Brook K

I don't think Resnais shies away from the issues at all. It's explicit in the film that he, and we can't really understand what happened because we aren't Japanese and weren't there. An image is not the experience and can only be a poor substitute.

This is described in the very beginning of the film as the woman speaks about visiting the atomic bomb museum and how she was saddened and moved, etc. and the man replies There is no museum. You saw nothing. The images even become offensive in a way because they generate an empathy based on ignorance and fool the viewer into believing that they understand. The "experiencer" knows the difference.

And yet, hope remains in the form of love - the ultimate experience of sharing. Through love a shared understanding, and even a healing can be achieved.

Boring? No, incredibly moving and one of the best films that this list and Criterion have introduced me to.

Yes, Captain Hammer's here, hair blowing in the breeze. The day needs my saving expertise! - Captain Hammer, Corporate Tool

2002 Sight & Sound Challenge: 314 Last Watched: An Autumn Afternoon

Last 10 Films Watched:
Mon Oncle Antoine - B / Late Autumn - A-
Paranoid Park - B / An Autumn Afternoon - A
Forgetting Sarah Marshall - B / Run, Fatboy, Run - B
Get Smart - C- / Rendition - B-
Springtime in a Small Town - B+ / Evan Almighty - C

DVD BEAVER My Collection

Lew Crippen

I did not mean in context of the bomb or the city or its aftermath, Brook. I meant in terms of the woman coming to grips with her lost love and all of the issues that Resnais brings up concerning memory and reality. And whether or not she will leave or stay.

Now I admit that Cowie claims that it is clear she will go. On the other hand, in the round table notes, no less a personage than Jean-Luc Godard, says that Resnais would have to prove that to him in another film (or was it the other way around). Resnais says at least once that each person must decide for themselves what this means and Margerite Duras is quoted as saying something to the effect, ‘how can Alain say that, that is not what I wrote or what we meant.’

Now, I don’t find these inconsistencies to be troubling, but I do think that Resnais is quite good at raising almost unanswerable questions, with no clear idea himself, not only as to the answer but as to even the meaning of the question. I find in many of his films that the audience is forced to accept things the way they are, without background—but at the same time, it is expected to consider the problems raised, where the background would be helpful and sometimes essential. I’m sure that this is done on purpose by the director, so that the problems are generalized and not specific—but I do find it offputting.

Of course none of what I’m writing is likely very clear, but I’ve been watching his movies for over 40 years and don’t pretend that I’m any closer today than those years ago.

I can say without reservation, that I find the construct of his films in general and this one in particular to be stunning.

I contend that:

and are not mutually exclusive. Those who follow this thread and prefer narrative filmmaking are going to find this film boring.

¡Time is not my master!

Lew Crippen

I did not mean in context of the bomb or the city or its aftermath, Brook. I meant in terms of the woman coming to grips with her lost love and all of the issues that Resnais brings up concerning memory and reality. And whether or not she will leave or stay.

Now I admit that Cowie claims that it is clear she will go. On the other hand, in the round table notes, no less a personage than Jean-Luc Godard, says that Resnais would have to prove that to him in another film (or was it the other way around). Resnais says at least once that each person must decide for themselves what this means and Margerite Duras is quoted as saying something to the effect, ‘how can Alain say that, that is not what I wrote or what we meant.’

Now, I don’t find these inconsistencies to be troubling, but I do think that Resnais is quite good at raising almost unanswerable questions, with no clear idea himself, not only as to the answer but as to even the meaning of the question. I find in many of his films that the audience is forced to accept things the way they are, without background—but at the same time, it is expected to consider the problems raised, where the background would be helpful and sometimes essential. I’m sure that this is done on purpose by the director, so that the problems are generalized and not specific—but I do find it offputting.

Of course none of what I’m writing is likely very clear, but I’ve been watching his movies for over 40 years and don’t pretend that I’m any closer today than those years ago.

I can say without reservation, that I find the construct of his films in general and this one in particular to be stunning.

I contend that:

and are not mutually exclusive. Those who follow this thread and prefer narrative filmmaking are going to find this film boring.

¡Time is not my master!

Jim_K

whassiz? Please don't lump me in with those other two miscreants.

I thought I already reviewed Hiroshima mon amour & gave it if I'm not mistaken.

Now Last Year at Marienbad is the film I consider to be a pretentious bore.

The Collection (Blu-Ray High Definition/DVD)

Pre-orders - BLU-RAY: Akira, The Dark Knight, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Death Proof, King Kong, La Femme Nikita, Planet Terror, Raging Bull, Ronin, The Third Man DVD: .................

Jim_K

whassiz? Please don't lump me in with those other two miscreants.

I thought I already reviewed Hiroshima mon amour & gave it if I'm not mistaken.

Now Last Year at Marienbad is the film I consider to be a pretentious bore.

The Collection (Blu-Ray High Definition/DVD)

Pre-orders - BLU-RAY: Akira, The Dark Knight, The Day the Earth Stood Still, Death Proof, King Kong, La Femme Nikita, Planet Terror, Raging Bull, Ronin, The Third Man DVD: .................

Lew Crippen

Oops--was it my memory of what you wrote or was it what you really wrote? Or have they all become one?

Now I don't know if I should leave the thread or stay.




Sorry Jim--I'd forgotten that you had a view on this film. I agree with you on 'Marienbad'--but I've not watched it for maybe 20 years, so it is possible that I'll have a kinder view when I get to it this time.

¡Time is not my master!

Lew Crippen

Oops--was it my memory of what you wrote or was it what you really wrote? Or have they all become one?

Now I don't know if I should leave the thread or stay.




Sorry Jim--I'd forgotten that you had a view on this film. I agree with you on 'Marienbad'--but I've not watched it for maybe 20 years, so it is possible that I'll have a kinder view when I get to it this time.

¡Time is not my master!

Seth Paxton

Definitely.

If High and Low is the definitive police procedural, then A Man Escaped is the definitive escape procedural. There is something very powerful in Bresson's minimalism.

Seth Paxton

Definitely.

If High and Low is the definitive police procedural, then A Man Escaped is the definitive escape procedural. There is something very powerful in Bresson's minimalism.

Seth Paxton

Touch of Evil has what is my mind perhaps the greatest last scene ever made, especially the dialog and delivery style that Welles brought about as a director.

"...but a lousy cop". Man, that's good stuff.

Overly dramatic, but in an artistic way. It's not great because it's real, it's great because it's a perfect blend of visual and dialog tone.

The only part of this film I'm not keen on is the drug abuse plotline, it seems a little campy and outdated now.

2007 film list 2005 film list 2004 film list 2003 film list 2002 film list