having trouble getting through a few classics (1 Viewer)

[Zen Butler]

Jeff, nicely said.

 

[Leo Kerr]

2001, for the most part, is a fairly interesting, albiet 'slow' feeling film.

Unfortunately, for the last reel or so, it degenerates into loop-loop land, and will very easily turn some people (read: me,) off.

Hitchcock, I'm afraid, also suffers from a gross generalization. I'm not much into the 'suspense' genre, and Rear Window put me to sleep. (I also don't like Jimmy Stewart; he strikes me too much as a used-car salesman, or something. Either that or Fred Rogers?) But, I recall enjoying Hitchcock's 'To Catch a Thief,' so I'm not going to trash-talk everything he did without seeing it. Just, if there's a choice of Hitchcock or something else, I'll generally lean toward 'something else.' (Actually, I also did rather enjoy 'The Trouble with Harry...')

Now, I think I'm going to say something very dangerous here. Just because a movie is 'slow' or 'nothing happens' doesn't mean it can't be good. A good example of a 'slow' and 'nothing really happens' film is 'My Neighbor Totoro.' But it's a charming, fun little film that, for some reason, I can take it's leisurely telling of it's very mild story quite easily.

Leo Kerr

 

[Brook K]

You're supposed to find Jimmy Stewart creepy in Vertigo. His behavior, and by implication "our" behavior, is the real "point" or theme of the film.

As for whoever mentioned Fassbinder, I'm not sure which films you've seen, but your being put off by Brechtian distancing only applies to his early films 68-71 or so. His middle and late period films are very rich, character driven, and personal works. He was still using framing devices in shooting, but his writing and characters were more in the Ray, Sirk, Curtiz mold.

Also as you see more of his films, you become familiar with his stock company of actors. This almost negates the distancing techniques because, though the characters or situations may be strange, we are grounded by a previous knowledge and (hopefully) positive opinion of the actors just as you would be in a new Hollywood film where you are familiar with the players.

Back to the thread topic, I managed to fall asleep during two films last night - Elena and her Men and Blade Runner. Of course I was at a casino playing poker until 3am the previous night and had just driven from St. Louis to Atlanta. Plus I tried to watch Blade Runner while laying in bed, never a good idea. My sleeping is almost never a reflection on the movie (I do agree with the posters that L'Avventura is a great insomnia cure), but more a reflection that I don't get nearly as much sleep as I should. I haven't quite accepted that I'm not 20 anymore and can't run on two hours of sleep.

 

[BarryR]

I like OUT OF AFRICA.

 

[Brad E]

This is my feeling as well. I really want to see Casablanca, Citizen Kane, and GWTW. I've seen GWTW before when I was a kid and can't remember anything about it.

I plan to go into it with an open mind and no expectations. Should be interesting.

 

[MatthewLouwrens]

Absolutely. One of Hitchcock's most brilliant moments of audience manipulation. He spends the first two-thirds of the film bringing the audience into Jimmy Stewart's mind, causing us to sympathise, even feel the way he feels. Then he provides us with one piece of information that Stewart doesn't have. That information is enugh to completely distance the audience from his character, and cause us to watch in revulsion at where Stewart goes. The astonishing thing is that, had we not been provided with that information until the end (as in the original novel), I am completely convinced that the audience would not have realised just how awful his behaviour was, and we would still be going along with him, sympathising and feeling the same as him.

Vertigo for me is a fascinating film. I can relate with the way some people in this thread feel about the film - I felt the same first viewing. I didn't dislike it, it just didn't do anything for me. It was so slow - over two hours for that story? It was so aimless, so meaningless, it just seemed to drift along, meandering, wandering. Fortunately, I later watched it again, and it was like it was a different film. Yes, the film seems to wander directionless - this is one of the key points to the film - Scotty is wandering directionless in his life, and the way the film is made reflects that. But the whole point about wandering is that you're not really going anywhere, while the film is going somewhere. And now I can watch the film knowing where it is heading, I am astonished at how breathlessly fast it actually is in getting to its destination, even as it feels like its moving slowly.
End result: Vertigo has gone from being a film I didn't dislike, but also didn't exactly like, to being my favourite film.

I'm astonished at the lack of interest in this thread in Rear Window as well. RW was the only film I can think of where I actually found myself trying to yell to warn Grace Kelly, I was so caught up in it.

Still, we all have films that are great films that we don't really connect with. For me, it's Gone With The Wind (I'm sorry, but Scarlett was a bitch - the film almost has a Tarantino-sized death toll, and the only person I want to die is the only one that doesn't?). For others, it's Vertigo, or Rear Window. It's a shame you're not able to take out of these films what I take, but that's the way it is in this world.

I do encourage people, if there was a film you didn't really like that is well respected, come back to it aftr some time has passed. You may find your reaction surprises you.

 

[Michael Reuben]

That's a good description of Scarlett, who is first and foremost a survivor (and everyone else be damned). It's what I love about Vivien Leigh's performance. Never once does she try to win the audience's sympathy; she just plays steely determination to the hilt. Melanie, Ashley and Rhett are the admirable ones, and it's part of the point that Scarlett, in all her self-centered foolishness, is always the one left standing. She's the original steel magnolia.

M.

 

[Lew Crippen]

And me—I do think that Gone with the Wind should be on everyone’s ‘must-see’ list, because it is a n important movie. But it is not a very good one—just one example is the death of the girl. Could anything be more obvious or overdone?

One of the things that often puzzles me when reading some of the comments on films like Vertigo, is how many people react negatively to a film, based on their like or dislike of the lead character. Of course this should be no real surprise, given how many movies get the ‘Hollywood ending’.

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Oh, I know what Hitchcock was doing here. He is very successful in his technique. He is also either a genius in casting Stewart in this role, or it is the most miscast role of all time. Given the uneasyness of many at seeing Stewart become creepy as the movie goes on (Hitch's goal, IMHO), I'd say it was genius. My personal feeling is that I don't like the movie because I cannot get past the "Jimmy Stewart as stalker" casting. This makes the movie brilliant and successful, just not to my *personal* liking. I don't enjoy it personally, much the same way I do not enjoy 2001, but admit it is an important and brilliant film. Too many in this thread try to make personal feelings evolve into a definitive statement on the quality of a director or his works. I hope I have made the distinction between the "I disliked (enter film here) for x,y and z reasons" and the "I don't see what anyone saw in (enter film here), that flick sucked and anybody who says different is a snob/elitist" schools of thought.

 

[Lew Crippen]

You did Jeff—and very well indeed.

 

[Bob Turnbull]

Excellent...If you're looking for a good place to start (in my overly biased opinion) try 12 Angry Men from 1957. Stars a whole whack of actors (uh, twelve to be exact...) and I found it fascinating for its entire run time of just over 90 minutes. Though it happens almost exclusively in one room (a jury room), there wasn't a dull moment throughout their examination of the evidence and the interactions of the characters. The acting was superb - especially E.G. Marshall and Lee J. Cobb.

It was probably one of the first B&W movies I saw that I truly loved and I think helped open the older movies up for me (previously my experience with older movies was through my parents and I always found them, well, dull...). I still salivate at the thought of some of the films I haven't yet seen from before the 60's...

You might also want to try To Kill A Mockingbird. From 1962, but still in B&W. Love that film.

Thanks for the words about Vertigo Matthew...I'll have to revisit it. I've pretty much been in the camp of the unconverted since I saw it 8-9 years ago in its theatrical re-release.

As for other classics that just don't grab me? The one that always springs to my mind is The Magnificent Seven. At the risk of sounding like Diane Chambers from "Cheers", it just doesn't hold a candle to Seven Samurai. It seemed to run through some of its characters with nary a glimpse and I thought Horst Buchholz was terrible in his role (which was actually somewhat of a merge of two of the characters from the original).

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Blasphemer! Infidel!!

The great thing about TMS is that you had one fairly established Hollywood actor (Brynner) competeing with a bunch of up and coming studs (McQueen, Coburn, Bronson etc.). Watch the dynamic between Brynner and McQueen. Every time Yul has a scene with "presence", McQueen is doing some quirky hand movement (fixing his gun, shielding his eyes, dipping his hat in the water) to steal screen time from him. The group scenes might as well have been a "who's the alpha male" contest. Coburn hardly says a line and he almost steals the show with his understated "gunslinger" look and Bronson's physical presence is overwhelming. Couple this pissing contest with the greatest Jewish/Hispanic (Eli Wallach) since Juan Epstein and great cheesy dialog ("Elected?" "Nope, but I was nominated.") and you have one of my favorite westerns of all time.

I say again - Blasphemer!

 

[BrettB]

You elected?
Na. I got nominated real good.

I think that's a little closer. My favorite line from the movie. Cheesy? I guess I don't know my cheese.

 

[Joe Karlosi]

MAGNIFICENT SEVEN wasn't that great to me either. Loved HIGH NOON, though!

 

[Jeff Gatie]

Brett, you are correct. And I don't think the dialog is cheesy, I was trying to temper my enthusiasm in light of my "blasphemer" accusation:b . I think the dialog is great:

"He's prejudiced too, huh? "
"Well, when it comes to a chance of getting his head blown off, he's downright bigoted."

"Ah, that was the greatest shot I've ever seen."
"The worst! I was aiming at the horse."

"I have been paid a lot for my work, but never everything."

And my favorite:

"You know - I've been in some towns where the girls weren't all that pretty. In fact I've been in some towns where they're downright ugly. But it's the first time I've been in a town where there are no girls at all, 'cept little ones. You know if we're not careful we could have quite a social life here."

 

[Kevin Hewell]

The one person I wanted to die was one who did - Melanie. She was such a goody-two-shoes that I wanted to strangle her. Scarlett, on the other hand, was my kind of woman. I still think Vivian Leigh was one of the most beautiful women ever.

Oh, and Ashley could have bought the farm as well and I wouldn't have shed a tear.

 

[SteveGon]

I know that feeling - I dozed off watching Predator today. So much for my appreciation of classic action flicks.

 

[Jack Briggs]

You know, about two or three times a year we have this same old conversation in some incarnation or another. And the same thing happens every time: teenagers and twentysomethings thinking they sound cool by tearing down timeless works while, in reality, they are saying more about themselves than they realize.

Whatever.

But it's those occasional posts by the established, informed veterans that remind me why I came to Home Theater Forum in the first place.

To paraphrase, "This thread too shall pass."



Thank you, Steve Christou, for saying this so that I don't have to repeat my same song'n'dance again in this thread.

 

[Angelo.M]

Keeping an open mind about art, in general, pays dividends.

Taking a chance on a film, "classic" or not, is always a winning proposition because it is as important to discover films you do not like as it is to find ones that you adore. This is essential in refining your taste and it is essential in expanding your film vocabulary. Plus, films you don't enjoy provide a frame of reference for those you do, and they help you understand what it is you really enjoy in film.

Since 2001 has come up, I'll admit to not being a great fan of Kubrick's films; I'd go so far as to say that I dislike many of them (for what it's worth, I do like 2001; it's my favorite Kubrick). But I recognize the craftsmanship, I see the skill of his execution and I appreciate the complexity of his vision, even if the films don't always work for me. And, furthermore, I see elements in his films that I do enjoy, and that I find repeated in the films I love. So, in a sense, watching Kubrick for me is like research. Did I just kill the fun of it all? I hope not.

My suggestion: if you hate Casablanca, try watching it with someone who doesn't. You are bound to see something you hadn't before, and that, in my book, is always a good thing. I recently watched The Limey, a film which just sort of floated across my brain the first time, with my brother, who teaches film theory, and who loves the film. Just watching it with him and hearing him explain precisely what it is about the movie that works for him was an education for me. We can still disagree about the film, but my appreciation is greater.

 

[Lew Crippen]

Based on Angelo’s post, I think that the entire HTF membership needs to watch L’Avventura with me, as I seem to be all alone in finding the movie riveting. I even liked The Red Desert.

I can however see why others don’t much care for the movie.