Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club - Page 110

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I wouldn't call it essential, but The Age of Innocence is a very good movie.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Well, that 'essential' tag is wide open.

Some would say Alice Doesn't Live Here Anymore should be on the list.

Scorsese himself would absolutely add The Last Temptation of Christ

I would add After Hours

Personally I don't give a damn about watching films in some sort of chronological order but would suggest that when you passed over your friend's recommendation of Mean Street for Raging Bull, that's sure out the window.

As far as Raging Bull or Goodfellas, I enjoyed them both but believe Goodfellas to be the more compelling story.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

great examination of Raging Bull and Scorsese, Thomas. check out Alice Doesn't live here anymore and Last Temptation of Christ for some of Scorsese's most interesting female characters.

Started M. Hulot's Holiday. I'm just not cut out for the Tati filmmaking. The jokes are kinda funny most of the time and very funny some of the time, but it just lacks the pizazz of Chaplin, Keaton for me and is more along the lines of Lloyd and Langdon, funny and humorous but not so much my style.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

M. Hulot's Holiday -
201st S&S film
Tati's second film, the first with M. Hulot is a pretty good, occasionally funny romp during a French resort town on the coast. Hulot's interested in a pretty girl, she's kind of interested in him, there's a silly english lady, and an odd duck older couple. toss in some annoyed hotel employees and a little blond boy. The horse scene was pretty funny, the tennis scene was kinda funny but had no payoff, tracking muddy footprints in was pretty funny, I liked the car best. Sound effects were used to great effect.

On the whole, not brilliant, imo, and I just don't get the love. It's clever enough, but overall not a great comedy in my opinion.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Catching up with this thread after a few weeks away, sorry to chime in on this so late, but it really hits home. We each have our own circumstances and lifestyles - mine necessitates a choice between nearly always watching movies in segments over two or more nights or simply giving up movies (not going to happen). Between work, sleep, child care, pet care, errand running, and house maintenance, I find that there is virtually never such a thing as two uninterrupted hours, nor do I expect such an extravagance for several years (child growth and maturity) to come. Once in awhile it happens, and my wife and I count ourselves lucky. Three or four times a year we manage to get to a movie theater, so those are uninterrupted obviously. I've become quite used to chopping films up, sometimes even into 20ish minute increments when necessary. Horrifying? Yes, it would have horrified me a few years ago too. Yet I'd rather do that than fall pathetically behind in my movie watching goals.

Everybody works with what they've got.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Yeah, yeah, I see where you're coming from. What I mean is that, (it's just a hunch) if I were to gather a theater full of women "off the street" and show them random Scorsese film X, and then were to subsequently gather a theater full of men "off the street" and show them the same film, and have both groups fill out questionaires to try to ascertain what about the film appealed to them, and generally, to what degree they liked the film, it seems that the scale would be weighed HEAVILY to the men thinking the film was awesome, while the women much more reserved in their appreciation of the film.

But, again... ok, I guess I better conduct this ostensibly scientific study or else shut up already, lol.

I think a truly great film shouldn't be overwhelmingly appealing to just a particular portion of the audience, but to everybody. Seems with Scorsese, the scales are entirely balanced equally among all viewers. However, please, please, don't get too caught up in this, though. I was absolutely NOT outright dissing the film based on this assumed male/female discrepency. Please don't mistake what I wrote for that, or make more of it than was intended. It was just a thought I had while the end credits rolled.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

C'mon, Rich. When did I say I passed over Mean Streets for Raging Bull? Please don't put words in my mouth.

Raging Bull was on the rental shelf. Mean Streets wasn't, and there wasn't anything else on the shelf that I wanted to take out.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I respect your circumstances.

Question: Do you think your viewing tendency changes the filmgoing experience away from cinema and more to literature? Meaning, you're watching a film as one would read a book -- breaking up the movie into chapters. This I suppose enables you to reflect on the little morsels presented in each scene of the film, instead of necessarily digesting the "big picture" presented by the totality of the film. I wonder, then, whether or not you get more out of films that are composed of great moments, but then ultimately don't amount to all that much; and, in turn, whether you tend to dislike films that are generally considered to be greater than the sum of their parts. In the latter case, you're by necessity digesting only the film's parts, which might make the film better for you than it would be otherwise.

You probably have a unique perspective on many films, akin to what an editor's opinion might be of a film as he/she watches the dailies/rushes and continually tries to keep in mind the "big picture" day after day.

Interesting, anyway.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I can understand the need for Darrell to watch movies in segments, and I'd probably do the same too if I had to, which is better than not watching films at all. For myself, it has to be all in one shot to keep the flow going. There have been times where I'll fall asleep after a half hour or so, and the next day I'll go back and re-watch the entire thing, including that first half hour.

re: Martin Scorsese -- of his films I've seen so far, among my favorites would be GOODFELLAS, AFTER HOURS and THE KING OF COMEDY. I thought CAPE FEAR was a rare "modern remake" which equalled its original. I felt RAGING BULL was above average but overrated, and THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST was absurd. I saw TAXI DRIVER at a time when I felt it might have lost some of its original edge due to all the subsequent imitations I've seen first, but it's a movie I'm intending to see fresh again before committing. Oh, and MEAN STREETS I've never seen, yet I have it on my ever-growing 'things to see' list.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Perhaps if you didn't watch the same stuff over and over you 'things to see' list wouldn't be so big.

(just kidding of course)

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

But then my list of favorite movies on DVD which I already have owned for years, but never watch, would grow even larger.

Man, I only wish I had watched something which was already familiar that night when instead I wasted my time with THE LAST TEMPTATION OF CHRIST. But such is the nature of trying a new title... you win some, you lose some.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I've had that thought myself, Thomas. I'm not entirely sure what it's ultimately doing in terms of styles I walk away liking/not liking. I think it's possibly making me a bit of a harsher critic - I had a tendency (which may be universal, I don't know) to like many films much less on retrospect that I did at their immediate conclusion - that is, it was not unusual to think "Wow, that was borderline five stars", and months later think "Eh. Three, three and a half." Either age, experience, or segmented viewing seem to be getting me to my end opinion much faster. I think the segmentation plays into that - you break up the "dream", have time to reflect on it, think about it on more of a meta-level than you can while it's unspooling in front of you.

I wouldn't advocate it, don't get me wrong. I'd rather watch in one go (Berlin Alexanderplatz and assorted Rivettes of the world obviously excepted), but there are compensations. I think it makes heavy action movies hard to take seriously, but that was a short trip to begin with. You might expect suspensers or moody horror titles to suffer, but I've not noticed it. I just finished watching Onibaba over three nights and loved it. Along the lines of your "greater than sum of parts" speculation - I watched L'Eclisse after the Criterion release some time ago, and was really hoping to watch it in one go, thinking it might really suffer from being "spread out". If it did, I didn't notice - really enjoyed it. If Antonioni can withstand it...

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

You implied you did since Scorsese made Mean Streets many years for Raging Bull, but you claimed you were working on a chronological progression, clearly contradicting yourself.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Nah.
Let's see. I wrote, "I would like to watch films in chronological order, if possible." I didn't write, "I am working via a chronological progression." Both of you are making the assumption it was possible for me to stick to my personal motta. It wasn't. I can't control what's on the rental shelves or what order Blockbuster-online decides to send me the discs in my queue.

BTW, I appreciate people's acknowledgment that I am reading Scorsese correctly but at the same time there is no correct reading of Antonioni *shrugs*

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Well, you're reading at least one layer of Scorsese correctly, but you didn't really touch on the Catholicism in his films, which is at least as significant as his examinations of modern masculinity.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Go ahead and do it with regard to Raging Bull. I didn't "touch on the Catholicism" in Raging Bull, because I didn't see it. I think it's a reach to analyze the film in that way, but I'm interested in hearing your viewpoint, because your posts are at the very least always well written.

Anyway, my real point was that I don't see how somebody can argue that one filmmaker absolutely CAN be "read" a correct way, while another filmmaker can be completely inscrutable with regard to an absolutely correct interpretation of him/her.

It's one or the other. Either all filmmakers can be read any number of ways, none of which are strictly correct, because there simply doesn't exist any "correctness" with regard to cinematic interpretation, or all filmmakers can be correctly interpreted and incorectly interpreted. Personally, I think it's the latter, determined mostly be their reading of themselves as expressed through their work.

But I know...you or somebody else is going to argue that both possibilities can co-exist.

*BTW, I am talking a thematic and/or moralistic reading in this context, rather than a qualitative "the filmmaker thinks he made a good film, therefore it must be good" reading.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I would always err on this side of the debate, though the other can be usefully applicable at times, I tend to shy away from the totalizing mindset.

I should have used a smiley to better indicate the tone of the catholic post, it was meant to be a bit sardonic on the concept of reading any filmmaker correctly

Scorsese and catholicism would take a lot of typing and I'm about to do battle with the 405 (my great and all powerful nemesis, and it's raining--advantage, 405), so I think I'll save my strength for now, but I'll be thinking about this and will probably rewatch Raging Bull and get back to you.


Adam

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I saw "One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest," and I think it's a great film. I don't feel compelled to write at length about it mostly because, let's face it, it's not exactly some lost or obscure film that I feel the need to champion.

Just an observation and a question, then:

1. I personally didn't interpret Nurse Ratchet to be as much a monstrous paragon of evil as I had been led to believe. After all, being called a "nurse ratchet" these days is synonymous with evil incarnate, but I thought she had grey areas that made her more human than I anticipated. I believe she genuinely thought she was doing good for her patients, however detrimental her actions ultimately were. Modern science, of course, knows that electro-shock therapy does much more harm than good, for example, but they didn't know that back then (?), so who am I to judge. I can only look back in despair, in hindsight, and grieve for all patients who were subjected to such practices.

Neither Ratchet nor McMurphy were painted as completely good or bad, but rather two sides of the same coin -- just as I believe all of us are, including myself. We're all morally ambiguous. Therefore, I really appreciate it when films show their protagonist(s)' and antagonist(s)' endearing AND offputting character traits, like this film does with regard to all of its characters.

I'LL TRY TO AVOID SPOILERS HERE AS MUCH AS POSSIBLE, BUT TAKE THIS AS A SPOILER WARNING, NEVERTHELESS:



2. Question: What was Chief's motivation for acting the way he does in the first place? I don't think the film explained this character's motivation. Of course, it doesn't have to, but I really wonder why Chief chose to live his life like that, when it turns out he's not all that messed up to begin with. It's just like the other characters who choose to stay in the ward. Why did he make that choice to begin with, and then choose to go to and stay in the ward, in light of the character revelations made in the second half of the film? I guess the "real world" was pretty nasty to him (like when McMurphy enacts that Indian pow-wow stereotype with his mouth when he first meets Chief), so he closed himself off from the world to the point that he refused to communicate with it. As a result, he was diagnosed as being mentally ill. But by the end of the film, McMurphy has gained respect for Chief, and Chief recognizes that McMurphy, in turn, is the only person in the world actually to have befriended him in a respectful manner, or at least to have given him the time of day, so he opens up to McMurphy, vocally and spiritually. Actually, McMurphy helps Chief overcome a spiritual hurdle; in essence, he cleanses him, which is ironic because that is supposed to be what the mental ward should do for its patients. But then you see what the ward REALLY does to its patients by the way McMurphy turns out. McMurphy affects the patients in a positive way, as the ward is meant to do but doesn't, while the ward affects McMurphy in a way it is meant to prevent. I guess that's pretty easy to decipher, so what I am blabbering on about?

I haven't read the book, but I wonder how the depth and breadth of the characterizations compare and contrast to that of the film. My only nitpick is perhaps the film is a bit dated in its advocacy of free-spirited living, sort of a hippy-ish notion that still exists to some extent today but is probably considered a bit trite these days. But that doesn't matter, though. I really think this film deserves its classic status.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#239 - 1900

When I saw that this movie exceeded the 5-hour mark, I thought "oh no". But I bravely soldiered forth. Actually, the length wasn't really a problem. I got through it in a day, even with frequent breaks. The film never gets too boring. But it never gets too good, either. At times, it's laughably bad. The acting is terrible, and with a cast like this (Robert DeNiro, Alida Valli, Donald Sutherland, Gerard Depardieu, Sterling Hayden, Dominique Sanda) you have to place blame on the director. Just about the only one who neither makes a fool of himself nor acts like a block of wood is Burt Lancaster. However, his role is fairly brief and given more time, Bertolucci probably would have ruined his performance as well. Perhaps we can lay some of the blame on the fact that the voices were dubbed in later. But there's no excuse for the blunt, simplistic politics on display. The rich landowners are callous, decadent and naive. The fascists are vicious psychopaths (I've noticed the Italians seem to completely distance themselves from their fascist history, while the Germans have more or less taken responsibility). And the laborers are a magical race of oppressed fairy people who can do no wrong. I really had to laugh at the insanely over-the-top climax, where the workers unearth (literally) their gigantic red flag and confront their oppressor with their ailments. The saving graces of the film are the stunning photography by Vittorio Storaro and the pleasant Ennio Morricone score. But aesthetics aside, it's a pretty lousy way to spend 5 hours. If you want something similar but much much better (and much much longer), check out Heimat. Rating: 5

And this has nothing to do with the film's quality, but it's got more wang in it than a Chinese phone book. If you ever wanted to see DeNiro's goods, this is the movie for you.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Paisa

Another one I just don't get being on this list. A series of 6 short stories, ranging in quality, but none terribly bad, and certainly none terribly good. The acting, on the other hand, was uniformly terrible, which I know will get all kinds of excuses, but those same conditions apply to Open City, which is much, much, much better acted.

Again, this isn't one of those films whose inclusion on this list outrages me (it's not horrible like many of them), but just baffles me (when there are so many much better films not on the list).

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Well it's been said may times (correctly) that below a certain number on the list just becomes a statistically irrelevant sample.

Only three critics voted for Paisa and no directors. I haven't seen the film but I'm guessing that Paths of Glory (which got the same score) will still be a factor long before anyone even remembers the Sight & Sound 2002 Top Ten list.

Seems to me they could solve this problem by changing the rules on the next poll.

Simply that if you vote for a film that doesn't reach a certain number of votes, these films will not even be listed.

That would do away with those voters who are trying to make some statement with their votes as they assume that enough people will vote for the top films anyway.

After all, it's a top ten list and some of these choices are obviously not someone's true top ten. If if they are, I don't really care to count the opinion of the statistical outliers.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

MINOR SPOILERS FOR CUCKOO'S NEST


Somewhere in the film Chief tells Nicholson that his father was an alcoholic so I always took it that Chief admitted himself to the hospital to prevent what happened to his father.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

02/28/07: THE CONFORMIST [Extended Version] (Bernardo Bertolucci, 1970)

I had watched this just once before and that was some 13 years ago on Italian TV – but I was surprised by how much of it I could still remember (considering its low-key and character-driven nature)! A much-requested title for DVD release, Paramount has come through with a satisfying “Special Edition”.

The film itself is difficult but required viewing: as with all of Bertolucci’s work during this period, it’s politically-motivated – with Jean-Louis Trintignant’s ambiguous lead character virtually emerging as a symbol for our turbulent times; it remains the director’s best film and, along with Jean-Luc Godard’s CONTEMPT (1963), is also the most successful cinematic adaptation of an Alberto Moravia novel. Curiously enough, the address given for Professor Quadri’s Parisian residence was actually the one where Godard himself lived at the time – so the film can be read as a metaphor for Bertolucci’s own disenchantment with Godard’s current film-making policy, having abandoned mainstream cinema for a more didactic approach!

Bertolucci had also named Max Ophuls, Josef von Sternberg and Orson Welles as his idols and, indeed, the mise-en-scene of THE CONFORMIST is generally comparable to theirs in its operatic assurance: the detail and texture of Vittorio Storaro’s cinematography and Ferdinando Scarfiotti’s production design is at once exquisite and impeccable, while Franco Arcalli’s inspired editing smoothly binds together episodes from the lead character’s present life (as a Fascist agent assigned to eliminate his former teacher) and his equally secretive past (where he had killed a homosexual seducer) – and it’s all beautifully underscored by the haunting music of Georges Delerue (who, incidentally, was also responsible for CONTEMPT).

Most impressive among the cast were Trintignant, of course, but also Dominique Sanda (in perhaps her most significant role) and Gastone Moschin (who adds a welcome dash of humor to the generally heavy-going proceedings as the hero’s baffled yet dogged partner). The film’s highlights are certainly the tango sequence between Sanda and Stefania Sandrelli (which, obviously, anticipates Bertolucci’s subsequent – and most – controversial film) and the Quadri assassinations set against the beautiful but unforgiving snowy landscapes. This “Extended Version” restores a rather irrelevant sequence (once thought lost) of a party given by a group of blind Fascists in honor of Trintignant’s marriage.

As for the DVD supplements: while an Audio Commentary with Bertolucci himself would have been a desirable commodity, Laurent Bouzereau’s 3-part featurette (totaling some 38 minutes and comprised mainly of separate contributions from the writer/director and Vittorio Storaro) more than makes up for this loss and is actually quite thorough – analyzing all the various elements which have contributed towards making THE CONFORMIST one of the essential classics of World Cinema. For the record, I’ve still got a few Bertolucci films to catch up with – I own LA COMMARE SECCA (1962), LA LUNA (1979) and STEALING BEAUTY (1995) on DVD-R, DivX and VHS respectively – but just as many that I need to revisit – among them this film’s predecessor/companion piece, THE SPIDER’S STRATAGEM (1970)…

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#240 - She Wore a Yellow Ribbon

I must be feeling especially masochistic. I don't like John Ford, I don't like John Wayne, and I don't like westerns, especially the cowboys and Indians variety. So this was pretty much a losing proposition for me. The cavalrymen are brave and heroic, the women are tough but obedient, the Indians are savages (save the one who converted to Christianity, God bless him!), and the Irishman is a lovable drunk (the bar fight scene for comic relief is painfully stupid). The narrator is cheesily patriotic and the music is stirring in the most horrible way. However, as much as I groaned through this, I have to give it some credit: Wayne is not as much of a douchebag as he usually is, the Technicolor photography is pleasant, and the non-violent ending was unexpected. So it wasn't completely awful, but still not at all my cup of tea. Rating: 4

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

[first part of post deleted since I posted in the wrong thread] (I'll leave my comment below to Martin)

And, as usual, Martin, I have to disagree with you. You think way too highly of She Wore a Yellow Ribbon.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#241 - My Darling Clementine

Well, I'll be damned. A John Ford western that I not only like, but love. This has just about everything you could want: action, drama, romance, suspense, comedy, triumph and tragedy, song and dance... all done flawlessly. Every scene feels iconic and classic, it's like the Casablanca of westerns. Perhaps the main benefit here is that Henry Fonda is about 1000 times more likable than John Wayne. And Victor Mature, who I didn't think could pull off a western, is marvelous as well. Together they play men who are heroic by the nature of their inherent goodness, not tough guy talk and macho swagger. The supporting cast is entirely excellent as well. The use of traditional songs is terrific, and contributes to the authentic feel of the picture much more than a weighty score would (although a few scenes are scored in a more Hollywood fashion, but it's not as obnoxious as Yellow Ribbon). The photography is, needless to say, top-notch. The overall effect is a film that beautifully blends mythology and reality, something slightly larger than life yet completely relatable. I truly enjoyed it from start to finish. Rating: 10

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

#242 - The Conformist

So if you can't tell, I've been going through some of the major canonical works that I've missed. The nice thing about doing this is that you tend to pick up a lot of new favorites. And holy balls, is this a new favorite. Through a uniquely edited flashback style it tells the intriguing story of a man trying to fit in. His zealousness causes him to perform some dastardly deeds, and despite all his efforts, he can't escape his own difference. It works on both the character level, and in the bigger picture with a strong (but not heavy-handed) anti-fascist message. The acting is wonderful (SO much better than 1900), not one complaint in that department.

And while all that is great and would make an excellent film on its own, it's the photography that rockets this movie into the stratosphere. Vittorio Storaro does it once again, his cinematography makes this one of the most (if not THE most) visually appealing and engaging films I've ever seen. The camera really helps tell the story through its angles, graceful movements, astonishing compositions, mind-melting color and stunning light and shadow. It's an absolute masterpiece of photography, a treasure trove of memorable images... the blowing leaves, the table full of walnuts, the windows blown out in blue, and many more. Jaw-dropping. Rating: 10

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I don't know what other Ford westerns you've seen, but My Darling Clementine is one of only two Ford westerns that I love (the others ranging from dislike to outright hatred). So, you might enjoy the other one I do, which is The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance.

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

Yeah, I'll get to that one eventually.

#243 - Pandora's Box

I listened to a great deal of the scholarly commentary track on the DVD, and it was all just different combinations of the words "image", "agency", "fetishism" and "commodity". Frankly I found it difficult to follow ("Here Lulu is commodifying her image, fetishizing her agency, blah blah blah") but it sure seemed to mean something to the people on the commentary. They apparently think it's very important that Lulu is a consumer -- yes, folks, she BUYS AND USES THINGS. Wow. Anyway, Louise Brooks is very captivating, and the film is technically excellent. It's not terribly enjoyable, though. I was kind of into it, I guess, but overall I thought it was a movie that was more important for its context than as a cinematic experience. I guess I'm a bit pickier when it comes to silents. Rating: 7

Re: Sight and Sound (2002) Greatest Films Club

I was cleaning out my wallet last night and found a list of movies tucked away in the corner that I was watching two summers ago, I was able to cross another twenty or so films off that list, but I was stunned at just how many high ranking S&S films have been released on DVD in the last year or two.

I must also sing the praises of The Man Who Shot Liberty Valence, it was probably the second proper western I'd ever seen (next to True Grit, I doubt Shadow Riders counts), and one of the first movies I'd ever seen Jimmy Stewart in. It's remained one of my all time favorite movies, and my favorite western since then, now seven years ago or so.

Although I do love more Ford westerns than you, funnily enough I was not all that impressed with My Darling Clementine, but I've only seen it once on film, and it wasn't exactly what I was expecting, I've got the dvd and fully intend to watch it again, probably soon, some of the imagry is still burned in my head (Grapes of Wrath, Stagecoach, and Prisoner of Shark Island are three other Ford films I've only seen once that I can still replay whole photographic moments and sequences from, the photography is so damned good), much like the photography of the Conformist.

Adam