28 Film Discussion Threads Later

[Qrazy]

Yeah, this one's a great film all-around. Newman's fantastic as well. This is a film I could see MC getting behind if more people saw it.

I would think that many people in Match-cut have seen this and are behind it, as am I.

More people should get behind Martin Ritt in general though, Hombre and Paris Blues are both quality pics.

[Sven]

It's a movie. You shouldn't be constantly struck dumb by the compositions.

If I ask you to clarify this, am I going to regret it?

[Qrazy]

The script is shit. Read the book. It's a good one, and wholly different from the movie in important ways.

The cinematography is by James Wong Howe, who also did stuff like Sweet Smell of Success, but here he's better, maybe the best.

It's great photography but I don't know if it's good for the picture. It tends to distract, highlighting all the other weakness, like that story. I dunno if a good drama can survive Howe's photography. It's a movie. You shouldn't be constantly struck dumb by the compositions.

Still, though, holy shit what great pictures.

I would expect a better opinion, even from you. Seriously, by far your worst post. Be ashamed. In fact cower in a corner in terror at your own inadequacies.

[Qrazy]

If I ask you to clarify this, am I going to regret it?

Yes, yes you are.

[transmogrifier]

Some brief thoughts:

The Assassination of Jesse James etc etc

Movie succeeds as an overpowering depiction of dread and melancholia - the characters are all trapped in their roles (some self-made, like the horndog who just can't keep away from step-mothers, others made via public perception, like the two title characters) and plodding their ways to inevitable conclusions. The self-loathing of Jesse James is almost tangible. Gorgeously shot. 79

Martha Marcy May Marlene

Wisely chooses to focus solely on the title character, rather than getting bogged down in the reactions to the "family" she left behind and the family she has rejoined. This enables sequences of her trying to fit into the normality of her sisters life bleed into her memories of what she escaped, creating an impressive picture of someone who is going to struggle to put her past behind her. 70

Seance on a Wet Afternoon

Another beautifully directed film that takes a mentally unstable protagonist and instead of just letting her drive the plot with random actions to generate "suspense" focuses on the desperately toadying reaction of her husband, who does his best to go along with her plan not realising it is just strengthening her delusions. Great acting by the husband and wife team. 73

The Day He Arrives

Not a Hong Sang-Soo fan, but I still have this compulsive need to watch all his movies (partly out of nostalgia as they depict a lot of the Korea I loved while living there - eating out, drinking a lot, hanging with friends) because he is such a determined formalist and committed to his auteurist foibles that you can't help but believe that he is (accidentally?) going to make something brilliant one day, if he can just find the right premise/chemistry/whatever. This is one of his better efforts (for me) because it is funnier than most of his other stuff, but it's not breaking any new ground. 62

Chaw

A pretty crappy Korean Jaws knockoff featuring a giant wild pig, but I was still jazzed to be reacquainted with the Korean kitchen sink "fuck it, let's put this in there!" attitude to genre knock offs. For example, a teenage girl falls off her bike and is stalked by the pig. She gets back up to the road.....when she is hit by a van. The two drivers get out......and it turns out they have been drinking. So they pick up the girl.....and throw her down the bank and drive away. The girl is then eaten by the pig. And we never see the two drivers/murderers again. Also, there is a crazy woman in the village who pops up now and then but has absolutely nothing to do with the plot (and for some reason, despite the fact she wanders everywhere by herself, she is never a target for the pig) until the very last tag scene of the movie (after everything has been resolved AND we've had the cast list) when we see her in an isolated cabin in the country where she has the Quint of the movie (a big game hunter who was left to die in the forest about 30 minutes from the end of the film) tied up naked except for a diaper, and she threatens him with a huge knife until he calls her Mommy. Which he does in terror. For laughs. And then the film ends. God, I miss Korean movies that only play domestically. 48

[B-side]

I dunno if a good drama can survive Howe's photography. It's a movie. You shouldn't be constantly struck dumb by the compositions.

I'm kinda struck dumb right now. You know I love you, Irish, but wow.

[Irish]

If I ask you to clarify this, am I going to regret it?

I think for a movie to really succeed, all the elements have to be working in concert.

With Hud, they're not. You've got good actors, amazing cinematography and really just a bad adaptation of Larry McMurtry's novel. The whole movie is out of balance, because Howe's photography is working at a level that the rest of the production just is not.

[Irish]

I would expect a better opinion, even from you. Seriously, by far your worst post. Be ashamed. In fact cower in a corner in terror at your own inadequacies.

You'd be more interesting if you actually posted counter arguments. Your fetishistic approach to your own intellect is amusing, but it's like you've got the brains with no brawn behind them; it's like you want the credit and attention for being smart, but without actually doing any of the work.

[Derek]

I would think that many people in Match-cut have seen this and are behind it, as am I.

I'd wager less than 10 people on MatchCut have seen this. More should, point stands, Qrazy fails.

[transmogrifier]

I'd wager less than 10 people on MatchCut have seen this. More should, point stands, Qrazy fails.

I haven't seen it. So you're off to a good start, D.

[Qrazy]

You'd be more interesting if you actually posted counter arguments. Your fetishistic approach to your own intellect is amusing, but it's like you've got the brains with no brawn behind them; it's like you want the credit and attention for being smart, but without actually doing any of the work.

Yeah except I've done the work in the past and so anyone who knows me recognizes this and I can just coast on that shit. You on the other hand just post inane shit so you can coast on that I guess but it won't get you far.

I mean in all fairness I probably have a better memory than most so while I remember repeatedly pwning you in the past you may not. I would link you to some former discussions in order to substantiate your brains/brawn issue but really I can't be assed.

[Qrazy]

I'd wager less than 10 people on MatchCut have seen this. More should, point stands, Qrazy fails.

Do more than 10 people post on match-cut?

[B-side]

I think most of us can agree that generally period pieces tend to have about them a pretense of self-importance. The customs and ideas are made elegant and even ideal. The Telegraphist succeeds first and foremost at stripping away that whimsy and nostalgic romanticization. Sure, the costumes are nice and the period affectations are pleasing, but the people and the repressive ideals aren't. The Telegraphist is a highly sexualized tale of a womanizing opportunist worming and wiggling his way to the top all for the sake of a single woman, it turns out. Odd because he seems to be in love with nearly every woman around him, and he seduces them as such with poetic verses and romantic flattery. It would seem he sees himself as the only really reasonable person in the area; not superstitious or stuffy in his adherence to certain codes of conduct. Maybe he's saving everyone from themselves. At its most serious, this film is barely serious. Even the technical bravado feels satirical. The camera is always peering through windows and from behind objects like a schoolboy peeking in at an older woman changing her clothes. Overall, it's a rather entertaining film.

[Kurosawa Fan]

The script is shit. Read the book. It's a good one, and wholly different from the movie in important ways.

I don't require a script to follow suit with the book from which it is adapted. That doesn't equal quality to me. I can judge the script on its own merits, completely separate from the source. It helps that I haven't read the novel, but just because it doesn't fall in line with the source material doesn't automatically make it "shit."

[Ivan Drago]

I'm 20 minutes into watching Super Fly and despite Curtis Mayfield's awesome score, the film itself clearly hasn't aged well.

[Irish]

I don't require a script to follow suit with the book from which it is adapted. That doesn't equal quality to me. I can judge the script on its own merits, completely separate from the source. It helps that I haven't read the novel, but just because it doesn't fall in line with the source material doesn't automatically make it "shit."

I'm not saying that any script needs to duplicate a book in order to be good. Far from it. The strength of an adaptation isn't about how faithfully it follows the source, but how it interprets that source and tries to capture the essence of the story, or, at least, cast a new angle on that story.

Hud's script is bad because its pacing is terrible and it's too episodic. It's a movie that feels arbitrarily plotless when it really shouldn't be, and it tries to hang a story around events that have nothing to do with one another outside a gimpy Cat on a Hot Tin Roof father-son relationship dynamic.

A better example of the kind of thing Hud tries to do and fails at is The Last Picture Show, which captures the spirit of McMurtry's novel without strictly duplicating its contents. There, I think, too, you have a situation where all the elements mesh well, with no single performance, photo, or score overshadowing the rest.

Edit: When I said "wholly different from the book in important ways," in my previous post, I was referring to the character of Alma being black in the book. That adds an entirely new level to the story that the movie excises for really no good reason, outside of the racial politics of the time.

[Kurosawa Fan]

You're using adjectives that make me think that either you're too tied to the source material to judge properly, or it's been far too long since you've seen it, and a rewatch is in order. I found absolutely nothing about Hud episodic, and found the pacing consistent and appropriate for the environment and the subject. I don't know how you could feel that the film feels "plotless." You and I definitely don't see eye-to-eye on this one at all.

[Irish]

You're using adjectives that make me think that either you're too tied to the source material to judge properly, or it's been far too long since you've seen it, and a rewatch is in order. I found absolutely nothing about Hud episodic, and found the pacing consistent and appropriate for the environment and the subject. I don't know how you could feel that the film feels "plotless." You and I definitely don't see eye-to-eye on this one at all.

I watched Hud sometime in the last few years, I think. There are shots in that movie that I can still recall with picture-perfect clarity where some of the other details are a bit fuzzy. It's been over a decade since I've read the book.

It's on iTunes and I'm tempted to rewatch.

[Robby P]

Loves me some Hud. Martin Ritt and Paul Newman make a damn fine team.

[StanleyK]

I don't think I could have had a worse introduction to Powell & Pressburger than I Know Where I'm Going!. There was absolutely zero chemistry between the two leads (I still have no idea when they actually fell in love, nor why he would have wanted anything to do with her), didn't care much for either lead performance, found the story pretty dull, as it seemed more content with giving a history of northern Scotland than with actually developing character, and found the reveal of the curse at the end laughable.

Late to the party, but I just saw this one and largely agree (and it's my first Powell/Pressburger joint, too). I did enjoy it more than Kurosawa Fan as I didn't think it was dull- the film's lively visual wit and colorful side-characters kept me entertained. But yeah, as a romance it's really weak, and its rich people/simple folks dichotomy is pretty simplistic (I did appreciate the scene where Catriona says they'd all do something stupid for money; the film needed more of that, and less stereotypical rich douchebags. Not denying that the rich douchebags scene was really funny). I actually thought it was pretty good up until the last five minutes, but the ending went and ruined it.

[Mysterious Dude]

I watched 8½ for the first time in many years, and I have to concede that I was wrong and the critics were right -- this film is pretty much a masterpiece. I hate to admit it, but I just didn't understand it. I found it confusing. I think I must not have had a very good attention span back then, because today I found it quite easy to distinguish the real-world/present-day scenes from the memories and fantasies.

It might be unfair to assume that 8½ is autobiographical, although that is very easy to assume. I don't think very many people in the real world can identify with Guido's position in the film. He is different than the way I normally think of a "genius." Hitchcock and Kubrick are perceived to have been perfectionists who knew exactly what they were doing all the time. Guido seems to have no idea what he's doing. He has found himself in a position of leadership over a large number of people, who surround him and relentlessly beg him for direction, and he is utterly unable to give it to them. (I love how they're often filmed looking straight at the camera and a little too close for comfort; you can almost feel Guido being suffocated by them). To give a counter-example, the way Mark Zuckerberg is depicted in The Social Network, he always seems so calculated and so sure of himself that you can understand how he made his way to the top. With Guido, I wonder how he ever managed to convince anyone to give him money to make a film.

In a way it's kind of refreshing. V. S. Naipaul recently said that he didn't think any female writer could ever be his equal. I had begun to think that to be a successful artist of any kind, you have to be just that arrogant. You have to believe you are better than anyone else. It's nice to hear an artist admit, "I have nothing to say, but I want to say it anyway."

[Irish]

Thoughtful post. Guido is identifiable to the audience because of the chaotic nature of adult life, relationships, and having any responsibility to people outside yourself. He's also reflective of the nature of the creativity, with its frustrations, flashes of inspiration, dead ends, and turnarounds.

[baby doll]

V. S. Naipaul recently said that he didn't think any female writer could ever be his equal. I had begun to think that to be a successful artist of any kind, you have to be just that arrogant. You have to believe you are better than anyone else.

I don't know if that's arrogant so much as old school misogynist.

[Mysterious Dude]

Thoughtful post. Guido is identifiable to the audience because of the chaotic nature of adult life, relationships, and having any responsibility to people outside yourself. He's also reflective of the nature of the creativity, with its frustrations, flashes of inspiration, dead ends, and turnarounds.

Good point. I guess I meant that his role as a leader who is unable to lead is probably something that not many people have to deal with (and that's why I think the film is probably autobiographical), but you're right that he is identifiable in other ways. I think I'm more able to relate to such things now that I'm an adult myself (sob!); I was probably in my late teens the last time I saw the movie.

[Qrazy]

Quality comments on the film Isaac. But yeah, the film is not probably autobiographical. It is certainly autobiographical. Read about the making of... Fellini basically was starting work on a film but had no idea where to take it and then decided to make a film about the fact that he didn't know. This is why this will always be the quintessential film about the creation of film, because it's a deeply personal work from an artist at the top of his game.