S&S 100 Films HTF Forum Challenge (1 Viewer)

[Brook K]

Over the weekend I watched 3 more S&S films, but Fred just blew the Tricerotops horn and I'm headed home, so I'll have to wait until later to discuss them. I took in Meet Me in St. Louis which was enjoyable, Wild Strawberries which I loved, and La Dolce Vita, though I have a suspicion that the copy I saw was cut because it didn't quite feel complete. I'll have to do some research, but if what I saw was the full version, than I really didn't like it very much.
------------------
"You've never seen Niagara Falls."
"I've seen water, it's water, that's all."
S&S Challenge: 64 63 62 61

 

[Darren H]

Add three more to my count, Jung. Last week, I finished watching The Decalogue (two points, right?) I added some initial thoughts to this thread, but it dropped off the radar pretty quickly. I would love to discuss it in greater length, if anyone is interested. Watching The Decalogue was one of the most amazing experiences of my life as a film-lover.
I also watched The General. I've seen a lot of Keaton over the years, but had somehow missed this one. I enjoyed it, but admit that I still prefer his earlier shorts to his longer films. I'm going to try to resurrect a Keaton thread. I think Edwin started one a few weeks ago.
By the way, Jung, I'm planning to watch Pierrot Le Fou tonight or tomorrow. It will be my first Godard. Any tips for my first experience with him? I've seen several Truffaut films and have read quite a few of the Cahiers essays. Anything I should know about Godard's style and thematic preoccupations? Thanks.
------------------
"Peace is our profession."

 

[Doug D]

Darren,
I'm not Jung, but I wrote a review of this for my site after watching it the other week. I haven't posted it there yet, but here it is as it may prove helpful to you. (Any comments on the review, content or formatwise, are very appreciated, as this is my first stab at this format.)
Movie: Pierrot Le Fou
1. What is the goal of this film?
This question is probably more difficult to answer for a Godard film than almost any other filmmaker. I've seen several Godard films before this (ALPHAVILLE, CONTEMPT, and BREATHLESS), and felt like I missed the point with all of them. With PIERROT LE FOU, I feel like I'm finally starting to understand a bit of the Godard "project". I don't know if that means that this film is the best starting point, that I'm slow, or that you just need to see several Godard films to fully understand what he's getting at.
Simply put, the idea (as I see it) is to ask fundamental questions about narrative cinema - particularly about viewer's expectations - within the context of a "standard" narrative. PIERROT LE FOU has an almost appallingly simple story at its center (two lovers go on the lam), but fundamentally this film is not about its plot - rather, it's about how it conveys its plot, and what that says about filmmaking in general.
Put another way - I recently saw an interview with musician Jim O'Rourke, where in discussing his work, he essentially said (and I'm paraphrasing) that he wanted listeners to go beyond asking "why isn't he doing what I'm expecting?" in his work, and move towards "why am I expecting him to do that"? It's easy enough to get frustrated with this (or any) Godard film for frustrating our expectations, leaving core narrative details at the periphery while throwing strange details or odd story-telling methods into the heart of the film (such as the two points when characters break out of song, straight out of any musical).
One scene in particular may convey the idea that I'm getting at (although I don't want to discuss the details of the film too much and spoil the experience for new viewers). In one, a man meets Ferdinand (the male "lover on the lam", played by Jean-Paul Belmondo) in a bar. The man asks if Ferdinand recognizes him? Ferdinand doesn't seem to. The man prods ... you came to a party at my house ... I loaned you a large sum of money ... you slept with my wife. At this point as viewers, we naturally expect some sort of conflict. But instead, the man shakes Ferdinand's hand and leaves, never to return to the film. The viewer is blind-sided; why introduce such a character, with such a back-story, only to have him promptly vanish? But Godard (I believe) wants us to invert the question: why should we expect that this character who appears out of left field (as happens in so many movies with similar plots but substantially distinct aims) has any significance to the plot, regardless of his backstory?
Or, another example - the music score cuts in and out at odd times in the film, so odd that the first time it happens you might find it to be an escape. Gradually, however you realize (or at least I did) that what Godard is doing is calling attention to the fact that we're expecting the score to communicate the emotional content of the scene, rather than trusting our own emotions.
These are just two examples of the Godardian project (as I see it here) - removing all preconceptions from cinema and thus exploring all of its possibilities. There are many more that I could go on about in detail (such as the ending - I find its use of primary colors particularly interesting - or the character's relation to the audience, which transforms in interesting ways throughout the film), but I think part of the joy of a film like this is exploring the different turns it offers by yourself.
2. Is it successful in this goal?
I think, in general, PIERROT LE FOU succeeds in its goals, as far as I understand. I don't doubt that there are many layers of meaning beyond those which I was able to apprehend from the movie (though I've only touched on a few of the many themes here). Perhaps one of the main themes of PIERROT LE FOU, though, is the inability of the cinema to communicate every idea it contains. In one particularly loaded scene, Marianne (Anna Karenina), the other half of the duo, starts breaking down the years of a lifetime into the number of seconds, then calculates the number of seconds. After this, she talks about how few seconds she has known Ferdinand (who she calls Pierrot), and say "I'm not surprised that I don't know ... who you are either." In this last phrase, she turns to the viewers and looks them directly in the face. If we only know the two of them (and the movie, for that matter) for the length of the movie (about 110 minutes, or 6600 seconds), how can we know everything about them, or everything about this movie? It's an obvious statement, but one that flies in the face of the typical Hollywood sense of resolution and "knowing the character".
3. Is this goal worthwhile?
For those are die-hard fans of straightforward narrative cinema, I don't know that Godard will be a satisfying experience. Certainly, anyone trying to experience this film on the basis of the plot will have a frustrating experience (although the sheer charm and charisma of Belmondo and Karenina renders this a lot more approachable than it might otherwise be). Even with an understanding of the project that Godard is working on, the end result does at times remind me of what a music teacher of mine once said about John Cage: he raises more questions than he answers. But for those people who like the idea spending two hours poking at the edges of what narrative cinema can be, getting the chance to experience the questions is well worth the lack of answers that may sometimes present itself.
4. Any other important things to note?
I watched this film on the Fox Lorber DVD release, which has an unexceptional transfer from mediocre source materials and no extras to speak of. It is, however, presented in a proper aspect ratio of 1.85:1.

 

[Doug D]

Darren,
I tried to post a review of Pierrot Le Fou as a response, but it's not taking right (or doesn't appear to be on my browser - apologies if the rest of you get it a couple of times). I'm posting it separately as a main topic.

 

[JungWoo]

It happens that I wrote a review for Pierrot le fou
Unfortuately, I haven't yet mastered the art of spoiler-free review. Be warned that it is SPOILERS GALORE (although in this case, you could avoid the worst of them if you skip the 2nd paragraph(plot summary) and the last two paragraphs.
http://www.geocities.com/ilian73/pierrotlefou.html My Life to Live
"Cinema is truth 24 frames per second." - Godard
My DVD Collection
Cinema: seventh art
S&S 100 Films Forum Challenge

 

[JungWoo]

Doug D,
same thing happened to me with the above post. I submitted the post and was taken back to the thread, but my post wouldn't appear. I was wondering what, but it must be your long review that the forum couldn't swallow
I absolutely agree with your interpretation and assessment of Pierrot le fou.
Godard probably requires viewing of several of his movies to really understand any one of them. Some might consider it flaw, but then again one need not.
Actually, this is not my favorite Godard, (actually I'm not sure if I have favorite Godard )but I think it is one of better realized ones in respect to his "project" - to attempt at cinema. As such, this is an interesting balance between narrative and experimental, which one critic called "too much plot to be poem, too little plot to be novel"(or something like that).
The scene that you mentioned about Ferdinand's former acquintance is interesting because it really illustrates the central problem of Godard.
Is it really in the service of cinema to make an annoying episode like this character, which serves as nothing but a reminder that we must question the reality of the illusion? Such assault to senses is one of stumbling block that blocks Godard's accessibility.
For this reason, one might prefer the humming (mad) character at the end, who serves the same purpose but also has an added purpose of emphasizing the theme of "living the moment."
As an experiment, such device would be nice, but do they have place in a finished work?
But then, Godard's movies are not experimental movies. He is not really an avant garde. That's what I really like about Godard. For most part, Godard achieves the balance between experiment and traditional art frame in such a way that it keeps challenging us while not comepletely losing the sight. We are still in the familiar territory, but we are challenged to see things differently.
Even disregarding all the artifacts of Godard project, even in traditional sense, his movies remain interesting and romantic. With or without annoying characters and music, Pierrot le fou remains a romantic story of doomed love between a man and a woman, about whom we care about.
And I think that's a difficult part that Godard usually succeeds to keep in balance.
------------------
http://www.geocities.com/ilian73/index.html My Life to Live
"Cinema is truth 24 frames per second." - Godard
My DVD Collection
Cinema: seventh art
S&S 100 Films Forum Challenge

 

[Gary Tooze]

Chalk another one off for moi... saw Tarkovsky's Andrei Rublev ...
------------------
"I am Death"

[email protected] My DVD Collection
Graphic AFI 100 ,Graphic BFI 100 ,My Home Theatre
My coveted Criterions! Standing Count... 24 25 26 27 28 29 33!
My Most Recommended DVD's !

 

[Stephen R]

Just saw my first Satyajit Ray film...Pather Panchali, the first in the Apu trilogy. Man, this is one incredible movie. A rare piece of cinema in which I got the feeling I was actually in the family rather than observing it. When I'm not so tired, I'll probably write a short review for the film, but I must say, this is one of the most quietly beautiful and powerful films I've ever seen.
S&S Challenge; Films left to see - 75 74

 

[Brook K]

Another for me too, I did a quick recount and didn't take credit for 2 for Decalogue. I still fully intend to start threads for Wild Strawberries and especially La Dolce Vita but can't seem to find the time to put a review together. Another place I might just slap a few paragraphs together, but some of you guys write such good reviews I have to hold myself to a higher standard.
My next two (and probably last two for awhile, since I'm on the LA trip) on their way from Netflix will be M & Peeping Tom. I've also just about exhausted my Blockbuster. All they have left I haven't seen is 8 1/2. Anyone know if the VHS is as big a mess as La Dolce Vita is?
------------------
"Even a man who is pure of heart
and says his prayers at night,
may become a wolf when the Wolfsbane blooms
and the moon is full and bright"
S&S Challenge: 63 62 61 60

 

[Pascal A]

I must admit, I'm very encouraged by the positive response that several members participating in the S&S Challenge had to watching Satyajit Ray's Pather Panchali. My own experience with this film, and to Satyajit Ray's films in general, was that it opened a new chapter in my own evolution as a cineaste. His films are both organic and poetic, and seem to emanate directly from the soul. I can't say enough about him.
As for Fellini's 8 1/2, the copy I have is from MPI (black box with a large, ornate 8 1/2 printing). The good news is, the quality of the print is better than the La Dolce Vita (assuming it's the 2 tape set from Artisan). There are still occasional specks and scratches, but the overall quality of the print is very good. The one reservation I have about this copy is that it tends to be high contrast - dark is very black, and white is nearly invisible. The shades of grey are almost non-existent, so some of the finer details are lost. Also, the subtitles are non-outlined white, so in outdoor scenes (like the spa scene), or against a light colored background, it is illegible.
------------------
Strictly Film School

 

[Brook K]

Yeah, they have that MPI black box 8 1/2. The La Dolce Vita was from Republic (now Artisan, I know), and it had the same annoying white subtitles, but far worse, was badly P&S'd.
Thankfully I still have 18 or so unwatched that are on DVD, so I don't have to watch VHS for a while.
------------------
"Why would a guy want to marry a guy?"
"Security!"
S&S Challenge: 63 62 61 60

 

[Roger V.]

It is encouraging to see a community's perceptions and enjoyments generally shift for the better. Not too long ago, in this forum, a couple of nitwits derailed a Satyajit Ray thread and nearly drove away one of HTF's supreme contributors.
---
The following is in reference to the Charulata topic eighteen or nineteen posts up. From Madhabi Mukherjee's autobiography (if there are typos I beg your pardon):
The offer to act in Charulata followed closely on the heels of Mahanagar's success. Ray, as was his practice, read the script to me. Charulata's personality, in all its emotional and psychological complexity, emerged with considerable clarity in Ray's unique reading. It was unique in that it was not reading per se. It was a combination of reading, directions, acting, mime, and suggestions about how to incorporate, internalize 'period' elements of feelings, gestures, manners, and customs or for that matter how to walk, move, lie down, or just sit. To say listening to his readings was an amazing experience is to understate the fact. I soon started to feel like Charu. Many critics and ordinary people warmly commented on my performance in Charulata; some have called it my best performance ever. I really can't offer my opinion on this; what I can say is that if it is my best, the entire credit must go to Satyajit Ray. He got it out of me so simply and so naturally, that the only way I can describe it in retrospect is to say that he had cast a spell on me. He was able to extract the right responses from me at the appropriate moment. Between the director and the main actress in the film, there was a perfect fit and an ideal creative chemistry, which was, of course, apparent to the audience. But they only saw my acting.
There were people in the studio, on the set and around us who talked about our relationship. At first, I paid no attention to it. I signed to play the leading role in Kapurush the following year. The magic worked again. Critics were full of praise and my position as an accomplished actress was widely acknowledged. But the gossipmongers and tattlers would not stop. Quite the contrary. Since Kapurush involved shootings in the North Eastern part of India, the stories that circulated were not only inappropriate in that they just invaded Ray's privacy and mine. They were simply outrageous.
I had to come to a quick decision. I told Ray that I would not work with him any more. He seemed shocked; yet he didn't ask why. In other words he knew my reasons and probably appreciated and respected my sentiments. But he had a hard time accepting the fact that Madhabi Mukherjee would not be available for any future Ray films. He probably hoped that I would change my mind as time passed. He kept offering me roles in a number of films he made in the late sixties and early seventies. My answer was still a clear and firm "no."
He seemed disappointed each time. However, he never tried to talk me out of my decision. That was the way Ray was: gentle, sensitive, and respectful. I didn't divulge to him my reason for not working with him. He might have guessed it. It was because of Mrs. Ray. If he did, he was right! Throughout the making of Mahanagar and Charulata, I felt close to Bijoya Ray. I called her Baudi, a respectful way of addressing a woman older than one in age and experience. It literally means sister-in-law who is married to one's older brother, a familial term in a non-familial context to suggest respect and honor, as well as familiarity. To Baudi, I also added a prefix Monku, Bijoya Ray's nickname, used by persons close to the Ray family. Monku Baudi is a highly cultured lady with a sophisticated taste in music, literature, and poetry, as well as in the manners of the well-bred. Earlier in her life, before she married Satyajit Ray, she also had a brief stint in Bombay as an actress. She was especially helpful to me as I was preparing my part in Charulata.
She showed me how to use cosmetics and how to properly drape a sari befitting Charu, who belonged to an upper class, wealthy late ninteenth century Calcutta family. She also taught me how to sing the song in that wonderful scene where Amal sits on a mat in the garden writing, and Charu is on the swing. There was no way I would allow anything to happen that might hurt her feelings or compromise her position among her loved ones. Both Mahanagar and Charulata were shown at the Berlin Film Festival. Along with Satyajit Ray, and producer Bansal, I, too, was invited to attend the Festival. On both occasions and subsequently on numerous other occasions, I turned down all invitations to travel abroad in the company of Satyajit Ray.

 

[Stephen R]

I sure hope I don't get bashed for this, since we're all DVD lovers here Many people don't know that there are a number of films available for free online that are on the S&S list. Now, I know that the quality is terrible (at best), and you have to have a fairly fast connection to watch them in good form at all, but I thought I'd list some that are available, for those that feel like popping a couple off without having to go rent them.

Also, all of these are older films, so quality doesn't matter quite as much. Still, I'd recommend renting them at a later date so you can experience them in a better manner.

Available from http://www.ifilm.com )
HIS GIRL FRIDAY (Hawks) - #91 on the list

All of these are free. You just have to register. Anyone know of any others currently available?

----------------------

S&S Challenge; Films left to see: 73
Latest Seen: Touch of Evil (4/4)

 

[Pascal A]

Roger, thank you very much for sharing Madhabi Mukherjee's thoughts on Charulata. I did not realize that Ms. Mukherjee had voluntarily severed her association with Ray - that would explain why other actresses like Sharmila Tagore continued to work with Ray for twenty years, and Ms. Mukherjee only made those precious three films with him. I also find it sadly ironic that in her perceived "relationship" with Ray, her role became that of Amal in Charulata, whose deep respect for Bhupati and Charu compels him to stay away from the two people he loved most, in order to spare them from heartache.
As for Ms. Mukherjee herself, I find her gracious, reverent words to be a validation of the warmth and grace that she exudes on film. Not only is she a beautiful woman, but she is obviously a beautiful person as well. Also most revealing is the fact that, not only did she never make another film for Ray, but that she never made another film – period.
Lastly, regarding her description of Ray's reaction to her refusal to collaborate on future films - That was the way Ray was: gentle, sensitive, and respectful. - Even without having read her words, one can already sense that Ray was a true gentleman in every sense of the word. One cannot capture such beauty in the human condition without having a beautiful soul.
Okay, now that I have more insight into Charulata, it is definitely going into my next Senses of Cinema Top 10 Poll submittal (in about four months). Alas, it means the removal of either Josef von Sternberg’s The Blue Angel or Rene Clement's Forbidden Games.

------------------
Strictly Film School

 

[Roger V.]

I noticed this irony and have been thinking about the interaction between the off- and on-screen, the strange mimicry of art and life, how one envelops the other, how roles and the direction of roles often leave an insidious residue capable of disintegrating real-life. There are numerous examples: Hitchcock's relationship with 'his' actresses and its manifestation in films like Vertigo and Marnie; the antics and soap opera behind the scenes of Fassbinder's work, like Whity, and how off-screen relationships impinged on on-screen ones, and vice versa, and sometimes resulted in stronger work - never mind the brutal ethical implications; von Sternberg and Dietrich.
As I said, I met her in person and can attest to what you said. She was urbane and physically has aged quite well. Most of today's young actors simply can't radiate this graciousness of inner being without it seeming clumsy, put-on. Perhaps it has something to do with the roles they take?

 

[Doug D]

Regarding the comments about Satyajit Ray's personality: from his writings (in addition to his films) I have been profoundly impressed by his personality. He seems like an extraordinary human being, apart from any particular talent in the cinema he had. (Something that can't always be said for many cinema greats.) I strongly recommend MY YEARS WITH APU and OUR FILMS, THEIR FILMS (the only two books of his I've seen). I'll try to get up a review in the next couple weeks at my site.
------------------
S&S Challenge = 38 (Last watched: "Andrei Rublev")
Link Removed

 

[Evan Case]

50 down, 50 to go.

Watched Bunuel's L'Age d'Or tonight on what was, in my mind, the single worst VHS tape I've ever had the misfortune to witness.
I can't say I enjoyed it as much as Un Chien Andalou (but part of that could be the tape quality - it was truly that bad). I understood the skewering of upper class life and some other random moments but on the whole - this first viewing was over my head. Maybe a Bunuel expert will give me some pointers on the film so that my next viewing can be more rewarding.
One interesting note: the sequence everyone talks about in this film is the originality and surrealism of the cow on the bed. I didn't find that sequence as original as some others did. If anyone is interested, there is a 1928 Laurel & Hardy film called Wrong Again featuring a horse on a piano. Best of all, the short is available with a gorgeous transfer on the Lost Films of Laurel and Hardy: Volume 5 DVD.
Evan
------------------
"* * * * * * * * * * * * *" - Buster Keaton
AFI List: Meesa finished!
S&S: 50 films left

 

[Evan Case]

Just watched my recording of Sunrise for the first time.
To say I was floored would be an understatement. You know that rare feeling you get when you watch a film that instantly finds a way into your top ten? That's what I felt watching this film. Pure joy.
I've started a separate thread on the film as this thread always seems to be skipped over by the majority of forum members. Even if my thread gets few responses, at least people will know about the film.
And that's what it's all about, right?
Evan "Riding a Post-Incredibly Profound Viewing Experience High" Case
------------------
"* * * * * * * * * * * * *" - Buster Keaton
AFI List: Meesa finished!
S&S: 49 films left

 

[Brook K]

The number of titles I need to post reviews on grows as I saw two truly excellent films last night. The first was Fritz Lang's M, a gripping film featuring Peter Lorre as a child murderer. It highlights the police investigation to attempt to track him down and continues to move in unexpected directions.
The 2nd was Michael Powell's infamous Peeping Tom about a murderous voyeur. Powell paints him as a sympathetic figure and the audience of the time couldn't handle it, ruining his career. But the film is fabulous, with spot-on performances and a script that paints us, the viewer, as voyeur's as well. The DVD also contains a terrific documentary, I haven't listened to the commentary yet, but plan to.
Both get 4 out of 4's

 

[Pascal A]

To watch a Yasujiro Ozu film is to return to a childhood home. There is a sense of familiarity and reassurance, but also a quiet longing and melancholy that seem to lie beneath the surface. An Autumn Afternoon, Ozu's final film, is a graceful embodiment of the familiar themes that Ozu explored throughout his career: the westernization of Japan, the loss of cultural identity, generational conflict, aging, loneliness. The film is #91-3 on the Sight and Sound Poll.
Mild Plot Spoilers
An Autumn Afternoon
Shuhei Hirayama has settled into a complacent, domestic life of a widower with his adult children - his son Kazuo and daughter Michiko - in post-war Tokyo. Michiko is Hirayama's only daughter, and has naturally assumed the role of lady of the house after her mother's death. Upon hearing that one of his employees has taken a leave of absence in order to get married, Hirayama begins to evaluate Michiko's readiness for marriage as well. His friend Kawai approaches him with a prospective match, but Hirayama delays mentioning the matter to Michiko, unconvinced by the "urgency" of the situation (or perhaps, for fear of losing her). On the evening of his class reunion, he is reunited with his former school teacher, Sakuma, affectionately known as "The Gourd". The years have not been kind to Sakuma, who continues to work after his retirement by operating a noodle shop. Sakuma, too, had lost his wife at a young age, and his daughter, Tomoko, has remained unmarried in order to care for him. Witnessing the physical and emotional toll on Tomoko in singlehandedly caring for an aging parent, Hirayama becomes determined to spare Michiko from a similar, heartbreaking fate.
Yasujiro Ozu creates a beautifully realized, humorous, and poignant final masterpiece in An Autumn Afternoon. Set against the backdrop of an industrialized, and increasingly westernized Tokyo, An Autumn Afternoon is a subtle, yet profound observation on the growing paradox of cultural tradition in modern society: the isolation resulting from the dissolution of the nuclear family, the societal pressures for a single woman to marry despite emotional ambivalence; the continued financial assistance by a parent for a grown child. Using equal measures of levity and sadness, Ozu creates a serene and deeply affecting story of aging, parental duty, and loneliness. The final, understated shot shows Hirayama contemplating the void of his daughter’s absence, framed against the darkness of an empty room. It is a bittersweet portrait of gentle nostalgia and resigned acceptance - a somber reflection of the inevitable passage of time - a haunting elegy for an irretrievable past, and a bittersweet reminder of the unalterable process of life.
------------------
Strictly Film School