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

[Rob Tomlin]

Quote:

I agree with this as well. I thought he was incredible in The Score.

 

[Seth Paxton]

He also has this habbit of shooting a room in such a way that is seems the viewer is peering into a cube. Ah, it's hard to explain. It is as if the camera took the place of one of the walls.

It's another of his trademarks to use a very wide lens (like fisheye) so that you see much more to the sides than you normally would. The effect is "tunnel-like", and of course you often see the distortion on the straight lines to the side of frame (they are curved).


I can agree that the acting itself is not documentary in style, but Kubrick still maintains that distance from the subject. I think the above mentioned style gives the appearance of looking into a diorama. It's fake, but you are much more aware of being an observer than you normally are. And normally such a distance occurs in documentaries which are intentionally removed from their subjects (its the nature of a doc.).

Normally a film tries to ENGAGE you so that you do feel as though you are there with the characters. But because documentaries do not follow a NARRATIVE structure (when they do they become less honest as a doc), you are detached rather than engaged, even though you often can see that the FILMMAKER WAS ENGAGED. The filmmaker's presence is more obviously known with a doc.

And since Kubrick makes his presence more known by obviously removing us from the narrative subjects, it ends up playing like a doc.

 

[george kaplan]

Flame away.

Toy Story
Planes, Trains & Automobiles
Toy Story 2
Back to the Future
Hopscotch
The Princess Bride
Animal House
Groundhog Day
Who Framed Roger Rabbit?
National Lampoon's Vacation
Victor/Victoria
The Blues Brothers

 

[Todd Phillips]

Back to the Future
The Blues Brothers

Ah yes definately! I can't believe I didn't think of these two.

 

[Yee-Ming]

Dr Strangelove is somewhat different from the other comedies suggested since it's satire; I think this gives it a "respectability" that straight-out comedies never seem to get from critics.

don't get me wrong, I absolutely love BTTF and Blues Brothers. these would appear on a personal list of top movies of the past 25 years; I'm just suggesting why Dr Strangelove can make "best films" lists whilst other comedies don't.

of course, for the purposes of this thread, we're way off base since Dr SL is too old.

 

[Seth Paxton]

I would be willing to consider Ghostbuster, Caddyshack, Blue Bros, and Animal House as great films (worthy of top notch status).

But a film that would have an easier time making my top lists would be something like Blazing Saddles. Strong comedy but social and political satire help give it more "legitimacy" against more serious films.

Obviously BS is not involved in the last 25 years.

 

[Robert Crawford]

,
This is a great point! IMO, for a film to be considered the greatest film in a particular timeframe it has to be able to reach the majority of it's audience as to the full story it was trying to convey. I think the film fails to accomplish that task which is why I agree with you that it doesn't deserve to be the greatest film in the last 25 years. My opinion is not based on any concrete evidence, but strictly is based on what people told me when discussing this film. I remembered walking out of the movie theater in Champaign, Illiniois in 1979, after seeing this film the first time and thinking to myself that I just watched a very good film, but somehow felt I was missing some of it's meaning.

By the way, the possibility of a perfect film in which the film reaches everyone that watched it, just doesn't exist and it never will. The best a filmmaker can ask for is that his/her story is properly communicated to the majority of their intended audience.




Crawdaddy

 

[Patrick Larkin]

This is a great point! IMO, for a film to be considered the greatest film in a particular timeframe it has to be able to reach the majority of it's audience as to the full story it was trying to convey.

so, a film cannot be great unless the director spells everything out for you? i wholeheartedly disagree. i believe a work of art, in any medium, must stand on its own, without preconceived notions of how to convey its message. thats like saying that 2001: A Space Odyssey could be considered the great scifi movie of all time if only that pesky kubrick would have used more dialog and explained what happened at the end.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Patrick,
Good for you, nothing wrong with disagreement, but I never said the director had to spell everything out for me which are your words, however, the main focus/message of the film can't be lost to the majority of the audience, otherwise, the goal of the director to tell his/her story is a failure. Most directors consider themselves storytellers which is different then just another work of art. Furthermore, I never said Apocalypse Now wasn't a great film, but just that it wasn't the greatest film of the last 25 years.




Crawdaddy

 

[Patrick Larkin]

the main focus/message of the film can't be lost to the majority of the audience, otherwise, the goal of the director to tell his/her story is a failure.

film is a different medium. sometimes, telling the story is not the only objective! that is why, IMHO, film is the greatest art form. imagery, sound, story, they all play together.

is 2001: A Space Odyssey a failure?

is Apocalypse Now a failure?

failure - your word, not mine.

 

[Robert Crawford]

Your question not mine.

By the way, if you have an axe to grind with me then let's take it offline without hijacking this thread and boring other members with our tit-for-tat dialogue.


Crawdaddy

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Robert -- this discussion is totally pertinent to the thread. btw, the thread was diverted when you claimed that AN could not be the greatest film of the last 25 years because it didn't convey its message to the majority audience members. you then qualified that statement by claiming that if the meaning is lost, the goal of the director has failed. i needn't quote you again.

i also find it humorous that you need to take a discussion "off line" when someone has the audacity to disagree with you. vehemently, in this case. we disagree, no need to flex.

Your question not mine.

It is a question you raised by claiming (1) that AN did not convey its meaning to the majority of audience members and (2) that any film that did not convey its meaning in total was a directorial failure.

 

[chung_sotheby]

Fade In:
Int. Courtroom - Establishing - Day
Robert Crawford
-You want answers?
Patrick Larkin
-I think I'm entitled
Robert Crawford
-You want answers?
Patrick Larkin
-I Want the Truth!
Robert Crawford
-You cant handle the truth!

Man, this is getting ugly! I like it.
I think that people are being a little too black and white, and not really seeing the gray area. While I see validity in both of your opinions, I think that both of you need to see the flip side. Yes, for a movie to be somewhat successful, a message has to be conveyed. However, this message does not have to be served on a silver platter. Many times, the message conveyed within a film is that much more satisfying if the viewer has to use his or her brain to figure it out. So, in the words of the late, great Jason Robards in Crimson Tide (why name a movie after a woman's monthly cycle):
"You were both right, but you are both wrong."

 

[Robert Crawford]

Patrick,
I can careless whether you disagree with me or not because what's been stated in this thread is nothing more than personal opinions and audacity has nothing to do with it. Now, if you want to continue your debate of my words then let's do so away from this thread which is about Apocalypse Now being the greatest film from the last 25 years.




Crawdaddy

 

[Patrick Larkin]

Now, if you want to continue your debate of my words then let's do so away from this thread which is about Apocalypse Now being the greatest film from the last 25 years.

i believe that is EXACTLY what our debate is about. You said it you feel that it is not based on some criteria. I am questioning your criteria. I was under this illusion that a discussion forum was all about debating words.

robert, you seem to come down in threads with an authoritative hammer. this is fine in instances of moderation, but i you are overreacting in this case.

 

[Holadem]

One point that has been repeatedly rammed home on this forum: You can't fault a classic for your failure to "get it". I don't agree, but such has been the motto...

The irony of this situation is classic.

--
Holadem

 

[Robert Crawford]

Like I mentioned earlier, I believe you have an axe to grind with me and if that's true then let's take it off line, otherwise, I've stated my opinion and don't have anything else to say on the matter.




Crawdaddy

 

[Robert Crawford]

Not true, but you're welcome to such thoughts.




Crawdaddy

 

[Patrick Larkin]

robert -- this is ridiculous. i question your statements and i automatically have an axe to grind with you personally. i have an axe to grind with your sweeping assessment that AN failed because it didn't convey its meaning to general public.

now, do YOU have an axe to grind with me?

 

[Jack Briggs]

Patrick, seriously, you're wasting your time trying to draw Mr. Crawford into a tit for tat. Please let it go, for your own good. He not only stated an opinion, but he stated why he holds that opinion.

This, from your fellow Stanley Kubrick devotee.

As for another contributor's dismissive comments about Mr. Kubrick's works, I refer back to Patrick Larkin (yep, the one addressed above): Both Moonwatcher's E.T.-assisted discovery of the bone as a weapon and David Bowman's transformation into the Starchild, both set to the accompaniment of the opening bars of Richard Strauss's Also sprach Zarathustra, never fail to yield an intense emotional response from me.

Some people are touched emotionally in different ways from the way mainstream Hollywood now manipulates audience emotion (stopping just short of holding up cue cards that scream, "Cry!" here or "say, 'Aww, isn't that sweet'" there).

Is Stanley Kubrick "overrated"? If so, why are his films the subject of debate, conversation, articles, books, documentaries, and more to this day? The tide of critical consensus weighs heavily against the kneejerk complaints of moviegoers who simply don't cotton to Mr. Kubrick's style of filmmaking. Whether you like his work or dislike it, it still remains great. You simply don't care for it, is all.

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.