The reason I focus on Antonioni was because when the film played Cannes in 1960 is was not well received yet today it is generally considered a classic. So the 50 year time period seemed interesting to me.
The style and the precarious nature of L’Avventura were new to many viewers. It was one large step beyond Italian Neorealism, which at the time was very influential and a movement most critics and viewers could associate with. With Antonioni many critics and viewers were puzzled about how to react. It was too precarious to them, too slow also and didn’t have the narrative focus they were used to.
Yet since then many films similar to Antonioni’s films [the main four I mentioned] have been made and in time have been accepted by the critics. Over the past 50 years these type of films are much more accepted and common at the art house cinemas.
Clair Denis has noted often how much she loves Ozu. But having watched all of her films I can say her style is not like Ozu. It is much closer to Antonioni or maybe Bresson. Obviously she has her own style as well. But the influence is there.
I feel Tarkovsky took something from Antonioni. Godard’s ‘style’ is not as influential. His post-modern self-reflexive nature is though, true. Bresson is a contender for most influential, yes.
I should note this topic came out of a conversation I and some others had with Robert Koehler [Variety critic]. He felt that many, many films on the festival circuit were channeling Antonioni [my word not his] more so than they were Bergman or Fellini, who in there day were hugely successful filmmakers [as you know]. Yet today they are not really influential anymore. I had to agree.
So I wanted to throw the question out for discussion.
Malik
I don’t think a filmmaker has to tell us they are influenced by a filmmaker to be influenced. We can usually see it in there work.
David Ehrenstein
I recall he was talking about Asian cinema of the kind we have seen from the better films out of Taiwan (Ming-liang) and China (Jia Zhangke). It was definitely with regards to contemporary world cinema.
He was talking in some ways about the alienation and ennui we see in many art house or festival films that he believed were a result of the influence of Antonioni.
Z. Bart
Your view on Variety critics is very general. Koehler’s views on world cinema is more impressive than most. Here is his blog [Film Journey]
Note his long review of Tarr’s Turin Horse.
Malik
Influences are not always direct. Most rock bands over the last 40 years are influenced by The Beatles and yet I would bet most of those bands would tell you they don’t much like The Beatles. The key is someone comes along in an art form and causes a ripple effect which is felt for years. The Antonioni style is evident even in filmmakers who don’t know his films. So an influence need not be literally acknowledged to be evident in an art form.
Into Peripheral Vision
It’s not a theory. Everyone has influences. But some of those influences are not direct. Yet they cannot be denied. Take the deep focus cinematography of Gregg Toland. Its influence was enormous to the art of cinema. You don’t even need to know who Toland was but you know what deep focus is.
I’m not saying Antonioni is as influential as that. He may not even be influential except to a handful of filmmakers. I’m just posing the question.
Robert W Peabody III
Re: alienation and ennui
I would say the primary criticism of L’Avventura is that it is anti-dramatic. In such a way that the focal point of the film becomes the state-of-mind of the characters. And in turn the cinematic style mirrors that state-of-mind. So while it is true style is a societal theme the way it is portrayed on screen is not. I find Antonioni’s style to be influential to the way in which other filmmakers portray ennui or alienation. It’s an opinion to be sure. He wasn’t the first but he perfected it.
Thanks for the insights. You’re right about Rossellini’s ‘Voyage to Italy’. It’s all one big cinematic fish tank, really. With influences left and right, above and below.
I would say, no, Antonioni is not THE most influential. But I think the question was worth pursuing because it leads us [perhaps] to a handful of filmmakers who are the most influential. I think Antonioni is in that handful.
Marketing is what helps get people into the theatres.
Back in the days of Italian neorealism the US marketers would even go so far as to include pictures of scantily clad women – who were not in the film – on the posters and fliers to draw attention to the film and sell more tickets. Of couse, at that time art house theatres showed films that were often condemned by the church or not cleared by the ratings board. So they had a reputation for sexual content that naturally became a selling point.
I think Blow-Up and Contempt actually did okay and Last Tango didn’t tank. Eyes Wide Shut on the other hand would probably not have done any better if it had been marketed for the art house because of its two stars and its director. There would just be no way to avoid that aspect no matter how you marketed the film. Although I will agree it was criticized by people who thought it was going to be something else.
The way in which Antonioni dealt with telling a story in L’Avventura and L’Eclisse was a lot different than Bergman would have done. The alienation of the characters is presented in the narrative through his framing and pacing. It is that style I am talking about. He was attempting to convey an interior drama of human behavior that relied a lot more on audience participation than – say – Fellini did and certainly more than Bergman who was much more theatrical.
To me his style can be considered influential. Prior to him not many films used this same style. You have to go back to silent film to find it. Obviously there are probably other films you can name that did this in the 30’s, 40’s or 50’s. But the point is Antonioni did it and made an impact among critics and filmmakers that other filmmakers working in that style did.
I’ll agree some of the points I have made are vague. Directly connecting his style to others is probably a foolish thing to do. But that is one things critics are for. True we cannot know his influence if we do not ask every filmmaker who makes a film. But, again, I am interested in the influences that pervades an art form, which may indirectly be an influence on many other filmmakers. And Antonioni’s style was front and center in 1961 for all to see.
To me Antonioni was the best at the particular narrative and cinematic style he used. Therefore while he may not own the style he perfected it. To say he was not influential at all is simply not true. He was influential. The key is how much influence did he have and how much does he have today. I would argue Bresson probably has as much influence as does Ozu. Although if you break down their narrative styles they are not the same as Antonioni. Or with each other.
In my opinion, he has far far more of an influence on the way the narrative unfolds in more out-of-the mainstream films than Bergman – whose films have not dated well. [Although I still like many of them].
But, again, this is all opinion. If you think Bresson or Godard or Spielberg or Tarantino is the most influential then if you make the case I’ll consider it. I have tried to make a case but really I am more interested in the question rather than the answer. I think we can agree Antonioni is not the most influential. But he can’t be ignored either.
There is a similar shot in Angelopoulos’ LANDSCAPES IN THE MIST to a shot in Antonioni’s IL GRIDO. Both shots involve a group of people standing around in a field that is by the side of the road.
Angelopoulos’ shot is a long tracking shot in the winter along the side of a road. While Antonioni’s has a short tracking shot that involves a girl walking among men.
I’m not saying Angelopoulos copied Antonioni with this shot. He may not even have seen IL GRIDO. But the shots are both distinct and [to me] remarkably similar. I remember seeing it in LANDSCAPES IN THE MIST and it made me think of IL GRIDO.
Maybe the DP – Giorgos Arvanitis – had seen IL GRIDO? No doubt both he and Angelopoulos were very aware of Antonioni’s style.
Meek’s Cutoff is a quiet film but one I found rewarding. It starts with little dialogue and what dialogue it has is almost background in nature. The pace is slow but engaging because it has focus as it involves a group of people moving and working to get across Oregon. They are led by a blowhard named Meek [Bruce Greenwood] who is a mountain man with tales about everything. But as they continue day after day it becomes clear they are lost. Then they run low on water. Then they encounter a Native American whom they fear – mainly because Meek scares them into thinking he is a savage.
Various bonds are built and broken. The men gather and talk in the distance. The women wait. Decisions are made, conflicts arise. It goes from there….
I liked the film in the same way I like Old Joy and Wendy and Lucy in that it doesn’t reveal it’s narrative right away. It sort of just exists in time and slowly builds. I especially like that it was shot 1:33 to 1 [Academy ratio] which is not something we have seen in a Western for a long time.
It is not a film that grabs you [except maybe visually] but it is a film that stays with you long after you have seen it. The one issue I have with it is the revisionist nature of the film. It has a bit of a feminist angle which may not be too authentic.
I disagree with PolarisDiB’s assessment. The ending is an ending – and a beginning. But I didn’t find it anymore ambiguous than what the settlers themselves dealt with. Tying up the loose ends would not work in this type of film because it would feel fake.
I can’t speak for the French critics but Leconte has a pretty good track record. So much so that if someone called him a ‘hack’ they would have to really have something against him because he does have style and his films are frequently provocative – granted in a mainstream French way. If that makes sense….
True, he is in a different arena than, say, Godard or Resnais or Denis and a few others. But he would admit as much.
Here are a list of some films I would recommend that are fairly easy to find in the US.
Monsieur Hire
The Hairdresser’s Husband
Ridicule
The Girl On the Bridge
The Widow of Saint-Pierre
The Man on the Train
Intimate Strangers
I’ve heard his documentary Dogora is similar to Baraka but have yet to see it.
The first one I saw was DAYS OF HEAVEN so I say start there simply because the cinematography is terrific and that is the film that [for me at least] made his reputation. But BADLANDS is an excellent first film. I suspect some like it better because it is has more conventional storytelling and is less ethereal and contemplative than DAYS OF HEAVEN or THE THIN RED LINE.
I would say THE THIN RED LINE would probably be the ‘purest’ Malick film and perhaps the one to see last. That leaves just one other film; THE NEW WORLD, which I think one can watch without knowing anything about his style and enjoy just fine.
The one caveat to all of this is you should watch his films on a decent sized screen with a good transfer. If your only choice is a small computer screen then go with BADLANDS and wait to watch the others on a bigger screen.
Badlands…. the characters being more fully formed than they are in his other films
Yes and no. The character development in BADLANDS exists in a more conventional narrative structure than DAYS OF HEAVEN.
DAYS OF HEAVEN has all the motivations and character development but it come off – as some have said here – more mythic due to the pacing, shot selections and editing. That’s my reading anyway.
I would add that THE THIN RED LINE is a bit too abstract in the character / story development – although it still has brilliant moments. But I could see someone not warming to that film as much.
Risselada
I’d choose Guelwaar before Xala. Guelwaar is terrific. It is also pretty darn tough to find. I I have a rare screener video from when it was released in the 1990’s. But so far as I can tell a DVD does not exist and the only online versions I can find have to be downloaded.
I find it a timely film as well. Christians vs Muslims. I also think it is better made than Xala. Xala is perhaps stronger as a conceptual or metaphorical film. And the scene for which it is best known is a good [and unique] one. But I feel Guelwaar is more well rounded in character and story development.
I’ve seen:
Black Girl
Mandabi
Xala
Ceddo
Camp de Thiaroye
Guelwaar
Moolaadé
All are good films. My three favorites are Guelwaar, Moolaadé and Xala.
True, Hoberman didn’t write a full review of A Serious Man. He just wrote that wild quip.
I’ve read other such reviews that criticized the film for really loading the dice against the main character. I have to sort of agree with them. I thought the film was well made technically, had great cinematography and was well acted all around. I even laughed a few times. But overall it does fit into the nihilist streak they seem to drop their characters into.
All filmmakers / screenwriters control the fate of the characters they create. They are the gods of their pre-destined worlds. But it doesn’t always have to be so obvious. And in this case the Jewish character suffers at every turn and cannot get a break. By the end black clouds are gathering. Hence, Hoberman says, a Nazi would like it.
I’ll half way agree with another comment up top that Bunuel does something similar. But Bunuel always seems more ironic [and surreal] than the Coens. And the Coens sometimes seem to wear the nihilism on their sleeve. It would be interesting to compare Nazarin with A Serious Man. I think the difference on first thought is that Bunuel’s character chooses his own fate. While with A Serious Man the Coens choose it for him
Although A Serious Man may be ‘autobiographical’ – as they have said – it still feels forced and controlled much more than I like a film to be.
David Denby wrote a review of the film I partly agree with.
“A Serious Man,” like “Burn After Reading,” is in their bleak, black, belittling mode, and it’s hell to sit through.
I would say it was not hell to sit through. But it would be on a second viewing.
Of note is an article I read on Truffaut from a 1980’s NY Times article.
Truffaut said this: ‘’The American cinema, traditionally, has this notion of a goal to be achieved. And it is achieved, after great dangers and difficulties. All over the world spectators have found great pleasure in these things.
’’But this kind of theme is not possible in Europe. We have a skepticism about goals being attained. We think goals are illusory. We don’t conceive of the individual embarked on a great enterprise.
‘’We don’t make pictures about taking 5,000 steers across the country. So what do I do? I take sentiments to the end instead of enterprises.’’
Take that as you will but this is an interesting view of American storytelling vs European storytelling.
I’ll also add that I love cinema from the 1930’s. The differences between French 30’s films and Hollywood 30’s films are striking especially with regards to the film endings. Hollywood was a dream factory with neat, happy endings while the French films often ended rather tragically or precariously. Although not always.
I am not so sure that carries over to today in the mainstream.
In today’s cinema Woody Allen and Francoise Ozon come to mind as filmmakers who make a film a year. Spike Lee and Robert Altman did it for a while too in their prime.
The Coens have had 8 films released in 11 years.
Godard in the 1960’s had 15 full length films released in 8 years and I’d say they are all terrific.
So I think that is what Renault2011 means.
In the history of cinema a lot of fimmakers cranked out quality in a short period. Hollywood in the 30’s and 40’s especially.
I’ve just seen Film Socialisme. It’s better than I thought it would be. It’s very much in line with Godard’s recent ‘essay film’ style but even more so. I would venture to say it is basically an experimental film. Take that for what it is worth. I liked it. But as is the case with many of his recent films I am not sure if his control and his message is completely thoughtout or if he is just flinging out ideas and we have to try and figure it out for ourselves.
A bit of both I suppose.
The editing and the sound design in the first 40 minutes is terrific as is the editing in the last 10 minutes. The ‘middle’ section is the only thing close to a narrative but only seems to fit into the whole piece in a thematic manner. It doesn’t work as well – but it has good moments.
I would say the film is like a modern symphony. Sometimes beautiful, sometimes atonal, sometimes quietly falling into the background and sometimes challenging and noisy. But overall worth the experience.
Forget film theory. Stick with practical history that tells you who the hell made it and what the heck filmmakers and studios were doing.
‘The Genius of the System: Hollywood Filmmaking in the Studio Era’ by Thomas Schatz
‘Who the Devil Made It: Conversations with Legendary Film Directors’ by Peter Bogdanovich
‘Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of the New Hollywood’ by Mark Harris
If you want insight into film, that borders on theory, you might like:
‘Film As Film: Understanding And Judging Movies’ by V. F. Perkins
‘The Dream Life: Movies, Media, And The Mythology Of The Sixties’ by J. Hoberman
‘The New Wave, 30th Anniversary Edition’ by James Monaco
Nothing wrong with people’s own interests. Mine is not fim theory.
He wanted some recommendations and – in my opinion – film history is much more interesting than film theory, which some tend to espouse. But he is welcome to take the advice or leave it.
Comics:
I grew up in the 1970’s when comic books were .25 cents. I mainly collected Marvel comics. I guess I found them more heroic and action packed. They were also less sensational than DC comics which always had an angle to the story that I didn’t enjoy.
Plus Marvel had John Buscema who had the cleanest lines in the business.
Movies
I think Marvel still wins here. DC hasn’t impressed much.
I have to say this is a pretty wild paring of films. I love both films but for different reasons.
Matador was my first Almodovar film. I saw it in 1989 [or so] and it blew me away. I was younger and impressionable then. I have seen everything he made since then.
Mother and Son was my first Sokurov film and it was an amazing experience – especially on the big screen in a quiet movie theatre. I watched it twice in a week.
Both films are what make going to movies so fun. And what make [for Americans] ‘foreign films’ special. One is entertaining in different ways than Hollwood and one is a film I don’t think an American would make.
I’m not part of the Director’s Cup and the voting is closed but, I honestly would have a tough time voting for one over the other. I’d lean toward Sokurov only because the film form of his film is so powerful and unique.
One of the more influential films to use popular music was SCORPIO RISING by Kenneth Anger. Maybe you know it? If not, it is an avant-garde / underground film from 1963 that used 13 pop songs from 1962/63 structured around 13 scenes. The lyrics often comment on what is going on – or comment on the director’s message.
It had a big influence on 60’s and 70’s cinema. [And Kathryn Bigelow made an homage to it in her film THE LOVELESS.]
Scorese – who has cited Anger’s film – used pop music to solid effect in WHO’S THAT KNOCKIN’ AT MY DOOR and MEAN STREETS. Lucas’ AMERICAN GRAFFITI used wall to wall pop music from the 1950’s.
The idea, of course, was to replace music scores with something completely contemporary both to speak to the audience and perhaps be more in tune with them.
I think the use of pop music has been overdone in the past few years. It has become so hip to include a cool soundtrack that it sometimes distracts from the story. Especially when a recent song is tossed in just because it happened to have been a hit when the filmmakers were editing. With some older films you don’t necessarily get that feeling. Or I don’t anyway. Partly because you get a sense the filmmakers then really liked the songs and felt the songs fit the story.
Why would anyone be disappointed if a film they have not seen doesn’t win the big prize.
It is often the case that the best films at festivals do not win the big prizes. This is what makes festival awards somewhat arbitrary. Remember, there is a jury involved. And juries always reflect their own personal feelings as well as whatever artistic, social and political pressure they feel when doling out the awards.
But I am sure some will think it is the best film there. As they will of a half a dozen other films.
I actually sort of hope ‘The Tree of Life’ takes home nothing and is a disappointment – at first. And then years from now people will finally see the film for what it is rather than for the marketing and the hype that have surrounded it.
Because face it, the film will be a disappointment to some just based on how overhyped it has become.
But it often takes a film a few years to tear itself away from the marketing and the hype to finally estabish itself for what it truly is.
Everybody has opinions.
Everybody has favorite films.
Most everybody can recognize great films.
Most everybody can recognize that Citizen Kane is a great film.
But not everyone will agree Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made.
I would cringe if everyone thought it was the greatest.
Historically it is important. Yes.
It is well made. Absolutely.
It was dumped by the studios and revived years later. Uh huh.
It was taught in most every intro to film class from 1960 till today. Yep.
Critics told us again and again it was the greatest film ever. Ugh…yes.
In my opinion, it is not.
It is the opinion among some out there that it is.
Everyone has opinions.
I will say a ‘greatest film of all time’ label is way to definitive for me. I change my mind all the time about my favorite films. I like to think we don’t need to have these rigid ‘best of all time’ lists.
Neil
When I said everyone has opinions I was not discounting yours. However what I would discount is the notion that we can agree what is the greatest ever. Or that we need to have a greatest ever.
If you were to ask me what I think is the greatest film ever made I would honestly give you a blank stare. I could tell you what might be considered the greatest by a poll of critics. Or what is considered the most important by historians. Or what I personally like the most.
But why must we measure such things?
I think most everyone would agree that Citizen Kane is a great movie and an important one. That should be enough.
Is Antonioni the most influential filmmaker past 50 years? about 2 years ago
Into Peripheral Vision
The reason I focus on Antonioni was because when the film played Cannes in 1960 is was not well received yet today it is generally considered a classic. So the 50 year time period seemed interesting to me.
The style and the precarious nature of L’Avventura were new to many viewers. It was one large step beyond Italian Neorealism, which at the time was very influential and a movement most critics and viewers could associate with. With Antonioni many critics and viewers were puzzled about how to react. It was too precarious to them, too slow also and didn’t have the narrative focus they were used to.
Yet since then many films similar to Antonioni’s films [the main four I mentioned] have been made and in time have been accepted by the critics. Over the past 50 years these type of films are much more accepted and common at the art house cinemas.
Clair Denis has noted often how much she loves Ozu. But having watched all of her films I can say her style is not like Ozu. It is much closer to Antonioni or maybe Bresson. Obviously she has her own style as well. But the influence is there.
I feel Tarkovsky took something from Antonioni. Godard’s ‘style’ is not as influential. His post-modern self-reflexive nature is though, true. Bresson is a contender for most influential, yes.
Go to Comment
Is Antonioni the most influential filmmaker past 50 years? about 2 years ago
David Ehrenstein
Well, I won’t disagree with you there.
I should note this topic came out of a conversation I and some others had with Robert Koehler [Variety critic]. He felt that many, many films on the festival circuit were channeling Antonioni [my word not his] more so than they were Bergman or Fellini, who in there day were hugely successful filmmakers [as you know]. Yet today they are not really influential anymore. I had to agree.
So I wanted to throw the question out for discussion.
Malik
I don’t think a filmmaker has to tell us they are influenced by a filmmaker to be influenced. We can usually see it in there work.
Go to Comment
Is Antonioni the most influential filmmaker past 50 years? about 2 years ago
David Ehrenstein
I recall he was talking about Asian cinema of the kind we have seen from the better films out of Taiwan (Ming-liang) and China (Jia Zhangke). It was definitely with regards to contemporary world cinema.
He was talking in some ways about the alienation and ennui we see in many art house or festival films that he believed were a result of the influence of Antonioni.
Z. Bart
Your view on Variety critics is very general. Koehler’s views on world cinema is more impressive than most. Here is his blog [Film Journey]
Note his long review of Tarr’s Turin Horse.
Malik
Influences are not always direct. Most rock bands over the last 40 years are influenced by The Beatles and yet I would bet most of those bands would tell you they don’t much like The Beatles. The key is someone comes along in an art form and causes a ripple effect which is felt for years. The Antonioni style is evident even in filmmakers who don’t know his films. So an influence need not be literally acknowledged to be evident in an art form.
Go to Comment
Is Antonioni the most influential filmmaker past 50 years? about 2 years ago
Into Peripheral Vision
It’s not a theory. Everyone has influences. But some of those influences are not direct. Yet they cannot be denied. Take the deep focus cinematography of Gregg Toland. Its influence was enormous to the art of cinema. You don’t even need to know who Toland was but you know what deep focus is.
I’m not saying Antonioni is as influential as that. He may not even be influential except to a handful of filmmakers. I’m just posing the question.
Robert W Peabody III
Re: alienation and ennui
I would say the primary criticism of L’Avventura is that it is anti-dramatic. In such a way that the focal point of the film becomes the state-of-mind of the characters. And in turn the cinematic style mirrors that state-of-mind. So while it is true style is a societal theme the way it is portrayed on screen is not. I find Antonioni’s style to be influential to the way in which other filmmakers portray ennui or alienation. It’s an opinion to be sure. He wasn’t the first but he perfected it.
Go to Comment
Is Antonioni the most influential filmmaker past 50 years? about 2 years ago
Kenji
Thanks for the insights. You’re right about Rossellini’s ‘Voyage to Italy’. It’s all one big cinematic fish tank, really. With influences left and right, above and below.
I would say, no, Antonioni is not THE most influential. But I think the question was worth pursuing because it leads us [perhaps] to a handful of filmmakers who are the most influential. I think Antonioni is in that handful.
Go to Comment
art house films masquerading as mainstream flicks about 2 years ago
Marketing is what helps get people into the theatres.
Back in the days of Italian neorealism the US marketers would even go so far as to include pictures of scantily clad women – who were not in the film – on the posters and fliers to draw attention to the film and sell more tickets. Of couse, at that time art house theatres showed films that were often condemned by the church or not cleared by the ratings board. So they had a reputation for sexual content that naturally became a selling point.
I think Blow-Up and Contempt actually did okay and Last Tango didn’t tank. Eyes Wide Shut on the other hand would probably not have done any better if it had been marketed for the art house because of its two stars and its director. There would just be no way to avoid that aspect no matter how you marketed the film. Although I will agree it was criticized by people who thought it was going to be something else.
Go to Comment
Is Antonioni the most influential filmmaker past 50 years? about 2 years ago
Robert W Peabody III
The way in which Antonioni dealt with telling a story in L’Avventura and L’Eclisse was a lot different than Bergman would have done. The alienation of the characters is presented in the narrative through his framing and pacing. It is that style I am talking about. He was attempting to convey an interior drama of human behavior that relied a lot more on audience participation than – say – Fellini did and certainly more than Bergman who was much more theatrical.
To me his style can be considered influential. Prior to him not many films used this same style. You have to go back to silent film to find it. Obviously there are probably other films you can name that did this in the 30’s, 40’s or 50’s. But the point is Antonioni did it and made an impact among critics and filmmakers that other filmmakers working in that style did.
I’ll agree some of the points I have made are vague. Directly connecting his style to others is probably a foolish thing to do. But that is one things critics are for. True we cannot know his influence if we do not ask every filmmaker who makes a film. But, again, I am interested in the influences that pervades an art form, which may indirectly be an influence on many other filmmakers. And Antonioni’s style was front and center in 1961 for all to see.
To me Antonioni was the best at the particular narrative and cinematic style he used. Therefore while he may not own the style he perfected it. To say he was not influential at all is simply not true. He was influential. The key is how much influence did he have and how much does he have today. I would argue Bresson probably has as much influence as does Ozu. Although if you break down their narrative styles they are not the same as Antonioni. Or with each other.
In my opinion, he has far far more of an influence on the way the narrative unfolds in more out-of-the mainstream films than Bergman – whose films have not dated well. [Although I still like many of them].
But, again, this is all opinion. If you think Bresson or Godard or Spielberg or Tarantino is the most influential then if you make the case I’ll consider it. I have tried to make a case but really I am more interested in the question rather than the answer. I think we can agree Antonioni is not the most influential. But he can’t be ignored either.
Go to Comment
Is Antonioni the most influential filmmaker past 50 years? about 2 years ago
Dimitris Psahos
There is a similar shot in Angelopoulos’ LANDSCAPES IN THE MIST to a shot in Antonioni’s IL GRIDO. Both shots involve a group of people standing around in a field that is by the side of the road.
Angelopoulos’ shot is a long tracking shot in the winter along the side of a road. While Antonioni’s has a short tracking shot that involves a girl walking among men.
I’m not saying Angelopoulos copied Antonioni with this shot. He may not even have seen IL GRIDO. But the shots are both distinct and [to me] remarkably similar. I remember seeing it in LANDSCAPES IN THE MIST and it made me think of IL GRIDO.
Maybe the DP – Giorgos Arvanitis – had seen IL GRIDO? No doubt both he and Angelopoulos were very aware of Antonioni’s style.
Go to Comment
Is Antonioni the most influential filmmaker past 50 years? about 2 years ago
I found the two shots on YouTube.
Antonioni Il Grido shot
Angelopoulos Landscape In The Mist shot
You’ll see there are not actually as similar as I remembered! But both have something visually going on that reminded me of both films together.
True, Angelopoulos was a big Mizoguchi fan. So his tracking shots no doubt derived from Mizoguchi more than Antonioni.
Go to Comment
Meek's Cutoff about 2 years ago
Meek’s Cutoff is a quiet film but one I found rewarding. It starts with little dialogue and what dialogue it has is almost background in nature. The pace is slow but engaging because it has focus as it involves a group of people moving and working to get across Oregon. They are led by a blowhard named Meek [Bruce Greenwood] who is a mountain man with tales about everything. But as they continue day after day it becomes clear they are lost. Then they run low on water. Then they encounter a Native American whom they fear – mainly because Meek scares them into thinking he is a savage.
Various bonds are built and broken. The men gather and talk in the distance. The women wait. Decisions are made, conflicts arise. It goes from there….
I liked the film in the same way I like Old Joy and Wendy and Lucy in that it doesn’t reveal it’s narrative right away. It sort of just exists in time and slowly builds. I especially like that it was shot 1:33 to 1 [Academy ratio] which is not something we have seen in a Western for a long time.
It is not a film that grabs you [except maybe visually] but it is a film that stays with you long after you have seen it. The one issue I have with it is the revisionist nature of the film. It has a bit of a feminist angle which may not be too authentic.
I disagree with PolarisDiB’s assessment. The ending is an ending – and a beginning. But I didn’t find it anymore ambiguous than what the settlers themselves dealt with. Tying up the loose ends would not work in this type of film because it would feel fake.
Go to Comment
Patrice Leconte - mainstream French film hack or underrated auteur? about 2 years ago
I can’t speak for the French critics but Leconte has a pretty good track record. So much so that if someone called him a ‘hack’ they would have to really have something against him because he does have style and his films are frequently provocative – granted in a mainstream French way. If that makes sense….
True, he is in a different arena than, say, Godard or Resnais or Denis and a few others. But he would admit as much.
Here are a list of some films I would recommend that are fairly easy to find in the US.
Monsieur Hire
The Hairdresser’s Husband
Ridicule
The Girl On the Bridge
The Widow of Saint-Pierre
The Man on the Train
Intimate Strangers
I’ve heard his documentary Dogora is similar to Baraka but have yet to see it.
Go to Comment
Best Malick Introduction? about 2 years ago
The first one I saw was DAYS OF HEAVEN so I say start there simply because the cinematography is terrific and that is the film that [for me at least] made his reputation. But BADLANDS is an excellent first film. I suspect some like it better because it is has more conventional storytelling and is less ethereal and contemplative than DAYS OF HEAVEN or THE THIN RED LINE.
I would say THE THIN RED LINE would probably be the ‘purest’ Malick film and perhaps the one to see last. That leaves just one other film; THE NEW WORLD, which I think one can watch without knowing anything about his style and enjoy just fine.
The one caveat to all of this is you should watch his films on a decent sized screen with a good transfer. If your only choice is a small computer screen then go with BADLANDS and wait to watch the others on a bigger screen.
Go to Comment
Best Malick Introduction? about 2 years ago
Badlands…. the characters being more fully formed than they are in his other films
Yes and no. The character development in BADLANDS exists in a more conventional narrative structure than DAYS OF HEAVEN.
DAYS OF HEAVEN has all the motivations and character development but it come off – as some have said here – more mythic due to the pacing, shot selections and editing. That’s my reading anyway.
I would add that THE THIN RED LINE is a bit too abstract in the character / story development – although it still has brilliant moments. But I could see someone not warming to that film as much.
Go to Comment
People Who Hate the Coen Brothers, Why? about 2 years ago
They seem to hate their characters.
J Hoberman [who is a very perceptive critic] called A Serious Man "mean-spirited “Nazi porn” "
Go to Comment
Director Introduction: Ousmane Sembène about 2 years ago
Risselada
I’d choose Guelwaar before Xala. Guelwaar is terrific. It is also pretty darn tough to find. I I have a rare screener video from when it was released in the 1990’s. But so far as I can tell a DVD does not exist and the only online versions I can find have to be downloaded.
I find it a timely film as well. Christians vs Muslims. I also think it is better made than Xala. Xala is perhaps stronger as a conceptual or metaphorical film. And the scene for which it is best known is a good [and unique] one. But I feel Guelwaar is more well rounded in character and story development.
I’ve seen:
Black Girl
Mandabi
Xala
Ceddo
Camp de Thiaroye
Guelwaar
Moolaadé
All are good films. My three favorites are Guelwaar, Moolaadé and Xala.
Go to Comment
People Who Hate the Coen Brothers, Why? about 2 years ago
Jazzaloha
True, Hoberman didn’t write a full review of A Serious Man. He just wrote that wild quip.
I’ve read other such reviews that criticized the film for really loading the dice against the main character. I have to sort of agree with them. I thought the film was well made technically, had great cinematography and was well acted all around. I even laughed a few times. But overall it does fit into the nihilist streak they seem to drop their characters into.
All filmmakers / screenwriters control the fate of the characters they create. They are the gods of their pre-destined worlds. But it doesn’t always have to be so obvious. And in this case the Jewish character suffers at every turn and cannot get a break. By the end black clouds are gathering. Hence, Hoberman says, a Nazi would like it.
I’ll half way agree with another comment up top that Bunuel does something similar. But Bunuel always seems more ironic [and surreal] than the Coens. And the Coens sometimes seem to wear the nihilism on their sleeve. It would be interesting to compare Nazarin with A Serious Man. I think the difference on first thought is that Bunuel’s character chooses his own fate. While with A Serious Man the Coens choose it for him
Although A Serious Man may be ‘autobiographical’ – as they have said – it still feels forced and controlled much more than I like a film to be.
David Denby wrote a review of the film I partly agree with.
“A Serious Man,” like “Burn After Reading,” is in their bleak, black, belittling mode, and it’s hell to sit through.
I would say it was not hell to sit through. But it would be on a second viewing.
Go to Comment
Do American and European perceptions differ regarding what constitutes a mainstream film? about 2 years ago
Of note is an article I read on Truffaut from a 1980’s NY Times article.
Truffaut said this:
‘’The American cinema, traditionally, has this notion of a goal to be achieved. And it is achieved, after great dangers and difficulties. All over the world spectators have found great pleasure in these things.
’’But this kind of theme is not possible in Europe. We have a skepticism about goals being attained. We think goals are illusory. We don’t conceive of the individual embarked on a great enterprise.
‘’We don’t make pictures about taking 5,000 steers across the country. So what do I do? I take sentiments to the end instead of enterprises.’’
Take that as you will but this is an interesting view of American storytelling vs European storytelling.
I’ll also add that I love cinema from the 1930’s. The differences between French 30’s films and Hollywood 30’s films are striking especially with regards to the film endings. Hollywood was a dream factory with neat, happy endings while the French films often ended rather tragically or precariously. Although not always.
I am not so sure that carries over to today in the mainstream.
Go to Comment
People Who Hate the Coen Brothers, Why? about 2 years ago
Bobby Wise
In today’s cinema Woody Allen and Francoise Ozon come to mind as filmmakers who make a film a year. Spike Lee and Robert Altman did it for a while too in their prime.
The Coens have had 8 films released in 11 years.
Godard in the 1960’s had 15 full length films released in 8 years and I’d say they are all terrific.
So I think that is what Renault2011 means.
In the history of cinema a lot of fimmakers cranked out quality in a short period. Hollywood in the 30’s and 40’s especially.
Go to Comment
People Who Hate the Coen Brothers, Why? about 2 years ago
Grey Poupon arthouse as opposed to mustard arthouse.
Go to Comment
People Who Hate the Coen Brothers, Why? about 2 years ago
And who would be a Grey Poupon director?
Merchant Ivory Productions movies. I suppose.
Go to Comment
Kino hints at Film Socialisme release about 2 years ago
I’ve just seen Film Socialisme. It’s better than I thought it would be. It’s very much in line with Godard’s recent ‘essay film’ style but even more so. I would venture to say it is basically an experimental film. Take that for what it is worth. I liked it. But as is the case with many of his recent films I am not sure if his control and his message is completely thoughtout or if he is just flinging out ideas and we have to try and figure it out for ourselves.
A bit of both I suppose.
The editing and the sound design in the first 40 minutes is terrific as is the editing in the last 10 minutes. The ‘middle’ section is the only thing close to a narrative but only seems to fit into the whole piece in a thematic manner. It doesn’t work as well – but it has good moments.
I would say the film is like a modern symphony. Sometimes beautiful, sometimes atonal, sometimes quietly falling into the background and sometimes challenging and noisy. But overall worth the experience.
It opens in June in NY.
Go to Comment
What books should I buy? about 2 years ago
Forget film theory. Stick with practical history that tells you who the hell made it and what the heck filmmakers and studios were doing.
‘The Genius of the System: Hollywood Filmmaking in the Studio Era’ by Thomas Schatz
‘Who the Devil Made It: Conversations with Legendary Film Directors’ by Peter Bogdanovich
‘Pictures at a Revolution: Five Movies and the Birth of the New Hollywood’ by Mark Harris
If you want insight into film, that borders on theory, you might like:
‘Film As Film: Understanding And Judging Movies’ by V. F. Perkins
‘The Dream Life: Movies, Media, And The Mythology Of The Sixties’ by J. Hoberman
‘The New Wave, 30th Anniversary Edition’ by James Monaco
Go to Comment
What books should I buy? about 2 years ago
Sanjuro
Nothing wrong with people’s own interests. Mine is not fim theory.
He wanted some recommendations and – in my opinion – film history is much more interesting than film theory, which some tend to espouse. But he is welcome to take the advice or leave it.
Go to Comment
WHICH ONE DO YOU PREFER? DC COMICS MOVIES OR MARVEL COMICS MOVIES? about 2 years ago
Comics:
I grew up in the 1970’s when comic books were .25 cents. I mainly collected Marvel comics. I guess I found them more heroic and action packed. They were also less sensational than DC comics which always had an angle to the story that I didn’t enjoy.
Plus Marvel had John Buscema who had the cleanest lines in the business.
Movies
I think Marvel still wins here. DC hasn’t impressed much.
Go to Comment
DIRECTORS’ CUP 2011 VOTING, ROUND 1, MATCH 21: Aleksandr Sokurov (Mother and Son) vs. Pedro Almodovar (Matador) about 2 years ago
I have to say this is a pretty wild paring of films. I love both films but for different reasons.
Matador was my first Almodovar film. I saw it in 1989 [or so] and it blew me away. I was younger and impressionable then. I have seen everything he made since then.
Mother and Son was my first Sokurov film and it was an amazing experience – especially on the big screen in a quiet movie theatre. I watched it twice in a week.
Both films are what make going to movies so fun. And what make [for Americans] ‘foreign films’ special. One is entertaining in different ways than Hollwood and one is a film I don’t think an American would make.
I’m not part of the Director’s Cup and the voting is closed but, I honestly would have a tough time voting for one over the other. I’d lean toward Sokurov only because the film form of his film is so powerful and unique.
Go to Comment
Using Popular Music in Film about 2 years ago
Just for a little history….
One of the more influential films to use popular music was SCORPIO RISING by Kenneth Anger. Maybe you know it? If not, it is an avant-garde / underground film from 1963 that used 13 pop songs from 1962/63 structured around 13 scenes. The lyrics often comment on what is going on – or comment on the director’s message.
It had a big influence on 60’s and 70’s cinema. [And Kathryn Bigelow made an homage to it in her film THE LOVELESS.]
Scorese – who has cited Anger’s film – used pop music to solid effect in WHO’S THAT KNOCKIN’ AT MY DOOR and MEAN STREETS. Lucas’ AMERICAN GRAFFITI used wall to wall pop music from the 1950’s.
The idea, of course, was to replace music scores with something completely contemporary both to speak to the audience and perhaps be more in tune with them.
I think the use of pop music has been overdone in the past few years. It has become so hip to include a cool soundtrack that it sometimes distracts from the story. Especially when a recent song is tossed in just because it happened to have been a hit when the filmmakers were editing. With some older films you don’t necessarily get that feeling. Or I don’t anyway. Partly because you get a sense the filmmakers then really liked the songs and felt the songs fit the story.
Go to Comment
Using Popular Music in Film about 2 years ago
The use of Radiohead’s ‘Creep’ in CYCLO by Anh Hung Tran I find rather effective.
Go to Comment
Will The Tree of Life be looked at as a disappointment should it not win the Palme d'Or? about 2 years ago
In a word ‘no’.
Why would anyone be disappointed if a film they have not seen doesn’t win the big prize.
It is often the case that the best films at festivals do not win the big prizes. This is what makes festival awards somewhat arbitrary. Remember, there is a jury involved. And juries always reflect their own personal feelings as well as whatever artistic, social and political pressure they feel when doling out the awards.
But I am sure some will think it is the best film there. As they will of a half a dozen other films.
I actually sort of hope ‘The Tree of Life’ takes home nothing and is a disappointment – at first. And then years from now people will finally see the film for what it is rather than for the marketing and the hype that have surrounded it.
Because face it, the film will be a disappointment to some just based on how overhyped it has become.
But it often takes a film a few years to tear itself away from the marketing and the hype to finally estabish itself for what it truly is.
Go to Comment
Greatest Film Ever Made about 2 years ago
Everybody has opinions.
Everybody has favorite films.
Most everybody can recognize great films.
Most everybody can recognize that Citizen Kane is a great film.
But not everyone will agree Citizen Kane is the greatest film ever made.
I would cringe if everyone thought it was the greatest.
Historically it is important. Yes.
It is well made. Absolutely.
It was dumped by the studios and revived years later. Uh huh.
It was taught in most every intro to film class from 1960 till today. Yep.
Critics told us again and again it was the greatest film ever. Ugh…yes.
In my opinion, it is not.
It is the opinion among some out there that it is.
Everyone has opinions.
I will say a ‘greatest film of all time’ label is way to definitive for me. I change my mind all the time about my favorite films. I like to think we don’t need to have these rigid ‘best of all time’ lists.
Go to Comment
Greatest Film Ever Made about 2 years ago
Neil
When I said everyone has opinions I was not discounting yours. However what I would discount is the notion that we can agree what is the greatest ever. Or that we need to have a greatest ever.
If you were to ask me what I think is the greatest film ever made I would honestly give you a blank stare. I could tell you what might be considered the greatest by a poll of critics. Or what is considered the most important by historians. Or what I personally like the most.
But why must we measure such things?
I think most everyone would agree that Citizen Kane is a great movie and an important one. That should be enough.
Go to Comment