Home Theater Forum - View Single Post - Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Brook K · 05-28-2004, 04:22 AM

I love neo-realism too, as executed by Rosselini, Visconti, Olmi, Pontecorvo and De Sica, but Fellini isn't their equal in that realm, possibly because, except for Il Bidone he doesn't seem to be fully committed to it. He tried to take that style and make it fit his own and wasn't as successful as Rosselini or Olmi at doing so. Where he excels is a personal vision fueled by his unique personality and voice that he used to create a style unlike any one else's.

Godard and Cassavetes are two of cinemas greatest visionaries. They don't need to conform to commonplace expectations of what editing or acting "should" be out of your Bordwell. Their films are vital, living artwork that have moved many, many filmgoers. Art for art's sake? Why, because after years of ingesting cinema they saw a different way of doing things? They aren't interested in hiding behind their storytelling. Their personal thoughts and emotions are placed onscreen. The style is a statement all its own. These are men with something to say about life and they do so using their superb command of the medium.

Using your Truffaut example, his best films are those in which he injects himself, his feelings, emotions, personality -- The Doinel films, The Wild Child, The Man Who Loved Women, too often he is content to make competent Hitchcock homages or adapt books in a rather conventional manner.

It is cinema's unique voices I crave and without directors like Godard and Cassavetes the film world would be a much blander, and less interesting place.

05-28-2004, 04:22 AM	#1807 of 3734
Brook K Member Location: St. Louis, MO Join Date: Feb 2000 Local Time: 10:26 PM Local Date: 12-04-2008 Posts: 10,466	I love neo-realism too, as executed by Rosselini, Visconti, Olmi, Pontecorvo and De Sica, but Fellini isn't their equal in that realm, possibly because, except for Il Bidone he doesn't seem to be fully committed to it. He tried to take that style and make it fit his own and wasn't as successful as Rosselini or Olmi at doing so. Where he excels is a personal vision fueled by his unique personality and voice that he used to create a style unlike any one else's. Godard and Cassavetes are two of cinemas greatest visionaries. They don't need to conform to commonplace expectations of what editing or acting "should" be out of your Bordwell. Their films are vital, living artwork that have moved many, many filmgoers. Art for art's sake? Why, because after years of ingesting cinema they saw a different way of doing things? They aren't interested in hiding behind their storytelling. Their personal thoughts and emotions are placed onscreen. The style is a statement all its own. These are men with something to say about life and they do so using their superb command of the medium. Using your Truffaut example, his best films are those in which he injects himself, his feelings, emotions, personality -- The Doinel films, The Wild Child, The Man Who Loved Women, too often he is content to make competent Hitchcock homages or adapt books in a rather conventional manner. It is cinema's unique voices I crave and without directors like Godard and Cassavetes the film world would be a much blander, and less interesting place. Yes, Captain Hammer's here, hair blowing in the breeze. The day needs my saving expertise! - Captain Hammer, Corporate Tool 2002 Sight & Sound Challenge: 314 Last Watched: An Autumn Afternoon Last 10 Films Watched: Wanted - B- / Mongol - B+ Flicka - C+ / Bicycle Thieves - A Le Deuxième Souffle - A- / Transsiberian - B Fanfan la Tulipe - B+ / Hancock - B- The Nightmare Before Christmas - A- / Tropic Thunder - B DVD BEAVER My Collection