Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 6

Finally saw Great Expectations in full. I don't remember ever seeing it properly from end to end before, and I certainly hadn't realized how great it was. I immediately went out and bought it. I always liked the book and the film really captures the spirit of it for me. Lean sets the mood perfectly, and as I've said before I love a great outdoor set piece like the graveyard, for example.

That puts me at 118, only 222 left to go.

Seth, Great Expectations is a favorite of mine, but I personnally enjoy Oliver Twist (the uncut, british version, don't bother if you find it on vhs its unwatchable) even more. The shots of London and Fagin's lair have a magnificent atmosphere to them, not quite as iconic as the opening scenes of Great Expectations, but still a spectacular film, I was really disapointed we never got around to doing a cinematography discussion on it.

Adam

Great Expectations will be the next one I see as well.

La Strada does not enchant me or move me in the way that most of Fellini's other films do. I certainly liked it, but for me it didn't evoke the magic or sorrow of films like The White Sheik, Nights of Cabiria, Juliet of the Spirits, or Il Bidone.

I belive everyone in La Stada is dubbed. I didn't think Fellini shot sync sound until the 70's.

I agree with many of your thoughts on Cabiria and Pompeii Seth, but while Griffith was certainly influenced by those films, I think he was certainly more innovative and created greater films and art so I have no problem with him being represented over Cabiria.

Could be George, but I still love the film. It’s just that I no longer put it in the ‘masterpiece’ category.

I do think it (along with another half-dozen films by Godard) required viewing for anyone who claims to be conversant with cinema. Of course that is far different than having to like, enjoy or admire the film. (As an example, I’d put Blood of a Poet down as a film everyone should see, even though I think it a very poor film)

I find the story engrossing (though as I indicated not so deep as I once thought) and I believe that the cinematic technique is just sure and controlled that it alone makes the film worth a good many viewings—even some of it now seems a bit self-conscious.

I’ve always enjoyed Great Expectations more that Oliver Twist, perhaps because I like the source a bit more.

They both convey a great sense of the atmosphere that I get from reading Dickens, but even as much as I love the German Expressionist influenced sets of ‘Twist’, I love graveyard and Mrs. Havisham’s dinning room even more. Plus, I find the acting in ‘Expectations’ generally better than that in ‘Twist’. For example Jean Simmons is the very embodiment of a heartbreaker.

You do remember of course Lew that Godard's films are intentionally self-conscious? They are about filmmaking and technique as much as they are about the story or ideas within the film itself.

Discreet Charm of the Bourgeosie

excellent film, that I really enjoyed (of course I also just read Freud's interpretation of Dreams and the Uncanny, as well as ETA Hoffman's _The Sandman_ so I was primed for this).

not the sort of film you can easily collect your thoughts on, but damn if the soldiers flashback wasn't outstanding.


this brings me to 69 films from the list

Adam

I’m just less enthralled now than in my youth.

For example, I eventually begin to tap my fingers in the opening scene of Vivre sa vie, believeing that Godard has made his point with the shots of the backs in the café.

On the other hand, I still marvel at the long takes in scenes such the early one in the record shop. Masterful technique which tells the story.

I had not seen A Woman Under the Influence before, an omission for which I have no explanation. I thought it very powerful, especially as it takes a while to realize that Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

Masterful acting by both Rowlands and Falk combined with cinematography that makes us constantly feel as nervous as Longhettis. Both the camera work and sound make as feel as though this is filmed Cinema Verti, as though we were just watching segments of their lives.

The very long scenes, where we are presented with about 10–15 mostly un-interpreted minutes of their lives add to the overall feeling that we are observing something real.

Powerful and not easy to forget.

Lew, I still haven't seen A Woman Under the Influence, but I had a similar reaction a few weeks ago when I saw Faces for the first time. At some point -- probably about two-thirds of the way through -- I thought to myself, "Good Lord, I had no idea that movies could do this." It was a revelation, and Faces instantly became one of my favorite films. I can only name a handful of films that have startled and moved me so powerfully.

Intolerance -
It took two viewings this weekend to make it through the length but it was worth it. It took a while to get into, partially because of the way it start and because of getting used to a 90 year-old epic. I was mesmerized by the end of the film. The structure of the film and the quick cutting between the scenes was very effective. I will definately want to view this again sometime later, hopefully with a better print.

I’m sure that we all await your interpretation of L’Âge d’or, Adam.

While my reaction to Faces was not nearly as strong as yours Darren, A Woman Under The Influence stunned me in the same way you speak of Faces - it's a film of rare and incredible power and the most real and raw emotions. It's rather criminal how under recognized Cassavetes and his films are in America. People have heard of him, but rarely is he mentioned among the great American directors like he should be. Decent DVD releases might help.

Reminds me I need to rent Gloria.

Lew, if you haven't seen them, you NEED to rent The Killing Of A Chinese Bookie, Opening Night, and Faces as well. Shadows, his first film, has a very good Charles Mingus jazz score, but with less skilled actors the improvisational style feels much more self-conscious and more like "acting" than his other films. Still worth seeing, but I'd recommend the others first. Of course I haven't seen what is often regarded, along with Woman, as his best film - Lovestreams.

.

Thanks for the heads up Brook, as I’ve not seen all these films. The Mingus score really intrigues me, as I’m a big fan.

BTW, how did you like Kwaidan? One of the reasons I love Criterion, as I expect that this film would not be known in the West at all, were it not for them.

Bah, I lost my post on That Obscure Object of Desire, Metropolis, and Solaris. I'm not up to retyping it all.

Anyway, my count goes to 120. I'll work up the strength to rediscuss those films later.

heh, I've actually been thinking of revisiting the film anyway, it's been haunting me for quite a while, very powerful filmmaking at the very least. I'll probably take two hours and go watch it and Blood of a Poet again (cinema library just got the cocteau criterion set!). I think I definitely prefered L'Âge d'Or over Discreet Charm, and my initial observation about Buñuel still stands, I definitely want to explore this filmmaker in depth, I wish I'd had the time to go through the Criterion extras in depth while I had the dvds from Green Cine but alas, I'm trying to get the most out of my free trial (one happy coincidence is that I logged onto the site to adjust my queue moments after they updated with Eraserhead as available, so I'm actually going to be getting that from their service next!). I didn't read all of Interpretation of Dreams, just chapters 2-5 since that was all we had to read for class :Þ


ackk I'm in spring break and I still can't find enough time to watch all the films I want to watch!

Adam

Thi, I had already counted Metropolis in my list because I had the DVD. I have also counted Broken Blossoms because I was due to see it in class but missed that day. I will be watching it at the school library on FRI hopefully.

Anyway, that's probably why you have 121 instead of 120. All of this and more was explained in the post that got lost in a net glitch.


You can keep me at 121 though because I just got around to watching Day of Wrath. Pretty good film though it didn't really blow me away.


Back to the other films I wanted to talk about.

First, Metropolis definately goes into my top 30 films. I really love the film. It's an amazing blend of styles - there is the obvious Hollywood influence, especially in the effects, the Expressionism styles including the cityscape or Maria's cross-laden podium, and even some Soviet Montage editing in the 2nd half (some cuts look to be just a few frames). There are so many great effects that still stand up today, at least in terms of their beauty and effect on the audience, if not realism.

I was also impressed with the acting. While it is the dramatic silent era style, this film represents that style done well to me. Great acting of this era could truly replace all but the fewest of intertitles. I find that I prefer silent films that require less intertitles in fact.


Solaris. Well I loved the Soderbergh version and I like the Tarkovsky version. What I don't get is any complaints lobbed at Soderbergh's film from fans of the original. I found the two to be closely related not only in explicit scenes (such as sending her off in the shuttle) but also in METHOD - ie, the understated acting, the lack of literal explanation throughout every scene, the use of implication to drive forward most of the narrative.

Rather than have characters stop and analyze every scene, instead they just seem to be experiencing. IMO, both films have the same balance of analysis and experience. Both include "solutions" to the visitors for example.

The main difference is the focus on Earth/nature and the idea that the scientists already know what's going on with the "Ocean" on Solaris. I find that this actually undermines the understated behavior. If people thought it was odd that Clooney was sent to Solaris after a rescue team was lost, how can they accept the idea that a program that is already aware of the "Ocean" and it's apparent cognitive powers would both send a psychologist and also not be taking the whole situation more serious (enough to send more than a few scientists).

I find that the only real difference between the versions is that Soderbergh eliminated the first 60 minutes of Tarkovsky's version which all takes place on Earth, mostly in discussion of the idea that something is alive on Solaris. Since Lem's novel doesn't feature any of this (Lem himself complained about the focus on Earth in Tarkovsky's version), I have no problem with Soderbergh eliminating it.


And if anything Tarkovsky's version ends with a much more explicit explanation of Kelvin's final destination.

This follows in a long line of films that I had heard the originals were better or different, only to find that they were quite similar in both theme and style. Ringu (The Ring actually tightened up some story flaws), Open Your Eyes (almost a verbatum remake, no more explicit, and if anything VS gave more depth - explored more - to the shallow aspects of the lead character), even Insomnia was pretty similar.


I can understand the "why do a remake" discussion, though I think there is a certain appeal to audiences when a film comes from their native viewpoint and language. But I can't agree on the "this isn't as good" or the "this just Hollywoodized the film".

Both Solaris are enjoyable, though the languid pacing of Tarkovsky's version do make it a bit less accessible (how long does a scene about driving back to the city need to be? I felt like Tarkovsky was trying to emulate 2001's trip to the moon but without the special effects).


That Obscure Object of Desire just didn't blow me away. It's an enjoyable film, though I spent most of the first half trying not to picture Mathieu as a French Connection mastermind.

I read the terrorist acts to be symbolic of her disruption of his life. Her actions were repeatedly as destructive and intrusive on his otherwise smoothly flowing life as the terrorist's were on society. Brunuel seemed to place these actions side by side (such as the power being out when they get to the country house).

But for me that wasn't enough to elevate the film to classic status. It also doesn't help that the film had all the visual charm of Family Plot or Seems Like Old Times. I just don't like that look that so many films of that era had. It borders on looking like TV.


So Day of Wrath I can somewhat see in the top 300, but I'm not 100% sold on that idea. I don't see Obscure Object in those ranks. Solaris and Metropolis I would place on the list.

The Conformist - This film has probably been at the top of my must see list the longest. I was not disappointed. I have actually been pretty overwhelmed with the film. I kept things to enjoying the look, acting, and story that I’m sure I’ve missed things that I will be able to pick up on subsequent viewings. Now only if it was on a decent DVD.

.

I watched Potemkin last week which brings my total to 56.

You couldn't kiss me like that and not mean it just a teensy bit.

Meet the greatest actor in the world! I'd rather kiss a tarantula.

You don't mean that.

I don't? - Hey Joe, get me a tarantula

As a prelude to the Oscars, I watched Singion’ in the Rain yesterday. Nothing at all against the best picture winner, but the gulf between Chicago and this musical is wide indeed. With the long takes in the dance numbers there is no need to state who did their own singing and dancing in this film.

Donald O’Connor, Debbie Reynolds and Gene Kelly all just light up the screen with their enthusiasm and skill. As are all dancers, their sheer athleticism (especially O’Connor) is simply breathtaking and when it is combined with all of the good-natured humor and joy of just being alive, they make us all just as happy as they appear.

I never get tried of this movie.

Brings my total to 77.

scratch off another top ten for me

I finally watched Vertigo all the way through. I'd rented it before for the cinematograpny discussion but was so exhausted from work the evening I tried to watch it that I fell asleep around the time they're in the sequoia park. I was still quite tired today (only five hours of sleep great way to start off classes after spring break), but was riveted by the film. Beautifully photographed and magnificently done, but I was never (on my first viewing either) really engaged by the film, it feels very cold and distant to me despite the presence of Jimmy Stewart. Of the top ten films I've seen, I think I like this the least, and of the other hitchcock I've seen on this and say the AFI lists (still need to see most of his films) this is also my least favorite. That's not to say it's a bad movie, it's an incredible movie, clearly a great movie, having watched quite a few european filmis circa the 60s and 70s its amazing how influential this film is, it just never connected to me--the way that Tokyo Story, Singin in the Rain, and Godfather connect.

This is definitely a film I want to watch again, I've always been disapointed with Hitchcock (excepting North By Northwest and Psycho) on the small screen because he is so 'hyped', but I've come to realize how essential seeing FILM is the past six months, so I'm going to wait for another Hitchcock focus class (runs about every three or four years), and take that, since it means seeing about 15 of his films on the big screen. My disapointment with several film greats seems to stem mostly from my very good ability to distract myself when watching something on DVD or VHS, and thats damn near impossible in a theatre.

two in a day!

Saw Xala in a terrible and ugly 16mm print.

I really enjoyed the film, but was annoyed at the audience reactions, which were pretty 'laugh at the 'poorly' done sequences'. So the chicken being bled on the bed (or at least while it seemed like they were going to kill it) got a more emotionally sympathetic reaction than the father hitting his daughter, which according to the audience was one of the funniest moments of the film "because it was so poorly/over done". Likewise it was oh-so-funny when any of the African characters swore in English or French, I guess its funny to here these 'children' swearing because its so cute. This was an incredible and compelling film, and the audience was deeply antagonistic to it for reasons like "they looked at the camera!" or "such terrible acting" (as if our european and american definitions of 'good' acting are the only acceptable ones), the same audience that seemed to think that Toshiro Mifune was a terrible actor because the acting in Rashoman was so "awful", according to them. And supposedly these are supposed to be sophisticated film students.

Anyway I'm in no shape to write about the film, because I just got a cinema paper/midterm back and got a C, which is making me angry. Unfortunately I didn't read my lecture notes while writing the paper (bad idea), and didn't realize I stumbled early on in my analysis that crippled the paper. I should have stuck with Bicycle Theives but didn't. Damn procrastinatory tendencies, I could have knocked this paper out of the park. Still, I learned that you shouldn't take an interesting tact and argue that 400 Blows can be seen as a realist film--deeply influenced by Neo Realism and Bazin's pro-realist writings--and stick instead to regurgitating exactly what you're told (there I go editorializing again, I really should just bow my head to what everyone else says and realize I'm wrong).

Adam

I really love Xala as well, and I've also found myself defending the film for those who only see the "amateur" look of it and completely miss the wickedly incisive satire and indigenous pride and humanity behind it. Ousmane Sembene is an intelligent novelist, and he is astute enough to know that in order to provoke his countrymen into re-examining their own counter-productive cultural habits, biases, and attitudes towards colonialism, "civilized behavior", and what it means to be African, he needed to distill the message into a popular medium.

There's something innately Orwellian and about the "new" native leaders trying to emulate the (European) colonial government that they succeeded in overthrowing, and somehow, only manage to retain the part of their cultural "identity" that suits them, like polygamy (and medicine men who claim to cure impotence ). It's a brilliant piece of satire.

i saw Steamboat Bill Junior(A) today and Taxi Driver(A+) over the weekend. both were pretty awesome films, both were also completely different. thats 40 for me so far.
-ocie

.

I just watched Nanook of the North, while cleaning out my backlog of owned but unviewed DVDs. As always I’m struck the by the great humanity captured by Flaherty. Who cares if some of the events were staged or recreated? Or if clothing or tools were from an earlier era?

We are left with a legacy on film of a way of life that had largely vanished even when it was filmed and more importantly, the good humor of Nanook and his (assembled for the film) family in the midst of brutal conditions.