Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 110

Martin Teller · 02-19-2007, 03:49 PM

I wouldn't call it essential, but The Age of Innocence is a very good movie.

**HTF Ads**

rich_d · 02-19-2007, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Thomas J.

I have the intention of getting to Mean Streets next, for a few reasons. I would like to watch films in chronological order, if possible, because more often than not, a filmmaker's past work in some ways informs their later work, and you can see how they've built upon certain thematic tendencies and such. You know what I mean. Plus when I told someone I respect that I wasn't much of a Scorsese fan, he told me, in my case then, to give Mean Streets a try. But after that, it'll be GoodFellas. Perhaps then Casino (unsure, though), and maybe The Departed strewn somewhere in there since it'll be easy to find on rental shelves, obviously.

Then I think that would complete his "essential" work, right?

Well, that 'essential' tag is wide open.

Some would say Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore should be on the list.

Scorsese himself would absolutely add The Last Temptation of Christ

I would add After Hours

Personally I don't give a damn about watching films in some sort of chronological order but would suggest that when you passed over your friend's recommendation of Mean Street for Raging Bull, that's sure out the window.

As far as Raging Bull or Goodfellas, I enjoyed them both but believe Goodfellas to be the more compelling story.

Adam_S · 02-19-2007, 11:17 PM

great examination of Raging Bull and Scorsese, Thomas. check out Alice Doesn't live here anymore and Last Temptation of Christ for some of Scorsese's most interesting female characters.

Started M. Hulot's Holiday. I'm just not cut out for the Tati filmmaking. The jokes are kinda funny most of the time and very funny some of the time, but it just lacks the pizazz of Chaplin, Keaton for me and is more along the lines of Lloyd and Langdon, funny and humorous but not so much my style.

Adam_S · 02-20-2007, 02:02 PM

M. Hulot's Holiday -

201st S&S film
Tati's second film, the first with M. Hulot is a pretty good, occasionally funny romp during a French resort town on the coast. Hulot's interested in a pretty girl, she's kind of interested in him, there's a silly english lady, and an odd duck older couple. toss in some annoyed hotel employees and a little blond boy. The horse scene was pretty funny, the tennis scene was kinda funny but had no payoff, tracking muddy footprints in was pretty funny, I liked the car best. Sound effects were used to great effect.

On the whole, not brilliant, imo, and I just don't get the love. It's clever enough, but overall not a great comedy in my opinion.

Darrell Bratz · 02-20-2007, 07:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mario Gauci

Still, I wanted to comment on Brook's splitting up of PANDORA'S BOX as it were; I know sometimes it's hard after a long day's work to be able to summon up the necessary stamina and concentration required to watch a movie properly but, personally, I would never split a film up unless it's awfully long or was intended to be split up from the start. Hell, I've even watched Louis Feuillade's 10-part/7-hour serial LES VAMPIRES (1915-16) and Sergei Bondarchuk's massive 7-hour epic WAR AND PEACE (1968) each in 1 day!

Personally, if I don't have the necessary time to get something watched from start to finish, I'll change my plans and watch something shorter and leave a long film - and, at 133 minutes, PANDORA'S BOX is fairly long - for the weekend.

Some of you may find this next remark snobbish but, in my view, a film of PANDORA'S BOX's stature - and anyone who rents or buys the film is already aware of it, otherwise he wouldn't bother with an 80 year-old Silent film - demands to be seen under ideal circumstances and not merely to notch off another title off of the "Sight & Sound" list. Not that I'm in any way accusing Brook of having done so himself, of course....

!

Catching up with this thread after a few weeks away, sorry to chime in on this so late, but it really hits home. We each have our own circumstances and lifestyles - mine necessitates a choice between nearly always watching movies in segments over two or more nights or simply giving up movies (not going to happen). Between work, sleep, child care, pet care, errand running, and house maintenance, I find that there is virtually never such a thing as two uninterrupted hours, nor do I expect such an extravagance for several years (child growth and maturity) to come. Once in awhile it happens, and my wife and I count ourselves lucky. Three or four times a year we manage to get to a movie theater, so those are uninterrupted obviously. I've become quite used to chopping films up, sometimes even into 20ish minute increments when necessary. Horrifying? Yes, it would have horrified me a few years ago too. Yet I'd rather do that than fall pathetically behind in my movie watching goals.

Everybody works with what they've got.

Thomas J. · 02-21-2007, 12:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holadem

With the disclaimer that I am no fan of this movie (I share your emotional detachment from the protagonist), and remember little of it, I am puzzled by this statement. Perhaps I misunderstood, but my immediate reaction is to wonder: since when does a work of art need both gender's perspective in order to be considered "transcendent"? Should movies like The Joy Luck Club or All About my Mother be diminished because they uniquely present pure undistilled female experiences and point of views?

--
H

Yeah, yeah, I see where you're coming from. What I mean is that, (it's just a hunch) if I were to gather a theater full of women "off the street" and show them random Scorsese film X, and then were to subsequently gather a theater full of men "off the street" and show them the same film, and have both groups fill out questionaires to try to ascertain what about the film appealed to them, and generally, to what degree they liked the film, it seems that the scale would be weighed HEAVILY to the men thinking the film was awesome, while the women much more reserved in their appreciation of the film.

But, again... ok, I guess I better conduct this ostensibly scientific study or else shut up already, lol.

I think a truly great film shouldn't be overwhelmingly appealing to just a particular portion of the audience, but to everybody. Seems with Scorsese, the scales are entirely balanced equally among all viewers. However, please, please, don't get too caught up in this, though. I was absolutely NOT outright dissing the film based on this assumed male/female discrepency. Please don't mistake what I wrote for that, or make more of it than was intended. It was just a thought I had while the end credits rolled.

Thomas J. · 02-21-2007, 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rich_d

when you passed over your friend's recommendation of Mean Street for Raging Bull, that's sure out the window.

C'mon, Rich. When did I say I passed over Mean Streets for Raging Bull? Please don't put words in my mouth.

Raging Bull was on the rental shelf. Mean Streets wasn't, and there wasn't anything else on the shelf that I wanted to take out.

Thomas J. · 02-21-2007, 12:30 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Darrell Bratz

Catching up with this thread after a few weeks away, sorry to chime in on this so late, but it really hits home. We each have our own circumstances and lifestyles - mine necessitates a choice between nearly always watching movies in segments over two or more nights or simply giving up movies (not going to happen). Between work, sleep, child care, pet care, errand running, and house maintenance, I find that there is virtually never such a thing as two uninterrupted hours, nor do I expect such an extravagance for several years (child growth and maturity) to come. Once in awhile it happens, and my wife and I count ourselves lucky. Three or four times a year we manage to get to a movie theater, so those are uninterrupted obviously. I've become quite used to chopping films up, sometimes even into 20ish minute increments when necessary. Horrifying? Yes, it would have horrified me a few years ago too. Yet I'd rather do that than fall pathetically behind in my movie watching goals.

Everybody works with what they've got.

I respect your circumstances.

Question: Do you think your viewing tendency changes the filmgoing experience away from cinema and more to literature? Meaning, you're watching a film as one would read a book -- breaking up the movie into chapters. This I suppose enables you to reflect on the little morsels presented in each scene of the film, instead of necessarily digesting the "big picture" presented by the totality of the film. I wonder, then, whether or not you get more out of films that are composed of great moments, but then ultimately don't amount to all that much; and, in turn, whether you tend to dislike films that are generally considered to be greater than the sum of their parts. In the latter case, you're by necessity digesting only the film's parts, which might make the film better for you than it would be otherwise.

You probably have a unique perspective on many films, akin to what an editor's opinion might be of a film as he/she watches the dailies/rushes and continually tries to keep in mind the "big picture" day after day.

Interesting, anyway.

Joe Karlosi · 02-21-2007, 06:22 AM

I can understand the need for Darrell to watch movies in segments, and I'd probably do the same too if I had to, which is better than not watching films at all. For myself, it has to be all in one shot to keep the flow going. There have been times where I'll fall asleep after a half hour or so, and the next day I'll go back and re-watch the entire thing, including that first half hour.

re: Martin Scorsese -- of his films I've seen so far, among my favorites would be GOODFELLAS, AFTER HOURS and THE KING OF COMEDY. I thought CAPE FEAR was a rare "modern remake" which equalled its original. I felt RAGING BULL was above average but overrated, and THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST was absurd. I saw TAXI DRIVER at a time when I felt it might have lost some of its original edge due to all the subsequent imitations I've seen first, but it's a movie I'm intending to see fresh again before committing. Oh, and MEAN STREETS I've never seen, yet I have it on my ever-growing 'things to see' list.

Michael Elliott · 02-21-2007, 03:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe Karlosi

yet I have it on my ever-growing 'things to see' list.

Perhaps if you didn't watch the same stuff over and over you 'things to see' list wouldn't be so big.

(just kidding of course)

Joe Karlosi · 02-21-2007, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Michael Elliott

Perhaps if you didn't watch the same stuff over and over you 'things to see' list wouldn't be so big.

(just kidding of course)

But then my list of favorite movies on DVD which I already have owned for years, but never watch, would grow even larger.

Man, I only wish I had watched something which was already familiar that night when instead I wasted my time with THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. But such is the nature of trying a new title... you win some, you lose some.