Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 41

Dome Vongvises · 11-18-2003, 01:21 AM

L Avventura here I come.

Kirk Tsai · 11-19-2003, 11:20 PM

I saw two films that I thought were part of the list, 151 was La Haine, a dazzling film that seems awfully early to be put on the list (I realize only two people voted for it). About three minority French youngsters' single day run-ins with the police, racial/class tension and violence, the film fits into what people describe as "gritty" and brutal. The themes of the film are very transferable to the U.S., and the movie seems very inspired by American films. Or maybe I just haven't been exposed to this side of French cinema before. There are some stedicam shots that are very impressive, and I liked the intensity of the performances a lot. In fact, I have nothing negative to say about the film; it's very good. Only, is it better than a film like the overlooked Summer of Sam? Both lock their characters firmly in a social dead end. This is justifyingly praised for La Haine, but caused audiences to react negatively for SoS. The recent City of God, in comparison, allows for more social mobility despite its higher death count.

The other two films I mentioned were Band of Outsiders and Mon Oncle. Both very enjoyable. I liked BoO more than Breathless. The extended parody of death scenes is a favorite, even when it supposedly happens to a character. Anna Karinna is a looker, too. :b Also very fun was Mon Oncle. I tried looking up the previous discussions on Tati in this thread, but have so far failed. Before seeing the movie I was not aware of there being a previous Hulot film, I'll have to check that out. My favorite bit of the movie is when Hulot goes out to the garden at night to do some proper cutting, all the while in the same shot we see two heads look out the window at the top right corner of the frame, making it seem like two giant eyes, hilarious.

Lew Crippen · 11-20-2003, 09:24 AM

Quote:

Also very fun was Mon Oncle. I tried looking up the previous discussions on Tati in this thread, but have so far failed. Before seeing the movie I was not aware of there being a previous Hulot film,

George and I are big Tati fans—we just differ on which film we like best. I know that we have had some discussions somewhere, but I just can’t remember which threads. I am pretty sure that Brook and Walter are fans as well, but I can’t dredge up any supporting evidence.

Of the three that are on Criterion, my ordering:

1. Playtime, Tati’s last film and one I consider a true masterpiece. Shot in 70mm, Tati famously created his own world for this film, spending all his money (and then some) and he never recovered. The opening shots are some of the best examples of the use of color and space to create an atmosphere that anyone has ever constructed.
2. Mr. Hulot’s Holiday, which I consider to be his most charming film. Tati as Hulot is in the same class as Chaplin in his ability to get us to emphasize with his character. And like Chaplin, this is basically a silent comedy.
3. Mon Oncle, where we see M. Hulot’s world being destroyed by progress. This culminates in Playtime. This will be even better after you have seen M. Hulot’s Holiday

We can be thankful that Criterion has reissued the latter two films and are preparing a new release of Playtime that many expect to contain additional footage. Criterion also has a fourth Tati film on their schedule, Jour de Fète.

Brook K · 11-20-2003, 11:32 AM

Yes, Mon Oncle is my favorite of the 3. I love how Tati uses sounds to give just the right "punch" to his bits. I also feel sorry for the kid, having to grow up with parents as hopelessly clueless and conventional as his are. Playtime is, I'm guessing, one of those movies like Lawrence of Arabia, that will be a revelation if I ever get to see it in 70mm on a big screen, but seeing it in the cramped confines of my 32" TV, I'd put it at the back. It isn't as funny as the other two, and I don't find Tati's social commentary as advanced or complex as say, Godard's or Rohmer's.

I recently saw Band of Outsiders for the 1st time too. It has some magical moments, is full of Godard's wit and references, and the beautiful Anna Karena goes without saying, but I don't find the story to be as moving as several of his other films or the camerawork as masterful.

224 is The Age Of Innocence a story of passions suppressed and unrealized due to adherence to social convention. A sumptuous period piece, done with the full grandeur of Hollywood capabilities captured in precise detail by Martin Scorsese and his cinematographer, Michael Ballhaus. It includes a beautiful score of classical pieces and benefits from the performance of Daniel Day-Lewis, surely one of the finest actors to emerge in the 1980's.

However, perhaps as an extension of the brief discussion George brought up about films made from literary works, this was not a film I was able to fully embrace. This could be due to the shooting style and voice-over narration, which seems to hold up the story's era as something for modern viewers to gawk at and be amused by, rather than a real place the characters inhabit. Every meal, style of dress, mode of communication or mannerism is identified and codified by the camera and narrator rather than simply letting the viewer observe for themselves.

The story itself feels cut down from a larger whole. (I don't know if this is the case or not, I'll have to go back and read some reviews, but it seems like the Richard E. Grant role, for instance, must have been much larger for him to even take the part. He's talked about in hushed tones several times, but has virtually no screen time.) The concentration is almost entirely on the love triangle of Day-Lewis, Michelle Pfeiffer and Wynona Rider, with rare interventions from the outside world to add any sort of dramatic imperative or scenes of import that would invigorate a story the audience knows the conclusion of in the first 5 minutes. Perhaps it is my somewhat negative attitudes to the two actresses in question, but I found myself much more interested in the cinematography and the establishing shots composed to look like classical paintings than I was enraptured by the story.

Lew Crippen · 11-20-2003, 11:51 AM

I love The Age of Innocence more than it probably deserves. I am always so swept away by the production and cinematography that I wind up ignoring its narrative defects.

I do think that Scorsese has captured Edith Wharton’s vision of late 19th Century, New York Society so well that I’m not particularly put off by any variations from the text. For me the voice-over narrative really worked—most that I remember are direct quotes from the novel.. I love it when a filmmaker’s take on a novel is the same as mine in concept and don’t care much if detail is omitted or changed. Unfortunately, I don’t often think that films do much justice to the source, but in this case I’m pleased.

BTW, IIRC, Rosenbaum calls this something like a ‘noble but failed effort’. It did not fail for me.

Seth Paxton · 11-20-2003, 12:53 PM

I'm pages behind. Unfortunately I have been busy with things other than S&S films lately.

But in regards to the responses back on page 38, specifically Lew's...

Quote:

But to that, I often upgrade my rating of a film simply because it strikes a chord within me. I don’t think I ever downgrade films simply because I disagree with a view taken by a director or writer. And there are the films that I like for some reason beyond all reason. These might get a slight upgrade, but not much.

I do the same thing. I do not fault anyone for subjective criticism because the truth is that there is nothing else.

If I might sidebar into a BCS college poll analogy. The BCS system has people in an uproar and one of the main problems sighted is the cold, objective COMPUTER that makes all these "uninformed" choices. Meaning that people view the computer and/or its formula as some reckless machine that looks only at numbers without understanding the nuances, or places emphasis on strength of schedule too much or margin of victory.

Of course before the BCS all those factors WERE included in the national ranking, it was just that it happened inside a coach's or writer's head rather than being written down as a formula. Teams still got dinged for weaker schedules ("They haven't played anyone") or benefitted from running up the score.

And the BCS still includes the coach and writer polls anyway.

The BCS is really just an OBJECTIVE application of a SUBJECTIVELY created formula, it merely represents the explicit stating of which factors are important to being "good" beforehand and then consistently calculates it the same every time. Of course this allows the formula to be objected with since it is written out for others to examine (maybe not publically in all cases, but by those with the power to use it to govern the Bowls). It can also be tested and tweeked, factors can be altered, added or deleted to improve it's output, though the judgement of it's accuracy will, in the end, still be a SUBJECTIVE one.

Should TCU go to the national championship? Even without the BCS this question would not have an ABSOLUTE answer.

All of that is to say that even if we were to compile a list of factors that mark a film as "great" so that a computer could automatically analyze thousands of films an hour it would still not be objective. Somehow slapping math or computers in the middle of things, or by stating explicit numbers, levels, colors, sounds, etc that are required people begin to feel the false comfort of "objectivity" when none really exists.

As was said in the AFI revote poll, all we have is the objective compiling of subjective values when it comes to rating ANYTHING, not just art. And that goes for Best Car, Best Rocketship, anything.

Another way to hide the subjectivity is by first applying a layer of abstraction between the subjective factors and the measurement. For example, a rocket that explodes on the launching pad is worse than one that flies to the moon. The basis for this is that the 2nd rocket meets its objective...its PURPOSE.

But of course (and this really comes into play with art), that PURPOSE is generally in no way objective either.

When you read Eisenstien, Kracauer, Mulvey, etc you find a widely differing view of the purpose of film. That leads to different yet potentially "absolute" criteria (like number of tickets sold or most realistic looking) that can be measured and then said to be objective, when of course they are just as subjective as George saying "this is the greatest film ever because I say so".

So no matter how scientific we make a formula, even programs that analyze color or lighting in each scene, the length of shots, the grammar or structure of the dialog, polls asking people, and so on none of them will ever be objective.

All we have is what we have in this thread or threads like it (like the AFI revote)...pseudo-objectivity created by compiling as many subjective views as we can. And of course we try to add in the concept of the "informed viewer", but then that only means learning a specific school of thought on cinema (ie, a layer of abstraction built by differing the view of the purpose of cinema).

And I'm not blasting any of us even though in some ways this undermines even my views on cinema. In the end I think we just recognize these facts and say "fuck it, I'm putting my head down and marching on". What else can we do but our best with what we've got...subjective views. That's why discussion threads/challenges like these are the best. We recognize the limitations and try to improve ourselves within those restrictions.

- This from a detail-oriented math and science geek.

Seth Paxton · 11-20-2003, 01:04 PM

Oh, I did rewatch Once Upon a Time in the West although I just saw it last year and had already counted it.

I really enjoyed it more this time, though it still remains 2nd or 3rd behind GBU (in my top 10) and maybe Fistful (though its a tough call).

The first time through the film seemed to slow to me but this time it felt just right. I think we all recognize that when we know what is coming next (during a repeat viewing I mean) that a film will run "faster" to us. The good stuff doesn't last as long, but neither do the lesser parts. We may still hate them just as much, but at least we know they are coming to an end and when that will happen.

Here its not a case of hating a moment, just that I think we have narrative expectations when we are first told a story and that a storyteller can irritate us by restricting our progression to the next phase of the story.

But the 2nd time through you know the story, so instead your focus shifts more to enjoying the moments or how the story is being told. I think slower films perhaps benefit the most from this.

I often notice this "speed up" with films I loved; they actually go too fast on the 2nd viewing. The first time through they are hitting all the narrative beats and keeping things lively, but the 2nd time around I notice that there are no pauses to stop and enjoy the situation.

OUTIW is definitely an example of stopping to enjoy the situation (most often this is a moment of prolonged tension).

I think the opening scene makes this effect payoff the best because of how abruptly it ends. That protracted waiting is strongly contrasted with an almost instantanious resolution, which of course benefits the narrative by emphasising the skill of Harmonica.

Oh, and the mise-en-scene of the film is so typical of Leone, a real master at placing characters/objects within the frame.

But my favorite moment now is seeing that smile creep over Fonda's face right before he shoots the kid. I think Fonda was the most impressive performance in the film, not just because he was going against type but because he went against it with such subtlety and power.

Dome Vongvises · 11-20-2003, 01:14 PM

Great post, Seth. Ever wanted to lend your writing skills to fiction? Technical writing is overrated.