Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 9

Hmm, go figure. I like both C&W and 7th Seal. I will say that at first I wasn't totally with where Bergman was going with C&W, but by the end he pulled me in completely and made me appreciate the film.


I just saw The Blue Angel for the first time, and while it isn't on this S&S list, it's an outstanding film. Much better than The Obscure Object of Desire in depicting the same destruction of a man's life for a woman. Of course the film is most famous for making Marlene Dietrich a star.

I’m not sure that it would have occurred to me to make that comparison. I’ll think some about this, as to the point you raise, but as far as a film, I think that The Blue Angel is not in the same class as Buñuel’s best (and ‘Obscure Object”, is one of those, I believe) or even his second best.

Saw:

Paisa - Nice, human war movie with good a philosophy. However, I cannot help but feel it would've benefitted quite a bit from synchronous sound--as genuine as a lot of the performances were, the sound was not; didn't let that detract from the experience, just an observation.

McCabe and Mrs. Miller - Looked great and I love that first Leonard Cohen album. Beatty was great, Julie Christie was great. And it has perhaps the most cold-blooded scene I've seen in a long time (yeah, despite the constant editorial foreshadowing, I couldn't move for a second--slow zoom, near silence).

La Jetee - Seemed like kind of a gimmicky idea to me, but a) the special effects are spectacular (on par with a late '90s Hollywood moving picture), and b) it was really haunting. I naturally knew the story prior to seeing it, but I was easily more impressed by this short than I was by 12 Monkeys (and I like Gilliam). A different type of film; the way they should all be.

Three Colours: White - The one I hadn't seen. My pattern was kind of screwy for this one (unlike The Decalogue, which I watched in order over about a week). I rented Blue about four years ago 'cause I had White & Red taped off of T.V., missing Blue. I watched the first--liked it a great deal--and left that tape alone for about two and a half years. Then I saw a screening of Red at the ol' art-house (the only one shown), and watched it on the tape a couple times after that. Then I finally saw White (same tape copy--waiting for the DVDs). I didn't mind the method at all--Kieslowski movies are in short supply, and they're always philosophy-affecting events (regardless of my frame-of-mind while sitting down to them), so I didn't want to blow my load all at once, so to speak. Anyhow, I loved it--it's extraordinary that one man could make a trilogy back-to-back-to-back of films so different, yet equally excellent.

All That Heaven Allows - Saw it after Ali: Fear Eats the Soul and Far From Heaven (in that order). Definitely a classic--though it could be considered as such based solely on what it has spawned--but I'm a little torn. I mean, I love T.V. so much--how could he make it so contemptible?

(which brings me to my favourite of those I've seen off the list recently--)

Le Mepris - As an aspiring filmmaker (I know--you never heard that one before, did ya?) my own bitterness toward the business of movies is growing the closer I get--capped by a badly-ending brush with spiked-club subtlety and student filmmaking stereotypes on a collaborative project. But I love Contempt not only in a "oh, how true, man" way (I never thought I really would with a Godard picture), but I had no idea how romantic an artist Godard was. Sure he'd romanticized women before in Breathless and Pierrot le Fou, but they seemed an integral part of the character the character Belmondo was playing was playing. Here, though, it was just painful. As opposed to Michel's and Ferdinand's 'I need a girl on my arm to go with my gun'; Paul was desperate for Camille's love and reassurance, because the gun thing just wasn't working, dammit. There's nothing like being adored in a time of self-doubt.

Of course I was--for some reason--ignoring his post-'80 pictures (particularly Prenom: Carmen and Eloge de L'Amour).

Oh yeah, and the contempt--there's plenty of that, too. Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show) Great DVD, too. 'The Dinosaur and the Baby' was great--two people showering each other with praise like any DVD extra, but this time it was deserved.

Edit: I do believe that puts me up to 151 now seen from this list. However, I've got plenty more coming, as I am now done school for a while.

. I've got a job, a secretary, a mother, two ex-wives and several bartenders dependent upon me, and I don't intend to disappoint them all by getting myself slightly killed.

I wanted to begin my comments on North by Northwest with a quote from the film. But there are just so many good ones from which to choose that I was hard pressed to decide. But it is not too hard to decide the strength and class of this film. Hitch never puts a foot wrong. The film is filled with humor and drama. Some of the shots are so well known that they are recognizable to even casual film goers, indeed one suspects they are known to a good many who have never seen this film. And everyone should.

How does a girl like you get to be a girl like you?

Leaves my total at 85, as I removed Umberto ‘D from my viewed list, due to not having seen it within the last year.

My rankings for 85 viewed films. All out of four stars (with a nod to J. Rosenbaum’s system): 4=masterpiece, 3=must see, 2=worth seeing, 1=has interesting or redeeming qualities


8 1/2
2001: A Space Odyssey
400 Blows, The
Aguirre, Wrath of God
Ai no corrida
Alexander Nevsky
All About Eve
All About My Mother
All That Heaven Allows
Amarcord
Andrei Roublev
Annie Hall
avventura, L'
Barry Lyndon
Battleship Potemkin
Belle de jour
Belle et la Bête, La
Bicycle Thieves
Black Narcissus
Brazil
Bride of Frankenstein
Bridge on the River Kwai, The
Brief Encounter
Citizen Kane
Clockwork Orange, A
Cries and Whispers
Crimes and Misdemeanors
Day of Wrath
Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie, The
Do the Right Thing
Duck Soup
Enfants du paradis, Les
Gertrud
Godfather Trilogy, The
Godfather, The
GodfatherPart II, The
Good, the Bad and the Ugly, The
Grand Illusion
Great Expectations
Hidden Fortress, The
In the Mood for Love
Intolerance
Ivan the Terrible
King Kong
Lady Eve, The
Lady Vanishes, The
Lawrence of Arabia
Life and Death of Colonel Blimp, The
M
M. Hulot's Holiday
Maltese Falcon, The
Nanook of the North
Nights of Cabiria
North by Northwest
Notorious
Ordet
Orphée
Passion of Joan of Arc, The
Paths of Glory

Playtime
Psycho
Rashomon
Red Shoes, The
Salò
Seven Samurai
Seventh Seal, The
Singin' in the Rain
Solaris
Spartacus
Spirited Away
Stagecoach
Sullivan's Travels
Taxi Driver
That Obscure Object of Desire
The Godfather and The Godfather Part II
The Magnificent Ambersons
Third Man, The
To Kill a Mockingbird
Touch of Evil
Vertigo
Vivre sa vie
Wages of Fear, The
Wild Strawberries
Woman under the Influence, A
Yi Yi

Wow Lew, out of those 85, other than a one star difference on a few, the only real disagreement I'd have is Ivan The Terrible, which I'd give 3 stars on that scale. But then I'm a Russian history buff for which even hearing mention of the words Boyars or Oprichnyna puts a smile on my face.

You have seen 4 that I haven't seen yet - Beauty and the Beast, Salo, Orphee, and The Life And Times of Col. Blimp (which I own but haven't watched).

I'm up to 205 with L'Atalante the highest ranked film on the list that I hadn't seen. Having recently watched Under The Roofs of Paris, I found this in the same vein of Poetic Realism as Clair's film, but L'Atalante is definitely the better of the two. Some very and beautiful cinematography (including an aerial shot) goes hand-in-hand with magical romance (reminding me slightly of Fellini), mundane reality, startling eroticism, and humor to create a most delightful and fantastic film.

While I would not rate it ahead of Children of Heaven, I was very impressed and pleased with the movie and will be adding it to my collection in the future.

I love The Blue Angel, it is pretty close to a personal top 10. Got to see it in a theater last year and it completely won over the crowd which was a mix from college film students to seniors. I would probably rank it right up with Bunuel's best, but I don't think it is necessarily comparable to Obscure Object which casts a much wider net and is speaking of mankind universally, while The Blue Angel is much more of a character driven piece of storytelling.

I just recently saw the Sirk films myself and found All That Heaven Allows, while not quite as good as Written on the Wind, to be outstanding.

As for Paisa, I don't believe more than a handful of Italian films were shot sync sound until the 70's or even 80's. Fellini shot almost all of his movies dubbed, Argento, Bava, Rosellini, De Sica, etc, all of these films are dubbed, it was standard practice in the Italian film industry. And given the less than shoestring budget that most of the neo-realist films were made, especially in the war years and immediately after when the Italian economy (and most of continental Europe for that matter) was in a shambles, sync sound was a financial impossibility. Particularly when you're talking about films made with nonactors.

I always knew that you had impeccable taste and sound critical judgment.

There is no question in my mind, that I’m the one out of step on ‘Ivan’. But there is something that just turns me off about those self-same Boyars so continually skulking in the shadows (of which there are plenty). Plus I find the (many) shots of Ivan’s profile with the head tilted back, jaw and beard jutting forward to, in the end, be at best distracting and at worst pretentious. What is worse, just in case we miss the point we get the whole profile enlarged in shadow on the wall.

But as I said, I know that I’m the one missing the boat on this film. Put it down to an anomaly as I don’t really think that so many others are wrong.

I have L’Atalante in my queue and I’m considering if I just want to flick the rental and just buy the DVD. I’ve not seen it for many, many years and I’m really looking forward to it again.

RE your dubbing comments, though I like subtitles, I get surprised at subtitle purists who think that it can’t be real art (or meet the director’s intent) if a film is dubbed.

Not only was this common practice in the cases you cite, but the iconic Bergman dubbed some of his films in English (I’m sure you have the Criterions with both soundtracks available). The even more iconic Carl Theodore Dryer put out Vampyr in at lest four languages. Of course you can make the argument that there is not much dialogue in the soundtrack, but there is some. And it was dubbed. In multiple languages.

That's funny, I think I might see the "categorizing" as exactly the opposite, with Obscure being more of a character piece and Angel being representative.

The main reason I say that is that before the Prof. becomes the "clown" there is already another clown. I wasn't sure early on what the significance was, but at the end it seems that this other clown was a previous lover as well, thus his constant leering and pestering early on when the Prof starts hanging out.

In fact, perhaps this is supposed to be obvious as I review the film in my head. So in that way I think what we are seeing is a repetitive pattern by Lola Lola (not surprisingly) which means that this is not just an example of one relationship, but a slew of them each the same as the other (with EXACTLY the same results...becoming a literal clown). And since it is generic in that manner, I feel it makes it generic even beyond Dietrich and her romances, instead consisting of any girl like her.

Certainly with Obscure we can IMAGINE that the girl would do this with other men, or that other girls do the same thing, but frankly we never see it. Every other man she is with seems to have more respect from her than the protagonist. Her behavior with him seems to be unique EXCEPT for the owner or maitre d' of the restaurant who has some ill-will toward her.

But Dietrich has another "generic" quality going for her, she sings songs about her generic type..."don't trust BLONDES" for example. She is saying for all to hear that not only shouldn't you fall in love with her, but that you should avoid loving a whole category of women like her.

In Obscure I can believe that this is just some predatory behavior this girl has for a few certain men. She is not just using him, she is malicious in her efforts. She could have gotten much more from him without being so intentionally mean. Maybe she has contempt for all older men, or just certain types, but she seems more uniquely mean than Dietrich does to me.

That's my nickle's worth on it at least. I also loved the framing shot at the front and back of his relationship with her...the pull back tracking shot with him at the desk, the first time in love holding the flower and then at the end a broken man at the same desk. Nice poetic touch.



Speaking of languages, for anyone who hasn't seen Blue Angel we have the interesting tidbit that the film was actually ACTED AND FILMED in both German and English, repeating takes in English after doing the German version of the scene. I'm not sure how often this occurred with films, I don't know of any other examples myself.

I guess I wasn't clear Seth. The Blue Angel, yes, Lola had previous relationships, our poor Prof. is not the first to be abused and discarded and in some ways you could say that Sternberg has set up Lola as an archetype of a "certain kind" of woman. One could even go further and declare it a warning of Aryan fascist lust/violence/betrayl overcoming fey European intellectualism (though that would be some prediction on Von Sternberg's part since the Nazi's had not come to power when he made the film).

But I would argue that The Blue Angel is more narrow in focus, the story of the characters in the film (All the characters + backstory,etc), much more than trying to express a wider theme. Remember that Emil Jannings was probably the biggest German star of the time and that this film is serving as a major star vehicle for Von Sternberg's lover, Marlena Dietrich. This is a star power driven movie about Emil and Marlena.

Now, in That Obscure Object of Desire, Bunuel's surrogate, Don Pedro is really "everyman". The Obscure Object of Desire is capital M - MAN'S DESIRE. The desire to possess a woman on his own terms. To have a veritable "I Dream Of Jeannie" situation of total wish fulfillment.

The woman is "everywoman" alternately pumping us up, egging us on, teasing, making us feel better than we've ever felt before - on top of the world. But are we ever in control - Nope, not a chance. Bunuel understands and spins the absurdity of the situation men everywhere find themselves in. We wish for control, we may think we are in control, but we are never in control. WOMAN is the manipulator, it is they that possess us. Granting our wishes or crushing us according to their own whims.

The "Obscure Object" is the hidden area of womankind. We want to possess them sexually. The woman may allow this for a time, the "nice, innocent" side of the personality illustrated, through their need for a father-figure/caretaker or simply the passion of youth. But once a woman realizes her innate sexual power the tables are turned and Man, for all his physical strength, is made powerless by his own desire.

Two of Bunuel's best films, Belle De Jour and Tristana, are about naive women who awaken to their own inner desires and sexual strength and set about carving out their own independent lives where they have the control. Bunuel ties this together with more overt political themes seen in his other films to create one of the best summative career-capper films I know of.


My position on dubbing is that I want to hear the voices of the actors chosen by the director for their roles. So if it was their decision to dub everything in post or dub Marti Nixon for Audrey Hepburn in My Fair Lady or whatever, than fine. But if I go to see The Killer with Chow Yun Fat, then I want to hear Chow Yun Fat speaking, not Tim the ADR guy chosen by the American distributor. I want to hear the voice actors Hayao Miyazaki chose for the roles, not Billy Bob Thorton and a cast of Hollywood "names".

I do make some odd choices sometimes. Werner Herzog recorded Fitzcarraldo in English than dubbed it in German. But I always watch it in German because it just "feels" right that way.

Oh, and on Blue Angel, accept no substitutes, the German version is vastly superior because it has about 11m more and is a much richer and emotional film because of it.

Lew,

Although you gave Citizen Kane 4 stars (an A+ from me), you are not that impressed with Welles works, are you? It was shocking & stunning to know that you don't consider The Magnificent Ambersons (A+) & Touch of Evil (A+) as masterpieces. These two are going to be among in my very best of my soon to be updated 100 Greatest list.

.

Ah well, I see the worms in the can.

As for Welles, I think that he is one of the most important directors in the history of film. But (and a very big but), many of his films have glaring inconsistencies. The Magnificent Ambersons is in my mind, perhaps the best American film ever made—for at least the first four-fifths of the film. And I know all about why the film ends the way it does. Perhaps if we could have moved DVDs back in time, Criterion would give us a multi-disk set with a version preferred by Welles. But as it is, we are left with this version by which to judge the film.

Now I considered very carefully if the overwhelming positives of the film were enough to warrant a ‘masterpiece’ rating, or if failed finish (imo) was sufficiently weak to knock it down to a ‘must see’ rating. This time I went with three. It may be that by the time this is all over, I’ll revise my opinion.

As for Touch of Evil, this is another that I’m on the fence and trying to decide.

. I’ve seen all the Renior’s (on the list). Just not for a long time. I am certain that I’ll give Rules of the Game four stars, although, I have always thought Grand Illusion his best work. I’m looking forward to a reassessment.

And as for Truffaut, I was in college when the French New Wave hit the American shores and I imagine that I saw everything that came out back then. But some of those films I’ve not seen since (or if I have, it has still been a very long time), so I’m waiting to see them again.

Basically when I started on this, I reset my viewed list to films that I’d seen within the last 12 months. Mostly an excuse to see them again—plus pick up a few that I’ve never seen.

Vampyr, is I think not as well known as it deserves. Perhaps that is due to the dreadful transfer on the DVD that is available, although I’m sure that it is representative of what was available. I just wish that Criterion or someone would apply some restoration magic and give us a transfer that this film deserves.

IMO, this is a groundbreaking film in many ways. Even today, this is a difficult film to view, as it is not filmed in a straightforward narrative fashion. And much is subtle, fleeting and then gone. Just as we are considering what we have seen, the film shifts to yet another place or perspective.

As is proper with a horror film, many things are never explained, only hinted at, which leaves us all the more unnerved.

From an historical perspective it is interesting to note Dreyer’s use of sound in a film that is fundamentally a silent film.

Great post Brook. Of course it helps that I agree with your view of both films.

I would add that I’ve always considered Buñuel’s use of two actresses in this film as an indication that the woman is indeed ‘everywoman’. Of course, Buñuel, characteristically denied any and all symbolism associated with his use of actresses.

Thanks Lew. And I hope that after viewing Vampyr that you watched The Mascot as well. I love that little movie, probably as much as Vampyr. If Criterion ever comes out with an improved version of Vampyr I'll be keeping the old disc for The Mascot.

Arman, I also would not rate The Magnificent Ambersons or Touch of Evil as masterpiece level films. Ambersons is closer of the two, Lew mentions one of the reasons. Touch of Evil I would rate lower than most, I think the ending is rather poor and Heston overmatched - love the opening and the cinematography, Welles performance, the hotel room scene, but for the movie as a whole, there are multiple noirs I prefer - Maltese Falcon, Out of the Past, Double Indemnity, The Killing, etc.

Personally I prefer The Trial to either film and like The Stranger almost as much as Touch of Evil. Haven't managed to see any of Welles' Shakespeare.

And I'm with Lew on Dreyer, 4 stars across the board. Why do you think Day of Wrath is "weaker"?

I've seen all but 3 of Truffaut's films and find him the most problematic of "great directors". Usually if I like more than a couple films by a director, I like virtually everything they do but with Truffaut - I love Stolen Kisses, The 400 Blows, and The Wild Child, but don't feel as passionate about anything else. He has other's I really like, say The Last Metro, The Man Who Loved Women or Shoot The Piano Player. But has several I really don't care for like The Soft Skin, The Woman Upstairs, or Two English Girls. I'm much more of a 60's Godard fan and especially an Eric Rohmer fan, my favorite French director, though all my favorites occurred well after the New Wave was basically dead.

All I've seen of Renoir is The Grande Illusion (3 Stars) and Rules of the Game (4 stars)

Yep!

This happens to be similar to a point that Andrea Slade makes in chapter 7 of her book "A Not So Foreign Affair: Fascism, Sexuality, and the Cultural Rhetoric of American Democracy". That chapter is titled "The Iconology of the Sexy Nazi: Marlene Dietrich as Political Palimpsest"

I would not agree with that point, for more reasons than even the prediction angle you mention. Dietrich may be strong willed, but isn't it odd that the film was banned at one point under Nazi rule if she was truly a great Nazi example.

But I do agree that her power is sexuality, common for many femme fatals including "Irma Vep", a character which predates The Blue Angel by 15 years. And I agree that his power is partially intellectualism, but also respect that stemmed from his intellectual position. Jennings loses his power when he loses respect, and this includes losing respect for himself.

Certainly the power of her sexuality drains this power away from him, but that is common with femme fatals and in Dietrich's case I think she is far more passive than most. She just likes to fall in love over and over, just as she sings it.

BTW, I love that song. I don't know if that's weird or not, but I've been humming it in my head and singing the subtitle words to it ever since seeing the film. For some reason it just strikes an emotional chord for me.





Man, I feel just the opposite about ToE. I think the last 10 minutes are some of the best cinematography and dialog ever put on film. That's my favorite part of the film while I think many other moments are a bit awkward and/or dated.

This is without research so may be completely wrong, but I would think the probable reason for the banning is the same as why the Aryan interpretation is also wrong. Or turning it 180, she is the "perfect Aryan" and Von Sternberg is tweaking the noses of surging Nazism ---- Lola leaves the Professor for a Jewish strongman. A verboten relationship for Nazi's.

And yes, it is the Professor's loss of self-respect and social status that triggers his downfall as you mention.

I love the music too, and it's no small part of why I love the film. I find myself singing the songs from time to time (when I'm not still singing Hedwig tunes, which happens virtually every day). The one disappointment I had when I purchased my new speakers is how bad the Blue Angel Kino DVD sounds. A ton of background hiss if you use much volume.


The ending of TOE just doesn't work for me and I'm hung up on something that others would probably term a nitpick. TURN DOWN YOUR RECORDER HESTON!! Why the heck would you have someone bugged, but then be listening to the recorder at such a high volume that the person being eavesdropped on knows about it and since you are very close by, can try to attack you?

Saw Spartacus a couple weeks ago..can't believe it's been that long since i posted here
oh well, good epic...A-
Yesterday, i just saw Spirited Away. i wasn't as amazed as i was weirded out...can't think of a better word..it's too late . anyhow, it was just one of those movies where i don't understand the orgins of these ideas. how do people figure out bouncing heads, 10ft tall baby etc etc are going to be worthy for the screen. oh well, i liked the movie as a whole...B+. though, right now i can't stop thinking i want to watch it again.
I also saw The Lady Eve yesterday. i didn't particularly like this one. henry fonda being such an ignorant fool was unbearable and the whole film having honest people being ignorant and easy targets, and anyone with intelligence was rude and cold hearted. C
My new total 59

Interesting view on the banning thing. I hope you won't mind if I perhaps stick that in my class journal. I still have some assignments to read on the film, maybe some explanation is in them to verify or whatever.


John, I equate my first viewing of SA with my first viewing of Muholland Drive. I wasn't exactly sure what was going on the whole time or what some of the metaphors and imagery were, but damn if I wasn't engrossed by each scene anyway.

watched La Jetee today (actually I saw it a couple weeks ago in class missed the first bit and slept through half of it and I didn't know it was on the list.

I really like it, and really want to go rewatch twelve monkeys again (which happens to be the first R rated film I ever watched uncensored [sleepover at a friends house]).

The photography is outstanding and absolutely gorgeous, Marker's style definitely works better in short doses though, as I began to nod at the sudden lull in the middle during the 'romance' (although I did stay entirely awake this time), not to mention it is much more watchable than Sans Soleil which was interesting, and incredibly dense. but it's just not my type of film at all. the still photography is excellent (this was 1962 I wonder if this influenced the opening sequence of Lord of the Flies [1963]). and using it was very smart, it let them get away with tricks and illusions that moving pictures would have revealed. The real payoff to the still photography though comes at the very end as he is running towards the girl. there's a brief two seconds where there are sudden cuts of his running towards her, about four different pictures in all, and it creates a wonderful and surreal sense of movement (sense we're so used to looking at still pictures, my eye was practically creating the movement despite the fact that I was essentially seeing each picture for about half to one second each.

can't wait to rewatch twelve monkeys and see if I can finally understand the creepy lady at the end (totally baffled me originally).

Adam

#206 was The Life And Death Of Colonel Blimp - With every Archers film I get to see, their stature grows and grows. They had a complete mastery of all elements of cinema: storytelling, direction, imagery, design, music, sound. And it is astonishing that they were able to master all these elements so early in their careers. Thematically the story hasn't aged a day with its universal expression of the natural tendencies for younger and older generations to misunderstand one another and that gentlmanly conduct has little place in a world gone mad.

While I would stick it at the back of the line behind The Red Shoes, I Know Where I'm Going!, and Black Narcissus, that in no way reflects on the quality of this exceptional film.

Ordet

I enjoyed and respected the bulk of the film and its ideas immensely (particularily regarding strife between different sects of the same religion), but the ending had me struggling to find truth in it.

Warning: Spoiler! (Click to show)

That's 152, I think--with Accatone coming up right away.

137 with three very different films.

Duck Soup was very entertaining. The personalities of the Marx Brothers are very funny. My favorite the "mirror" scene. I haven't seen anything with the Marx Brothers before, so I don't know how it compares, but the plot of the film feels like it is just in place to string together gags. Not a bad thing since the jokes are very funny.

I had read about the difficulties and rewards of Andrei Rublev before in HTF. I guess it's not surprising that this film frustrated me. More importantly, the rewards do not outweigh the frustration as of now. The way Rublev regains his faith seems unporprotionate to the events that led to him losing it. It seems too simple, as if Rublev just wanted to break his own promise after all the years. I often find the supposedly more contemplative films hard to discuss without becoming pretentious, and this is one of the cases. Although it was frustrating, I admire the way the film has its own narrative style. However, ultimately it is not my cup of tea. Serious attempts at exploring large themes and engaging storytelling should not be mutually exclusive, and above mentioned The Seventh Seal and the next film were both able to succeed on more terms than Andrei Rublev.

I agree with what Brook wrote about The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. A superb film about many things. The theme of losing a gentler time reminded me of Grand Illusion. Clive Candy's obsession with one female image is romantic, and if you think about it, a bit creepy for the women later in his life. The way people can remember a facial expression or little conversation exchanges while large chunks of life go unmentioned rings true. There are some moments that are captured perfectly, like Theo joining Clive's tableful of Englishmen. It's an awkward scene that has Theo uncomfortable, and it functions as an analogy to the larger political picture. The movie is also funny; many witty lines reveal the characters ("That wasn't a foregin country, it was Jamaica.")

All three leads are brilliant. Theo's one-shot monologue on leaving Germany is beautifully moving. Contrary to the many shots of nature's beauty in Andrei Rublev, when Powell shows a leaf floating onto water, it becomes more poignant because it comes unexpected, while Tarkovsky's method seems to make nature more mundane. I really loved Colonel Blimp; I'd put it behind The Red Shoes and ahead of Black Narcissus.

The "message" of Ordet is not lost at all. My interpretation is that Johannes has received the "gift" of prophecy. He is somewhat a Jesus figure, but he is not Jesus or a messiah. It is not Johannes who raises the dead, a miracle that could come only from God. It is the girl's faith, not Johannes, that raises the mother. It is an illustration from The Bible of Jesus' words that "if one has the faith of a child they can say to this mountain 'move over here' and it will be done". We are seeing simple belief in God's power win out over the artificial creations of man, the trappings, invented ritual, and often hypocrisy of religion.

For me it has a power that only a handful of other films possess.

Kirk, I would have to disagree with you on Andrei Rublev. Andrei's restoration of faith comes in a somewhat similar way to the themes of Ordet. The boy has faith that he can accomplish the task of creating the bell. The odds are heavily stacked against him and no one else has any faith that he can succeed. But the boy is willing to risk his life anyway, and his hard work and faith is rewarded. Seeing this boy succeed at such a seemingly impossible act of creation is what inspires Andrei and reignites his faith in God and his own artistic abilities.

The barbarity of man damaged and disheartened Andrei, but he is able to find what he has lost by being reminded of what the faith, creativity, and enterprise of man can accomplish.

But I completely agree on Col. Blimp. Anton Walbrook's monologue is just great acting.

saw Sparticus(A+) The Lady Eve(C-) Spirited Away(A+) and Children of Paradise(A+).

Sparticus was a good epic, The Lady Eve was annoying and foolish, Spirited Away was brilliant, and Children of Paradise was wonderful. 46 is my count.

just finished watching the second part of Children of Paradise. the second half made me like the film a lot more, i respect it more than i thought i would after i finished the first half a couple weeks ago. good movie
A-

Trois Couleurs: Blanc
Not as good as Blue, but very good revenge story on it's own right. Doesn't quite stay on my mind liek the other one. I didn't get a chance to go through the commentaries yet.

Taxi Driver
I usually don't respond very well to Scorsese - I failed to see any greatness in Raging Bull and I am not as crazy about Goodfellas like everyone else, despite both featuring my favorite actor. Taxi Driver however was different. I can't quite put my finger on what it is that made me love this one right away. Perhaps the blend of loneliness, Hermann's score, gritty NYC... I don't know. What I do know is that it will jump to 4 stars the next time I watch it.

The 39 Steps
Great Hitch with some solid twists.

Bride of Frankenstein
One of the best sequels I have ever seen. Also a significant technical leap from it's predessessor - it just looks better, less like an old movie, especially the creation sequence.

--
Holadem

Brook has already said it well, but I just wanted to add one more thing. Kirk wrote: There is nothing pretentious about discussing the "big" ideas, especially those treated in films like Ordet and Rublev: faith, sacrifice, integrity, humanity. That the language of those ideas is often dismissed as pretentious is just further evidence, I think, of the dumbing down of our public discourse. Dreyer and Tarkovsky, I think it's safe to say, were more interested in those ideas than in filmmaking itself. They wanted us to struggle to find the words to explain our experience of their films, even if that experience wasn't wholly positive. It ain't easy, but it's usually worth the effort. A couple months ago, I did my best to explain my response to Ordet. I'm still working on Rublev.