Track the Films You Watch (2006) - Page 19

Brook K · 03-02-2006, 01:57 PM

Once again I don't have time to devote to a full blown discussion. I pulled a few posts from back in the day since I've had to defend Godard multiple times over the years. Suffice to say he is one of my favorites who pushed cinema in directions that no one else had before or since:

A war film so unremittingly ugly as to make the viewer not just repulsed by
war, but by the film itself. Godard's point being that if war is truly Hell,
than why would anyone want to watch a film about it?; much less make a film
about it. Overstuffed to the point of bursting with subtext, moral and
political lessons, and vitriol for most aspects of humanity, I was reveling
in every delicious inch of a creation who's director cared not a whit for
conventions of storytelling, plot, or pacing in an effort to present his
message.

Between Le Petit Soldat and Ecstacy of the Angels, I've seen a lot of rage
on screen this week, but Les Carabiniers tops them both. It has to be the
blackest war film I've seen. Other films like Apocalypse Now or Full Metal
Jacket may show men that war has turned into animalistic killing machines,
but for the most part, because of the way they are presented, you have
sympathy for them. In Les Carabiniers the audience isn't let off the hook.
There isn't a single character to latch on to, no cause or ideal of any
sort, only naked greed, apathy, and the power of a gun. The screen filled
with image after image of bombings, shootings, and death described by the
men in the most banal terms in postcards they send home that become title
cards for us. (and according to the commentary, were taken from actual war
letters). But the film also isn't without humor. In one memorable scene, a
character upon seeing his first film, acts out the old story about what
happened when the Lumieres showed their train film and then, when the film
switches to a woman bathing, the scene becomes an homage to Buster Keaton's
Sherlock Jr. The penultimate scene is masterful, as Godard seems to reject
the very notion of film and art all together or at least the idea that
anyone can own art or should seek to capture images of beauty.

Quote:

John Rice: In fact isn't the very act of touting it as great film making actually counter to the actual principle of the film?

Sure John, but that's what makes the movie so mind-blowing for me. Its anti-itself. I love that Godard tried to work out this concept on film. He has always tried to push the boundaries of film as a medium of expression, leading to both revelations and dead ends. Les Carabiniers falls within the category of "experimental" film, and for me, it is a fascinating one.

Mario Gauci · 03-02-2006, 02:28 PM

Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"Absolutely. And in fact, I was going to write that in my original comments but forgot to! I hope you don't mind my adding it to my notes since you've reminded me."

No problem, Joe

!

Quote (originally posted by Joe Karlosi):

"Since you enjoy so many 'foreign' films, I'd suggest you try the 1997 INSOMNIA. I'd be interested in your comparisons."

I would definitely try it, Joe...if my pal at the DVD rental store would add it to his selection or if it gets shown on Italian TV - but I'm not interested in owning it

.

Quote (originally posted by Brook K):

"Once again I don't have time to devote to a full blown discussion. I pulled a few posts from back in the day since I've had to defend Godard multiple times over the years. Suffice to say he is one of my favorites who pushed cinema in directions that no one else had before or since."

Thanks for chiming in on Godard and LES CARABINIERS (1963), Brook...the trouble is, you've made me want to watch it now

! I do have ECSTASY OF THE ANGELS (1972) in my unwatched VHS pile, though...

Mario Gauci · 03-02-2006, 02:41 PM

02/26/06:WOLF CREEK (Greg McLean, 2005) **1/2

Although apparently based on true events, this Australian slasher film is ultimately an unsurprising if occasionally effective rehash of THE TEXAS CHAIN SAW MASSACRE (1974). After a fairly unpromising start which shows a bunch of teenagers partying hard and a group of them setting out for a camping trip, it picks up considerably with the belated entrance of creepy villain John Jarratt whose vivid characterization is the best thing in the movie; the two girls in the harassed trio are also quite good and one feels empathy towards their plight but the same cannot be said about their ineffectual and rather obnoxious male companion.

02/27/06: COVER UP (Alfred E. Green, 1949) **1/2

Another nice discovery for me: a pretty good thriller which, though not exactly a film noir, features two staples of the genre – Dennis O’Keefe and William Bendix – in top form. Their rapport throughout is quite delightful and this, along with the equally refreshing charms of leading lady Barbara Britton and the distinct Christmas flavor of its small-town setting, creates an overall mood of warmth not easily found in murder mysteries! The plot (whose insurance-investigation angle clearly derives from Billy Wilder’s DOUBLE INDENMITY [1944]) provides a good amount of tension – and red herrings – along the way, while the final revelation (bearing an unexpected moral emphasis) concludes the film on a satisfying note.

02/28/06:THE CROOKED WAY (Robert Florey, 1949) **1/2

As opposed to COVER UP (1949; see above), the film noir stylistics – courtesy of master cinematographer John Alton – are all over this one and they are its main raison d’etre; alas, the plot is rather routine, though by no means uninteresting. This low-budget effort proved to be one of Robert Florey’s last movie projects and he competently handles the action throughout; most effective, perhaps, is chief villain Sonny Tufts’ violent demise in a hail of bullets. John Payne, however, is miscast in the main role of the amnesiac war veteran as one doesn’t quite believe in his earlier persona of a vicious thug! This opinion, though, might very well change after watching him in the reportedly superior KANSAS CITY CONFIDENTIAL (1952), 99 RIVER STREET (1953) and THE BOSS (1956), three other noirs I have on VHS...

Michael Elliott · 03-02-2006, 02:55 PM

While at work today I was actually thinking back on LES and it suddenly reminded me of CRASH. It seems some here think the film wasn't a satire of war but instead a serious message film about war, which I certainly didn't see it as.

I pushed the other Godard films back and had them ship IKIRU, SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE and A MAN ESCAPED instead.

Mario, I've been rather curious as to how some here would react to the work of Franco. I'm sure they'd puke over something like ILSA but VENUS IN FURS, A VIRGIN AMONG THE LIVING DEAD and a few others I'd be curious about.

As for WOLF CREEK, I was really disappointed in the film. I agree with your star rating but there was so much hype surrounding the film that it really died quickly. It would have been better off had it not been sold as a slasher because since it was, there wasn't any way for us to be shocked or caught off guard with what happened to the teens. I also thought the killer became Freddy too much in the final few acts.

george kaplan · 03-02-2006, 02:56 PM

Godard's point being that if war is truly Hell, than why would anyone want to watch a film about it?; much less make a film about it.

Well what I don't understand is that if Godard's point is that no one should want to make a film about war, then why the hell did he make a film about war? To show that he shouldn't have made a film about war? This kind of logical contradiction is a big part of what makes Godard's films so unappealing to me. I think that watching a Godard film is truly hell, so I don't think anyone should want to make a film about watching a Godard film, but I'll be logically consistent, and not make such a film.

Brook K · 03-02-2006, 04:52 PM

Because he is a filmmaker, George. Film is his chosen mode of expression. Was he just supposed to stand by a theater showing "The Longest Day" with a sandwich board expressing his view? The main idea being one should not be entertained by images of war and what does that say about the human race that we are entertained by war to the point of actively seeking out and paying to view such images?

And again as I said to John, the film is anti-itself in a way, and that's one of the reasons I find it so stimulating.

Quote:

While at work today I was actually thinking back on LES and it suddenly reminded me of CRASH. It seems some here think the film wasn't a satire of war but instead a serious message film about war, which I certainly didn't see it as.

I'll assume "some" is me since I'm the only one talking about it in a positive manner. I'm not really sure what you mean. First, I have no idea how the the films are connected in any way. Second, why can't a film be a satire and deliver a "serious message about war". Doesn't Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket qualify on both counts? So does Dr. Strangelove. I would argue even more directly comic films like To Be Or Not To Be and Hail The Conquering Hero still deliver serious messages about war. So again, I don't really see what you're getting at.

But I assure you, Les Carabiniers delivers a serious message about war, while also satirizing and attacking the war movie. Just like you feel like you know Griffith and can deliver passionate defenses of BOAN; I know what I'm talking about here. If you listen to the commentary with David Sterrit of the Christian Science Monitor, he will tell you the same thing.

I don't know if I'm included in the "some" with regard to Franco but I have watched a number of those types of films like S.S. Experiment, Daughter of Dracula, and Zombie Lake. I just haven't seen them by the hundreds like you and Mario. I have had my own arguments in trying to argue the talent of a low-budget cult filmmaker from the period - Jack Hill.

We can with agree on Wolf Creek though. Perhaps if I had been taken with John Jarret's performance like Mario was I would have been entertained. Instead I saw it as another in a long line of "isolated and lost" slasher movies with a carbon copy villain that didn't do anything to stand out from the pack.

Quote:

I do have ECSTASY OF THE ANGELS (1972) in my unwatched VHS pile, though...

Well Mario, I don't know if you want to take my words as an endorsement of that film. It's sort of a wacked out version of Godard's Le Petit Soldat but verging on the avant-garde. The director was involved in terrorist organizations and I believe trained with the PLO. Thus the movie reflects a deep anger and disappointment that such groups were not able to gain more traction in Japan and effect political change. Perhaps also of a piece with Fassbinder's The Niklashausen Journey from the same time period, that deals with why violent resistance groups were attractive to the youth of the time and also why they always failed and broke apart.

The other film I've seen by "Ecstacy"'s director, Go Go 2nd Time Virgin is even more insane and is very difficult to watch. Taking place almost entirely on the roof of a building, it has multiple rape and abuse scenes amongst other extremely depressing material. Not for the faint of heart.

george kaplan · 03-02-2006, 05:13 PM

Because he is a filmmaker, George. Film is his chosen mode of expression. Was he just supposed to stand by a theater showing "The Longest Day" with a sandwich board expressing his view?

Well Brook, we could go on for ever. I understand that Godard is a film maker, and I understand him using that medium to get his message across. But I'm still confused about his use of the film medium in this particular case. Kind of like a guy wearing a sandwich board which reads "Sandwich boards are stupid, and anyone wearing one is evil". But maybe it's just me.

Mario Gauci · 03-02-2006, 05:47 PM

Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"I pushed the other Godard films back and had them ship IKIRU, SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE and A MAN ESCAPED instead."

Wow, Mike - that's an eclectic if solemn bunch. You've managed to please Brook with your choice of IKIRU (1952) and me with your choice of A MAN ESCAPED (1956)

!

The latter has always been my top Bresson film but, incidentally, I've just watched his PICKPOCKET (1959) for the very first time and...now I'm not that sure anymore

! I know Brook was somewhat underwhelmed by PICKPOCKET but I'm still thinking about it 3 days later and in fact have yet to post my review of it

!

By the way, I was thinking to myself just now that I have THE BIRTH OF A NATION (1915), THRONE OF BLOOD (1957) and SCENES FROM A MARRIAGE (1973) in my unwatched DVDs pile and it would have been great to get a chance to watch them now that they're 'topical'; however, I've watched the first two a couple of times anyhow and the gargantuan running time of SCENES (which I've never watched in any form) doesn't exactly whet my appetite...especially now that I've got some really exciting stuff coming my way from R2 land, among them TARTUFFE (1926), SPIONE (1928), NIGHTMARE ALLEY (1947; the only one I'm already familiar with), PITFALL (1962), THE FACE OF ANOTHER (1966) and PRETTY POISON (1968)

!

Quote (originally posted by Michael Elliott):

"Mario, I've been rather curious as to how some here would react to the work of Franco. I'm sure they'd puke over something like ILSA but VENUS IN FURS, A VIRGIN AMONG THE LIVING DEAD and a few others I'd be curious about."

I don't quite get the Franco connection in this discussion but, yeah, I'd be interested in what fellow HTFers have to say about Franco's classier stuff, too

!

By the way, Brook, I have GO, GO SECOND TIME VIRGIN (1969) on VHS as well

...

Brook K · 03-02-2006, 06:04 PM

Good stuff Mario. I own Tartuffe and it is very, very good if not quite as powerful as Murnau's better known work.

I haven't gotten to Scenes from a Marriage either. It and The Virgin Spring are the only major Bergman's I haven't seen. Virgin is in my unwatched pile, I never got around to buying Scenes. I really should see Scenes since I was impressed with its "sequel" Saraband and of course Bergman is also one of my very favorite directors. I own more of his films than anyone not named Rainer Werner Fassbinder.

As for Bresson, I admire/recognize the quality of his work more than I enjoy it. But there are 3 films of his that I think are both excellent and I like to the point that I've considered buying them - Diary of a Country Priest, L'Argent, & Lancelot du Lac.