Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 92

rich_d · 06-25-2005, 01:14 PM

Quote:

It was just an attempt at a humorous carryover from another debate about the internal interpretability of Mulholland Drive.

Oops. Sorry, I must have missed that discussion. But very true. What someone's perceptions on Mulholland Dr. says more about the viewer than anything else. Btw, here is a terrific dedicated site to Mulholland Dr.:

http://www.mulholland-drive.net/

I agree about Blow-Up. The film disappointed because the story fails to live up to its beginning. So, I guess we are both summing up the obvious ... it's all about the story.

Naturally, if any film needs to be held up to Vertigo, 2001 and Citizen Kane a lot of films are in trouble. But, for example, I thought The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie was an interesting story (not great, but interesting) and still is quite different. Now, dreams (or dreams within dreams) may be one person's idea of weird, but I enjoy those films.

And after all, who is the scared looking woman at the beginning of Vertigo? Is the whole film a dream or someone's fantasy/nightmare? Who's to say? The point is that the story is still terrific and so regardless of the individual viewer's takeaway, it still is a terrific story.

Weird for weird's sake films? Not my cup of tea either. But, I'm guess I'm at the point of rather taking a chance on a rather "out there" film than seeing some 'oh so predictable story' provided at the local Loew's theatre.

Mario Gauci · 06-26-2005, 02:39 PM

George,

I was all hot under the collar after I read your latest bites of wisdom on Bunuel in this thread and was planning a lengthy defensive reply but reason soon came to the fore and, honestly, there's really no need for me to get all worked up over what a mere red herring has to say about anything!

Brook,

It's nice to see that you've found the time to watch several Bunuels in the past few days but, unless I'm looking in all the wrong places, I've only found one write-up of yours on the matter so far: THE PHANTOM OF LIBERTY (1974). I'm especially interested in hearing your impressions on VIRIDIANA (1961) since it seems that you were underwhelmed by it on first viewing.

Evan,

It's great to hear from another Bunuel fan. I've watched 20 of his films so far and he's my favorite film director.

While I do consider TRISTANA (1970) to be one of his greatest films, it's not one of my top favorites; those spots are firmly held by THE DISCREET CHARM OF THE BOURGEOISIE (1972), THE EXTERMINATING ANGEL (1962) and THE PHANTOM OF LIBERTY.

As for BELLE DE JOUR (1967), I was slightly underwhelmed by it myself on first viewing but, perhaps, the fact that it was dubbed in Italian and around 02:00 when I watched it had something to do with that as well. Of course, I've watched it numerous times since then both on VHS and DVD and my impressions have definitely improved.

With regards to SIMON OF THE DESERT (1965), the abrupt, unexpected ending stems from the fact that producer Gustavo Alatriste (Silvia Pinal's husband) ran into financial trouble in mid-production and did not manage to come up with the required funds to complete the film as originally scripted. Even so, the film seems as near-perfect as it could possibly be for me and, apart from being one of my favorites as well, it's certainly among Bunuel's funniest.

george kaplan · 06-26-2005, 03:59 PM

there's really no need for me to get all worked up over what a mere red herring has to say about anything!

A reply so unsubstantial as to be very worthy of Bunuel indeed! Congratulations on debating skills as empty as a Bunuel narrative!

Brook K · 06-26-2005, 04:49 PM

I'm behind on a lot of writing, 3 in this thread, 4 or 5 in the 2005 thread, a few in the 2004 thread. Just a combination of being either busy when I could write something or not feeling like writing when I have the time.

Thinking about watching Simon of the Desert tonight.

I know the post wasn't directed at me, but I thought you were a little harsh in trying to provoke Mario so:

George, there's really nothing to debate. I don't even try anymore. Your views are so antithetical to established critical thought, volumes of writing, and my own opinion; what is there to say? I or Mario or whoever could write for an hour (as I have in the past) and never convince you of anything or get you to view the films in a way other than how you do. This is perfectly fine and your prerogative to hold the opinion you do of Bunuel, but I don't feel like banging my head against the wall in a futile effort to "debate" you about it.

I like you (or at least the electronic "HTF" you) and like to read your thoughts and views, but I've been down the road where you say something like you said about Bunuel and I go off on it and it never gets us anywhere. Maybe Mario is just a much faster learner than me.

Jim_K · 06-26-2005, 04:59 PM

Careful George they're called "sacred cows" for a reason.

Dome Vongvises · 06-26-2005, 05:03 PM

Rage against the machine, George!

.
.
.
.
.
Man, I'm bored.

Mario Gauci · 06-26-2005, 05:05 PM

Brook,

No need to worry about "George Kaplan" being harsh to me.

To paraphrase David Niven:

"Isn't it fascinating to think the only attention that 'George Kaplan' will ever get on this Forum is by writing such asinine reviews and showing his 'cinematic' shortcomings?"

Anyway, I know that lethargic feeling of not wanting to post anything, let alone a review, only too well; still, I hope you enjoy SIMON OF THE DESERT (1965) and I look forward to reading your impressions whenever they get posted.

george kaplan · 06-26-2005, 07:35 PM

Brook,

I've read much that I disagree with here. Sometimes I debate about it, sometimes not. I can certainly respect someone who chooses to debate an issue, or not, or has a completely opposite opinion than mine.

However, I do think that rude personal attacks, such as

honestly, there's really no need for me to get all worked up over what a mere red herring has to say about anything!

and

"Isn't it fascinating to think the only attention that 'George Kaplan' will ever get on this Forum is by writing such asinine reviews and showing his 'cinematic' shortcomings?"

is something I do find offensive, and inappropriate. Just like you have wisely chosen not to debate me, but have remained polite, I will simply place Mario on my ignore list, since it is the only way I can remain polite after being told that every single thing I could possibly ever say about any subject is worth nothing since I am personally a "mere red herring", who has cinematic shortcomings cause I have the gall to disagree with him.

Please don't bother to respond Mario, the ignore list is the HTF equivalent to call-blocking. I thought about reporting your personal attacks to the moderators, but have decided to simply ignore you instead.

george kaplan · 06-27-2005, 06:13 AM

Your views are so antithetical to established critical thought, volumes of writing, and my own opinion; what is there to say?

Some of them, yes. But then again, some of yours (such as Young Frankenstein) are just as antithetical to established critical thought, volumes of writing and my own opinion. Hell, the same is true of everyone here at HTF who has formed opinions about films. Just like I wouldn't expect you to change your opinion about Young Frankenstein. or Bill about Jaws, just because of that, neither will I change my opinions about films that happen to fall into that category. Besides, just like you, there are hundreds and hundreds of films in which my opinion is in accord with established critical thought and volumes of writing (if not your opinion).

george kaplan · 06-27-2005, 12:29 PM

The Exterminating Angel

[cue Twilight Zone music]

A man is talking writing at a desk. He writes with a pen, then stares at what he's written, shakes his head and writes some more. He begins muttering, "This isn't right. Why can't I write what I'm trying to. It doesn't make any sense. Or rather..."

[cut to Rod Serling]"A man writing a screenplay. The time is 1962. The place, Mexico City. The man is a director, who relishes writing bizarre things that no one can understand. But now, he's found a pen, or rather a pen has found him, and despite his best efforts, a well-written screenplay is spilling forth onto the page. For not only is the pen mightier than the sword, this pen is mightier than Bunuel, only in...The Twilight Zone."

This movie is basically like a good episode of the Twilight Zone. As a matter of fact, I kept expecting to see Rod Serling at the end, wrapping things up. Not that this would have been the best Twilight Zone episode by a long shot, but it would have been a solid entry - and that's a good thing - it elevates this Bunuel film far, far above any of the others I seen. All the way into my dvd collection.

Sure, Bunuel still throws surrealistic bizareness at us, but for the most part, it's a logical part of the story. A dead chicken in a purse. Bizarre. But we find out that she's part of a cult that uses it for voodoo, and it all makes sense. What was Bunuel thinking, making such a film? I don't know, but I'm glad to see that he could do it at least once.

Of course, I'm still very much at odds with the Bunuelites, since this seems to be regarded by them as a comedy.

That I do not understand. There is nothing remotely funny in this film. It's a good, dramatic Twilight Zonish film, but certainly not a comedy. After watching this film I was absolutely shocked to read people describing it as a comedy. Talk about the Twilight Zone - a world where The Exterminating Angel is a comedy, along with those laughfests Schindler's List, Judgment at Nuremburg, The Seventh Seal, Bad Day at Black Rock and 12 Angry Men. A good movie yes, a comedy, no way.