I don’t find Psycho flawed. On the other hand I find Eyes Wide Shut greatly flawed but not great. I would consider The Searchers a great flawed film. Jeffrey Hunter was a mediocre actor at best and brought nothing to his role. Plus a couple of overly sentimental scenes-always a problem with Ford. Used Ward Bond way to much. Also Bresson’s Pickpocket. I find myself constantly distraced by the lead who as a untrained actor seems to be have difficulty moving and standing naturally or what to do with his hands. Altho not as good a film as those above True Grit suffers badly from the casting of Glen Campbell in a major role. Rio Bravo has the same problem with Ricky Nelson. Neither can act.
Interesting thoughts, Steve, but it raises a question in my mind, which is to what extent certain performances matter in a great film. I think “The Searchers” is a great film, and while I can see your point about Jeffrey Hunter, I’m not sure a better actor would have necessarily meant a better film. Films are great for a lot of different reasons; “The Searchers” is great because of Ford and because of Wayne. Here’s another example: “Vertigo.” I think it is one of the greatest films ever, but to me it’s undeniable that Kim Novak is rather wooden in a key role. Hitchcock originally wanted Vera Miles, who dropped out because she was pregnant. Miles is certainly a better actress than Novak, but would I have preferred her? Absolutely not, because she doesn’t have Novak’s dreamy, ethereal, impossible beauty. Would “Vertigo” have been a better film if Novak was a better actress? Maybe, but I doubt it. Maybe in a role like that, you want a certain affectlessness, a certain innocence. I think, too, of Bresson’s great films, where acting as we know it is famously non-existent.
Point well taken on The Searchers and Vertigo. With Bresson tho I feel it’s more than a matter of non-actors. I think A Man Escaped is a great film. Whereas Pickpocket is not. The actors in A Man Escaped, while untrained, are very effective. But the lead in Pickpocket i find distracting. He looks stiff and amateurish, not natural. Another good film I find ruined by a performance is Cassavetes Gloria which contains probably the worst performance ever by a child actor.
I agree on A Man Escaped. Sometimes non-acting is best. Certainly better than bad acting. I’m reminded of a story about Jack Lemmon in one of his first roles, and the director was making him doing it over and over, taking after take, asking him to dial it down a little each time. Lemmon ultimately got upset and said he was going to get to the point where he isn’t acting at all, and the director said that was the whole point.
I’m probably so outnumbered as to be massacred, but I think Apocalypse Now falls apart in its final third. It’s pure genius – with dollops of madness and audacity – until Brando drops like a piano from the third floor. Watchable, certainly, and endlessly fascinating. For me, just not a satisfying end to that upriver odyssey.
Tom-I pretty much agree with you on this. I love Apocalypse Now but Brandos overmannered performance just takes me right out of the movie.
Coppola himself would point out many of the flaws in his masterpiece The Godfather! That makes a nice point to that two of the top ten movies of all time are both not perfect yet somewhat flawed the other being Casablanca!
I’ve always thought “Apocalypse Now” is a failure — brilliant in parts, absorbing in the beginning, but a movie burdened by the director’s desire to make a big final statement on What Vietnam Means. I think he was overwhelmed by the subject and loses his grip, not unlike Kurtz.
Any movie made is flawed somehow. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is great, yet unfortunately it has Kirsten Dunst.
Night of the Living Dead. Great horror film but with performances out of a grade seven play. It’s kind of the type of movie that can get away with b-movie performances though. Same thing with Metropolis.
Also I think Napoleon by Abel Gance had some pretty unnecessary romantic scenes which seemed to last forever, but aside from that it was true silent cinematic epic that probably even impressed Eisenstein.
Also Umberto D. was great too, but lacked the soul that Bicycle Thief did.
I don’t really think bad acting typically hinders my appreciation for a film. In fact, it wasn’t until you mentioned it, Rodney, that I actually sat back and thought about Novak in ‘Vertigo,’ and you’re absolutely right. Like Bresson, Antonioni has never been much of an actor’s director. Certainly Monica Vitti was a brilliant physical match for everything he was trying to do, but she isn’t a particularly good actress. Perhaps it’s a testament to the director that you barely notice what’s lacking in the acting department.
The Bridges of Madison County. I think the dynamic achieved between Streep’s character and Eastwood’s represents his strongest directorial achievement to date. But those idiot scenes with Francesca’s children!
i can’t agree wtih “vertigo” being a great flawed film, especially if the reason is the acting of novak. “vertigo” is a pure masterpiece. novak is wonderful. she’s supposed to be trance-like, because she’s like a ghost. plus, people forget that in the story, she’s acting the role of “madeline”. so by that reason her performance should be that of a bad actor. or, novak the actor is playing a regular woman who is a non-professional actor, being forced to act. its perfect.
i think “apocalypse now” is a good example of a great flawed film.
THE DEER HUNTER
AMISTAD
THE LIFE AQUATIC
REDS
GANGS OF NEW YORK
I couldn’t disagree more about APOCALYPSE NOW, but that may be my personal taste coming in. I like the fantasy of it.
I still don’t understand why VERTIGO is considered more-and-more to be Hitchcock’s true masterpiece. Not that I think it a bad film, but to me PSYCHO, REAR WINDOW, SPELLBOUND and STRANGERS ON A TRAIN (… and maybe even REBECCA and THE BIRDS) are all better films by leaps and bounds.
“vertigo” is one of the most mysterious and beautiful films ever made. not just for hitchcock, but film history in general. its a truly unique work of art.
“spellbound” isn’t in the same ballpark, league, OR sport as “vertigo”! i’m not too big on “rebecca” either, but its more interesting than “spellbound” to me. and the rest of the films you mentioned are absolute masterpieces, true.
I find myself incomprehensibly drawn to almost every single one of Abel Ferrara’s films, even though every single one is riddled with problems. And I wasn’t trying to support the notion that ‘Vertigo’ was flawed in any way outside of Novak (which had never dawned on me until Rodney pointed it out).
as far as ferrara, he’s made good films like “king of new york” or “bad lieutenant”. but i dont think he’s made any masterpieces, because all of his films are flawed somehow!
One of the best films I have seen is the 36th Shaolin, Ichi the Killer, Drunken Boxing, Red Room, etc. All of those have plot errors, but what makes them great is the action and story, so people easily overlook the inconsistencies. Kind of like Dark Knight.
One of the best films I have seen is the 36th Shaolin, Ichi the Killer, Drunken Boxing, Red Room, etc. All of those have plot errors, but what makes them great is the action and story, so people easily overlook the inconsistencies. Kind of like Dark Knight.
Regarding Kim Novak in “Vertigo” …. try comparing her performance with that of any of Hitchcock’s other leading ladies: Grace Kelly, Ingrid Bergman, Tippi Hedren, Vera Miles, Shirley MacLaine, etc.; there’s clearly a level of skill they had that Novak simply didn’t. But, as I said, it’s okay, it works. Her casting may have been a kind of accident that paid off.
Bobby, I always find something to like in even Ferrara’s worst films. There’s something about him and his films that not only keeps me coming back but intrigues me even after I had decided I didn’t like it. As for his more recent fare, I think ‘Mary’ and ‘Go Go Tales’ are both great films with some major issues.
Kim Novak brought beauty and sensuality and an inner anxiousness to the screen. She lacked technical proficiency, which probably added to her insecurity, but she more than made up for it in other ways. I loved her in PICNIC, PUSHOVER, KISS ME STUPID, THE MAN WITH THE GOLDEN ARM, THE EDDY DUCHIN STORY, BELL BOOK AND CANDLE along with VERTIGO. That body of work is nothing to be ashamed of.
yes, “master killer” is a really good film. but i wouldnt call it a “great flawed film”, in the terms we laid out here. its a classic b film.
Korei – Seance (K Kurosawa, 2000)
I would agree with markum (sic!). And I would say Zabriskie Point.
I think Vertigo is flawed, but not because of Novak, her performance has never really bothered me. Honestly I have more problems with the pacing and gaps in logic. I think that love of a film causes one to overlook flaws, thus making something perfect to one that is clearly imperfect to another. Apocalypse Now is perfect to me, despite any flaws. Vertigo is imperfect to me beause of its flaws. I think that it would be hard to find a truly “perfect” film, and it would be impossible for multiple people to agree on one.
Matt. I agree. I mean: the ending of the first sequence in Vertigo; if there was a bigger gap in logic in a ‘masterpiece’…. I haven’t found it yet!!! Apocalypse Now is perfect for me, too.
I saw “Zabriskie Point” again a couple of years ago. It was terrible the first time, and it has not held up.
those gaps in “vertigo” are part of what makes the film like a dreamy mystery. and it also is an appropriation of the ghost story. it poses more questions than it answers. and why not? who said a film should give you all the answers? it goes towards creating that unique and powerful mood in the film, which is more important than plot. the film is an experience.
who is that woman in the opening credits? how does scotty get off that ledge? how does madeline get out of the hotel room, and how did the porter not see her? why did judy decide to stay in san fran, and keep the jewelry that could incriminate her? these are all classic hitchcock macguffins. what counts is the love story, and the atmosphere and mood created.
Bobby Wise
i’m curious to see if we can discuss the category of “great flawed films”. usually only an acknowledged master of cinema has it in him to create something that can be called a “great flawed film”, because he’s proven he can achieve perfection before. these are films that borderline on masterpiece status, or can even be called “flawed masterpieces”. which means something is holding them back from perfection. something wasnt able to be fully-realized by the director, or fully-executed, for any number of reasons. the result is a film that almost hits on all cylinders, but is such a tragedy because it doesnt, and comes so achingly close at that. just one shot shy of sublimity.
some examples off the top of my head are maybe “eyes wide shut” by kubrick, or “psycho” by hitchcock.