Track the Films You Watch (2005) - Page 49

Mario Gauci · 08-23-2005, 09:23 AM

Joe,

I'm glad you managed to catch up with three more 'classics', even if all left you somewhat underwhelmed.

I would rate PANIC IN THE STREETS (1950) higher myself (***1/2) and think that it's an excellent noir, professionally assembled in Fox's trademark semi-documentary style with equally reliable performances, and given a novel twist by its 'plague' theme. At this stage, Elia Kazan was not yet the 'actor's director' he would later come to be known - and lauded - for (this period actually began with his next film, A STREETCAR NAMED DESIRE [1951]) and, as such, it demonstrates that he was equally adept at turning in efficient 'genre' fare; reportedly, PANIC IN THE STREETS was among Kazan's own favorite works!

I rewatched THE WILD ONE (1953; ***) last year to commemorate Brando's passing. As a film, it's well enough made for what it is - with Brando and Lee Marvin's acting the obvious stand-outs - but I can't help but agree with Joe that time has not been kind to it: viewed today, one is able to accept the film's historical importance but its artistic value has dimmed considerably in the wake of its many imitators. Hell, even EASY RIDER (1969) feels 'dated' today...

As for RAGING BULL (1980), to tell you the truth, I haven't watched it in some years; actually, I've yet to purchase either of the 2 Scorsese Box Sets! Anyway, my relationship to it, indeed to most films made from the 1980s onwards, is rather ambivalent: I can fully accept its reputation but, somehow, I wouldn't consider it a favorite of mine! The thing is that, during the 1970s, cinema reached its creative zenith as an art form and, with the reins on permissiveness let loose at the same time, it's been merely repeating itself ever since with no new vital development occurring (unless you consider CGI as such, which I certainly don't

)!

I won't go into the specific details of RAGING BULL as this would deem a fresher perspective, if only to say that I consider TAXI DRIVER (1976) his real masterpiece, because its decadent stylization evokes a rawness and urgency seldom realized in modern cinema. But, as a rule, I do feel that Scorsese rather wallows in depicting unpleasant characters in seedy environments, and with an almost total lack of humor; one cannot fail to admire his work (as Mike put it, RAGING BULL is a dazzling technical achievement) but one isn't necessarily drawn to it! Even Kubrick, so often accused of coldness and fastidiousness, always manages to elicit a response from the viewer one way or the other...

Haggai · 08-23-2005, 09:29 AM

Joe, just kidding about the "crazy talk," too bad you didn't like Raging Bull more, but of course we can disagree on it. When I posted on Panic in the Streets a little while back, I thought it was pretty good, but not much more than the sum of its parts.

Mario, I don't agree on Scorsese and humor, I think Taxi Driver actually has a lot of surprisingly funny bits in it. Certainly Goodfellas has a very witty approach to a lot of its gruesome subject matter.

Armin Jäger · 08-23-2005, 11:07 AM

Quote:

THE STUDENT OF PRAGUE (1913): This film marks the beginning of the Golden Age of Silent Horror movies emanating from Germany, though its style is not yet what would come to be defined "Expressionist". I had watched it many years ago on Italian TV and remember liking it quite a bit though, in retrospect, it suffers in comparison with the superior 1926 remake (not least because that one is more than twice its length!); it's still well worth watching and remains full of interest today, also because it led directly to Paul Wegener's trademark role of The Golem in a famous trilogy, which unfortunately is almost impossible to re-evaluate today since only the third entry in the series seems to have survived! The accompanying synthesizer score on the Alpha DVD was quite unnerving in its relentless repetitiveness which, in hindsight, perfectly suited the doppelganger theme of the movie.

THE STUDENT OF PRAGUE (1926): This is a more elaborate, lavish and altogether satisfactory version of the above, with Conrad Veidt perfectly cast in the lead and with Werner Krauss also making for a menacing Scapinelli. The expressionistic elements are well in evidence here (director Henrik Galeen had written Murnau's NOSFERATU [1922] and, stylistically, the film does bear some resemblance to it): while not quite reaching the heights of, say, THE CABINET OF DR. CALIGARI (1919) and NOSFERATU itself, it's very much deserving of the reputation it enjoys in the horror film genre and, despite the shoddy print quality of the Alpha DVD, replete with missing frames (where are Kino when you need them?), I'm truly glad I was given an opportunity to watch this elusive classic from the Silent era after having read so much about it since childhood! Let's hope now that another highly-regarded (and much-filmed) Conrad Veidt vehicle, THE HANDS OF ORLAC (1925), also gets a DVD release soon...

I just did see all THREE versions of the STUDENT OF PRAGUE.
the first film is most known because it's one of the first cases where a poet (a mediocre one) wrote the screenplay for a movie and a famous theater actor took the role. Obviously it's hard to watch today, it's slow with a static camera and often only one camera set up for a scene, there are no close ups or intercutting. This aside it's a very interesting film, feauturing original locations in Prague which lend the film a distinctive style, chiaroscuro lighting is missing except for one scene at the gambling table, but the calm appearances of the double work very well and the realistic locations actually don't break the mood.
The second film emphasizes a few points differently. The lighting gets more dark though the film is by no means expressionistic. It's a classically romantic story inspired by a tale of the German romantic poet Chamisso and the visual style derives from romantic paintings. The film is much more fluid in the camera settings and you can see some fast cutting, POV shots with a shaking camera and a truly exciting finish. Galeen told in an article some points he changed compared to the original and why he did it, I think the gypsy is a much more interesting figure and there are nice new touches like his small bunch of flowers for the comtessa which is eclipsed by the one of the baron and he hides his own. It's only 13 years later, but you can see the HUGE progress the movies made in the meantime.
Probably nobody here has seen the third version which is a shame since it is probably the most effective one. Robison even increases the chiaroscuro lighting, he is the first to show the duel between Balduin and the Baron and again we have a visually impressive final. More important is the major difference between this film and its two predecessors: The evil person is now a Dr.Carpis and it never is made clear if he is the devil or if he hasn't any supernatural powers and anything which Balduin experiences is his hallucination. You never see his mirror image step out of the mirror (except in a dream sequence) and it's not clear if he is haunted by a real ghost or if it's his imagination. While the role of the gypsy is cut down to a publican's daughter and is rather colorless, the comtess becomes a singer and is linked in a mysterious way to Dr.Carpis who was apparently her lover and wants her back. If this sounds a bit confusing, well it is

. The film strangely switches between the supernatural and the realistic explanation. Wohlbrück delivers a brooding performance and the conflict is more psychologized than in the two earlier films. A remarkable film, as much worth watching as the two predecessors though I had to view an old copy from GDR TV in order to see it.
Would be again a nice box for Criterion or another DVD publisher ...

Michael Elliott · 08-23-2005, 03:11 PM

Quote:

I'm not talking about a movie's reputation here; I'm talking about aesthetic value.

Which is why I said you were completely wrong in not mentioning the editing, the sound effects and so on. However, like I told you last night, if you didn't see why these got their reputation then there's nothing I can say that would make you change or mind or "see" it so to speak.

Quote:

I didn't get that feeling as much as I did with some of the ROCKY films in the ring. When I said "mediocre" I was referring to the 1-2-3 quick snippets of bouts occuring in the early part of the film from year to year.

Or the boxing scene in KING KONG VS. GODZILLA.

All kidding aside, going back to what I said earlier, if you feel the boxing scenes in the ROCKY films were more realistic there's nothing I can add.

Quote:

and then I wanted more out of a story with these characters.

The post you quoted was me asking what more you did want from the film? Story wise of course.

Quote:

Raging Bull isn't a film I'd ever want to watch a second time (it was worth watching once, but I feel no desire to ever rewatch it).

Is that because of the ugliness of the story/main character, George? I know you and I shared the same feelings on THE FRONT but to me, that was certainly a film worth watching again even though it was depressing. I believe you said you loved the film but wouldn't watch it again because it was depressing. I don't think that makes you a "minority opinion" poster really. I mean, if you thought THE FRONT and RAGING BULL were four-star films BUT you wouldn't watch them again because they were depressing that really doesn't show in your rating system. Someone might see one of your thumb downs and think you hated THE FRONT when in fact, the thumbs down meant you loved the film but wouldn't want to go through the pain, sadness or whatever of the film again.

I've given countless films a

rating or higher the past ten years that I've never watched for a second time.

Quote:

But, as a rule, I do feel that Scorsese rather wallows in depicting unpleasant characters in seedy environments, and with an almost total lack of humor; one cannot fail to admire his work (as Mike put it, RAGING BULL is a dazzling technical achievement) but one isn't necessarily drawn to it! Even Kubrick, so often accused of coldness and fastidiousness, always manages to elicit a response from the viewer one way or the other...

Mario, you brought this up in the POLLS area and I meant to ask you about this. Do you really think there needs to be more humor in Scorsese's films? As others have stated, I think there's quite a bit of humor in his movies but I think you're going to need a dark personality to really take some of it with a grin. I think there are many scenes in TAXI DRIVER that gets a nervous laugh. The same with RAGING BULL and even THE KING OF COMEDY, which to me is his best "comedy" but not because it's funny but because the main character is such an idiot you can't help but feel sorry for him. You know this guy is crazy and needs mental help. This isn't really "funny" per say but it's that type of humor that creeps through in Scorsese's work. Even the infamous violence in CASINO will have some turning their heads and walking out of the theaters but there's also some comedy there. The guy who gets the icepick in the you know where. The way Pesci's talking about it makes it come off rather funny, if in a VERY dark way.

On a technical and acting level, I don't think too many films can top TAXI DRIVER or RAGING BULL. However, these are very dark and depressing films so I don't blame anyone not wanting to watch them because of that. ROCKY is a crowd pleaser that leaves you smiling afterwards while these other two make you think and most importantly they make you FEEL. Not that ROCKY didn't do that but I certainly don't think these are in the same league.

As for Kubrick, again I think there's a lot of humor in his films. A CLOCKWORK ORANGE is one of the greatest comedies out there but we're laughing at rape and murder. This isn't your typical "funny" moment. Even THE SHINING is full of this as is LOLITA, which IMO is better than STRANGELOVE in the comedy department. When Mason breaks down crying at the end, it's VERY sad and depressing (to me) but at the same time you can't help but laugh a little due to the character getting himself in that situation. EYES WIDE SHUT is the perfect example in its darkness that manages to get laughs at a dark or not "funny" situation. I know I'm in the minority on this but I think EYES has one of the greatest endings in film history. We're taking on this dark, sometimes scary and depressing journey and the final line of

Spoiler:

just makes me smile because that pretty much wraps up the entire problem with Kidman and Cruise. That's exactly what they should have been doing instead of Cruise walking the streets.

I think we'd all agree that comedy is a VERY subjective thing. With Scorsese and Kubrick, we're usually watching ugly people doing ugly things so we're not getting laughs as in a comedy. These are real people doing really stupid things. That type of laugh might make some turn away and make others get the poke in the ribs.

Joe Karlosi · 08-23-2005, 05:25 PM

Quote:

Well Joe, if it's any consolation, I think you're wrong on Raging Bull too. I think you rated it too highly. I actually agree with Michael that the acting is top notch. And if I wanted to watch an acting clinic, then this would be near the top of the list. For me, however, great acting is never enough by itself to like a movie, and Raging Bull isn't a film I'd ever want to watch a second time (it was worth watching once, but I feel no desire to ever rewatch it).

I agree with you completely here, George - which makes you "wrong" too, I suppose!

I have no desire to see the film again either, though it was good and worth my time last evening, especially once things began to take off.

Thanks for stepping in to restore some sanity to these proceedings.

Joe Karlosi · 08-23-2005, 05:45 PM

Quote:

Which is why I said you were completely wrong in not mentioning the editing, the sound effects and so on. However, like I told you last night, if you didn't see why these got their reputation then there's nothing I can say that would make you change or mind or "see" it so to speak.

There's a difference between trying to understand how or why something in a film got its reputation (which is more like a "history" lesson), and it's another thing whether or not it speaks to you personally, or aesthetically. I didn't get much out of the editing in the film -- that's not to say it wasn't fine, but just that it wasn't exactly the greatest editing I'd ever seen and it didn't wow me or make me think, "holy cow! look at that editing!". If it had, I would have mentioned it; and trying to suggest that it's a "fact" that it's a marvel of editing won't help me feel it any more. (Incidentally, I may be wrong, but I think I picked up on an error where Pesci hit DeNiro in the face and in one shot the blood is finally appearing on his face, but in the next, it's gone).

Same with the sound effects you keep talking about. If you mean in the boxing scenes, I've heard that before, though probably in films made after BULL. I think I felt more like I was in the ring getting clobbered when I saw Mr. T pummel Stallone in ROCKY 3 than I did with BULL (don't worry; I still thought RAGING BULL was the better film overall). To me, these matches were all various "cum shots", if you will. One bout to the next, like a compilation rather than a full fight. It didn't impress me that much, at least not after seeing many later boxing films that were made after BULL (and possibly inspired by it). Sometimes that's what happens with remakes/rehashes, etc... But anyway, it was the fall of La Motta and his being his own worst enemy that interested me most in the film.

Quote:

Or the boxing scene in KING KONG VS. GODZILLA.

Oh, I'd watch KKVG over RAGING BULL any day. Maybe not over ROCKY, though - I'd have to think about it a bit. But here again, you bring up a Godzilla film as if that's the crux of my life and moviegoing. It's not, and I'm also not ashamed of it whenever I do go back to those films for fun. After all, I'm not the one who's trying to make out like I'm a "film authority" and to gain "respect".

Quote:

All kidding aside, going back to what I said earlier, if you feel the boxing scenes in the ROCKY films were more realistic there's nothing I can add.

All kidding aside too, I guess there's not much you can add. Though "realistic" is your word here, not mine. I'm only saying I was more caught up in those fight scenes.

Quote:

I think we'd all agree that comedy is a VERY subjective thing.

Without a doubt. But so is what one fines interesting, touching, impressive, sad, ugly, happy, technically brilliant, or anything else about a movie...

george kaplan · 08-23-2005, 06:53 PM

Well, my thumbs up/down are not meant to reflect anything other than my interest in watching a film again, and hence my interest in buying it on dvd. It's not really a rating system per se, since there are

films that range from masterpieces, to nothing special, but just fun to watch again. And

films range from films definitely worth watching once, to ones not worth the celluloid they're made on, from proficiently fantastic films (e.g., great cinematography, great acting, etc.) to films I hate with a passion. But they all have one thing in common - my complete lack on interest in rewatching. Often there are particular things I can point to about why that is, but many other times, it's just a holistic thing - the viewing experience wasn't something enjoyable, not something I want to do again. That doesn't mean a film can't be serious or dramatic, but there's 'enjoyable' serious/dramatic (e.g., Citizen Kane, The Godfather, The Green Mile, Open City, 12 Angry Men, The Seventh Seal, etc.), and there are plenty of 'unenjoyable' light/comedic films.

For me, there's something that Goodfellas has that makes it enjoyable to watch, that is definitely missing for me in films like Taxi Driver and Raging Bull. I could deconstruct those films and give them high marks on acting, etc., but in the end, as holistic films, they just don't work for me.

Joe Karlosi · 08-23-2005, 09:03 PM

For any perceptive people out there, I finally realized I'd been spelling La Motta incorrectly all this time (now corrected)

DeeF · 08-23-2005, 09:30 PM

At a friend's suggestion, I'd like to post some reviews of recently-viewed films.

Witness (1985)

(I'll use the 4-star system)

Though carefully directed, this flawed film is surprisingly irrational and false. The urban aspects of the story are rushed and unexplained, except for an occasional speech (notably by Patti Lupone) trying to give some level of depth to a useless and minor character. The "murder" seems borrowed from some TV cop drama of 1975, and the Amish scenes play far less authentically than those in something so manufactured as Seven Brides for Seven Brothers.

The story of the "witness," ostensibly the little Amish boy, isn't very strong, so very sensibly the creators sublimated it to the other story, a romance between two people of differing cultural values. The romance is played well by Harrison Ford and Kelly McGillis.

Though most of the production values are satisfactory, the music -- fully recorded on Synclavier by Maurice Jarre, is in fact jarring, dated, and wrongheaded, depleting quiet rural scenes of any majesty they might have had as simple pictorial compositions. The music is so undignified that it really ruins whatever quality the movie might have had.

I saw this movie the day it arrived in theaters, 20 years ago, and this review is of a weekend viewing of the new DVD, an SE with a number of documentaries.