Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 101

Lew Crippen · 11-05-2006, 06:10 PM

Should France be in Algeria? If you answer ‘yes’, then you must accept all the consequences.

The consequences that Lt. Colonel Mathieu (Jean Martin) refers is torture in Gillo Pontecorvo’s powerful masterpiece, The Battle of Algiers. An almost perfect depiction of the futility of having a perfect tactical response to terrorism, but where also that response with no real underlying political strategy leads to defeat even while winning the battle.

The escalation of violence by both the Algerians and French is perfectly done (an aside on George’s comment on the café bombing: as the event is historical and since we know the outcome in advance, there really can’t be any suspense—it would be an artistic error to even attempt such a spin—I was captured by the close-ups of the patrons and the dancing to Hasta mañana (until tomorrow—which will never come).

Supposedly this film was screened at the Pentagon—it seems that they missed the point.

**HTF Ads**

george kaplan · 11-05-2006, 09:11 PM

Quote:

as the event is historical and since we know the outcome in advance, there really can’t be any suspense—it would be an artistic error to even attempt such a spin

Adam_S · 11-05-2006, 09:38 PM

I agree with Lew.

Lew Crippen · 11-08-2006, 06:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by george kaplan

Quote:

as the event is historical and since we know the outcome in advance, there really can’t be any suspense—it would be an artistic error to even attempt such a spin

Which might be true except that this isn't a documentary, and we all know that no film based on true events follows the truth 100%. I stand by my comments.

True enough that The Battle of Algiers is not a documentary and does not follow the truth with 100% accuracy.

Now even if you, like me first saw this movie when it was released, we are now viewing it 45 years after the events depicted and very far removed geographically and culturally. But when it was first shown in 1965 in Italy, the events that constituted the movie were very recent—the specific events happened in 1957 and the overall war was not over until 1962. Further, this was an Italian made movie with an European audience, who were well aware of the general unrest that occurred during the end of the colonial period and even more so of specific, seminal events that marked turning points in attempted rebellions (or liberation movements, depending on perspective). After all, Rome is closer to Algiers (536 miles) than Dallas is to El Paso (572 miles).

Given the currency of the bombings, the geographic proximity and general knowledge of the events extant in the target audience, it is not reasonable to suppose that any attempt at suspense would be successful. The audience knows that the bombs are going to go off in those locations and kill and wound civilians. Attempts to suggest that something else would happen, just would not be credible when this movie was made—most especially in Italy.

Holadem · 11-08-2006, 07:52 AM

There might also be the matter of where one's sympathies lie. In George's initial comment about the bombing scene, his point of view seemed to rest with the victims, people's fates:

Quote:

In the bomb scenes in Algiers, you don't follow anyone in the place. You don't see a person get up, start to walk out, get called back by a friend, etc. You don't see someone on the outside start to go in, look at their watch, try to decide whether they have time to go in or not. Regardless of whether those people got blown up or not, there would be suspense. But what you see instead is a bomb planted. You know it's going to go off. Everyone in the place is just sitting there (or dancing or whatever). The film does not lead you to believe for one second that anyone in that room isn't going to be blown up. Yes, the explosion is delayed, and that creates a certain tension. But without bringing anyone's fate into uncertainty (in the world of the film), it's not nearly as suspenseful as it could be.

Well, this may not be the PC thing to say, but I wanted these bombs to go off, and for me, the stake was the success of the mission. Suspense came from hoping no one would foil the plan. Settlers, the ultimate beneficiaries of any occupation, are not innocent bystanders (an expression that is thrown around far too often by those with the luxury of an overwhelming force) in my book...

--
H

Seth Paxton · 11-09-2006, 08:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Adam_S

still it's an interesting challenge. 60 titles, 60 different directors, best/most important films ever made, I kind of like the limitation on one film per director it prevents fetishizing a list with the bias of whoever is choosing.

Yep.

I guess the one aspect of this is still that while clearly (IMO) there are films on the lists that aren't really one of the 10 best ever in the person's opinion, but just a film they wanted to champion, they still must be powerful enough/loved enough to make it into their "films I want to champion" list.

If you are a film enthusiast and have seen a ton of film and still find a certain film to be worthy of being championed, then there has to be some merit in there I think.

Much of what we come up against are just are trained H'wood narrative tastes. I'd bet most of us (anyone besides George) have had our tastes skewed a bit more away from H'wood expectations...and H'wood in this case does NOT mean schlock, it just means narrative structure which includes pacing, character structure, serving the story over the themes, characters, tone and so on.

I LOVE H'wood narrative. It's a great form. But honestly I think the biggest reason it's so popular is just that it won the battle early on and then got copied over and over. People have learned to watch films by watching films. So however the films they started with did it, that's what they come to expect the next time.

Nothing wrong with that, but I'd bet that if Bunuel had been king of the castle in 1915 and had his stuff getting duplicated everywhere, we all might be talking about the quirky methods of Spielberg instead. Of course the human interest in being told stories is a major factor too.

Pyassa - Kaagaz ke pool
I enjoyed both, but preferred Kaagaz, mostly for the songs. Both are hard melodrama.

Fanny and Alexander - Un Chien - well Bunuel is growning on me, but I've loved Bergman right from the start, so this film appealed to me a lot more. It's not as simple as "pretty shots are nice to watch", I do feel like he is telling me things throughout his films. I just feel comfortable with some of his "logic jumps", to me they typically make sense on a non-narrative level.

Actually it could be that they do have a narrative motive behind them, its just a more unusual narrative. Contrast that with Bunuel who clearly is trying to disrupt the semiotics the entire time. As I said before, as I've grown used to Bunuel's "patterns" I've enjoyed them a bit more.

Once you get out of the "story time" mood I think Bunuel goes over very well.

Adam

Quote:

I think I'll probably go with Aguirre. I've wanted to see it for ages.

I am morally bound to suggest you punch yourself in the nuts for a couple of hours instead.

Okay, it's not that bad and at times pretty amazing, but I'm the HTF "Aguirre basher" mostly due to how amateurish it gets. I'm the only person on the board that feels this way I think. I've said my peace, just make sure to have some ice ready for those nuts.

Okay, hate to keep the long post going, but here are my latest entries. I've been lax in getting back on here. Gotta fix that.

The Passenger
Loved it. The camera work is really just briliant, and I don't mean the very clever long take at the end of the film. Two other scenes stand out to me. At the roadside cafe the camera leaves the couple to follow cars passing in the background, swinging hard one way then back the other for cars going in different directions.

What I find interesting about a choice like that is how he clearly deemphasizes the characters and puts our focus on that background, increasing it's importance. And while he has a clear, strong plot running in the film, the entire time the theme seems to be a demphasis on characters and narrative, which is exactly the quandry Jack's character is going through. He's detaching from his own personality and life track, trying to leave it behind and yet he's also not really trying to be the new character either.

He hits it even with the dialog when Jack asks about the details she can see out the window. The everyday occurances, life simply passing by like those cars, become the focus. And he does it without having to kick the narrative to the curb.

The other brilliant piece of direction is when Maria is in the car looking back as the drive down the tree lined road. The set of camera moves and the placement of the camera itself is just incredible work. When someone wants to know what "direction" is vs mise-en-scene, editing, cinematography and other jobs that get assigned to a director's style as much as direction itself does, this is the scene to start with.

Again he doesn't break the narrative in the least. It's not form over content, it's content with form.

I didn't get as much out of L'Avventura as The Passenger, but honestly this got me interested in giving it another look. I wrote so much because I really did just get a lot from it. I blew seeing it in the theater last year like an idiot.

Fear Eats the Soul
I also really love the direction here, though Fassbinder is not so careful to avoid form breaking into the narrative, leaving every scene "frozen" at the end and sometimes the beginning (quoted because it's not a single frame stopped, but the characters simply stop and look at the camera for 10-20 seconds at the end of scenes).

It is more obviously metaphorical at times with scenes representing the themes more than just acting out single anecdotes of them (the themes being racism, the need to be loved, stranger in a strange land, a few others).

I'm sure for some it might be too heavy handed, but it's far less form over function high art than a lot of stuff on the S&S list.

Rosemary's Baby
I had counted this already, but it had been so long that I wanted to see it again. Good thriller, some questionable character choices but generally a tight script. Enjoyable, but dwarfed by Chinatown in terms of overall brilliance.

My count is now at 239 and I see the sub-100 left club getting close.

I Vitelloni is in the house and I think is my last Fellini (thank god to be honest, not my fave really). I guess I should bump Algiers up my queue. L'eclisse is also here and after The Passenger I'm pretty excited to make some time for it.

Seth Paxton · 11-09-2006, 08:23 PM

Since Aguirre was mentioned and people were discussing how many films they enjoyed, my scale puts films at 6 still decent and watchable and 5 as the 50/50 point of good vs bad, films that are starting to become really unpleasant to deal with. I've only had 4 films score 5, 1 film scored 4.

Fives
Lancelot du Lac - Brook and I discussed just how amateurish and silly Bresson gets about form over function. Not truly a bad film, but as an elite film its awful.

To Sleep with Anger - nice TV movie, but as an elite its weak. The story itself has a ton of merit, but generally its lacking in anything particulary artful otherwise.

Performance - ugh, really pretentious and overly artful

Aguirre - see Lancelot du Lac, IMO only of course

The FOUR
The Tingler - yeesh. Okay, I see it's role in terms of concept of presentation, but Jaws 3-D isn't on the list.

200 of the films I've seen so far I've rated an 8 or better. I have 60 10's so far. I even have a Fellini and Bunuel at 9.5 (Olvidados and La Strada).

Of course I haven't compared ratings and really tried to sort them out in a proper manner, the "this vs that" direct comparison. So it would probably change a bit. The main point is that so far I've really enjoyed the S&S challenge, even if it does seem like work at times to get motivated. I always end up enjoying it more than I expected.

george kaplan · 11-10-2006, 05:18 AM

Quote:

I guess the one aspect of this is still that while clearly (IMO) there are films on the lists that aren't really one of the 10 best ever in the person's opinion, but just a film they wanted to champion, they still must be powerful enough/loved enough to make it into their "films I want to champion" list.

Mario Gauci · 11-10-2006, 11:20 AM

11/06/06: MY NEIGHBOR TOTORO (Hayao Miyazaki, 1988) ***

This is my fourth film from this celebrated animation artist; while I’ve always enjoyed his work, I still feel that it’s somewhat overrated. The ones I’d watched – PRINCESS MONONOKE (1997), SPIRITED AWAY (2001; his best, in my opinion) and HOWL’S MOVING CASTLE (2004) – were all plot-packed, overwhelming visual experiences, so I was surprised to find this one much simpler, virtually kiddie-oriented and essentially plotless! It was still meticulously detailed and inventive, with two extremely likeable female protagonists and equally delightful anthropomorphic characters - not to mention an infectious title track. I’ve yet to catch up with quite a number of his films (TCM showed a retrospective of his work while I was in Hollywood late last year, but I didn’t have the time – or stamina – for them) but, given their basic similarity, I guess it’s best to approach them one at a time (my local DVD rental outlet does carry a few more titles, though)…

Holadem · 11-13-2006, 09:51 AM

Well, after a well deserved break, resuming the grind with an old standby...

#101 - Dr. Strangelove (1964) -

Dr Strangelove is so firmly rooted in the canon of film, that enthusiasts are almost expected to uniformly love it. Well, it is certainly hard to find fault with the film on any objective grounds, but much of the humour fell flat. The irony of the situation as a whole is gold, but the elements of slapstick, failure to appreciate the situation (Scott's character talking to his girlfriend from the war room) and any dialogue involving bodily fluids just didn't work for me. It also doesn't help that as a movie enthusiast only now finally getting around to seeing this, I was by and large familiar with the plot, most of the gags and quotes. It also doesn't halp that I watched this in less than ideal conditions.

But the craft is so good, I wish Kubrick had made more straight war flicks

.

Kubrick so far:

*Eyes Wide Shut (1999) -

*Full Metal Jacket (1987) -

The Shining (1980) -

Barry Lyndon (1975) -

A Clockwork Orange (1971) -

2001: A Space Odyssey (1968) -

Dr. Strangelove (1964) -

Paths of Glory (1957) -