Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 45

MartinTeller · 12-31-2003, 10:16 AM

I haven't seen that, but he also has a role in The Good Thief, which I saw not too long ago.

I put Underground at the top of my Netflix queue and some of his other films on hold at the library.

Brook K · 12-31-2003, 01:52 PM

Netflix has Underground? I'll have to add that instantly, wanted to see it for a long time.

George, a "Caucasian" is probably more popularly known as a "White Russian" ie. Milk, vodka, and Bailey's. I hadn't ever heard it called that until The Big Lebowski, but I kind of prefer that name, it's a little less awkward and quicker to say. Of course hardly anyone else knows the name either so I end up getting a blank stare and have to say "White Russian" when ordering anyway, so there you go.

George, not every director makes films to be simple entertainments. I just don't understand how Tark's making the film is inherently self-indulgent anymore than anyone else making a film, just because he chooses subject matter you don't care for? You are the one who watched the movie, no one forced you to.

george kaplan · 12-31-2003, 01:57 PM

I was out driving around, and there were so many morons driving that it seemed (and may be true) that they were already drunk from New Year's. This got me thinking about New Year's, and I've decided my New Year's resolution will be not to say anything else in this thread that will contribute to raising Brook's blood pressure to dangerous levels. In other words, I'll continue to list the films I've seen, but won't comment on them. Happy New Year's.

george kaplan · 12-31-2003, 07:15 PM

It's not midnight yet so...

George, not every director makes films to be simple entertainments.

That's certainly true. But how are we supposed to evaluate films. On the intention of the director? Tarkovsky succeeded in making the Mirror what he wanted it to be. And no doubt, his goal was never to entertain someone like me. But then again, Plan 9 from Outer Space was a success for Wood, Breakfast at Tiffany's a success for Blake Edwards and Birth of a Nation was a success for Griffith.

We can either evaluate films as

- did the director make the artistic film they were after?

Almost all films would be successful

- did the director acheive the specific goals they had for that film, objectively speaking?

This would require us to presume the director's intentions, and then think we could evaluate them objectively. I presume Griffith set out to make a racist film to stir up support for the Klan, and I guess he succeeded.

- how did the film interact with me? is it an experience I want to revisit?

This is what I do, and I suspect what most people do. Sure, we are going to have different experiences, and different opinions about those experiences. For me, The Mirror may have affected me the way the director wanted, but my perception of that interaction was not such that I have any desire to revisit the film.

That's not to say that we can't talk about other aspects of a film. I can certainly discuss whether the Mirror does this or that with respect to montage, speculate on the meaning of intercutting WW2 stock footage, or on the deeper meaning of the hypnosis at the beginning of the film. I can admire the shot of the wind blowing in waves across the field. I can comment on the editing as actors replace each other, mother becoming wife, etc. But in the end, none of that is going to change my opinion of this film as something I want to own and rewatch or not.

Dome Vongvises · 01-01-2004, 04:57 AM

If a film can't even succeed at the most basal level (e.g. storytelling), there's almost no point in me wanting to evaluate it anymore. I'm not sure how much in common I have with anybody in this thread, but that's the way I see things and I'm sticking to it. Otherwise, I think that after watching some of these films, directors need to quit "whoring" the narrative medium and take up writing books instead. Or give guest lectures at universities.

And as an odd way of evaluating films, I try to imagine and see if they can work as an "oral medium". God knows how L Avventura and something like Andrei Rublev would work. It might go something like this:

Kid: Grandpa, what happend to the lady? And why is everybody angry?
Grandpa: Pay attention. Besides, she's not important anymore.

or

Kid: Grandpa, how long are we going to stay in the hut and talk about people walking?
Grandpa: Shut up, it's part of the story.

If you're wondering, I've got the flu and a raging headache right now that's keeping me up.

I haven't seen Solaris (I still have my taped copy from TCM), but I can only imagine what a grandfather sitting by the fire with a copy of Solaris would do with the car driving scene.

Brook K · 01-01-2004, 01:02 PM

And that's perfectly fine George. I like reading your opinions on the movies and hope that you'll continue to write them. Sometimes things do get under my skin, but my real intention in responding or discussing is I like or love the movie in question and wish others had the same experience. I guess there's a fine line between a discussion and pissing you off that I haven't learned to not cross yet.

Besides, you already raised my blood pressure today (a 0 for Wild Bunch, a 5 for King Kong?!

)

Happy New Year!!

Adam_S · 01-01-2004, 01:30 PM

I agree with George, Dome, and Brook (eats cake too). Because I personally care about the storytelling and how I interact with a film, but I also love reading other people's opinions about films.

Adam

MartinTeller · 01-01-2004, 02:49 PM

So Dome... you try to imagine every movie as Princess Bride?

I really make an effort to appreciate a film on its own terms. What I mostly don't like are movies that don't take advantage of the medium in any way. The ones that feel like TV shows.

Dome Vongvises · 01-01-2004, 04:13 PM

Quote:

So Dome... you try to imagine every movie as Princess Bride?

In a quirky sort of way, yes. Pulp Fiction would be a lot of fun that way. It's a strange litmus test in which to measure movies, but given my strange logic at times, it works.

MartinTeller · 01-02-2004, 08:21 PM

I tried to find a way to appreciate Pasolini's Oedipus Rex, but none came to me. It's reasonably interesting when there's stuff going on (despite some horrible dubbing, hammy acting, and overall sloppiness) but in between there's a whole lot of boring blah. Endless scenes of Oedipus walking, walking, walking. And I saw the same long, slow pan of the city at least three times. Noteworthy only for the way the story is bookended by shifts between the modern and ancient world (which served no purpose that I could discern).

Lew Crippen · 01-05-2004, 11:08 AM

Weighing in on The Mirror discussion, I must admit that this particular Tarkovsky does not do it for me. I find it far too difficult for the rewards presented. While there is much to admire technically, I found little to be either engaging or even interesting—other than the intellectually challenge of figuring out what was going on and why. To be sure, I’m not sure that I ever figured out the why—other than Tarkovsky allowing us to see him (and too, ourselves) as he reflects on himself and Russia.

Quote:

And Mirror isn't any more self indulgent than me having several caucasians and handfuls o