'Apocalypse Now' voted greatest film of the last 25 years (1 Viewer)

[Holadem]

Briggs is come
--
Holadem

 

[David_Caldwell]

And, yes, I believe Eyes Wide Shut and Full Metal Jacket deserve some place on such a list as this. I respect the listmakers, though.

As I said, I also respect the listmakers and I respect your views. I just don't agree with them on this particular topic. Like many, I think Platoon is "better", but I don't actually like it. As for Eyes Wide Shut, why is it supposedly so great? Because Kubrick made people suffer in the making of it? No. Because it took him so long? No. Because Kubrick obsessed beyond reason about minute details that only other filmmakers (if that) will even see? No. Because he refused to bow to economic or studio pressures? Admirable to some extent, but doesn't make the film great. Is the cinematography so excellent? It is certainly good and in places creates a slightly different view than most other filmmakers would create, but that doesn't make the film great. The story then - absolutely not - fairly old cliches there. The acting - good performances, but do they transcend into greatness? Not in my opinion.

So please help me out here and explain why this should be seen as one of the greatest movies of the last 25 years. And perhaps I will then begin to understand what the documentaries about Kubrick and seeing the last ten of his films has failed to convey to me - why is Kubrick great? As I said before, I regard 2001 as great. I do not see A Clockwork Orange that way and when it gets to Lolita - I think that is absolutely dreadful. (But please, in your answer, do try not to be patronising. You do not know me or how much (or perhaps how little) I know about film.)

 

[Luc D]

David, I think you're looking at Eyes Wide Shut with too literal an eye, and subsequently pointing out why Kubrick rubs certain people the wrong way. I suggest you give it another viewing. Also, I don't see what the film's production history has to do with its quality.

Though I don't have the time now to go into it (I may at some point if there is some interest), I firmly believe that Eyes Wide Shut is one of Kubrick's great masterpieces and easily one of the best films of the last 25 years.

 

[David_Caldwell]

Thanks Luc. I did watch EWS a second time to try to fathom what I missed the first time, but was none the wiser as to why (some) people raved about it. I will try again sometime. It isn't that I don't get it - I do. What I don't get is what makes it great rather than good. And the same with the director. His films don't rub me the wrong way as such - some I like some I don't. And I have nothing against him either, although I think he has been unnecessarily cruel to people in pursuit of "art". I just don't get the "great" part.

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Because he refused to bow to economic or studio pressures?

Kubrick had no pressure. Warner Bros was pleased to have him under contract and would accept any film (as long as it was Rated R) that he produced. There also was no economic pressure, since Kubrick's productions always used small teams of people. He was actually very frugal about money - and had a major part with his relocation to England where he could get more bang for his buck, so to speak.

 

[Jay E]

I think most comedies don't stand up well over time, and that its much harder to make a classic comedy.

I agree with this statement and I will also add that comedy is the most subjective genre of film. I make it a rule never to recommend a comedy as I know I'm playing with fire. I also feel a comedy has to offer more than just laughs in order to be considered one of the greatest films of the past 25 years. Not many comedies from the past 25 years offer this.
If you gauge the greatness of a film based on the # of laughs it generates then a film such as Jackass the Movie could possibly wind up as one of the greatest films ever made.

 

[Agee Bassett]

To my sensibilities, what renders Brando's performance "terrible" is not merely that he speaks in a voice of limited modulation throughout the film. But rather that, in a film otherwise dominated by and communicated through the acting idiom of "naturalism" (then taking the screen by storm), Brando retreats to ancient theatrical conventions, such as heavy disguise and mannerism, to express the dynamics of his character. This jarring presence detracts significantly from the curtain of naturalism established by the film's authentic settings, and the excellent performances of the rest of the cast. It's a thoroughly artificial confection; a parody of a performance in an otherwise straightforward film. (Is it any wonder the contempt Brando has for his profession and audience when he sees even his cynical "prank" performances--Apocalypse Now being but one other example--lavished with such critical rapture?)
I still maintain that it was the film's cinematographer, Gordon Willis, who created the film's iconographic image of Brando's made-up visage streaked by the film's innovative harsh overhead lighting, who was largely responsible for the public's delighted acceptance of his portrayal into our mainstream culture upon The Godfather's explosion upon the movie scene in 1972.

 

[Rob Tomlin]

It's a thoroughly artificial confection; a parody of a performance in an otherwise straightforward film. (Is it any wonder the contempt Brando has for his profession and audience when he sees even his cynical "prank" performances--Apocalypse Now being but one other example--lavished with such critical rapture?)

Agee-

It appears as though you are stating that Brando's performances in The Godfather and Apocalypse Now were "prank" performances, and that this was done intentionally by Brando.

Is this assertion simply based on your perception of the performances themselves, or do you have some actual references to back this up?

I must say, for "prank" performances, they were pretty damn good!

 

[Agee Bassett]

Be it achieved through accident or design, the rigid theatricality of his performance comes across as nothing so much as a cruel joke upon the rest of the cast, toiling in their craft to deliver the best their talents can provide; as well as the viewer, coaxed by the material's presentation into expecting a uniform fabric of artful naturalism.
But it is my contention that Brando resorted to hoary mechanical trickery out of a conscious desire not to work. It would probably be redundant to detail his reputation as one of film history's most difficult and indolent personalities. Well known is Brando's almost exclusive reliance on cue cards through most of The Godfather shoot; as well as the fits he gave Coppola on the set of Apocalypse Now, to the point where almost all of Kurtz's scripted dialogue was jettisoned in order to placate Brando's threats to quit. Those in his inner circle typically rationalize his despicable behavior as contempt for his profession and a poor work ethic. Nowadays, this often manifests itself in public interviews, where he seems to take cynical delight in fucking with the interviewer and spectator's expectations.
Brando has invested serious effort into few, if any, film projects of his in the past 30+ years. Though I don't regard him the acting genius many others do, I believe Brando capable of great things, when he has a mind to--A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront being almost certainly his greatest four hours on the screen. His turns in The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, however, make a mockery of the acting profession, and of the talent he obviously possesses. (To give credit where credit is due, however, to Dennis Hopper goes the top acting booby prize in AN.)

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Patrick Larkin said:

that is why, IMHO, film is the greatest art form. imagery, sound, story, they all play together.

Don't imagery and sound tell stories too? Doesn't the frightful tremble in fear every time they see Michaelangelo's The Judgement? What about Bob Dylan's "Tangled Up in Blue"?

To be honest, I'm very passionate about story-telling. If anything, I believe it to be the thread that holds all of art together. But like I said, Patrick, we may very well simply hold different definitions to story-telling altogether. To sum things up, I believe story-telling is the aim of all artwork. It's what we get out of it that is of the utmost importance.

Re: the whole shebang with Kubrick and AN
The debate may change, but it's always remained the same: how does one tell a better story or who is the best story teller?

Some people feel Stanley Kubrick is the greatest storyteller in the medium of film. Some people feel he's less obvious with the message being conveyed, others feel he's telling something very loud and very clearly.

It's perfectly understandable concerning Robert Crawford's feelings about Apocalypse Now. Is the message, whatever it may be from the film, being properly conveyed to the audience. Again, the debate among Mr. Crawford and Larkin perfectly illustrates the fine line that film (or any other artform) walks. You want to be able to convey a message to the audience while at the same time not having to spell out everything for the viewer.

Personally, I feel that all movies are under the obligation of telling the audience the most basic of messages. Whatever that message may be is debatable. Otherwise, what good is a movie (or any other art) if the message being conveyed is only perceptable to a select few?

 

[Dome Vongvises]

Agee Bassett said:

Brando has invested serious effort into few, if any, film projects of his in the past 30+ years. Though I don't regard him the acting genius many others do, I believe Brando capable of great things, when he has a mind to--A Streetcar Named Desire and On the Waterfront being almost certainly his greatest four hours on the screen. His turns in The Godfather and Apocalypse Now, however, make a mockery of the acting profession, and of the talent he obviously possesses. (To give credit where credit is due, however, to Dennis Hopper goes the top acting booby prize in AN.)

Wait, I'm confused here. Isn't acting by it's very nature artificial? Isn't theatrics by nature artificial? If so, how does one's own act of artificiality (is that a word? ) any different than somebody elses?
You're advocating naturalism in acting, yet isn't that contradictory? Isn't the only naturalism possible in a documentary?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but is the only thing you're trying to say about Marlon Brando's acting turn in The Godfather and Apocalypse Now seemed forced? You know you could've summed it up in those words.

 

[Agee Bassett]

Quote:

Simply limiting my argument to such terse verbiage hardly seemed to satify the curious in this thread some time back.
Seriously, though, as detailed my posts above, my criticism of his performance goes beyond simply that he executes his theatrics poorly; but that they violate the stylistic pattern of the film. Never ceases to take me out of the film, no matter the number of times I see it.

 

[Seth Paxton]

Brando retreats to ancient theatrical conventions, such as heavy disguise and mannerism, to express the dynamics of his character.

Well, since Brando was one of the key figures from method acting, central to the shift away from theatrical conventions, I guess I disagree.
Instead, I thought both characters were the most believable people in the films (though Sheen in AN and Duvall, Caan in Godfather are all very close - Pacino is good, but I think I see him acting just a trace more than the others).
To back this point, I see Kurtz as being melodramtic and artistic. He envisions himself as this poet warrior, right? The dramatic presence he now carries seems to go hand in hand with his slip into insanity (if that's even what it is). He has become a non-soldier, he is different, removed from our culture (or anyone's but his own).
In fact, I think Kurtz and Brando actually have a lot in common in their approach to the world (violence notwithstanding of course). That's why I see it as so natural. To me it feels as though we are just seeing Brando being Brando at that point, that he and the character are integrated. (very likely due to his own lack of effort to fit into the script - but if you don't try to hit a HR and you do anyway, it doesn't mean the run doesn't count ).
Are they like us, or Sheen, or anyone? No. But that doesn't make the odd behavior unnatural to me, just unusual.
BTW, regarding the difference between narrative and documentary (following the idea that Kubrick detaches us from the narrative much as a doc. does), I reference "Nanook of the North". Here is a documentary (a classic) that does follow many narrative conventions (not unlike many Disney "docs"). It tells the story of a character in some sort of complete "a day in the life" manner that is hyper-real. EVERYTHING happens in that day/week/month that needs to be covered, and all in proper order.
Of course the truth is that Flaherty clearly had to stage some scenes so that he could have the camera in proper position, get the lighting right perhaps, or just set up the mise en scene correctly. On top of that you have the editing. Now this is where all docs become slightly unnreal no matter how truthful they strive to be, but Nanook is edited very much in narrative fashion.
The result? Nanook is like a children's story about this cute eskimo family. Are they real? Yes. But the presentation of their life is not truly real, it's too smooth on film to be real. It's a fake representation that gets us emotionally engaged with Nanook and his family. We know the camera is really there, we know these are real people, but we are also being moved to follow a storyline in which each scene is arranged to make us feel a certain way...AND TO MAKE US FORGET WE ARE WATCHING A FILM. It wants to draw us in emotionally.
Nanook is the perfect example of a documentary following so many narrative conventions that it becomes a narrative, and thus it actually feels less like we are some neutral observer from afar. It's more like we get to spend some time with this family.
Kubrick doesn't make you feel that way. You are not a part of the crew in 2001, but rather you are obviously an observer. His work is much more like narrative filmmaking that intentionally detaches from it's subjects in a documentary fashion.
Of course this does not mean we don't become emotionally involved with the film, but it's from a totally different place than were the film to try to bring us into its world to share with the characters.
The closest Kubrick gets to that (IMO) is the first part of Clockwork Orange. I think the constant narration (in book style) tends to bring you in more than you normally would. The result is the disturbing effect that of all of Kubrick's many characters, the one we often can bond the most with is the violent and cruel Alex.

 

[Agee Bassett]

Which is another thing which, if you're only familiar with the early Brando, makes his retreat to simple stage trickery in The Godfather all the more jarring. Such resourcing upon heavy disguise and mannerism is more the territory of Olivier or Guinness, classically-trained actors possessing of the immense vitality and rigorous discipline necessary for pulling such a thing off.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I just don't think his mannerism is any more pronounced in AN or Godfather than it is in something like On the Waterfront. That character also has unique mannerisms I think, though I think they are appropriate as well.

 

[Steve Christou]

*DOUBLE POST*

 

[Steve Christou]

Can't believe what I'm reading here, Brando was perfect as Don Vito, can any poster come up with a better more suitable actor to play the part in The Godfather? Would Laurence Olivier have been a better choice? Not a chance! Ernest Borgnine as Don Vito Corleone anyone? Who's to say that an aging Italian-American Don wouldn't have the same mannerisms as Brando does in the film? I think the problem we have here are posters who simply don't like Brando as an actor. And adding reams of text does not make an opinion any more viable. In the end it's just an opinion.
I prefer The Godfather to Godfather II and one of the big reasons is Brando.

 

[Agee Bassett]

I can't believe I'm encountering this banal forum bromide in a post of the otherwise-perpetually amusing Christou.
Consider this item for thought: DeNiro, costuming himself with Brando's mannerisms and raspy voice in order to portray the younger incarnation of Vito Corleone in the film's sequel/prequel, beats his older counterpart at his own game; delivering an object lesson on how to keep such an affectation-vested part real. His Academy Award--unlike Brando's--was fully deserved.
BTW, I could see Mitchum or Rod Steiger pulling off the part of the older Vito as well as Brando could have.

 

[Steve Christou]

Bassett it's simple, you don't like Brando's performance as Vito Corleone and I do.
Rod Steiger was a great actor but he could ham it up with the best of 'em.
Brando famously refused his Oscar, I think the second actor to do so, George C.Scott also turned down his Oscar for Patton.
Whether Brando deserved the Best Actor Oscar is another matter, I can't remember who else was up for that in 1972.
I found nothing wrong with his performance as The Godfather, but than again I'm not an authority on the mannerisms of aging mafia Dons.

 

[Agee Bassett]

Indeed. But should the fact that what we express are opinions preclude us from attempting to articulate them in the most eloquent, persuasive, and thorough manner we possibly can? I don't think so, and I feel is the very essence of the exchange of ideas forums like HTF offer us.
FWIW, here are that year's nominees for Best Actor:
Marlon Brando - The Godfather
Peter O'Toole - The Ruling Class
Michael Caine - Sleuth
Laurence Olivier - Sleuth
Paul Winfield - Sounder
Olivier would have been my obvious choice (although nominating Pacino for the The Godfather in the correct category would have made it a little tougher).