Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 26

Holadem · 07-21-2003, 09:46 PM

Brazil

Meh.

--
H

John^Lal · 07-22-2003, 01:59 AM

Quote:

Love, love, LOVE Night of the Hunter

Quote:

I totally agree with Brook on Night of the Hunter

Quote:

Gotta agree on Night of The Hunter

thanks guys. thanks again for making me feel so bad for missing out on a movie that was showing on TCM that i wanted to watch. i saw it was on the schedule. forgot about it. then 20 min after it started i remembered about it while turning the tv to that channel and said to myself "oh well, i'll catch it some other tim".

John^Lal · 07-22-2003, 02:02 AM

Brazil...is the one on the List the original american release or is it the directors cut that is only available in the Criterion Collection (which netflix doesn't have and neither do the local video chains and i am not looking to drop $50 on a single movie that i may not like)

Tim Raffey · 07-22-2003, 04:25 AM

I think the Universal disc of Brazil (the only other R1 version) is the director's cut as well, actually.

Lew Crippen · 07-22-2003, 12:49 PM

I have a story too, Mr. Bailey. I had a friend once. A dear friend. I turned him in to save his life. He died. But he wanted it that way. Things went bad for my friend, and they went bad for me too.

We know that we are in for a treat (and that we are not to take anything seriously) when a story begins, once upon a time. And so it is with Once Upon a Time in America the controversial and much editied magnum opus of Serigio Leone. I had never seen the nearly four hour version before, and for the first time, I am able to understand why this is an honored film. According to the accompanying information, the version has never been shown in the U. S., so it is perhaps understandable that it is nowhere to be found on any of the AFI lists.

But it should be as this is a wonderfully complex film: from a thematic perspective, from the way in which it is presented (just filled with flashbacks/flashforwards) and from an ambiguity perspective. As with all of Leone’s films it is beautifully photographed and also as with other Leone films the score by Ennio Morricone is perfect.

Round this off with a cast that includes Robert DeNiro and James Woods in the lead roles and a whole host of perfect supporting actors like Tuesday Weld, Joe Pesci, and Danny Aiello and we have a film that is worth every one of those 240 minutes.

I would have commented on how I think this film is structured and how it ends, but it turns out to be a duplicate of the commentary (on those two items) and everyone may not be familiar with this version, so I’ll withhold discussion at that level.

Lew Crippen · 07-22-2003, 01:03 PM

She wasn’t pretty enough to be a star, nor talented enough to be a character actor—Hollywood conventional wisdom.

Quote:

Here is something I thought of in regards to manipulation in another direction. What about the casting of "beautiful people" in average joe roles in order to make a story more appealing? I guess once I thought about the idea of "improving" a character by putting a beautiful star in the role instead of someone plain I sort of found myself questioning the manipulation of film all the more.

Of course a part of this comes down to movies as ‘escape’ and ‘entertainment’. We go, in part to be transported to other worlds and lives. I don’t think that it is any worse to fall in love with Kim Novak through Jimmy Stewart than it is to imagine that we hit a three-run homer in the bottom of the ninth in the seventh game of the World Series, all the while pretending that we are Mickey Mantle or some other star.

But there are other reasons for attractive stars as well. I remember reading about a writer who did not want to write a character in a certain way, because he felt that there would be no way to make him likable later in the plot. Now strictly from a literary perspective he was correct. His replacement wrote the screenplay to order, feeling that was why you had stars—their looks and charisma would make the audience care for the character later in the story, even though it was not logical.

This is a powerful incentive for casting attractive people for certain roles.

Lew Crippen · 07-23-2003, 09:15 AM

Strike, Sergei Eisenstein’s first film is must viewing for anyone who is interested in silent cinema, early cinema, or Eisenstein. While it is a very flawed work, and is both too heavy-handed and sometimes boring, it is easy to see the beginnings of ‘Potemkin’ and already Eisenstein is developing his battle scene techniques which culminate in ‘Nevsky’.

Brook K · 07-23-2003, 01:03 PM

We differ for the first time in awhile Lew. I think Strike! is Eisenstein's best film. It is the only one I've seen (I haven't seen his Mexican film) where he is not simply detailing history and events, but is showing the effects of the political ideals of the time on the common people and treats people in an individual, Realist fashion rather than as groups, important historical figures, or the more conventional movie storytelling figures of his later films. For me it has the by far the most moving scenes in any of his work. I think it is also the purest example of his style of montage, a literal assault of image upon the senses with an extrememly well-matched score.

Lew Crippen · 07-23-2003, 02:02 PM

You make a good case Brook. I can’t disagree with what you write and I’d also comment as to the very effective cinematography.

However, I don’t find that it has the finish and polish of a ‘Nevsky’, nor the sustained story line of ‘Potemkin’. While he may address the common man as individuals in Strike, his depiction of the bourgeoisie and the capitalists is stereotypical in the extreme (though I find the opening scenes of them around the conference table funny in the extreme). And of course the ‘spies’ are only referred to by their animal names—a deliberate device to depersonalize them. Of course I know all this to be deliberate, but contrast this with ‘Ivan’ where we get to know (to a degree) the personalities of everyone.

Overall, though I admire the structure of the film (and even today, I think that you have to pay attention or you get lost), I think that it would have been far more effective had the characterization been more complex (I think that I’m beginning to sound like Seth here).

It is interesting to read your view as to this being Eisenstein’s best film. I have recently either read somewhere (or maybe heard in the DVD commentary) that Strike and Citizen Kane were the best two first films by any directors.