Okay, I've had another night to think over MELANCHOLIA, and I've come to the absolute conclusion that I need to see it again. I liked the Emerson review, especially for leading me to the film's website where vT (or just T if you are an Emersonian) is asking viewers to look underneath the "nice" and the "polish." I'm now determined to do so.
As much as it pains me to imagine a "grown up" Lars (thanks for the Nazi comments at least to stop that argument), I'm curious to see how he is adapting his humor and nihilism to new forms. Maturity is a hard word to swallow. It's like our friend Todd settling down. But if Lars has found a new way to channel his cynicism or to mask it behind things then I want to dig down with him.
I'm already starting to like the film the more I think about as a whole. I agree with you John that it's better in retrospect than it was watching it. Part of me still wants to dislike it for being too likable. Part of me wants that infantile rejection of maturity and tastefulness. But the other part of me realizes that there are other ways to make art, and that an artist, like everything else, is in constant flux.
I feel a little like when an underground band you love puts out a more mainstream album and people start getting on board. Your first instinct is to recoil. But this is all focused on externals. I need to sit down with the film again and watch it for what it is and let Brandon's approval be damned haha.
Still, if indeed my punk juvenile has "grown up" as John suggests then I'm going to need a moment of silence followed by some Tom Waits to help me through it:
Saturday, November 12, 2011
Friday, November 11, 2011
MELANCHOLIA is not cynical enough
Am I the only one in the world making this argument?
Love the posts so far.
I think the lack of any vituperation coming from John and Brandon completely proves my point that this is one of the safest von Trier films yet. You know, something really is different with this one. It does seem less cynical, which surprised me.
And it’s just not that risky by his standards. Not that it had to be completely risky, but for an apocalyptic comedy-disaster movie about depression, I would have expected a bit more from him. It’s not as depressing as it could have been haha. That sounds ridiculous, but that is my most legitimate criticism of the film. It’s just not mean enough.
I told this to Chris already, but I really wanted there to be one final shot after Melancholia hits earth. I wanted to see a nice cold, empty shot of space. That’s it. Perhaps very faintly in the distance one could make out the collision of the two planets like the tiny flicker of an ember. But mostly focused on the empty and yet completely vast space of the universe. A universe that feels this destruction no more than a statue would feel a particle of dust landing on it. If the film had cut to this, I probably would have stood up and clapped. Because that subtle change would have been such a beautiful little nihilistic joke. I would have laughed, I would have clapped, I would have been happy. Maybe I’m just a weirdo, but I like jokes like that. And I feel like Lars does too.
I only say all this because I was waiting the whole time for these nihilistic jokes to come out in the film. I wanted those subtle digs that pack such a mean visceral punch, like a lot of his other films. I was quite pleased to find Kiefer Sutherland’s character dead and Melancholia coming back towards Earth just after he had promised it would all be okay and had shown Clair how it was shrinking in the distance. I agree with the assessment on how terrific a suspense device that wire thingy is. And it sets up a great joke–perhaps the best in the movie. Once the planet started coming closer to Earth, I was getting excited. I liked a majority of the ending, but I was waiting for more jokes! Maybe I missed some subtle ones, but mostly I felt like there was room for more provocation and black humor.
Here’s a telling point: Before I saw the film I read something saying that Lars called this ending the first time one of his films had actually ended negatively. Based on that, I was expecting big things from this ending. I thought we’d get something insanely provocative, nihilistic, and harshly comedic. By the end I knew we weren’t getting something so provocative, so I just wanted something subtly funny like the shot of space. Anything to give it that little cynical twist.
I don’t need all my films to be cynical (wait til you hear my love for the Dardenne’s THE SON–zero cynicism there and it’s blissful), and I don’t even want most films to be cynical. But I’ve come to expect a cetain aggressively nihilistic punk rock attitude from Lars. I just find it funny and oddly pleasing, especially in a world that takes itself too seriously. His films always feel like a great ego check to me. But with MELANCHOLIA, I feel like my man toned it down too much for a film I was expecting to be a nihilistic masterpiece. Most of y’all probably disagree, but I need my nihilism in art from time to time. It’s an outlet. Lars is one of my sanctuaries.
As I said earlier, I can’t wait for THE NYMPHOMANIC to come out and be awful and gross, and for everyone to hate it. Then I will be smiling.
Quick note: I want to see this movie again, by myself. I’ll admit that I have trouble emotionally connecting to movies when I watch them with other people (and when I’m really sleepy, as was doubly the case last night). Movies are always less intimate for me around others. Like I wrote before about THE TREE OF LIFE, I usually need just myself and a tv for real film love to occur. I need the film to speak right at me and no one else. Anyway, I owe it to Lars to try and reconnect on my own. I'm not willing to write this off as a total disappointment yet.
Love the posts so far.
I think the lack of any vituperation coming from John and Brandon completely proves my point that this is one of the safest von Trier films yet. You know, something really is different with this one. It does seem less cynical, which surprised me.
And it’s just not that risky by his standards. Not that it had to be completely risky, but for an apocalyptic comedy-disaster movie about depression, I would have expected a bit more from him. It’s not as depressing as it could have been haha. That sounds ridiculous, but that is my most legitimate criticism of the film. It’s just not mean enough.
I told this to Chris already, but I really wanted there to be one final shot after Melancholia hits earth. I wanted to see a nice cold, empty shot of space. That’s it. Perhaps very faintly in the distance one could make out the collision of the two planets like the tiny flicker of an ember. But mostly focused on the empty and yet completely vast space of the universe. A universe that feels this destruction no more than a statue would feel a particle of dust landing on it. If the film had cut to this, I probably would have stood up and clapped. Because that subtle change would have been such a beautiful little nihilistic joke. I would have laughed, I would have clapped, I would have been happy. Maybe I’m just a weirdo, but I like jokes like that. And I feel like Lars does too.
I only say all this because I was waiting the whole time for these nihilistic jokes to come out in the film. I wanted those subtle digs that pack such a mean visceral punch, like a lot of his other films. I was quite pleased to find Kiefer Sutherland’s character dead and Melancholia coming back towards Earth just after he had promised it would all be okay and had shown Clair how it was shrinking in the distance. I agree with the assessment on how terrific a suspense device that wire thingy is. And it sets up a great joke–perhaps the best in the movie. Once the planet started coming closer to Earth, I was getting excited. I liked a majority of the ending, but I was waiting for more jokes! Maybe I missed some subtle ones, but mostly I felt like there was room for more provocation and black humor.
Here’s a telling point: Before I saw the film I read something saying that Lars called this ending the first time one of his films had actually ended negatively. Based on that, I was expecting big things from this ending. I thought we’d get something insanely provocative, nihilistic, and harshly comedic. By the end I knew we weren’t getting something so provocative, so I just wanted something subtly funny like the shot of space. Anything to give it that little cynical twist.
I don’t need all my films to be cynical (wait til you hear my love for the Dardenne’s THE SON–zero cynicism there and it’s blissful), and I don’t even want most films to be cynical. But I’ve come to expect a cetain aggressively nihilistic punk rock attitude from Lars. I just find it funny and oddly pleasing, especially in a world that takes itself too seriously. His films always feel like a great ego check to me. But with MELANCHOLIA, I feel like my man toned it down too much for a film I was expecting to be a nihilistic masterpiece. Most of y’all probably disagree, but I need my nihilism in art from time to time. It’s an outlet. Lars is one of my sanctuaries.
As I said earlier, I can’t wait for THE NYMPHOMANIC to come out and be awful and gross, and for everyone to hate it. Then I will be smiling.
Quick note: I want to see this movie again, by myself. I’ll admit that I have trouble emotionally connecting to movies when I watch them with other people (and when I’m really sleepy, as was doubly the case last night). Movies are always less intimate for me around others. Like I wrote before about THE TREE OF LIFE, I usually need just myself and a tv for real film love to occur. I need the film to speak right at me and no one else. Anyway, I owe it to Lars to try and reconnect on my own. I'm not willing to write this off as a total disappointment yet.
The planet is called Melancholia...
...and it's a symbol for melancholia.
Okay...so...MELANCHOLIA.
I’m going to have to come out and admit upfront that I was disappointed by it. I was expecting more from Lars von Trier. This one plays it almost too safe, which is why I think that so many critics who previously have trashed LVT have got on board. It’s beautiful and meditative, the worst that happens is what has been guaranteed by the beginning, there’s no clit snipping, no controversial moral claims, nothing too crazy, nothing too explicitly anti-American. It’s about depression, and it’s a disaster movie. Simple enough for most critics. But not what I'd come to expect from LVT. It's just too tepid throughout most of it.
(Question: Can a depression movie ever be well done without making you hate the character(s) who are depressed?)
The prologue is genuinely terrific. Beautiful, cryptic, and haunting. Anytime there was a scene recalling the prologue or recreating parts of it (the music with dramatic shots of the sky or the planet in the distance) I was interested. But I suspect mostly because it recalled 2001 and THE TREE OF LIFE. There is much style to this picture. A style that LVT seems to be harnessing from the similarly beautiful ANTICHRIST. But there isn’t too much else beyond this.
I have no problem with the film’s bleakness. Anyone who knows me should know that I’m a sucker for anything nihilistic and...hmmm...what’s the word....oh yes, melancholic. I didn’t really find the film all that depressing or bleak. Sure, nothing good happens, ever. But I was expecting a more intense experience. If I’m gonna be swimming in bleakness, then dunk me in the deep end. Shock and surprise me a little bit. Get my blood pumping. SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK is a film that sinks you down deep into the mire so much so that it takes on an incredible beauty of its own. This is just riding the surface.
I guess one major problem is that I wasn’t really engaged. I didn’t care about any of the characters–at all (are we supposed to care?). The opening act with Justine’s wedding actually bored me a bit. It reminded me too much of RACHEL GETTING MARRIED. The second act is much better because at least with it we are able to anticipate the disaster coming instead of just wallowing in Justine’s depression. There’s a great moment in act two where Justine is laying naked (yep that’s great in itself but there’s more!) with the image of Melancholia floating above her. That’s the LVT I love. Making her fascination with this impending disaster sexually stimulating. I can almost see her laying there yelling “Let Melancholia fuck you! Let Melancholia fuck you!” It’s an interesting moment, but it is all too short. That hint of something more interesting going on is often there in MELANCHOLIA, but it rarely comes to fruition.
There was nothing that really shocked or excited me in any real way. This is likely a result of feeling emotionally distant from the characters. Certainly, MELANCHOLIA is beautiful, well-made, and better than most fare you will find around (If you want to see a modern disaster picture, this is easily a better bet than the latest Roland Emmerich apoco-porn). And it’s depressing–but who cares? I’ve been more depressed and more intrigued by LVT’s other films because they at least challenged or excitied me into caring. This just didn’t engage me.
However, I remain a believer in Lars von Trier. I’m a big fan. I think he’s at his best when he’s being a mixture of super creative, provocative, and urgent. MELANCHOLIA isn’t really any of those three for the most part of it. But I have faith in him for next time. He’s worked through his depression movie, got it out of his system, now he can move on to the tactfully titled THE NYMPHOMANIC. Hopefully that fucks MELANCHOLIA to death.
Okay...so...MELANCHOLIA.
I’m going to have to come out and admit upfront that I was disappointed by it. I was expecting more from Lars von Trier. This one plays it almost too safe, which is why I think that so many critics who previously have trashed LVT have got on board. It’s beautiful and meditative, the worst that happens is what has been guaranteed by the beginning, there’s no clit snipping, no controversial moral claims, nothing too crazy, nothing too explicitly anti-American. It’s about depression, and it’s a disaster movie. Simple enough for most critics. But not what I'd come to expect from LVT. It's just too tepid throughout most of it.
(Question: Can a depression movie ever be well done without making you hate the character(s) who are depressed?)
The prologue is genuinely terrific. Beautiful, cryptic, and haunting. Anytime there was a scene recalling the prologue or recreating parts of it (the music with dramatic shots of the sky or the planet in the distance) I was interested. But I suspect mostly because it recalled 2001 and THE TREE OF LIFE. There is much style to this picture. A style that LVT seems to be harnessing from the similarly beautiful ANTICHRIST. But there isn’t too much else beyond this.
I have no problem with the film’s bleakness. Anyone who knows me should know that I’m a sucker for anything nihilistic and...hmmm...what’s the word....oh yes, melancholic. I didn’t really find the film all that depressing or bleak. Sure, nothing good happens, ever. But I was expecting a more intense experience. If I’m gonna be swimming in bleakness, then dunk me in the deep end. Shock and surprise me a little bit. Get my blood pumping. SYNECDOCHE, NEW YORK is a film that sinks you down deep into the mire so much so that it takes on an incredible beauty of its own. This is just riding the surface.
I guess one major problem is that I wasn’t really engaged. I didn’t care about any of the characters–at all (are we supposed to care?). The opening act with Justine’s wedding actually bored me a bit. It reminded me too much of RACHEL GETTING MARRIED. The second act is much better because at least with it we are able to anticipate the disaster coming instead of just wallowing in Justine’s depression. There’s a great moment in act two where Justine is laying naked (yep that’s great in itself but there’s more!) with the image of Melancholia floating above her. That’s the LVT I love. Making her fascination with this impending disaster sexually stimulating. I can almost see her laying there yelling “Let Melancholia fuck you! Let Melancholia fuck you!” It’s an interesting moment, but it is all too short. That hint of something more interesting going on is often there in MELANCHOLIA, but it rarely comes to fruition.
There was nothing that really shocked or excited me in any real way. This is likely a result of feeling emotionally distant from the characters. Certainly, MELANCHOLIA is beautiful, well-made, and better than most fare you will find around (If you want to see a modern disaster picture, this is easily a better bet than the latest Roland Emmerich apoco-porn). And it’s depressing–but who cares? I’ve been more depressed and more intrigued by LVT’s other films because they at least challenged or excitied me into caring. This just didn’t engage me.
However, I remain a believer in Lars von Trier. I’m a big fan. I think he’s at his best when he’s being a mixture of super creative, provocative, and urgent. MELANCHOLIA isn’t really any of those three for the most part of it. But I have faith in him for next time. He’s worked through his depression movie, got it out of his system, now he can move on to the tactfully titled THE NYMPHOMANIC. Hopefully that fucks MELANCHOLIA to death.
Monday, November 7, 2011
colorado territory
I remember that this was one of the first films John talked about when I joined film club, and it reminded me that I had a lot of catching up to do in my classic film viewing. Especially classic film that wasn't AFI-certified. I think one of the best things I am learning about going back and watching films according to their years is that there are so many great films around that no one ever hears about. COLORADO TERRITORY is one of 'em.
What an inspired idea to take this noir-ish story of love and doom and turn it into a western. It works just as well in this setting (maybe some would say better even) as it does in HIGH SIERRA. And what a great story it is too. Even though I knew I was watching the same basic story as HS, it still always seemed fresh and exciting. It helps when you have really fine performers like McCrea and Mayo to breathe new life into their characters. It also helps when you've got someone like Walsh who knows how to make the film distinctive enough to its own setting that it actually stands on its own.
And you are right Brandon, this ending is an improvement on HS, if only because it focuses more on the two leads together as opposed to singling out just one. Mayo's character is more rugged than Lupino's, so it makes sense that she would go down shooting. But they are both just as loyal to their lovable outlaws, so having them both go down with their men, as the doomed lovers they are, makes sense as well. CT seems to understand this connection between the two characters better. But HS's ending is still great–it's just more tragic.
Also, I watched JOHNNY GUITAR and it is equally awesome. You are hooked right from the intense opening moments when Vienna literally has her back to the wall, surrounded by an angry mob and one of the most odious female villains in all of film. From there it is just terrific entertainment, a pervading sense of uneasiness, and the wonderful eye of Ray. Another great one.
What an inspired idea to take this noir-ish story of love and doom and turn it into a western. It works just as well in this setting (maybe some would say better even) as it does in HIGH SIERRA. And what a great story it is too. Even though I knew I was watching the same basic story as HS, it still always seemed fresh and exciting. It helps when you have really fine performers like McCrea and Mayo to breathe new life into their characters. It also helps when you've got someone like Walsh who knows how to make the film distinctive enough to its own setting that it actually stands on its own.
And you are right Brandon, this ending is an improvement on HS, if only because it focuses more on the two leads together as opposed to singling out just one. Mayo's character is more rugged than Lupino's, so it makes sense that she would go down shooting. But they are both just as loyal to their lovable outlaws, so having them both go down with their men, as the doomed lovers they are, makes sense as well. CT seems to understand this connection between the two characters better. But HS's ending is still great–it's just more tragic.
Also, I watched JOHNNY GUITAR and it is equally awesome. You are hooked right from the intense opening moments when Vienna literally has her back to the wall, surrounded by an angry mob and one of the most odious female villains in all of film. From there it is just terrific entertainment, a pervading sense of uneasiness, and the wonderful eye of Ray. Another great one.
Sunday, November 6, 2011
Let's!
[Edit: I just see that John posted. Yes sir, FOUR FACES WEST has been added to my instant queue. It'll help with my 48 list, so I'll get to it soon.]
Ben, so glad that you watched THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE and that you loved it. I do too. I think strange and funny would aptly describe Bunuel's entire oeuvre. You are not alone on the actress confusion either. I think this film and MULHOLLAND DRIVE are among the only two times (that I can recall) where I literally did a double take and thought, "wait...what??" Bunuel was a mad scientist, genius, and vaudeville comedian all rolled into one.
Brandon, I totally understand the issue of wanting to like something that you really don't. We did those lists on movies you don't like but feel like you should, and they basically captured the sense of struggle between cultural opinion and personal opinion. I think in a vacuum one could watch BLOW UP and have no issue admitting boredom. But once the cultural weight it has is thrown on your shoulders, the struggle begins. I still say that if you are seriously interested in excavating something like BLOW UP, then you should get over your boredom and try to find something you can actually criticize or analyze about it. If you are not interested then let it be.
Boredom isn't an argument to have against something. It always belies something else, be it a fault in the movie or a fault in yourself. If you seriously care or want to care about what you are watching, then you at least owe it to yourself to find out where the fault lies.
Thanks for responding to the '41 list. You know, writing these lists is like playing tennis–I need someone to actually hit the ball back or else I'm just swatting awkwardly at the wind. Plus, I'm really lousy at starting a discussion on movies I really like. I never know what to say beyond, "This is great" or "I love this." I think it's because, through my schooling, I'm only used to writing arguments for or against something. I've never really had practice at writing a review of something or gushing about my thoughts on why I like it. On writing, it's always been, "who cares if you like something or not, find something to argue for or against in it." Anyway, I'm trying to get better at it, and I benefit from reading everyone else's responses to movies. Case in point:
CITIZEN KANE - with KANE, I think you can have the opposite affect to watching something like BLOW UP. You could strip away all of it's cultural value and importance and still love it completely on its own merits. I remember watching it for the first time. I knew it was important and popular, but I had no clue how revolutionary it was in terms of composition or storytelling. I remember just loving the story, the acting, and the imagery. It was a beautiful package. Now I watch it and still love it for all the reasons I ever did, but can also appreciate how technically masterful it is. Yeah, this one's difficult to refute, to say the least.
HIGH SIERRA - Absolutely, having the gangsters tied to one last job before turning a new leaf always tests our desire for their redemption in the face of the overwhelming certainty of their demise. I completely agree, throw a girl AND a dog into it (and it doesn't hurt that your gangster is one of the most, if not the most, appealing actors of all time) and you are begging for him to get away, just this once. I had that reaction watching it. And I think that is why I loved it so much. Walsh and that ineluctable executioner the Hays Code make this a tragedy that is more than just seen but deeply felt.
SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS - You won't find me disagreeing that Struges was one of the best writers to ever work in film.. Every time I see one of his films I'm reminded of his genius. He had such a gift for comedy and dialogue, and he was always moving the story forward through his wit and skill (you can see why guys like the Coens and Tarantino are such fans). This one makes me laugh every time–an almost Chaplin-esque laughter.
HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - I agree, Ford does seem to have been a born director like Hitchcock. It's funny to hear him talk about directing because he couldn't be more dismissive of it. Seemingly always willing to berate someone for calling him an artist, he never strayed from the opinion that directing was just a way to make a living. But, of course, the talent and care he put into his pictures seems to belie that offhand exterior. The same with his his sympathy for the downtrodden, as you mentioned. I really like THE GRAPES OF WRATH, so maybe that's why I like this one so much as well. Ford is just one of those guys I'm so in awe of as a director that his films always benefit.
THE MALTESE FALCON - I prefer THE BIG SLEEP as well (one of my absolute favorite films, period), but I think the real crown jewel (and I think you'd agree) of the Huston/Bogie connection is SIERRA MADRE. That one certainly rivals the great Hawks/Bogie films. But anyway, TMF really is the stuff that dreams are made of.
BALL OF FIRE - I should have mentioned Brackett and Wilder. The combo of their talents with the myriad talents of Hawks makes this such a blast. I think I've run out of superlatives for Hawks as it stands. I love his movies.
I agree and don't really have anything to add on MAN HUNT and THE LADY EVE. MH is a great thriller from a master of the genre and TLE is another reason to fall in love with the already supremely lovable Stanwyck and Struges.
SUSPICION - I guess the ending feels cheap because we know where Hitch wanted to take it, but was thwarted. Still, I can appreciate the fact that the ending surprised me. I wouldn't have guessed that Grant's character was innocent. I guess the message the censors wanted was don't suspect your husband even when he has given you copious reasons to suspect him haha. But anyway, agreed that even lesser Hitch is better than most other stuff.
DUMBO is all about motherly love and nostalgia. Agreed.
Great comment on all the directors here. It does find them doing what they do best. I'd love to do director months. It would be really fun and would help fill in some of my many film gaps. I'd be game whenever. I'd just need to watch a bunch with you or do lots of borrowing.
I'll do an ATTACK THE BLOCK post soon.
a 1945 list is on its way, so be ready.
AND a 2003 list is coming soon too, so everyone be ready...to be let down.
Ben, so glad that you watched THAT OBSCURE OBJECT OF DESIRE and that you loved it. I do too. I think strange and funny would aptly describe Bunuel's entire oeuvre. You are not alone on the actress confusion either. I think this film and MULHOLLAND DRIVE are among the only two times (that I can recall) where I literally did a double take and thought, "wait...what??" Bunuel was a mad scientist, genius, and vaudeville comedian all rolled into one.
Brandon, I totally understand the issue of wanting to like something that you really don't. We did those lists on movies you don't like but feel like you should, and they basically captured the sense of struggle between cultural opinion and personal opinion. I think in a vacuum one could watch BLOW UP and have no issue admitting boredom. But once the cultural weight it has is thrown on your shoulders, the struggle begins. I still say that if you are seriously interested in excavating something like BLOW UP, then you should get over your boredom and try to find something you can actually criticize or analyze about it. If you are not interested then let it be.
Boredom isn't an argument to have against something. It always belies something else, be it a fault in the movie or a fault in yourself. If you seriously care or want to care about what you are watching, then you at least owe it to yourself to find out where the fault lies.
Thanks for responding to the '41 list. You know, writing these lists is like playing tennis–I need someone to actually hit the ball back or else I'm just swatting awkwardly at the wind. Plus, I'm really lousy at starting a discussion on movies I really like. I never know what to say beyond, "This is great" or "I love this." I think it's because, through my schooling, I'm only used to writing arguments for or against something. I've never really had practice at writing a review of something or gushing about my thoughts on why I like it. On writing, it's always been, "who cares if you like something or not, find something to argue for or against in it." Anyway, I'm trying to get better at it, and I benefit from reading everyone else's responses to movies. Case in point:
CITIZEN KANE - with KANE, I think you can have the opposite affect to watching something like BLOW UP. You could strip away all of it's cultural value and importance and still love it completely on its own merits. I remember watching it for the first time. I knew it was important and popular, but I had no clue how revolutionary it was in terms of composition or storytelling. I remember just loving the story, the acting, and the imagery. It was a beautiful package. Now I watch it and still love it for all the reasons I ever did, but can also appreciate how technically masterful it is. Yeah, this one's difficult to refute, to say the least.
HIGH SIERRA - Absolutely, having the gangsters tied to one last job before turning a new leaf always tests our desire for their redemption in the face of the overwhelming certainty of their demise. I completely agree, throw a girl AND a dog into it (and it doesn't hurt that your gangster is one of the most, if not the most, appealing actors of all time) and you are begging for him to get away, just this once. I had that reaction watching it. And I think that is why I loved it so much. Walsh and that ineluctable executioner the Hays Code make this a tragedy that is more than just seen but deeply felt.
SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS - You won't find me disagreeing that Struges was one of the best writers to ever work in film.. Every time I see one of his films I'm reminded of his genius. He had such a gift for comedy and dialogue, and he was always moving the story forward through his wit and skill (you can see why guys like the Coens and Tarantino are such fans). This one makes me laugh every time–an almost Chaplin-esque laughter.
HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY - I agree, Ford does seem to have been a born director like Hitchcock. It's funny to hear him talk about directing because he couldn't be more dismissive of it. Seemingly always willing to berate someone for calling him an artist, he never strayed from the opinion that directing was just a way to make a living. But, of course, the talent and care he put into his pictures seems to belie that offhand exterior. The same with his his sympathy for the downtrodden, as you mentioned. I really like THE GRAPES OF WRATH, so maybe that's why I like this one so much as well. Ford is just one of those guys I'm so in awe of as a director that his films always benefit.
THE MALTESE FALCON - I prefer THE BIG SLEEP as well (one of my absolute favorite films, period), but I think the real crown jewel (and I think you'd agree) of the Huston/Bogie connection is SIERRA MADRE. That one certainly rivals the great Hawks/Bogie films. But anyway, TMF really is the stuff that dreams are made of.
BALL OF FIRE - I should have mentioned Brackett and Wilder. The combo of their talents with the myriad talents of Hawks makes this such a blast. I think I've run out of superlatives for Hawks as it stands. I love his movies.
I agree and don't really have anything to add on MAN HUNT and THE LADY EVE. MH is a great thriller from a master of the genre and TLE is another reason to fall in love with the already supremely lovable Stanwyck and Struges.
SUSPICION - I guess the ending feels cheap because we know where Hitch wanted to take it, but was thwarted. Still, I can appreciate the fact that the ending surprised me. I wouldn't have guessed that Grant's character was innocent. I guess the message the censors wanted was don't suspect your husband even when he has given you copious reasons to suspect him haha. But anyway, agreed that even lesser Hitch is better than most other stuff.
DUMBO is all about motherly love and nostalgia. Agreed.
Great comment on all the directors here. It does find them doing what they do best. I'd love to do director months. It would be really fun and would help fill in some of my many film gaps. I'd be game whenever. I'd just need to watch a bunch with you or do lots of borrowing.
I'll do an ATTACK THE BLOCK post soon.
a 1945 list is on its way, so be ready.
AND a 2003 list is coming soon too, so everyone be ready...to be let down.
Friday, November 4, 2011
1941
Another great year for film! Wow, my list is not too far off from yours Brandon. I haven't seen BUCK PRIVATES (need to borrow all your Abbott and Costello) though. Also haven't seen Walsh's MANPOWER or Hitch's MR. AND MRS. SMITH off your list John. I'd like to see both. I was going to watch MR. AND MRS. SMITH on the TCM day devoted to Carole Lombard, but the power was out that day and I missed it. It sucked. Also, I'm hoping to see THE STRAWBERRY BLONDE at some point.
1. Citizen Kane (Welles)
2. High Sierra (Walsh)
3. Sullivan’s Travels (Sturges)
4. How Green Was My Valley (Ford)
5. Ball of Fire (Hawks)
6. The Maltese Falcon (Huston)
7. Man Hunt (Lang)
8. The Lady Eve (Sturges)
9. Suspicion (Hitchcock)
10. Dumbo (Lots of people)
HM: The Wolf Man (Waggner), Sergeant York (Hawks)
I can't say anything against CITIZEN KANE nor can I deny its near mythical power. It's as stunning as everyone says it is. I also really can't say anything for it that hasn't already been said (and said better). I just really love it...I mean really love it.
HIGH SIERRA humanizes the gangster in a similar way to THE ROARING TWENTIES. How sad that his downfall is tied to a desire for some sense of child-like purity. Not just a simple case of "gangster with a heart of gold" but gangster with conflicting desires, hopes, and regrets. Anyway, it's completely terrific. Just recorded COLORADO TERRITORY. Can't wait to watch it.
SULLIVAN'S TRAVELS is one of the funniest and sharpest satires ever made. I'll jump on the Joel McCrea band wagon with you John and Brandon. And, of course, I could never deny the consistently brilliant Sturges.
HOW GREEN WAS MY VALLEY should at least remind you that no one in Hollywood could shoot a better picture than John Ford. The film itself is remarkably endearing without straying too far into sentimentality (Ford was a master at capturing humanity through a beautiful frame). There is one scene where young, bedridden Huw uses a broom to communicate with his equally bedridden mother in the room above him. One of my favorite scenes of all time.
BALL OF FIRE, Like Hawk's other great screwball comedies (TWENTIETH CENTURY, BRINGING UP BABY, HIS GIRL FRIDAY) typifies how well the man could make a sharp, brisk picture and wrestle wonderful comedic performances from his actors. He was a machine. And between this and THE LADY EVE, what a year for Barbara Stanwyck–one of my favorite actresses to ever grace the screen.
THE MALTESE FALCON was the beginning of a beautiful motion picture friendship between Bogey and the great John Huston. It's also one of the first classic films I ever saw. 'Twas love at first sight.
I just saw MAN HUNT and I'm really glad I did. I happened to be scrolling through the channels when I saw it on Fox Movie Classics (they usually got nothin'). Anyway, I'm loving watching these Fritz Lang Hollywood films. I wasn't really familiar with any of them until film club, but the ones I've seen now are really terrific. I love Pidgeon in this (another person with a great year). And Joan Bennett's Eliza Doolittle impersonation is somehow so charming. Watching them work together is the tops. Also, there are some fantastic chase scenes in this (e.g. through the London Underground) and an awesome scene in an underground hideout. Great picture.
THE LADY EVE. Sturges and Stanwyck (and an ever-endearing Henry Fonda). This is an amazing combo. Stanwyck plays sexy and hilarious so well. She was at the top of her game this year.
SUSPICION really ends very cheaply, but before that, building Cary Grant into such a slime ball is something else. Of course, the highest credit to the master himself for making you believe anything. Brandon, you're right, Hitchcock never made a bad film (that I've seen). Can't wait to post my 1945 list so you can see how much I love SPELLBOUND (and I know Chris is going to back me up on that film very soon).
I watched DUMBO on youtube the other night (in really good quality actually). First time I've seen it since I was a little boy. That was some beautiful nostalgia. Delightful experience.
I really like THE WOLF MAN, just not as much as these other 10 (sorry John). And I haven't seen SERGEANT YORK in forever, but I remember liking it, so it's at least worth an honorable mention.
--------
On a side note, Brandon or John, do either of you have a copy of THE MAGNIFICENT AMBERSONS?
It's currently unavailable on dvd unless you buy the 70 dollar KANE blu-ray package (no thank you). I watched it once, a long time ago, and I can't really remember it. In order to do my '42 list properly I really need to see it again. So, it's either borrow it from one of you or wait for TCM to help me out.
Wednesday, November 2, 2011
vegetables are delicious
I wasn't claiming that WAR OF THE WORLDS is a bad film. I was just wondering what it was doing on a horror list. I wouldn't consider it a horror film (would you?), but I guess that doesn't really matter. Labels, labels, labels.
I agree that there is something annoying about Kois' piece because he is a professional film critic. He is paid to watch and write about film. Isn't it his job to pick through the murk of a film and find its deeper significance and theme(s)? Even if a film is bad and there isn't much below the surface, there is still something there to uncover, interpret, and ultimately criticize. I guess I feel less forgiving towards this man who is complaining about a job that many others with better attention spans and possibly greater insights will never get a chance to attain. I do feel more sympathy for people like us (aww shucks) who must consume films on the side in addition to our jobs/school work/families. If someone here honestly admits to being bored to tears by some film then I can understand that. We are not paid to watch anything (unless John "Boss" Owen wants to change that...), so our film intake is primarily based on enjoyment and interest.
Jason, you made the comment on facebook to Ben's SALO post about feeling vindicated for not wanting to watch 30s movies. I hear you. I'd say you should absolutely only watch 30s movies if WANT to. If they would be a chore then fuck 'em. There is better shit to do. But if you want to watch them then do it. I only watch 30s films because I enjoy watching them. They are a great treat like film club itself. I'm just glad I finally have some folks to talk to about older movies (and movies in general). I think we are all here because we love watching movies and not because we feel like we have to.
But, of course, taking an interest in film and wanting to be aware of films can certainly be a chore at times. If you want to know all about the film history of the 60s, then at some point you're going to have to face L'AVVENTURA. I know I watched it with a sense of curiosity and don't mind admitting that I was bored by it. I don't think it's a bad film, and there is probably a lot more to it than I remember seeing–I just couldn't dig on it (NOTE TO SELF: re-watch it at some point). I enjoy some of Antonioni's films quite a bit. BLOWUP is one of my favorites. But he can be a real fucking bore at times so I can sympathize with any non-professional film viewer
who doesn't want to sit through one of his films.
Anyway, my stance is and shall remain–only watch films if you want to watch them. That's about all the insight I've got for ya.
I agree that there is something annoying about Kois' piece because he is a professional film critic. He is paid to watch and write about film. Isn't it his job to pick through the murk of a film and find its deeper significance and theme(s)? Even if a film is bad and there isn't much below the surface, there is still something there to uncover, interpret, and ultimately criticize. I guess I feel less forgiving towards this man who is complaining about a job that many others with better attention spans and possibly greater insights will never get a chance to attain. I do feel more sympathy for people like us (aww shucks) who must consume films on the side in addition to our jobs/school work/families. If someone here honestly admits to being bored to tears by some film then I can understand that. We are not paid to watch anything (unless John "Boss" Owen wants to change that...), so our film intake is primarily based on enjoyment and interest.
Jason, you made the comment on facebook to Ben's SALO post about feeling vindicated for not wanting to watch 30s movies. I hear you. I'd say you should absolutely only watch 30s movies if WANT to. If they would be a chore then fuck 'em. There is better shit to do. But if you want to watch them then do it. I only watch 30s films because I enjoy watching them. They are a great treat like film club itself. I'm just glad I finally have some folks to talk to about older movies (and movies in general). I think we are all here because we love watching movies and not because we feel like we have to.
But, of course, taking an interest in film and wanting to be aware of films can certainly be a chore at times. If you want to know all about the film history of the 60s, then at some point you're going to have to face L'AVVENTURA. I know I watched it with a sense of curiosity and don't mind admitting that I was bored by it. I don't think it's a bad film, and there is probably a lot more to it than I remember seeing–I just couldn't dig on it (NOTE TO SELF: re-watch it at some point). I enjoy some of Antonioni's films quite a bit. BLOWUP is one of my favorites. But he can be a real fucking bore at times so I can sympathize with any non-professional film viewer
who doesn't want to sit through one of his films.
Anyway, my stance is and shall remain–only watch films if you want to watch them. That's about all the insight I've got for ya.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)