Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 97

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Empty? Well that's one way of looking at it but how would we know? By the the 10 seconds of his music that we actually hear? Further, we have virtually no idea what he was as character development is close to non-existent except for 10 seconds of him rolling in the grass with his daughter and less than that amount of time with his wife. Actually the prostitute gets more time than the wife. The only other flashback that might be considered personal (concerning Gustav) is a debate with another man on what makes music in which the other man comes across as interesting and Gustav a hollow shell.

Actually, we can surmise the daughter died tragically but do we even know what happened to the wife? Perhaps I dosed off a bit.


Yes. How does he maintain that look of nothingness for 2+ hours? That and it is always great to have a english speaking actor speaking english as a German in an Italian film. Acting. Brilliance!


Steeped in sorrow? Agreed. I have much sorrow for the time spent watching this dribble in the theatre.

Fresh and joyous future? Did that begin with him getting the dye job and the Jack Nicholson Joker styled facial?

Quote from the film. "Do you know what lies at the bottom of the mainstream? Mediocrity."

Agree. And do you know what lies at the bottom of the non-mainstream?

Death in Venice.

Brook. If you and others liked or love the film, all the better.

However, I do think that people can over romance films. Try to find the positive aspects of a film and try to find the brilliance that the filmmaker obviously wanted to bring to the screen.

Then there are films that remind you that, sometimes it is as tragically simple as the emperor really doesn't have any clothes on.


While I can see how L'Avventura is not for everyone, L'Avventura is miles and miles apart from the film listed above.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Have you seen Open City?

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Pickpocket

The best Bresson film I've seen so far, which is fairly dim praise. There's a potentially great movie here, but Bresson never goes there. I enjoyed watching the pickpocketing scenes, and looking at the Keira Knightly lookalike, but the acting is horrible, the story is MIA, and this is one big missed opportunity IMO.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Nope. but I like what I read.

Is Au revoir les Enfants (Louis Malle) on this list? If not, it should be. It's my latest discovery .

--
H

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Thi,

I noticed the list of participants has been trimmed by quite a bit. I know I've not been very diligent with this challenge in the last year, but please do add me back .

I stand at 83 seen (sad I know, but double of what I started with 2 years ago ).

Tokyo Story is next.

--
H

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#84 - Tokyo Story

This delicate, deceptively simple tale of generational estrangement in a family turned out to be far more accessible than I had feared. Ozu's famously unmoving camera captures the humanity under the masks in this minimalist drama seemingly without trying. While every movie benefits from a large screen, Ozu's formalism (low camera angles, depth of field lines) make me thankful for my projector.

The rating will doubtless rise on repeat viewings.

Next: Finish La Grande Illusion (I am about 2/3rd through, not too impressed).

--
H

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#85 - Lacombe Lucien (1974)

A dissafected, fairly dim country boy with something of a mean streak, and a likely inconsequential life ahead of him, unexpectedly find himself in a position of power when he joins the Gestapo during the German occupation of France. Lacombe Lucien is a portrayal of power at it's most insecure, pettiest, yet dangerous as only empowered ignorance can be. While in not so dire circumstances, we've all met a Lacombe Lucien at some point in our lives, be it the traffic cop or the post office clerk who relished on making your life miserable for those few moments they could.

Ultimately, my ratings are indicative of the enjoyment I derived from a movie, and the sole work from Louis Malle on this list is compelling (and true) from a thematic and historical POV (I never tire of that setting), but one I will not be revisiting.

I watched Le Souffle au Coeur / Mumurs of the heart (1971) as well, very enjoyeable and surprisingly undisturbing movie, I am still trying to figure out if that is something to hold againsi it movie given the subject matter. Not on this list though. Just had to mention it .


#86 - Le Mepris / Contempt (1963)

Umm... well... gee. Not really sure what to say about this one? Not exactly a trial to sit through (especially the opening...), it was visually interesting and moody enough, but, really, just barely.

--
H

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

The Good The Bad and the Ugly -

Hard to believe this terrific film only got two votes, but then I think both Once Upon a Time films are better. I actually prefer for a Few Dollars More of all of this 'trilogy' and am I right in assuming this film is a sort of prequel to the first two? While enjoyable I think this one was a bit overlong and rambling, it was superbly made and riviting to watch and any reservation about the film was wiped away by the utterly incredible final shootout, gorgeously done.

Fantastic

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Adam, I have long held that the only thing which elevates GBU above FFADM is Eli Wallach's show-stealing Tuco. FFADM is just as engrossing otherwise.

GBU is my favorite western.

--
H

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I forgot to mention the awesome Tuco, as well as the incredible score.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Well I finally got around to wrapping up The Sacrifice which was a lot like Solaris, very dry, very slow. I just find Tarkovsky way too subtle for my taste. He just goes too far into artifice rather than trying to address the audience.


Bob le Flambeur was much more enjoyable. It's not quite New Wave but it certainly has some of that vibe. I'd say it's more NW than Film Noir, especially for a caper film. Part of that might just be the French culture giving it that twinge because it really feels like a French attempt to capture American Film Noir but somehow twisting it.

Strong film, great lead character arc.


Thi - this puts me at 237 films seen

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I completely agree. Wallach gives a masterpiece performance in this film, the score is amazing, the art direction takes on a surreal vibe with the way it misplaces and distorts the real settings of the Civil War in the west.

GBU to me is a perfect film, one of my top 10 all-time.


Tokyo Story is a good film. It seems to be an Asian trend to work with still frames, but Ozu is perhaps the best with it.

Not impressed with Grand Illusion? Wow, that surprises me. I'd consider it one of the most accessible older foreign films on the list.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Damn you two right to hell for that one.



GK, I just don't get you at all I think. Funny thing is somehow I agreed with both you and Brook about Nights of Cabiria.


Sorry Lew that I had been out of the loop for that last month and didn't join in the b'day congrats.



And BTW, looking back at the debate over Venice brings up a point about Italian cinema in general, one in which style is clearly admired more than plot. I'm not even knocking that when I say it, just noting it. Different cultures revere different aspects of the film arts, and what has power to Hollywood fans has less impact on people from other cultures, and vice versa.

To finish my degree I'm planning on doing a paper along these lines, debating the truth behind cinema as an international language. My theory is that it really isn't that international, but rather that we assume that since we see actions we understand them. I think there are countless ways in which this is incorrect or at least misleading.


Don't get me wrong, I'm not saying its a viewers fault for not enjoying a film. I wouldn't enjoy reading a book written in a language I didn't understand either. But in the case of written or spoken language I think that barrier is far more obvious, yet no more powerful than it is with film.




Just a friendly nitpick, the term is DRIVEL, not dribble. It is an unfortunately common mistake, but in this case it bugs me more than others because using the term "drivel" carries an air of superiority to my ear (as in the thing you are complaing about is beneath you or your time). Using it incorrectly undermines that angle I think and hurts how your point comes across. Just corrective criticism on a mistake, not a rant.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Let's see...

1. Arguments of this sort don't interest me any more. Everything necessary to "read" the film is in the film. "How do we know?"....I watched the film and it told me; no "overromancing" necessary.

And an actor like Bogarde was just the reality of European film financing in the late 60's-70's. International coproductions and casting were necessary evils for many directors if they were to get their films financed.

2. Tokyo Story is in my top 5 films. While Ikiru and It's A Wonderful Life are the greatest filmic affirmations of life, there's always the nagging thought in the back of my head that Tokyo Story, really tells it like it is.

3. I wasn't taken with any of those 3 Malle films. I guess Au Revoir Les Enfants would be my favorite of the 3, but I prefer a few of his English language films and Elevator to the Gallows.

4. I also prefer A Few Dollars More to GBU. Again, I've only seen those films 1-2 all the way through so I'm not nearly as familar with them as many, but agree with GBU being a bit on the long side. It bogs down in the Civil War section. I"d rather be spending time with the 3 great characters instead of watching a big set piece artillery bombardment.

5. Tarkovsky isn't going into artifice. He has valid reasons and philosophies for his brand of filmmaking. Time was of the utmost importance. He wanted to give audiences the feeling of the passage of time, not merely as a "5 years later" intellectual occurrence, but to truly feel the seconds tick away. Whether he used "artificial" means to achieve this is semantics. With its Cold War era fear of nuclear war and its Bergman-like familial conflicts and overarching sense of fragile mortality, one could argue The Sacrifice is one of his most direct addresses to an audience. He made films the way he wanted to make them and while he wanted them to be liked, he wasn't about to change what he wanted to do to make them more palatable.

Still, he is admittedly one of the most difficult of directors. If you give him another chance, watch Stalker. It's the most linear, character driven, and dare I say, suspenseful of his films I've seen.

#295 A Canterbury Tale (1942)
Powell & Pressburger's enchanting wartime film begins as a comic mystery only to become a journey of discovery as our "pilgrims" explore a small English town before inevitably coming to Canterbury. Sporting pleasures too inumerable to recite, the Archer's use naturalism, romance and low-key comedy blended together with an undercurrent of spirituality to provide a beautiful portrait of the sorts of things worth fighting to protect; all without the use of violence or bombast. I plan on adding this to my collection as I have a feeling it will continue to get better with additional viewings. - A-

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

That's OK. When it comes to taste in film, few people get me, and I get even fewer of them.

As someone who's favorite genre, by far, is comedy, I have far more trouble understanding why anyone would tolerate, much less like, much less love a film like Rushmore, than you do understanding why I hate it.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Unlike Brook, I'll not re-post my comments on prior films, as his is more in depth than mine--but I am not at all surprised that anyone does not like this (Death in Venice) film. Dave Kehr (no lowbrow he) for example panned this movie in terms almost as unflattering as Rich. I have also written most positive terms about L'Avventura in specific and Antonioni's films in general and once again I am not surprised that some, perhaps many film fans don't care for that movie or Antonioni.

Antonioni, like some other filmmakers, takes his time in presenting his views (somewhat different than telling a story). I'm guessing that those who don't like L'Avventura, also don't like Tarkovsky or Carl Dreyer.

Now I happen to believe that those who don't care for this filmmaking are both misguided and missing out on some intense satisfaction, but Antonioni is as different from Visconti as Fellini is from De Sica.

All of these classic Italian filmmakers have much to offer and a profound dislike of L'Avventura does not mean that you won't enjoy La Strada or Juliet of the Spirits. Or not caring for the depiction of Euro decadance in Death in Venice does not mean that you won't revel in the humanity of The Bicycle Thief.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I understand that no artist is required to curb his taste to anyone else's, but this idea that palatable art is inherently common, base and simplistic is equally offensive, and foolish IMO.

Art is a connection with others, a form of communication. It's great if a person wants to create their own language that no one else understands and use it to speak of profound thoughts so that no one else understands...but can't they just do that in their own head and save everyone else the trouble.

I stand by this viewpoint always - if the artist is taking the time to outwardly express themselves, even publically present their work, then they are trying to reach the audience and shouldn't hide behind the "I'm doing what I want, who needs them, I won't change for anyone" schtick.

Don't change, fine. Just stop taking other people's money to publically present work to an audience you look down upon or patronize.


Frankly I wasn't even saying that this is what Tarkovsky is doing. I have little doubt that his style is deeply anchored in his cultural upbringing since he is not the only filmmaker from the region to approach the art in this manner (the recent Russian Ark comes to mind). And even pushing westward you see this understated mise-en-scene and slow tempo with Kieslowski, and southward you get Kiarostami.

But that doesn't make it a lack of artifice over prose. It very much is artifice and a heavily stylized, metaphorical film rather than a traditional narrative. I'm not asking him to do it any differently, but there is truth to the fact that such a choice is going to alienate a lot more audience if it's not done to perfection.

I think he misses somewhat which makes the style (in this case the demphasis of action or delineated conflict) stand out all the more. I have no problem with artifice, which is why I enjoy so many Bergman and Murnau films.

Tarkovsky is just painfully slow to me and I am left feeling like he has less to say than film to say it in.



BTW, since we are bringing it up, I was luke warm to L'Aventura, and I've yet to catch Death in Venice. I have Passenger coming in from Netflix in a week or so, depending on how I get through the Firefly set (pretty solid TV writing), and Eclipse not long after that.


But my main question is how can I get ahold of the DVD copy of The Devils that Brook screened. The more I read about it and the few bits I get to see, the more I am interested in screening the film.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

As opposed to just saying "I think the word is drivel' and moving on?

That and several dictionaries show dribble as a valid noun, some showing it as a synonym to drivel.

Moving on?


My summary of the above is that: Hollywood film lover, I, didn't really understand Muck in Venice because I don't have the cultural sensitivity or the language skills to truly appreciate the film.

Got it.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

This thread has done a good job so far of staying above this sort of nonsense.

--
H

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

McCabe and Mrs. Miller -
198th S&S film
OARDVD
9/7/2006

Very good movie I think will get better the next time I like it, and I will definitely make a chance to watch it again. fantastic ending, interesting use of music, great characters and dialogue, enjoyed the chemistry between Julie Christie and Warren Beatty, got tired of the snow effect at the big climax.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Thi, the list on the front page has Stray Dog attributed to Kubrick rather than Kurosawa, my bad. :p

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Fomr some reason someone decided my issues with La Grande Illusion had something to do with accessibility . Not at all. Simply put, it quite bored me, subtext and all. In any case, I shall complete it before offering further opinon.

Speaking of accessibility, the next two film have to be among the more easily digestible films on this list, which of course isn't a pronouncement on their subtext or depth.

I shall expand on these later, as I've got to run.

#87 - High and Low (1963)

#88 - La Regle du Jeu / Rules of the Game (1939)

--
H

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#89 - La Strada (1954)

A straighter narrative than I've come to expect from Fellini, at least based on his one other film I watched, 8 1/2. I will admit to much preferring this one, even if the seeds of his later aesthetic sensibilities are already apparent here. Given my aforementioned track record with films of this country and era (post war italy), I started watching this with some serious skepticism, which Gelsomina's simpleton antics did nothing to alleviate (physical comedy & farce never works for me). Yet her innocence and oddly touching relationship with Quinn's unapologetic brute gradually won me over and by the heart breaking ending, all emotional distance gone. This one rises above my lukewarm feelings about classic italian cinema, to "good", but not a purchase just yet. Again, I trust it will greatly benefit from a revisit.

BTW, for some reason I am unable to explain just yet, the one accidental death in the movie hit me pretty hard. Did anyone else feel the same way?

Next: Uh... dunno, heading to the library tonight. They have a several Criterions kicking around. I might try more Fellini if available.

--
H

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

No, not yet. And as critical as I might be, it never lowers my interest in every form and approach to filmmaking. I don't subscribe to the "that's 2 hours I'll never get back" attitude. It might have been uncomfortable or dull, but I wanted to find out and to experience it anyway.


No-Name Trilogy - well GBU is my favorite, simply because I see it as one of the elite films of all time (ie, top 10 caliber), but my 2nd favorite is Yojimbo...er, Fistfull. Remake or not, I love the pacing, the style and Eastwood's effort most of all.

I would put Once...West ahead of Few Dollars also.


La Strada is also one of my fave Fellini's. I don't recall that death impacting me as much as you imply, but the entire film carried solid emotional weight. Great performances from both leads IMO.

High and Low, one of the top Kurosawa's IMO. Great procedural, great moral debates within the story. A challenging yet also engaging film.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

The Mirror could be just the ticket to get you to subscribe.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Hmmm, is that a new experience for you? Most kids have experienced quite a bit of dull by the time they get out of grade school.

Don't worry. You needn't subscribe to the "attitude", it comes all by itself. Just experience more of life, work, get married, raise some kids and you'll see what I mean.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Look, WTF is your problem?

I tried to be polite about the grammar thing and you went off. I let that go because why get into it with someone the responds that way. But personal attacks go over the line, especially a not so subtle "you act like a child" comment.