Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 36

Lew Crippen · 10-11-2003, 04:35 PM

This is a great film where we are alike in our dislike, George.

I can probably see a bit more of a reason for its inclusion on the list, but it would never make mine.

george kaplan · 10-11-2003, 07:25 PM

This is a great film where we are alike in our dislike, George.

As well as a film we both dislike where we are in disagreement about it's greatness.

I do wonder what critics see in this. I've read about all the people (Chaplin, Welles, etc.) who thought the film was great though nothing about why they thought it was great. I've seen reviews that I can't figure out. For example, Cinebooks gives the film 4 out of 5 stars. But if you read the review it includes the following "In effect, Eisenstein tried to create a Russian cinematic equivalent of a Shakespearean tragedy. Unfortunately, he fell short of his goal: the film was choppy, poorly edited, hammily acted, and few viewers are able to care very deeply about any of the characters." Then why does it deserve 4 out of 5 stars?

Pauline Kael says, it's "obviously a magnificent work" but she also calls it "frequently ludicrous, with elaborately angled, overcomposed photography, and overwrought, eyeball-rolling performers slipping in and out of the walls, dragging their shadows behind them." So again, we have a reviewer who seems to be saying it's great in some sense, but doesn't explain what makes it great, and indeed comes up with many of the same criticisms I've made.

And you Lew are the third of these examples.

You've said you don't like it, but admit it's great. Could you elaborate on why you think it's great? I'm seriously trying to get a handle on this.

MartinTeller · 10-12-2003, 03:39 AM

Hmmm, I could've sworn My Man Godfrey was on the S&S list, but I guess I was thinking of the 100 Laughs list.

Well, FWIW, I thought Godfrey was excellent

Brook K · 10-12-2003, 06:00 AM

If you haven't already George, read J.Hoberman's essay for the Criterion collection disc. All the essays are readable from Criterion's website. (since I'm assuming you rented this rather than shelled out for the set)

I'm not going to spend much more time defending it than I already have, I just think its funny and enjoyably in tune with history books I've read like "Russian Rebels" and "Peter The Great Transforms Russia" and I also appreciate the expressionistic sets and makeup and again, is an intentional characiture, criticizing through intentionally absurdist humour the absurdity of Stalin's regime. Gotta love the scale of the scene with the rivers of Russian peasantry coming to beg their beloved leader to return to the throne.

Are there 10-15 Fassbinder films I'd rather see on the list 1st? Sure, but there are also a number of other films I'd want removed from the S&S list before Ivan.

george kaplan · 10-12-2003, 08:30 AM

Brook,

I saw this on TCM. I will check out the criterion notes though. Thanks for the tip.

george kaplan · 10-12-2003, 11:56 AM

Well Brook, I read the essay and have to say that I remain unconvinced of the ‘greatness’ of these films. Again, we have a critic that is at least partly seeing the same things I am,

“Naturalism scarcely exists. The performances are as telegraphic and exaggerated as any in the silent cinema. The movie creates its own sign-system. Reaction shots reduced to close-up eye movements accentuate the pervasive atmosphere of intrigue, jealousy, and surveillance.”

The difference is that he (and others, yourself included I would imagine) see this not as bad filmmaking, but as some new and important art form (“a mutant kabuki show”). Of course the problem is that individuals will disagree about when something that has a unique style is a great new art form, versus just bad. I tread dangerously here, but consider Lancelot Link, Secret Chimp. Here we have a show in which chimpanzees play all the human roles. Now, is this a great new art form, or just really bad, campy television? There’s no right answer, and different people will perhaps disagree. Of course, part of the problem with 'what is art?' is that art is rarely judged by itself, without taking into account the artist. If John Cage records 4 minutes and 33 seconds of silence, it is accepted as art. If an unknown did the same thing, he would probably be dismissed.

I will say that I found the essay very informative, particulary in what Stalin was hoping to see, and what he actually saw in these, but I still don’t see these as great films.

MartinTeller · 10-13-2003, 11:49 PM

On the Waterfront - I must be dumb or something, but I don't understand why this is considered a great film. Technically, nothing stood out (except the ridiculously loud and overbearing Bernstein score). The story is unremarkable. There are a few patches of good dialogue, but nothing amazing. The only noteworthy thing about this movie (IMO) is the acting, and even that failed to live up to the hype. It was a decent film, maybe even a good film, but not a great one. And Kazan's dubious intentions bring it down a notch, too.

Brook K · 10-14-2003, 02:18 AM

I didn't say Ivan was a great film or that it invented a new form of art. I consider the style an intentionally over-the-top arch caricature. Like All That Heaven Allows or The Last Laugh, it is overblown in order to provide social, political, and cultural commentary/critique.

Martin, if you think On The Waterfront is unremarkable and unmoving, there is nothing I can say to change your mind. For me it is a great film full of great film moments and like I said before, I think Brando's acting is some of the best ever recorded on film. Terry Malloy is a remarkable character, a man that chooses the hard way instead of the easy way so that he can still look at himself in the mirror. Through love he is able to see within himself and realize his own sins and in the eyes of Eve Maria Saint, he sees the reflection of the man he wants to be. He makes selfless sacrifices, like Gary Cooper in High Noon, he stands alone while the people who stand to benefit from his sacrifice cower. He has the courage to do what is right even if it means destroying the only world he has ever known because he knows that that world is a lie and for the first time in his life, he discovers that there are other, better worlds.

I ain't in Steeltown long
I work 2 days a week
the other 5 my service
ain't requir'd

For 2 days out of seven
2 dollar bills I'm given

but on those 5 days
but on those 5 days
it's nice to eat
Jesus...who said "let's eat"

Listen, here's a story
not much fun
and not much glory
Low class
and lowdown
Nothing you'd pay attention to
until there was a showdown

--Marc Blitzstein

george kaplan · 10-14-2003, 06:11 AM

Brook,

I didn't say Ivan was a great film

Fair enough. But obviously many critics (and S&S voters) think so. In any case, this certainly isn't the only film where I disagree with critical wisdom.

Lew Crippen · 10-14-2003, 10:14 AM

I can’t really add to what Brook wrote about On the Waterfront, as I have already written about the acting in either this thread or the AFI one.

I’ve also written about my view as to Schulberg’s screenplay and Kazan’s film as an attempt to justify their actions before the HUAC. However, even if this is an attempt to glorify their actions, it does not make the film less meaningful or any the worse. IMO, Brando still gives one of the definitive performances on film and is well supported by most of the other actors.

An interesting story is that in the famous scene with the Malloy brothers in the taxicab Rod Steiger sat and fed Brando his lines for Brando’s close-ups, but when it came time for Steiger’s close-ups, Brando took off leaving Steiger to be given his lines by someone else.

Supposadly Steiger was quite resentful of this.

George, as for why I think that Ivan is no doubt a great (or perhaps near-great) film even though I don’t care for it goes to two things: the technical accomplishments of the filmmakers themselves and the courage that it must have taken to make the film (with its subject matter and subtext) under the conditions and constraints present in Russia of the day.

From a technique perspective what I think Eisenstein was trying to accomplish, he did, but it did not work for me and I consider much is overdone. But overdone well, so to speak. From a storytelling perspective, I am actually in awe, that he pulled this off. Especially that Part II was made after Part I was clear in the direction that Part II and Part III would go (clear at least to anyone familiar with dramatic structure—not necessarily to Stalin).

Hope this helps, but it would still not make my list. I actually completely agree with your Kael quote, but I’d never have been that concise.