MC Yearly Consensus - 1966

[Spinal]

Submit your five favorite films from this year and in a week I will give you a top ten. IMDb dates will be used.

The point system is as follows

1st Place-5 points
2nd Place-4 points
3rd Place-3.5 points
4th Place-3 points
5th Place-2.5 points

There will be no restrictions on short films. A minimum of three films must be listed. You may edit your post freely up until the time that the thread is locked, which will be in about a week. I will give at least 24 hours warning before tallying votes.

You may begin now.

IMDB Power Search (http://www.imdb.com/list)

[Spinal]

1. The Battle of Algiers
2. How the Grinch Stole Christmas!
3. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
4. Persona
5. A Man for All Seasons

[Mysterious Dude]

1. The Battle of Algiers
2. Blowup
3. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
4. Cul-de-sac
5. Father

[Pop Trash]

EDIT: I'm switching my top two around. I didn't think Au Hasard Balthazar would get as many votes as it has. I'm also adding Charlie Brown.

1. Persona
2. Au Hasard Balthazar
3. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
4. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?
5. It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown

HM: Masculine-Feminine and Blowup

[ledfloyd]

1. Masculin Feminin
2. Persona
3. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
4. A Man For All Seasons
5. Blow-Up

a great year just based on what i saw. i still need to see Balthazar, Rublev, Virginia Woolf and some others.

[Derek]

1. Au hasard, Balthazar (Robert Bresson)
2. Persona (Ingmar Bergman)
3. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly (Sergio Leone)
4. Breakaway (Bruce Conner)
5. Blowup (Michelangelo Antonioni)
******************************
6. Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo)
7. La Caza (Carlos Saura)
8. La Religieuse (Jacques Rivette)
9. Masculine-Feminine (Jean-Luc Godard)
10. Who Wants to Kill Jessie? (Vaclav Vorlicek)

HMs:
It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown (Bill Melendez)
Closely Watched Trains (Jiri Menzel)
How the Grinch Stole Christmas (Chuck Jones)
Seconds (John Frankenheimer)
The Rise of Louis XIV (Roberto Rossellini)

[soitgoes...]

1. The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo)
2. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols)
3. Dragon Inn (King Hu)
4. La Caza (Carlos Saura)
5. Closely Watched Trains (JirÃ* Menzel)
---------------------------------------------------------
6. Persona (Ingmar Bergman)
7. Le Deuxième souffle (Jean-Pierre Melville)
8. Borom sarret (Ousmane Sembene)
9. Young Torless (Volker Schlöndorff)
10. The Naked Prey (Cornel Wilde)
11. The Round-Up (Miklòs Janscò)
12. Black Girl (Ousmane Sembene)

[origami_mustache]

1. Au hasard, Balthazar
2. Blowup
3. Persona
4. Battle of Algiers
5. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

[baby doll]

1. Au hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson)
2. Persona (Ingmar Bergman)
3. The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo)
4. Blowup (Michelangelo Antonioni)
5. The Hawks and the Sparrows (Pier Paolo Pasolini)

[Weeping_Guitar]

1. Masculin Feminin
2. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
3. Persona
4. Blowup
5. A Man and a Woman

[Boner M]

1. Au Hasard Balthazar
2. The Battle of Algiers
3. The Face of Another
4. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
5. Persona

HM: Masculin/Feminin, Seconds, Hold Me While I'm Naked, Daisies, El Dorado

[Russ]

1. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
2. Tokyo Drifter
3. How the Grinch Stole Christmas
4. The Wrong Box
5. Rakvickarna

[Raiders]

1. Persona
2. Au hasard Balthazar
3. La Caza
4. Masculin-Feminin
5. Kill, Baby... Kill!

What an amazing year when films as awesome as Seconds, The Battle of Algiers and The Good, the Bad and the Ugly are only HMs.

[Ezee E]

1. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
2. Persona
3. Au Hasard Balthazar
4. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf
5. How the Grinch Stole Chrstmas

[dreamdead]

1. The Battle of Algiers
2. Persona
3. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
4. Au hasard Balthazar
5. It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown

H/M: Closely Watched Trains,

[MacGuffin]

1. Blowup (Michelangelo Antonioni)
2. Masculin Feminin (Jean-Luc Godard)
3. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly (Sergio Leone)
4. Kill, Baby... Kill! (Mario Bava)
5. It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown [short] (Bill Melendez)

[Spinal]

"I got a rock."

Easily my favorite of the Charlie Brown specials.

[Qrazy]

1. Au Hasard Balthazar
2. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly
3. Battle of Algiers
4. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf
5. A Man for All Seasons

6. The Round-up
7. Persona
8. Second Breath
9. Hawks and Sparrows
10. Closely Watched Trains

HMs: Tokyo Drifter, Blowup, Seconds, The Pornographers, Breakaway, Daisies

Want to see: Wings, La Caza, Young Torless, Come Drink with Me, Dragon Gate Inn, Django, Cul de Sac, Sword of Doom, Sult, Face of Another

This year blows my mind.

[Philosophe_rouge]

1. The Good the bad and the Ugly
2. Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf
3. Persona
4. The Professionals
5. Daisies

[Melville]

1. Persona
2. Au hasard Balthazar
3. The Battle of Algiers
4. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
5. How the Grinch Stole Christmas!

HMs: Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf, Hold Me While I'm Naked

[Yxklyx]

1, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Sergio Leone)
2. Au hasard Balthazar (Robert Bresson)
3. Closely Watched Trains (JirÃ* Menzel)
4. A Man for All Seasons (Fred Zinneman)
5. Blow Up (Michelangelo Antonioni)

6. Persona (Ingmar Bergman)
7. Punch and Judy (Jan Svankmajer)
8. Whose Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols)
9. The Russians are Coming, the Russians Are Coming (Norman Jewison)
10. Seconds (John Frankenheimer)

[Grouchy]

1. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
2. Cul-de-Sac
3. Persona
4. Seconds
5. Django

[MadMan]

Eventually I'll see more from 1966...

1. The God, the Bad, and the Ugly
2. The Professionals
3. How the Grinch Stole Christmas!
4. It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown

[Lazlo]

1. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly
2. The Battle of Algiers
3. Persona
4. Masculin Feminin
5. Penelope

[monolith94]

1. The Good, The Bad, and The Ugly
2. Blowup
3. The Battle of Algiers
4. Tokyo Drifter
5. A Funny Thing Happened on the Way to the Forum

[Boner M]

Added The Face of Another to my list. Surprised it's not on anyone else's; it's nearly as good as Woman in the Dunes.

[koji]

1. Au Hasard Bathazar (Bresson)
2. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? (Mike Nichols)
3. Closely Watched Trains (JirÃ* Menzel)
4. The Sword of Doom (Kihachi Okamoto)
5. Red Angel (Masumura)
****************************** ****
6. The Good, the Bad and the Ugly (Leone)
7. Come Have a Drink with Me (King Hu)
8. Persona (Bergman)
9. The Naked Prey (Wilde)
10. La Guerre est Finie (Resnais)


HM: The Battle of Algiers (Gillo Pontecorvo) A Man for All Seasons (Fred Zimmerman) Blow Up (Antonioni) How to Steal a Million (William Wyler) Tokyo Drifter (Seijun Suzuki) The Russians are Coming, The Russians are Coming (Norman Jewison)

[Melville]

Added The Face of Another to my list. Surprised it's not on anyone else's; it's nearly as good as Woman in the Dunes.
Is it in the recent collection? If so, maybe I'll buy the whole thing.

[Qrazy]

Added The Face of Another to my list. Surprised it's not on anyone else's; it's nearly as good as Woman in the Dunes.

Haven't seen it, but I'm sure I'll love it... how's Pitfall?

[Boner M]

Haven't seen it, but I'm sure I'll love it... how's Pitfall?
Haven't watched Pitfall yet, will do soon. I think Teshigahara's becoming a favorite, although I suppose Kobo Abe is a major factor in my appreciation of those two films (btw, the short story compilation at the bottom of my sig is really cool).

[SirNewt]

Holy fucking shit!

1. Persona
2. The Battle of Algiers
3. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
4. Au Hasard Balthazar
5. It's the Great Pumpkin Charlie Brown

A Man for All Seasons
Tokyo Drifter
Closely Watched Trains

[Kurious Jorge v3.1]

1. The Face of Another
2. Blow Up
3. Breakaway (Conner)
4. Persona
5. La Caza

[Kurosawa Fan]

1. A Man for All Seasons
2. Persona
3. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
4. Tokyo Drifter
5. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

I need to see Battle of Algiers already.

[Watashi]

1. The Good, the Bad, and the Ugly
2. Battle of Algiers
3. Persona
4. How the Grinch Stole Christmas
5. Tokyo Drifter

[berlin wallflower]

1. Persona
2. Au Hasard Balthazar
3. A Man for All Seasons
4. The Good, The Bad, and the Ugly
5. How the Grinch Stole Christmas!

[soitgoes...]

One more day.

[soitgoes...]

This is closed. I'll post results tomorrow.

[soitgoes...]

#10

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/tokyo_drifter_PDVD_008a01-1.jpg

Tokyo Drifter

Director: Seijun Suzuki

Country: Japan

Tetsu has joined his yakuza boss in going straight, but when a rival gang threatens to bring them back into the gang wars, Tetsu must become a drifter to keep the pressure off his old boss.

Nikkatsu bosses had been warning Suzuki to tone down his bizarre visual style for years and drastically reduced Tokyo Drifter's budget in hopes of getting results. This had the opposite effect in that Suzuki and art director Takeo Kimura pushed themselves to new heights of surrealism and absurdity. The studio's next move was to impose the further restriction of filming in black and white on his next films, which again Suzuki met with even greater bizarreness culminating in his dismissal for "incomprehensibility."

"Suzuki masterfully manipulates colors and compositions within the scoped frame. The fractured narrative style compliments the violent action that takes place on lush sets straight out of a Hollywood musical. Tokyo Drifter explores themes of loyalty and responsibility that have there roots in Samurai films." - Michael Den Boer

[soitgoes...]

#9

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/aman3fg1-1.jpg

A Man for All Seasons

Director: Fred Zinnemann

Country: UK

The story takes place in 16th century England. But men like Sir Thomas More, who love life yet have the moral fiber to lay down their lives for their principles, are found in every century. Concentrating on the last seven years of English chancellor's life, the struggle between More and his King, Henry VIII, hinges on Henry's determination to break with Rome so he can divorce his current wife and wed again, and good Catholic More's inability to go along with such heresy. More resigns as chancellor, hoping to be able to live out his life as a private citizen. But Henry will settle for nothing less than that the much respected More give public approval to his headstrong course.

Charlton Heston lobbied heavily for the role of Thomas More, but was never seriously considered by the producers as a candidate for the role. Heston would go on to play More in several stage productions of the play and ultimately film a television production of it in 1988.

"...Zinnemann's direction of his players seems uniformly excellent. In addition, he establishes mood and contrast in brief shots - placid, then turbulent waters, bustling minions - which are heightened further by versatile use of Technicolor, toned to the dramatic needs of the moment." - A.D. Murphy

[soitgoes...]

#8

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/MF-1.jpg

Masculin, féminin

Director: Jean-Luc Godard

Country: France/Sweden

Paul is young, just demobbed from national service in the French Army, and dishillusioned with civilian life. As his girlfriend builds herself a career as a pop singer, Paul becomes more isolated from his friends and peers ('the children of Marx and Coca Cola', as the credits announce) and their social and emotional politics.

In France, the movie was prohibited to persons under 18 — “the very audience it was meant for,� griped Godard — while the Berlin Film Festival named it the year’s best film for young people.

"The film is a provocative and deliriously funny examination of sexual politics in Paris during the height of the Vietnam War, and its genius is the way Godard seamlessly encodes his complex philosophy of the world into a deceptively simple love story between an ex-army recruit, Paul (Jean-Pierre Léaud), and a would-be pop singer, the beautiful Madeleine (Chantal Goya). This is first-class "Freudemocracy," a term Godard coined to describe the sexual-political potential of film." - Ed Gonzalez

[soitgoes...]

#7

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/grinch-1.jpg

How the Grinch Stole Christmas!

Directors: Chuck Jones, Ben Washam

Country: USA

Bitter and hateful, the Grinch is irritated at the thought of the nearby village having a happy time celebrating Christmas. So disguised as Santa Claus, with his dog made to look like a reindeer, he raids the village to steal all the Christmas things. The village is sure to have a sad Christmas this year.

Thurl Ravenscroft received no screen credit for his singing, an oversight Dr. Seuss attempted to rectify by sending letters to every major columnist in America identifying Ravenscroft as the singer on "You're a Mean One, Mr. Grinch". He is also part of the chorus on the other two songs. Ravenscroft is perhaps better known as the voice of Tony the Tiger in TV commercials.

"It's the kind of weirdly clever, yet innocent and kid-friendly, product that forces me to use this tired cliché -- they just don't make 'em like this any more. Instead, they just remake 'em in the new cynical, frenetic, consumerist mode starring the likes of Jim Carrey, the aural/visual equivalent of a three-quarts-of-eggnog headache." - David Bezanson

[soitgoes...]

#6

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/woolf-1.jpg

Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf?

Director: Mike Nichols

Country: USA

Psychological realism and foul language: George and Martha are as far from the bourgeois 1950s perfect married couple as you can get, alternatively badgering, berating, abusing and loving each other, both alone and accompanied by the naive young married couple that have come over for a nightcap. The fun and games in which George and Martha involve Nick and Honey are a lacerating look at the older couple's existence, where the emotional brutalizing fill an unspeakable void at their center, and a troubling preview of what the younger couple's life could become. Combines the banal, the vulgar and the poetic.

The first movie to successfully challenge the Production Code Office and eventually force the Motion Picture Association of America to overhaul the Production Code Seal with the eventual classification system (G-M-R-X) in 1968. The MPAA insisted on the removal of the term "screw you" from the film where it was replaced with the term "God damn you" but allowed the terms "screw" and "hump the hostess" to remain in the film.

"Their world is too much with them, their selves are much too clear. It is the price to be paid for living in a cosmos of increasing clarity—which includes a clearer view of inevitable futilities. And, fundamentally, it is this desperation—articulated in childless, broken-hearted, demonically loving marriage—that Mr. Albee has crystallized in his flawed but fine play." - Stanley Kauffman

[soitgoes...]

#5

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/blowup-1.jpg

Blowup

Director: Michelangelo Anonioni

Country: UK/Italy/USA

A London fashion photographer frolics with young models, then meets the mysterious Vanessa Redgrave. He takes a photo in a park. Back in his darkroom as he enlarges it, he sees a suggestion of something in the photo he never noticed while taking it. Has a crime occurred?

As a way of bypassing the Production Code (i.e. censors), MGM created "Premiere Productions". This was a dummy company which had no agreement or affiliation with the Production Code and, therefore, did not have to adhere to its standards. MGM did not have to cut the full frontal nudity or other sexually explicit scenes and maintained all rights to the film.

"Whether there was a murder isn't the point. The film is about a character mired in ennui and distaste, who is roused by his photographs into something approaching passion." - Roger Ebert

[soitgoes...]

#4

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/algiers-1.jpg

The Battle of Algiers

Director: Gillo Pontecorvo

Country: Algeria/Italy

A film commissioned by the Algerian government that shows the Algerian revolution from both sides. The French foreign legion has left Vietnam in defeat and has something to prove. The Algerians are seeking independence. The two clash. The torture used by the French is contrasted with the Algerian's use of bombs in soda shops. A look at war as a nasty thing that harms and sullies everyone who participates in it.

In 2003, the New York Times reported that the Pentagon screened this film for officers and civilian experts who were discussing the challenges faced by the US military forces in Iraq. The flier inviting guests to the screening read: "How to win a battle against terrorism and lose the war of ideas."

"...more extraordinary and therefore more commanding of lasting interest and critical applause is the amazing photographic virtuosity and pictorial conviction of this film. So authentically and naturalistically were its historical reflections staged, with literally thousands of citizens participating, in the streets and buildings of Algiers that it looks beyond any question to be an original documentary film, put together from newsreel footage, complemented by staged dramatic scenes." - Bosley Crowther

[soitgoes...]

#3

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/balthasar-1.jpg

Au hasard Balthazar

Director: Robert Bresson

Country: France/Sweden

The sad life and death of Balthazar, a donkey, from an idyllic childhood surrounded by loving children, through adulthood as a downtrodden beast of burden. His life is paralleled with that of the girl who named him, and as she is humiliated by her sadistic lover, so he is beaten by his owner. But he finds a kind of peace when he is employed by an old miller who thinks he is a reincarnated saint.

Balthazar was an untrained donkey during most of the filming, which made Bressons's work a real challenge. The only scene for which the donkey was trained was the circus math trick.

"Balthazar possesses a strictly balanced, bemused-unto-neigh-indifferent attitude toward delineating between the wry and the glum, the sacred and the profane. Separating those elements, Bresson seems to demonstrate, only robs each element of its consequence and mystery." - Eric Henderson

[soitgoes...]

#2

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/persona-1.jpg

Persona

Director: Ingmar Bergman

Country: Sweden

A young nurse, Alma, is put in charge of Elisabeth Vogler: an actress who is seemingly healthy in all respects, but will not talk. As they spend time together, Alma speaks to Elisabeth constantly, never receiving any answer. Alma eventually confesses her secrets to a seemingly sympathetic Elisabeth and finds that her own personality is being submerged into Elisabeth's persona.

Two scenes are frequently cut from versions of the film; a brief shot at the beginning depicting an erect penis, and a piece of Alma's monologue where she says her lover "made her come with his hand" and implies they were children or teenagers. These changes were removed for American distribution, but retained on most American video releases.

"Today I feel that in Persona--and later in Cries and Whispers--I had gone as far as I could go. And that in these two instances when working in total freedom, I touched wordless secrets that only the cinema can discover." - Ingmar Bergman

[soitgoes...]

#1

http://i233.photobucket.com/albums/ee171/soitgoes22/ugly_1-1.jpg

The Good, the Bad and the Ugly

Director: Sergio Leone

Country: Italy/Spain

The Good is Blondie, a wandering gunman with a strong personal sense of honor. The Bad is Angel Eyes, a sadistic hitman who always hits his mark. The Ugly is Tuco, a Mexican bandit who's always only looking out for himself. Against the backdrop of the Civil War, they search for a fortune in gold buried in a graveyard. Each knows only a portion of the gold's exact location, so for the moment they're dependent on each other. However, none are particularly inclined to share.

After Eli Wallach agreed with Sergio Leone that Tuco would carry his pistol on a lanyard, the director asked him to grasp the gun by shaking his neck, thus making the gun land in his hand. Wallach claimed that he wasn't able to do the intended action, and asked Leone to demonstrate it. When Leone tried, the pistol missed the director's hand and hit his crotch. Leone then told Wallach to hold the gun in the belt.

"Leone cares not at all about the practical or the plausible, and builds his great film on the rubbish of Western movie cliches, using style to elevate dreck into art." - Roger Ebert

[soitgoes...]

1. The Good, The Bad and The Ugly - 86.5
2. Persona - 78.5
3. Au hasard Balthazar - 59.5
4. The Battle of Algiers - 53
5. Blowup - 34.5
6. Who's Afraid of Virginia Woolf? - 33
7. How the Grinch Stole Christmas! - 21.5
8. Masculin, féminin - 20
9. A Man for All Seasons - 19.5
10. Tokyo Drifter - 13

Oh so close...
It's the Great Pumpkin, Charlie Brown - 12.5
Closely Watched Trains - 9.5
La Caza - 9
The Face of Another - 8.5

[Raiders]

Hard to fault those results. I would have liked to see Godard's higher and Antonioni's lower, but for a consensus, that's a very satisfying list.

[MacGuffin]

Hard to fault those results. I would have liked to see Godard's higher and Antonioni's lower, but for a consensus, that's a very satisfying list.

I would've liked to see them both higher, but Godard's gets some hate. Good to see you like it too, however.

[baby doll]

Hard to fault those results. I would have liked to see Godard's higher and Antonioni's lower, but for a consensus, that's a very satisfying list.It's always disappointing to see an empty, overblown exercise in Techniscope formalism beat out more ambitious, thematically resonant and far shorter films by Bresson, Pontecorvo and Pasolini (who didn't even make the list of runners-up), but it's far from unexpected.

[Qrazy]

It's always disappointing to see an empty, overblown exercise in Techniscope formalism beat out more ambitious, thematically resonant and far shorter films by Bresson, Pontecorvo and Pasolini (who didn't even make the list of runners-up), but it's far from unexpected.

While I quite like Hawks and Sparrows and actually value it fairly highly in Pasolini's filmography, I feel The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is the stronger of the two. I also wouldn't call it empty (it's a compelling look at, interpretation and re-evaluation of 'western' morality and there's also plenty of good stuff on the civil war, the 'bonds' of friendship, etc), although Leone is certainly much more interested in entertaining, exploring archetypes and in generating and holding tension than Pasolini is... I would agree though that Balthazar is a stronger, more important and powerful film. The Battle of Algiers is nipping at GBU's heels, and I agree it's more thematically resonant, but I feel there's something to be said for masterful entertainment which by it's very mastery transcends sheer entertainment and earns the label of art by it's virtuousity (I feel similarly about Hitchcock).

[MadMan]

Honestly I tried to get into Blowup. I really did. I watched for a good 40-45 minutes and then gave up. Maybe some other time....

[baby doll]

While I quite like Hawks and Sparrows and actually value it fairly highly in Pasolini's filmography, I feel The Good, The Bad and the Ugly is the stronger of the two. I also wouldn't call it empty (it's a compelling look at, interpretation and re-evaluation of 'western' morality and there's also plenty of good stuff on the civil war, the 'bonds' of friendship, etc), although Leone is certainly much more interested in entertaining, exploring archetypes and in generating and holding tension than Pasolini is... I would agree though that Balthazar is a stronger, more important and powerful film. The Battle of Algiers is nipping at GBU's heels, and I agree it's more thematically resonant, but I feel there's something to be said for masterful entertainment which by it's very mastery transcends sheer entertainment and earns the label of art by it's virtuousity (I feel similarly about Hitchcock).I tend to prefer Hitchcock's films that are actually about something (Rear Window, Vertigo, Marnie), as opposed to those where he's simply generating suspense and laughs for their own sake (North by Northwest).

This has nothing to do with entertainment transcending to the level of art, but simply the difference between works that are superficial and ones that have more resonance--that is, where the style reenforces a theme.

In the case of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, Leone can stretch out a staring contest between the three leads until it borders on self parody--a good way to generate suspense--but I'm not sure what it tells us about the morality of the old west.

A much more interesting western that's every bit as underrated as Leone's film is overrated would be Nicholas Ray's Johnny Guitar, where the style articulates its themes at every turn. The most obvious example of this is the identification of Emma Small (Mercedes McCambridge) and her posse with black, which is compositionally motivated in that they've just come from a funeral, but it also contrasts with the bold colours and virginal whites worn by Vienna (Joan Crawford) and the Dancin' Kid (Scott Brady) and his gang.

[Grouchy]

Well, "depth" (I'm using that word very carefully here) doesn't equal quality or, to put it in a better way, a movie tackling any given social, political or philosophical issues doesn't mean it's in any way more important or meaningful than one that achieves purely cinematic tasks like, in the case of Leone's masterpiece, re-inventing/satirizing the Western genre.

Of course, taste is taste.

[baby doll]

Well, "depth" (I'm using that word very carefully here) doesn't equal quality or, to put it in a better way, a movie tackling any given social, political or philosophical issues doesn't mean it's in any way more important or meaningful than one that achieves purely cinematic tasks like, in the case of Leone's masterpiece, re-inventing/satirizing the Western genre.

Of course, taste is taste.Content matters, and there is no such thing as "purely cinematic."

[Grouchy]

Content matters, and there is no such thing as "purely cinematic."
"Content", as you say, doesn't make a movie. It's there or it's not. The large ambitions of the filmmakers don't translate to quality, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As for purely cinematic, yeah there is a movie like that and it's called The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. You should check it out.

[Qrazy]

A much more interesting western that's every bit as underrated as Leone's film is overrated would be Nicholas Ray's Johnny Guitar, where the style articulates its themes at every turn. The most obvious example of this is the identification of Emma Small (Mercedes McCambridge) and her posse with black, which is compositionally motivated in that they've just come from a funeral, but it also contrasts with the bold colours and virginal whites worn by Vienna (Joan Crawford) and the Dancin' Kid (Scott Brady) and his gang.

Seen it, I found it to be above average, didn't fall in love... this has been predominantly the case with Ray films and myself. There is an equal if not greater level of thematic articulation via color, composition, etc on display in GBU as there is in Johnny Guitar. This is apparent from the very opening frame as the shot goes from long shot to close-up in an instant, fixing itself on the sweaty brow of a nameless bounty hunter and then having him killed off a moment later to demonstrate the strong survive mentality of this west... in fact pretty much every composition in the film is resplendent with meaning, primarily in relation to the story itself but also in relation to greater themes and issues (as I mentioned Civil War, trust, friendship, etc). Someone else will have to mount a more sustained defense of the film's thematic depth though, a lot has been written but I don't feel like culling it right now.

Also what I was trying to say with my previous post is that in my opinion sometimes formal mastery and engaging cinema when it reaches a certain level of skill is at least equal to if not surpasses other films with more clear cut social or psychological concerns. Pulp can transcend itself and become something wholly interesting, meaningful and rewarding. There is an artistry to story telling itself. Yeah content matters but execution matters even much because in art execution not only informs but becomes it's own content.

[baby doll]

"Content", as you say, doesn't make a movie. It's there or it's not. The large ambitions of the filmmakers don't translate to quality, and the road to hell is paved with good intentions.

As for purely cinematic, yeah there is a movie like that and it's called The Good, The Bad and The Ugly. You should check it out.Recently, I happened to come across an essay by Umberto Eco ("Intertextual Irony and Levels of Reading" is the title if memory serves) where he talks about the two levels of reading. A first level reader simply wants to know what happens in the story (i.e, does Blondie get the treasure). I don't think The Good, the Bad and the Ugly functions even on that level because, at nearly three hours, it is so drawn out with gratuitous set pieces, like civil war sequence which is only tangentally related to the main throughline--in other words, it's a big show stopper that exists for its own sake in isolation from everything else.

The second level reader is some one who is aware of other levels of meaning. As I said earlier, in the case of Johnny Guitar, the association of Emma Small with black makes sense on a literal level (she's just come from her brother's funeral), but there are also other levels of meaning. That said, I think it's a hell of a first level movie: more about the characters is revealed in the first confrontation at Vienna's saloon in Ray's film, and there's more conflict and tension, than there is in the whole of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

[Grouchy]

Recently, I happened to come across an essay by Umberto Eco ("Intertextual Irony and Levels of Reading" is the title if memory serves) where he talks about the two levels of reading. A first level reader simply wants to know what happens in the story (i.e, does Blondie get the treasure). I don't think The Good, the Bad and the Ugly functions even on that level because, at nearly three hours, it is so drawn out with gratuitous set pieces, like civil war sequence which is only tangentally related to the main throughline--in other words, it's a big show stopper that exists for its own sake in isolation from everything else.
Well, it's nice that you read and try so hard to educate yourself at all, but you're stumbling against the big brick wall of reality, which is that first level readers continue to enjoy Good, Bad and the Ugly and made it one of the most popular movies of all time, an example of an art work so universal almost everyone enjoys. It's ridiculous to claim that the movie doesn't work because it's too long, unless you clarify that's only a matter of your taste and personal preferences.


The second level reader is some one who is aware of other levels of meaning. As I said earlier, in the case of Johnny Guitar, the association of Emma Small with black makes sense on a literal level (she's just come from her brother's funeral), but there are also other levels of meaning. That said, I think it's a hell of a first level movie: more about the characters is revealed in the first confrontation at Vienna's saloon in Ray's film, and there's more conflict and tension, than there is in the whole of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.
Other levels of meaning... such as? Don't get me wrong, I haven't seen Johnny Guitar but I'd love to. What you're missing now is that a lot of second level readers have extracted secondary meanings out of Leone's films. Hell, like Qrazy's last post on this same page. That opening shot of the sweaty bounty hunter's face, for instance, also serves as an abrupt comparison between the wide desert vistas and the landscape we can find on a man's face.

[Pop Trash]

Recently, I happened to come across an essay by Umberto Eco ("Intertextual Irony and Levels of Reading" is the title if memory serves) where he talks about the two levels of reading. A first level reader simply wants to know what happens in the story (i.e, does Blondie get the treasure). I don't think The Good, the Bad and the Ugly functions even on that level because, at nearly three hours, it is so drawn out with gratuitous set pieces, like civil war sequence which is only tangentally related to the main throughline--in other words, it's a big show stopper that exists for its own sake in isolation from everything else.

The second level reader is some one who is aware of other levels of meaning. As I said earlier, in the case of Johnny Guitar, the association of Emma Small with black makes sense on a literal level (she's just come from her brother's funeral), but there are also other levels of meaning. That said, I think it's a hell of a first level movie: more about the characters is revealed in the first confrontation at Vienna's saloon in Ray's film, and there's more conflict and tension, than there is in the whole of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

The most interesting aspect of Johnny Guitar (and perhaps the only reason the film is considered interesting by today's standards) is not the white=good, black=bad, which is just the same trite version of white hat guy=good guy, black hat guy=bad guy thing which has been going on in westerns since the silent era, but the gender role reversals. Joan Crawford vs. (a very butch) Mercedes McCambridge with the main guy in the film, Johnny Guitar, wanting to hang up his gun and play guitar. I'm not sure if the feminism in the film is latent or intentional by Ray and the screenwriter, but its sure there and sticks out from other 50s westerns.

As for style vs. substance, I agree you can make a film that's more or less pure style without a whole lot of substance (plus most of these 'substanceless' films do have substance but its just not as in your face as others) I think recent successful examples of this are Kill Bill(s) The Departed, Femme Fatale, and Catch Me if You Can. None of these films are exactly rich with 'content' but get by by being breezy exercizes in style. I'd rather watch these than something like Crash, which has sociological content but very little style and is executed poorly.

[Qrazy]

Recently, I happened to come across an essay by Umberto Eco ("Intertextual Irony and Levels of Reading" is the title if memory serves) where he talks about the two levels of reading. A first level reader simply wants to know what happens in the story (i.e, does Blondie get the treasure). I don't think The Good, the Bad and the Ugly functions even on that level because, at nearly three hours, it is so drawn out with gratuitous set pieces, like civil war sequence which is only tangentally related to the main throughline--in other words, it's a big show stopper that exists for its own sake in isolation from everything else.

The second level reader is some one who is aware of other levels of meaning. As I said earlier, in the case of Johnny Guitar, the association of Emma Small with black makes sense on a literal level (she's just come from her brother's funeral), but there are also other levels of meaning. That said, I think it's a hell of a first level movie: more about the characters is revealed in the first confrontation at Vienna's saloon in Ray's film, and there's more conflict and tension, than there is in the whole of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly.

The civil war sequence ties directly into the rest of the film. It's built up throughout the picture and serves as a historical example to exemplify Leone's moral thesis of the west of man and brother turned against each other just trying to survive. But again I haven't seen the film recently enough to feel like I can give an adequate defense of it's second level meaning which I certainly believe is there.

[Qrazy]

The most interesting aspect of Johnny Guitar (and perhaps the only reason the film is considered interesting by today's standards) is not the white=good, black=bad, which is just the same trite version of white hat guy=good guy, black hat guy=bad guy thing which has been going on in westerns since the silent era, but the gender role reversals. Joan Crawford vs. (a very butch) Mercedes McCambridge with the main guy in the film, Johnny Guitar, wanting to hang up his gun and play guitar. I'm not sure if the feminism in the film is latent or intentional by Ray and the screenwriter, but its sure there and sticks out from other 50s westerns.


This is an interesting point of comparison with GBU because by the end of the film the titles of Good, Bad and Ugly are rendered nearly moot given that Good does bad things, bad isn't wholly bad and... well I guess ugly is still ugly.

[baby doll]

Well, it's nice that you read and try so hard to educate yourself at all, but you're stumbling against the big brick wall of reality, which is that first level readers continue to enjoy Good, Bad and the Ugly and made it one of the most popular movies of all time, an example of an art work so universal almost everyone enjoys. It's ridiculous to claim that the movie doesn't work because it's too long, unless you clarify that's only a matter of your taste and personal preferences.Obviously it's a matter of taste or else we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I mentioned the Eco essay only because it highlights one stratedgy for producing additional levels of meaning--one which he specifies doesn't interfere with a first-level engagement with the text. As this all relates to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, either (a) I'm insufficiently interested in the characters to bother looking for some kind of thematic unity that would bring together its disparate elements, or (b) it's totally empty, and Qrazy is building a tortured intellectual defense for a film that is willfully first-level despite its length. To claim that the film is popular because it's universal assumes that it's about something. And maybe it is in a very shallow, obvious way (Tuco is greedy and badass; Angel Eyes is greedy but he isn't badass; Blondie is badass but he isn't as greedy as Tuco or Angel Eyes--all of which is firmly established by Leone five minutes into the picture), but I don't really find it that interesting or profound.


Other levels of meaning... such as? Don't get me wrong, I haven't seen Johnny Guitar but I'd love to. What you're missing now is that a lot of second level readers have extracted secondary meanings out of Leone's films. Hell, like Qrazy's last post on this same page. That opening shot of the sweaty bounty hunter's face, for instance, also serves as an abrupt comparison between the wide desert vistas and the landscape we can find on a man's face.In the case of Johnny Guitar, I was simply highlighting one stratedgy for producing meaning--namely, through the costumes. When Vienna changes into a red shirt, it's motivated by the story (her other clothes are wet), but it's a loaded shirt: not only is it bright red, but it's a man's shirt as well.

[Grouchy]

Obviously it's a matter of taste or else we wouldn't even be having this conversation. I mentioned the Eco essay only because it highlights one stratedgy for producing additional levels of meaning--one which he specifies doesn't interfere with a first-level engagement with the text. As this all relates to The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, either (a) I'm insufficiently interested in the characters to bother looking for some kind of thematic unity that would bring together its disparate elements, or (b) it's totally empty, and Qrazy is building a tortured intellectual defense for a film that is willfully first-level despite its length. To claim that the film is popular because it's universal assumes that it's about something. And maybe it is in a very shallow, obvious way (Tuco is greedy and badass; Angel Eyes is greedy but he isn't badass; Blondie is badass but he isn't as greedy as Tuco or Angel Eyes--all of which is firmly established by Leone five minutes into the picture), but I don't really find it that interesting or profound.
No, you don't understand. What I'm saying is, you said the movie didn't "function" even as first level because of its lenght and because you failed to connect the dots and see what the Civil War sequence was all about. I'm just saying its popularity and endurance prove you wrong. When a movie over 40 years old still delights people of all generations, it obviously doesn't have any blatant structure problem and, if you want to build a case against it, you should aim higher.


In the case of Johnny Guitar, I was simply highlighting one stratedgy for producing meaning--namely, through the costumes. When Vienna changes into a red shirt, it's motivated by the story (her other clothes are wet), but it's a loaded shirt: not only is it bright red, but it's a man's shirt as well.
Heh. And, in the case of GBU, Blondie putting on the dead soldier's poncho not only links the movie to the previous two, but shows through a custome choice the hero's first-time awareness of the carnage his living in and his choice to live closer to the people from now on, which is why on both Fistful movies he defends the unfortunate and opressed besides looking for personal gain.

As you see, this is goofy.

[baby doll]

No, you don't understand. What I'm saying is, you said the movie didn't "function" even as first level because of its lenght and because you failed to connect the dots and see what the Civil War sequence was all about. I'm just saying its popularity and endurance prove you wrong. When a movie over 40 years old still delights people of all generations, it obviously doesn't have any blatant structure problem and, if you want to build a case against it, you should aim higher.There are lots of terrible movies that are still popular, Gone With the Wind being the most obvious example.

In the case of Leone's film, it seems obvious to me--based on both the on-screen evidence and the fact that it's in every frat room DVD collection in the world--that the badassness of Blondie and Tuco appeals to young men (and older men who saw the film at the right age).

I haven't seen the first two films since I was ten, but I do know that they were made in Italy on the cheap. I'm not at all surprised that when Leone got more money to make his westerns that he couldn't resist a big show stopper with lots of extras and explosions, regardless of any narrative or thematic justification.

[Grouchy]

There are lots of terrible movies that are still popular, Gone With the Wind being the most obvious example.

In the case of Leone's film, it seems obvious to me--based on both the on-screen evidence and the fact that it's in every frat room DVD collection in the world--that the badassness of Blondie and Tuco appeals to young men (and older men who saw the film at the right age).

I haven't seen the first two films since I was ten, but I do know that they were made in Italy on the cheap. I'm not at all surprised that when Leone got more money to make his westerns that he couldn't resist a big show stopper with lots of extras and explosions, regardless of any narrative or thematic justification.
You're just further proving my point. You can throw bashing at Gone With the Wind on many levels, mostly its racism, its sense of self-importance, whatever strikes your fancy. But you can't say it's poorly directed, acted or written. It's Hollywood filmmaking at its very best. No movie survives the decades and becomes a classic if it's poorly made. That's why most Oscar winners are forgotten a year or two after they make their hit and we're still discussing Leone's movies, Apocalypse Now or Citizen Kane. The very fact that we are arguing so passionately about it proves that the film is not irrelevant.

Actually, when Leone got more money to make his westerns he expanded upon his themes, managed to comment on the Civil War in a completely justified way as Qrazy just explained to you, and when he got even more money, he finished up his commentary on the genre (Duck, You Sucker was more or less a forced project for him) with an evocative ode to the dying age of gunslingers that's both poetic and irreverent. His sense of comedy and subversion is too subtle for some, I'll give you that.

Plus, the fact that any film has badass characters in it doesn't mean it's strictly for frat boys. That's just a very narrow-minded thing to say.

[Qrazy]

You're just further proving my point. You can throw bashing at Gone With the Wind on many levels, mostly its racism, its sense of self-importance, whatever strikes your fancy. But you can't say it's poorly directed, acted or written. It's Hollywood filmmaking at its very best. No movie survives the decades and becomes a classic if it's poorly made. That's why most Oscar winners are forgotten a year or two after they make their hit and we're still discussing Leone's movies, Apocalypse Now or Citizen Kane. The very fact that we are arguing so passionately about it proves that the film is not irrelevant.


I agree with you that GBU is a significant and excellent (on many levels) feature Grouchy but I don't really agree with this line of argumentation that if it perseveres it must be good. All it means is that it's formally functional, which is a feat in it's own right, but whether or not it's good (delivers well upon it's themes, tone, emotion, etc) or is more renowned for it's scope than it's actual excellence is up for debate. The canon is not beyond the pale so to speak, it's constantly up for re-evaluation. I would argue that aside from a few select lines that writing in Gone with the Wind is not at all good, the acting a mixed bag and the direction excellent in some scenes, poor in others. But yeah I see what you mean that it does have a level of technical skill that at least makes it worth even thinking about in the first place, but whether or not it's good beyond that (I realize you fall in the other camp) is another issue.

I need to rewatch GBU asap I think so I can provide a more stalwart and specific defense but I still feel it functions on many second levels just as Hitchcock films do (Vertigo, Rear Window, Strangers, etc)... the second level for these types of films is very enmeshed in the formal execution however which makes culling the variety of deeper meanings slightly more difficult.

[Grouchy]

I agree with you that GBU is a significant and excellent (on many levels) feature Grouchy but I don't really agree with this line of argumentation that if it perseveres it must be good. All it means is that it's formally functional, which is a feat in it's own right, but whether or not it's good (delivers well upon it's themes, tone, emotion, etc) or is more renowned for it's scope than it's actual excellence is up for debate. The canon is not beyond the pale so to speak, it's constantly up for re-evaluation. I would argue that aside from a few select lines that writing in Gone with the Wind is not at all good, the acting a mixed bag and the direction excellent in some scenes, poor in others. But yeah I see what you mean that it does have a level of technical skill that at least makes it worth even thinking about in the first place, but whether or not it's good beyond that (I realize you fall in the other camp) is another issue.

I need to rewatch GBU asap I think so I can provide a more stalwart and specific defense but I still feel it functions on many second levels just as Hitchcock films do (Vertigo, Rear Window, Strangers, etc)... the second level for these types of films is very enmeshed in the formal execution however which makes culling the variety of deeper meanings slightly more difficult.
The problem being that it's almost impossible for anything to exist only at the first level of reading, as in fact I'm almost certain Eco argues in the essay baby doll was mentioning. Whether intentional on the part of the creators or not, you can find second level readings in any work of art. The distinction in levels applies only to the "readers".

About the canon, I didn't mean to say "if it perseveres, it must be good". I accept that any canon is arguable and that's why I mentioned some things which are worth criticizing about Gone With the Wind. But I think, when attacking a classic, you gotta find an argument that elevates above the ordinary flaws a movie can have. You can't be egotistical enough to think that you're the only person in the history of movie watching that has ever discovered that The Good, the Bad and the Ugly is somehow poorly made or that it needs trimming. That's just ridiculous.

[baby doll]

You're just further proving my point. You can throw bashing at Gone With the Wind on many levels, mostly its racism, its sense of self-importance, whatever strikes your fancy. But you can't say it's poorly directed, acted or written. It's Hollywood filmmaking at its very best. No movie survives the decades and becomes a classic if it's poorly made. That's why most Oscar winners are forgotten a year or two after they make their hit and we're still discussing Leone's movies, Apocalypse Now or Citizen Kane. The very fact that we are arguing so passionately about it proves that the film is not irrelevant.

Actually, when Leone got more money to make his westerns he expanded upon his themes, managed to comment on the Civil War in a completely justified way as Qrazy just explained to you, and when he got even more money, he finished up his commentary on the genre (Duck, You Sucker was more or less a forced project for him) with an evocative ode to the dying age of gunslingers that's both poetic and irreverent. His sense of comedy and subversion is too subtle for some, I'll give you that.

Plus, the fact that any film has badass characters in it doesn't mean it's strictly for frat boys. That's just a very narrow-minded thing to say.Let's begin with Gone With the Wind because, as Qrazy already said, it's a very bad movie--not because it's racist, but because it's unwatchable. And I'm hardly the first person to say so. It feels nothing so much like the work of a megalomaniac producer shouting into his phone: "More! More battle scenes! More costume changes! More raw stock!" It's survived and become a classic because money buys prestige. (Note that the AFI list doesn't include a single film by Stan Brakhage, John Cassavetes or Samuel Fuller yet somehow has room for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.)

Incidentally, if you want to talk about a racist film, let's talk about Apocalypse Now, which portrays the Vietnamese with all the subtlety and nuance given to the Native Americans in a John Ford western. Along with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, I'd put Coppola's film in the Badass file as another example of a movie that's popular, not because it says anything profound about Vietnam or anything else, but for the badass factor. In other words, it's a pretty good film that's sometimes mistaken for a great one. Maybe it's not strictly for frat boys (although it's the Robert Duvall line, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning," that's quoted most often--maybe because one can read it both ways, as an indication that he's insane and badass), but the fact that it's put up on this pedestal as the definitive statement about the Vietnam war surely says something about how undiscriminating most people are about cinema.

Also, I want to look more closely at your statement that Leone's film is "an evocative ode to the dying age of gunslingers that's both poetic and irreverent"--as if it were The Magnificent Ambersons we're talking about. On the one hand, Qrazy is telling me that Leone is subverting the mythology of the west, but now you're calling it an ode to a dying age, as if we should feel nostalgic for the world the characters inhabit. This hardly sounds irreverent to me. If anything it's the opposite: Leone worships his badasses as the height of macho cool. (Another connection with Coppola's film is that neither movie has any significant roles for women.)

[Grouchy]

Let's begin with Gone With the Wind because, as Qrazy already said, it's a very bad movie--not because it's racist, but because it's unwatchable. And I'm hardly the first person to say so. It feels nothing so much like the work of a megalomaniac producer shouting into his phone: "More! More battle scenes! More costume changes! More raw stock!" It's survived and become a classic because money buys prestige. (Note that the AFI list doesn't include a single film by Stan Brakhage, John Cassavetes or Samuel Fuller yet somehow has room for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.)
Well, sure as hell it's the work of a megalomaniac producer. That doesn't make it any less watchable, moving or beautiful for me, because the intentions behind a movie are never important, just the end results. Money buys prestige for one, two, maybe three years. Never for fifty. AFI lists or top whatevers in general are always very parcial, and none's talking about them anyway. Brakhage, Cassavetes or Fuller are still remembered filmmakers. How would you feel if I said Faces was an incoherent movie with lousy plot and unrealistic acting? Case in point. If I meant to be taken seriously while bashing the movie, I'd aim higher.


Incidentally, if you want to talk about a racist film, let's talk about Apocalypse Now, which portrays the Vietnamese with all the subtlety and nuance given to the Native Americans in a John Ford western. Along with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, I'd put Coppola's film in the Badass file as another example of a movie that's popular, not because it says anything profound about Vietnam or anything else, but for the badass factor. In other words, it's a pretty good film that's sometimes mistaken for a great one. Maybe it's not strictly for frat boys (although it's the Robert Duvall line, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning," that's quoted most often--maybe because one can read it both ways, as an indication that he's insane and badass), but the fact that it's put up on this pedestal as the definitive statement about the Vietnam war surely says something about how undiscriminating most people are about cinema.
Heh, the only one who puts it on that pedestal is you, apparently. I'd say Apocalypse Now, like Full Metal Jacket, is a statement on war and dehumanization in general. Political statements about Vietnam are Godard's films from the '60s or Platoon. Coppola's film could take place in any war, as evidenced by the fact that the Joseph Conrad story it's based on obviously wasn't Vietnam-based. And no, I've already had this crazy discussion with you, and you failed to explain in any convincent way how it could possibly be interpreted as racist or imperialist.


Also, I want to look more closely at your statement that Leone's film is "an evocative ode to the dying age of gunslingers that's both poetic and irreverent"--as if it were The Magnificent Ambersons we're talking about. On the one hand, Qrazy is telling me that Leone is subverting the mythology of the west, but now you're calling it an ode to a dying age, as if we should feel nostalgic for the world the characters inhabit. This hardly sounds irreverent to me. If anything it's the opposite: Leone worships his badasses as the height of macho cool. (Another connection with Coppola's film is that neither movie has any significant roles for women.)
Heh, read more carefully. Qrazy was talking about GBU, I was talking about Once Upon a Time in the West when I made that statement. That's a nostalgic movie that's also very irreverent about the myth of the foundation of America (very cleverly tied to the railroad building, which was favorably portrayed in movies like The Iron Horse or How the West Was Won) and about the idealization of Old West legends who are in fact brute, cold-blooded killers. Ironically, that movie also has a pretty strong central female character played by Claudia Cardinale.

Of course, God forbid, with the current pussification of society, that any filmmaker attempts to make a movie without a woman in it. It obviously has no right to be of any quality, you'll agree.

[Qrazy]

Let's begin with Gone With the Wind because, as Qrazy already said, it's a very bad movie--not because it's racist, but because it's unwatchable. And I'm hardly the first person to say so. It feels nothing so much like the work of a megalomaniac producer shouting into his phone: "More! More battle scenes! More costume changes! More raw stock!" It's survived and become a classic because money buys prestige. (Note that the AFI list doesn't include a single film by Stan Brakhage, John Cassavetes or Samuel Fuller yet somehow has room for Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid.)

I prefer Butch Cassidy to anything I've seen from Fuller or Brakhage. I guess Cassavetes wins this round.


Incidentally, if you want to talk about a racist film, let's talk about Apocalypse Now, which portrays the Vietnamese with all the subtlety and nuance given to the Native Americans in a John Ford western. Along with The Good, the Bad and the Ugly, I'd put Coppola's film in the Badass file as another example of a movie that's popular, not because it says anything profound about Vietnam or anything else, but for the badass factor. In other words, it's a pretty good film that's sometimes mistaken for a great one. Maybe it's not strictly for frat boys (although it's the Robert Duvall line, "I love the smell of napalm in the morning," that's quoted most often--maybe because one can read it both ways, as an indication that he's insane and badass), but the fact that it's put up on this pedestal as the definitive statement about the Vietnam war surely says something about how undiscriminating most people are about cinema.

Undiscriminating... unprofound... fun words to throw around but I see little support for them. It's clear (at least based on what you've said, perhaps if you said something else it would bear a different weight) that your forming your attitude in relation to other peoples attitudes rather than in relation to the film. The majority of your critiques for GBU and this are set up in contrast to what you think the 'frat boys' like. Your being anti-populist solely in disdain of the aesthetic taste of a certain group of people. Critique the films, not their fans. Just because that group likes some bad films, doesn't mean that therefore everything they like is bad. Apocalypse Now is the definitive Vietnam War film because it delves into the madness, and the journey into madness of the war effort in a way no other film has... not Platoon, not Born on the Fourth of July... Full Metal Jacket and The Deerhunter come closer but both of those have some structural problems in my opinion and aren't on the same level of formal dexterity as Coppola's work.


Also, I want to look more closely at your statement that Leone's film is "an evocative ode to the dying age of gunslingers that's both poetic and irreverent"--as if it were The Magnificent Ambersons we're talking about. On the one hand, Qrazy is telling me that Leone is subverting the mythology of the west, but now you're calling it an ode to a dying age, as if we should feel nostalgic for the world the characters inhabit. This hardly sounds irreverent to me. If anything it's the opposite: Leone worships his badasses as the height of macho cool. (Another connection with Coppola's film is that neither movie has any significant roles for women.)

It strikes me as silly to critique a Vietnam war film or a western (more so the former) for not having a strong male character. It's like critiquing a female prison film for not having a strong female character. There weren't many women in combat and while there were women in the west and in the film, there's no reason to push a roll on them which doesn't fit the story.

Also, most genre revisions are both a critique and an ode (ex: The Long Goodbye for noir), there's nothing inherently contradictory about that.