Review Underseen Films by Your Favorite Director(s)

[Qrazy]

Do it.

[B-side]

Simple and to the point.

[megladon8]

Oooo...cool!

By underseen, do you mean in general? Or stuff by your favorite directors that you have yet to see as well?

This'd give me a good excuse to check out some more stuff from Cronenberg.

[Qrazy]

Oooo...cool!

By underseen, do you mean in general? Or stuff by your favorite directors that you have yet to see as well?

This'd give me a good excuse to check out some more stuff from Cronenberg.

Let's go with the latter.

[MadMan]

Does Matinee from Joe Dante count? Cause that one's underseen and he's a favorite director of mine.

[Raiders]

Does Matinee from Joe Dante count? Cause that one's underseen and he's a favorite director of mine.

Bastard.

[MadMan]

Bastard.:sad: I have it on my DVR, and I've never seen it....

[Qrazy]

Does Matinee from Joe Dante count? Cause that one's underseen and he's a favorite director of mine.

Sure.

[Raiders]

:sad: I have it on my DVR, and I've never seen it....

Yeah, I now have read Qrazy's follow-up where he deems this should be an entry where we have yet to view the film as well, so go for it. I was initially under the impression we had already seen the film.

[Derek]

So...you created this thread as a way to consolidate all of B-side's future posts?

I kid, good thread idea.

[MadMan]

Yeah, I now have read Qrazy's follow-up where he deems this should be an entry where we have yet to view the film as well, so go for it. I was initially under the impression we had already seen the film.


Sure.

Cool :pritch:

[Qrazy]

So...you created this thread as a way to consolidate all of B-side's future posts?

I kid, good thread idea.

Seriously, that fucking guy hasn't seen 90% of the great films out there because the first film he sees from any given director is the film they made while locked in a closet on acid and never released to the public.

[B-side]

Seriously, that fucking guy hasn't seen 90% of the great films out there because the first film he sees from any given director is the film they made while locked in a closet on acid and never released to the public.

How does that not sound like it would be the best film ever? I mean, come on. Let's be serious here.

[lovejuice]

I like the idea. Very much.

[MadMan]

How does that not sound like it would be the best film ever? I mean, come on. Let's be serious here.I second this. Especially if said film has trippy colors! :pritch:

[baby doll]

Seriously, that fucking guy hasn't seen 90% of the great films out thereI doubt I've seen ten percent of the great films out there.

[elixir]

Note: I found this film difficult to write about (and comprehend), so this "review" kind of sucks...at least I tried though. Also, I'm sure this reads as pretty obnoxious, but I went about the only way I knew how of attacking the film.

Le Gai Savoir (Jean-Luc Godard, 1969)

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb187/ears550/vlcsnap-2011-11-21-16h50m39s154-1.png

Two figures in blackness. It’s a void, but there are still conditions. A 3-year mission to deconstruct and recompose cinema; it’s an impossible goal. Emilie and Patricia, the two main characters, meet on a sound stage before the day begins to discuss language, sound, images–how we learn. But learning is an enjoyable process as much as it is “serious.” Godard has always seemed playful to me, at least.

Though reminiscent of La Chinoise (though I much prefer this film to that one), due to its overtly political speech and the presence of Jean-Pierre Leaud and Juliet Berto, Le Gai Savoir (“Joy of Learning” in English) has even less of a linear narrative. It’s a scramble of montages of theatrical shots of lone figures on a sound stage. Mixing together images of Mao and Che, cartoons and posters with sounds of Godard’s halting narrator along with his characters’ political discourse, audio and visual become impossible to separate even as the links seem harder to grasp. It’s a film that is frustrating dense, annoyingly esoteric, incredibly opaque at times. It’s never less than intriguing and whimsical though.

The two characters speak of pretty much everything. The film often says it, or they, should go back to zero. For the image and sound work together. Now there is only blackness, but narration remains. The sound is cut off through a bleeping censor, but the image remains. Yet that doesn’t seem to work, since even the use of words is problematic, even the use of images is impossibly biased. (At this point I couldn’t help but be reminded of the discussion of language in Vivre Sa Vie.) Throw out the dictionary, too, then, and create your own language. Fine, so at the end, Emilie has created only a single new word, “misotodiman”: it’s a mixture of method and sentiment. So is the film. Even as the film is extremely formal and seemingly devoid of feeling, there is something tender in the characters’ desire to try to understand and subsequently change language and cinema. They go off each morning to accomplish some seemingly important activity in the revolution (the film began shooting before the May 1968 protests and finished afterwards), but the two always seem to return to the black void the same.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb187/ears550/vlcsnap-2011-11-21-17h04m47s180-1.png

The film and its characters are looking for associations and links. Between words and speech, between sound and image, between sounds and between images. To emphasize this point, there are word association tasks with a small boy and an elderly man. The elder seems to only want to hear agreement, but the boy seems more willing. It’s suggesting that perhaps there is a need to un-learn as much as there is to learn–or to unlearn in order to allow for education. That is, one must open themselves up to new ideas. Gosh, this film is so didactic. But it knows it; its goals seem ambitious, and they are in many ways, but its modest as well. It knows–it states–that this isn’t the film to change cinema; it wants to see the path for other films to change it. It even mentions other directors who are able to do this.

After all, this film is self aware. Godard recognizes that his cinema can veer itself towards the bourgeoisie elite he so often criticizes. He states: “the subversions can come to serve.” It’s a dangerous game to play. The things these two characters spout are often ridiculously high-falutin, the name-dropping out of control. But it’s in service of a noble goal: to reconfigure language, to (re)construct the self. Patricia ultimately realizes that “what is really at stake…is the image of one’s self.” What’s really at stake in this film, in some ways, is Godard’s image of himself (as presented to the spectators). His narration is really the third “character” in the film, and it’s his own deconstruction and reconstruction of cinema that is under the audience’s scrutiny. I’m not sure it’s successful at making any definitive statements, but then again I’m not sure it’s even attempting it; what it is more than successful at is being intellectually provocative, elusive in its pondering but never obscure to the point of inscrutability. As you can tell, I don’t really think I fully understand the film after just one viewing, but there’s joy to be had in trying to do so.

http://i206.photobucket.com/albums/bb187/ears550/vlcsnap-2011-11-21-16h40m00s160-1.png

[Qrazy]

I doubt I've seen ten percent of the great films out there.

Then you should probably start watching them.

[Izzy Black]

It really does seem quite difficult to even know how to measure how many great films there are, and how many of them you have or have not seen.

[Qrazy]

It really does seem quite difficult to even know how to measure how many great films there are, and how many of them you have or have not seen.

While my initial comment was obviously not meant to be taken literally I don't think this should really be all that difficult. It would be much harder to measure this with literature. Film is an incredibly expensive medium (for the most part) and has only been around for just over a century and especially during it's early period only an extremely finite number of films were created. Especially if we narrow this down to features when cross referencing a variety of great directors and great films lists this should be not that difficult to calculate. I'll go ahead and venture that (in terms of how I define very good to great films) that in terms of my own aesthetic predilections there's probably something at most like 3,000 great films out there. I would probably actually round this number way down given how many of the supposed great films and great directors I've already gone through but for the sake of argument I'll keep it a large number.

I've currently seen about 3,500 movies and maybe 700 of those have been very good to great.

[Izzy Black]

While my initial comment was obviously not meant to be taken literally I don't think this should really be all that difficult. It would be much harder to measure this with literature. Film is an incredibly expensive medium (for the most part) and has only been around for just over a century and especially during it's early period only an extremely finite number of films were created. Especially if we narrow this down to features when cross referencing a variety of great directors and great films lists this should be not that difficult to calculate. I'll go ahead and venture that (in terms of how I define very good to great films) that in terms of my own aesthetic predilections there's probably something at most like 3,000 great films out there. I would probably actually round this number way down given how many of the supposed great films and great directors I've already gone through but for the sake of argument I'll keep it a large number.

I've currently seen about 3,500 movies and maybe 700 of those have been very good to great.

You got it down to a math!

I personally find the matter more complex. Great directors seem to be a good indicator of a great film, but how many great directors are there? Some great directors may have made only one or two films. And then you have great films from not-so-great directors. These films may not be very popular, or well-known, but great nonetheless. So the problem of anticipating a great director is the same as anticipating a great film. If you take canonical lists of "great directors" to be a good approximation of the filmic terrain, that's a start, but many of my favorite directors are not commonly represented on such lists, either because of style and/or unpopularity. I suppose for you these lists tend to approximate your interests.

[Qrazy]

You got it down to a math!

I personally find the matter more complex. Great directors seem to be a good indicator of a great film, but how many great directors are there? Some great directors may have made only one or two films. And then you have great films from not-so-great directors. These films may not be very popular, or well-known, but great nonetheless. So the problem of anticipating a great director is the same as anticipating a great film. If you take canonical lists of "great directors" to be a good approximation of the filmic terrain, that's a start, but many of my favorite directors are not commonly represented on such lists, either because of style and/or unpopularity. I suppose for you these lists tend to approximate your interests.

In the above though the problem is not with lists in general, it's with the 'standard' canonical lists. I've poured through many, many obscure lists as well and lists of individual countries cinematic histories (many of these countries with super small film industries). I've also gone off the beaten path and seen many of the second-tier 'great' films and for the most part (there are certainly diamonds in the rough) these films are not as good as the first tier ones. A lot of feature films have been made in the last 100 years, but not an uncountable, enormous sum. And the vast majority of art in any artform tends to be not very good (Sturgeon's Law) so that limits the list still further. I certainly agree with you that there are many great films that aren't on the canonical lists, but I just don't think the numbers are that vast.

I'm not sure I believe that many of your favorite directors aren't on these lists (although I don't know which lists you're looking at and I'm sure some of your favorites don't make the top canon cuts) given what I know about the films you've expressed enthusiasm for in the past. For instance Jancso and Antonioni would certainly make most of the lists I look at it.

[Izzy Black]

In the above though the problem is not with lists in general, it's with the 'standard' canonical lists. I've poured through many, many obscure lists as well and lists of individual countries cinematic histories (many of these countries with super small film industries).

The problem can extend to those lists. Why think any of these lists will be a good indicator of the great films for those respective countries? Maybe they are, but maybe not. I've poured through many of these kinds of lists as well (well, in my heyday, certainly not in the past couple of years), but I am not sure I got a consistent sense of what to expect about the quality of films from those countries.


I've also gone off the beaten path and seen many of the second-tier 'great' films and for the most part (there are certainly diamonds in the rough) these films are not as good as the first tier ones. A lot of feature films have been made in the last 100 years, but not an uncountable, enormous sum. And the vast majority of art in any artform tends to be not very good (Sturgeon's Law) so that limits the list still further. I certainly agree with you that there are many great films that aren't on the canonical lists, but I just don't think the numbers are that vast.

I am not saying the number is vast. I respect that there's a finite number of films. My problem is with measurement. I'm just not sure exactly of how to get a good sense of the number (however small or great) of great films there are.


I'm not sure I believe that many of your favorite directors aren't on these lists (although I don't know which lists you're looking at and I'm sure some of your favorites don't make the top canon cuts) given what I know about the films you've expressed enthusiasm for in the past. For instance Jancso and Antonioni would certainly make most of the lists I look at it.

The upper-tier of my favorites (top 10 territory) tend to overlap, but a lot of that has to do with the fact that these "great director" lists just are the reference points by which I watch many movies (as I think is the case for most of us). That doesn't mean, however, that they are a good approximation of greatness in the filmic medium, just that my viewing habits tend to be closed and insular as matter of convenience.

Moreover, it's also not merely an issue of "obscurity" - it's the lack of consensus among many lists. For example, Tony Scott is one of my favorites, but according to some consensus groups, he's not a great director, but according to some populist consensus groups he is, and to still fewer, select arthouse lists he is, but that doesn't speak much to a general consensus. It raises questions about the "standards" of greatness that are inconsistent across various listing contexts.

[Qrazy]

At this point in my cinematic education I very, very rarely will come across a totally removed great film. That is to say a film that I either either haven't heard of by name (from pouring over lists or by word of mouth) or know the director's name or know someone involved in the production (cinematographer, actor, etc). It happens, but very rarely, and usually when examining a country's cinema I haven't yet (and the number of countries I haven't seen a film from is itself very limited).

In my experience the greatest films tend to come from great directors. There are one hit wonders but they are few and far between. I simply extrapolate my current findings outward and statistically I'm making a pretty good bet here. Is it possible once I discover the cinema of Estonia I will find 1,000 great Estonian films? Possible but so statistically unlikely as to not be worth entertaining the possibility.

[Qrazy]

The upper-tier of my favorites (top 10 territory) tend to overlap, but a lot of that has to do with the fact that these "great director" lists just are the reference points by which I watch many movies (as I think is the case for most of us). That doesn't mean, however, that they are a good approximation of greatness in the filmic medium, just that my viewing habits tend to be closed and insular as matter of convenience.

Moreover, it's also not merely an issue of "obscurity" - it's the lack of consensus among many lists. For example, Tony Scott is one of my favorites, but according to some consensus groups, he's not a great director, but according to some populist consensus groups he is, and to still fewer, select arthouse lists he is, but that doesn't speak much to a general consensus. It raises questions about the "standards" of greatness that are inconsistent across various listing contexts.

Yes but if one pours over the lists without trying to create a general consensus then there is no problem. The fact is that Tony Scott is on a best of list somewhere so he has been accounted for. I simply do not believe that there are many great directors out there that have not been accounted for on some list by someone and again I have read many, many lists so I feel I have most of the players covered.

As to the country specific lists, just read multiple best of lists for any given country and/or consult a citizen of that country. You begin to see major overlap in the lists because for the most part the best films do rise to the top (the outliers or hidden gems exist but don't make up the majority of great films).

[transmogrifier]

I've currently seen about 3,500 movies and maybe 700 of those have been very good to great.

For me:

2428 movies seen (at least - there would be plenty I forget from childhood etc)

2221 I have a definite grade for

574 I rate 70+ which is probably the mark at which I would actively defend a film against detractors.

[Boner M]

Wish there was some way to see Lanton Mills.

[B-side]

Wish there was some way to see Lanton Mills.

It's available to watch at the AFI.

[Boner M]

It's available to watch at the AFI.
Thx for the link dude.

[B-side]

Thx for the link dude.

I did a search on the AFI Louis B Mayer site and didn't come up with anything, but all sorts of links on Google from seemingly reliable sources say it is available at the AFI library for scholars and whatnot to view.

[Raiders]

I did a search on the AFI Louis B Mayer site and didn't come up with anything, but all sorts of links on Google from seemingly reliable sources say it is available at the AFI library for scholars and whatnot to view.

Yep, that's it. Malick doesn't allow anyone to view it outside those enrolled at the AFI Conservatory. I think as it was his thesis film for graduation from the AFI, he views it as thiers more than his and doesn't wish it to be part of his catalogue outside those attending the AFI.

[Qrazy]

My guess is that at some point that will be bootlegged and proliferate across the internet.

[Qrazy]

For me:

2428 movies seen (at least - there would be plenty I forget from childhood etc)

2221 I have a definite grade for

574 I rate 70+ which is probably the mark at which I would actively defend a film against detractors.

Nice, your stats seem vaguely in line with my own.

[dreamdead]

I too will participate in this (as the topic is genuinely interesting)--it looks like Lee Chang-dong's Green Fish is finally available again in R1, so that will be my entry at some point... always wanted to complete Lee's filmography, and this is nice incentive.

[Thirdmango]

Moreover, it's also not merely an issue of "obscurity" - it's the lack of consensus among many lists. For example, Tony Scott is one of my favorites, but according to some consensus groups, he's not a great director, but according to some populist consensus groups he is, and to still fewer, select arthouse lists he is, but that doesn't speak much to a general consensus. It raises questions about the "standards" of greatness that are inconsistent across various listing contexts.

I think when you get to this point it is figuring out how you personally want to interpret your own feelings on movies. I do think for the most part when it comes to being a movie buff one should view some sort of amount of good movies across the board and then as your own personality seeps in as well finding movies and directors which fulfill your own need. For instance I would rather watch the greatest comedy then the greatest drama, I understand this is not the feeling of the general consensus so I will lean towards lists which are done by people who value comedy. I simply do not like Horror and have even seen movies listed near the top of great horror films and didn't like them so I steer clear of those types of lists. So with lists I will stick to what I like and investigate areas in which people who like similar things have shown to be good as well.

I gotta agree with Qrazy in that there are some one hit wonders but for the most part I will stick to directors, I have personal lists set up on my computer of 42 directors showing all the films I have and have not seen and there are some on there who I haven't seen a single film or only seen one, but I do have them on there knowing there are films on their list I should see.

I love Match Cut in that as you are here you get to know people's tastes and then you can stick to different posters when you're looking into new things.

[dreamdead]

So Lee Chang-dong's Green Fish best serves to illustrate themes that he would chronicle in better, more developed works. There's the physically disabled individual (here a brother rather than a lead in Oasis), corrupt family members and bureaucracy (Oasis and Peppermint Candy), and disillusioned teens. Though it's foremost a crime saga, replete with the stereotypical Big Brother/brother motifs, there are several moments that find a unique energy and verve that's entirely their own. There's a clever bit of writing and performance where our lead's brother tries to bride a police officer with 5,000 won but tries to break a bigger bill (10,000). After the police officer takes off with the larger cash, the brother chases after the cop and calls out to him over a megaphone in his vehicle. It's a singularly strange moment, and one that isn't rooted in the machinations of plot but rather of character. As such, it's a fun sequence, even if it's carried out a beat too long.

If there's any fault with this film, it's that the writing isn't as rich, the indictment of urban lifestyles subsuming rural ideals isn't as nuanced, and the performances lack the bravura quality all of Lee's later films would contain. It's not necessarily a bad film, but it's definitely the weakest of Lee's five films, and is best viewed as a completist project, where we see the early signs of Lee's thematic projects on display.