Rapid response to John's VAMPYR rump kicking, which was a great read:
How is VAMPYR pure trash because of its narrative failings while being technically innovative and masterful? By that logic, BIRTH OF A NATION is a piece of shit. Sure, it's technically and visually a landmark, but it's subject matter kills it completely (I had to bring up BOAN again; we need another dead horse 'round here). If you can't admit that VAMPYR is great merely for its "how" instead of its "what" then you need to call BIRTH OF A NATION a piece of trashy, low-brow garbage passed off as one of the greatest films ever made right now! :)
"There are some fantastic images and some interesting camera motion.
BIRTH OF A NATION???
I actually think that what I've seen of BOAN is great because it's so technically incredible. Had the same reaction to VAMPYR. Am I just some hardcore auteurist? I guess so.
But seriously, I can appreciate a film for being purely a technical marvel. I just said as much about some of Max Ophüls' films. I loved VAMPYR for its dreamy atmosphere, crazy visuals, and inventive camera work. I expected to be bored by it actually, and instead thought it was awesome.
All right, so I'm getting all defensive here. But I have to be; it's my number one pick for 1932! Brandon, where are you? Help me out, buddy. At least we got Jonathan Rosenbaum on our side: http://www.chicagoreader.com/chicago/vampyr/Film?oid=1151077
In all honesty, it's nice to interact on anything 30s at all. Even if you hated something I dug, John, it's still great to talk about it. Thanks for sending that smack my way.
And I fully expect you to shit on L'AGE D'OR and smack me around once again. I can't wait to read it!