28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[baby doll]

I think Park Chan-Wook's films are going to age very well. At the moment, we are living through a post-modern type of cinematic appreciation, where hardcore cinema fans generally seem to want either formal structurialism or a distinct genre investigation - both nice and self-contained, easy to read and to discern the intention of the fiilmaker.

With this in mind, Park's disdain for sticking to a single genre, and his fluid, unpredictable story structure, has meant that a lot of critics automatically dismiss him as semi-incompetent, as if he is chasing structural formalism or genre deconstruction and failing completely. But simply look at the films, and they are (generally - I still hate Cyborg, but that is going to happen from time to time) kinetic, emotional, fully human blasts of satisfying story and resonant themes....just not in a package that is generally accepted by the critical elite at the moment. I say in 25 years from now, he'll be seen as a stone cold master (at least for what he has done till now; it's always possible he may implode, who knows?)Well, I'm not going to say what will or won't age well, since I'm not a psychic, but speaking for myself, I haven't been a huge fan of the three Park films I've seen so far, although Sympathy for Mr. Vengeance seems to me obviously the most accomplished. The grizzly black comedy tone he's going for in all three Vengeance movies is a hard one to maintain, with Oldboy becoming increasingly cartoonish, and Lady Vengeance shooting itself in the foot with a wildly inappropriate scene that just stops the movie dead in its tracks. However, in Mr. Vengeance, he seems to get the balance just right. That said, I'm obviously not qualified to judge the value of his entire oeuvre, or his place in cinema history.

What I take issue with is your characterization of hardcore cinephiles as postmodernists who only want "formal structuralism" or "distinct genre investigation," and that Park is doing something so different that it'll take us some time before we've all caught up to his innovations. A fluid approach to genre and tone is a common characteristic of much commercial South Korean cinema, as on the TV show Boys Before Flowers, which was hugely popular when I was living in Busan, and which seemed to ping-pong between comedy and drama. However, mixing genres and tones doesn't necessarily mean that a film has a "fluid structure," and in fact, the very idea seems to me a contradiction of terms. Incidentally, in Oldboy, the structure couldn't be more firm: Following a series of clues, the protagonist tries to unravel who his tormentors are and what their motives were, so he can avenge himself. Nor am I sure how Park's intent here is less clear-cut than, say, Quentin Tarantino's in Inglourious Basterds, a revenge film that plays somewhat self-consciously with structure (a V-shape narrative that converges in the climatic theatre sequence); mixes tones and genres (World War II movies, spaghetti westerns); and one which you can't read as unambiguously as pro- or anti-revenge--despite which, it was widely accepted by the "cinema elite" (although I'm not entirely sure who they're supposed to be: weekly reviewers, academic critics and scholars, internet nerds--all of whom had a field day with Tarantino's film).

[transmogrifier]

What I take issue with is your characterization of hardcore cinephiles as postmodernists who only want "formal structuralism" or "distinct genre investigation," and that Park is doing something so different that it'll take us some time before we've all caught up to his innovations. A fluid approach to genre and tone is a common characteristic of much commercial South Korean cinema, as on the TV show Boys Before Flowers, which was hugely popular when I was living in Busan, and which seemed to ping-pong between comedy and drama. However, mixing genres and tones doesn't necessarily mean that a film has a "fluid structure," and in fact, the very idea seems to me a contradiction of terms. Incidentally, in Oldboy, the structure couldn't be more firm: Following a series of clues, the protagonist tries to unravel who his tormentors are and what their motives were, so he can avenge himself. Nor am I sure how Park's intent here is less clear-cut than, say, Quentin Tarantino's in Inglourious Basterds, a revenge film that plays somewhat self-consciously with structure (a V-shape narrative that converges in the climatic theatre sequence); mixes tones and genres (World War II movies, spaghetti westerns); and one which you can't read as unambiguously as pro- or anti-revenge--despite which, it was widely accepted by the "cinema elite" (although I'm not entirely sure who they're supposed to be: weekly reviewers, academic critics and scholars, internet nerds--all of whom had a field day with Tarantino's film).

I never said Park was necessarily being innovative - he's simply not as interested in formalism, story structure or genre convention. But it's interesting to see that, in your questioning of how important structuralism and genre is to modern cineastes, you automatically spend the final part of your post desperately trying to establish specific formalist and genre deconstruction examples in Park's films. What's with that?

[Sven]

he's simply not as interested in formalism, story structure or genre convention.

You choose to compliment his own handling of story structure, then you say here that he's not interested in it. I guess I should assume you mean he's not interested in conventional story structure. Because I look at a Park film, and if I see anything, it is that the man is very much indeed a structuralist. He just likes to subvert a lot of things.

[baby doll]

I never said Park was necessarily being innovative - he's simply not as interested in formalism, story structure or genre convention. But it's interesting to see that, in your questioning of how important structuralism and genre is to modern cineastes, you automatically spend the final part of your post desperately trying to establish specific formalist and genre deconstruction examples in Park's films. What's with that?I'm not sure what you mean precisely by "formalism," but in terms of style, the three Park films I've seen have all been fairly slick and professional-looking. As for story structure, perhaps he's not as ambitious as a Tarantino in terms of playing with structure and chronology, but that doesn't mean his films don't have a structure. And aside from his trilogy of revenge movies (the revenge movie being a genre), I know he's also made war movies (JSA) and horror movies (Thirst), which makes him, well, a genre stylist. So the idea that he's not interested in genre, structure, and if not form than at least craftsmanship, is for me counter-intuitive, especially as Park makes movies for mass consumption.

As for "genre deconstruction," whatever that is, I don't think that mixing elements of various genres--either out of an ambition to try something different, or an indifference to the established boundaries between genres--automatically qualifies as "deconstruction," which according to Wikipedia is, "an approach, introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is apparently founded and showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible." I'd be very interested to read an essay explaining how a film (which is, after all, a text) can expose its own contradictions from within. It all sounds very postmodern, but who actually thinks about this stuff while watching a movie?

[transmogrifier]

You choose to compliment his own handling of story structure, then you say here that he's not interested in it. I guess I should assume you mean he's not interested in conventional story structure. Because I look at a Park film, and if I see anything, it is that the man is very much indeed a structuralist. He just likes to subvert a lot of things.

And I assume you see anything not following the typical three-act structure as a deliberate subversion? Because I don't see it. The long wordless sequence that ends Thirst is a resonant component of the story, rather than any particular comment on how other films end, or on how vampire films end.

When I watch a Park film, I see a director (and screenwriter) working with mood, atmosphere, emotion and the kinetic energy of story, not someone too interested in the mechanics of how films fit together.

Of course, Park might come out tomorrow and say that all his films are intended as perfectly sculpted formalist exercises. And if he does, expect the critical reception to be even frostier, because that's not what makes his films such a blast to watch.

[transmogrifier]

I'm not sure what you mean precisely by "formalism," but in terms of style, the three Park films I've seen have all been fairly slick and professional-looking. As for story structure, perhaps he's not as ambitious as a Tarantino in terms of playing with structure and chronology, but that doesn't mean his films don't have a structure. And aside from his trilogy of revenge movies (the revenge movie being a genre), I know he's also made war movies (JSA) and horror movies (Thirst), which makes him, well, a genre stylist. So the idea that he's not interested in genre, structure, and if not form than at least craftsmanship, is for me counter-intuitive, especially as Park makes movies for mass consumption.

As for "genre deconstruction," whatever that is, I don't think that mixing elements of various genres--either out of an ambition to try something different, or an indifference to the established boundaries between genres--automatically qualifies as "deconstruction," which according to Wikipedia is, "an approach, introduced by French philosopher Jacques Derrida, which rigorously pursues the meaning of a text to the point of exposing the contradictions and internal oppositions upon which it is apparently founded and showing that those foundations are irreducibly complex, unstable, or impossible." I'd be very interested to read an essay explaining how a film (which is, after all, a text) can expose its own contradictions from within. It all sounds very postmodern, but who actually thinks about this stuff while watching a movie?

I use formalism as a catch-all for the use of camera and cinematic tropes to produce thematic depth to a story. For example, the use of all those actors in I'm Not There, where the way the film has been made (casting, in that case) makes specific comment on the thematic content of the film. I don't think Park does much of that at all; his films certainly use a lot of flashy tricks, but I think they are more attuned to the emotional energy of the story, rather than expanding on themes.

[B-side]

Which ratings are you going to? our of 10? 100?

*looks at sig*

Out of 100.

:P

[Winston*]

Religulous (Charles, 2008) *** re.
I watched a bit of this recently and it was insufferable. "Religious people be crazy".

[B-side]

I watched a bit of this recently and it was insufferable. "Religious people be crazy".

I think it's funny.

[Sven]

And I assume you see anything not following the typical three-act structure as a deliberate subversion? Because I don't see it.

I don't know how what I said leads to this assumption. There can be a lot of subversion done within a three-act structure and there are well-established structures that do not operate within the traditional three-act one. I am saying that Park's films possess twists and variations on structure. Or at the very least, they practically tear at the audience to pay particular attention to how the story is being told.

BTW, I've only seen JSA and the three revenge films.


When I watch a Park film, I see a director (and screenwriter) working with mood, atmosphere, emotion and the kinetic energy of story, not someone too interested in the mechanics of how films fit together.

His compositions themselves demonstrate a tremendous amount of care and expression.


Of course, Park might come out tomorrow and say that all his films are intended as perfectly sculpted formalist exercises.

Films don't need to be "sculpted" "perfectly" to be formally considered or accomplished, as it seems you are here again trying to imply that I am assuming. Those two words imply an adherence to an established system. It doesn't seem like he's interested in conventional perspectives.

[Sven]

Oh, and I saw The Last Airbender tonite. Oof. Happy Birthday to me... :sad:

[Dead & Messed Up]

Oh, and I saw The Last Airbender tonite. Oof. Happy Birthday to me... :sad:

Aww. I was hoping someone would like the flick.

[Watashi]

Oh, and I saw The Last Airbender tonite. Oof. Happy Birthday to me... :sad:
Jesus Christ.

Why would you go to THAT movie on your birthday?

[transmogrifier]

Jesus Christ.

Why would you go to THAT movie on your birthday?

I too wonder this.

[transmogrifier]

His compositions themselves demonstrate a tremendous amount of care and expression.

No doubt, but in service of atmosphere, story momentum and character shading, not in genre investigation nor formalism.

In fact, I don't think Park has made a genre film yet.

[number8]

QmbNoomxiuk

[Spaceman Spiff]

I too wonder this.

Army has probably called it a masterpiece. The most formally and thematically impressive actioneer since Ecks vs. Sever.

[Sven]

Army has probably called it a masterpiece. The most formally and thematically impressive actioneer since Ecks vs. Sever.

Again, with the poorly aimed Armond jokes. They really ought to stop. If you knew anything about him, you'd know that White hates Shyamalan more than even most do.

[Watashi]

You still haven't answered our question, Sven.

[Dead & Messed Up]

As I recall, Sven liked a few of Night's recent films. That's reason enough to give the film a shot.

[Watashi]

As I recall, Sven liked a few of Night's recent films. That's reason enough to give the film a shot.
Yeah, but on his birthday. Especially when something like Scott Pilgrim is already out.

I'm a huge Shaymalan fan and a HUGE fan of the series and I didn't even waste my time with the film because I saw no redeeming merit from anyone.

[Fezzik]

So....saw Memento yesterday.

What took me so long?

I used to think I wasn't a fan of Nolan, so I considered Inception somewhat of an anomaly.

Then I realized I pretty much loved The Prestige as well, and now Memento.

Maybe I'm just not a fan of his take on Batman.

[Rowland]

Whew. I had to take a break from The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting, it was beginning to make my head spin. About halfway through, I felt like I was finally beginning to make sense of what Ruiz was after, but being sick and over-tired, the work was giving me a headache. :lol:

I'll probably just start from the beginning tonight after work. It's certainly fascinating, enigmatic, and aesthetically appealing enough so that watching the first half hour again won't be a problem.

[MacGuffin]

It really does seem like Ruiz is the cinema world's Jorge Luis Borges.

[Grouchy]

That's a wild comparison to make. I really need to see something by this Raúl Ruiz character.

[MacGuffin]

That's a wild comparison to make. I really need to see something by this Raúl Ruiz character.

While I've only seen one Ruiz movie, the things I've read (titles like "The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting") lead me to believe his movies are very literary and meticulously structured just like Borges' stories are. I guess the closest comparison to what I'm thinking besides Ruiz is Peter Greenaway. That said, I could be completely wrong because I've only cherry-picked Ficciones, but I don't think I am just based on what I know.

[B-side]

Whew. I had to take a break from The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting, it was beginning to make my head spin. About halfway through, I felt like I was finally beginning to make sense of what Ruiz was after, but being sick and over-tired, the work was giving me a headache. :lol:

I'll probably just start from the beginning tonight after work. It's certainly fascinating, enigmatic, and aesthetically appealing enough so that watching the first half hour again won't be a problem.

:D

I certainly wouldn't have recommended it to you right now, but I'd be thrilled if you ended up really liking it.

[Ivan Drago]

After seeing What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? for the first time and finishing a class on Robert Aldrich a couple weeks ago, Aldrich ranked:

Kiss Me Deadly - 9
What Ever Happened To Baby Jane? - 8.5
The Dirty Dozen - 8.5
Too Late The Hero - 8
Twilight's Last Gleaming - 8
The Longest Yard - 8
Attack! - 8
Ulzana's Raid - 7.5
The Big Knife - 7.5
Flight of the Phoenix - 7.5
Emperor of the North - 7.5
Hush, Hush...Sweet Charlotte - 7 (been forever though and want to see again)

EDIT: I know the director's consensus on him was done a year or so ago, but could I still contribute my ratings to it?

[soitgoes...]

Just got Tih Minh. I've been looking forward to it immensely since I saw Les Vampires. Goodbye 6 hours of my future. The beauty with early serials though, is that they are custom made for splitting up over the course of many nights.

[B-side]

Just got Tih Minh. I've been looking forward to it immensely since I saw Les Vampires. Goodbye 6 hours of my future. The beauty with early serials though, is that they are custom made for splitting up over the course of many nights.

That has subs now?

[soitgoes...]

That has subs now?Yes. Apparently they're as complete as possible. A few lines remain illegible.

[B-side]

Yes. Apparently they're as complete as possible. A few lines remain illegible.

Well, that's good news. I've still gotta finish Les Vampires, though.:P

[soitgoes...]

Well, that's good news. I've still gotta finish Les Vampires, though.:PWell if I were you I'd download it now, so you can help give me back the 4 gigs of ratio I burned to get it.

[B-side]

Well if I were you I'd download it now, so you can help give me back the 4 gigs of ratio I burned to get it.

Like you need a ratio boost... :P

[soitgoes...]

Like you need a ratio boost... :PWell no... but yours is almost twice as large as mine.

I think I might be setting myself up for a joke with that comment.

[B-side]

Well no... but yours is almost twice as large as mine.

I think I might be setting myself up for a joke with that comment.

:lol:

My ratio continues to rise daily. I remember back when I needed help from you.;)

[baby doll]

I use formalism as a catch-all for the use of camera and cinematic tropes to produce thematic depth to a story. For example, the use of all those actors in I'm Not There, where the way the film has been made (casting, in that case) makes specific comment on the thematic content of the film. I don't think Park does much of that at all; his films certainly use a lot of flashy tricks, but I think they are more attuned to the emotional energy of the story, rather than expanding on themes.To my way of thinking, that's actually the exact opposite of formalism. For me, I would say that Yasujiro Ozu is a formalist because he took this very generic approach composition and editing: No matter what the scene is, he filmed it in exactly the same way. There's no purpose behind his style; it's simply a pure system. Whereas in I'm Not There., the idea that all these characters are supposed to represent different aspects of Bob Dylan's persona is in fact a kind of thematic alibi for what is essentially a narrative experiment--and in fact, Heath Ledger isn't playing Bob Dylan at all, and that story line is as much about Charlotte Gainsbourg's character as it is about Ledger's. But because of all the allusions to Dylan in the film, the fact that the stories don't add up becomes then a statement about Dylan, as if to say that Dylan himself doesn't add up. So rather than making a pure narrative experiment, like his earlier Posion, here Haynes has a thematic excuse for his structure, and even the various styles that he references.

[Rowland]

While I've only seen one Ruiz movie, the things I've read (titles like "The Hypothesis of the Stolen Painting") lead me to believe his movies are very literary and meticulously structured just like Borges' stories are. I guess the closest comparison to what I'm thinking besides Ruiz is Peter Greenaway. That said, I could be completely wrong because I've only cherry-picked Ficciones, but I don't think I am just based on what I know.I've only seen one other Ruiz, the little-seen Shattered Image, which was a lurid psychodrama in the vein of De Palma, only with a jazzier, more hallucinatory vibe. I don't know if it was much good, but it was the opposite of an academic exercise.

[Skitch]

Sunset Boulevard was a terriffic film. Touch Of Evil was not.

[B-side]

Body Snatchers is the most nicely shot Ferrara I've seen (evidence here (http://www.match-cut.org/showpost.php?p=281580&postcount=74)). The autumnal colors create a soothing warmth at odds with the horror element. Some tedious cliches hold it back from being great, but it's swiftly paced and engaging throughout.

[transmogrifier]

To my way of thinking, that's actually the exact opposite of formalism. For me, I would say that Yasujiro Ozu is a formalist because he took this very generic approach composition and editing: No matter what the scene is, he filmed it in exactly the same way. There's no purpose behind his style; it's simply a pure system. Whereas in I'm Not There., the idea that all these characters are supposed to represent different aspects of Bob Dylan's persona is in fact a kind of thematic alibi for what is essentially a narrative experiment--and in fact, Heath Ledger isn't playing Bob Dylan at all, and that story line is as much about Charlotte Gainsbourg's character as it is about Ledger's. But because of all the allusions to Dylan in the film, the fact that the stories don't add up becomes then a statement about Dylan, as if to say that Dylan himself doesn't add up. So rather than making a pure narrative experiment, like his earlier Posion, here Haynes has a thematic excuse for his structure, and even the various styles that he references.

As much as I hate to discuss the meaning of a single word, as it is kind of pointless, your view of formalism doesn't jibe with a single thing I have ever read on the subject.

[Sven]

As much as I hate to discuss the meaning of a single word, as it is kind of pointless, your view of formalism doesn't jibe with a single thing I have ever read on the subject.

I think yours is the more accurate definition.

[StanleyK]

Spartacus may not feel like a Kubrick movie, but thematically it takes on where Paths of Glory left off, with a more detailed take on dehumanization: in Act I we see men being sistematically broken (much like in Full Metal Jacket), then in Act II they rebel against it, gain freedom and become truly human, and in Act III even though they lose the battle and die they achieve the more important moral victory. I love how the film recognizes not only freedom but also art as intrinsic to humanity, and so we get some amazing sequences where poetry is read in voice-over to images of people chilling in the fields, or Spartacus lamenting his ignorance and proclaiming his desire for culture. Yes, Spartacus is a great movie and a worthy display of Kubrick's skill.

[Qrazy]

Baby Doll, you're absolutely wrong about Ozu not having purpose behind his style.

I'm going to avoid the intricacies of the formalist definition discussion and just say that I would argue Park is very much a formalist director. Any director that cares primarily about the visual and auditory form of the work (above narrative and political concerns) could be categorized as a formalist.

[baby doll]

Baby Doll, you're absolutely wrong about Ozu not having purpose behind his style.

I'm going to avoid the intricacies of the formalist definition discussion and just say that I would argue Park is very much a formalist director. Any director that cares primarily about the visual and auditory form of the work (above narrative and political concerns) could be categorized as a formalist.Maybe not completely, but there's certainly no purpose behind his shooting every single shot with a low camera, or framing his close-ups so that the actors look directly into the camera--all those things that one thinks of as Ozu-esque--nor do I think should there be. To use another example, we're used to seeing canted angles in film noir but not romantic comedies and musicals, as if the genre somehow provided a justification for them, when really it's purely a technical decision, and the choice to tilt the camera (or not to tilt it) doesn't communicate anything abstract about the "theme" of the film, or anything else.

[megladon8]

So I got a cheap copy of Angels With Dirty Faces off of Amazon because I hadn't seen it in a few years and really wanted to re-watch it.

But, upon watching it last night...I don't think I've ever seen it before.

I know I've rated it on here before, and now I'm very curious what movie I did see and thought was this one.

I guess it's unimportant anyways because I still give it a 10. A brilliant little crime film, this one.

Any other James Cagney film suggestions?

How is White Heat? The Roaring Twenties?

[soitgoes...]

Maybe not completely, but there's certainly no purpose behind his shooting every single shot with a low camera, or framing his close-ups so that the actors look directly into the camera--all those things that one thinks of as Ozu-esque--nor do I think should there be.That's absolutely ridiculous. Of course there's a purpose. Do you think Ozu set his never-moving camera low to the ground for no other reason than because he didn't know what else to do with it? If you've seen his early works, as I believe you have, then you're aware that his method of filmmaking was very reminiscent of Hollywood, and as he grew older he made a conscious decision to change his style. Make no mistake, no matter how austere his style might be, it is still a style. It isn't laziness.

[baby doll]

That's absolutely ridiculous. Of course there's a purpose. Do you think Ozu set his never-moving camera low to the ground for no other reason than because he didn't know what else to do with it? If you've seen his early works, as I believe you have, then you're aware that his method of filmmaking was very reminiscent of Hollywood, and as he grew older he made a conscious decision to change his style. Make no mistake, no matter how austere his style might be, it is still a style. It isn't laziness.Who said anything about laziness? Obviously it was done consciously, but not for the purposes usually ascribed to it (for instance, that his low angles suggests the point of view of a person sitting on a tatami mat, or that the 50mm lens is the closest to the human eye). What we think of as Ozu-esque, his manner of framing and editing, is essentially a rigorous formal system, elegance for the sake of elegance.

[Dukefrukem]

Blu-Ray of Star Wars announced for in 2011 with tons of deleted scenes including this one in Jedi

UdJ0E7HbTKc

[soitgoes...]

Who said anything about laziness? Obviously it was done consciously, but not for the purposes usually ascribed to it (for instance, that his low angles suggests the point of view of a person sitting on a tatami mat, or that the 50mm lens is the closest to the human eye).
The point of my post was that there was a purpose to how Ozu elected to film his movies. You said there wasn't.

[transmogrifier]

Baby Doll, you're absolutely wrong about Ozu not having purpose behind his style.

I'm going to avoid the intricacies of the formalist definition discussion and just say that I would argue Park is very much a formalist director. Any director that cares primarily about the visual and auditory form of the work (above narrative and political concerns) could be categorized as a formalist.

I think Park uses visual and auditory form to maintain story and provide atmosphere and character shading. I've always seen formalism as more a case of using aspects of the cinematic craft to create subtextual meaning and carry thematic purpose beyond the realms of the story and characters. I may be wrong on that definition, but my point is that Park certainly doesn't do much of what I see formalism as being.

[baby doll]

The point of my post was that there was a purpose to how Ozu elected to film his movies. You said there wasn't.I feel like there's a misunderstanding here, though I'm not sure where it is. Anyway, I'm sure it's my fault for either misconstruing what you wrote, or not making myself clear. When I said there was no purpose to Ozu's style, I obviously didn't mean that it wasn't deliberate, and clearly it's very, very deliberate and systematic. I meant purpose in the sense of what transmogrifier is talking about: producing some kind of transcendent thematic meaning.

[BuffaloWilder]

To use another example, we're used to seeing canted angles in film noir but not romantic comedies and musicals, as if the genre somehow provided a justification for them, when really it's purely a technical decision, and the choice to tilt the camera (or not to tilt it) doesn't communicate anything abstract about the "theme" of the film, or anything else.

Well, no - in film noir, canted angles have always been used to, among other things on a more individually film-centric level, imply that the world of the film is currently or is gradually becoming out-of-whack, going askew morally. Nothing is certain. And, that's like a canon definition, and one of the things that so defines the aesthetic of film noir - or indeed any film genre, if you want to get pedantic - is how these specific formal techniques are married to the film's thematic narrative.

And, I've seen canted angles in plenty of musicals and romantic comedies.

[Qrazy]

Who said anything about laziness? Obviously it was done consciously, but not for the purposes usually ascribed to it (for instance, that his low angles suggests the point of view of a person sitting on a tatami mat, or that the 50mm lens is the closest to the human eye). What we think of as Ozu-esque, his manner of framing and editing, is essentially a rigorous formal system, elegance for the sake of elegance.

He does not frame every shot with low angles or make them all POV. You're right that when he does, he does so for general stylistic reasons and not usually for singular thematic expressions. He does so for general thematic reasons and personal aesthetic preference.

"According to Yushun Atsuta, Ozu's cameraman, it was the need for a pictorially balanced composition that dictated the director's camera position: low and almost invariably shooting at right angles to the scene. He remembers Ozu's saying to him; 'You know, Atsuta, it's a real pain trying to make a good composition of a Japanese room--especially the corners. The best way to deal with this is to use a low camera position. This makes everything easier.' ... the low angle made it possible to sharply delineate the various surfaces of the image and to accentuate the one occupied by the actors."

So just as Kubrick favored the tracking shot to express his thematic preoccupations, Ozu favors the low angle to express his preoccupations, namely, family drama and subtle emotional content. It is not elegance for the sake of elegance, his style allows him to concentrate on shot composition and the human face to focus on that which interests him.

[Qrazy]

I think Park uses visual and auditory form to maintain story and provide atmosphere and character shading. I've always seen formalism as more a case of using aspects of the cinematic craft to create subtextual meaning and carry thematic purpose beyond the realms of the story and characters. I may be wrong on that definition, but my point is that Park certainly doesn't do much of what I see formalism as being.

Well agreed that he's not a strict formalist in the way Resnais or Antonioni were. But I would still say that Park does make conscious formal decisions to convey different ideas in different scenes. The long hallway hammer scene in Oldboy isn't only for style and atmosphere. I suppose you could lump it under character shading, but imo using form to express character psychology is what formalism is all about (not exclusively, but certainly frequently).

[MadMan]

QmbNoomxiukShe's pretty. Also, that was quite funny and spot on.

Mulholland Dr. was, well, *Insert Greatness Describe Adjective Here* A review is forth coming, but yes that lived up to expectations.

[MadMan]

So I got a cheap copy of Angels With Dirty Faces off of Amazon because I hadn't seen it in a few years and really wanted to re-watch it.

But, upon watching it last night...I don't think I've ever seen it before.

I know I've rated it on here before, and now I'm very curious what movie I did see and thought was this one.

I guess it's unimportant anyways because I still give it a 10. A brilliant little crime film, this one.

Any other James Cagney film suggestions?

How is White Heat? The Roaring Twenties?White Heat is a classic, and lives up to its reputation. I haven't seen the other two Cagney movies you mentioned. I love The Public Enemy a lot, also.

[baby doll]

Well, no - in film noir, canted angles have always been used to, among other things on a more individually film-centric level, imply that the world of the film is currently or is gradually becoming out-of-whack, going askew morally. Nothing is certain. And, that's like a canon definition, and one of the things that so defines the aesthetic of film noir - or indeed any film genre, if you want to get pedantic - is how these specific formal techniques are married to the film's thematic narrative.

And, I've seen canted angles in plenty of musicals and romantic comedies.And in those musicals and romantic comedies, were the canted angles meant to suggest a world out-of-whack, uncertain, or morally askew? What about East of Eden? It's hard to imagine a universe more Biblically in-whack (whacked?) than that movie's. I think cinematographers discovered a long time ago that it was a striking way of framing a shot, and there are films were it's reserved for dramatically significant shots to heighten their impact, and in others (like The Third Man) are so frequently deployed that one doesn't question them. Not everything has some esoteric, "deep" meaning; sometimes a cigar is just a cigar.

[baby doll]

He does not frame every shot with low angles or make them all POV. You're right that when he does, he does so for general stylistic reasons and not usually for singular thematic expressions. He does so for general thematic reasons and personal aesthetic preference.

"According to Yushun Atsuta, Ozu's cameraman, it was the need for a pictorially balanced composition that dictated the director's camera position: low and almost invariably shooting at right angles to the scene. He remembers Ozu's saying to him; 'You know, Atsuta, it's a real pain trying to make a good composition of a Japanese room--especially the corners. The best way to deal with this is to use a low camera position. This makes everything easier.' ... the low angle made it possible to sharply delineate the various surfaces of the image and to accentuate the one occupied by the actors."

So just as Kubrick favored the tracking shot to express his thematic preoccupations, Ozu favors the low angle to express his preoccupations, namely, family drama and subtle emotional content. It is not elegance for the sake of elegance, his style allows him to concentrate on shot composition and the human face to focus on that which interests him."Personal aesthetic preference"--I couldn't have said it better. Also, I'm not seeing anything in that quote that discredits my argument. He shot from a low angle, in so many words, because it looked good. What does practical problem solving (how does one create a balanced composition that accentuates actors, who are in most cases the intended subject of each shot?) have to do with thematic preoccupations? His family dramas are the physical content of his films, but he need not take such painstaking care in the composition and lighting of shots simply to communicate the subtle emotional content of a scene. You seem to be saying that his grasp of film language is merely functional.

[Dukefrukem]

She's pretty. Also, that was quite funny and spot on.

Mulholland Dr. was, well, *Insert Greatness Describe Adjective Here* A review is forth coming, but yes that lived up to expectations.

Weird that you mentioned Mulholland Dr. Just watched it for the first time last night.

[Qrazy]

"Personal aesthetic preference"--I couldn't have said it better. Also, I'm not seeing anything in that quote that discredits my argument. He shot from a low angle, in so many words, because it looked good. What does practical problem solving (how does one create a balanced composition that accentuates actors, who are in most cases the intended subject of each shot?) have to do with thematic preoccupations? His family dramas are the physical content of his films, but he need not take such painstaking care in the composition and lighting of shots simply to communicate the subtle emotional content of a scene.

You just answered your own question. He is particularly interested in accentuating the faces of his actors precisely because his thematic concerns are the dramatic nuances of family units. He is interested in basic human interaction.

Kubrick on the other hand is frequently interested in distancing the viewer from his human subjects and in expressing the ways in which we frequently become automatons. See the sped-up sex sequence in A Clockwork Orange for example. Alternatively in his use of tracking shots (in many of his films) he simultaneously keeps us near the subject but at arm's length. Other characters float in and out of both the audience's and the character's perception. Our distance from the individual is accentuating all the more when the individual is shot from behind.

Similarly, Ozu does not use low angles solely because they 'look better'. He uses them to focus on his characters as well as to generate more striking compositions, compositions which he fills with significant details. Listen to Roger Ebert's commentary track on Floating Weeds if you want more details as to the functionality of many of his compositions.


You seem to be saying that his grasp of film language is merely functional.

I don't see how that could possibly be construed from anything I just said.

[megladon8]

White Heat is a classic, and lives up to its reputation. I haven't seen the other two Cagney movies you mentioned. I love The Public Enemy a lot, also.


Yes! That's the other one I was thinking of when I was wanting to ask about several Cagney pictures.

Anyone else into Cagney films? Recommendations?

[Wryan]

Maverick is hysterical.

http://www.hotflick.net/flicks/1994_Maverick/994MAV_Jodie_Foster_013.jpg

"I've tried so hard to forget that place..."

[number8]

This is the saddest fucking excuse ever.


"I don't know what's going on with me and the critics in the United States. They've never got me and it's getting worse!" said the filmmaker.

Despite high praise for 1999's The Sixth Sense, which was nominated for six Academy Awards, follow-ups including The Village and Lady In The Water went down like lead balloons.

The writer and director thinks cultural differences may play a part:

"I've always had a European sensibility to my movies, so the pacing is always a little bit off for (Americans). It feels a little stilted, they need more electricity.

"I'm very used to getting on a plane from the US having been savaged by them and going to - in this case - Japan next, and then they're like 'genius!', he added.

[Spinal]

Yeah, that's the problem with Lady in the Water. The European sensibility. Oh brother.

[Watashi]

To be fair, the Japanese have off-the-wall tastes.

I wouldn't take it as a compliment.

[Spinal]

Maybe I should watch the next Shyamalan movie with a foreign language audio track and subtitles. Hmmm. Seriously pondering this as an experiment.

[Wryan]

Who does he think he/his critics is/are? Jerry Lewis/the French?

[Dead & Messed Up]

Man, that denial's so Herculean that it's kind of admirable.

[D_Davis]

I always new I was more smarter than most of the stupid Americans for liking Lady in the Water.

[megladon8]

I always new I was more smarter than most of the stupid Americans for liking Lady in the Water.


I always suspected your sensibilities were more European than anything. Particularly your choice of swim wear.

[Ezee E]

I like that its the European sensibilities that win over the Japanese.

[number8]

I like that its the European sensibilities that win over the Japanese.

They're united against the American cultural ignorance.

[Qrazy]

This is the saddest fucking excuse ever.

Shyamalan gives us his perspective. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C76QBg2p78&feature=player_embedded#!)

[baby doll]

You just answered your own question. He is particularly interested in accentuating the faces of his actors precisely because his thematic concerns are the dramatic nuances of family units. He is interested in basic human interaction.

Kubrick on the other hand is frequently interested in distancing the viewer from his human subjects and in expressing the ways in which we frequently become automatons. See the sped-up sex sequence in A Clockwork Orange for example. Alternatively in his use of tracking shots (in many of his films) he simultaneously keeps us near the subject but at arm's length. Other characters float in and out of both the audience's and the character's perception. Our distance from the individual is accentuating all the more when the individual is shot from behind.

Similarly, Ozu does not use low angles solely because they 'look better'. He uses them to focus on his characters as well as to generate more striking compositions, compositions which he fills with significant details. Listen to Roger Ebert's commentary track on Floating Weeds if you want more details as to the functionality of many of his compositions.

I don't see how that could possibly be construed from anything I just said.Maybe you and I just have different ideas about what's meant by "thematic concerns." If you go by the dictionary definition that a theme is the subject of a work of art, then yes, basic human interactions are the theme of all his films. What transmogrifier was talking about, referencing I'm Not There., is using certain techniques to produce an interpretation (or perhaps more precisely, inventing an interpretation to account for certain techniques, such as the multiple protagonists in Haynes' film).

[MacGuffin]

Shyamalan gives us his perspective. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C76QBg2p78&feature=player_embedded#!)

What a dumbass.

Edit: France's favorite movie right now is The Village? I did not know that.

[Qrazy]

Maybe you and I just have different ideas about what's meant by "thematic concerns." If you go by the dictionary definition that a theme is the subject of a work of art, then yes, basic human interactions are the theme of all his films. What transmogrifier was talking about, referencing I'm Not There., is using certain techniques to produce an interpretation (or perhaps more precisely, inventing an interpretation to account for certain techniques, such as the multiple protagonists in Haynes' film).

All I'm saying is that Ozu uses particular stylistic techniques (particularly the two we've been talking about) that suit his thematic preoccupations, just as Kubrick has his own, Renoir has his own, etc. I wouldn't say that any of these directors are simply using the techniques because they make the image 'look nice'. They're using the techniques to get at that which interests them in any given story or idea. Each of these directors also uses form within the film to make specific statements about particular character psychologies and larger conceptual constructs, but we were only talking about general stylistic traits in relation to Ozu. But if we discuss particulars we can talk about Ozu's specific compositions...

The opening of Floating Weeds...

http://madinkbeard.com/blog/wp-content/images/ozu-weeds1.png

http://madinkbeard.com/blog/wp-content/images/ozu-weeds2.png

As is so often the case with art there is no one right way to interpret these images, but here's how I read them in relation to the film in general. Ozu contrasts the lighthouse with an empty abandoned bottle, the macro with the micro. Similarly we are about to have a series of establishing shots of the town in general and then focus more specifically on an acting troupe in that town. What is the purpose of a lighthouse? To help ships from crashing against the shoreline. But do we ever see the lighthouse in action (at night shining out it's light)? No. What we are shown instead are a series of grounded and rusting ships throughout the film. The lighthouse has not served it's function. Now, this is what is occurring in the environment in general. This is the macro level.

On the micro level, the story of the film is about a failing acting troupe and a disintegrating family dynamic (or rather a family which never comes to fruition as a result of the dishonest and violent ways in which these people treat each other). The relationship between all these images are fused together by a shot later in the film where the father and son have taken the place of the bottle in the film's opening shot. These characters are like the stranded ships in this seaside town. They've run aground. They're stuck, and unable to move forward in their relationships with one another.

[MacGuffin]

http://img37.imageshack.us/img37/7595/sonyboxbd348x490.jpg
http://img840.imageshack.us/img840/3520/543bdbox348x490.jpg
http://img39.imageshack.us/img39/4733/542bdbox348x490.jpg
http://img204.imageshack.us/img204/8660/540bdbox348x490.jpg

The box set is a surprising announcement, but is very welcome. The Night of the Hunter cover could have been better, but it works.

[megladon8]

I'll probably be getting that Modern Times.

[Dukefrukem]

Meh... the only real terrible film Shyamalan made was the Happening.

[Bosco B Thug]

Shyamalan gives us his perspective. (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_C76QBg2p78&feature=player_embedded#!) Well, I'm glad he's got his bubble. His films are colorful and eccentric and compulsively watchable, even if I can't take them seriously.

[Skitch]

Meh... the only real terrible film Shyamalan made was the Happening.

Haven't seen Airbender yet, but I'm inclined to agree.

[DavidSeven]

I'm sorry, but Lady in the Water is wretched. Like so wretchier than wretched. Used to be a big fan, and Unbreakable is a personal favorite, but I have approximately zero interest in seeing his last two films.

[Scar]

A steaming pile of shit has more appeal then Lady in the Water.

[Mysterious Dude]

A question for sane people regarding Shyamalan: is there any other director who's had such a dramatic downward spiral? It seems more common that a director will start out making bad movies, and then learn how to make better movies (James Cameron started with Piranha 2, for example). Why hasn't Shyamalan learned from his mistakes?

[baby doll]

All I'm saying is that Ozu uses particular stylistic techniques (particularly the two we've been talking about) that suit his thematic preoccupations, just as Kubrick has his own, Renoir has his own, etc. I wouldn't say that any of these directors are simply using the techniques because they make the image 'look nice'. They're using the techniques to get at that which interests them in any given story or idea.Okay, I'm with you so far...


Each of these directors also uses form within the film to make specific statements about particular character psychologies and larger conceptual constructs, but we were only talking about general stylistic traits in relation to Ozu.

But if we discuss particulars we can talk about Ozu's specific compositions...

The opening of Floating Weeds...

http://madinkbeard.com/blog/wp-content/images/ozu-weeds1.png

http://madinkbeard.com/blog/wp-content/images/ozu-weeds2.png

As is so often the case with art there is no one right way to interpret these images, but here's how I read them in relation to the film in general. Ozu contrasts the lighthouse with an empty abandoned bottle, the macro with the micro. Similarly we are about to have a series of establishing shots of the town in general and then focus more specifically on an acting troupe in that town. What is the purpose of a lighthouse? To help ships from crashing against the shoreline. But do we ever see the lighthouse in action (at night shining out it's light)? No. What we are shown instead are a series of grounded and rusting ships throughout the film. The lighthouse has not served it's function. Now, this is what is occurring in the environment in general. This is the macro level.

On the micro level, the story of the film is about a failing acting troupe and a disintegrating family dynamic (or rather a family which never comes to fruition as a result of the dishonest and violent ways in which these people treat each other). The relationship between all these images are fused together by a shot later in the film where the father and son have taken the place of the bottle in the film's opening shot. These characters are like the stranded ships in this seaside town. They've run aground. They're stuck, and unable to move forward in their relationships with one another.Okay, now here's how I read the same sequence. The lighthouse establishes the setting as a coastal town, and the bottle in the foreground is a bottle. We're obviously meant to notice the similarity in shape, and I think Ozu is having some fun with perspective by having the bottle appear to be almost the same size as the lighthouse. As for the boats, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they've run ashore because the lighthouse isn't working; they're just there because no one's using them right now. The lighthouse is a pivot point, linking one shot to the next. The next shot, incidentally, shows a boat in motion, and the fourth a postbox, leading into the next sequence inside the post office. In addition to establishing the setting (first the town in general and then the post office in particular), this sequence also foreshadows the arrival of the acting troupe by boat. If you want to read all that into it, I suppose that's fine, but that's an interpretation which you're imposing onto the film, rather than something inherent within the text.

[megladon8]

A question for sane people regarding Shyamalan: is there any other director who's had such a dramatic downward spiral? It seems more common that a director will start out making bad movies, and then learn how to make better movies (James Cameron started with Piranha 2, for example). Why hasn't Shyamalan learned from his mistakes?


I don't know why he hasn't learned from his mistakes, but I can tell you what his two biggest mistakes are...

-writing his own movies

-casting himself in his own movies

Visually, he is more than competent. In fact, he makes beautiful looking movies. It's just the garbage he passes as "dialogue" spouting out of the characters' mouths and contributing to one-note fairy tale stories that take them waaaay down.

He needs to let someone else write for him. Then I could see him reclaiming a bit of dignity.

[MacGuffin]

I've been looking for collected Akira Kurosawa ratings on here and have yet to find any, so please post yours if it's not too much trouble.

[megladon8]

I've been looking for collected Akira Kurosawa ratings on here and have yet to find any, so please post yours if it's not too much trouble.


Not nearly as well-versed in Kurosawa as I should be. It's actually Kurosawa month at the (only) local arthouse theatre, but I really can't afford it right now. Which sucks.

Stray Dog - 8.5
Seven Samurai - 10
Throne of Blood - 8
The Hidden Fortress - 7
Yojimbo - 7.5
Sanjuro - 8
Ran - 10

[MacGuffin]

Not nearly as well-versed in Kurosawa as I should be.

I think I've only seen Rashomon and Seven Samurai.

:eek:

[megladon8]

I think I've only seen Rashomon and Seven Samurai.

:eek:



Rashomon is one of those ones that I wish I had seen 10 years ago before I practically knew everything that happened in it without having seen it.

The follies of spending 90% of your time with internet film nerds...

[Derek]

I've been looking for collected Akira Kurosawa ratings on here and have yet to find any, so please post yours if it's not too much trouble.

1) Dersu Uzala - 10.0
2) Throne of Blood - 10.0
3) Yojimbo - 9.5
4) Seven Samurai - 9.5
5) Ran - 8.5
6) The Hidden Fortress - 8.5
7) Rashomon - 8.0
8) High & Low - 8.0
9) Dodes'kaden - 7.5
10) Stray Dog - 7.5
11) Ikiru - 6.5
12) Sanjuro - 6.5
13) Kagemusha - 6.0
14) Drunken Angel - 5.5
15) Dreams - 5.0
16) The Men Who Tread on the Tiger's Tail - 5.0

[Qrazy]

Meh... the only real terrible film Shyamalan made was the Happening.

Have you not seen The Last Airbender?

[baby doll]

At one point or another I've seen Rashomon, Ikiru, Seven Samurai, Throne of Blood, The Hidden Fortress, Yojimbo, Sanjuro, Kagemusha, Ran, and Madadayo, though some of these so long ago I couldn't possibly rate them. That said, I can't think of one that I'd say is bad, though Sanjuro is obviously the weakest of those that I've seen. If I have a favorite, it's probably Seven Samurai, in part because it's the first that I saw and it's one of his most ambitious.

[Sven]

Sanjuro is obviously the weakest of those that I've seen.

Not that obvious, hombre.

[megladon8]

You should ask KF.

You might say he's somewhat of a...fan...of...Kurosawa.

:lol:

Oh, man. I'm awesome.

[Qrazy]

As for the boats, I wouldn't jump to the conclusion that they've run ashore because the lighthouse isn't working; they're just there because no one's using them right now.

I didn't say that, nor do I think it's the case. But I do think we can draw some connections between the lighthouse, the bottle and the fact that we're shown a bunch of ships aground and the dynamics of the characters. I don't think the lighthouse not working caused ships to run aground, but I think it's all very much apart of a general thematic tone.


If you want to read all that into it, I suppose that's fine, but that's an interpretation which you're imposing onto the film, rather than something inherent within the text.

Right I'm not saying my interpretation is necessarily the case, but I am saying that thought went into composing these sequences and I feel my reading is a strong one. In Trainspotting when we see Ewan Mcgregor sitting still and a bunch of characters moving rapidly around him, we can also make inferences about his state of mind (literally, on a drug) and his mood state (emotionally isolated). This isn't inherent to the text either but it's a reasonable inference.

[baby doll]

I didn't say that, nor do I think it's the case. But I do think we can draw some connections between the lighthouse, the bottle and the fact that we're shown a bunch of ships aground and the dynamics of the characters. I don't think the lighthouse not working caused ships to run aground, but I think it's all very much apart of a general thematic tone.

Right I'm not saying my interpretation is necessarily the case, but I am saying that thought went into composing these sequences and I feel my reading is a strong one. In Trainspotting when we see Ewan Mcgregor sitting still and a bunch of characters moving rapidly around him, we can also make inferences about his state of mind (literally, on a drug) and his mood state (emotionally isolated). This isn't inherent to the text either but it's a reasonable inference.Well, in movies where a character is on drugs, or dreaming, or having his memories erased, it's pretty much an open invitation for directors to throw whatever fun tricks they can think of at the viewer (in this case, fast motion contrasted with a stable focal point).

But back to Ozu, since all interpretations exist beyond the letter of the text (in this case, four shots of a coastal setting leading up to the scene in the post office, linked by the lighthouse, which like the lit window in the opening sequence of Citizen Kane is always in roughly the same spot in the frame), all interpretations are equally valid. I might argue that the lighthouse is a phallic symbol whose diminutive sized, compared with the vaginal bottle (an open orifice), is reflective of the protagonist's position as a diminished patriarch, unable to provide for his "family" (the theatre troupe goes bust), or control his mistress (the open bottle whom the hero is incapable of filling with his tiny lighthouse). But I'm just pulling that out of my ass.

[Raiders]

No Regrets for Our Youth (1946) 8.5
The Quiet Duel (1949) 5.0
Rashomon (1950) 8.0
Ikiru (1952) 8.5
Seven Samurai (1954) 9.0
I Live in Fear (1955) 6.0
Throne of Blood (1957) 10.0
The Hidden Fortress (1958) 7.5
Yojimbo (1961) 8.0
Sanjuro (1962) 6.0
High and Low (1963) 9.5
Red Beard (1965) 7.0
Kagemusha (1980) 6.5
Ran (1985) 7.5
Dreams (1990) 5.5
Rhapsody in August (1991) 6.0
Madadayo (1993) 8.0

[Sven]

Just ordered Brewster McCloud, two Jerry Lewis films (Cracking Up? aka Smorgasbord, which is very strange and not altogether pleasant, and Which Way to the Front?, which is, in my opinion, a masterpiece), and Get to Know Your Rabbit, a rare(ish) DePalma flick w/a Smothers bro. and Orson Welles.

Rad.

[BuffaloWilder]

I'd like to know the reasoning behind your reductivist view of film, baby doll. It's really pretty interesting.

[Qrazy]

Well, in movies where a character is on drugs, or dreaming, or having his memories erased, it's pretty much an open invitation for directors to throw whatever fun tricks they can think of at the viewer (in this case, fast motion contrasted with a stable focal point).

But back to Ozu, since all interpretations exist beyond the letter of the text (in this case, four shots of a coastal setting leading up to the scene in the post office, linked by the lighthouse, which like the lit window in the opening sequence of Citizen Kane is always in roughly the same spot in the frame), all interpretations are equally valid. I might argue that the lighthouse is a phallic symbol whose diminutive sized, compared with the vaginal bottle (an open orifice), is reflective of the protagonist's position as a diminished patriarch, unable to provide for his "family" (the theatre troupe goes bust), or control his mistress (the open bottle whom the hero is incapable of filling with his tiny lighthouse). But I'm just pulling that out of my ass.

Right, I mean fair enough, there's all kinds of literary criticism of that nature. Tangentially I'm not big on Freudian criticism myself. He's outdated psychology so I don't understand quite why he hasn't become outdated art analysis yet. I suppose it's because many artists do consciously imbue their work with Freudian undertones which makes such readings in certain cases more valid. Sometimes phallic symbols are very overt. Although if we were to analyze that first shot in a Freudian context I would instead argue that both images are phallic symbols (the main character and his son), one object is smaller than the other but that's why Ozu is playing with depth there, to show that the two objects are sort of meeting in the middle. The son is growing up while the father is growing older and fading into the background.

But yeah personally I prefer formalistic, character psychology, and general political approaches to a text. I actually found the conversation that started all of this a little odd because I think of formalism primarily as an approach to art criticism. So a critic can analyze the form of any film, and any given filmmaker isn't necessarily more or less formalistic. But I suppose I can see how we can stretch the term to say that one artist may be more or less interested in formal techniques than another... just as another artist may be more or less interested in Freudian or Marxist allegory.

[baby doll]

I'd like to know the reasoning behind your reductivist view of film, baby doll. It's really pretty interesting.To be honest, I think it's largely the influence of David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson. What impresses me about their writing is that it's so precise and scientific (they themselves having been influenced by the Russian formalist school, which calls for a scientific approach to literary criticism).

Also, I think this desire to interpret and thematize everything comes from a fundamental insecurity about the status of movies as art (which may or may not be a side effect of capitalism, which debases the discourse on film at every turn), so that it's not enough that a film be a photographic representation of whatever object is placed in front of the camera (lighthouse, bottle, boat, postbox, Setsuko Hara), but also a symbol for something else, phallic or otherwise. When seeing Floating Weeds for the first time, most people would see the lighthouse and think, "Yes, that's a lighthouse," and from there infer that the setting of the film is a small coastal town, as opposed to downtown Tokyo. Incidentally, one thing Bordwell notes about Ozu on the DVD of The Only Son is his taste for ambiguous establishing shots, where a shot of a window might introduce either an interior sequence or an exterior one.

[Qrazy]

To be honest, I think it's largely the influence of David Bordwell and Kristin Thompson. What impresses me about their writing is that it's so precise and scientific (they themselves having been influenced by the Russian formalist school, which calls for a scientific approach to literary criticism).

Also, I think this desire to interpret and thematize everything comes from a fundamental insecurity about the status of movies as art (which may or may not be a side effect of capitalism, which debases the discourse on film at every turn), so that it's not enough that a film be a photographic representation of whatever object is placed in front of the camera (lighthouse, bottle, boat, postbox, Setsuko Hara), but also a symbol for something else, phallic or otherwise.

I think rather it comes from a fundamental desire to recognize the status of movies as art. Which is to say I look at a piece of art and then have an intellectual, emotional or spiritual reaction to it. I then share that reaction with others and they may get something out of hearing my perspective. That branch of formalism is frankly just boring to me. It's like looking at a Picasso and saying 'Hrm yes, here we see a bunch of lines that may or may not carry some meaning.' ... or 'Note the way Tarkovsky is filming this horse rolling around in Andrei Rublev. He has taken his camera and has filmed a horse rolling around. He has then put the image into his film in slow motion.'

[Ezee E]

Love those Criterion covers. They continue to amaze me with their creativity.

[baby doll]

I think rather it comes from a fundamental desire to recognize the status of movies as art. Which is to say I look at a piece of art and then have an intellectual, emotional or spiritual reaction to it. I then share that reaction with others and they may get something out of hearing my perspective. That branch of formalism is frankly just boring to me. It's like looking at a Picasso and saying 'Hrm yes, here we see a bunch of lines that may or may not carry some meaning.' ... or 'Note the way Tarkovsky is filming this horse rolling around in Andrei Rublev. He has taken his camera and has filmed a horse rolling around. He has then put the image into his film in slow motion.'That's a rather reductionist caricature. Actually, one thing I like about the Bordwell/Thompson approach is that they never look at a shot or sequence in isolation; those guys are all about the macro structure. I don't know if they've written anything on Tarkovsky, but I imagine they would want to look at the horse as a motif that recurs throughout the film. To take a perfectly random example, in Jacques Demy's Lola, the second movement of Beethoven's Symphony no. 7 is a motif associated with Michel, while the fairgrounds is associated with the friendship between Frankie and Cécile in much the same way that Lola and Roland are always running into each other in the arcade. Early in the film, we see Frankie in Lola's apartment fiddling with a guitar, and when Roland visits there later, he plucks the same guitar, creating a sort of rhyme effect.

[BuffaloWilder]

I think rather it comes from a fundamental desire to recognize the status of movies as art. Which is to say I look at a piece of art and then have an intellectual, emotional or spiritual reaction to it. I then share that reaction with others and they may get something out of hearing my perspective. That branch of formalism is frankly just boring to me. It's like looking at a Picasso and saying 'Hrm yes, here we see a bunch of lines that may or may not carry some meaning.' ... or 'Note the way Tarkovsky is filming this horse rolling around in Andrei Rublev. He has taken his camera and has filmed a horse rolling around. He has then put the image into his film in slow motion.'

Indeed. It's like my boy Plinkett says - in the end, if there isn't something working underneath it, and that's not even necessarily "meaning," then there's no real point to any of it, is there?

[Dukefrukem]

Haven't seen Airbender yet, but I'm inclined to agree.

I haven't either. I'm not fond of Lady in the Water, but I didn't think it was awful. Same with the Village. His other films I've enjoyed, especially Signs which I consider his best.


Have you not seen The Last Airbender?

Not yet. I haven't set foot in that thread yet since it was released. *looks at Release database thread* Only 4 people have seen it according to that thread... 0 for 4.

[Russ]

Sven, that looks like Batman and Rosie O'Donnell in your avatar.

:eek:

[baby doll]

Indeed. It's like my boy Plinkett says - in the end, if there isn't something working underneath it, and that's not even necessarily "meaning," then there's no real point to any of it, is there?Underneath what precisely? Isn't it enough to tell a story that stirs in the viewer an emotional response? What's underneath Singin' in the Rain, or Mothlight, or Pulp Fiction? And keep in mind, I don't believe in a spiritual dimension, in cinema or anything else.

[transmogrifier]

Just ordered Brewster McCloud, two Jerry Lewis films (Cracking Up? aka Smorgasbord, which is very strange and not altogether pleasant, and Which Way to the Front?, which is, in my opinion, a masterpiece), and Get to Know Your Rabbit, a rare(ish) DePalma flick w/a Smothers bro. and Orson Welles.

Rad.

I miss Altman :(

[BuffaloWilder]

Underneath what precisely?

Underneath that topmost surface level of a story or a piece of art.


Isn't it enough to tell a story that stirs in the viewer an emotional response?

That's entirely enough - and, among other things, couldn't we say that those films have a strong emotional texture and meaning woven into them?



What's underneath Singin' in the Rain, or Mothlight, or Pulp Fiction?

Singin' in the Rain is a film of almost pure emotion, and that motivates everything else - its formal and musical exercises, it's rhythm. Pulp Fiction, there's a film that's pretty obviously motivated entirely by its creator's ideas about genre and formality, and the manipulation thereof.



And keep in mind, I don't believe in a spiritual dimension, in cinema or anything else.

Um, okay. Noted, I guess.

[Qrazy]

That's a rather reductionist caricature. Actually, one thing I like about the Bordwell/Thompson approach is that they never look at a shot or sequence in isolation; those guys are all about the macro structure. I don't know if they've written anything on Tarkovsky, but I imagine they would want to look at the horse as a motif that recurs throughout the film. To take a perfectly random example, in Jacques Demy's Lola, the second movement of Beethoven's Symphony no. 7 is a motif associated with Michel, while the fairgrounds is associated with the friendship between Frankie and Cécile in much the same way that Lola and Roland are always running into each other in the arcade. Early in the film, we see Frankie in Lola's apartment fiddling with a guitar, and when Roland visits there later, he plucks the same guitar, creating a sort of rhyme effect.

Well structuralism is definitely an interesting way of approaching a piece, but I think there's a discrepancy between what you just said about Lola (which is interesting, although merely noting the associations seems to me like it's not taking the idea as far as it could be) and what you were saying about Ozu. There you said 'the bottle is a bottle'. I don't see how that's any different from saying 'the horse is a horse.' I'm with you in the sense that I don't think an image/object has a one to one symbolic relationship. For any good artist/director the image becomes an extended metaphor, open to degrees of interpretation, a cog in the semiotic machine of the piece.

Structuralism is interesting, but reducing Ozu's opening compositions to simply establishing shots, when there's obviously so much formal and artistic rigor taking place in the film... this seems to me to be short shrifting a highly talented artist.

And frankly if you're going to go so far as to say... film as "a photographic representation of whatever object is placed in front of the camera" why not go still further? Why not say film as only a series of different dots of color? Why not treat the representation as the new object itself? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to belittle these approaches. I have seen a number of experimental films which deal with these issues and it's interesting, although personally I don't think you can get a ton of mileage out of it... but anyway... I simply don't see why approaching the object being photographed ought to be the most valid entry point of analysis. I find looking for formal connections between narrative, atmosphere, image and character to be the most rewarding form of analysis. All that being said, I respect your position, I can see why one would prefer to approach the analysis in a more straight forward (I would not say scientific) manner. It allows for less guesswork and disagreement, but it also cuts out those leaps of faith and logic that make art and appreciating art so interesting to me.

[Bosco B Thug]

Well structuralism is definitely an interesting way of approaching a piece, but I think there's a discrepancy between what you just said about Lola (which is interesting, although merely noting the associations seems to me like it's not taking the idea as far as it could be) and what you were saying about Ozu. There you said 'the bottle is a bottle'. I don't see how that's any different from saying 'the horse is a horse.' I'm with you in the sense that I don't think an image/object has a one to one symbolic relationship. For any good artist/director the image becomes an extended metaphor, open to degrees of interpretation, a cog in the semiotic machine of the piece.

Structuralism is interesting, but reducing Ozu's opening compositions to simply establishing shots, when there's obviously so much formal and artistic rigor taking place in the film... this seems to me to be short shrifting a highly talented artist.

And frankly if you're going to go so far as to say... film as "a photographic representation of whatever object is placed in front of the camera" why not go still further? Why not say film as only a series of different dots of color? Why not treat the representation as the new object itself? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to belittle these approaches. I have seen a number of experimental films which deal with these issues and it's interesting, although personally I don't think you can get a ton of mileage out of it... but anyway... I simply don't see why approaching the object being photographed ought to be the most valid entry point of analysis. I find looking for formal connections between narrative, atmosphere, image and character to be the most rewarding form of analysis. All that being said, I respect your position, I can see why one would prefer to approach the analysis in a more straight forward (I would not say scientific) manner. It allows for less guesswork and disagreement, but it also cuts out those leaps of faith and logic that make art and appreciating art so interesting to me. Great post.

baby doll, you have a strange, opposite-of-passive-aggressive approach to debating film analysis. There's nothing wrong in insisting "micro" analysis be more selective and discerning, but in the process you start picking on directors. Poor Ozu. ;)

[Derek]

Great post.

baby doll, you have a strange, opposite-of-passive-aggressive approach to debating film analysis. There's nothing wrong in insisting "micro" analysis be more selective and discerning, but in the process you start picking on directors. Poor Ozu. ;)

I think you're looking a little too deep into baby doll's words to call it an "approach" or "analysis". They are words placed in a certain order that happen to relate to film. You and your "approach" only devalue the purity of baby doll's language! Just appreciate the letters and spaces as they appear on your computer skin.

[megladon8]

Computer skin?

That evokes images of Videodrome or something.

Don't touch my computer skin...my...precious...

[Bosco B Thug]

I think you're looking a little too deep into baby doll's words to call it an "approach" or "analysis". They are words placed in a certain order that happen to relate to film. You and your "approach" only devalue the purity of baby doll's language! Just appreciate the letters and spaces as they appear on your computer skin. There's phalli all over that typeface, and no one can convince me otherwise!

[MacGuffin]

Anthony Perkins in Psycho may be the only performance I've seen that tops that of Donnadieu's in The Vanishing. What an utterly disconcerting, powerful film that was. I've held off on watching it for so long because I knew what happens at the end, but Sluizer's work here is so powerful that when it came time for the reveal, I could already feel it in the way my blood began to boil and my heart began to race. I love the way the movie is edited together so that it jumps from situation to situation; it is a thriller in this regard, but it never exploits any of the characters for thrills. Rather, it's thrilling because of its realism and how Sluizer builds characters through aforementioned flashback sequences and lapses in time. I was impressed with details like Rex becoming a smoker after his girlfriend goes missing. Trivial things that allow the movie to become richer and more emotionally powerful. But really, I can't get over Donnadieu's performance - I've simply never seen anything like it. The movie is near cinematic perfection.

[Spinal]

The movie is near cinematic perfection.

Hell yeah. Even when you know what's coming, this movie is a powerhouse.

[baby doll]

I think you're looking a little too deep into baby doll's words to call it an "approach" or "analysis". They are words placed in a certain order that happen to relate to film. You and your "approach" only devalue the purity of baby doll's language! Just appreciate the letters and spaces as they appear on your computer skin.Hear, hear! I chose my words not for whatever meaning happens to be communicated by them, but for their purely phonic qualities as sounds--and as such, should always be read aloud, repeatedly, until the words to begin to lose their meaning.

[baby doll]

Well structuralism is definitely an interesting way of approaching a piece, but I think there's a discrepancy between what you just said about Lola (which is interesting, although merely noting the associations seems to me like it's not taking the idea as far as it could be) and what you were saying about Ozu. There you said 'the bottle is a bottle'. I don't see how that's any different from saying 'the horse is a horse.' I'm with you in the sense that I don't think an image/object has a one to one symbolic relationship. For any good artist/director the image becomes an extended metaphor, open to degrees of interpretation, a cog in the semiotic machine of the piece.Well if you want to take it that far, in the case of Lola, the proliferation of associations between characters leads one to the paradoxical conclusion that everyone is replaceable and no one is. Frankie and Cécile could be Lola and Michel ten years earlier (a notion re-enforced by the fact of Lola having met Michel at the fairgrounds where he was dressed as a sailor), yet Lola refuses Frankie as an adequate substitute for Michel.

But as for a horse just being a horse, how about those skin textures, and the movement of it rolling? The fact of it being in slow motion places greater emphasis on the shot in the same way that canted angles do in some films, but it also just looks really cool. I haven't a clue what Tarkovsky meant it symbolize, or how it relates to the final shot, but damn if it isn't a striking image.


Structuralism is interesting, but reducing Ozu's opening compositions to simply establishing shots, when there's obviously so much formal and artistic rigor taking place in the film... this seems to me to be short shrifting a highly talented artist.

And frankly if you're going to go so far as to say... film as "a photographic representation of whatever object is placed in front of the camera" why not go still further? Why not say film as only a series of different dots of color? Why not treat the representation as the new object itself? Don't get me wrong, I am not trying to belittle these approaches. I have seen a number of experimental films which deal with these issues and it's interesting, although personally I don't think you can get a ton of mileage out of it... but anyway... I simply don't see why approaching the object being photographed ought to be the most valid entry point of analysis. I find looking for formal connections between narrative, atmosphere, image and character to be the most rewarding form of analysis. All that being said, I respect your position, I can see why one would prefer to approach the analysis in a more straight forward (I would not say scientific) manner. It allows for less guesswork and disagreement, but it also cuts out those leaps of faith and logic that make art and appreciating art so interesting to me.For me, art is all about representation, but there is a certain appeal in just staring straight into the void of meaninglessness, as in Persona, where Bergman keeps magnifying the image of the boy in the Warsaw ghetto until it simply becomes dots, signifying nothing. Still, that's pretty extreme, almost a schizophrenic reaction to the notion of endless symbolic signification: Either an image could mean anything, or nothing at all. It's sometimes necessary to look into the abyss, but I couldn't stay there permanently.

In the case of Ozu, I think moving away from a symbolic interpretation to look at his technical decisions (framing, lighting, editing, etc.) as purely technical choices is probably the best way to do justice to his formal and artistic rigor. The opening sequence of Floating Weeds serves an obvious function in establishing the setting, but in using the lighthouse as a pivot point to link the four shots, and by placing in the same place in the frame in each shot, he's clearly going beyond function. There's a visual logic to the sequence.

[Sven]

I think baby doll has accomplished nothing in his time online if not developing a consistent and compelling perspective on cinema that is a lot more consistent and stimulating than a large percentage of our own.

[Sxottlan]

November Criterion releases. I'll get the first one:

http://criterion_production.s3.amazon aws.com/release_images/3055/540_box_348x490.jpg

http://criterion_production.s3.amazon aws.com/release_images/3049/542_box_348x490.jpg

http://criterion_production.s3.amazon aws.com/release_images/3061/543_box_348x490.jpg

http://criterion_production.s3.amazon aws.com/release_images/3043/Sonybox_348x490.jpg

[baby doll]

I think baby doll has accomplished nothing in his time online if not developing a consistent and compelling perspective on cinema that is a lot more consistent and stimulating than a large percentage of our own.What a compliment!

[Sven]

What a compliment!

I'm a man who admires consistency. What can I say?

[Derek]

I think baby doll has accomplished nothing in his time online if not developing a consistent and compelling perspective on cinema that is a lot more consistent and stimulating than a large percentage of our own.

It's certainly consistent, but I'd say it's more interesting than stimulating. It's great to have a different perspective around here, even one I can't agree with, but the insistence on near-literal reading of films is not one I find particularly valuable when examining cinema as a whole. I think it's particularly useful with certain avant-garde and art films, but is partly responsible for his almost complete dismissal of anything approaching the mainstream and, more importantly, any interpretations that are not drawn from the surface of the film. As somewhat of a rigid formalist myself - you know, the kind that can't appreciate Chan-wook Park*, but will come around in 25 years to recognize him as the master that he is - I do appreciate the sentiment, especially around MC where the formal qualities often get glossed over, but I don't quite get the method behind the madness. It's similar to the way bd's an auteurist who overlooks the purpose behind auteurism's creation, a large part of which was made up of looking for the thematic throughlines in an artist's work as well as their more subtle formal qualities. My Barty comparison wasn't meant as an insult - more simply that the consistency and specificity of his approach loses much of what I find interesting about film, just as Barty's POV loses much of what makes mankind unique.

[Qrazy]

Well if you want to take it that far, in the case of Lola, the proliferation of associations between characters leads one to the paradoxical conclusion that everyone is replaceable and no one is. Frankie and Cécile could be Lola and Michel ten years earlier (a notion re-enforced by the fact of Lola having met Michel at the fairgrounds where he was dressed as a sailor), yet Lola refuses Frankie as an adequate substitute for Michel.

I like it. :)


But as for a horse just being a horse, how about those skin textures, and the movement of it rolling? The fact of it being in slow motion places greater emphasis on the shot in the same way that canted angles do in some films, but it also just looks really cool. I haven't a clue what Tarkovsky meant it symbolize, or how it relates to the final shot, but damn if it isn't a striking image.

Definitely agreed that it's a striking image, but given the fact that it's placed in the film in such and such a way, at such and such a time, I feel that (given my preferred method of analysis) we can and should read more into it. If I make an interpretation it may not be necessarily the case, but in my opinion it helps us to understand and appreciate the film more if we make a reading versus just appreciate the image solely as an image.


For me, art is all about representation, but there is a certain appeal in just staring straight into the void of meaninglessness, as in Persona, where Bergman keeps magnifying the image of the boy in the Warsaw ghetto until it simply becomes dots, signifying nothing. Still, that's pretty extreme, almost a schizophrenic reaction to the notion of endless symbolic signification: Either an image could mean anything, or nothing at all. It's sometimes necessary to look into the abyss, but I couldn't stay there permanently.

Agreed, same here.


In the case of Ozu, I think moving away from a symbolic interpretation to look at his technical decisions (framing, lighting, editing, etc.) as purely technical choices is probably the best way to do justice to his formal and artistic rigor. The opening sequence of Floating Weeds serves an obvious function in establishing the setting, but in using the lighthouse as a pivot point to link the four shots, and by placing in the same place in the frame in each shot, he's clearly going beyond function. There's a visual logic to the sequence.

I too think recognizing the placement of the lighthouse and his other technical choices in general is a valuable starting point, but I would prefer to then go beyond that recognition and link these choices to the content of the film in general. That is to say, pinpointing the way in which these choices reflect upon the material.

[Grouchy]

I have decided no movie has a better opening scene than Die Hard: With a Vengeance. Shots of the city's skyline, suddenly the action movie score cuts to Joe Cocker's "Summer in the City", people everywhere, BOOM! a bomb goes off. We're now in a very busy police headquarters station and the commissioner receives a threatening phone call from the terrorist: "Find me McClane". Cut to all the cops in a moving truck and a very drunk John McClane in the floor sipping on some coffee, we found out that he divorced since the events of the last movie and that he has been expelled from the force. They leave him in the middle of Harlem without weapons or back-up and a mysterious sandwich sign. Cut to store owner Samuel Jackson chatting with a ouple of kids, teaching them Harlem moral values when one of them says: "uncle, you gotta see this. There is a white man standing on the street". "I've seen one". "Not like this". And the movie starts.

Just a piece of incredibly effective, classic storytelling.

[Dukefrukem]

I have decided no movie has a better opening scene than Die Hard: With a Vengeance. Shots of the city's skyline, suddenly the action movie score cuts to Joe Cocker's "Summer in the City", people everywhere, BOOM! a bomb goes off. We're now in a very busy police headquarters station and the commissioner receives a threatening phone call from the terrorist: "Find me McClane". Cut to all the cops in a moving truck and a very drunk John McClane in the floor sipping on some coffee, we found out that he divorced since the events of the last movie and that he has been expelled from the force..

I can support this; I also love while they're in the back of the moving truck, they report on the dump trucks being stolen...which alludes to part of the plan later in the movie.

[Sven]

Lovin' Spoonful, not Joe Cocker.

[Rowland]

I have decided no movie has a better opening scene than Die Hard: With a Vengeance. Shots of the city's skyline, suddenly the action movie score cuts to Joe Cocker's "Summer in the City", people everywhere, BOOM! a bomb goes off. We're now in a very busy police headquarters station and the commissioner receives a threatening phone call from the terrorist: "Find me McClane". Cut to all the cops in a moving truck and a very drunk John McClane in the floor sipping on some coffee, we found out that he divorced since the events of the last movie and that he has been expelled from the force. They leave him in the middle of Harlem without weapons or back-up and a mysterious sandwich sign. Cut to store owner Samuel Jackson chatting with a ouple of kids, teaching them Harlem moral values when one of them says: "uncle, you gotta see this. There is a white man standing on the street". "I've seen one". "Not like this". And the movie starts.

Just a piece of incredibly effective, classic storytelling.The first two thirds of this are pretty exceptional, as blockbuster Hollywood filmmaking is concerned. It all peters out however with the lame school bomb subplot and anticlimax of an ending.

[EyesWideOpen]

Just watched the last episode of At the Movies. :cry:

It made me as sad as any tv series finale I've seen.

[Skitch]

Love me some Die Hard 3.

Watching a guilty pleasure, Clint Eastwood in Firefox.

[Boner M]

Why does no one ever talk about At Close Range? And what a fine, classy piece of filmmaking it is? And what's the deal with James Foley? This & Glengarry Glen Ross & the rollercoaster scene in Fear show he's more than just a gun-for-hire who's only as good as his material allows him to be. As good as the recent (and strikingly similar) Animal Kingdom is, that film would've greatly benefited from the young lovers being as well-written and touchingly embodied as Sean Penn and Mary Stuart Matherson are here. And holy shit, best Walken performance ever? The crane shot that travels down into his face behind windscreen class with the dust clearing around him... has been etched into my brain forever. Only the emphatic final shot (the opening bars of "Lived to Tell" make a good theme, but the full song has no business being here) and a few pacing issues in the first half detract from it all.

[Sycophant]

I forget if it's kosher to ask here or not. But does anyone have any KG or similar invites available they'd be willing to throw my way? Feel free to PM if you do.

[MacGuffin]

The movie gods have been kind to me lately.

[B-side]

I think I'll watch The Vanishing tonight if my mind permits it. I've heard far too much praise of it to keep putting it off.

[MacGuffin]

I think I'll watch The Vanishing tonight if my mind permits it. I've heard far too much praise of it to keep putting it off.

Definitely see it, be heed this warning: It will fuck you up.

[Sxottlan]

The first two thirds of this are pretty exceptional, as blockbuster Hollywood filmmaking is concerned. It all peters out however with the lame school bomb subplot and anticlimax of an ending.

Agreed. My favorite scene was the dump truck in the aqueduct. You as the audience hear the distant boom and know what it is while McClaine thinks it's the door. So the whole time he's struggling to get the truck across a trench, you know this wall of water is coming at him. Then he sees something.

And the lights start going out one by one. That gave me chills.

But such a let down of an ending. And such an obnoxious use of "Johnny Comes Marching Home" played over and over again during the robbery.

I'm still surprised how much I liked the fourth one.

[Dukefrukem]

first viewing of Dr. Strangelove. wow....

[Derek]

first viewing of Dr. Strangelove. wow....

I wouldn't go quite as high as ??, but it's still a pretty great film. Your ?? for Mulholland Dr., however, is spot on. I ? love that ? film.

[Dukefrukem]

I wouldn't go quite as high as ??, but it's still a pretty great film. Your ?? for Mulholland Dr., however, is spot on. I ? love that ? film.

Those "??" are just in place of scores until I update my Excel sheet, which I usually do on Sunday or Monday. Both films will probably end up in the 90s.

I'm still such an amateur movie watcher compared to you guys, (I blame it on all those years I was watching crummy horror movies). I'm catching up on a lot of the ones that I should have watched years ago and it's a little bit exhausting to find out how many great movies I haven't experienced yet. In the past week I watched Mulholland Dr., Citizens Kane and Dr Strangelove. In the next week I play on watching A Clockwork Orange, Taxi Driver, and Casablanca .

[MacGuffin]

Viewing possibilites for the week(end):

The Diving Bell and the Butterfly
The Mothman Prophecies
Army of Shadows
Day Night Day Night
High and Low
Home
Kikujiro
Strange Circus

[DavidSeven]

I have decided no movie has a better opening scene than Die Hard: With a Vengeance. Shots of the city's skyline, suddenly the action movie score cuts to Joe Cocker's "Summer in the City", people everywhere, BOOM! a bomb goes off. We're now in a very busy police headquarters station and the commissioner receives a threatening phone call from the terrorist: "Find me McClane". Cut to all the cops in a moving truck and a very drunk John McClane in the floor sipping on some coffee, we found out that he divorced since the events of the last movie and that he has been expelled from the force. They leave him in the middle of Harlem without weapons or back-up and a mysterious sandwich sign. Cut to store owner Samuel Jackson chatting with a ouple of kids, teaching them Harlem moral values when one of them says: "uncle, you gotta see this. There is a white man standing on the street". "I've seen one". "Not like this". And the movie starts.

Just a piece of incredibly effective, classic storytelling.

I turned it on Netflix Instant Watch just to see the intro you described here and ended up watching the whole thing. The Rowland/Sxottlan assessment is basically spot-on. The first two acts are very well-done, though the narrative and technical craftsmanship is not at the level of the original Die Hard or Speed. The final act is definitely an epic letdown. It still, however, reminded me of how good original Hollywood storytelling could be in competent hands and sans the CGI gloss.

[B-side]

Those "??" are just in place of scores until I update my Excel sheet, which I usually do on Sunday or Monday. Both films will probably end up in the 90s.

I'm still such an amateur movie watcher compared to you guys, (I blame it on all those years I was watching crummy horror movies). I'm catching up on a lot of the ones that I should have watched years ago and it's a little bit exhausting to find out how many great movies I haven't experienced yet. In the past week I watched Mulholland Dr., Citizens Kane and Dr Strangelove. In the next week I play on watching A Clockwork Orange, Taxi Driver, and Casablanca .

You've got a wonderful road ahead of you.:)

[number8]

The final act is definitely an epic letdown. It still, however, reminded me of how good original Hollywood storytelling could be in competent hands and sans the CGI gloss.

I wish they filmed the script's original ending. I like it better to the actual ending or the alternate ending they filmed.

[MacGuffin]

I didn't know Franco Nero was in Die Hard 2.

[DavidSeven]

I wish they filmed the script's original ending. I like it better to the actual ending or the alternate ending they filmed.

Did you have a class with Hensleigh? I vaguely recall you saying you had a teacher who claimed to have written Armageddon in one alcohol fueled evening, and I noticed it as one of his credits (though there were many writers for that one).

[Rowland]

Watched Tobe Hooper's Invaders From Mars. Impeccable direction, of course, but unfortunately, I wasn't blown away by the film. It gradually loses steam after an excellently creepy first half, and in the end, it just isn't very interesting thematically. It's all nicely tongue-in-cheek, homage-driven, and sprinkled with moments of social irony, but no grand subtext is really reached and yeah, it's just not that interesting or provocative in the end.Pretty much. The first half is actually really compelling, between some expressionistic set design/lighting and Hooper's artful use of tracking shots, negative space, and depth of field, but yeah, he seems to lose interest with the introduction of the military base, the movie just kinda peters out with a generic climax, and that's that.

[number8]

Did you have a class with Hensleigh? I vaguely recall you saying you had a teacher who claimed to have written Armageddon in one alcohol fueled evening, and I noticed it as one of his credits (though there were many writers for that one).

No, that was Scott Rosenberg. He didn't get credit.

[Bosco B Thug]

Pretty much. The first half is actually really compelling, between some expressionistic set design/lighting and Hooper's artful use of tracking shots, negative space, and depth of field, but yeah, he seems to lose interest with the introduction of the military base, the movie just kinda peters out with a generic climax, and that's that. Yeah, it's a shame how little enthusiasm I have for this film whilst being such a champion of Hooper's career. I remember thinking its highs were in direct correlation to the amount of Karen Black on screen (or Timothy Bottoms, in the beginning).

[Rowland]

I rented Duel of the Iron Fist (or as the DVD is generically titled, The Duel), which will be my first Cheh Chang. Anyone familiar with it?

[Pop Trash]

Am I the only M.C.er that thinks The Big Lebowski isn't as super awesome as its reputation?

[Sven]

Am I the only M.C.er that thinks The Big Lebowski isn't as super awesome as its reputation?

One of the great achievements of modern film culture is the canonization of The Big Lebowski.

[number8]

Am I the only M.C.er that thinks The Big Lebowski isn't as super awesome as its reputation?

I like it a lot, but yes, the fanfare fascinates me because I'm not one of them.

Though that's not to say I don't like to attend a White Russian party or two.

[Dukefrukem]

Am I the only M.C.er that thinks The Big Lebowski isn't as super awesome as its reputation?

Way overrated.

[Qrazy]

Am I the only M.C.er that thinks The Big Lebowski isn't as super awesome as its reputation?

Agreed.

[Qrazy]

One of the great achievements of college dorm culture is the canonization of The Big Lebowski.

Fixed.

[Pop Trash]

One of the great achievements of modern film culture is the canonization of The Big Lebowski.

Also: am I the only M.C.er that saw Lebowski in the theaters on opening weekend?

[Dukefrukem]

Also: am I the only M.C.er that saw Lebowski in the theaters on opening weekend?

Dunno, Am I the only M.C.er that saw Frightners on a Saturday morning at 11am on opening weekend?

If I am, I want my medal now please.

[D_Davis]

Fixed.

I've never lived in a dorm, nor have I been in one, and I love the film.

[D_Davis]

I saw Frighteners and Big Lebowski on their opening nights.

[Qrazy]

I've never lived in a dorm, nor have I been in one, and I love the film.

I don't see what you loving it has to do with it's canonization in modern film culture, which I wouldn't say it is really, although that all depends on how we're defining modern film culture, so whatever.

[Spinal]

Also: am I the only M.C.er that saw Lebowski in the theaters on opening weekend?

Don't remember if it was opening weekend, but I saw it pretty early in its run.

[Sven]

I think the (impact+resonance/quality+popularity/that "je ne sais quoi" called "canonization") of The Big Lebowski is hard to deny. So many different audiences love it, it still tops critics lists, it still sells well, there are cultures surrounding it, books about it, it is quoted a tremendous amount (it will in time rival The Holy Grail, I am sure), it is frequently cited as an inspiration and a favorite among other artists...

[kopello]

I didn't see it in theaters opening weekend (probably because I wasn't even 10 yet) but I did drive 10 hours to Lebowski Fest in Louisville Kentucky. You know what? Totally worth it. I must say I was surprised that nearly everyone there was in their late 20's, 30s, and 40s. Me and my friends were 20 or so and we were the youngest people there.

[transmogrifier]

Lebowski, like so many other Coen films, is a good film elevated to heights it doesn't really deserve due to the commonly accepted wisdom that the Coens are cinematic geniuses.

[Fezzik]

I think the (impact+resonance/quality+popularity/that "je ne sais quoi" called "canonization") of The Big Lebowski is hard to deny. So many different audiences love it, it still tops critics lists, it still sells well, there are cultures surrounding it, books about it, it is quoted a tremendous amount (it will in time rival The Holy Grail, I am sure), it is frequently cited as an inspiration and a favorite among other artists...

There's even a quest hub in World of Warcraft's Wrath of the Lich King expansion based on the characters and happenings in Lebowski. For serious.

[Winston*]

Lebowski, like so many other Coen films, is a good film elevated to heights it doesn't really deserve due to the commonly accepted wisdom that the Coens are cinematic geniuses.

People perceive the Coens as geniuses because they make films they think are great. It's not the other way around.

[MacGuffin]

Coens' ranked and rated:

1. The Big Lebowski - ****
2. Fargo - ****
3. No Country for Old Men - ****
4. The Hudsucker Proxy - ***½
5. Barton Fink - ***
6. Burn After Reading - ***
7. O Brother, Where Art Thou? - **½
8. The Man Who Wasn't There - **½
9. Miller's Crossing - **½
10. Blood Simple - *½
11. The Ladykillers - *
12. Raising Arizona - *
13. Intolerable Cruelty - ½

[Spinal]

12. Raising Arizona - *


Absurd.

[MacGuffin]

Absurd.

Maybe it's a bit harsh, but I didn't really find it terribly funny. In general, I prefer their earlier works, which feel far less formative.

[Russ]

Maybe it's a bit harsh, but I didn't really find it terribly funny. In general, I prefer their earlier works, which feel far less formative.
Earlier work, you mean. Raising Arizona was their second directorial effort.

[MacGuffin]

Earlier work, you mean. Raising Arizona was their second directorial effort.

Yes?

[Russ]

Yes?
Well, if, as you say, you preferred their earlier works, this is certainly one of their earliest ones.

But, whatever.

[MacGuffin]

Well, if, as you say, you preferred their earlier works, this is certainly one of their earliest ones.

But, whatever.

Sorry, yet another typo from me. I meant later work.

[Ezee E]

Weekend:
The Ninth Configuration
The Secret Invasion
Repulsion

Red Riding Trilogy

[D_Davis]

Weekend:
The Ninth Configuration


Excellent.

[dreamdead]

Teeny write-ups:

The Road brings nothing to new to the forefront save for a random fingerfuck inneundo between the father and the wife. That ain't enough to transform a novel that already feels incredibly cinematic in its language and design. This one's pretty redundant, despite some occasionally effectiveness cinematography.

Waltz with Bashir is awesome. The art style is sparse and demanding in its visual engagement. The political content likewise feels thorough and solid--it's interesting to think about this and Spiegelman's Maus alongside one another.

The Last Seduction. Can someone explain the dream-scape that comes in at the end, where Linda Fiorentino suggests that she's a man... What am I supposed to do with that?

[Qrazy]

I think the (impact+resonance/quality+popularity/that "je ne sais quoi" called "canonization") of The Big Lebowski is hard to deny. So many different audiences love it, it still tops critics lists, it still sells well, there are cultures surrounding it, books about it, it is quoted a tremendous amount (it will in time rival The Holy Grail, I am sure), it is frequently cited as an inspiration and a favorite among other artists...

Ehh, in my experience it isn't that widely touted outside of college and semi recent college grad circles (recent as in since it's release so the last decade or so), it wasn't exactly that high grossing (as a general gauge of popular taste), and I haven't seen it on the vast majority of critics lists or anything. I'd say it's canon in the same way someone could consider Fight Club canon, but it's not canon in the sense of something like the Sight and Sound canon.

[Adam]

It's officially the 404th greatest (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films.htm) film ever made, ever

[Sven]

Ehh, in my experience it isn't that widely touted outside of college and semi recent college grad circles

I will say then that your experience does not equal mine, in terms of encountering it outside of certain circles. I don't know where you work, but working directly with the public in an area of entertainment-type retail for as long as I have, I can confidently say that my observations disprove your impression of its popularity


it wasn't exactly that high grossing (as a general gauge of popular taste)

Not when it first came out, no, but it is one of the better-selling/renting DVDs and it is still padding the Coens' income. Plus, many movies we call "canon" must be looked at beyond initial theatrical run grosses to gauge actual popularity instead of theoretical popularity.


and I haven't seen it on the vast majority of critics lists or anything.

Any scanning of critics lists for '98 will register that name many times. Also, searching for combined variations of "critics" "lists" and "the big lebowski" will net you some results. People like this movie!


I'd say it's canon in the same way someone could consider Fight Club canon, but it's not canon in the sense of something like the Sight and Sound canon.

Yeah, I'd probably say that Fight Club, for better or worse, is also canon at this point. Sight and Sound =/= definitive canoneers. I am pretty sure that both FC and TBL will be films that remain talked about and studied in future (and some contemporary) film classes.

[endingcredits]

One of the great achievements of modern film culture is the canonization of The Big Lebowski.

http://i827.photobucket.com/albums/zz192/endingcredits1/random/1266019022278.jpg?t=1282258125

[Qrazy]

It's officially the 404th greatest (http://www.theyshootpictures.com/gf1000_all1000films.htm) film ever made, ever

Well again, it depends how we're defining canon (any given canon being highly malleable anyway). And I do use and like TSPDT top 1000 a lot but you do realize on that list alone it was 'beaten' by Tootsie, Marnie, Death in Venice, Stranger than Paradise, Thelma and Louise, and others... none of which I would consider particularly canonical.

[transmogrifier]

People perceive the Coens as geniuses because they make films they think are great. It's not the other way around.

I think it's circular, actually.

[Qrazy]

I will say then that your experience does not equal mine, in terms of encountering it outside of certain circles. I don't know where you work, but working directly with the public in an area of entertainment-type retail for as long as I have, I can confidently say that my observations disprove your impression of its popularity

Not when it first came out, no, but it is one of the better-selling/renting DVDs and it is still padding the Coens' income. Plus, many movies we call "canon" must be looked at beyond initial theatrical run grosses to gauge actual popularity instead of theoretical popularity.

Any scanning of critics lists for '98 will register that name many times. Also, searching for combined variations of "critics" "lists" and "the big lebowski" will net you some results. People like this movie!

Yeah, I'd probably say that Fight Club, for better or worse, is also canon at this point. Sight and Sound =/= definitive canoneers. I am pretty sure that both FC and TBL will be films that remain talked about and studied in future (and some contemporary) film classes.

Well it's clear you're using a much broader definition of canon than I am, so there's really no point in taking this any further.

[Sven]

Well again, it depends how we're defining canon (any given canon being highly malleable anyway). And I do use and like TSPDT top 1000 a lot but you do realize on that list alone it was 'beaten' by Tootsie, Marnie, Death in Venice, Stranger than Paradise, Thelma and Louise, and others... none of which I would consider particularly canonical.

The other three I could argue for, but using a broad definition, I would say that Tootsie is, certainly, and probably Thelma and Louise.

But at this point, I would say that we need to really concretely define "canonical" and "canon-worthy" before we start to dice each other over nothing.

[transmogrifier]

Coens' ranked and rated:

1. The Big Lebowski - ****
2. Fargo - ****
3. No Country for Old Men - ****
4. The Hudsucker Proxy - ***½
5. Barton Fink - ***
6. Burn After Reading - ***
7. O Brother, Where Art Thou? - **½
8. The Man Who Wasn't There - **½
9. Miller's Crossing - **½
10. Blood Simple - *½
11. The Ladykillers - *
12. Raising Arizona - *
13. Intolerable Cruelty - ½

You got the bottom three right, at least. But Miller's Crossing and Blood Simple are easily - easily, easily, easily - their best. So this list = fail.

[Sven]

Well it's clear you're using a much broader definition of canon than I am, so there's really no point in taking this any further.

What element of your definition am I leaving out? "Canon" is something that I figure by its nature is supposed to be a pretty broadly defined thing. Just like "classic". Or "must read".

[endingcredits]

What element of your definition am I leaving out? "Canon" is something that I figure by its nature is supposed to be a pretty broadly defined thing. Just like "classic". Or "must read".

I think it's supposed to be defined in the opposite fashion; i.e, rigorously. A canon is something of "standard" or "law".

[Sven]

I am aware that I said specifically that "film culture" canonized the film. I still think that there's enough evidence to suggest that the film world, including talent, critics, and those-in-the-know, are more or less unanimous on their level of embracing The Big Lebowski. It has tons of love and no serious dissenters and is still being shown in theaters all the time. Though here, I will grant you that those are largely midnite showings advertised to the college crowd. BUT STILL.

[Sven]

I think it's supposed to be defined in the opposite fashion; i.e, rigorously. A canon is something of "standard" or "law".

Yeah, I was thinking about this, and my post above clarifies my intention. Film culture has declared it. Made it a standard.

[Dukefrukem]

Weekend;

A Clockwork Orange
Taxi Driver
Casablanca
and Chronicles of Narnia

[Sven]

A Clockwork Orange
Taxi Driver
Casablanca

Canon!


and Chronicles of Narnia

Oof. Not canon.

[Dukefrukem]

Canon!



Oof. Not canon.

Bwhaha, yeh but I'm curious.

[Qrazy]

What element of your definition am I leaving out? "Canon" is something that I figure by its nature is supposed to be a pretty broadly defined thing. Just like "classic". Or "must read".


Well it's clear you're using a much broader definition of canon than I am, so there's really no point in taking this any further.


But at this point, I would say that we need to really concretely define "canonical" and "canon-worthy" before we start to dice each other over nothing.

It sounds like we're both agreed as to the definitional source of our disagreement though, so why carry on an argument which isn't that different from a pointless genre quibble (is this film this or that genre). I can respect your inclusion of The Big Lebowski in a large modern canon, I just wouldn't consider it part of a more narrowly defined canon (and I'm not defining either canon based on my personal preferences)... and not because I don't like it (I do). Based on critical consensus/popular conception I would think that if the Coens had a film in the canon... No Country for Old Men or Fargo would probably make the canon cut first (again not based on my preference).

[Sven]

Based on critical consensus/popular conception I would think that if the Coens had a film in the canon... No Country for Old Men or Fargo would probably make the canon cut first (again not based on my preference).

I think Fargo would likely make the cut first, yes. No Country, hmmm... I would maybe look at it again in a few years.

Thankfully, some filmmakers are of a high enough caliber that they can have multiple canonical films.

[Qrazy]

I think Fargo would likely make the cut first, yes. No Country, hmmm... I would maybe look at it again in a few years.

Thankfully, some filmmakers are of a high enough caliber that they can have multiple canonical films.

Agreed... oh wait you're talking about the Coens... in the case, no.

:P

[Skitch]

Excellent.

Infuckingdeed.

Wow. The Ghost Writer was really really good.

[soitgoes...]

My Weekend:

Nazarin and/or Tristana (Buñuel)
I Am Cuba (Kalatozov)
Bird (Eastwood)
Ashes of Time (Wong)
A Chinese Odyssey Part One: Pandora's Box (Lau)
Goodbye, South, Goodbye (Hou)

[Sycophant]

A Chinese Odyssey Part One: Pandora's Box (Lau)


FUCK YES

[soitgoes...]

FUCK YES

ASIAN CULT UNITE!

[Sycophant]

ASIAN CULT UNITE!

It's seriously one of the most amazing movies I've seen. I hope you have easy access to part two. And hopefully it's a decent digital transfer.

MY WEEKEND
Harakiri (mebbe for reals this times)
Jigoku
The Love of the Actress Sumako
Okuribito/Departures
Some other Japanese movies.
Kinda got an itch to see Scott Pilgrim

[MadMan]

The Big Lebowski and the Coen Brothers both are awesome. The Ninth Configuration is a great movie. Waltz With Bashir is very good indeed.

Weekend:

*The Last Winter
*The Girl Who Knew Too Much
*Invasion of the Body Snatchers ('78)

[soitgoes...]

It's seriously one of the most amazing movies I've seen. I hope you have easy access to part two. And hopefully it's a decent digital transfer.My anticipation is growing. I do have both parts so no worries there.


MY WEEKEND
Harakiri (mebbe for reals this times)
This gives me the same reaction that A Chinese Odyssey gave to you. Watch it.

[Ezee E]

Excellent.
Damnit. It came in cracked. I've been looking forward to that one.

[Qrazy]

My Weekend:

Nazarin and/or Tristana (Buñuel)
I Am Cuba (Kalatozov)
Bird (Eastwood)
Ashes of Time (Wong)
A Chinese Odyssey Part One: Pandora's Box (Lau)
Goodbye, South, Goodbye (Hou)

Nazarin is very good. Tristana is the weakest Bunuel I've seen, although not awful. I am Cuba is great. Ashes of Times is interesting. A Chinese Odyssey brings the lolz.

[Sven]

Tristana, just to fill out the spectrum of opinions about it, is one of the best Bunuel films I've seen. One of my favorites of his, anyway.

[Qrazy]

Tristana, just to fill out the spectrum of opinions about it, is one of the best Bunuel films I've seen. One of my favorites of his, anyway.

Ah.

[soitgoes...]

Nazarin is very good. Tristana is the weakest Bunuel I've seen, although not awful. I am Cuba is great. Ashes of Times is interesting. A Chinese Odyssey brings the lolz.I Am Cuba is probably the film I most look forward to seeing out of the bunch. All the other films by Kalatozov I've seen are at the very least good if not great.


Tristana, just to fill out the spectrum of opinions about it, is one of the best Bunuel films I've seen. One of my favorites of his, anyway.I'm probably leaning more towards watching Nazarin first, it just seems more interesting to me, but both will get watched in short order. It's going to really have to be special to even be considered one of the top three Buñuel films I've seen. The guy's nothing short of amazing.

[baby doll]

So what's with the low rating for Good Men, Good Women?

[megladon8]

Red-Headed Woman is quite the movie.

[Boner M]

weekend possibilities

Alien on the big screen
the rest of Flowing
Me & Orson Welles (did anyone here see this?)
In Vanda's Room
Times Square
36th Chamber of Shaolin

[MadMan]

Le doulos (1962) was quite good, although it lacked the very driven style of Le Samourai or the entertainment value of Le Cercle rouge. For now, I'd say that the characters, being complete bastards, are the opposite of the ones in the other Jean-Pierre Melville movies I've seen, and therefore I'm left feeling rather cold about what happens to them-you don't really give a damn, actually. Which may be the point, but then its a sharp contrast to the honor oriented gangsters that populated the other two movies I've seen from Melville, which is quite interesting I suppose. The famous long take in the interrogation room is really the only thing I'll probably take away from this movie, to be honest.

[soitgoes...]

So what's with the low rating for Good Men, Good Women?
It's somewhere between 2 and a half and three stars, but the film takes me back to The Puppet Master. Just a bore. I think structurally it is one of Hou's most interesting films, but as a whole it is a far cry from his coming of age trilogy and City of Sadness. I'm not sure what happened between 1989 and 1993, but the four films I've seen prior I wouldn't rate below ***½ (actually two of them are 4 star films) and the two after are around **½. I'm sitting on Goodbye, South, Goodbye, but I fear it's going to be in the same vein as these other two.

I do have to reiterate that the structure of Good Men, Good Women is amazing. Having a present, a flashback past, and then the actress from the present playing a role from the 1940's to parallel the present is genius. I just wish the film itself was as interesting as how Hou set it up.

[baby doll]

It's somewhere between 2 and a half and three stars, but the film takes me back to The Puppet Master. Just a bore. I think structurally it is one of Hou's most interesting films, but as a whole it is a far cry from his coming of age trilogy and City of Sadness. I'm not sure what happened between 1989 and 1993, but the four films I've seen prior I wouldn't rate below ***½ (actually two of them are 4 star films) and the two after are around **½. I'm sitting on Goodbye, South, Goodbye, but I fear it's going to be in the same vein as these other two.Oddly enough, I don't find anything very different in Hou's approach to storytelling and mise en scène between City of Sadness and The Puppet Master, except that the former is a lot funnier, uses at least one big star (Tony Leung--the good one) as opposed to strictly casting non-professionals, and the earlier film is more difficult to follow as storytelling.

[soitgoes...]

Le doulos (1962) was quite good, although it lacked the very driven style of Le Samourai or the entertainment value of Le Cercle rouge. For now, I'd say that the characters, being complete bastards, are the opposite of the ones in the other Jean-Pierre Melville movies I've seen, and therefore I'm left feeling rather cold about what happens to them-you don't really give a damn, actually. Which may be the point, but then its a sharp contrast to the honor oriented gangsters that populated the other two movies I've seen from Melville, which is quite interesting I suppose. The famous long take in the interrogation room is really the only thing I'll probably take away from this movie, to be honest.Watch Melville's Le deuxième souffle. Much better than Le doulos.

[soitgoes...]

Oddly enough, I don't find anything very different in Hou's approach to storytelling and mise en scène between City of Sadness and The Puppet Master, except that the former is a lot funnier, uses at least one big star (Tony Leung--the good one) as opposed to strictly casting non-professionals, and the earlier film is more difficult to follow as storytelling.Hmm, maybe time hasn't been too kind to it. It was my first experience with Hou, but Good Men, Good Women kinda reinforces that I might not have been too far off on it. After watch his coming of age trilogy I did think I might have been off on my Puppet Master rating. Who knows? Different strokes and all that. I still think Hou, based on his 80's work is the best thing Taiwan has given us. I'd be tempted to say all of Chinese filmmakers, but I love me some Zhang Yimou and Wong too.

[baby doll]

Watch Melville's Le deuxième souffle. Much better than Le doulos.And L'Armée des ombres is much better than Le Deuxième souffle. I win!

[soitgoes...]

And L'Armée des ombres is much better than Le Deuxième souffle. I win!It is better! Agreement! We both win!

[right_for_the_moment]

Torn Curtain was really not good. Hitchcock did her no favors, but what a horrible performance from Julie Andrews.

[right_for_the_moment]

I was looking through my old posts on here. There was a thread from September of last year called The Way Too Early Oscar Prediction Thread (http://match-cut.org/showthread.php?p=203656#post20 3656). My two selections for consideration: The Tree of Life and All Good Things. Obviously, I am way ahead of my time.

[Dukefrukem]

Rain Man was still mediocre but Dustin Hoffman was still great.

[MadMan]

And L'Armée des ombres is much better than Le Deuxième souffle. I win!

Heh soitgoes and baby doll, I'll just watch both. My library also has Army of Shadows on Criterion, so I should see that, too.

[Mara]

Why the CRAP doesn't Netflix Instant have captions yet? It's so irritating.

[number8]

Why the CRAP doesn't Netflix Instant have captions yet? It's so irritating.

Trying to watch movies at work and didn't bring headphones?

[Mara]

Trying to watch movies at work and didn't bring headphones?

No, I have headphones, and I'm shameless about watching movies at work. I'm just a caption-o-phile, I always put them on. My auditory processing is a little bit low.

But I'm particularly annoyed because I'm trying to watch something filled with Irishmen.

[Mara]

Someone just poured flour down someone else's pants and I can't tell why.

Eff this, I'll just rent the stupid disc.

[soitgoes...]

Heh soitgoes and baby doll, I'll just watch both. My library also has Army of Shadows on Criterion, so I should see that, too.
:lol:

L'Armée des ombres is baby doll's French way of saying Army of Shadows, so you only need to watch it once.

[Philosophe_rouge]

Red-Headed Woman is quite the movie.

mmm pre-code

[Philosophe_rouge]

Weekend
Piranha 3-D
Ransom
The Dissapearance of Alice Creed
Missing
The Goddess

[Spinal]

Someone just poured flour down someone else's pants and I can't tell why.


Metaphor for the human condition. Obviously.

[Qrazy]

:lol:

L'Armée des ombres is baby doll's French way of saying Army of Shadows, so you only need to watch it once.

I believe he meant The Second Breath and Army of Shadows. I agree with both of you that both films are quite good. Army of Shadows is Melville's masterpiece.

[Ezee E]

I want to know why Netflix IW has Red Riding II and III online, but not I. Just weird.

Only other complaint is that some movies give you no option but the dubbed. Not many, but it happens.

[MadMan]

:lol:

L'Armée des ombres is baby doll's French way of saying Army of Shadows, so you only need to watch it once.Well that's what I get for not speaking French :P

Last week I actually made it through of all my rentals. I'm shooting for that this weekend.

Rouge, let me know what you think of Piranha in 3D. I will be seeing that, beer in hand. Plus in September the biggest theater in my town is getting Winter's Bone for a week. Should I see it? I think I shall, based on the buzz its getting.

[baby doll]

Weekend:

L'Amour l'après-midi (Eric Rohmer, 1972)
Bram Stoker's Dracula (Francis Ford Coppola, 1992)
The Kid (Charles Chaplin, 1921)
Made in USA (Jean-Luc Godard, 1966)
Nanook of the North (Robert Flaherty, 1922)
Un conte de Noël (Arnaud Desplechin, 2008)
Valerie and Her Week of Wonders (Jaromil Jires, 1970)

[endingcredits]

Weekend:
* Antichrist (von Trier)
* Perriot le Fou (Godard)
* The Music (Masumura)

[BuffaloWilder]

"Man, e'ybody got AIDS 'n shit."

[soitgoes...]

I just finished Brand Upon the Brain!, and with that I can declare Maddin the best director of the aughts. All five of his features would be at least ***½, and then you have his best work The Heart of the World.

[soitgoes...]

For fun, since he hasn't had a consensus:

The Saddest Music in the World - 9.5
Careful - 9.0
Cowards Bend the Knee - 9.0
Dracula: Page's from a Virgin's Diary - 9.0
Brand Upon the Brain! - 8.5
My Winnipeg - 8.5
Archangel - 7.5

Yeah, I'm a fan.

[baby doll]

Tales From the Gimli Hospital (1988) / ***
Careful (1992) / ***
Dracula: Pages From a Virgin's Diary (2001) / **
Cowards Bend the Knee (2002) / ***1/2
The Saddest Music in the World (2003) / ****
Brand Upon the Brain! (2006) / ****
My Winnipeg (2007) / ***1/2

I need to re-see Archangel. My favorite Maddin shorts are The Heart of the World, My Dad Is 100 Years Old, and Night Mayor.

Incidentally, it's worth noting that, of the five commercial features he made over the last decade, from a production standpoint, only The Saddest Music in the World is technically a commercial feature. Dracula was made for local TV; Cowards Bend the Knee started out as a gallery installation; Brand Upon the Brain! was made by a not-for-profit film company; and My Winnipeg was made for an obscure Canadian cable channel. And when you compare Maddin's output over the last decade with official Canadian filmmakers (David Cronenberg's post-Spider downward spiral in particular should serve as a cautionary tale of what happens to talented filmmakers under the brutalities of the marketplace, and even though I liked Where the Truth Lies, despite or rather because it was a big budget Atom Egoyan movie, his subsequent Chloe is even more of a sell-out than Cronenberg's recent films), the advantages of Maddin's independence over Cronenberg and Egoyan's servitude should be apparent to anyone.

Best director of the last decade? I see your Maddin, and raise you a Michael Haneke: Code inconnu: Récit incomplet de divers voyages, La Pianiste, Le Temps du loup, Caché, The White Ribbon: A German Children's Story.

[Spinal]

For fun, since he hasn't had a consensus:



What? Is this true? Egregious omission.

[transmogrifier]

United 93 - Even better the further away from the event. Excellent contrast between the elephantine beaureaucratic system and the direct, desperate survival instinct of the passengers. Unadorned, straight-foward, tense and deeply sad.

[Raiders]

I really need to see more from Maddin...

Twilight of the Ice Nymphs [*½]
The Heart of the World [****]
Dracula: Pages from a Virgin's Diary [***½]
The Saddest Music in the World [***]

[Boner M]

Made a second attempt at Flowing, and now feeling glum for not having any compelling defense for my disengagement throughout, aside from "borrrrrring". In fact, I'm even struggling to recall what happened in it aside from some financial troubles and familial conflict amongst a geisha house whose inhabitants I can barely distinguish between outside of their age, so I don't even know if I should be adding a rating to my sig. Still keen for When a Woman Ascends the Stairs; maybe ensemble-piece Naruse just isn't for me (very much liked Repast and Sound of the Mountain).

[StanleyK]

I've watched a few notorious directors' debuts lately. The weakest one is easily Hitchcock's The Pleasure Garden; the only interesting thing about it is seeing what passed as feminism in the 20's. Then there's Nolan's just-passable Following, which starts about the voyeuristic thrill of watching movies and ends about how cool its twist ending is. Finally, Eisenstein's Strike is propaganda filmmaking done right; focusing less on the political aspect of the struggle and more on the immediate cause and effect allows it to feel more encompassing, while not coming off as preachy. It's just a shame how the capitalist bosses are cartoonish villains, because if they were as well-rounded as the strikers (who realistically become total dicks once they start starving), the movie could've been a masterpiece.

Meanwhile, Kitano continues being awesome with Kikujiro, and Koyaanisqatsi is still my pick for the film most representative of humanity. The segment of 'The Grid' is one of the best stretches of pure cinema ever.

[soitgoes...]

What? Is this true? Egregious omission.
I'm pretty sure, unless it happened at the old site. I don't think so though.

[megladon8]

I tried to watch George Stevens' Giant, partly out of curiosity but mostly because it's the only film in the James Dean box set I have which I haven't watched yet.

I don't see myself being able to get through 3 1/2 hours of this bloated, melodramatic swash.

[Qrazy]

I tried to watch George Stevens' Giant, partly out of curiosity but mostly because it's the only film in the James Dean box set I have which I haven't watched yet.

I don't see myself being able to get through 3 1/2 hours of this bloated, melodramatic swash.

Yeah I can't say I'm a particularly big Stevens fan. Shane and A Place in the Sun are both decent but not all that great imo. Gunga Din is just bad.

[megladon8]

Yeah I can't say I'm a particularly big Stevens fan. Shane and A Place in the Sun are both decent but not all that great imo. Gunga Din is just bad.


I thought Shane was quite wonderful, actually.

Haven't seen the other two, though they have fairly legendary status in some circles.

Giant looks pretty occasionally, but it's terrible.