so unabashedly masculine, maybe that's a product of the film's environment. Good stuff, overall.
and it has one of the best last images in cinema.

[thefourthwall]

Though the buddy film has a rich history, Butch Cassidy and The Sundance Kid is perhaps one of the precursors for the modern cop/buddy film. It's full of wit and the pacing is solid, though the contemporary music is utterly incongruous and just alienates rather than suggests any kind of contemporary link. And I worry a bit over some of the glib treatment of women in the film. But with a film so unabashedly masculine, maybe that's a product of the film's environment. Good stuff, overall.

And yet, only 83? :confused:

If the two main characters are men, the film is bound to be more masculine, I don't think that's a flaw. The female characters in the film, Etta especially, aren't treated or presented in demeaning ways.

[number8]

I just remembered that Abbas Kiarostami is in Tehran. Hope he's okay.

[number8]

I just remembered that Abbas Kiarostami is in Tehran. Hope he's okay.

OK, looks like he's in Italy shooting Certified Copy.

[origami_mustache]

Yep, still my favorite filmmaker, lo these many years.

I'll second this.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Quickly, someone!

Should I watch Baraka or Repulsion tonight?

I need an answer in ten minutes!

[number8]

Baraka. It's the shit's knees.

[Dead & Messed Up]

Baraka. It's the shit's knees.

Alright. I'm now placing my trust in you.

[MacGuffin]

Alright. I'm now placing my trust in you.

Even if you don't like it (and I haven't seen either movie), you can probably rent Repulsion when Criterion releases it later next month. I'm hoping Netflix gets a copy, but usually they sometimes do and sometimes don't if the movie in question already has a release. No matter how poor the previous release may be.

[MacGuffin]

I've decided to let the fact that The Virgin Spring is about as unsubtle as it could be and absolutely painful to watch, and possibly difficult to justify watching for thematic reasons, not affect my overall feelings towards the movie, all because I cannot deny the fact that it's obvious two masters are behind the camera here: Ingmar Bergman and Sven Nykvist.

[number8]

That sounds odd. You mean from cinematography alone?

[MacGuffin]

That sounds odd. You mean from cinematography alone?

What do you mean what do I mean? I'm not giving the movie a *** on cinematography alone if that's what you are asking. I was going to give it a **1/2, but I realize that's probably a bit harsh, because I can understand why this is a classic. The movie is a bit heavy-handed I feel, but there's no denying Bergman's command of his actors and I love how he arranges everything onscreen. Nykvist's lighting in the forest is amazing, and probably among the best I have ever seen: when there are trees all around but the light shines through at the scene with the old man in the cabin, I had an understanding of the surroundings. When there was less light, I knew the forest was surrounded by trees. Most photographers would just take a picture of the forest and not care at all about this sort of thing, but I feel it engrosses audiences better and allows for a more dramatic experience.

[MacGuffin]

With all of that said, I still like Through a Glass Darkly the best of all the Bergman's I have seen. It's not exactly subtle either, but from recollection, I found that movie not only easier to approach, but more intricate in its approach to characters and emotional depth.

[Spinal]

I do not understand this criticism. The Virgin Spring is a dark fable set in the 14th century. The style is perfectly suited to the material.

[MacGuffin]

I do not understand this criticism. The Virgin Spring is a dark fable set in the 14th century. The style is perfectly suited to the material.

It needs to be more subtle. I mean, it's a bit too much to take and after the two men had their way with the poor girl, I knew right away that this was going to be Bergman's way of questioning faith. However, I did find that the scene where the father throws the child to not only be very unsettling, but also very interesting in how it proves him to be a sinner also. Then again, this also has us questioning the relevance of vengeance in a society like this one and whether it is morally correct in the first place. But one hour in, I was getting pretty tired of the dramatized nature of the grimness and had to take myself out of that portion of the movie and concentrate more on the technical aspects of it, which were great the whole way through.

[Spinal]

It needs to be more subtle.

But that's just the thing. No. No, it doesn't. It's a fable. A dark fairy tale. There is no need for subtlety. It is not required for all films. Certainly not this one. This is a story of broad strokes and heightened emotion. It's about cosmic forces. Pure good and pure evil. The artistic gestures need to be bold and deeply emotional, not nuanced.

[MacGuffin]

But that's just the thing. No. No, it doesn't. It's a fable. A dark fairy tale. There is no need for subtlety. It is not required for all films. Certainly not this one. This is a story of broad strokes and heightened emotion. It's about cosmic forces. Pure good and pure evil. The artistic gestures need to be bold and deeply emotional, not nuanced.

Is it too much to ask for their to be "heightened emotion", as you say, but still have the themes be a bit more buried within the movie? I suppose it just felt to me as if it were predictable, whether it is a fable or not (and I'm not arguing that it isn't). I mean, would it be entirely wrong of me to denounce fables next, and say that, while they may be well-written, the themes are too easy to interpret, and as such, wouldn't make for decent re-tellings at all? Basically what I am saying is that I think that the reason fables are still told today is because they allow for new things to unfold each time that they are told. I can't see getting much more out of The Virgin Spring if I were to watch it again, since I already knew basically everything it had to say save for a little bit just under an hour in. Keep in mind that I liked the movie.

[Winston*]

Rouben Mamoulian's 1931 adaptation of Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde.

This movie is pretty fantastic. Thanks for the rec. Amazing that boring Dracula from the same year is way more noted when this is so much better in every respect.

[Derek]

I mean, would it be entirely wrong of me to denounce fables next, and say that, while they may be well-written, the themes are too easy to interpret, and as such, wouldn't make for decent re-tellings at all?

Yes, it would.

[Qrazy]

I can't see getting much more out of The Virgin Spring if I were to watch it again, since I already knew basically everything it had to say save for a little bit just under an hour in. Keep in mind that I liked the movie.

No, you didn't. If we're using the term subtle to describe emotional quietude then it's true, Bergman's film is not that. Or if we're using the term to describe thematic obfuscation, it's not that either. Like most masters (Fellini, Kurosawa for instance) Bergman employs simple but efficient and powerful metaphors to express his meaning. Subtlety does not lie in the labyrinthine expression of content. Subtlety exists in clarity and simplicity as long as these come coupled with tonal harmony. The subtlety of depth of this and many pictures is in the formal expression which reflects back upon the theme and content. This is a deeply layered work and an early realization that the story is about questioning faith is far from equivalent to knowing everything the film has to say. The journey and emotional exploration of faith and loss are the ends themselves. This film is about much more than faith, just as Stalker and Ordet are about much more than faith.

[Qrazy]

http://img222.imageshack.us/img222/4268/vlcsnap3010195.png

Khrustalyov, My Car! (1998 - German) is complete madness. This is Aleksei German as Fellini meets Herzog meets Pasolini meets Tarr meets Klimov meets Kusturica meets Beckett and Kafka. This is German's Salo, his Satyricon, his Aguirre, his Underground, his Satantango and Come and See. You will never see anything like this film. Is it a masterpiece? I don't know. The film is so meandering, so impenetrable and disjointed it's hard to get a foothold on the material. Characters break the fourth wall on a whim, plot threads spiral out of control, new characters are introduced and abandoned never to be seen again. However, German's command over the medium, his lighting, his compositions and most significantly his mise-en-scene are remarkable as always. Like Fellini German enjoys keeping his images extraordinarily busy. Each frame is full of characters and information, character enter from the left, right, top and bottom, dialogue overlaps, the camera tracks everywhere shifting the image from a long shot to a close-up and back again. This film is not for everyone. In fact it's probably for very few. Even arthouse fans may balk at German's psychotic approach to absurd material. All of German's films function as commentary on the totalitarian Soviet Union, but this one most fully embodies the madness of the era it portrays. This is a film where there is so much going on it demands to be watched again. Perhaps in a few weeks I will watch it again.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/9743/vlcsnap3014322.png

Sort of a plot synopsis:


Winter is never-ending in Aleksei Guerman's impenetrable film ''Khroustaliov, My Car!,'' a nearly two-and-a-half hour absurdist nightmare of life in the Soviet Union during the final days of Stalin's rule. Snow falls in almost every scene of this starkly grim, black-and-white movie, which follows the triumph, fall from grace and hasty rehabilitation of a hulking Red Army general and brain surgeon named Yuri Glinshi (Yuri Tsourilo). Processions of black government vehicles are forever materializing like ominous phantoms through the curtains of snow that drift over a dilapidated town decorated with gleaming white statues of the beady-eyed, mustached Soviet dictator.

In this land of horrors everything that isn't white (the snow, the statues, the characters' breath, the clouds of steam and smoke rising from ashcans) is inky black. The soundtrack is studded with harsh, grating whistles and screams, the dialogue fragmentary and hysterically agitated. In the scenes of Yuri at home with his large family, everyone runs around in circles shouting at once like lunatics in a mental hospital. When they're not yelling, they're spitting, coughing, smoking and drinking cognac out of mugs, pretending it is tea.

http://img191.imageshack.us/img191/9937/vlcsnap3014990.png

Before he is arrested in an anti-Semitic purge and shipped off to the gulag, Yuri rules the roost like a miniature Stalin. He has a string of mistresses. And when he visits the local hospital, his staff follows him around him like terrified minions.

The ugliest moment in a film that portrays human beings as stinking, phlegmatic beasts comes while Yuri is being transported to the gulag. In the back of the truck, his trousers are ripped off, and he is assaulted anally with the handle of a shovel.

''Khroustaliov, My Car!'' is a nightmare all right. But it is one virtually impossible to decipher. Its characters aren't properly identified, its politics not elucidated, its geography vague. The best way to appreciate the film is to sit back and view it as a Boschean vision of hell.

http://img81.imageshack.us/img81/2705/vlcsnap3029116.png

[Spinal]

Is it too much to ask for their to be "heightened emotion", as you say, but still have the themes be a bit more buried within the movie?.

I am not one who really understands the need some have for themes to be barely perceptible. I like it when themes are clearly, effectively expressed and resonant. Ideas are more important than verisimilitude. (As a general rule. There may be certain films where a simulation of reality is highly important, but certainly not The Virgin Spring.)

[Qrazy]

I am not one who really understands the need some have for themes to be barely perceptible. I like it when themes are clearly, effectively expressed and resonant. Ideas are more important than verisimilitude.

Well I think there's a difference between clear and expressly communicated themes and character theme spouting. In the case of the former I agree that there's nothing wrong with that. In the case of the latter I don't think the script and characters ought to expressly communicate the theme and concepts of the film for two reasons. First because potent ambiguity is lost in the process of literalization but also because there is value in the audience having to work/think in order to fully understand the meaning of a film.

[Spinal]

Well I think there's a difference between clear and expressly communicated themes and character theme spouting. In the case of the former I agree that there's nothing wrong with that. In the case of the latter I don't think the script and characters ought to expressly communicate the theme and concepts of the film for two reasons. First because potent ambiguity is lost in the process of literalization but also because there is value in the audience having to work/think in order to fully understand the meaning of a film.

I don't even mind it coming out of the mouths of the characters as long as it's good dialogue and fits with the style of the piece.

[Amnesiac]

Sometimes I feel like Eyes Wide Shut is the best movie ever. While there are, of course, films that challenge the credibility of this statement (within Kubrick's filmography, let alone any other film out there)... there is something so spellbindingly deliberate about this film, it just tends to evoke this type of reaction when you're in the midst of watching it. It just totally sweeps you up into its magic. Sublime, really.

[Qrazy]

I don't even mind it coming out of the mouths of the characters as long as it's good dialogue and fits with the style of the piece.

Right, well I figured as much from past conversations which is why I wanted to draw the above distinction. I do mind when there's a blatant and obvious bit of dialogue spelling things out for the viewer.

[Spinal]

Right, well I figured as much from past conversations which is why I wanted to draw the above distinction. I do mind when there's a blatant and obvious bit of dialogue spelling things out for the viewer.

Here is the example I think of when I think of how not to convey themes through dialogue:

"They outrageous, them rules. Who live in this cider house? Who grindin' up those apples, pressin' that cider, cleanin' up all this mess? Who just plain live here, just breathin' in that vinegar? Well, someone who don't live here made those rules. Those rules ain't for us. We are supposed to make our own rules. And we do. Every single day."

[Qrazy]

Here is the example I think of when I think of how not to convey themes through dialogue:

"They outrageous, them rules. Who live in this cider house? Who grindin' up those apples, pressin' that cider, cleanin' up all this mess? Who just plain live here, just breathin' in that vinegar? Well, someone who don't live here made those rules. Those rules ain't for us. We are supposed to make our own rules. And we do. Every single day."

Heh still haven't seen that one although I have it and will probably watch it eventually. At least they didn't (hopefully) finish the quote by saying 'And we do. Every single day. The Cider House Rules.'

[MacGuffin]

Yes, it would.

Good, I thought it would, too.


No, you didn't. If we're using the term subtle to describe emotional quietude then it's true, Bergman's film is not that. Or if we're using the term to describe thematic obfuscation, it's not that either. Like most masters (Fellini, Kurosawa for instance) Bergman employs simple but efficient and powerful metaphors to express his meaning. Subtlety does not lie in the labyrinthine expression of content. Subtlety exists in clarity and simplicity as long as these come coupled with tonal harmony. The subtlety of depth of this and many pictures is in the formal expression which reflects back upon the theme and content. This is a deeply layered work and an early realization that the story is about questioning faith is far from equivalent to knowing everything the film has to say. The journey and emotional exploration of faith and loss are the ends themselves. This film is about much more than faith, just as Stalker and Ordet are about much more than faith.

Yeah, I guess you're right. I probably would have liked the movie more had I not known what was going to happen, though, you have to admit.


I am not one who really understands the need some have for themes to be barely perceptible. I like it when themes are clearly, effectively expressed and resonant. Ideas are more important than verisimilitude. (As a general rule. There may be certain films where a simulation of reality is highly important, but certainly not The Virgin Spring.)

A lot of movies don't have much more reason to exist. They aren't technically interesting, and thankfully, The Virgin Spring most certainly is. Edit: But also for the reasons Qrazy says above. A movie with a theme that is not easy to interpret makes for more viewings and a potentially more interesting interpretation of said theme.

[MacGuffin]

On the other hand, Through a Glass Darkly feels like a movie I have hardly scratched the surface of, even if you could say that it is generally about Bergman's lack of faith, I believe there is so much more there.

[transmogrifier]

Sometimes I feel like Eyes Wide Shut is the best movie ever. .

Well, let me help you out then: It's not. Not even close.

[Qrazy]

Yeah I'm not that big on Eyes Wide Shut either. I think it's a good film and an interesting one but Kubrick's least work in my eyes. I don't find that final bit of dialogue potent and powerful in the same way the final line of Clockwork Orange is... and they strike me as similar in their approach. The last line of EWS is a little too blatant I find... intentionally so but not wholly successfully.

[Derek]

The last line of EWS is hysterical. Definitely top-tier Kubrick for me.

[Milky Joe]

Sometimes I feel like Eyes Wide Shut is the best movie ever. While there are, of course, films that challenge the credibility of this statement (within Kubrick's filmography, let alone any other film out there)... there is something so spellbindingly deliberate about this film, it just tends to evoke this type of reaction when you're in the midst of watching it. It just totally sweeps you up into its magic. Sublime, really.

I pretty much agree. However, I do find myself saying this about almost every Kubrick film I watch (particularly 2001). But EWS really is like a culmination of the man's life and process. Spellbinding is the perfect word for it. And I'm not sure a woman has ever looked more beautiful than Nicole Kidman at the party at Ziegler's house where she dances with the devil.

[Amnesiac]

I think it's a good film and an interesting one but Kubrick's least work in my eyes.

Is there supposed to be a word between "least" and "work", there? I'll assume you mean least favorable. So, you even prefer his earlier efforts, such as Killer's Kiss and The Killing, to Eyes Wide Shut? Not trying to suggest a lack of quality in the earlier two, but there is pretty much an exponential increase in quality and value as you make your way through Kubrick's filmography (with exception, of course) and that makes me question anyone who might actually see Eyes Wide Shut as his worst work.

[Qrazy]

Is there supposed to be a word between "least" and "work", there? I'll assume you mean least favorable. So, you even prefer his earlier efforts, such as Killer's Kiss and The Killing, to Eyes Wide Shut? Not trying to suggest a lack of quality in the earlier two, but there is pretty much an exponential increase in quality and value as you make your way through Kubrick's filmography (with exception, of course) and that makes me question anyone who might actually see Eyes Wide Shut as his worst work.

Yeah, least favorite. I prefer The Killing but not Killer's Kiss. I might prefer Eyes Wide Shut to Full Metal if I rewatched both. I don't really agree with the bolded at all since I think 2001 and Paths of Glory are his two best films.

[Amnesiac]

I don't really agree with the bolded at all since I think 2001 and Paths of Glory are his two best films.

When I wrote that I was more thinking of the increase in quality from Killer's Kiss & The Killing compared to the later half of his work. But I agree that Paths is pretty fantastic. What I was trying to convey was that Kubrick's later work reaches a level of more assured and even consistency, rather than "this film is good, the next one is better, the next one is awesome" sort of deal. Though my belief, on some days, that Eyes Wide Shut and 2001 share the spot for his best film(s) does make me think of Kubrick's filmography as embodying a certain forward thrust in quality. Meanwhile, his earlier work has Spartacus and his first two films, which kind of blights any consistency in assured quality... but then, as you progress, there's a certain point where it's suddenly really smooth sailing without any real hiccups. The reason I say this is because I often find myself oscillating around his later work, unable to determine which I truly favor the most.

And while Paths of Glory is pretty great, I'm tempted to say that he went to better and more interesting places (while touching on/expanding on similar themes) with Dr.Strangelove, Eyes Wide Shut, 2001, Barry Lyndon and even A Clockwork Orange.

[Qrazy]

The last line of EWS is hysterical. Definitely top-tier Kubrick for me.

Lolita and Strangelove are hysterical. That line is snickerical.

[B-side]

Got Syndromes and a Century lined up for today.

[Amnesiac]

To be more specific, I'd say from Lolita on, it becomes really hard for me to say which of Kubrick's are the best. That's the smooth sailing, I mentioned. I guess I'm more fickle when it comes to his work, any rewatch from Lolita onward convinces me of the greatest of that particular work and that is the consistency I mentioned. While 2001 and EWS do have that extra gravity attached to them, all of his other films have a sublimity that can't be ignored and makes me want to lump them all in together at the #1 spot. It feels cruel, almost, to knock one out over the other. But I don't really have too much of a problem with knocking Spartacus, The Killing, Killer's Kiss to lower-tier status.

I guess I shouldn't have used the term 'exponential' increase so much as consistency and quality, which is what happens from Lolita onward. That is what leaves me wondering how someone could really prefer The Killing or Killer's Kiss to any of his post-Spartacus work. That's just me though. The Killing is good fun and has themes that resonate throughout all of Kubrick's work, but it seems like more of a fine-tuned preamble to his later works that are executed in a far better fashion.

[Qrazy]

When I wrote that I was more thinking of the increase in quality from Killer's Kiss, The Killing compared to the later half of his work. But I agree that Paths is pretty fantastic. What I was trying to convey was that Kubrick's later work reaches a level of more assured and even consistency, rather than "this film is good, the next one is better, the next one is awesome" sort of deal. Whereas his earlier work has Spartacus and his two earlier films, which kind of blight any consistency in assured quality... there's a certain point where it's smooth sailing. The reason I say this is because I often find myself oscillating around his later work, unable to determine which I truly favor the most.

And while Paths of Glory is pretty great, but I'm tempted to say that he went to better and more interesting places (while touching on/expanding on similar themes) with Dr.Strangelove, Eyes Wide Shut, 2001, Barry Lyndon and even A Clockwork Orange.

I actually quite like Spartacus.

Repasted (and slightly reordered) from my Recommendations thread... The Shining is so high not necessarily because I think it is a better film than some of the others but because it is one of the few horror films that genuinely unnerves me. Clockwork Orange has moved down a bit because I'm less enamored with it's central thesis than I once was. Lyndon I have problems with the story. The four below The Killing are more formally proficient but I have thematic complaints which keep them below. Full Metal Jacket I have similar criticisms to most of the detractors. Eyes Wide Shut just doesn't have the aesthetic purposiveness (aside from select scenes and moments) of his best work for me.

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Paths of Glory

3. Dr: Strangelove
4. The Shining
5. Lolita
6. Clockwork Orange
7. The Killing
8. Barry Lyndon
9. Spartacus

10. Full Metal Jacket
11. Eyes Wide Shut

[Qrazy]

To be more specific, I'd say from Lolita on, it becomes really hard for me to say which of Kubrick's are the best. That's the smooth sailing, I mentioned. I guess I'm more fickle when it comes to his work, any rewatch from Lolita onward convinces me of the greatest of that particular work and that is the consistency I mentioned. While 2001 and EWS do have that extra gravity attached to them, all of his other films have a sublimity that can't be ignored and makes me want to lump them all in together at the #1 spot. It feels cruel, almost, to knock one out over the other. But I don't really have too much of a problem with knocking Spartacus, The Killing, Killer's Kiss to lower-tier status.

I agree with you about the smooth sailing quality but I'd actually extend it to all of his films after Killer's Kiss. Ordering for Tarkovsky, Kubrick, Miyazaki, etc is I find as much about personal gripes and preferences as actual quality I'd say. Spartacus isn't a perfect film but it's an excellent sword and sandal film so for people who really like the genre they'll like that one more. The Killing is less formally precise than some of his other work because he was I think working with a smaller budget but it's still an excellent work and very different from his other films.

[Amnesiac]

Repasted (and slightly reordered) from my Recommendations thread... The Shining is so high not necessarily because I think it is a better film than some of the others but because it is one of the few horror films that genuinely unnerves me.

It's great and, upon rewatch, I might understand your high placement but then I think about Lolita, Barry Lyndon, and EWS... all of which seemed to move me more. But again, placing his films into a hierarchy is tricky and I'm always oscillating. But, for me, there are some unambiguous truths... I don't think I'd place The Shining above EWS or 2001.



Clockwork Orange has moved down a bit because I'm less enamored with it's central thesis than I once was.

I've just started to appreciate the implications of its thesis. I think it raises some interesting questions without imposing any direct answers. What Kubrick does best, basically.



Lyndon I have problems with the story.

Yeah, I love this one. I really don't think The Killing is superior to it.


Eyes Wide Shut just doesn't have the aesthetic purposiveness (aside from select scenes and moments) of his best work.

I'd disagree. There's an unsettling naturalism that seems perfectly suited to this work and its aims. There are also intricacies to the mise-en-scene and color palette that I admire greatly.

[Grouchy]

I think Kubrick from Dr. Strangelove to Eyes Wide Shut is really on another level from the rest of the filmmakers and, as Qrazy more or less implies, arguing which of those seven films is better than the others is just a reflection of personal taste.

That said:

1. Eyes Wide Shut
2. Barry Lyndon
3. A Clockwork Orange
4. 2001
5. The Shining
6. Dr. Strangelove
7. Full Metal Jacket
8. Paths of Glory
9. The Killing
10. Lolita
11. Killer's Kiss
12. Spartacus

[Qrazy]

It's great and, upon rewatch, I might understand your high placement but then I think about Lolita, Barry Lyndon, and EWS... all of which seemed to move me more. But again, placing his films into a hierarchy is tricky and I'm always oscillating. But, for me, there are some unambiguous truths... I don't think I'd place The Shining above EWS or 2001.

Yeah I wouldn't place it about 2001 either but for the reasons I've expressed already I would place it above EWS.


I've just started to appreciate the implications of its thesis. I think it raises some interesting questions without imposing any direct answers. What Kubrick does best, basically.

I like that he didn't include the last chapter of the book in the film. But I mean to say that I'm less enthusiastic about both the content of the book and the film than I once was. The definition and examination between 'free will' versus 'determinism' doesn't quite work for me. Basically I agree with Burgess criticisms of his own work (which I cannot seem to find online right now). I'm also not super fond of aspects of the aesthetic (the way certain scenes are framed/lit) compared to some of Kubrick's other films.


I'd disagree. There's an unsettling naturalism that seems perfectly suited to this work and its aims. There are also intricacies to the mise-en-scene and color palette that I admire greatly.

There's definitely nuance but aside from certain moments not a lot of the imagery stayed with me. As per usual his lighting is excellent, that's one of the things that elevated Spartacus for me... some of the shadow work on faces. However, I'd rewatch any of his films so perhaps I ought to revisit this one. I also just wasn't that fond of Cruise's performance.

[trotchky]

1. A Clockwork Orange
2. Barry Lyndon
3. Eyes Wide Shut
4. 2001: A Space Odyssey
5. Full Metal Jacket
6. The Shining
7. Lolita

I agree with Grouchy. Back-to-back masterpieces, up there (exception of Lolita).

[B-side]

1. Barry Lyndon
2. 2001: A Space Odyssey
3. A Clockwork Orange
4. Eyes Wide Shut
5. Dr. Strangelove
6. The Shining
7. Full Metal Jacket
8. The Killing
9. Lolita
10. Paths of Glory
11. Killer's Kiss

1-10 are all at least very good. 11 is mediocre.

[Bosco B Thug]

No, you didn't. If we're using the term subtle to describe emotional quietude then it's true, Bergman's film is not that. Or if we're using the term to describe thematic obfuscation, it's not that either. Like most masters (Fellini, Kurosawa for instance) Bergman employs simple but efficient and powerful metaphors to express his meaning. Subtlety does not lie in the labyrinthine expression of content. Subtlety exists in clarity and simplicity as long as these come coupled with tonal harmony. The subtlety of depth of this and many pictures is in the formal expression which reflects back upon the theme and content. This is a deeply layered work and an early realization that the story is about questioning faith is far from equivalent to knowing everything the film has to say. The journey and emotional exploration of faith and loss are the ends themselves. This film is about much more than faith, just as Stalker and Ordet are about much more than faith. Qrazy's the most in the right in this discussion. CSC, some of your more brash statements needed some rebuffing :) but there's nothing wrong with your responding less to this film than Through a Glass Darkly. I have similar relatively mild positive feelings about The Virgin Spring. It's just never a good idea to say there's some ceiling of complexity that a 14th century fable can achieve even in re-telling (but alternately, in your credit, there's nothing wrong in you not having some fixed expectations for [whatever] from the film).

[Spinal]

Top 100:
2001: A Space Odyssey
Dr. Strangelove
A Clockwork Orange

Excellent:
Paths of Glory

Very Good:
Eyes Wide Shut
Full Metal Jacket
The Shining
Barry Lyndon

Good:
Lolita
Spartacus
The Killing

Eh, whatever:
Killer's Kiss
Flying Padre

Kubrick's stand-out quality for me is that he excelled in such a wide variety of genres. You could tell that he set out to make the definitive film in whatever particular genre he was working in (horror, war film, sci-fi, etc).

[MacGuffin]

Qrazy's the most in the right in this discussion. CSC, some of your more brash statements needed some rebuffing :) but there's nothing wrong with your responding less to this film than Through a Glass Darkly. I have similar relatively mild positive feelings about The Virgin Spring. It's just never a good idea to say there's some ceiling of complexity that a 14th century fable can achieve even in re-telling (but alternately, in your credit, there's nothing wrong in you not having some fixed expectations for [whatever] from the film).

Yeah, and I fear that is the case. Perhaps The Virgin Spring works best when the viewer knows as little about it as possible. But at least I was able to appreciate the technical mastery. Surely, movies like The Last House on the Left look like crap in comparison now, because, while they may have the comic relief missing from Bergman's entry, they feeling even more so empty after watch The Virgin Spring, because they do not focus on the religious aspect, but rather, the revenge aspect which doesn't occur until the last twenty minutes of the movie (and by "they" I'm also referring to the other knock-offs, like Chaos, which I haven't seen, but is basically the same thing from what I've heard and The Last House on the Beach, which is good, well-realized terror, but increasingly more inept the more that I think about it) whereas the first hour or so of The Last House on the Left (and bear with me because it's been years) now seems more exploitive than anything else, which is probably where it gets its marks.

As for The Virgin Spring, yeah. Maybe it does work better knowing as little as possible, so maybe I expected a little more. I apologize if I came off as overly brash, that was not my intention. I do feel it was a great film, but while Through a Glass Darkly was unsubtle also, that is a movie I feel I could watch right now and get a lot out of it, if not even more than the first time I saw it. Anyways, my next Bergman will probably be either Cries and Whispers or Winter Light. Maybe Smiles of a Summer Night or Wild Strawberries. I'm not sure.

[Spinal]

Anyways, my next Bergman will probably be either Cries and Whispers or Winter Lights. Maybe Smiles of a Summer Night or Wild Strawberries. I'm not sure.

Oh, gawrsh. If you're concerned about 'heavy-handedness', you may want to steer away from Cries and Whispers at this point. Possibly his most histrionic film, awesome though it is. Winter Light is my favorite (and Bergman's own favorite of his films). So beautiful. Talk about amazing camerawork. I'd recommend that one for you. So many good ones to choose from. Glad to see someone diving in. :)

[NickGlass]

Jellyfish (Shira Geffen and Etgar Keret, 2007) / ***1/2

This rating is so, so pretty.

[Amnesiac]

Also, in regards to the Kubrick discussion, I just thought I'd bring up Peter Sellers. That guy is fantastic but I've yet to explore any of his work outside of Kubrick's filmography. I should do that. I've heard a lot of good things about Being There.

And that points towards another tricky question relating to preference. I'm not sure which performance is better, the triad in Strangelove or Quilty's various identities in Lolita. I feel like leaning towards the latter because the scene where Quilty is posing as a cop and trying to unravel Humbert is amazingly well done, just hilarious.

[Raiders]

1. 2001: A Space Odyssey
2. Barry Lyndon
3. Dr. Strangelove
4. Paths of Glory
5. The Shining
6. Eyes Wide Shut
7. The Killing
8. A Clockwork Orange
9. Lolita
10. Full Metal Jacket
11. Spartacus

[Qrazy]

Yeah, and I fear that is the case. Perhaps The Virgin Spring works best when the viewer knows as little about it as possible. But at least I was able to appreciate the technical mastery. Surely, movies like The Last House on the Left look like crap in comparison now, because, while they may have the comic relief missing from Bergman's entry, they feeling even more so empty after watch The Virgin Spring, because they do not focus on the religious aspect, but rather, the revenge aspect which doesn't occur until the last twenty minutes of the movie (and by "they" I'm also referring to the other knock-offs, like Chaos, which I haven't seen, but is basically the same thing from what I've heard and The Last House on the Beach, which is good, well-realized terror, but increasingly more inept the more that I think about it) whereas the first hour or so of The Last House on the Left (and bear with me because it's been years) now seems more exploitive than anything else, which is probably where it gets its marks.

As for The Virgin Spring, yeah. Maybe it does work better knowing as little as possible, so maybe I expected a little more. I apologize if I came off as overly brash, that was not my intention. I do feel it was a great film, but while Through a Glass Darkly was unsubtle also, that is a movie I feel I could watch right now and get a lot out of it, if not even more than the first time I saw it. Anyways, my next Bergman will probably be either Cries and Whispers or Winter Light. Maybe Smiles of a Summer Night or Wild Strawberries. I'm not sure.

Hour of the Wolf is Through a Glass Darkly-esque. Might give that one a shot. I echo Spinal's comments about Cries and Whispers (about it being histrionic and heavy-handed) although I think I like it less than he does.

[MacGuffin]

Okay, Winter Light to Hour of the Wolf to Cries and Whispers it is! I'll try to get to the first one this week if Netflix will get it to me on time.

[soitgoes...]

Anyways, my next Bergman will probably be either Cries and Whispers or Winter Light. Maybe Smiles of a Summer Night or Wild Strawberries. I'm not sure.
Jesus, that's like 15 and a half stars.

[Raiders]

I think it is amusing to me, considering in general I find I am not that enraptured with Bergman, that Persona still remains to this day without a doubt my favorite film. It's somewhat unique amongst his filmography I think and certainly his best work in my opinion.

[baby doll]

This rating is so, so pretty.Unlike Tel Aviv. I've yet to see an Israeli film where the characters didn't live in ugly concrete buildings.

[Qrazy]

Also, in regards to the Kubrick discussion, I just thought I'd bring up Peter Sellers. That guy is fantastic but I've yet to explore any of his work outside of Kubrick's filmography. I should do that. I've heard a lot of good things about Being There.

And that points towards another tricky question relating to preference. I'm not sure which performance is better, the triad in Strangelove or Quilty's various identities in Lolita. I feel like leaning towards the latter because the scene where Quilty is posing as a cop and trying to unravel Humbert is amazingly well done, just hilarious.

Yeah, the Lolita roles win out for me too because he's absolutely hilarious there. And yes Sellers is tops. Check out...

Being There (Ashby)
The Party (Edwards)
The Ladykillers (Mackendrick)
A Shot in the Dark (Edwards)
The Return of the Pink Panther (Edwards)

And less interesting films but still worthwhile...

The World of Henry Orient (Roy Hill)
Pink Panther (Edwards)
The Pink Panther Strikes Again (Edwards)

[baby doll]

I think it is amusing to me, considering in general I find I am not that enraptured with Bergman, that Persona still remains to this day without a doubt my favorite film. It's somewhat unique amongst his filmography I think and certainly his best work in my opinion.Yeah, I'm not a fan either, but I love Persona. I find it strange that people complain about Ken Loach sacrificing nuance and complexity for the sake of illustrating some predetermined thesis, but no one ever seems to make the same complaint about Bergman at his most theological (The Seventh Seal, Through a Glass, Darkly, Winter Light--probably my three least favorites). At least Loach and Laverty are skilled storytellers, instead of relying on clunky symbolism and ponderous monologues.

[Qrazy]

Yeah, I'm not a fan either, but I love Persona. I find it strange that people complain about Ken Loach sacrificing nuance and complexity for the sake of illustrating some predetermined thesis, but no one ever seems to make the same complaint about Bergman at his most theological (The Seventh Seal, Through a Glass, Darkly, Winter Light--probably my three least favorites). At least Loach and Laverty are skilled storytellers, instead of relying on clunky symbolism and ponderous monologues.

Which Loach film(s) are you referring to The Wind that Shakes the Barley? Personally I have no fondness for Loach precisely because I don't find him to be a skilled storyteller. Aside from Kes I've found his use of the camera to be incredibly banal (The Wind that Shakes the Barley, Sweet Sixteen, My Name is Joe).

[baby doll]

As for Kubrick, The Killing, Paths of Glory, Dr. Strangelove, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Barry Lyndon, The Shining, Full Metal Jacket and 2001: A Space Odyssey are all terrific. A Clockwork Orange is overrated, a bit of a slog for long stretches, and one of his least stylistically accomplished films (not to mention probably socially irresponsible), but I still sort of like it. Lolita is also a bit of a slog. I haven't seen Killer's Kiss in a few years, but I don't remember it being any thing special, just a run-of-the-mill B noir film with a couple neat sequences that hint at Kubrick's later awesomeness. And I've never seen Fear and Desire or Spartacus.

[Robby P]

Eyes Wide Shut is my least favorite Kubrick movie. 2001 is definitely his best.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah, and I fear that is the case. Perhaps The Virgin Spring works best when the viewer knows as little about it as possible. I think it does your qualms with the film a disservice by chalking it up to this. I think I'll like it better when I re-watch it, knowing Bergman is constructing the story narrative and conceiving his visual narrative around bold, fable-like strokes, so the I'll be able to focus most heavily on how delicate is the technical mastery.


But at least I was able to appreciate the technical mastery. Surely, movies like The Last House on the Left look like crap in comparison now, because, while they may have the comic relief missing from Bergman's entry, they feeling even more so empty after watch The Virgin Spring, because they do not focus on the religious aspect, but rather, the revenge aspect which doesn't occur until the last twenty minutes of the movie (and by "they" I'm also referring to the other knock-offs, like Chaos, which I haven't seen, but is basically the same thing from what I've heard and The Last House on the Beach, which is good, well-realized terror, but increasingly more inept the more that I think about it) whereas the first hour or so of The Last House on the Left (and bear with me because it's been years) now seems more exploitive than anything else, which is probably where it gets its marks. I don't know... I'm one of those supporters of 'Last House on the Left.' Not saying it's better than Bergman's film, of course.


I apologize if I came off as overly brash, that was not my intention. You were unintentionally brash. That's much better! And by brash, I only mean "Oh no, don't admit that/give in on that point/etc.!"


Oh, FTR, Bergman: I've only seen this, Persona, and 'Seventh Seal' (looong time ago).

[baby doll]

Which Loach film(s) are you referring to The Wind that Shakes the Barley? Personally I have no fondness for Loach precisely because I don't find him to be a skilled storyteller. Aside from Kes I've found his use of the camera to be incredibly banal (The Wind that Shakes the Barley, Sweet Sixteen, My Name is Joe).I've just seen Sweet Sixteen, The Wind That Shakes the Barley, and It's a Free World..., and in each, I thought the storytelling was quite strong for the most part. Taking The Wind That Shakes the Barley as an example, I think it did it an effective job of presenting this internal debate within the Irish Republican movement between negotiations with the British and direct action, and it's such a fascinating subject that I was less bothered by the blandness of the characters than I would be in a more ahistorical kind of film. And while he's not doing anything particularly original with in terms of camerawork or sound design, what he's showing us, the grubby realism of the locations and the actors he uses (particularly in his contemporary films, like Sweet Sixteen) is really striking.

[Qrazy]

I've just seen Sweet Sixteen, The Wind That Shakes the Barley, and It's a Free World..., and in each, I thought the storytelling was quite strong for the most part. Taking The Wind That Shakes the Barley as an example, I think it did it an effective job of presenting this internal debate within the Irish Republican movement between negotiations with the British and direct action, and it's such a fascinating subject that I was less bothered by the blandness of the characters than I would be in a more ahistorical kind of film. And while he's not doing anything particularly original with in terms of camerawork or sound design, what he's showing us, the grubby realism of the locations and the actors he uses (particularly in his contemporary films, like Sweet Sixteen) is really striking.

I just believe that grubby realism can be expressed via more potent compositions. I'm not impressed by how he frames his shots or moves his camera.

I do agree with you about The Wind's effectiveness at exploring the nuances of an interesting political issue. However I did not find the drama (not necessarily a fault in any of the individual performances) compelling enough or plot threads and characters well balanced enough to establish true emotional depth by the film's end.

I find his films to be solid. I'm glad I saw them and I'll probably see a few more. They handle their material efficiently but formally I don't find him to be a very talented filmmaker. I'm not looking for visual extravagance either just something more aesthetically purposive.

[soitgoes...]

I think it is amusing to me, considering in general I find I am not that enraptured with Bergman, that Persona still remains to this day without a doubt my favorite film. It's somewhat unique amongst his filmography I think and certainly his best work in my opinion.
You are my opposite sir. I love Bergman, and yet I don't see the absolute greatness of Persona. Yes, I do see greatness there, but it falls behind other films of his I'd consider top tier. While I agree that some aspects might be considered unique, its theme of identity being one, I do think there's a lot similar with other Bergman films of that period, he just pulls it off better with Persona. Shame and Hour of the Wolf both isolate its two leads to some extent to spout their themes, war and reality respectively, just as Persona isolates Elisabeth and Alma. Persona, of course looks like a Bergman film. Especially the lighting and filming two faces in close-up looking in different directions. I think the opening sequence is what gives Persona the heaviest dose of uniqueness.

[baby doll]

I just believe that grubby realism can be expressed via more potent compositions. I'm not impressed by how he frames his shots or moves his camera.

I do agree with you about The Wind's effectiveness at exploring the nuances of an interesting political issue. However I did not find the drama (not necessarily a fault in any of the individual performances) compelling enough or plot threads and characters well balanced enough to establish true emotional depth by the film's end.

I find his films to be solid. I'm glad I saw them and I'll probably see a few more. They handle their material efficiently but formally I don't find him to be a very talented filmmaker. I'm not looking for visual extravagance either just something more aesthetically purposive.Well, I don't want to get into a shot-by-shot analysis of his films, but I think his camera choices are effective. He puts the camera where he needs to, and his compositions are designed not to call attention to themselves.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by emotional depth, but the whole point is that the compromise that's negotiated is a kind of betrayal, and Loach and Laverty underline that by having one character literally betray his brother, who's more radical. Obviously they're laying it on a little thick, and neither character is that interesting as individuals, so for me the ending wasn't that moving because I didn't really care about them as people. So I guess we agree?

[Raiders]

You are my opposite sir. I love Bergman, and yet I don't see the absolute greatness of Persona. Yes, I do see greatness there, but it falls behind other films of his I'd consider top tier. While I agree that some aspects might be considered unique, its theme of identity being one, I do think there's a lot similar with other Bergman films of that period, he just pulls it off better with Persona. Shame and Hour of the Wolf both isolate its two leads to some extent to spout their themes, war and reality respectively, just as Persona isolates Elisabeth and Alma. Persona, of course looks like a Bergman film. Especially the lighting and filming two faces in close-up looking in different directions. I think the opening sequence is what gives Persona the heaviest dose of uniqueness.

Oh, I'm not saying it doesn't have some Bergman-esque qualities. I'm also not saying I don't often really like Bergman films. But my love of Persona is just so notably greater than any of his other films. I think you hit the nail on the head regarding its probing of "the nature of identity." It is the most cerebral of his films I think, and features themes and explorations vastly more interesting to me. I also think that, though it is not explicitly a subtle film, it has visual layers that go beyond most of his other films.

[baby doll]

It is the most cerebral of his films I thinkI would say just the opposite, that it's one of his most emotional and certainly his most visceral in terms of what he's doing formally.

[Qrazy]

Well, I don't want to get into a shot-by-shot analysis of his films, but I think his camera choices are effective. He puts the camera where he needs to, and his compositions are designed not to call attention to themselves.

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by emotional depth, but the whole point is that the compromise that's negotiated is a kind of betrayal, and Loach and Laverty underline that by having one character literally betray his brother, who's more radical. Obviously they're laying it on a little thick, and neither character is that interesting as individuals, so for me the ending wasn't that moving because I didn't really care about them as people. So I guess we agree?

Yeah, we agree. That's what I meant by emotional depth. I was not genuinely moved by the betrayal and I feel like I should have been.

[baby doll]

Yeah, we agree. That's what I meant by emotional depth. I was not genuinely moved by the betrayal and I feel like I should have been.But for me that's not such a big flaw, because what the film does really well is engage the viewer in the political debate I mentioned earlier--and this is a subject I knew nothing about walking into the picture. And the two characters are plainly stand-ins for the different sides of the debate. Ken Loach could probably make a really effective melodrama if he wanted to, but what he does here I think is much more interesting.

[Qrazy]

But for me that's not such a big flaw, because what the film does really well is engage the viewer in the political debate I mentioned earlier--and this is a subject I knew nothing about walking into the picture. And the two characters are plainly stand-ins for the different sides of the debate. Ken Loach could probably make a really effective melodrama if he wanted to, but what he does here I think is much more interesting.

I think he could have explored the political issues and had a compelling drama unfold (using the content already there just executed more effectively) with a moving climax. Frankly I think he was going for that anyway and just didn't succeed. I don't disagree that he succeeded with his political exploration but I don't feel that this legitimizes what I feel to be failure (or at least stumbles) on an emotional, psychological and aesthetic level.

[MacGuffin]

I think it does your qualms with the film a disservice by chalking it up to this. I think I'll like it better when I re-watch it, knowing Bergman is constructing the story narrative and conceiving his visual narrative around bold, fable-like strokes, so the I'll be able to focus most heavily on how delicate is the technical mastery.

I don't know... I'm one of those supporters of 'Last House on the Left.' Not saying it's better than Bergman's film, of course.

You were unintentionally brash. That's much better! And by brash, I only mean "Oh no, don't admit that/give in on that point/etc.!"


Oh, FTR, Bergman: I've only seen this, Persona, and 'Seventh Seal' (looong time ago).

Not much left for me to say here, I'm afraid, but I appreciate the response. Edit: And I should reiterate I did think the movie was a great one (and hey, perhaps if I ending up loving all the other Bergman's I watch or most of them, I will rewatch this one).

[BuffaloWilder]

I'm going to share a post with you all, from a board I used to attend:


It's difficult to compare at first look. They're two completely different approaches. Generally, though, as an adaption and in terms of faithfulness, WATCHMEN already, in its condensed version, beats the living hell out of TDK in nearly every category except possibly action, score, long speeches, and remaining entirely serious throughout the film. However, when it does get serious, its serious themes and its execution of them trump THE DARK KNIGHT's by a long shot.

THE DARK KNIGHT: People's morals are a bad joke...cast aside at the first sign of trouble.

WATCHMEN: What's that? People tend to embrace chaos? Screw you, we'll show it actually happening and wax poetic about the nature of heroism all the while!

Most of WATCHMEN's character's various "conflicts" have far more down to earth poignancy and immediacy than TDK's did, mostly because they're about ten times more subtle. Jackie Earle Haley's performance as Rorschach is easily as powerful as Heath Ledger's The Joker or Christian Bale's Batman in TDK, and the movie still has Dan, Veidt, and Blake to offer beyond him. Even WATCHMEN's bit parts are generally much better performances than TDK's (Matt Frewer as Moloch). When the Director's Cut is released, I don't think TDK will stand a chance in terms of logical comparison, because WATCHMEN is more about the "art" of the film, and it's going to have so much it's not funny. The visuals and the juxtaposition of them with themes and ideas and other visuals is something that TDK simply doesn't have in spades. That, and there's depth to almost everything you see in WATCHMEN and a real sense of deconstruction, whereas TDK does have action for the sake of action and things of that nature. WATCHMEN is risky, WATCHMEN is unapologetic. THE DARK KNIGHT takes, I think, one risk with the mythology, and it's not exactly in character. And Chris Nolan has never shown the reverence for the Batman mythology that Zack Snyder showed for WATCHMEN.



The bolded parts are the parts I laughed - or cried - at.

This is why I stopped going to that board. Oh, Superherohype.

[Spinal]

A bit hyperbolic perhaps, but there's crazier shit posted on this website on a daily basis.

*Cue for alert wiseass to link to my review of Up.*

[Qrazy]

Beau Travail - Um OK, a competent enough film with a unique approach to it's subject matter. After being equally underwhelmed by The Tree of Wooden Clogs I guess routine films aren't really my bag. In Clogs it was farming routine, here it's military routine. . In Beau Travail Denis takes a creative look at the effects of military life and routine on emotion, interpersonal relationships and self-expression. Lots of routine, monotony and the to be expected extrapolated metaphors (dance vs. military training). Denis approach is minimalistic, her colors and locales effectively vibrant but her framing too intentionally simple for my taste. I have Trouble Every Day and I'll watch Friday Night at some point but something tells me she's not going to be my cup of tea.

[Raiders]

What is it with you and "framing?" I never know what the heck you're talking about.

Also, I think the film is about a bit more than merely the military routine.

[MacGuffin]

Beau Travail - Um OK, a competent enough film with a unique approach to it's subject matter. After being equally underwhelmed by The Tree of Wooden Clogs I guess routine films aren't really my bag. In Clogs it was farming routine, here it's military routine. . In Beau Travail Denis takes a creative look at the effects of military life and routine on emotion, interpersonal relationships and self-expression. Lots of routine, monotony and the to be expected extrapolated metaphors (dance vs. military training). Denis approach is minimalistic, her colors and locales effectively vibrant but her framing too intentionally simple for my taste. I have Trouble Every Day and I'll watch Friday Night at some point but something tells me she's not going to be my cup of tea.

Actually, you'll probably like Friday Night. I don't know what I was thinking when I claimed to not like it the first two times I saw it; it's purely magical. Trouble Every Day is weird mostly because of its thesis — a love so strong that it becomes cannibalism — but I recall it being very watchable. If you want something simpler, but probably more conventionally watchable than Beau travail, go with I Can't Sleep. I'd probably recommend avoiding L'intrus, which could be called "Ellipsis Mania: She's Back!", but I still think it's a masterpiece of emotions.

[MacGuffin]

Also, I think the film is about a bit more than merely the military routine.

Definitely.

[Qrazy]

What is it with you and "framing?" I never know what the heck you're talking about.

Also, I think the film is about a bit more than merely the military routine.

Yeah well it's about a number of things that I didn't touch upon but I do think it focuses primarily on military routine and surrounding themes. Using military routine as an emotional escape, juxtaposing dancing clumsiness (initially at least) with physical stamina and fluidity, routine as that which defines a life and being at a loss as to what to do without it, etc. The film also explores loneliness, duty, jealousy, racial and sexual politics, etc.

I agree that my filmic articulation skills could be a bit more to the point. By framing in this case at least I just mean that she has a very minimalist aesthetic. There doesn't tend to be that much movement in the frame at any given time, there isn't much three dimensionality or scope to the images (which isn't to say there isn't any use of perspective, there is), compositions are very to the point and focused almost expressly on bodies or bodies against landscapes. Which is not to say there's anything inherently wrong with any of this it's just sparse and I prefer there to be more points of reference to a composition or more business or staggered movement to the mise-en-scene... points of reference or in some cases texture can also be achieved purely through lighting... so in the case of a close-up there will be shadows or greater gradation across a face. I clarify this because I think Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc is really well shot/framed and it's almost all close-ups, but those close-ups are extremely visually communicative often as a result of the way faces are staggered in the frame but also because of lighting.

Don't get me wrong I think Beau Travail is well lit and I particularly enjoyed the color scheme. I find Denis imagery more purposive than Loach's for instance. But aside from a few cases of layered (for my purposes using more than one plane) imagery (for instance Clipper's avatar) the compositions are too I don't know... minimal is really the word... for my taste.

[B-side]

Syndromes and a Century has an effective and somewhat interesting approach to exploring time and space within its realm of memory. Weerasethakul's camera is curious and enjoys establishing environment. I'm not entirely sure how interesting it all is to actually watch, but it feels... different. Sometimes it's poignant, sometimes it feels padded. The framing feels thoughtful and the acting appropriately muted. If nothing else, the film feels entirely Joe's own, wrapped up tightly in his memories and perceptions.

[MacGuffin]

Syndromes and a Century has an effective and somewhat interesting approach to exploring time and space within its realm of memory. Weerasethakul's camera is curious and enjoys establishing environment.

Well, yeah, of course. You'd think by two, arguably three movies about the concepts, he'd have an understanding of time and memory.


Weerasethakul's camera is curious and enjoys establishing environment.

What do you mean when you say the camera is curious? I agree that he takes a lot of care in establishing environments and creates a tonal emotion for the segment which corresponds to these establishments, but I think that you can get a lot more out of these establishments if you pay attention to them in the context of the film, especially this one, and how they correspond to the rest of what you are seeing.


I'm not entirely sure how interesting it all is to actually watch,

Oh, I'm sure.


but it feels... different. Sometimes it's poignant, sometimes it feels padded.

I'm not sure where it would feel "padded". In fact, I would say the first half is poignant, but only when we reach the second half, which is more bitter. It's never "padded" though, I don't think. Everything there has a purpose to the inner-workings of Weerasethakul's vision. If anything, it's too short.


The framing feels thoughtful and the acting appropriately muted. If nothing else, the film feels entirely Joe's own, wrapped up tightly in his memories and perceptions.

Yeah, but as I wrote when I first saw the movie, while it may be Joe's own, it's easy to draw our own conclusions about what we are seeing and look at places in our lives that have changed over time.

[Derek]

Well, yeah, of course. You'd think by two, arguably three movies about the concepts, he'd have an understanding of time and memory.

:confused:

[MacGuffin]

:confused:

Jeez, man. Do you actually have any to say about my posts or is this one-sentence at the most response thing going to continue?

[Qrazy]

So History of the Arkanar Massacre (Aleksei German), that's going to be awesome.

[Winston*]

So History of the Arkanar Massacre (Aleksei German), that's going to be awesome.

The third season of Mad Men's going to be better. Calling it here first.

[Derek]

Jeez, man. Do you actually have any to say about my posts or is this one-sentence at the most response thing going to continue?

Didn't notice it was a trend. I just found your post to be overly assumptive as if anyone who made 2 or 3 films about time and memory would obviously have those themes down pat. I found it strange because many great directors have spent their entire careers hammering away at only a couple major themes, but you're right, I could've articulated that rather given you the confused look.

[B-side]

Well, yeah, of course. You'd think by two, arguably three movies about the concepts, he'd have an understanding of time and memory.

Yeah, it's my first full length film of his. Not sure why you're preaching.


What do you mean when you say the camera is curious? I agree that he takes a lot of care in establishing environments and creates a tonal emotion for the segment which corresponds to these establishments, but I think that you can get a lot more out of these establishments if you pay attention to them in the context of the film, especially this one, and how they correspond to the rest of what you are seeing.

I mean the camera is interested in all aspects of the environment rather than just the characters. It's a film about environment just as much as it is about the characters.


I'm not sure where it would feel "padded". In fact, I would say the first half is poignant, but only when we reach the second half, which is more bitter. It's never "padded" though, I don't think. Everything there has a purpose to the inner-workings of Weerasethakul's vision. If anything, it's too short.

I didn't mean that any of the scenes lacked purpose, simply that they felt less thoughtfully constructed than others, thus padded, thus less engaging.


Yeah, but as I wrote when I first saw the movie, while it may be Joe's own, it's easy to draw our own conclusions about what we are seeing and look at places in our lives that have changed over time.

I was more referring to it coming across as an original piece at the very least.

[Derek]

The third season of Mad Men's going to be better. Calling it here first.

The third season of Mad Men is going to be better than most things in existence, on and off television, from August through the fall.

[MacGuffin]

Didn't notice it was a trend. I just found your post to be overly assumptive as if anyone who made 2 or 3 films about time and memory would obviously have those themes down pat. I found it strange because many great directors have spent their entire careers hammering away at only a couple major themes, but you're right, I could've articulated that rather given you the confused look.

I don't think he has those themes down. I don't think Syndromes and a Century is a masterpiece like Tropical Malady, but I do think that it is an excellent movie. I do, however, as I said, think that he has an understanding of these themes, however full that understanding may be. The person watching the movie may have a different experience, but I got a lot out of the ideas on display in the movie.

[Qrazy]

The third season of Mad Men's going to be better. Calling it here first.

Meh, maybe I'll watch the first two then. But that's a big maybe.

[Amnesiac]

The third season of Mad Men's going to be better. Calling it here first.

I can't wait for this. I wish it wasn't starting in late August. That's lame.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, it's my first full length film of his. Not sure why you're preaching.

Not really "preaching", just pointing out. Definitely see Tropical Malady.


I mean the camera is interested in all aspects of the environment rather than just the characters. It's a film about environment just as much as it is about the characters.

I think it's more a movie about environments rather than characters. The director is probably more of a central character as it were, than any of the characters in the movie.


I didn't mean that any of the scenes lacked purpose, simply that they felt less thoughtfully constructed than others, thus padded, thus less engaging.

Apologies, but I always thought padded meant something like filler, as in, it's just there as padding; it's just there to fill blank space. I don't think any of the scenes are less thoughtfully constructed than any others, because basically, if I remember correctly, all of the scenes in each half mirror one another in some way.


I was more referring to it coming across as an original piece at the very least.

Aside from his other stuff, I certainly haven't seen anything like it. At least, not that I know of right now.

[Qrazy]

What is it with you and "framing?" I never know what the heck you're talking about.

Also, I think the film is about a bit more than merely the military routine.

So which Bergman's have you seen (rank/rate)? It's funny, I know a few people like you who aren't that fond of him but then there's one of his films which is high on their favorites. For you and another person it's Persona, then for another it's Cries and Whispers, for another it's Wild Strawberries and for the last it's The Seventh Seal.

[Derek]

Not really "preaching", just pointing out. Definitely see Tropical Malady.

The phrase "Well, yeah, of course" is not pointing out, it's presumptive and directly contradicts you later saying "I don't think he has those themes down." I guess I was looking for clarification as to why you'd say "You'd think by two, arguably three movies about the concepts, he'd have an understanding of time and memory". To me, that sounds like you're saying any director making two or three films about those themes should automatically have them down pat.

I do second the rec of Tropical Malady which is easily my favorite Joe film.


And Qrazy, just watch Mad Men goddamnit.

[balmakboor]

Hmmm, Kubrick. My top four are definitely Full Metal Jacket, Eyes Wide Shut, Barry Lyndon, and Dr. Strangelove.

[MacGuffin]

The phrase "Well, yeah, of course" is not pointing out, it's presumptive and directly contradicts you later saying "I don't think he has those themes down." I guess I was looking for clarification as to why you'd say "You'd think by two, arguably three movies about the concepts, he'd have an understanding of time and memory". To me, that sounds like you're saying any director making two or three films about those themes should automatically have them down pat.

Sorry, I had figured Brightside saw more than just that full-length, as he went to the trouble of watching Phantoms of Nabua twice. My original post said that he has an understanding of those themes, which doesn't necessarily means he has a complete understanding of those themes. I don't think he should have a full understanding of themes, but I think he should have an understanding, since he spent time with them.

[B-side]

Not really "preaching", just pointing out. Definitely see Tropical Malady.

I find myself liking his short film Phantoms of Nabua more and more with time. I enjoy it more than Syndromes, and I think the condensed running time helps. We'll see how I feel about this one given some time.


I think it's more a movie about environments rather than characters. The director is probably more of a central character as it were, than any of the characters in the movie.

Sounds about right.


Apologies, but I always thought padded meant something like filler, as in, it's just there as padding; it's just there to fill blank space. I don't think any of the scenes are less thoughtfully constructed than any others, because basically, if I remember correctly, all of the scenes in each half mirror one another in some way.

Padded could mean filler, yes, so it's a bit more critical than what I intended.


Aside from his other stuff, I certainly haven't seen anything like it. At least, not that I know of right now.

Yup.

[Qrazy]

And Qrazy, just watch Mad Men goddamnit.

OK, but only because you watched My Friend Ivan Lapshin.

[B-side]

Sorry, I had figured Brightside saw more than just that full-length, as he went to the trouble of watching Phantoms of Nabua twice.

I used it as my intro to Joe. Liked it and was curious enough as to its thematic content to wanna see it again. I find myself desiring a 3rd watch.

[MacGuffin]

I used it as my intro to Joe. Liked it and was curious enough as to its thematic content to wanna see it again. I find myself desiring a 3rd watch.

Yeah, and I didn't know that. It's part of his video art, which is not highly seen by even his fans, so I figured you had some prior knowledge of his work that caused you to want to see the video art.

[B-side]

Yeah, and I didn't know that. It's part of his video art, which is not highly seen by even his fans, so I figured you had some prior knowledge of his work that caused you to want to see the video art.

It was kinda random. I had known of him for a while beforehand, but hadn't dived in. C-Misch from RT found Phantoms and linked it so I figured I'd check it out.

[Bosco B Thug]

Yeah well it's about a number of things that I didn't touch upon but I do think it focuses primarily on military routine and surrounding themes. Using military routine as an emotional escape, juxtaposing dancing clumsiness (initially at least) with physical stamina and fluidity, routine as that which defines a life and being at a loss as to what to do without it, etc. The film also explores loneliness, duty, jealousy, racial and sexual politics, etc.

I agree that my filmic articulation skills could be a bit more to the point. By framing in this case at least I just mean that she has a very minimalist aesthetic. There doesn't tend to be that much movement in the frame at any given time, there isn't much three dimensionality or scope to the images (which isn't to say there isn't any use of perspective, there is), compositions are very to the point and focused almost expressly on bodies or bodies against landscapes. Which is not to say there's anything inherently wrong with any of this it's just sparse and I prefer there to be more points of reference to a composition or more business or staggered movement to the mise-en-scene... points of reference or in some cases texture can also be achieved purely through lighting... so in the case of a close-up there will be shadows or greater gradation across a face. I clarify this because I think Dreyer's Passion of Joan of Arc is really well shot/framed and it's almost all close-ups, but those close-ups are extremely visually communicative often as a result of the way faces are staggered in the frame but also because of lighting.

Don't get me wrong I think Beau Travail is well lit and I particularly enjoyed the color scheme. I find Denis imagery more purposive than Loach's for instance. But aside from a few cases of layered (for my purposes using more than one plane) imagery (for instance Clipper's avatar) the compositions are too I don't know... minimal is really the word... for my taste. I get ya, Qrazy. I get ya. *meaningful nod* The comparison to 'Joan of Arc' and the coining "visually communicative" = yeah, totally.

[balmakboor]

Beyond Therapy (Robert Altman, 1987) - 7

Did you review this anywhere? Your rating seems so out of whack with most everything I've ever heard or read that I'm curious about your thoughts.

I've never seen it.

[Qrazy]

I get ya, Qrazy. I get ya. *meaningful nod* The comparison to 'Joan of Arc' and the coining "visually communicative" = yeah, totally.

Sweetness. :)

[MacGuffin]

balmakboor, what is your avatar from?

[balmakboor]

balmakboor, what is your avatar from?

WR

[megladon8]

Porco Rosso (Miyazaki, 1992) 86


Awesome! I really liked this one, too.

Did you watch it with the English dub, or the original Japanese track?

I actually thought this was one of the stronger English dubs for the Ghibli stuff - I really liked Michael Keaton's voice here.

Actually, I generally have no problem listening to the English dubs of the Studio Ghibli films. I have yet to come across one that I felt was "bad".

[MacGuffin]

WR

Ah, damnit! I may have to buy this one, but only after giving Sweet Movie another try (I turned it off after the woman started seducing those kids, but I'm sure I probably missed the point).

[balmakboor]

Ah, damnit! I may have to buy this one, but only after giving Sweet Movie another try (I turned it off after the woman started seducing those kids, but I'm sure I probably missed the point).

Definitely try to see WR. It and Sweet Movie are very different.

[MacGuffin]

Definitely try to see WR. It and Sweet Movie are very different.

Okay, will do, especially if I can find it cheap/used. But what are your thoughts on Sweet Movie? I really want to think it is more than shock for shock's sake, and since it is the only one readily available to me through Netflix, I figure I should gather as much knowledge about it as I feel necessary before attempting to watch it again.

[balmakboor]

Okay, will do, especially if I can find it cheap/used. But what are your thoughts on Sweet Movie? I really want to think it is more than shock for shock's sake, and since it is the only one readily available to me through Netflix, I figure I should gather as much knowledge about it as I feel necessary before attempting to watch it again.

I should watch it again before offering too much. I know it went over my head at times. I also didn't find it as cinematically exhilarating as WR. One thing I didn't find it to be though was especially shocking. And much of it is oddly beautiful like the amazing chocolate ending.

[MacGuffin]

I should watch it again before offering too much. I know it went over my head at times. I also didn't find it as cinematically exhilarating as WR. One thing I didn't find it to be though was especially shocking. And much of it is oddly beautiful like the amazing chocolate ending.

Okay, thanks, I'll probably give it another try this weekend and let you know how it goes. I think I may have been wrong to turn it off; even if the content is off-putting, I think the art deserves enough respect to have it experience in full, don't you? Anyways, Google Makavejev's Sweet Movie and you'll get an essay on the movie from Senses of Cinema, if you're interested.

[balmakboor]

Okay, thanks, I'll probably give it another try this weekend and let you know how it goes. I think I may have been wrong to turn it off; even if the content is off-putting, I think the art deserves enough respect to have it experience in full, don't you? Anyways, Google Makavejev's Sweet Movie and you'll get an essay on the movie from Senses of Cinema, if you're interested.

Yep, I've read that essay. I just hate the idea of responding to someone's request for my thoughts on a movie by handing them a link. I'd rather see it again and try to offer something more original of my own.

Is Coca-Cola Kid still available through Netflix? It's pretty good and may be more to your liking than Sweet Movie.

[MacGuffin]

Yep, I've read that essay. I just hate the idea of responding to someone's request for my thoughts on a movie by handing them a link. I'd rather see it again and try to offer something more original of my own.

Is Coca-Cola Kid still available through Netflix? It's pretty good and may be more to your liking than Sweet Movie.

Understandable. And yeah, it is, I'll have to give that one a try, too.

[B-side]

Awesome! I really liked this one, too.

Did you watch it with the English dub, or the original Japanese track?

I actually thought this was one of the stronger English dubs for the Ghibli stuff - I really liked Michael Keaton's voice here.

Actually, I generally have no problem listening to the English dubs of the Studio Ghibli films. I have yet to come across one that I felt was "bad".

Like I was saying to Qrazy, it was far more political than I've come to expect from Miyazaki. I loved how it wonderfully evoked classic Hollywood and the times, misogyny and all. Porco's guilt and the horrors of war manifesting themselves inside Porco rendering him a pig feels devastating, and he's appropriately bitter and reclusive. I think Miyazaki had fun playing with the noir/loner archetype, perhaps making him a pig as backlash toward the aforementioned misogyny of the era. And I watched the English dub. I agree that Ghibli seem to excel at dubs. I rather liked Keaton's voice for Porco. Can't really think of anyone that didn't fit.

[Derek]

Okay, will do, especially if I can find it cheap/used. But what are your thoughts on Sweet Movie? I really want to think it is more than shock for shock's sake, and since it is the only one readily available to me through Netflix, I figure I should gather as much knowledge about it as I feel necessary before attempting to watch it again.

Here (http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/487)'s a place to start. I like Sweet Movie, but absolutely loved WR which is more in the vain of Godard's political essay films. It's a little bit more rambunctious and freeflowing. Been quite a few years since I've seen either, so I should give them another go on the Criterion disks.

[Bosco B Thug]

Did you review this anywhere? Your rating seems so out of whack with most everything I've ever heard or read that I'm curious about your thoughts.

I've never seen it. Well, I wrote a blurb. Modified:

Beyond Therapy - Yeah, Altman's style is just too lyrical and sweeping to give this less than a 7... even if the film makes very little in the way of concluding, transcendent statements and this film probably shows off the worst of Altman's tendency for puerile caricature. There's too much silliness here to make the film work dramatically, but if that final scene (starting with the hilarious "shoot em up") doesn't tie things up nicer than the film would lead you to expect. Glenda Jackson's performance is fantastic and hilarious.

But there's lots of reasons not to like it, so it all depends on how much of a sucker you are for Altman.

[MacGuffin]

Here (http://www.criterion.com/current/posts/487)'s a place to start. I like Sweet Movie, but absolutely loved WR which is more in the vain of Godard's political essay films. It's a little bit more rambunctious and freeflowing. Been quite a few years since I've seen either, so I should give them another go on the Criterion disks.

Oh, yeah I saw that, will have to read it. Your comparison to Godard practically has me sold.

[Qrazy]

Ah, damnit! I may have to buy this one, but only after giving Sweet Movie another try (I turned it off after the woman started seducing those kids, but I'm sure I probably missed the point).

Sweet Movie is not a good movie but it has a few good scenes. WR is a pretty good movie. I suggest watching it instead of giving Sweet Movie another shot.

[MacGuffin]

Sweet Movie is not a good movie but it has a few good scenes. WR is a pretty good movie. I suggest watching it instead of giving Sweet Movie another shot.

Well, in order to see WR: Mysteries of the Organism, I'd have to buy it. So I'm going to see Sweet Movie first so if I like it, I can at least justify the purchase even more.

[Qrazy]

Well, in order to see WR: Mysteries of the Organism, I'd have to buy it. So I'm going to see Sweet Movie first so if I like it, I can at least justify the purchase even more.

I thought you had a karagarga account? Just get it there.

[MacGuffin]

I thought you had a karagarga account? Just get it there.

Nah, I'd rather support Criterion in these difficult times. I'm down with KG, but only when there is no other way to see the movie on a Region 1 DVD.

[number8]

The idea of someone calling Zack Snyder's Watchmen subtle and artful makes me want to rape a blind Secret Service agent in the mouth.

[Qrazy]

Nah, I'd rather support Criterion in these difficult times. I'm down with KG, but only when there is no other way to see the movie on a Region 1 DVD.

Fair enough.

---

Wild Strawberries - This strikes me as a formative work for Bergman. He lacks the confidence of expression here present in his later work. That is to say where in his later work a dream reality would be a fundamental element of the film, here if there's a flashback or a dream sequence we are told as much and as such they are appear in isolation from the rest of the film. It's wholly unnecessary and I'm glad he later learned to trust his audience. The dreams themselves have a stilted and somewhat on the nose quality which detracts from their potential poignancy.

The secondary characters are also thinly sketched (car accident couple, three youngers) at least by Bergman standards and only serve the obvious goal of reflecting the life and concerns of the protagonist. Strangely enough in one scene (with the car accident couple) Professor Borg (although presumably awake) is left entirely out of the frame and ignored completely. I'm also not too sure about the overall structure of the story in relation to a car drive. Since there's very little space in a car conversations which take place in cars tend to be visually monotonous. While Bergman does his best with this difficulty this is still the case here. On the plus side the protagonist Isak Borg is played wonderfully by Victor Sjöström and Bergman's pet themes of guilt, regret, faith and death mesh very well with the story of an old man in the twilight of his life. So, it's a frequently moving but ultimately problematic Bergman outing.

[Derek]

The idea of someone calling Zack Snyder's Watchmen subtle and artful makes me want to rape a blind Secret Service agent in the mouth.

Wouldn't it be more fair to the Secret Service agent if you did that to person who actually said it? Or would you make that person watch, so they'd have to live with the guilt of knowing they made an innocent person suffer such gruesome, demeaning treatment?

Who actually called it "subtle" and "artful" anyway?

[MacGuffin]

Speaking of Victor Sjöström, Qrazy, I do recommend the masterpiece The Phantom Carriage, a haunting, haunting movie that Ingmar Bergman loved (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgHUJM8MwmE&feature=PlayList&p=815E41EAA0AA68C0&index=17).

[number8]

Wouldn't it be more fair to the Secret Service agent if you did that to person who actually said it? Or would you make that person watch, so they'd have to live with the guilt of knowing they made an innocent person suffer such gruesome, demeaning treatment?

It'll be televised.


Who actually called it "subtle" and "artful" anyway?

The guy who wrote the review Buff posted in the last page.

[MacGuffin]

Speaking of Victor Sjöström, Qrazy, I do recommend the masterpiece The Phantom Carriage, a haunting, haunting movie that Ingmar Bergman loved (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgHUJM8MwmE&feature=PlayList&p=815E41EAA0AA68C0&index=17).

Ha, I was just watching that clip. It's been a while since I last saw the movie, and so I didn't exactly remember the scene they were show, but wow, it sure is masterful filmmaking. The images are so engrossing. The carriage over the ocean is a seriously haunting image. You can see why Bergman likes this movie, even if he claims to not understand it.

[Qrazy]

Speaking of Victor Stöström, Qrazy, I do recommend the masterpiece The Phantom Carriage, a haunting, haunting movie that Ingmar Bergman loved (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IgHUJM8MwmE&feature=PlayList&p=815E41EAA0AA68C0&index=17).

Nice, I find Bergman often way too dismissive of films and filmmakers but I appreciate his love for Tarkovsky. I've been meaning to see The Phantom Carriage for a while so I'll prioritize it. I'd also like to see He Who Gets Slapped and The Wind.

[Dead & Messed Up]

The idea of someone calling Zack Snyder's Watchmen subtle and artful makes me want to rape a blind Secret Service agent in the mouth.

:lol:

"Everything they do is so flamboyant...it makes me want to set myself on fire!"

[Qrazy]

Ha, I was just watching that clip. It's been a while since I last saw the movie, and so I didn't exactly remember the scene they were show, but wow, it sure is masterful filmmaking. The images are so engrossing. The carriage over the ocean is a seriously haunting image. You can see why Bergman likes this movie, even if he claims to not understand it.

Well I think he claims to have not understood it when he saw it as a young boy.

[MacGuffin]

Well I think he claims to have not understood it when he saw it as a young boy.

That's probably right. By the way, I googled those two movies you mentioned and they both sound really good; He Who Gets Slapped, especially. I need to see a Lou Chaney movie because everyone seems to consider him one of the best actors. I already know Lilian Gish is a pretty good actor because I saw her in Broken Blossoms.

[Beau]

Syndromes and a Century has an effective and somewhat interesting approach to exploring time and space within its realm of memory. Weerasethakul's camera is curious and enjoys establishing environment. I'm not entirely sure how interesting it all is to actually watch, but it feels... different. Sometimes it's poignant, sometimes it feels padded. The framing feels thoughtful and the acting appropriately muted. If nothing else, the film feels entirely Joe's own, wrapped up tightly in his memories and perceptions.

At least you liked it. I thought you might not, so this is a pleasant surprise. It's one of my favorite films, so obviously I disagree with a lot of your complaints, and I particularly disagree that it's not as good as Phantoms, which I outright didn't care for. I'm still glad your score is positive.

[B-side]

At least you liked it. I thought you might not, so this is a pleasant surprise. It's one of my favorite films, so obviously I disagree with a lot of your complaints, and I particularly disagree that it's not as good as Phantoms, which I outright didn't care for. I'm still glad your score is positive.

I found Phantoms to be a more poetic and transfixing experience. I like the way it feels. The lights. Oh, the lights.

[MacGuffin]

I found Phantoms to be a more poetic and transfixing experience. I like the way it feels. The lights. Oh, the lights.

This is the reason I refuse to watch it on a computer screen. If I am encouraged enough to find a way to put it on my TV, maybe I will.

[B-side]

This is the reason I refuse to watch it on a computer screen. If I am encouraged enough to find a way to put it on my TV, maybe I will.

A TV will help the experience, but it's certainly worth checking out on your computer.

[MacGuffin]

A TV will help the experience, but it's certainly worth checking out on your computer.

I'm sure, but I can't help but feel I wouldn't be getting the whole experience that I could considering my TV display is four times the size of my laptop display.

[B-side]

I'm sure, but I can't help but feel I wouldn't be getting the whole experience that I could considering my TV display is four times the size of my laptop display.

Understandable.

[Beau]

I found Phantoms to be a more poetic and transfixing experience. I like the way it feels. The lights. Oh, the lights.

I disagree so strongly there's an abyss right now between us, and the abyss is dark, and there's this smell coming out of it, as if at the bottom of the abyss there were never ending rows of people playing Zork, people who have been playing Zork for the last two hundred years and still haven't become Master Adventurers.

[B-side]

I disagree so strongly there's an abyss right now between us, and the abyss is dark, and there's this smell coming out of it, as if at the bottom of the abyss there were never ending rows of people playing Zork, people who have been playing Zork for the last two hundred years and still haven't become Master Adventurers.

I don't get the reference, so I'll just throw out an obligatory gesture of amusement to placate your ego.

[Qrazy]

Let's all go hang out in The History of the Arkanar Massacre thread. I feel good there. I feel at home.

[Spinal]

I disagree so strongly there's an abyss right now between us, and the abyss is dark, and there's this smell coming out of it, as if at the bottom of the abyss there were never ending rows of people playing Zork, people who have been playing Zork for the last two hundred years and still haven't become Master Adventurers.

> examine abyss

[soitgoes...]

Nice, I find Bergman often way too dismissive of films and filmmakers but I appreciate his love for Tarkovsky. I've been meaning to see The Phantom Carriage for a while so I'll prioritize it. I'd also like to see He Who Gets Slapped and The Wind.
The Wind is very good, as is The Scarlet Letter and The Monastery of Sandomir. I haven't seen He Who Gets Slapped yet.

[origami_mustache]

Nice, I find Bergman often way too dismissive of films and filmmakers but I appreciate his love for Tarkovsky. I've been meaning to see The Phantom Carriage for a while so I'll prioritize it. I'd also like to see He Who Gets Slapped and The Wind.

He Who Gets Slapped is a favorite of mine. I liked it better than The Phantom Carriage. Still need to get around to watching The Wind.

[NickGlass]

Unlike Tel Aviv. I've yet to see an Israeli film where the characters didn't live in ugly concrete buildings.

Very true, and one can be seen in theaters soon: $9.99. The ugly concrete buildings are made of clay, though, in an existential, stop-motion film that was co-written by Etgar Keret. It's certainly my kind of Miranda-July-by-way-of-Woody Allen film, packed with thoughtful, witty, quasi-precious observations on life.

[Beau]

I don't get the reference, so I'll just throw out an obligatory gesture of amusement to placate your ego.

Zork is a famous text-adventure video-game, probably the most famous. The meaning behind that reference was that it seemed like playfully way to point out our divergence of opinions. I don't know what I did to deserve the "placate your ego" comment. I guess I was being condescending again. I know I always like to bring out Zork when I want to put people down. "Hey, you, fattie! You're such a failure in life, you can't even get past the troll." That always gets them.

[D_Davis]

You are likely to be eaten by a grue.

[Sycophant]

> examine abyss

This brought joy to my soul.

[Russ]

Since we don't have a film trivia thread, I'll post it here:

Can anyone guess what famous American filmmaker served as an usher at the Presidential Inaugaration of John F. Kennedy (20 January 1961)?

[Qrazy]

Zork is a famous text-adventure video-game, probably the most famous. The meaning behind that reference was that it seemed like playfully way to point out our divergence of opinions. I don't know what I did to deserve the "placate your ego" comment. I guess I was being condescending again. I know I always like to bring out Zork when I want to put people down. "Hey, you, fattie! You're such a failure in life, you can't even get past the troll." That always gets them.

I think he meant the comment jocularly rather than snidely.

[Beau]

I think he meant the comment jocularly rather than snidely.

I hope so.

[Rowland]

So yeah, I watched the first 20 minutes of Mortal Kombat Annihilation on some cable channel for shits and giggles the other day. Makes the original and its carbon copy DOA (both which I like) look like Rohmer. I reeaally wish I could watch it from the perspective of someone with no foreknowledge of the games or even the first movie. :lol:

[balmakboor]

Since we don't have a film trivia thread, I'll post it here:

Can anyone guess what famous American filmmaker served as an usher at the Presidential Inaugaration of John F. Kennedy (20 January 1961)?

Oliver Stone?

[balmakboor]

David Lynch

[Sycophant]

John Frankenheimer?!

[Qrazy]

I suggest we start a new trivia thread rather than do this here.

[Russ]

David Lynch
Yup, according to IMDb.

[Rowland]

Due to being dirt-poor at the moment, I've put my Netflix on hold along with all other frivolous expenditures until I get my finances in order. I'm kinda excited in a way, because it'll force me to spend more time with the many classics I have recorded on my DVR. Oh, TCM... you make my heart sing.

[Grouchy]

The Lives of Others is a potent film with a very intelligent, calculated script. The directing is very detailed, bringing up small things (the ink in the typewriter, the minister's infatuation with the actress) that will later prove to be absolutely crucial to the plot. Ulrich Mühe is a fucking wonder, subtly underlining his transformation with nothing but swift eye moves and silence. The best scene for me was when Dreyman played the piano sonata and the agent was moved, but I think the scene would have been 50 times more effective if they'd used a real piano sonata by Beethoven or Chopin instead of an original composition. I'm not sure how good the thriller structure of this will hold up to repeat viewings, but it's obviously a very good film and its message about a totalitarian surveillance state is creepily valid as far as our modern "democracy" countries go.

[B-side]

I hope so.

I was kidding.

You know I love you, Beau. Condescension and all.:P

[Pop Trash]

Has anyone here seen Barbara Loden's Wanda from 1970? It's definately an early independent curio. It inevitably gets compared to Cassavetes and early Scorsese or Bob Rafelson (one critic said "it makes Five Easy Pieces seem like an action flick" which made me laugh) but it seems more like Bonnie and Clyde remade by Chantal Akerman. It rambles a bit too much and seems too unfocused for me to say it's a great movie, but it's interesting and sticks in the mind.

I also couldn't quite figure out what Loden was trying to say. I suppose some feminist statement about women wanting to break free from the domestic life of hubby and kids, only to be even more disillusioned by other, more "exciting" men could be extracted but it's pretty open to interpretation.

Recommended for fans of the afore mentioned films/filmmakers or if you are interested in American independent/"New Hollywood" films of the late 60s/early 70s. Or if you are wanting to see more films by women directors in general (it's no Wendy and Lucy IMO) but I would never call it required viewing by any means.

[Beau]

I was kidding.

You know I love you, Beau. Condescension and all.:P

:: hugs ::

[Qrazy]

Has anyone here seen Barbara Loden's Wanda from 1970? It's definately an early independent curio. It inevitably gets compared to Cassavetes and early Scorsese or Bob Rafelson (one critic said "it makes Five Easy Pieces seem like an action flick" which made me laugh) but it seems more like Bonnie and Clyde remade by Chantal Akerman. It rambles a bit too much and seems too unfocused for me to say it's a great movie, but it's interesting and sticks in the mind.

I also couldn't quite figure out what Loden was trying to say. I suppose some feminist statement about women wanting to break free from the domestic life of hubby and kids, only to be even more disillusioned by other, more "exciting" men could be extracted but it's pretty open to interpretation.

Recommended for fans of the afore mentioned films/filmmakers or if you are interested in American independent/"New Hollywood" films of the late 60s/early 70s. Or if you are wanting to see more films by women directors in general (it's no Wendy and Lucy IMO) but I would never call it required viewing by any means.

I believe Boner M is a big fan.

[Sven]

Does anyone want to provide criticisms of The Butcher Boy? I asked in the Jordan thread, but nobody responded.

[balmakboor]

Does anyone want to provide criticisms of The Butcher Boy? I asked in the Jordan thread, but nobody responded.

Netflix just shipped it my way. I'll be ready and able soon. May take a week though. I'll be camping near Seattle for about a week and plan to do nothing but swim and read.

[B-side]

:: hugs ::

Hugging me out of pity, eh? I swear, it never stops with you...

:D

[baby doll]

Or if you are wanting to see more films by women directors in general (it's no Wendy and Lucy IMO)Really, that's the bar for women filmmakers? We've sort of touched on this before, and I'll grant that it's a good film, but it's not like she's trying that hard. It's a vast improvement on Old Joy, but I'd still say she's a bit of an under-achiever. Of course, Agnès Varda has never made an epic so far as I'm aware, but at least she shows a bit more flair behind the camera (check out Cléo de 5 Ã* 7 and Le Bonheur). In fact, Varda even made a film about a female drifter, Sans toi ni loi, that's infinitely superior to Reichardt's film: it's more accomplished as storytelling (the non-linear narrative is full of neat surprises, where Wendy and Lucy moves in a predictable straight line), it's more visually appealing (I guess it isn't fair to compare the north of France with a parking lot in Oregon, but there you are), and Sandrine Bonnaire is much more authentic looking as a poor drifter (be honest: you have kind of a crush on Michelle Williams, don't ya?).

[Raiders]

Has anyone here seen Barbara Loden's Wanda from 1970? It's definately an early independent curio. It inevitably gets compared to Cassavetes and early Scorsese or Bob Rafelson (one critic said "it makes Five Easy Pieces seem like an action flick" which made me laugh) but it seems more like Bonnie and Clyde remade by Chantal Akerman. It rambles a bit too much and seems too unfocused for me to say it's a great movie, but it's interesting and sticks in the mind.

I also couldn't quite figure out what Loden was trying to say. I suppose some feminist statement about women wanting to break free from the domestic life of hubby and kids, only to be even more disillusioned by other, more "exciting" men could be extracted but it's pretty open to interpretation.

Recommended for fans of the afore mentioned films/filmmakers or if you are interested in American independent/"New Hollywood" films of the late 60s/early 70s. Or if you are wanting to see more films by women directors in general (it's no Wendy and Lucy IMO) but I would never call it required viewing by any means.

I loved it. Luckily I had posted my write-up on another site. So, I'll copy and paste it here:

The roots of Barbara Loden's only feature-film as director can be linked directly to Samuel Beckett's classic play "Waiting for Godot." There, two characters meet in the center of a vast emptiness to wait on the mysterious figure named Godot, who never shows himself. Beckett's play famously had little-to-no structure and confounded with its seemingly meaningless rants and obscurity, though of course the play holds up a mirror to whomever is reading it, showing the listlessness which can consume modern man.

Barbara Loden was, up until this film, the trophy wife and actress of director Elia Kazan, a former pin-up star who had moderate success. But clearly, Loden seeked more independence and a greater definition for herself. Thus, she turned to her husband's profession of directing (though she also wrote, produced and starred in this film--marking the first time an American woman ever accomplished the feat). Her work though bears no resemblence to Kazan at all, and many viewers will undoubtedly bring up John Cassavetes, though the distinction between the two is obvious: Cassavetes probed through long scenes of "unedited" intimacy, allowing his characters to ramble through their (and the director's) many thoughts and inhibitions while Loden is always searching. There is little dialogue in the film between characters, rather Loden's camera shows Wanda constantly searching amongst her surroundings for that unattainable freedom she wants.

Lesser filmmakers might have painted Wanda as a symbolic portrait of strength and vitality through oppression, but Loden makes Wanda's ailments distinctly of her own making. There is a hole at the center of her heart, and she found long ago her husband and children didn't fill the void, so she simply stopped loving them and drifted away. Nowadays she searches from man to man, a kind of self-imposed form of prostitution, looking for the connection that might make her whole. Through the use of long tracking shots and distant glances, Loden surrounds Wanda in a sea of barrenness where the local population holds no surprises and the landscape in depressing in its pale, grayish pallete.

When Wanda meets Mr. Dennis, she is so far aloof from the world's predicaments she doesn't even notice he is robbing the bar she has stopped by. After using the bathroom and asking Dennis for a drink, he suddenly decides to buy her a spaghetti dinner. Slowly Loden insinuates Wanda into Dennis' life, and their attraction is odd, violent and intimate. Wanda's attachment to Dennis borders on masochism, but perhaps the cursing and the violence is the reality check she has been seeking, a firm hand to guide her wayward life.

Loden doesn't make the attraction one-sided though, and in the film's most sublime and evocative sequence, Dennis and Wanda stop in a field for a breather during the late afternoon hours. He gets mad at her lack of care for herself, spouting advice clearly the product of a bitter man who has never had much of anything and has turned to stealing it. Loden pits Dennis as Wanda's spiritual opposite, another lost soul looking to purge his emptiness, only his outlet has become robbery instead of prostitution. The scene ends in a moment of transcendent beauty as a nearby father and son fly a radio-controlled plane that zips and zags over Wanda and Dennis as the two rush to follow it, chasing the elusive image in the sky together.

Like Vladimir and Estragon, Wanda is searching for meaning and the raison d'etre for her life. She and Dennis's road trip that is the center of the film is a voyage not to the ultimate destination of a robbery, but a trek through the bleak nothingness in search of happiness and love, perhaps in eachother, perhaps in something they will find in the wilderness. The ending, like Beckett's play, is tragic and hopeless, only continuing the sad cycle that started many years ago, with the eternal milieu only deepening in sadness and pity.

[MacGuffin]

Claire Denis is the greatest female filmmaker in the world, ever.

[baby doll]

Claire Denis is the greatest female filmmaker in the world, ever.Elaine May is pretty awesome (I even like Ishtar), and Lucrecia Martel's first two films, La Ciénaga and The Holy Girl, are both eye-popping and singular works.

[Beau]

... and Lucrecia Martel's first two films, La Ciénaga and The Holy Girl, are both eye-popping and singular works.

Yes!

[MacGuffin]

Elaine May is pretty awesome (I even like Ishtar), and Lucrecia Martel's first two films, La Ciénaga and The Holy Girl, are both eye-popping and singular works.

Which reminds me, I need to see more Lucrecia Martel movies. I saw The Headless Woman at the AFI Fest last year and thought it was excellent. It's very soulful filmmaking, and you could tell by the interview: she didn't seem to know much about the technical aspects of making a movie, like blocking, but the movie still is formally brilliant, I'll say. There's an amazing sequence where the central character steps out of her car just moments after hitting something with it. It's raining, and she steps out of frame so that her head is no longer in the composition, and then Martel cuts to the title card: "The Headless Woman". Wonderful filmmaking, right there.

[Qrazy]

We had the female film director discussion before and not too long ago but at the risk of being redundant... some others I like...

Wertmuller
Akerman
Breillat
Campion
Deren
Kopple
Makhmalfbaf
Muratova
Chytilova
Ramsay

[Dead & Messed Up]

I wish Jill Sprecher directed more. Clockwatchers and 13 Conversations... kick eight kinds of ass.

[baby doll]

CampionToo bad nothing she's done since Sweetie has come close to matching it. (Similarly, I still prefer Ramsay's shorts, Small Deaths and Gasman, to either of her features.)

[Pop Trash]

Really, that's the bar for women filmmakers? We've sort of touched on this before, and I'll grant that it's a good film, but it's not like she's trying that hard. It's a vast improvement on Old Joy, but I'd still say she's a bit of an under-achiever. Of course, Agnès Varda has never made an epic so far as I'm aware, but at least she shows a bit more flair behind the camera (check out Cléo de 5 Ã* 7 and Le Bonheur). In fact, Varda even made a film about a female drifter, Sans toi ni loi, that's infinitely superior to Reichardt's film: it's more accomplished as storytelling (the non-linear narrative is full of neat surprises, where Wendy and Lucy moves in a predictable straight line), it's more visually appealing (I guess it isn't fair to compare the north of France with a parking lot in Oregon, but there you are), and Sandrine Bonnaire is much more authentic looking as a poor drifter (be honest: you have kind of a crush on Michelle Williams, don't ya?).

OK fine yes, yes I do like Michelle Williams and that certainly helps since she is in every frame of Wendy and Lucy and I like her cute haircut. That said, I still think it's a damn near masterpiece, and Michelle Williams did a damn fine job acting (aside from looking cute) I've seen Cleo from 5 to 7 and I still think Wendy and Lucy is a better film. Cleo was good but a bit sappy for a supposed French New Wave classic. I haven't seen Vagabond, but I might someday. Now if you said Bicycle Thieves is better than Wendy and Lucy, I'd probably agree with you.
Also, I have zero problem with the nice, simple, linear structure of Wendy and Lucy. It goes perfectly well with what the film is conveying.

[baby doll]

Cleo was good but a bit sappy for a supposed French New Wave classic.As opposed to a heartless cynic like François Truffaut?

Anyway, I guess I'm just a sap who likes sappy movies.

[Spinal]

This, baby doll, is the thread for "flowing like the waves". The problem with letting you "flow like the waves" in any other thread is that you inevitably end up in a 4-page discussion with Israfael the Black on a subject that has nothing to do with the original thread. I would rather not have that happen in a thread that I'm putting some work into. That's why they're called 'threads' and we don't have one big giant ocean. Have a nice day.

[Qrazy]

Too bad nothing she's done since Sweetie has come close to matching it. (Similarly, I still prefer Ramsay's shorts, Small Deaths and Gasman, to either of her features.)

I've only seen Sweetie and An Angel at My Table and I agree that the former is much better. I haven't seen Ramsay's shorts yet but I have one of them somewhere, probably Gasman.

[balmakboor]

I've only seen Sweetie and An Angel at My Table and I agree that the former is much better. I haven't seen Ramsay's shorts yet but I have one of them somewhere, probably Gasman.

I guess I tend to agree that Sweetie is superior, but I thought An Angel at My Table was pretty damn good all the same.

[Qrazy]

I guess I tend to agree that Sweetie is superior, but I thought An Angel at My Table was pretty damn good all the same.

I did not like it much. It wasn't bad per se but I found it uninvolving.

[Yxklyx]

Which reminds me, I need to see more Lucrecia Martel movies. I saw The Headless Woman at the AFI Fest last year and thought it was excellent. It's very soulful filmmaking, and you could tell by the interview: she didn't seem to know much about the technical aspects of making a movie, like blocking, but the movie still is formally brilliant, I'll say. There's an amazing sequence where the central character steps out of her just moments after hitting something with it. It's raining, and she steps out of frame so that her head is no longer in the composition, and then Martel cuts to the title card: "The Headless Woman". Wonderful filmmaking, right there.

Yeah, I want to see this so bad when I get a chance. Both The Holy Girl and La Ciénaga were very good, especially the former. She reminds me a bit of Antonioni.

[origami_mustache]

We had the female film director discussion before and not too long ago but at the risk of being redundant... some others I like...



Shirley Clark.

[MacGuffin]

Yeah, I want to see this so bad when I get a chance. Both The Holy Girl and La Ciénaga were very good, especially the former. She reminds me a bit of Antonioni.

Yeah, these are both in my local library system, so... which one should I watch first? Edit: You might be right with the comparison, by the way.

[Raiders]

I found The Piano to be just as good as Sweetie (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=1502). Both are terrific, though A Girl's Own Story is my favorite. I didn't care much for Peel and Passionless Moments. I haven't seen anything else.

[Boner M]

Last Chants For a Slow Dance - Like the best no-budget cinema, this $2000 meditation on male loneliness potently drives home the idea that anything you'd need a certain amount of money to film is probably bullshit anyway. As penetrating as any film of its ilk from that decade, Jost mixes Bazinian realism and the improvisatory acting style of Cassavetes (a forerunner to Bela Tarr, perhaps?), along with an extremely rigorous structure that divides the film into a half-dozen disctinct segments that chart the mental disintegration of a severely alienated man in rural America. At one point the central character is lectured by a paranoid lefty in a coffee shop about the tabloid culture used as a means of mass pacification, and the concurrent use of country music interludes throughout the film serves as a thoughtful counterpoint to what we see on screen: could these three-minute compressions of feeling, played at the dives frequented by our subject, be contributing to his alienation by purporting to reflect a reality that he faces, while at the same time being reductive of it? Jost seems to posit his own art as the only balm for his central character's (and others') disconnection: a warts'n'all depiction of their surrounding reality. Chilling and soul-crushing in its pointed monotony, but eventually cathartic. Very keen to see more Jost (I remember dreamdead raving All the Vermeer's in New York, so I think that'll be next).

[Raiders]

Gotta be honest Boner, that sounds awful. But, I'll keep an open mind should the opportunity to watch the film ever present itself. I certainly kind of want to see it now at the least.

[Boner M]

Gotta be honest Boner, that sounds awful. But, I'll keep an open mind should the opportunity to watch the film ever present itself. I certainly kind of want to see it now at the least.
It sounds like a bunch of films you like, though.

EDIT: Re-reading my review does make it sound a bit like a wan lefty diatribe about how much America sucks. But I guess you could reduce a number of awesome films to that description. It's a hell of a lot better and more fascinating than Rob Nilsson's Heat and Sunlight, to name another work by a marginal filmmaker with the same rep as Jost.

[Raiders]

It sounds like a bunch of films you like, though.

But all mixed into one grab-bag. Sounds chaotic. Still, also sounds interesting.

[Qrazy]

Gotta be honest Boner, that sounds awful. But, I'll keep an open mind should the opportunity to watch the film ever present itself. I certainly kind of want to see it now at the least.

It's not good, but I too want to see more Jost. You should probably see The Defiant Ones first though.

[dreamdead]

Last Chants For a Slow Dance ... Chilling and soul-crushing in its pointed monotony, but eventually cathartic. Very keen to see more Jost (I remember dreamdead raving All the Vermeer's in New York, so I think that'll be next).

Yeah, I could see you finding Vermeers to be monotonous, but that cathartic sense was what I was left with. So singular of a film. Definitely will try to track this film of Jost's down.

[Raiders]

You should probably see The Defiant Ones first though.

Alright. I'll move it to the top of my queue since you seem so insistent.

[Boner M]

Actually, now that I think of it, The Brown Bunny is the film that Last Chants... reminds me of most, yet they're both from filmmakers on completely opposite ends of the political spectrum.

[BuffaloWilder]

SEX

Now that I've gotten your attention, what are everybody's thoughts on Stephen Rowley's review site, Cinephobia (http://cinephobia.com/)? I'm a little torn on it, myself.

[Ezee E]

Kathryn Bigelow is the only action woman director that I can think of.

Unless Twilight counts for Hardwicke. :eek:

[Ivan Drago]

Kathryn Bigelow is the only action woman director that I can think of.

Unless Twilight counts for Hardwicke. :eek:

Ugh, Twilight was terribly directed. New Moon will be even more tolerable with Chris Weitz.

Don't give me that look.

[Winston*]

The Boys (Woods, 1998) ***
How come David Wenham is terrifying in this but a weiner in everything else?

[Sycophant]

Lexi Alexander directed Punisher: War Zone.

[Sycophant]

Hardwicke is an awful director. I want the old Chris Weitz back.

[eternity]

Kathryn Bigelow is the only action woman director that I can think of.

Unless Twilight counts for Hardwicke. :eek:
The "action" in Twilight is of Sci-Fi Channel quality.

Karyn Kusama directed Aeon Flux which was action, but that is a piece of crap too.

[Boner M]

How come David Wenham is terrifying in this but a weiner in everything else?
I dunno. Rumor has it that he was so into character on set that Toni Collette had to flee in terror at a certain point. Maybe he went through an extensive de-EXTREEEME!!! process afterwards to turn him into a girlyman.

[B-side]

Should be getting Baraka and Secret Honor today.

[MacGuffin]

Went ahead and watched Import/Export tonight without having seen any of Seidl's other movies. It's an absolutely excellent movie. It has a startling epic feeling, and it's a very tiresome movie, but I think that works to its advantage, because as Boner M. said in his film festival thread a while back, it makes the humanism of the movie (one scene featuring an immigrant working as a maid in an eldery home who makes friends with one of her own descent in quite powerful) much more dominant over the general bleak tone of the movie, which is there throughout. Seidl has a lot on his mind, it would seem, as this is a very bitter movie, but always very thoughtful and obviously provocative. But he's also a master cameraman: his compositions — often symmetrical, well-designed, decorated static shots — are seriously a sight to see (some may make comparisons to Roy Andersson). Anyways, excellent movie.

[Boner M]

^Nice. Seidl's Dog Days is pretty good too, and sometimes excellent, albeit it often veers into unpleasant-with-no-discernible-ends territory in a way that I never felt I/E did.

[MacGuffin]

^Nice. Seidl's Dog Days is pretty good too, and sometimes excellent, albeit it often veers into unpleasant-with-no-discernible-ends territory in a way that I never felt I/E did.

Yeah, I was just reading Michael Sicinski's positive review of I/E and he basically says the same thing about Dog Days as you, but I will probably check that and Jesus, You Know out eventually based on the talent I've seen here.

[Qrazy]

Alright. I'll move it to the top of my queue since you seem so insistent.

Haha I don't think it's amazing but I did like it and it does strike me as similar to many of the films you like so I'm curious to see what you think now.

[balmakboor]

I'll be in Seattle for three or four days next week. Summer Hours is already ending its run today, but there are a few enticing options:

Food, Inc.
Tetro
Every Little Step
Away We Go
Easy Virtue

I'm thinking it'll be a tough choice between Tetro and Away We Go for me. I'll probably let my niece who is about to enter film school decide.

Any sage advice from the field?

[Eleven]

Similarly to balmakboor, a friend and I'll be in NY next week visiting family, and I noticed the NY Asian Film Fest going on. We don't have any kind of set schedule for the week, so news of any cool stuff going cinematically or otherwise would be appreciated. I tend to forget where everybody here is geographically, so I could be asking the wrong people.

[Qrazy]

I'll be in Seattle for three or four days next week. Summer Hours is already ending its run today, but there are a few enticing options:

Food, Inc.
Tetro
Every Little Step
Away We Go
Easy Virtue

I'm thinking it'll be a tough choice between Tetro and Away We Go for me. I'll probably let my niece who is about to enter film school decide.

Any sage advice from the field?

Haven't seen either but I say definitely Tetro. I see no reason to believe Away We Go will be a particularly good film. At best I'm hoping for a mildly interesting diversion. Plus if memory serves you're a pretty big Coppola fan so easy decision I'd say.

[balmakboor]

Haven't seen either but I say definitely Tetro. I see no reason to believe Away We Go will be a particularly good film. At best I'm hoping for a mildly interesting diversion. Plus if memory serves you're a pretty big Coppola fan so easy decision I'd say.

I enjoyed A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (same writer as Away We Go). That's the only thing that attracted me to the movie really.

[Qrazy]

I enjoyed A Heartbreaking Work of Staggering Genius (same writer as Away We Go). That's the only thing that attracted me to the movie really.

Haven't read it. I mean see Away We Go eventually if you feel so inclined. I like Sam Mendes more than most (on here) so I'll probably see it too but I just think you ought to prioritize Tetro. I'm waiting for Where the Wild Things Are to get my dose of Eggers.

[Qrazy]

Under the Volcano - Seen one alcoholic drinks himself to destruction out of guilt, shame, disgust and self-loathing while his interpersonal relationships crumble film seen 'em all... this one was not a particularly good one. Oh wow what a horrible ending. This film sucked.

20 Days Without War - Another excellent German outing. Perhaps my least favorite of the four I've seen from him (only have one more which I can't get a hold of) but it's still a poignant, beautifully shot and interesting examination of war and war cinema. There's an 8 minute or so single take close-up monologue near the beginning of the film. I wonder if Mcqueen (Hunger) saw this film before putting something similar in his own... probably not and it's probably been done elsewhere as well... but it's an effective monologue nonetheless.

[Yxklyx]

Yeah, these are both in my local library system, so... which one should I watch first? Edit: You might be right with the comparison, by the way.

Well watch them both - chronologically is always better I think.

[baby doll]

Actually, now that I think of it, The Brown Bunny is the film that Last Chants... reminds me of most, yet they're both from filmmakers on completely opposite ends of the political spectrum.Do you think Gallo was being serious when he made his conservative Republican remark?

[Qrazy]

Do you think Gallo was being serious when he made his conservative Republican remark?

Probably... 'Gallo has been seen at a New York fashion show with George W. Bush's daughters Barbara and Jenna.'

[lovejuice]

cinefile, my local video store makes these t-shirts which are pretty cool. they are a bit pricey though, $24 each.

http://www.cinefilevideo.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/thumbnails/big_HERZOG.jpg
http://www.cinefilevideo.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/thumbnails/big_Fassbinder.jpg
http://www.cinefilevideo.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/thumbnails/big_bergman.jpg
http://www.cinefilevideo.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/thumbnails/big_SCORSESE.jpg
http://www.cinefilevideo.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/thumbnails/big_OZU.jpg
http://www.cinefilevideo.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/thumbnails/big_BELATARR.jpg
http://www.cinefilevideo.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/thumbnails/big_DePalma.jpg
http://www.cinefilevideo.com/wp-content/uploads/wpsc/product_images/thumbnails/von-trier-tshirt.gif

[NickGlass]

Similarly to balmakboor, a friend and I'll be in NY next week visiting family, and I noticed the NY Asian Film Fest going on. We don't have any kind of set schedule for the week, so news of any cool stuff going cinematically or otherwise would be appreciated. I tend to forget where everybody here is geographically, so I could be asking the wrong people.

There are New Yorkers on this board, but I think there are only two of us. Anyway, other than the New York Asian Film Festival and the usual retrospectives running at the Film Forum (www.filmforum.org), MoMa (http://www.moma.org/visit/calendar/filters/3), and the Anthology Film Archives (http://www.anthologyfilmarchives.org/), there's a mini-fest that just began at BAM (http://bam.org/view.aspx?pid=40) (plainly named BAMcinemaFEST).

They're showing Humpday and Bujalski's latest, Beeswax, this weekend. I'm just mad at my dad because I want to see Beeswax on Sunday but have to celebrate father's day. If only my father was a fan of mumblecore.

[balmakboor]

That Ozu one is pretty crazy.

[origami_mustache]

I bought the Herzog one for my gf a while ago. I love Cinefile.

[BuffaloWilder]

So, I'm thinking about giving WALL-E another look.

What are your thoughts? Watashi?




...Spinal?

[NickGlass]

Away We Go is pretty dreadful. It's very bipolar in its flip-flopping of WACKY/CUTE and SAPPY/SAD, unsure whether to focus on the hyper-self-aware central love story or the oblivious caricatures they encounter on their road trip (natch). Essentially, take a subdued couple with a sense of superiority and then have them meet up with ridiculous stereotypes of society (selfish grandparents, overbearing yuppie hippies, freewheeling Canadian parents); then exploit each caricature--and quickly cut to the couple's deadpan reaction (FUNNY!). Then do that for 100 minutes, with a pretty little song playing in between these instances as they drive on the road in their ramshackle car. Sam Mendes, we hardly knew ye.

I like Maya Rudolph, though.

[Watashi]

Ha ha. Nick saw My Sister's Keeper.

[NickGlass]

Ha ha. Nick saw My Sister's Keeper.

Ha ha. I was forced to see My Sister's Keeper. Not funny.

[number8]

Holy shit, those t-shirts are awesome.

[Amnesiac]

I'd feel really pretentious wearing any one of those shirts.

[baby doll]

I'd just feel fat wearing one of those t-shirts. Even in summer, I like to dress in layers.

[Watashi]

I'd get the Scorsese and Bergman shirts.

[Spinal]

So, I'm thinking about giving WALL-E another look.

What are your thoughts? Watashi?




...Spinal?

Here's the thread. (http://www.match-cut.org/showthread.php?t=311&highlight=wall-e)

[Derek]

I'd feel really pretentious wearing any one of those shirts.

That's silly. Those shirts are great, though I've never seen the von Trier or Scorsese's before.

[MadMan]

Rentals for the weekend/next week:

Library Rentals:
The Atomic Cafe-This is a second viewing. Haven't seen this since high school.
Day for Night-Looks like my kind of movie
Eraserhead-About time I saw this
Le Cercle Rouge-Not putting this off any longer
Walker-Repo Man has me wanting to see more from Alex Cox

Netflix:

He Got Game-Should be good stuff

[Sycophant]

Does it make me too much of a... something? to wish that those director name tee-shirts were original, expressive designs, instead of based on bands that happen to have slightly similar-sounding names or are just conducive to text alteration?

I prefer my Arya Ponto-designed director shirts, at any rate.

[Amnesiac]

That's silly.

Pretentious is not the vibe I would want to give off and those shirts would likely get that sort of reaction. What seems kind of silly is the idea of advertising your eclectic movie tastes on a shirt.

[Winston*]

I'd feel really pretentious wearing any one of those shirts.

God yes.

[baby doll]

Day for Night-Looks like my kind of movie
Eraserhead-About time I saw this
Le Cercle Rouge-Not putting this off any longer
He Got Game-Should be good stuffI liked La Nuit américaine when I saw it in high school, but it's far from Truffaut's most memorable film. (I sense a rating-fest coming on.) Eraserhead is awesome. I need to take another look at Le Cercle rouge, as I just re-watched L'Armée des ombres, which is brilliant. And parts of He Got Game are good stuff. Too bad the kid playing the basketball player is a terrible, terrible actor, and Rosario Dawson (who I like as an actor) has nothing to work with.

[Ezee E]

Ray Allen was a pretty poor director. He Got Game also is the Spike Lee in which he combines two-three of his stories together for one full-length movie. Luckily, it remains enjoyable still. Highly recommended. Probably works better today than it did back then in fact.

[baby doll]

He Got Game also is the Spike Lee in which he combines two-three of his stories together for one full-length movie.Yeah, it's definitely one of his least ambitious movies. I expect no fewer than five storylines per film. (Another rating-fest coming on?)

[Derek]

Ray Allen was a pretty poor director. He Got Game also is the Spike Lee in which he combines two-three of his stories together for one full-length movie. Luckily, it remains enjoyable still. Highly recommended. Probably works better today than it did back then in fact.

I've never seen a Ray Allen-directed film, but I thought he was pretty good in He Got Game. It's upper-tier Spike, IMO.

[baby doll]

I've never seen a Ray Allen-directed film, but I thought he was pretty good in He Got Game. It's upper-tier Spike, IMO.Okay, I can't hold it in any longer:

She's Gotta Have It (1986) / **
School Daze (1988) / **1/2
Do the Right Thing (1989) / ****
Mo' Better Blues (1990) / ***
Jungle Fever (1991) / ****
Malcom X (1992) / ****
Clockers (1995) / ***1/2
Four Little Girls (1997) / ***1/2
He Got Game (1998) / ***
Summer of Sam (1999) / ****
25th Hour (2002) / ****
She Hate Me (2004) / ***1/2
Inside Man (2006) / **
When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts (2006) / ***1/2

And while we're at it...

L'Argent de poche (1976) / ****
La Nuit américiane (1973) / ***
Baisers volés (1968) / ***
La Peau douce (1964) / **
Jules et Jim (1962) / **1/2
Tirez sur le pianiste (1960) / ****
Les Quatre cents coups (1959) / ****

[Wryan]

Okay, I can't hold it in any longer:

She's Gotta Have It (1986) / **
School Daze (1988) / **1/2
Do the Right Thing (1989) / ****
Mo' Better Blues (1990) / ***
Jungle Fever (1991) / ****
Malcom X (1992) / ****
Clockers (1995) / ***1/2
Four Little Girls (1997) / ***1/2
He Got Game (1998) / ***
Summer of Sam (1999) / ****
25th Hour (2002) / ****
She Hate Me (2004) / ***1/2
Inside Man (2006) / **
When the Levees Broke: A Requiem in Four Acts (2006) / ***1/2

And while we're at it...

L'Argent de poche (1976) / ****
La Nuit américiane (1973) / ***
Baisers volés (1968) / ***
La Peau douce (1964) / **
Jules et Jim (1962) / **1/2
Tirez sur le pianiste (1960) / ****
Les Quatre cents coups (1959) / ****

Get on the Bus? You surprise me soori.

[Winston*]

Born on the Fourth of July ***
Mrs. Parker and the Vicious Circle ***
The Usual Suspects **1/2
Bio-Dome *1/2
Half Baked **1/2
The Flintstones in Viva Rock Vegas *

[baby doll]

Get on the Bus? You surprise me soori.I watched about an hour before the disc skipped.

[soitgoes...]

I watched about an hour before the disc skipped.
One of life's biggest disappointments is when you decide to watch a certain film, and Fates conspire against you to make it impossible to finish. Bad discs, wrong discs, scratches, DVR's that don't record the entire film, pathetic subtitles, awful transfers, etc.