My own favourites:
The Name of a River
Mysteries of Lisbon
Stealing a Nation
The White Ribbon
The Piano Tuner of Earthquakes
Far from Heaven
The New World
Eccentricities of a Blonde-Haired Girl
The Virgin Stripped Bare by her Bachelors
In the Mood for Love
Howl’s Moving Castle
The Wayward Cloud
At the Height of Summer
You, the Living
Waiting for Happiness
many fine films from various countries (lots still to see), but not so many, in my experience, of the greatest masterpieces. No surprise that the 2 highest placed in Sight & Sound’s latest all-time poll were Mulholland Dr and In the Mood for Love
^^You The Living over Songs From The Second Floor Kenji? INteresting.
whichever you prefer, there is no doubt in my mind that Anderson really came into his own as a film maker last decade. IT’s not that some of his other films weren’t distinctive at all, but his work feels more original now. at least to me anyway. and both of those films are clearly products of the same creative mind.
I can find agreement with both Jazz and Joks. Nonetheless, to dismiss the film as simplistic, is to deny the complex and effective manner in which the message is delivered i.e. the ‘how’.
both films speak to the way people don’t want to deal with hard truth
Alternatively, an awareness that ‘normalcy’ is a hidden danger.The formalist qualities of White Ribbon are striking – are they there only to deliver a reductive message? or does it make the message all encompassing, portending the appearance of a truth that touches all existence? If Haneke is suggesting that hierachical structure leads to murder, where does that leave society ?
I think Morvern Callar is another such film. If one denies the ‘how’ there isn’t much there, but it is the ‘how’ ’that makes it an effective and complex telling.
I’m always well behind with my viewing, i get ideas from experts like Apursansar. Must now see Historias Extraordinarias which i missed in the world cup vote. My lists don’t do justice to South American cinema, and so far i have blind spot with Alonso.
“an awareness that ‘normalcy’ is a hidden danger”
that is a more precise way of putting Mr.Peabody :-)
i also agree with your remark about the complexities very much being bound up with the ‘how’, which i mentioned earlier, but was much less specific about.
Nonetheless, to dismiss the film as simplistic, is to deny the complex and effective manner in which the message is delivered i.e. the ‘how’.
I don’t agree with this. I appreciate the filmmaking and the way the film unfolds. That’s the best part of the movie.
What’s the film about? What is it trying to do? It seems to want to offer insights into the way a society can embrace and behave in atrocious ways. So if the film’s ideas about this are shallow or simplistic, isn’t it fair to say the film was simplistic? The way it expressed these ideas may have been superb—and I think they were—but, ultmately, the film, as a totality, was not, imo.
…or does it make the message all encompassing, portending the appearance of a truth that touches all existence? If Haneke is suggesting that hierachical structure leads to murder, where does that leave society ?
I’m not sure what you mean by that, but I’m assuming you think I’ve misread or misunderstood the film (which is fine).
Again, I don’t agree with this. The “telling” is effective, but I also think the ideas make the film interesting. By “ideas” I’m thinking specifically of the way the film is a twist on “Gen X slacker” films. (One might argue that this is more of the “how,” but I consider this the “what.”) The characters in most slacker films are post-college, middle class individuals floundering and struggling to find meaning and purpose in life. In MC, a working-class—possibly mentally disabled—character becomes the protagonist. I liked that concept and approach, and it made the film interesting. I see the move in a similar way as the Coen Brothers doing film-noir by replacing the hard-boiled detective with a Jeff Spicoli-type in The Big Lebowski or a savvy rural cop in Fargo.