I recently cracked open the new 2 OR 3 THINGS DVD and viewed it. I had VERY complex and contradictory reactions.
For one, I hadn’t seen it since its initial release (when I watched it “2 or 3” times). At that time, I was VERY impressed with its content and innovative (Brechtian) style. Godard not only revolutionized cinema in that era but also how we THINK about cinema.
Today, though, those lessons have been learned, and that’s probably why the film seemed less “relevant” for today, when innovations are being made in non-Western national cinemas. Back in the day, all the references to the Vietnam War were seen as radical encouragement to those of us who participated in the antiwar movement. Likewise, all the anti-capitalist messages about mega-housing developments, consumerism, and how we all prostitute ourselves in contemporary society. To me, it’s a shame that Godard was such a damned good teacher about all those points (and film STYLE) that I now feel that I don’t have much more to learn from 2 OR 3 THINGS, except to re-appreciate its historical significance.
I’d NEVER label it pretentious and/or pedantic, though — or any of his films of that era. He was a film artist expressing himself and looking for an audience that would appreciate his vision of life and cinema. That audience happened to be the cineastes and intelligentsia, who “got” his many allusions and references to literature, philosophy, Marxism, and other films. (BTW, the two “paper bags” used in the threesome scene were not paper: they were airline carry-on bags from TWA and PAN AM, now both defunct. I think the point was to show — in a humorous and visually inventive manner — how major corporations blinded us to each other’s humanity and alienated us from other workers.) I hope that first-time viewers of Godard’s films will appreciate his contributions for what they are, and for what they can teach us about how to watch a film.
@Booby Wise: Yes, I agree with your interpretation of the airline bag scene. I think it just amplifies what I said above.
And certain images — including the famous coffee cup scene and the final shots, with Godard himself arranging the consumer products as if they were architectural models in an urban-planning design — will always represent a new way of thinking about style in cinema, and what’s “acceptable” in a movie. Godard was communicating to the audience on “different wires” than through conventional plot and dialogue, and that can sometimes be perceived as pedantic and/or pretentious. Maybe that reaction is also a product of time passing. Often what is revolutionary appears trite once it’s been digested and seen countless times in other forms.
I’ve attended MANY screenings during which the audience behaved “inappropriately.” Usually, it was because of a change of mores or style since the film’s initial release.
During every recent screening of VERTIGO, for instance, people laughed when Scottie buys a whole new outfit for Judy — to make her look exactly like the “dead” Madeleine. When Judy protests and Scottie says, “It can’t matter to you,” the crowd howled! I attribute this to the insights of post-VERTIGO feminism; the contemporary audience thought that Scottie was terribly old-fashioned and ludicrous in demanding to choose Judy’s clothes. They did NOT see him as a melancholy Romantic trying to reproduce an unattainable love.
Another time the audience howled was the second time I saw ZARDOZ. The first time, I admired the brilliant way John Boorman encapsulated the life cycle at the film’s conclusion by showing Sean Connery and Charlotte Rampling aging, giving birth, dying, etc. all to the music of Beethoven’s Seventh! My second viewing, in Van Nuys, California, was with a younger crowd, who found the same scene intensely comical, especially when the dead couple turned into skeletons. It was hard to take the film seriously after that experience. (I know that ZARDOZ has produced varying reactions on this site!)
Finally, I saw THE GODFATHER in its initial run with a predominantly black audience in downtown Brooklyn. During the scene in which the dons gather around a table to decide whether to get into the heroin racket, one of the dons says (I’m paraphrasing), “OK, we’ll sell it to the dark people. They’re animals anyway.” Surprisingly, the nearly-all-black audience APPLAUDED this line of dialogue! I’ve always been puzzled by that reaction, but the best I could come up with is that they were applauding THE FILM (not the vile character) for bravely exposing the truth behind the heroin trade in their communities. Any other ideas?
I haven’t seen the film, but that won’t stop me from joining the discussion on one point: the title.
It seems to me that GRAN TORINO is a metaphor for Clint Eastwood himself, Old Hollywood, and America in general. The car was produced from 1972-76 and was considered a powerful and “sexy” muscle car in its heyday. Today, it’s an antique at best. Maybe that’s how Clint views himself as a performer, the studio system, and the U.S, of A. Like DeNiro in RAGING BULLY, Clint’s character is an “AGING bullY.”
In the film, Eastwood tries to preserve the car, just as he tries to preserve his racist ways and beliefs, even though the earth has gone around the Sun a dozen times since his prized auto was discontinued. Likewise, not only Eastwood’s acting persona, but also his film style (classical Hollywood Hawks) has seen better days. And the despised Asians may produce better automobiles!
As I gather from the reviews and commentary on this Forum, in the end, the “old dog” learns some “new tricks” about race relations and life in general. That’s not a very profound message (THE SEARCHERS and RED RIVER were better) but “product placement” seems to me to be only ONE reason for the prominence of the car in GRAN TORINO.
The actors mentioned above may be irreplaceable in an aesthetic sense, but many of them WERE easily replaceable in an economic sense. Think of all the parts these people (and others to be named later) DIDN’T get, either because their salaries were too high, they turned down the role, or they were perceived as “difficult to work with.”
When Brando didn’t want or couldn’t get a particular role, Paul Newman was almost always there to take the part, at a lower salary (until BUTCH CASSIDY and THE STING).
Steve MCQueen was supposed to play Col. Kurtz in APOCALYPSE NOW. Ronald Reagan was supposed to play Rick in CASABLANCA, not Bogie. Hollywood could ALWAYS replace actors, even at the cost of miscasting and ruining a movie.
@ Brad: Don Knotts (who had a truly unique persona) was not TOTALLY irreplaceable. Wally Cox (most famous for TV’s MR. PEEPERS) could play most skinny, milquetoast roles.
Charles Laughton (great as he was) could have been replaced in many films by Peter Ustinov.
Finally, the most absurd example: When Vittorio DeSica was trying to fund BICYCLE THIEVES, David O. Selznick offered him $1 million (a GIANT sum in 1948) to make the movie, on one condition: CARY GRANT would have to play the lead! DeSica turned him down and chose an unemployed steelworker who had never acted before (or afterwards).
We seem not to be dealing much with actresses, so I’ll wait for a new Forum…
I guess that I took the original title of the Forum too literally (see my post above). I assumed that we were going to discuss actors who could not be replaced. In fact, MOST of the performers named so far HAVE been replaced at various times in their careers, or else there was always someone waiting in the wings to take a part away from them.
If we’re really talking about actors who had clearly recognizable personas, and were distinctive, accomplished, one-of-a-kind, and great, then, OK, I’ll add these (mostly American actors & actresses) to those already mentioned:
Charlie Chaplin
Jack Lemmon
Orson Welles
Frederic March
Paul Muni
Spencer Tracy
Laurence Olivier
MICKEY ROONEY (yes, I mean it!)
Henry Fonda
James Cagney
James Stewart
Micheal Redgrave
Kirk Douglas
William Holden
James Dean
Frank Sinatra (I mean him too. Has anyone seen SUDDENLY?)
Sidney Poitier
Marcello Mastroianni
Anthony Quinn
Michael Caine
Paul Scofield
James Earl Jones
George C. Scott
Gene Hackman
Peter Finch
Kenneth Branagh
Jeremy Irons
Anthony Hopkins (except for NIXON)
Lillian Gish
Marlene Dietrich
Gloria Swanson
Marie Dressler
Helen Hayes
Claudette Colbert
Barbara Stanwyck
Jean Arthur
Ingrid Bergman
Joan Crawford
Vanessa Redgrave
Ethel Barrymore
Anna Magnani
Anouk Aimee
Jane Fonda
Cicely Tyson
Gena Rowlands
Liv Ullmann
Diane Keaton
Meryl Streep
Jodie Foster
Isabelle Adjani
Kathy Bates
Cattherine Deneuve
Susan Sarandon
GIULIETTA MASINA!!!
Thanks, Cineaste, for noticing my inclusion of GIULETTA MASINA.
Some critics say that GIULIETTA MASINA only had two expressions: a Chaplinesque smile and Chaplinesque pathos. Even IF that’s true (and it’s not), she can steal any scene with just those two looks, especially in NIGHTS OF CABIRIA and JULIET OF THE SPIRITS. I defy anyone to not be moved by the ending of CABIRIA, when her pathetic, woe-is-me, deep-down sorrow gradually changes to a tentative smile.
Re.: Harry Long’s point — “Well, in the case of Reifenstahl, whenever I’ve watched TRIUMPH OF THE WILL I see that everything seems to have been ripped from Lang’s DIE NIBELUNGEN and METROPOLIS.
On the other hand I can’t think of a single filmmaker she influenced.”
Riefenstahl may not have influenced any major filmmakers (except for that last scene in STAR WARS, when Luke, Hans Solo, and the Wookie march down the aisle to get their awards — just as 3 Nazis do in the outdoor war memorial scene in TRIUMPH); however, TRIUMPH has had a STRONG influence on U.S. campaign commercials. The most obvious example, for those old enough to remember, was the “Morning in America” spots for Ronald Reagan in 1984. Indeed, those spots were strung together into a 30-minute campaign film that was used as Reagan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention that year.
If you’re all hardcore feminists, I’d recommend Maureen Gorris’s A QUESTION OF SILENCE, a Dutch film whose director went on to win the Oscar for foreign-language film with ANTONIA’S LINE.
If, however, you’re looking for a “chick flick,” consider any of the following:
Beaches
A League of their Own
All That Heaven Allows
Written on the Wind
The Princess Diaries
A Cinderella Story
Ever After
Pretty Woman
The Devil Wears Prada
Terms of Endearment
Steel Magnolias
Thelma and Louise
Juliet of the Spirits (but make it a “girls’ night out on LSD” party)
@ CINEMA: as it turns out, literary scholars have their top 100 lists too. Recently, the Modern Library organized a Board to select the best novels in the English language. I’ve pasted 20 of them below in order. One oddity: I’ve also pasted the Top 20 Readers’ Selections below that, which include 4 novels by Ayn Rand and 3 by L. Ron Hubbard. I’m surprised that ULYSSES made it to both lists!
BOARD’S CHOICES
1. ULYSSES by James Joyce
2. THE GREAT GATSBY by F. Scott Fitzgerald
3. A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce
4. LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov
5. BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley
6. THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner
7. CATCH-22
8. DARKNESS AT NOON by Arthur Koestler
9. SONS AND LOVERS by D.H. Lawrence
10. THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck
11. UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry
12. THE WAY OF ALL FLESH by Samuel Butler
13. 1984 by George Orwell
14. I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves
15. TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf
16. AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY by Theodore Dreiser
17. THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers
18. SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut
19. INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison
20. NATIVE SON by Richard Wright
CINEMA: I agree with you. In the early days of film education, it was thought to be important to justify offering college-level courses and degree programs in Cinema. Often these programs started in literature departments, where many academics didn’t consider film a valid field of study. By listing the masterpieces of cinema and hailing their directors as “auteurs,” film scholars were able to validate their existences in the university. Much of this happened in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s, two of the prime decades for international Top Ten lists, such as the SIGHT & SOUND poll, and the spread of the auteur theory by Andrew Sarris. Robin Wood’s original book on Hitchcock compared teh director to Shakespeare.
Getting back to the original point about KANE: I believe that academe was partially responsible for the “hype” about that particular film. Like great literature, it dealt with serious themes and issues, was creatively innovative in style, and was perceived to be the work of a single “genius,” Orson Welles. I happen to think that all the hype is deserved, but I’m trying to address the question of how KANE got to be treated as THE GREATEST. It’s possible that KANE is BOTH the greatest film ever made AND one of the most hyped for its greatness among a certain class of cineastes, like professional critics, academics, and folks on this Web site
This doesn’t explain everything about lists and the canonical status of CITIZEN KANE, but you’re right: literature doesn’t always have to be justifying its existence in the academy or in newspapers and magazines. Imagine what it’s like (or WAS like) for people trying to create TELEVISION STUDIES programs at universities!
Dimitris: I’m not necessarily claiming that Sinatra was a CONSISTENTLY terrific actor, only that he is somewhat irreplaceable. There are probably 9-10 films in which his persona and performance meshed (including the musicals) and the results were memorable. I’m thinking of:
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM
SOME CAME RUNNING
COME BLOW YOUR HORN
THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE
ON THE TOWN (keeping up with Gene Kelly)
ANCHORS AWEIGH
PAL JOEY
SUDDENLY
and (maybe) THE DETECTIVE (in which I appear in a huge crowd scene)
Almost all of the others were meretricious garbage both as films and in terms of his performance. Sinatra was known as being a “one-take Charlie” in movies. If he had the power (and he sometimes did), he would yell “Print it!” after the first take and move on to the next set-up, unlike the care he took with his recordings and stage performances.
On one point, I tend to agree with Old Blue Eyes: HE should have switched roles with Brando in GUYS AND DOLLS. (Brando [or whoever dubbed him] didn’t have the singing chops for that part.)
I’m just catching up to this thread. A few films not mentioned so far (I think) are (in alphabetical order):
ALL THE KING’S MEN
THE ASPHALT JUNGLE
BEWARE MY LOVELY
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
BODY AND SOUL
BORN TO BE BAD
THE BROTHERS RICO
THE BURGLAR
CAUGHT
CHAMPION
CITY ACROSS THE RIVER
CRACK-UP
CRY OF THE CITY
DOA (the original), a San Francisco treat
DARK CITY
THE DARK CORNER
THE DARK MIRROR
THE DARK PAST (lots of “dark” titles)
DEAD RECKONING
A DOUBLE LIFE
THE FILE ON THELMA JORDAN
THE GLASS KEY
GUN CRAZY
THE HARDER THEY FALL (script by the late Budd Schulberg)
THE HITCH-HIKER
THE HOUSE ON 92nd STREET
I, THE JURY
JOHNNY O’CLOCK
KILLER’S KISS
THE KILLERS
A KISS BEFORE DYING
KISS OF DEATH
KISS THE BLOOD OFF MY HANDS (lots of “kiss” movies)
LADY IN THE LAKE
LAURA
THE LOCKET
M (Joseph Losey version, 1951)
MILDRED PIERCE
THE MOB
MURDER MY SWEET
NIAGARA (a color “noir”?)
THE NIGHT HAS A THOUSAND EYES
THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER
NIGHTMARE (one of my cult favorites)
NIGHTMARE ALLEY
PANIC IN THE STREETS
PARTY GIRL
THE PHENIX CITY STORY
THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE
THE PROWLER
RANCHO NOTORIOUS (a color Western “noir”?)
RAW DEAL
SECRET BEHIND THE DOOR
SORRY, WRONG NUMBER
THE SNIPER
THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS
THE STRANGER
SUDDENLY
SUSPENSE
SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS
THIS GUN FOR HIRE
UNDERCURRENT
THE UNFAITHFUL
THE UNSUSPECTED
THE WEB
WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS
WHIRLPOOL
WHITE HEAT
A WOMAN’S SECRET
If it means anything, I agree with those who say that VERTIGO is NOT a film noir, in part because it’s in color. Remember, the French coined the term from the American films they saw after the Occupation, all of which were in black and white. They were also referring to the cycle of “dark” novels of the 1930s. Of course, any individual can define the term as he or she sees fit.
Nor do I consider CITIZEN KANE a classic film noir, even though it features chiaroscuro lighting. A film should probably have 5-6 elements to be considered an authentic film noir.
Regarding the title: Antonioni has stated in interviews that he went to film an actual eclipse in Florence and began to wonder whether he could work on a theme of the “eclipse of the feelings.” Then he cut the eclipse footage from the film because it would have exaggerated the title and made the theme too literal and obvious.
As night falls in the final sequence, the effect of an eclipse can be seen in the gradual darkening of the EUR district. And the fact that the couple doesn’t show up suggests the metaphorical “eclipse of the feelings” the director was going for.
Notice that the film begins on a bright white oblong object, which turns out to the the sleeve of a man’s white shirt, and ends on a bright white oblong object, a streetlight overlooking the incomplete building project. This is often how one has to “read” Antonioni’s films, by paying careful attention to these sorts of visual motifs and trying to make meaning from their accumulation. Another example in ECLIPSE is the recurring view of that building under construction, which represents both a literal site and a figurative comment on human relationships being incomplete during the Atomic Age (a situation only mentioned in a newspaper headline seen late in the movie).
So, it may take somewhat more than observing the subtle acting of the performers; one may also have to pay very close attention to the visual and aural cues “to uncover a director’s oblique statements or intentions.” Antonioni conveys narrative, character, and thematic information on different “wires” than most directors (although he’s influenced many), who rely primarily on plot, action, and dialogue. (as one example, there’s that big, abstract painting in the first scene, which seems to represent the emotions of the breaking-up couple, the feelings they can’t seem to express to each other directly.)
There are NUMEROUS books and articles on ECLIPSE and other Antonioni films that can help anyone interested in exploring his artistic and thematic methods. (You may still come away puzzled or not liking his cinema, but it should help viewers who want to understand what he was trying to do.)
I’ll probably have more to say, but let’s give others a chance to post.
I’m surprised that no one mentioned all the Michael Moore “documentaries” (he no longer calls them that) and all the bad movies about the Iraq War. I happen to agree with many of the beliefs expressed in those movies, but they’re just bad social commentary films because they rely on distortions and outright lies and very little subtlety, imo.
To Strawdawg’s point — “Do An Inconvenient Truth and Moore films even count? I think the OP is talking about social commentary found inside dramas and comedies. Aren’t documentaries ALL social commentary?”: I think they SHOULD count, even if they are “documentaries” and have blatant social messages.
The original post just asked for THE WORST social commentary films of the last decade. If the originator of the thread, Squiffle, wants to specify that he meant only fictional movies, I’d be glad to lay off Michael Moore and Al Gore — at least on this thread.
I agree with many of the choices so far as impressive debut features.
I’d add the following:
NANOOK OF THE NORTH (Flaherty, 1924)
STRIKE (Eisenstein, 1924)
A GENERATION (Wajda, 1955)
HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR (Resnais, 1959) One of the greatest debut features (although Resnais had made many shorts beforehand)
POINT OF ORDER! (DeAntonio, 1963)
WHAT’S UP, TIGER LILY? (Allen, 1966, sort of. The “real” director was Senkichi Taniguchi), or TAKE THE MONEY & RUN (Allen, 1969)
BADLANDS (Malick, 1973)
THE LOST HONOR OF KATERINA BLUM (Von Trotta, 1975)
BLUE COLLAR (Schrader, 1978)
STRANGER THAN PARADISE (Jarmusch, 1980, although I realize that he made an obscure feature before this)
Also, one correction to a post above:
Sally Potter’s first film was not ORLANDO. She made several somewhat more experimental films before it: THE LONDON STORY, THRILLER, THE GOLD DIGGERS, and a TV film.
Jackie Coogan in THE KID (1921)
Mickey Rooney in BABES IN ARMS (1939) or THE HUMAN COMEDY (1943)
All the kids in ROME OPEN CITY (1945)
Enzo Staiola in BICYCLE THIEVES (1948)
Patty McCormack in THE BAD SEED (1956)
Jean-Pierre Leaud in THE 400 BLOWS (1959)
Rita Tushingham in A TASTE OF HONEY (1961) — although I’m not sure how old she was then
Patty Duke in THE MIRACLE WORKER (1962)
Bertil Guve and Pernilla Allwin in FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982)
Kate Winslet in HEAVENLY CREATURES (1994)
I have an anecdote about the one time I saw this film, in its initial release in the U.S. It had stopped playing in the regular Manhattan art houses, so I had to track it down at a movie theater near Coney Island in Brooklyn, not your usual auteur venue.
There were a couple of older women sitting behind my party, who insisted on chatting about the characters throughout the film. Two gems that I overheard:
As Adele followed her obsession with her lieutenant all over the world, there’s a hint that she might fall for a more rational love, the bearded Saskatchewan man who sells her reams of paper so she can write home to her father, Victor Hugo, for money. The film seems to be rooting for Adele to hook up with this bookseller, but the ladies behind me summed it up before i realized that it was not to be. “He’s a nice guy, but he needs a shave,” one of them said.
Then, after about 90 minutes of watching Adele follow her folly around the globe, going mad in the process, the other woman finally realized: “She’s CRAZY.”
I acquired a new understanding of your “average” audience member from that screening in the remote corridors of Brooklyn.
To THE INFINITE SOYBEAN: I would hesitate to list Linda Blair’s performance in THE EXORCIST as a great CHILD performance because, as I understand it, all of the demonic, deep-voiced howls and dialogue were dubbed in by Mercedes McCambridge. IMDB even gives her credit for that voice work, although I don’t McCambridge was credited with that work at the time of the film’s release (1973).
So, the performance was shared, so to speak, by a child and an adult.
I just picked up this thread and LOVE the titles listed. I can add BUCKET OF BLOOD, A MOVIE, SCORPIO RISING, and THE GODS MUST BE CRAZY.
For titles, though, one director stands out: Yasuniro Ozu. My favorite is EQUINOX FLOWER. This is a PARTIAL list of some of his film titles (from IMDB):
Sanma no aji (1962)
… aka An Autumn Afternoon (USA)
… aka The Taste of Saury (Japan: informal literal English title)
Kohayagawa-ke no aki (1961)
… aka Autumn for the Kohayagawa Family (literal English title)
… aka Early Autumn
… aka The End of Summer (International: English title)
… aka The Last of Summer
Ohayô (1959)
… aka Good Morning (International: English title)
… aka Ohayo (Japan: alternative transliteration)
… aka Yasujiro Ozu’s Good Morning (USA)
Higanbana (1958)
… aka Equinox Flower
Tôkyô boshoku (1957)
… aka Tokyo Twilight
Soshun (1956)
… aka Early Spring (USA)
Tôkyô monogatari (1953)
… aka Tokyo Story (USA)
Ochazuke no aji (1952)
… aka Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice (USA)
Bakushû (1951)
… aka Early Summer
Munekata kyoudai (1950)
… aka The Munekata Sisters (International: English title)
Banshun (1949)
… aka Late Spring (USA)
Kaze no naka no mendori (1948)
… aka A Hen in the Wind
Nagaya shinshiroku (1947)
… aka The Record of a Tenement Gentleman
Chichi ariki (1942)
… aka There Was a Father
Todake no kyodai (1941)
… aka The Brothers and Sisters of the Toda Family
Shukujo wa nani o wasureta ka (1937)
… aka What Did the Lady Forget?
Hitori musuko (1936)
… aka The Only Son
Daigaku yoitoko (1936)
… aka College Is a Nice Place
Tokyo no yado (1935)
… aka An Inn in Tokyo
Hakoiri musume (1935)
… aka An Innocent Maid
… aka The Young Virgin
Ukikusa monogatari (1934)
… aka A Story of Floating Weeds
Haha wo kowazuya (1934)
… aka A Mother Should Be Loved
Dekigokoro (1933)
… aka Passing Fancy
Hijosen no onna (1933)
… aka Dragnet Girl
… aka Women on the Firing Line
Tokyo no onna (1933)
… aka Woman of Tokyo
Mata au hi made (1932)
… aka Until the Day We Meet Again
Seishun no yume imaizuko (1932)
… aka Where Are the Dreams of Youth?
Otona no miru ehon – Umarete wa mita keredo (1932)
… aka A Picture Book for Grown-ups: I was Born, But… (Japan: English title: long title)
… aka I Was Born, But… (International: English title)
Haru wa gofujin kara (1932)
… aka Spring Comes from the Ladies
Tokyo no kôrasu (1931)
… aka Tokyo Chorus
Bijin aishu (1931)
… aka Beauty’s Sorrows
Shukujo to hige (1931)
… aka The Lady and Her Favorite
… aka The Lady and the Beard
Ojosan (1930)
… aka Young Miss
Ashi ni sawatta koun (1930)
… aka Lost Luck
… aka Luck Touched My Legs
Erogami no onryo (1930)
… aka The Revengeful Spirit of Eros
Rakudai wa shita keredo (1930)
… aka I Flunked But…
Kekkon-gaku nyûmon (1930)
… aka Introduction to Marriage
Hogaraka ni ayume (1930)
… aka Walk Cheerfully
Sono yo no tsuma (1930)
… aka That Night’s Wife
Tokkan kozo (1929)
… aka A Straightforward Boy
Kaishain seikatsu (1929)
… aka The Life of an Office Worker
Daigaku wa deta keredo (1929)
… aka I Graduated But…
If these are teenaged viewers, I would recommend films that deal with young people, so that the age factor does not stand in the way of their interest. Having established interest and “identification” with the main characters, it becomes easier to lead them to the Promised Land of cinematic analysis and in-depth understanding. Don’t assume that teens can relate to any narrative.
I’ve had success with college freshmen showing
THE GRADUATE
THE 400 BLOWS
RUN LOLA RUN
DO THE RIGHT THING
Many of you have mentioned Tatum O’Neal’s performance in PAPER MOON. I didn’t include it in my list because of some of the behind-the-scenes aspects of the film’s making. Supposedly (or at least I’ve been told), little Tatum began to set records for the most takes ever required on simple dialogue scenes. She even surpassed Marilyn Monroe in that regard (and Marilyn had the excuse that she was depressed and over-medicated).
At one point, director Bogdanovich offered her candy to get the line right and she demanded CASH, which she was promptly handed.
I know we should judge actors/actresses primarily by what we see ON THE SCREEN but these “insider” stories have sometimes clouded my view of a performance. Besides (and I hope I don’t set off a bunch of nasty replies), I think Tatum overacted in PAPER MOON. She got her Oscar for being “cute” and for being the daughter of one of the biggest box-office stars of that era. (Plus, I assume that you’ve all read the gossip columns about how Ryan hit on his daughter at Farrah’s funeral. Maybe he had the excuse that he was depressed and over-medicated, and hence didn’t recognize his own daughter?)
One can debate Stone’s political views and accuracy in historical films until the proverbial cows come home. There’s a long post on JFK from several weeks ago that goes over many of these objections, but it may not be readable because of all the blood on the site!
However, I DO see a distinctive visual style in many of Stone’s “movies.” JFK, for instance, is a masterwork of editing — including subliminal cutting — albeit in the service of a certain view of the Kennedy assassination. His mix of black-and-white and color footage is memorable. Likewise, the lighting and special effects in his films (the storm clouds over the White House in NIXON) are often beautifully evocative of the mood and meaning of his scenes.WALL STREET may be a convincing or fabricated indictment of 1980s capitalism (and a defense of earlier, more “ethical” versions of capitalism as exemplified by the Hal Holbrook character and Stone’s own stockbroker father), but I’d defend its visual style as terrific. The editing conveyed the absolute craziness of panicked buying and selling, and the beautifully lit scenes on Montauk Beach and Central Park contrasted with the interior scenes in Charlie Sheen’s condo and the Wall Street offices of Gekko and Sheen’s company.
One of the themes in WALL STREET, which is also seen in PLATOON, is the moral choice a young character has (in both cases played by Charlie Sheen) between a bad father figure and a good father figure. In PLATOON, it’s Elias vs. Barnes; in WALL STREET, it’s Gekko vs. the protagonist’s own father (played by Martin Sheen). To me, those personal character dynamics elevate these films beyond their somewhat simplistic condemnations of corporate “greed” and the Vietnam War.
I would agree that Stone’s recent films have lost some of that visual and narrative flair. (ALEXANDER, anyone?)
@Mike Spence: Regarding your response to my analysis of PLATOON and WALL STREET, “In PLATOON, it’s Elias vs. Barnes; in WALL STREET, it’s Gekko vs. the protagonist’s own father,”
“That is the exact problem for me. To me any art that can reduced to “vs.” based descriptions is juvenile, at best.”
Well, I hate to tell you, but most of the world’s great novels, plays, and films are based on human conflict. Yes, someone VS. someone else; one group VS. its rival; one ideology VS. another way of life. It’s admittedly repetitive in its basics, although it has infinite variations, but I wouldn’t call it juvenile. Those of us who have not yet attained satori still struggle with conflicts every day, and we want to see that in our movies (although some films do it better — and in a more mature manner than others).
Now, maybe I misread your critique. Maybe you were criticizing ME for pointing out the common Oedipal dynamic in the two Stone films. I thought you were criticizing Stone for using simplistic, antagonistic character types. That’s a valid criticism. Criticizing ME is, of course, invalid. :-) :-) :-)
Back at Mike Spence: Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. You weren’t criticizing Stone for using DRAMATIC CONFLICT, per se, but for using simplistic X vs. Y conflict. That’s a valid argument; there’s not usually much “subtext” in an Oliver Stone movie.
And I certainly agree with those who mention his inconsistency. U-TURN is clearly one of the worst, but throw in ALEXANDER, most of NIXON (Sir Anthony was miscast); TWIN TOWERS, W, etc. In fact, maybe there IS some consistency there: everything after 1991 wasn’t very good!
Godard - Pedantic and Pretentious? almost 4 years ago
I recently cracked open the new 2 OR 3 THINGS DVD and viewed it. I had VERY complex and contradictory reactions.
For one, I hadn’t seen it since its initial release (when I watched it “2 or 3” times). At that time, I was VERY impressed with its content and innovative (Brechtian) style. Godard not only revolutionized cinema in that era but also how we THINK about cinema.
Today, though, those lessons have been learned, and that’s probably why the film seemed less “relevant” for today, when innovations are being made in non-Western national cinemas. Back in the day, all the references to the Vietnam War were seen as radical encouragement to those of us who participated in the antiwar movement. Likewise, all the anti-capitalist messages about mega-housing developments, consumerism, and how we all prostitute ourselves in contemporary society. To me, it’s a shame that Godard was such a damned good teacher about all those points (and film STYLE) that I now feel that I don’t have much more to learn from 2 OR 3 THINGS, except to re-appreciate its historical significance.
I’d NEVER label it pretentious and/or pedantic, though — or any of his films of that era. He was a film artist expressing himself and looking for an audience that would appreciate his vision of life and cinema. That audience happened to be the cineastes and intelligentsia, who “got” his many allusions and references to literature, philosophy, Marxism, and other films. (BTW, the two “paper bags” used in the threesome scene were not paper: they were airline carry-on bags from TWA and PAN AM, now both defunct. I think the point was to show — in a humorous and visually inventive manner — how major corporations blinded us to each other’s humanity and alienated us from other workers.) I hope that first-time viewers of Godard’s films will appreciate his contributions for what they are, and for what they can teach us about how to watch a film.
Go to Comment
Age / Level of education? (An informal poll) almost 4 years ago
At 62, I thought I would be the Methuselah of this Forum, but MISTER DOB has me beat by more than a decade, if he’s being truthful about his age! :-)
I keep young by communicating with youthful cineastes on this Web site!
Go to Comment
Godard - Pedantic and Pretentious? almost 4 years ago
@Booby Wise: Yes, I agree with your interpretation of the airline bag scene. I think it just amplifies what I said above.
And certain images — including the famous coffee cup scene and the final shots, with Godard himself arranging the consumer products as if they were architectural models in an urban-planning design — will always represent a new way of thinking about style in cinema, and what’s “acceptable” in a movie. Godard was communicating to the audience on “different wires” than through conventional plot and dialogue, and that can sometimes be perceived as pedantic and/or pretentious. Maybe that reaction is also a product of time passing. Often what is revolutionary appears trite once it’s been digested and seen countless times in other forms.
Go to Comment
Audience Reactions almost 4 years ago
I’ve attended MANY screenings during which the audience behaved “inappropriately.” Usually, it was because of a change of mores or style since the film’s initial release.
During every recent screening of VERTIGO, for instance, people laughed when Scottie buys a whole new outfit for Judy — to make her look exactly like the “dead” Madeleine. When Judy protests and Scottie says, “It can’t matter to you,” the crowd howled! I attribute this to the insights of post-VERTIGO feminism; the contemporary audience thought that Scottie was terribly old-fashioned and ludicrous in demanding to choose Judy’s clothes. They did NOT see him as a melancholy Romantic trying to reproduce an unattainable love.
Another time the audience howled was the second time I saw ZARDOZ. The first time, I admired the brilliant way John Boorman encapsulated the life cycle at the film’s conclusion by showing Sean Connery and Charlotte Rampling aging, giving birth, dying, etc. all to the music of Beethoven’s Seventh! My second viewing, in Van Nuys, California, was with a younger crowd, who found the same scene intensely comical, especially when the dead couple turned into skeletons. It was hard to take the film seriously after that experience. (I know that ZARDOZ has produced varying reactions on this site!)
Finally, I saw THE GODFATHER in its initial run with a predominantly black audience in downtown Brooklyn. During the scene in which the dons gather around a table to decide whether to get into the heroin racket, one of the dons says (I’m paraphrasing), “OK, we’ll sell it to the dark people. They’re animals anyway.” Surprisingly, the nearly-all-black audience APPLAUDED this line of dialogue! I’ve always been puzzled by that reaction, but the best I could come up with is that they were applauding THE FILM (not the vile character) for bravely exposing the truth behind the heroin trade in their communities. Any other ideas?
Go to Comment
Did I miss something almost 4 years ago
I haven’t seen the film, but that won’t stop me from joining the discussion on one point: the title.
It seems to me that GRAN TORINO is a metaphor for Clint Eastwood himself, Old Hollywood, and America in general. The car was produced from 1972-76 and was considered a powerful and “sexy” muscle car in its heyday. Today, it’s an antique at best. Maybe that’s how Clint views himself as a performer, the studio system, and the U.S, of A. Like DeNiro in RAGING BULLY, Clint’s character is an “AGING bullY.”
In the film, Eastwood tries to preserve the car, just as he tries to preserve his racist ways and beliefs, even though the earth has gone around the Sun a dozen times since his prized auto was discontinued. Likewise, not only Eastwood’s acting persona, but also his film style (classical Hollywood Hawks) has seen better days. And the despised Asians may produce better automobiles!
As I gather from the reviews and commentary on this Forum, in the end, the “old dog” learns some “new tricks” about race relations and life in general. That’s not a very profound message (THE SEARCHERS and RED RIVER were better) but “product placement” seems to me to be only ONE reason for the prominence of the car in GRAN TORINO.
Go to Comment
Irreplaceable Actors? almost 4 years ago
The actors mentioned above may be irreplaceable in an aesthetic sense, but many of them WERE easily replaceable in an economic sense. Think of all the parts these people (and others to be named later) DIDN’T get, either because their salaries were too high, they turned down the role, or they were perceived as “difficult to work with.”
When Brando didn’t want or couldn’t get a particular role, Paul Newman was almost always there to take the part, at a lower salary (until BUTCH CASSIDY and THE STING).
Steve MCQueen was supposed to play Col. Kurtz in APOCALYPSE NOW. Ronald Reagan was supposed to play Rick in CASABLANCA, not Bogie. Hollywood could ALWAYS replace actors, even at the cost of miscasting and ruining a movie.
@ Brad: Don Knotts (who had a truly unique persona) was not TOTALLY irreplaceable. Wally Cox (most famous for TV’s MR. PEEPERS) could play most skinny, milquetoast roles.
Charles Laughton (great as he was) could have been replaced in many films by Peter Ustinov.
Finally, the most absurd example: When Vittorio DeSica was trying to fund BICYCLE THIEVES, David O. Selznick offered him $1 million (a GIANT sum in 1948) to make the movie, on one condition: CARY GRANT would have to play the lead! DeSica turned him down and chose an unemployed steelworker who had never acted before (or afterwards).
We seem not to be dealing much with actresses, so I’ll wait for a new Forum…
Go to Comment
Irreplaceable Actors? almost 4 years ago
I guess that I took the original title of the Forum too literally (see my post above). I assumed that we were going to discuss actors who could not be replaced. In fact, MOST of the performers named so far HAVE been replaced at various times in their careers, or else there was always someone waiting in the wings to take a part away from them.
If we’re really talking about actors who had clearly recognizable personas, and were distinctive, accomplished, one-of-a-kind, and great, then, OK, I’ll add these (mostly American actors & actresses) to those already mentioned:
Charlie Chaplin
Jack Lemmon
Orson Welles
Frederic March
Paul Muni
Spencer Tracy
Laurence Olivier
MICKEY ROONEY (yes, I mean it!)
Henry Fonda
James Cagney
James Stewart
Micheal Redgrave
Kirk Douglas
William Holden
James Dean
Frank Sinatra (I mean him too. Has anyone seen SUDDENLY?)
Sidney Poitier
Marcello Mastroianni
Anthony Quinn
Michael Caine
Paul Scofield
James Earl Jones
George C. Scott
Gene Hackman
Peter Finch
Kenneth Branagh
Jeremy Irons
Anthony Hopkins (except for NIXON)
Lillian Gish
Marlene Dietrich
Gloria Swanson
Marie Dressler
Helen Hayes
Claudette Colbert
Barbara Stanwyck
Jean Arthur
Ingrid Bergman
Joan Crawford
Vanessa Redgrave
Ethel Barrymore
Anna Magnani
Anouk Aimee
Jane Fonda
Cicely Tyson
Gena Rowlands
Liv Ullmann
Diane Keaton
Meryl Streep
Jodie Foster
Isabelle Adjani
Kathy Bates
Cattherine Deneuve
Susan Sarandon
GIULIETTA MASINA!!!
Go to Comment
Irreplaceable Actors? almost 4 years ago
Thanks, Cineaste, for noticing my inclusion of GIULETTA MASINA.
Some critics say that GIULIETTA MASINA only had two expressions: a Chaplinesque smile and Chaplinesque pathos. Even IF that’s true (and it’s not), she can steal any scene with just those two looks, especially in NIGHTS OF CABIRIA and JULIET OF THE SPIRITS. I defy anyone to not be moved by the ending of CABIRIA, when her pathetic, woe-is-me, deep-down sorrow gradually changes to a tentative smile.
Go to Comment
IS CITIZEN KANE THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE OR JUST THE BEST HYPED? almost 4 years ago
Re.: Harry Long’s point — “Well, in the case of Reifenstahl, whenever I’ve watched TRIUMPH OF THE WILL I see that everything seems to have been ripped from Lang’s DIE NIBELUNGEN and METROPOLIS.
On the other hand I can’t think of a single filmmaker she influenced.”
Riefenstahl may not have influenced any major filmmakers (except for that last scene in STAR WARS, when Luke, Hans Solo, and the Wookie march down the aisle to get their awards — just as 3 Nazis do in the outdoor war memorial scene in TRIUMPH); however, TRIUMPH has had a STRONG influence on U.S. campaign commercials. The most obvious example, for those old enough to remember, was the “Morning in America” spots for Ronald Reagan in 1984. Indeed, those spots were strung together into a 30-minute campaign film that was used as Reagan’s acceptance speech at the Republican convention that year.
Go to Comment
Girl's Night Out! almost 4 years ago
If you’re all hardcore feminists, I’d recommend Maureen Gorris’s A QUESTION OF SILENCE, a Dutch film whose director went on to win the Oscar for foreign-language film with ANTONIA’S LINE.
If, however, you’re looking for a “chick flick,” consider any of the following:
Beaches
A League of their Own
All That Heaven Allows
Written on the Wind
The Princess Diaries
A Cinderella Story
Ever After
Pretty Woman
The Devil Wears Prada
Terms of Endearment
Steel Magnolias
Thelma and Louise
Juliet of the Spirits (but make it a “girls’ night out on LSD” party)
Go to Comment
IS CITIZEN KANE THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE OR JUST THE BEST HYPED? almost 4 years ago
@ CINEMA: as it turns out, literary scholars have their top 100 lists too. Recently, the Modern Library organized a Board to select the best novels in the English language. I’ve pasted 20 of them below in order. One oddity: I’ve also pasted the Top 20 Readers’ Selections below that, which include 4 novels by Ayn Rand and 3 by L. Ron Hubbard. I’m surprised that ULYSSES made it to both lists!
BOARD’S CHOICES
1. ULYSSES by James Joyce 2. THE GREAT GATSBY by F. Scott Fitzgerald 3. A PORTRAIT OF THE ARTIST AS A YOUNG MAN by James Joyce 4. LOLITA by Vladimir Nabokov 5. BRAVE NEW WORLD by Aldous Huxley 6. THE SOUND AND THE FURY by William Faulkner 7. CATCH-22 8. DARKNESS AT NOON by Arthur Koestler 9. SONS AND LOVERS by D.H. Lawrence 10. THE GRAPES OF WRATH by John Steinbeck 11. UNDER THE VOLCANO by Malcolm Lowry 12. THE WAY OF ALL FLESH by Samuel Butler 13. 1984 by George Orwell 14. I, CLAUDIUS by Robert Graves 15. TO THE LIGHTHOUSE by Virginia Woolf 16. AN AMERICAN TRAGEDY by Theodore Dreiser 17. THE HEART IS A LONELY HUNTER by Carson McCullers 18. SLAUGHTERHOUSE-FIVE by Kurt Vonnegut 19. INVISIBLE MAN by Ralph Ellison 20. NATIVE SON by Richard WrightREADERS’ SELECTIONS
Go to Comment
The Longest film ever made almost 4 years ago
W. C. Fields had the best cure for insomnia. He said (with that great voice of his): “Get plenty of sleep.”
Go to Comment
IS CITIZEN KANE THE GREATEST MOVIE EVER MADE OR JUST THE BEST HYPED? almost 4 years ago
CINEMA: I agree with you. In the early days of film education, it was thought to be important to justify offering college-level courses and degree programs in Cinema. Often these programs started in literature departments, where many academics didn’t consider film a valid field of study. By listing the masterpieces of cinema and hailing their directors as “auteurs,” film scholars were able to validate their existences in the university. Much of this happened in the U.S. in the 1960s and 1970s, two of the prime decades for international Top Ten lists, such as the SIGHT & SOUND poll, and the spread of the auteur theory by Andrew Sarris. Robin Wood’s original book on Hitchcock compared teh director to Shakespeare.
Getting back to the original point about KANE: I believe that academe was partially responsible for the “hype” about that particular film. Like great literature, it dealt with serious themes and issues, was creatively innovative in style, and was perceived to be the work of a single “genius,” Orson Welles. I happen to think that all the hype is deserved, but I’m trying to address the question of how KANE got to be treated as THE GREATEST. It’s possible that KANE is BOTH the greatest film ever made AND one of the most hyped for its greatness among a certain class of cineastes, like professional critics, academics, and folks on this Web site
This doesn’t explain everything about lists and the canonical status of CITIZEN KANE, but you’re right: literature doesn’t always have to be justifying its existence in the academy or in newspapers and magazines. Imagine what it’s like (or WAS like) for people trying to create TELEVISION STUDIES programs at universities!
Go to Comment
Irreplaceable Actors? almost 4 years ago
Dimitris: I’m not necessarily claiming that Sinatra was a CONSISTENTLY terrific actor, only that he is somewhat irreplaceable. There are probably 9-10 films in which his persona and performance meshed (including the musicals) and the results were memorable. I’m thinking of:
FROM HERE TO ETERNITY
THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM
SOME CAME RUNNING
COME BLOW YOUR HORN
THE MANCHURIAN CANDIDATE
ON THE TOWN (keeping up with Gene Kelly)
ANCHORS AWEIGH
PAL JOEY
SUDDENLY
and (maybe) THE DETECTIVE (in which I appear in a huge crowd scene)
Almost all of the others were meretricious garbage both as films and in terms of his performance. Sinatra was known as being a “one-take Charlie” in movies. If he had the power (and he sometimes did), he would yell “Print it!” after the first take and move on to the next set-up, unlike the care he took with his recordings and stage performances.
On one point, I tend to agree with Old Blue Eyes: HE should have switched roles with Brando in GUYS AND DOLLS. (Brando [or whoever dubbed him] didn’t have the singing chops for that part.)
Go to Comment
Best Film Remake almost 4 years ago
It’s not an official remake but I’ve always contended that BLOW-UP is a loose adaptation of REAR WINDOW. Think about it.
(BTW, I’m not saying that the “remake” is better or worse than the original.)
In terms of real remakes, almost any version of ROMEO AND JULIET is better than the George Cukor version.
Go to Comment
CLASSIC FILM NOIR almost 4 years ago
I’m just catching up to this thread. A few films not mentioned so far (I think) are (in alphabetical order):
ALL THE KING’S MEN
THE ASPHALT JUNGLE
BEWARE MY LOVELY
BEYOND A REASONABLE DOUBT
BODY AND SOUL
BORN TO BE BAD
THE BROTHERS RICO
THE BURGLAR
CAUGHT
CHAMPION
CITY ACROSS THE RIVER
CRACK-UP
CRY OF THE CITY
DOA (the original), a San Francisco treat
DARK CITY
THE DARK CORNER
THE DARK MIRROR
THE DARK PAST (lots of “dark” titles)
DEAD RECKONING
A DOUBLE LIFE
THE FILE ON THELMA JORDAN
THE GLASS KEY
GUN CRAZY
THE HARDER THEY FALL (script by the late Budd Schulberg)
THE HITCH-HIKER
THE HOUSE ON 92nd STREET
I, THE JURY
JOHNNY O’CLOCK
KILLER’S KISS
THE KILLERS
A KISS BEFORE DYING
KISS OF DEATH
KISS THE BLOOD OFF MY HANDS (lots of “kiss” movies)
LADY IN THE LAKE
LAURA
THE LOCKET
M (Joseph Losey version, 1951)
MILDRED PIERCE
THE MOB
MURDER MY SWEET
NIAGARA (a color “noir”?)
THE NIGHT HAS A THOUSAND EYES
THE NIGHT OF THE HUNTER
NIGHTMARE (one of my cult favorites)
NIGHTMARE ALLEY
PANIC IN THE STREETS
PARTY GIRL
THE PHENIX CITY STORY
THE POSTMAN ALWAYS RINGS TWICE
THE PROWLER
RANCHO NOTORIOUS (a color Western “noir”?)
RAW DEAL
SECRET BEHIND THE DOOR
SORRY, WRONG NUMBER
THE SNIPER
THE STRANGE LOVE OF MARTHA IVERS
THE STRANGER
SUDDENLY
SUSPENSE
SWEET SMELL OF SUCCESS
THIS GUN FOR HIRE
UNDERCURRENT
THE UNFAITHFUL
THE UNSUSPECTED
THE WEB
WHILE THE CITY SLEEPS
WHIRLPOOL
WHITE HEAT
A WOMAN’S SECRET
If it means anything, I agree with those who say that VERTIGO is NOT a film noir, in part because it’s in color. Remember, the French coined the term from the American films they saw after the Occupation, all of which were in black and white. They were also referring to the cycle of “dark” novels of the 1930s. Of course, any individual can define the term as he or she sees fit.
Nor do I consider CITIZEN KANE a classic film noir, even though it features chiaroscuro lighting. A film should probably have 5-6 elements to be considered an authentic film noir.
Go to Comment
l'eclisse...what the hell? almost 4 years ago
Regarding the title: Antonioni has stated in interviews that he went to film an actual eclipse in Florence and began to wonder whether he could work on a theme of the “eclipse of the feelings.” Then he cut the eclipse footage from the film because it would have exaggerated the title and made the theme too literal and obvious.
As night falls in the final sequence, the effect of an eclipse can be seen in the gradual darkening of the EUR district. And the fact that the couple doesn’t show up suggests the metaphorical “eclipse of the feelings” the director was going for.
Notice that the film begins on a bright white oblong object, which turns out to the the sleeve of a man’s white shirt, and ends on a bright white oblong object, a streetlight overlooking the incomplete building project. This is often how one has to “read” Antonioni’s films, by paying careful attention to these sorts of visual motifs and trying to make meaning from their accumulation. Another example in ECLIPSE is the recurring view of that building under construction, which represents both a literal site and a figurative comment on human relationships being incomplete during the Atomic Age (a situation only mentioned in a newspaper headline seen late in the movie).
So, it may take somewhat more than observing the subtle acting of the performers; one may also have to pay very close attention to the visual and aural cues “to uncover a director’s oblique statements or intentions.” Antonioni conveys narrative, character, and thematic information on different “wires” than most directors (although he’s influenced many), who rely primarily on plot, action, and dialogue. (as one example, there’s that big, abstract painting in the first scene, which seems to represent the emotions of the breaking-up couple, the feelings they can’t seem to express to each other directly.)
There are NUMEROUS books and articles on ECLIPSE and other Antonioni films that can help anyone interested in exploring his artistic and thematic methods. (You may still come away puzzled or not liking his cinema, but it should help viewers who want to understand what he was trying to do.)
I’ll probably have more to say, but let’s give others a chance to post.
Go to Comment
The Worst Social Commentary Of The Past Decade? almost 4 years ago
I’m surprised that no one mentioned all the Michael Moore “documentaries” (he no longer calls them that) and all the bad movies about the Iraq War. I happen to agree with many of the beliefs expressed in those movies, but they’re just bad social commentary films because they rely on distortions and outright lies and very little subtlety, imo.
Go to Comment
The Worst Social Commentary Of The Past Decade? almost 4 years ago
To Strawdawg’s point — “Do An Inconvenient Truth and Moore films even count? I think the OP is talking about social commentary found inside dramas and comedies. Aren’t documentaries ALL social commentary?”: I think they SHOULD count, even if they are “documentaries” and have blatant social messages.
The original post just asked for THE WORST social commentary films of the last decade. If the originator of the thread, Squiffle, wants to specify that he meant only fictional movies, I’d be glad to lay off Michael Moore and Al Gore — at least on this thread.
Go to Comment
Astounding Debuts almost 4 years ago
I agree with many of the choices so far as impressive debut features.
I’d add the following:
NANOOK OF THE NORTH (Flaherty, 1924)
STRIKE (Eisenstein, 1924)
A GENERATION (Wajda, 1955)
HIROSHIMA MON AMOUR (Resnais, 1959) One of the greatest debut features (although Resnais had made many shorts beforehand)
POINT OF ORDER! (DeAntonio, 1963)
WHAT’S UP, TIGER LILY? (Allen, 1966, sort of. The “real” director was Senkichi Taniguchi), or TAKE THE MONEY & RUN (Allen, 1969)
BADLANDS (Malick, 1973)
THE LOST HONOR OF KATERINA BLUM (Von Trotta, 1975)
BLUE COLLAR (Schrader, 1978)
STRANGER THAN PARADISE (Jarmusch, 1980, although I realize that he made an obscure feature before this)
Also, one correction to a post above:
Sally Potter’s first film was not ORLANDO. She made several somewhat more experimental films before it: THE LONDON STORY, THRILLER, THE GOLD DIGGERS, and a TV film.
Go to Comment
Favorite performances by child actors almost 4 years ago
Jackie Coogan in THE KID (1921)
Mickey Rooney in BABES IN ARMS (1939) or THE HUMAN COMEDY (1943)
All the kids in ROME OPEN CITY (1945)
Enzo Staiola in BICYCLE THIEVES (1948)
Patty McCormack in THE BAD SEED (1956)
Jean-Pierre Leaud in THE 400 BLOWS (1959)
Rita Tushingham in A TASTE OF HONEY (1961) — although I’m not sure how old she was then
Patty Duke in THE MIRACLE WORKER (1962)
Bertil Guve and Pernilla Allwin in FANNY AND ALEXANDER (1982)
Kate Winslet in HEAVENLY CREATURES (1994)
Go to Comment
Adele H almost 4 years ago
I have an anecdote about the one time I saw this film, in its initial release in the U.S. It had stopped playing in the regular Manhattan art houses, so I had to track it down at a movie theater near Coney Island in Brooklyn, not your usual auteur venue.
There were a couple of older women sitting behind my party, who insisted on chatting about the characters throughout the film. Two gems that I overheard:
As Adele followed her obsession with her lieutenant all over the world, there’s a hint that she might fall for a more rational love, the bearded Saskatchewan man who sells her reams of paper so she can write home to her father, Victor Hugo, for money. The film seems to be rooting for Adele to hook up with this bookseller, but the ladies behind me summed it up before i realized that it was not to be. “He’s a nice guy, but he needs a shave,” one of them said.
Then, after about 90 minutes of watching Adele follow her folly around the globe, going mad in the process, the other woman finally realized: “She’s CRAZY.”
I acquired a new understanding of your “average” audience member from that screening in the remote corridors of Brooklyn.
Go to Comment
Favorite performances by child actors almost 4 years ago
To THE INFINITE SOYBEAN: I would hesitate to list Linda Blair’s performance in THE EXORCIST as a great CHILD performance because, as I understand it, all of the demonic, deep-voiced howls and dialogue were dubbed in by Mercedes McCambridge. IMDB even gives her credit for that voice work, although I don’t McCambridge was credited with that work at the time of the film’s release (1973).
So, the performance was shared, so to speak, by a child and an adult.
Go to Comment
what happened to Theresa Russell? almost 4 years ago
She’s appeared in several episodic TV episodes, including a few Law & Orders as an attorney. She has “filled out a little,” but so have I.
Go to Comment
Best title almost 4 years ago
I just picked up this thread and LOVE the titles listed. I can add BUCKET OF BLOOD, A MOVIE, SCORPIO RISING, and THE GODS MUST BE CRAZY.
For titles, though, one director stands out: Yasuniro Ozu. My favorite is EQUINOX FLOWER. This is a PARTIAL list of some of his film titles (from IMDB):
… aka An Autumn Afternoon (USA)
… aka The Taste of Saury (Japan: informal literal English title)
… aka Autumn for the Kohayagawa Family (literal English title)
… aka Early Autumn
… aka The End of Summer (International: English title)
… aka The Last of Summer
… aka Late Autumn (USA)
… aka Drifting Weeds
… aka Floating Weeds (USA)
… aka Good Morning (International: English title)
… aka Ohayo (Japan: alternative transliteration)
… aka Yasujiro Ozu’s Good Morning (USA)
… aka Equinox Flower
… aka Tokyo Twilight
… aka Early Spring (USA)
… aka Tokyo Story (USA)
… aka Flavor of Green Tea Over Rice (USA)
… aka Early Summer
… aka The Munekata Sisters (International: English title)
… aka Late Spring (USA)
… aka A Hen in the Wind
… aka The Record of a Tenement Gentleman
… aka There Was a Father
… aka The Brothers and Sisters of the Toda Family
… aka What Did the Lady Forget?
… aka The Only Son
… aka College Is a Nice Place
… aka An Inn in Tokyo
… aka An Innocent Maid
… aka The Young Virgin
… aka A Story of Floating Weeds
… aka A Mother Should Be Loved
… aka Passing Fancy
… aka Dragnet Girl
… aka Women on the Firing Line
… aka Woman of Tokyo
… aka Until the Day We Meet Again
… aka Where Are the Dreams of Youth?
… aka A Picture Book for Grown-ups: I was Born, But… (Japan: English title: long title)
… aka I Was Born, But… (International: English title)
… aka Spring Comes from the Ladies
… aka Tokyo Chorus
… aka Beauty’s Sorrows
… aka The Lady and Her Favorite
… aka The Lady and the Beard
… aka Young Miss
… aka Lost Luck
… aka Luck Touched My Legs
… aka The Revengeful Spirit of Eros
… aka I Flunked But…
… aka Introduction to Marriage
… aka Walk Cheerfully
… aka That Night’s Wife
… aka A Straightforward Boy
… aka The Life of an Office Worker
… aka I Graduated But…
… aka Fighting Friends
… aka Days of Youth
… aka Treasure Mountain
… aka Body Beautiful
… aka A Couple on the Move
… aka Pumpkin
Go to Comment
Transitional Films almost 4 years ago
If these are teenaged viewers, I would recommend films that deal with young people, so that the age factor does not stand in the way of their interest. Having established interest and “identification” with the main characters, it becomes easier to lead them to the Promised Land of cinematic analysis and in-depth understanding. Don’t assume that teens can relate to any narrative.
I’ve had success with college freshmen showing
THE GRADUATE
THE 400 BLOWS
RUN LOLA RUN
DO THE RIGHT THING
Go to Comment
Favorite performances by child actors almost 4 years ago
Many of you have mentioned Tatum O’Neal’s performance in PAPER MOON. I didn’t include it in my list because of some of the behind-the-scenes aspects of the film’s making. Supposedly (or at least I’ve been told), little Tatum began to set records for the most takes ever required on simple dialogue scenes. She even surpassed Marilyn Monroe in that regard (and Marilyn had the excuse that she was depressed and over-medicated).
At one point, director Bogdanovich offered her candy to get the line right and she demanded CASH, which she was promptly handed.
I know we should judge actors/actresses primarily by what we see ON THE SCREEN but these “insider” stories have sometimes clouded my view of a performance. Besides (and I hope I don’t set off a bunch of nasty replies), I think Tatum overacted in PAPER MOON. She got her Oscar for being “cute” and for being the daughter of one of the biggest box-office stars of that era. (Plus, I assume that you’ve all read the gossip columns about how Ryan hit on his daughter at Farrah’s funeral. Maybe he had the excuse that he was depressed and over-medicated, and hence didn’t recognize his own daughter?)
Go to Comment
Oliver Stone Opinions almost 4 years ago
One can debate Stone’s political views and accuracy in historical films until the proverbial cows come home. There’s a long post on JFK from several weeks ago that goes over many of these objections, but it may not be readable because of all the blood on the site!
However, I DO see a distinctive visual style in many of Stone’s “movies.” JFK, for instance, is a masterwork of editing — including subliminal cutting — albeit in the service of a certain view of the Kennedy assassination. His mix of black-and-white and color footage is memorable. Likewise, the lighting and special effects in his films (the storm clouds over the White House in NIXON) are often beautifully evocative of the mood and meaning of his scenes.WALL STREET may be a convincing or fabricated indictment of 1980s capitalism (and a defense of earlier, more “ethical” versions of capitalism as exemplified by the Hal Holbrook character and Stone’s own stockbroker father), but I’d defend its visual style as terrific. The editing conveyed the absolute craziness of panicked buying and selling, and the beautifully lit scenes on Montauk Beach and Central Park contrasted with the interior scenes in Charlie Sheen’s condo and the Wall Street offices of Gekko and Sheen’s company.
One of the themes in WALL STREET, which is also seen in PLATOON, is the moral choice a young character has (in both cases played by Charlie Sheen) between a bad father figure and a good father figure. In PLATOON, it’s Elias vs. Barnes; in WALL STREET, it’s Gekko vs. the protagonist’s own father (played by Martin Sheen). To me, those personal character dynamics elevate these films beyond their somewhat simplistic condemnations of corporate “greed” and the Vietnam War.
I would agree that Stone’s recent films have lost some of that visual and narrative flair. (ALEXANDER, anyone?)
Go to Comment
Oliver Stone Opinions almost 4 years ago
@Mike Spence: Regarding your response to my analysis of PLATOON and WALL STREET, “In PLATOON, it’s Elias vs. Barnes; in WALL STREET, it’s Gekko vs. the protagonist’s own father,”
“That is the exact problem for me. To me any art that can reduced to “vs.” based descriptions is juvenile, at best.”
Well, I hate to tell you, but most of the world’s great novels, plays, and films are based on human conflict. Yes, someone VS. someone else; one group VS. its rival; one ideology VS. another way of life. It’s admittedly repetitive in its basics, although it has infinite variations, but I wouldn’t call it juvenile. Those of us who have not yet attained satori still struggle with conflicts every day, and we want to see that in our movies (although some films do it better — and in a more mature manner than others).
Now, maybe I misread your critique. Maybe you were criticizing ME for pointing out the common Oedipal dynamic in the two Stone films. I thought you were criticizing Stone for using simplistic, antagonistic character types. That’s a valid criticism. Criticizing ME is, of course, invalid. :-) :-) :-)
Go to Comment
Oliver Stone Opinions almost 4 years ago
Back at Mike Spence: Thanks for clarifying your thoughts. You weren’t criticizing Stone for using DRAMATIC CONFLICT, per se, but for using simplistic X vs. Y conflict. That’s a valid argument; there’s not usually much “subtext” in an Oliver Stone movie.
And I certainly agree with those who mention his inconsistency. U-TURN is clearly one of the worst, but throw in ALEXANDER, most of NIXON (Sir Anthony was miscast); TWIN TOWERS, W, etc. In fact, maybe there IS some consistency there: everything after 1991 wasn’t very good!
Go to Comment