Hi, all! I’m new here, I actually found this place because of the B&N sale. It’s great to see all these other crazy cinephiles!
When I found out about this sale, it was the best day of my life. My grandmother, who was my film viewing partner for many years and who really turned me on to classic film (she bought me my first Criterion DVD, 8 1/2, after hearing I was taking a film studies class in college a few years ago and I haven’t stopped since) died last fall and I just got a good amount of money from her estate. So, in honor of her, I
stocked up, and stocked up GOOD…
FIRST STORE TRIP:
Brazil (3-Disc Set) – Divorce Italian Style – Heaven Can Wait – The Lady Eve – Last Year at Marienbad – La Strada – Magnificent Obsession – Mon Oncle – My Own Private Idaho – Playtime – The Rules of the Game – Scenes From a Marriage
SECOND STORE TRIP:
The Red Shoes – The Virgin Spring – Wild Strawberries
FIRST ONLINE ORDER:
The 39 Steps – Charade – Fanny & Alexander Box Set – My Man Godfrey – The Red Balloon – Smiles of a Summer Night
SECOND ONLINE ORDER:
Brief Encounter – Hiroshima, Mon Amour – Seven Samurai – The Vanishing
and I thought I was done. Until I came here yesterday and saw that Ran was out of print. Which led to…
THIRD ONLINE ORDER:
The Earrings of Madame de… – Ran – The Seventh Seal 2-Disc
My bank account takes solace in the fact that my grandmother would be extremely happy that I will now watch all these great films, as well as extremely proud that I got them at such a steal. And now the Amazon sale. Wow. What a summer!
All I can say is, Thanks Grandma! I’ll watch these and think of you every time.
Agree with “Hurt”, “Around the World”, and “It’s Oh So Quiet”. Pretty much anything Spike Jonze touched is gold.
Coffee & TV by Blur (I want a milk carton like that for my very own!) Freak on a Leash by Korn (Classy animation + nu-metal = thrillingly watchable) Closing Time by Semisonic (It’s just like Rope! But with split screen!) Rhythm Nation by Janet Jackson (I’m only human. Large groups of people moving in complete synchronicity gets to me.)
…and plenty more. But I’ll have to think about it. Music videos are really a complete art form unto themselves.
Laurence Cantet’s Entre les murs (The Class)
Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Le fabuleux destin d’Amélie Poulain (Amélie)
Michael Haneke’s Caché (Hidden)
Jacques Rivette’s Va Savoir (Who Knows?)
Julian Schnabel’s Le scaphandre et le papillon (The Diving-Bell and the Butterfly)
Arnaud Desplechin’s Un conte de Noël (A Christmas Tale) and Rois et reine (Kings and Queen)
Guillaume Canet’s Ne le dis a Personne (Tell No One)
…and, I know it’s not a great film but I can’t help myself: François Ozon’s 8 Femmes (8 Women)
…and, because this would make it an even ten and on the strength of the lead performance: Philippe Claudel’s Il y a longtemps que je t’aime (I’ve Loved You So Long)
25. BA magna cum laude (I know it sounds pretentious but I worked my ass off for it) in Theater Studies. Currently working in Development (fundraising) for an Off-Broadway theater company while saving money to go back for my Masters/PhD in Dramatic Literature. Or Film Studies. Haven’t decided yet.
Films usually don’t get me to cry, but there are a few memorable ones:
Dumbo. To this day, I can’t watch it. It destroyed me as a kid.
Little Women (1994 version). When Beth dies. I can’t help myself. Even when I saw it again recently and could prepare myself, it still got me. I have no clue why.
Brokeback Mountain. The end. God.
Up. If you are able to make it through those opening ten minutes without crying, you are a robot. It’s that simple.
Natalie Portman in Leon (The Professional) (Absolute Gold Standard)
Sarah and Emma Bolger in In America (it probably helps that they are actual sisters)
Patty McCormack in The Bad Seed
Tatum O’Neal in Paper Moon
Jean-Pierre Léaud in The 400 Blows
Anna Paquin in The Piano
Heather Matarazzo in Welcome to the Dollhouse
Kirsten Dunst in Interview With the Vampire
Christina Ricci in The Addams Family (sentimental favorite)
I loved Rachel Getting Married, and while I understand most people’s problems with it, it took me a while to really understand yours, Bolo. I think it’s largely because I’ve been to a few too many weddings in the past two years (for both friends and family), and the film felt so true to what goes on within the crucible of a wedding. There are tons of people zigzagging this way and that, coming to the forefront of our attention for a split second only to immediately disappear and never be seen again. People from each side of the family generally tend to stick with their own side, and the people in the immediate family of the wedding party are dealing with their own set of issues and are rarely seen by anybody until the reception (and sometimes, not even then). Demme and Lumet captured that so brilliantly that I didn’t really think during the film, I only felt, which coincidentally is usually what happens during weddings – to me, anyway.
Thinking about your gripes with the multi-racial aspects of the film, I realized that you had a point, but after serious thought, I don’t think it’s completely valid. It’s been a while since I’ve seen the film, but I remember watching it and wanting to hear more from Carol and Sidney, until I realized about half-way through that I didn’t need to. Everything you wanted them to say registers on their faces. Their body language tells us all we need to know. The same is true of many of the wedding guests (not all of whom, by the way, are ethnic; the white wedding guests have just as little to do as the ethnic ones – except the ones in the wedding party). When Kym makes her speech at the rehearsal dinner, the tension in the room skyrockets. A lot of the people present tense up or turn away from her, including Sidney (if memory serves). We don’t need any of them to speak about how they feel because we can see it. The feeling is similar whenever the sisters are yelling at each other. I remember at one point Carol throws her hands up as if to say, “I’m done with this. I tried, but I just can’t.” Having her say or do anything more would be redundant.
If you really want to read into the racial aspect of the film, you could also say, as one of my good friends did, that the film was actually very anti-liberal. The family presents itself as liberal, bohemian, and accepting, but when push comes to shove, all they care about is their own petty little problems. They don’t care about anyone else but themselves. It doesn’t matter that they have all the trappings of being a smart, well-brought-up, culturally astute and diverse family, because when you get down to it, they could care less about that. It’s always, “Me, me, ME!” I think this is a valid argument, although I don’t really agree with it. I see it, as I do portions of your argument, but none of it dampened my enjoyment of the film.
Bolo, I’m going to repost part of what I said before, because you never addressed it and I think it’s entirely relevant to your point about the stepmother (who happens to be black) and the groom (who also happens to be black) not taking a more active role in the dramatic plot/arc of the film.
There are tons of people zigzagging this way and that, coming to the forefront of our attention for a split second only to immediately disappear and never be seen again. People from each side of the family generally tend to stick with their own side, and the people in the immediate family of the wedding party are dealing with their own set of issues and are rarely seen by anybody until the reception (and sometimes, not even then).
It’s been a while since I’ve seen the film, but I remember watching it and wanting to hear more from Carol and Sidney, until I realized about half-way through that I didn’t need to. Everything you wanted them to say registers on their faces. Their body language tells us all we need to know. The same is true of many of the wedding guests (not all of whom, by the way, are ethnic; the white wedding guests have just as little to do as the ethnic ones – except the ones in the wedding party). When Kym makes her speech at the rehearsal dinner, the tension in the room skyrockets. A lot of the people present tense up or turn away from her, including Sidney (if memory serves). We don’t need any of them to speak about how they feel because we can see it. The feeling is similar whenever the sisters are yelling at each other. I remember at one point Carol throws her hands up as if to say, “I’m done with this. I tried, but I just can’t.” Having her say or do anything more would be redundant. (There is likely further evidence, but finding it would involve me obtaining a copy of the film and watching it, which sadly can’t happen any time soon. If my memory is false, then that’s fine. I’ll chalk our differences up to the fact that I thought the film worked and you didn’t.)
And to go onto something else, I feel like a lot of your posts amount to “I’m not saying A, I’m saying a.” While it’s true you aren’t exactly making a big deal about race in the film, in a way you are, because you keep pointing out not just that certain major characters are not very involved in the dramatic arc of the picture, but that they are ethnic and you saw this specifically as Demme/Lumet marking a line in the sand. When other people try to speak about the race issue, you say that you aren’t talking about race, but about these specific characters, which is the bad thing. And when people try to speak about those specific characters and why they wouldn’t be as involved as you seem to want them to be, you bring up the fact that they are ethnic, and this is really the bad thing. Maybe I’m wrong and posts are getting mixed around in my head, but this is definitely how it seems to me. It seems like, for you, the fact that these characters weren’t involved in the central drama and the fact that they are ethnic are at the same time inextricable and completely separate issues. Again, I might be wrong. My head is spinning a little from all the different people and opinions here.
Where the Jenny Lumet quotes (thanks, Blue K!) do seem to be addressing your point is that, in race not being an issue for her in the script, if certain people were not involved in the central dramatic arc of the story, it was because of the characters and their history (or lack thereof) within the central family unit, which is, as I see it, Kym, Rachel, and Paul (and Abby when she deigns to make an appearance). Carol does not fit into this central family unit because the fault lines that appeared in the wake of the tragedy were already pretty deep by the time she entered the picture, and since she then she has been around Kym only during the brief stints she was at home in between rehab centers. Same thing with Sidney, who knows Kym even less, and probably mostly by reputation. The fact that Carol and Sidney are of a different ethnicity than the central family unit has nothing to do with the fact that they are not deeply involved in the central dramatic arc of the film. If you saw otherwise, then that’s on you.
You said early on that, “what I saw in that was not a comment about these characters having no place in the family drama, but rather of the “ethnic” people having no place in the goings-on of the Anglos. Three white people carrying their fight out of the living room, leaving two black people behind looking at each other like “WTF?” carried a distinctly racial undertone for me, and that aspect of it didn’t feel intentional. Perhaps it gave me that feeling because, the entire time, I’d been seeing all of these non-white people, and sort of wondering when one of them would make a mark on the central conflict of the picture (instead of just standing up and talking about how they knew the bride and the groom, etc).” It’s clear from Lumet’s quotes that there was not meant to be any racial undertones. I certainly didn’t notice any, especially during the scene you mention. I saw this as a family having one particularly heated argument out of many that they have had, and the people who are most removed from that drama (who might not be that far removed from it, but still are to an extent) knowing better than to follow them. Why don’t you see that, even after the arguments for it here? Why do you see a racial undertone that wasn’t mean to be there? Yes, race is an issue in this film by the very virtue of it’s being a non-issue, but even then I still don’t get it. The point that Lumet sees to be making is only that these people of all different ethnic backgrounds are present at this event, all celebrating together, with nary a care for the color of anyone else’s skin. If they aren’t involved in the family drama, then so much the better for them.
Another way to think of it is this. That multi-ethnic cast of characters always in the background represent the wedding. The family drama exists irrespectively of the wedding. Thus, the two worlds do not come together very often. The wedding represents an ideal for the family – that everyone loves each other and can get along without any hate, guilt, or passive aggression. A sort of utopia. They cannot reach that place until they deal with their issues or at least become comfortable with themselves and their problems. Thus, they must deal with those problems apart from the wedding – e.g. those many multi-ethnic people in the background of the film.
Many comedic gems barely ever get discussed:
Eddie Murphy in The Nutty Professor
J.K. Simmons, Allison Janney, and Jennifer Garner in Juno
The entire supporting cast of Amelie
Amy Adams in Enchanted
Henry Fonda in The Lady Eve
Marilyn Monroe in Some Like It Hot
Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny (gets discussed a lot, but often derogatorily)
Bill Murray in Groundhog Day
Catherine O’Hara in just about everything (but especially in For Your Consideration)
Steve Martin in All of Me
John Malkovich in Being John Malkovich
Johnny Depp in Ed Wood (maybe not his best, but certainly his most fascinating)
Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein
Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday
And never underestimate how hard it is to give a great camp performance:
Tim Curry in The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Faye Dunaway in Mommie Dearest
Madeline Kahn in Clue (“Flames. Flames, on the side of my face…”)
And Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, Vol. 1. Criminally underappreciated.
Someone mentioned If On A Winter’s Night A Traveler, which is absolutely incredible. Italo Calvino is a genius.
The following are holdovers from my childhood that I still love: The Hobbit by JRR Tolkein The Westing Game by Ellen Raskin (easily my most-read book; I actually had to buy a second copy because my first was so worn) Redwall and most of the subsequent series by Brian Jacques The Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
And from my adult life: House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera High Fidelity and About a Boy by Nick Hornby The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco The Eyre Affair and the rest of the Thursday Next series by Jasper Fforde Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams The Rule of Four by Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason Les Jeux Sont Faits by Jean-Paul Sartre (someone needs to make a film of this) A History of Reading by Alberto Manguel (truly fascinating)
and the short stories of Jorge Luis Borges
I’m sure I’m forgetting some. I read almost too voraciously for my own good.
Easily M. Hulot’s Holiday (although, to be honest, I have yet to see Playtime). It’s just such a charming picture, and the gags flow more naturally than in his later films. In my mind, it’s as close to a perfect film as you can get. Trafic is good but too reliant on the set piece scenes. Mon Oncle is great but doesn’t have the same energy of M. Hulot’s Holiday. I can’t wait to see Playtime after all I’ve heard about it.
House of Leaves (Mark Z. Danielewski)
To Kill a Mockingbird (Harper Lee)
High Fidelity and About a Boy (Nick Hornby)
The Hobbit (JRR Tolkein)
The Westing Game (Ellen Raskin)
The Outsiders (SE Hinton)
The Master and Margarita (Mikhail Bulgakov)
If on a winter’s night a traveler (Italo Calvino)
The Unbearable Lightness of Being (Milan Kundera)
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams)
Honorable Mention: The short stories of Haruki Murakami and Jorge Luis Borges, anything and everything by David Sedaris, the entire Thursday Next series (Jasper Fforde)
Yes, I know that’s technically more than ten. But picking just ten is simply too hard.
Agree on The Prestige for the most part. It was far more focused and the ending was an improvement over the book (which, while stunning, was slightly unsatisfying). To Kill a Mockingbird is probably equal to the novel, but is not better by any stretch of the imagination. I had a really difficult time getting through Palahniuk’s Fight Club, but loved Fincher’s film.
And The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I loved The Hobbit, but could not get through even the first chapter of the first book of that trilogy. Bored me to tears. The films, on the other had, moved me to tears. I saw the first one three times in the theater, and I never see a film in theaters more than once.
Bolo Tie said: The problem I have with Reloaded and Revolutions is that we end up seeing and spending progressively more time in Zion, and more time looking at computer animated tentacle machines making their way toward it. Needless to say, a lot of unnecessary religious symbolism follows. I was comfortable with the level of pop philosophy in The Matrix, because it was all in aid of an interesting story. In other words, once the intellectual veneer of the movie wore off, there was still something there that made the trivial philosophizing feel right and necessary. Over the latter two movies, I felt that underlying “something” slip away more and more completely, as the inevitable conclusion became obvious, and the intervening minutes just felt like the story buying time.
I couldn’t agree more. I remember seeing The Matrix the weekend it opened with my best friend. We were sixteen, so my Mom had to see it with us (she sat in the back at least five rows behind us, thankfully letting us enjoy the experience by ourselves). When we left the theater, we were all in awe of what we had just seen. I saw Reloaded with my friend when it came out, and we were a little disappointed. There were things I liked about it (the car chase), but the sequences in Zion were pretty excruciating. And Revolutions had a lot of interesting things going for it, but just failed miserably. It saddened me. I always felt that the Wachowskis lost the story and kept going for bigger and bigger special effects and more nebulous philosophy. The interesting characters (Persephone) were barely fleshed out at all, and if it weren’t for various interviews and video games (completely unnecessary marketing tools that were “important parts of the story” that weren’t available to those of us who didn’t play video games) we would know next to nothing about them. The FX were still cool, but let’s face it. In the world of sci-fi trilogies, both Reloaded and Revolutions were lesser films than Return of the Jedi, and the trilogy was completely devoid of anything on the level of Empire Strikes Back.
It’s funny. When I first saw this article, I thought Of course she’s starred in a masterpiece, I mean, there’s… and I couldn’t think of one. The article is dead-on about Sophie’s Choice and Kramer vs. Kramer. My next thoughts were Out of Africa and Silkwood, but I highly doubt either of those will be going into a time capsule anytime soon, good as they are.
Really, the only out-and-out masterpiece that she has starred in (that being key) is Angels in America, and that was really a miniseries. Strange, since she is clearly one of the greatest actresses of all time. Her greatest talent seems to be taking mediocre-to-good material (Devil Wears Prada, Julie & Julia, The River Wild) and somehow turning it into a great performance. She is consistently the best thing about otherwise unremarkable films.
My favorite, not his best, or what I think is his best, but my favorite, is Kill Bill, Vol.1. By a mile. Followed by Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs (which will be ordered differently depending on the day of the week). I will reserve judgment on Inglorious Basterds until I see it again (I enjoyed it immensely on first viewing). I don’t count Death Proof as I refuse to separate Grindhouse into its disparate parts – it was really about the experience as a whole for me. Haven’t seen Jackie Brown, but I need to. I suppose it’s kind of funny that Kill Bill, Vol. 2 is my least favorite, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles, I guess.
Star Wars. When I was about 5 we had rented a copy and I brought it with me to a family function because I knew I would be bored. Not only did about half the extended family end up watching it with me, I couldn’t tear myself away even when my mother threatened me with no dessert.
After that, it was French film all the way. My Dad was a French teacher for twenty-five years, and when I started taking French classes in school he sat me down with La Belle et la Bete and M. Hulot’s Holiday. After that, I devoured The 400 Blows, Breathless, and Jules et Jim on my own. I was hooked.
After they’ve been reading for a few years, definitely watch La Belle et la Bete. It’s the perfect introduction to foreign film because they will by then already know the story. And even though it’s from cinema’s early days, it’s still very impressive visually. Also M. Hulot’s Holiday. Actually, all of Tati’s films are good for kids since they rely a lot on visuals. If they like cars, show Trafic. They’ll love it.
The screwball comedies from the 30s and 40s are great for any age. Bringing Up Baby especially. Also It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World (although that came much later).
And of course musicals. Singin’ In The Rain, Meet Me In St. Louis, and Swing Time are especially choice.
Disney is always the best place to start when they’re young. I’d recommend Cinderella when they’re really young (no really scary villain and no one dies during the film) and after that just feel them out. A lot depends on your kids’ personalities. As their personalities become more developed, it will become more and more clear what they will be interested in on film. Your decisions will eventually make themselves.
I’m confused by quite a few of the movies mentioned in this thread. Granted, I have no insider information that any of them were specifically designed with little gold statuettes in mind, but given the history of the films, I highly doubt that films like Titanic, Slumdog Millionaire, and Chicago were originally conceived as “Oscar bait” films. They might have turned into that and/or been marketed as such, but I don’t think that those three in particular were built around the idea of, “I really want to win an Oscar, so I’m going to make my next film with only that in mind.” That’s how I would define Oscar bait films, anyway. What is your definition of Oscar bait?
Certainly, any and all biopics and most literary/stage adaptations are Oscar bait. There’s almost no way that people don’t go into those types of films without thinking “We are so going to win an Oscar for this!” My most hated? A Beautiful Mind. Hated every second of that manipulative piece of crap. That Jennifer Connelly was absolutely gorgeous in it was the film’s one redeeming feature.
Actually, for all the films I’ve loved since the start of the millennium, it was really easy for me to pick five masterpieces:
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Amelie
In the Mood for Love (cheating a bit, I know, but I don’t care. If forced to pick something else for this slot: The Diving-Bell and the Butterfly)
Memento (cheating a bit, I know, but I don’t care. If forced to pick something else for this slot: Up)
Pan’s Labyrinth
With a special citation for the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
It’s tough. Although the films have a lot in common, they are completely different types of films, which makes it much harder to pick one over the other.
…
Alright, fine. All About Eve, but only because I was a theatre person before I was a film buff. And for George Sanders. The man is like an oil slick on screen. He simply oozes.
Not to deny the genius of Sunset Boulevard, though. Gloria Swanson is incredible. And despite the numerous parodies (a Looney Tunes one that I saw years ago is still pretty vivid in my mind), the film still holds up excellently.
“What is the ONE film from the Double Aughts that could go down as one of THE greatest of all time?”
I think it would be one of the following: Amelie, Requiem for a Dream, In the Mood for Love, Pan’s Labyrinth, Children of Men, Little Children, Brokeback Mountain, The Royal Tennenbaums, Mulholland Drive, Lost in Translation, WALL-E, Zodiac, Before Sunset, The Diving-Bell and the Butterfly, There Will Be Blood, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days, or Memento.
If it were up to me, it would be Pan’s Labyrinth. Or Brokeback Mountain. Or Eternal Sunshine…
But, as it’s not up to me, if I had to pick one that I think will actually end up going down in the annals of history as one of the greatest of all time… There Will Be Blood. I wouldn’t agree with it, as the film didn’t resonate with me on an emotional level (although I do admire the film from a technical standpoint, and think the performances of both Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano are for the time capsule), but that seems to be where critical consensus is heading. The only film that might usurp its place is 4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days.
Heads up!!!! 50% off Criterions almost 3 years ago
Hi, all! I’m new here, I actually found this place because of the B&N sale. It’s great to see all these other crazy cinephiles!
When I found out about this sale, it was the best day of my life. My grandmother, who was my film viewing partner for many years and who really turned me on to classic film (she bought me my first Criterion DVD, 8 1/2, after hearing I was taking a film studies class in college a few years ago and I haven’t stopped since) died last fall and I just got a good amount of money from her estate. So, in honor of her, I
stocked up, and stocked up GOOD…
FIRST STORE TRIP:
Brazil (3-Disc Set) – Divorce Italian Style – Heaven Can Wait – The Lady Eve – Last Year at Marienbad – La Strada – Magnificent Obsession – Mon Oncle – My Own Private Idaho – Playtime – The Rules of the Game – Scenes From a Marriage
SECOND STORE TRIP:
The Red Shoes – The Virgin Spring – Wild Strawberries
FIRST ONLINE ORDER:
The 39 Steps – Charade – Fanny & Alexander Box Set – My Man Godfrey – The Red Balloon – Smiles of a Summer Night
SECOND ONLINE ORDER:
Brief Encounter – Hiroshima, Mon Amour – Seven Samurai – The Vanishing
and I thought I was done. Until I came here yesterday and saw that Ran was out of print. Which led to…
THIRD ONLINE ORDER:
The Earrings of Madame de… – Ran – The Seventh Seal 2-Disc
My bank account takes solace in the fact that my grandmother would be extremely happy that I will now watch all these great films, as well as extremely proud that I got them at such a steal. And now the Amazon sale. Wow. What a summer!
All I can say is, Thanks Grandma! I’ll watch these and think of you every time.
Go to Comment
Favorite Music Videos? almost 3 years ago
Definitely a child of MTV here…
Agree with “Hurt”, “Around the World”, and “It’s Oh So Quiet”. Pretty much anything Spike Jonze touched is gold.
Coffee & TV by Blur (I want a milk carton like that for my very own!)
Freak on a Leash by Korn (Classy animation + nu-metal = thrillingly watchable)
Closing Time by Semisonic (It’s just like Rope! But with split screen!)
Rhythm Nation by Janet Jackson (I’m only human. Large groups of people moving in complete synchronicity gets to me.)
…and plenty more. But I’ll have to think about it. Music videos are really a complete art form unto themselves.
Go to Comment
Where are you from? almost 3 years ago
Connecticut, but work in NYC, so might be moving soon…
Go to Comment
best foreign films from 2000 onwards - France almost 3 years ago
I love French film…
Laurence Cantet’s Entre les murs (The Class)
Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s Le fabuleux destin d’Amélie Poulain (Amélie)
Michael Haneke’s Caché (Hidden)
Jacques Rivette’s Va Savoir (Who Knows?)
Julian Schnabel’s Le scaphandre et le papillon (The Diving-Bell and the Butterfly)
Arnaud Desplechin’s Un conte de Noël (A Christmas Tale) and Rois et reine (Kings and Queen)
Guillaume Canet’s Ne le dis a Personne (Tell No One)
…and, I know it’s not a great film but I can’t help myself: François Ozon’s 8 Femmes (8 Women)
…and, because this would make it an even ten and on the strength of the lead performance: Philippe Claudel’s Il y a longtemps que je t’aime (I’ve Loved You So Long)
Go to Comment
Age / Level of education? (An informal poll) almost 3 years ago
25. BA magna cum laude (I know it sounds pretentious but I worked my ass off for it) in Theater Studies. Currently working in Development (fundraising) for an Off-Broadway theater company while saving money to go back for my Masters/PhD in Dramatic Literature. Or Film Studies. Haven’t decided yet.
Go to Comment
what did you watch today? almost 3 years ago
Watched The Lady Eve last night. Enjoyed all the long takes and seeing Henry Fonda do all those pratfalls.
Go to Comment
What film scenes really make you cry? almost 3 years ago
Films usually don’t get me to cry, but there are a few memorable ones:
Dumbo. To this day, I can’t watch it. It destroyed me as a kid.
Little Women (1994 version). When Beth dies. I can’t help myself. Even when I saw it again recently and could prepare myself, it still got me. I have no clue why.
Brokeback Mountain. The end. God.
Up. If you are able to make it through those opening ten minutes without crying, you are a robot. It’s that simple.
Go to Comment
Favorite performances by child actors almost 3 years ago
Natalie Portman in Leon (The Professional) (Absolute Gold Standard)
Sarah and Emma Bolger in In America (it probably helps that they are actual sisters)
Patty McCormack in The Bad Seed
Tatum O’Neal in Paper Moon
Jean-Pierre Léaud in The 400 Blows
Anna Paquin in The Piano
Heather Matarazzo in Welcome to the Dollhouse
Kirsten Dunst in Interview With the Vampire
Christina Ricci in The Addams Family (sentimental favorite)
Go to Comment
Can we talk about Rachel Getting Married? almost 3 years ago
I loved Rachel Getting Married, and while I understand most people’s problems with it, it took me a while to really understand yours, Bolo. I think it’s largely because I’ve been to a few too many weddings in the past two years (for both friends and family), and the film felt so true to what goes on within the crucible of a wedding. There are tons of people zigzagging this way and that, coming to the forefront of our attention for a split second only to immediately disappear and never be seen again. People from each side of the family generally tend to stick with their own side, and the people in the immediate family of the wedding party are dealing with their own set of issues and are rarely seen by anybody until the reception (and sometimes, not even then). Demme and Lumet captured that so brilliantly that I didn’t really think during the film, I only felt, which coincidentally is usually what happens during weddings – to me, anyway.
Thinking about your gripes with the multi-racial aspects of the film, I realized that you had a point, but after serious thought, I don’t think it’s completely valid. It’s been a while since I’ve seen the film, but I remember watching it and wanting to hear more from Carol and Sidney, until I realized about half-way through that I didn’t need to. Everything you wanted them to say registers on their faces. Their body language tells us all we need to know. The same is true of many of the wedding guests (not all of whom, by the way, are ethnic; the white wedding guests have just as little to do as the ethnic ones – except the ones in the wedding party). When Kym makes her speech at the rehearsal dinner, the tension in the room skyrockets. A lot of the people present tense up or turn away from her, including Sidney (if memory serves). We don’t need any of them to speak about how they feel because we can see it. The feeling is similar whenever the sisters are yelling at each other. I remember at one point Carol throws her hands up as if to say, “I’m done with this. I tried, but I just can’t.” Having her say or do anything more would be redundant.
If you really want to read into the racial aspect of the film, you could also say, as one of my good friends did, that the film was actually very anti-liberal. The family presents itself as liberal, bohemian, and accepting, but when push comes to shove, all they care about is their own petty little problems. They don’t care about anyone else but themselves. It doesn’t matter that they have all the trappings of being a smart, well-brought-up, culturally astute and diverse family, because when you get down to it, they could care less about that. It’s always, “Me, me, ME!” I think this is a valid argument, although I don’t really agree with it. I see it, as I do portions of your argument, but none of it dampened my enjoyment of the film.
Go to Comment
Can we talk about Rachel Getting Married? almost 3 years ago
Bolo, I’m going to repost part of what I said before, because you never addressed it and I think it’s entirely relevant to your point about the stepmother (who happens to be black) and the groom (who also happens to be black) not taking a more active role in the dramatic plot/arc of the film.
There are tons of people zigzagging this way and that, coming to the forefront of our attention for a split second only to immediately disappear and never be seen again. People from each side of the family generally tend to stick with their own side, and the people in the immediate family of the wedding party are dealing with their own set of issues and are rarely seen by anybody until the reception (and sometimes, not even then).
It’s been a while since I’ve seen the film, but I remember watching it and wanting to hear more from Carol and Sidney, until I realized about half-way through that I didn’t need to. Everything you wanted them to say registers on their faces. Their body language tells us all we need to know. The same is true of many of the wedding guests (not all of whom, by the way, are ethnic; the white wedding guests have just as little to do as the ethnic ones – except the ones in the wedding party). When Kym makes her speech at the rehearsal dinner, the tension in the room skyrockets. A lot of the people present tense up or turn away from her, including Sidney (if memory serves). We don’t need any of them to speak about how they feel because we can see it. The feeling is similar whenever the sisters are yelling at each other. I remember at one point Carol throws her hands up as if to say, “I’m done with this. I tried, but I just can’t.” Having her say or do anything more would be redundant. (There is likely further evidence, but finding it would involve me obtaining a copy of the film and watching it, which sadly can’t happen any time soon. If my memory is false, then that’s fine. I’ll chalk our differences up to the fact that I thought the film worked and you didn’t.)
And to go onto something else, I feel like a lot of your posts amount to “I’m not saying A, I’m saying a.” While it’s true you aren’t exactly making a big deal about race in the film, in a way you are, because you keep pointing out not just that certain major characters are not very involved in the dramatic arc of the picture, but that they are ethnic and you saw this specifically as Demme/Lumet marking a line in the sand. When other people try to speak about the race issue, you say that you aren’t talking about race, but about these specific characters, which is the bad thing. And when people try to speak about those specific characters and why they wouldn’t be as involved as you seem to want them to be, you bring up the fact that they are ethnic, and this is really the bad thing. Maybe I’m wrong and posts are getting mixed around in my head, but this is definitely how it seems to me. It seems like, for you, the fact that these characters weren’t involved in the central drama and the fact that they are ethnic are at the same time inextricable and completely separate issues. Again, I might be wrong. My head is spinning a little from all the different people and opinions here.
Where the Jenny Lumet quotes (thanks, Blue K!) do seem to be addressing your point is that, in race not being an issue for her in the script, if certain people were not involved in the central dramatic arc of the story, it was because of the characters and their history (or lack thereof) within the central family unit, which is, as I see it, Kym, Rachel, and Paul (and Abby when she deigns to make an appearance). Carol does not fit into this central family unit because the fault lines that appeared in the wake of the tragedy were already pretty deep by the time she entered the picture, and since she then she has been around Kym only during the brief stints she was at home in between rehab centers. Same thing with Sidney, who knows Kym even less, and probably mostly by reputation. The fact that Carol and Sidney are of a different ethnicity than the central family unit has nothing to do with the fact that they are not deeply involved in the central dramatic arc of the film. If you saw otherwise, then that’s on you.
You said early on that, “what I saw in that was not a comment about these characters having no place in the family drama, but rather of the “ethnic” people having no place in the goings-on of the Anglos. Three white people carrying their fight out of the living room, leaving two black people behind looking at each other like “WTF?” carried a distinctly racial undertone for me, and that aspect of it didn’t feel intentional. Perhaps it gave me that feeling because, the entire time, I’d been seeing all of these non-white people, and sort of wondering when one of them would make a mark on the central conflict of the picture (instead of just standing up and talking about how they knew the bride and the groom, etc).” It’s clear from Lumet’s quotes that there was not meant to be any racial undertones. I certainly didn’t notice any, especially during the scene you mention. I saw this as a family having one particularly heated argument out of many that they have had, and the people who are most removed from that drama (who might not be that far removed from it, but still are to an extent) knowing better than to follow them. Why don’t you see that, even after the arguments for it here? Why do you see a racial undertone that wasn’t mean to be there? Yes, race is an issue in this film by the very virtue of it’s being a non-issue, but even then I still don’t get it. The point that Lumet sees to be making is only that these people of all different ethnic backgrounds are present at this event, all celebrating together, with nary a care for the color of anyone else’s skin. If they aren’t involved in the family drama, then so much the better for them.
Another way to think of it is this. That multi-ethnic cast of characters always in the background represent the wedding. The family drama exists irrespectively of the wedding. Thus, the two worlds do not come together very often. The wedding represents an ideal for the family – that everyone loves each other and can get along without any hate, guilt, or passive aggression. A sort of utopia. They cannot reach that place until they deal with their issues or at least become comfortable with themselves and their problems. Thus, they must deal with those problems apart from the wedding – e.g. those many multi-ethnic people in the background of the film.
Go to Comment
Great performances that hardly ever get discussed almost 3 years ago
Many comedic gems barely ever get discussed:
Eddie Murphy in The Nutty Professor
J.K. Simmons, Allison Janney, and Jennifer Garner in Juno
The entire supporting cast of Amelie
Amy Adams in Enchanted
Henry Fonda in The Lady Eve
Marilyn Monroe in Some Like It Hot
Marisa Tomei in My Cousin Vinny (gets discussed a lot, but often derogatorily)
Bill Murray in Groundhog Day
Catherine O’Hara in just about everything (but especially in For Your Consideration)
Steve Martin in All of Me
John Malkovich in Being John Malkovich
Johnny Depp in Ed Wood (maybe not his best, but certainly his most fascinating)
Gene Wilder in Young Frankenstein
Rosalind Russell in His Girl Friday
And never underestimate how hard it is to give a great camp performance:
Tim Curry in The Rocky Horror Picture Show
Faye Dunaway in Mommie Dearest
Madeline Kahn in Clue (“Flames. Flames, on the side of my face…”)
And Uma Thurman in Kill Bill, Vol. 1. Criminally underappreciated.
Go to Comment
Favorite Books almost 3 years ago
Someone mentioned If On A Winter’s Night A Traveler, which is absolutely incredible. Italo Calvino is a genius.
The following are holdovers from my childhood that I still love:
The Hobbit by JRR Tolkein
The Westing Game by Ellen Raskin (easily my most-read book; I actually had to buy a second copy because my first was so worn)
Redwall and most of the subsequent series by Brian Jacques
The Chronicles of Narnia by CS Lewis
To Kill a Mockingbird by Harper Lee
And from my adult life:
House of Leaves by Mark Z. Danielewski
The Unbearable Lightness of Being by Milan Kundera
High Fidelity and About a Boy by Nick Hornby
The Name of the Rose by Umberto Eco
The Eyre Affair and the rest of the Thursday Next series by Jasper Fforde
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy by Douglas Adams
The Rule of Four by Ian Caldwell and Dustin Thomason
Les Jeux Sont Faits by Jean-Paul Sartre (someone needs to make a film of this)
A History of Reading by Alberto Manguel (truly fascinating)
and the short stories of Jorge Luis Borges
I’m sure I’m forgetting some. I read almost too voraciously for my own good.
Go to Comment
Favorite Books almost 3 years ago
…and of course, I read a new post and realize I completely forgot Bulgakov’s The Master and Margarita and the entire output of Haruki Murakami.
And Pale Fire by Vladimir Nabokov, which is brilliant.
Go to Comment
Greatest Film Taglines of All TIme. almost 3 years ago
“If you can’t be famous, be infamous” – Chicago
Totally agree about the Alien tagline as well. I’m sure I’ll think of others.
Go to Comment
Tati almost 3 years ago
Easily M. Hulot’s Holiday (although, to be honest, I have yet to see Playtime). It’s just such a charming picture, and the gags flow more naturally than in his later films. In my mind, it’s as close to a perfect film as you can get. Trafic is good but too reliant on the set piece scenes. Mon Oncle is great but doesn’t have the same energy of M. Hulot’s Holiday. I can’t wait to see Playtime after all I’ve heard about it.
Go to Comment
TheAuteurs List of the Week 4/26/09: Your 10 Favorite Books almost 3 years ago
…if I must pick only ten…
House of Leaves (Mark Z. Danielewski)
To Kill a Mockingbird (Harper Lee)
High Fidelity and About a Boy (Nick Hornby)
The Hobbit (JRR Tolkein)
The Westing Game (Ellen Raskin)
The Outsiders (SE Hinton)
The Master and Margarita (Mikhail Bulgakov)
If on a winter’s night a traveler (Italo Calvino)
The Unbearable Lightness of Being (Milan Kundera)
Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy (Douglas Adams)
Honorable Mention: The short stories of Haruki Murakami and Jorge Luis Borges, anything and everything by David Sedaris, the entire Thursday Next series (Jasper Fforde)
Yes, I know that’s technically more than ten. But picking just ten is simply too hard.
Go to Comment
Films that are better than the books that they are are based on almost 3 years ago
Agree on The Prestige for the most part. It was far more focused and the ending was an improvement over the book (which, while stunning, was slightly unsatisfying). To Kill a Mockingbird is probably equal to the novel, but is not better by any stretch of the imagination. I had a really difficult time getting through Palahniuk’s Fight Club, but loved Fincher’s film.
And The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I loved The Hobbit, but could not get through even the first chapter of the first book of that trilogy. Bored me to tears. The films, on the other had, moved me to tears. I saw the first one three times in the theater, and I never see a film in theaters more than once.
Go to Comment
The Matrix Trilogy -- 10th Anniversary! almost 3 years ago
Bolo Tie said: The problem I have with Reloaded and Revolutions is that we end up seeing and spending progressively more time in Zion, and more time looking at computer animated tentacle machines making their way toward it. Needless to say, a lot of unnecessary religious symbolism follows. I was comfortable with the level of pop philosophy in The Matrix, because it was all in aid of an interesting story. In other words, once the intellectual veneer of the movie wore off, there was still something there that made the trivial philosophizing feel right and necessary. Over the latter two movies, I felt that underlying “something” slip away more and more completely, as the inevitable conclusion became obvious, and the intervening minutes just felt like the story buying time.
I couldn’t agree more. I remember seeing The Matrix the weekend it opened with my best friend. We were sixteen, so my Mom had to see it with us (she sat in the back at least five rows behind us, thankfully letting us enjoy the experience by ourselves). When we left the theater, we were all in awe of what we had just seen. I saw Reloaded with my friend when it came out, and we were a little disappointed. There were things I liked about it (the car chase), but the sequences in Zion were pretty excruciating. And Revolutions had a lot of interesting things going for it, but just failed miserably. It saddened me. I always felt that the Wachowskis lost the story and kept going for bigger and bigger special effects and more nebulous philosophy. The interesting characters (Persephone) were barely fleshed out at all, and if it weren’t for various interviews and video games (completely unnecessary marketing tools that were “important parts of the story” that weren’t available to those of us who didn’t play video games) we would know next to nothing about them. The FX were still cool, but let’s face it. In the world of sci-fi trilogies, both Reloaded and Revolutions were lesser films than Return of the Jedi, and the trilogy was completely devoid of anything on the level of Empire Strikes Back.
Go to Comment
Do you read THE ONION? almost 3 years ago
It’s funny. When I first saw this article, I thought Of course she’s starred in a masterpiece, I mean, there’s… and I couldn’t think of one. The article is dead-on about Sophie’s Choice and Kramer vs. Kramer. My next thoughts were Out of Africa and Silkwood, but I highly doubt either of those will be going into a time capsule anytime soon, good as they are.
Really, the only out-and-out masterpiece that she has starred in (that being key) is Angels in America, and that was really a miniseries. Strange, since she is clearly one of the greatest actresses of all time. Her greatest talent seems to be taking mediocre-to-good material (Devil Wears Prada, Julie & Julia, The River Wild) and somehow turning it into a great performance. She is consistently the best thing about otherwise unremarkable films.
Go to Comment
best British films of the last 25 years almost 3 years ago
Waking Ned Devine
In the Loop
Topsy-Turvy
Secrets & Lies
28 Days Later
Slumdog Millionaire
Go to Comment
SILENT FILMS & WESTERN FILMS SUGGESTIONS almost 3 years ago
If you liked City Lights, definitely go for Chaplin’s other great films: The Kid, Modern Times, and The Gold Rush are my favorites.
Go to Comment
So what is your favorite QT? (please don't turn this into a fanboy thing, it's not) over 2 years ago
My favorite, not his best, or what I think is his best, but my favorite, is Kill Bill, Vol.1. By a mile. Followed by Pulp Fiction and Reservoir Dogs (which will be ordered differently depending on the day of the week). I will reserve judgment on Inglorious Basterds until I see it again (I enjoyed it immensely on first viewing). I don’t count Death Proof as I refuse to separate Grindhouse into its disparate parts – it was really about the experience as a whole for me. Haven’t seen Jackie Brown, but I need to. I suppose it’s kind of funny that Kill Bill, Vol. 2 is my least favorite, but that’s the way the cookie crumbles, I guess.
Go to Comment
Ballet in Film over 2 years ago
It begins and ends with The Red Shoes, but I also love Altman’s The Company.
And Center Stage is one of my all-time favorite guilty pleasure dance flicks.
Go to Comment
films that made you love film over 2 years ago
Star Wars. When I was about 5 we had rented a copy and I brought it with me to a family function because I knew I would be bored. Not only did about half the extended family end up watching it with me, I couldn’t tear myself away even when my mother threatened me with no dessert.
After that, it was French film all the way. My Dad was a French teacher for twenty-five years, and when I started taking French classes in school he sat me down with La Belle et la Bete and M. Hulot’s Holiday. After that, I devoured The 400 Blows, Breathless, and Jules et Jim on my own. I was hooked.
Go to Comment
Film Education for My Children over 2 years ago
After they’ve been reading for a few years, definitely watch La Belle et la Bete. It’s the perfect introduction to foreign film because they will by then already know the story. And even though it’s from cinema’s early days, it’s still very impressive visually. Also M. Hulot’s Holiday. Actually, all of Tati’s films are good for kids since they rely a lot on visuals. If they like cars, show Trafic. They’ll love it.
The screwball comedies from the 30s and 40s are great for any age. Bringing Up Baby especially. Also It’s A Mad Mad Mad Mad World (although that came much later).
And of course musicals. Singin’ In The Rain, Meet Me In St. Louis, and Swing Time are especially choice.
Disney is always the best place to start when they’re young. I’d recommend Cinderella when they’re really young (no really scary villain and no one dies during the film) and after that just feel them out. A lot depends on your kids’ personalities. As their personalities become more developed, it will become more and more clear what they will be interested in on film. Your decisions will eventually make themselves.
Go to Comment
Your most hated 'Oscar Bait' films over 2 years ago
I’m confused by quite a few of the movies mentioned in this thread. Granted, I have no insider information that any of them were specifically designed with little gold statuettes in mind, but given the history of the films, I highly doubt that films like Titanic, Slumdog Millionaire, and Chicago were originally conceived as “Oscar bait” films. They might have turned into that and/or been marketed as such, but I don’t think that those three in particular were built around the idea of, “I really want to win an Oscar, so I’m going to make my next film with only that in mind.” That’s how I would define Oscar bait films, anyway. What is your definition of Oscar bait?
Certainly, any and all biopics and most literary/stage adaptations are Oscar bait. There’s almost no way that people don’t go into those types of films without thinking “We are so going to win an Oscar for this!” My most hated? A Beautiful Mind. Hated every second of that manipulative piece of crap. That Jennifer Connelly was absolutely gorgeous in it was the film’s one redeeming feature.
Go to Comment
The Best Films of the New Millenium over 2 years ago
Actually, for all the films I’ve loved since the start of the millennium, it was really easy for me to pick five masterpieces:
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
Amelie
In the Mood for Love (cheating a bit, I know, but I don’t care. If forced to pick something else for this slot: The Diving-Bell and the Butterfly)
Memento (cheating a bit, I know, but I don’t care. If forced to pick something else for this slot: Up)
Pan’s Labyrinth
With a special citation for the Lord of the Rings Trilogy.
Go to Comment
"All About Eve" or "Sunset Blvd." : Which do you prefer? over 2 years ago
It’s tough. Although the films have a lot in common, they are completely different types of films, which makes it much harder to pick one over the other.
…
Alright, fine. All About Eve, but only because I was a theatre person before I was a film buff. And for George Sanders. The man is like an oil slick on screen. He simply oozes.
Not to deny the genius of Sunset Boulevard, though. Gloria Swanson is incredible. And despite the numerous parodies (a Looney Tunes one that I saw years ago is still pretty vivid in my mind), the film still holds up excellently.
Go to Comment
The Greatest Film of the 2000s over 2 years ago
“What is the ONE film from the Double Aughts that could go down as one of THE greatest of all time?”
I think it would be one of the following: Amelie, Requiem for a Dream, In the Mood for Love, Pan’s Labyrinth, Children of Men, Little Children, Brokeback Mountain, The Royal Tennenbaums, Mulholland Drive, Lost in Translation, WALL-E, Zodiac, Before Sunset, The Diving-Bell and the Butterfly, There Will Be Blood, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, 4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days, or Memento.
If it were up to me, it would be Pan’s Labyrinth. Or Brokeback Mountain. Or Eternal Sunshine…
But, as it’s not up to me, if I had to pick one that I think will actually end up going down in the annals of history as one of the greatest of all time… There Will Be Blood. I wouldn’t agree with it, as the film didn’t resonate with me on an emotional level (although I do admire the film from a technical standpoint, and think the performances of both Daniel Day-Lewis and Paul Dano are for the time capsule), but that seems to be where critical consensus is heading. The only film that might usurp its place is 4 Months 3 Weeks and 2 Days.
Go to Comment
FAVORITE/BEST FRENCH FILM? over 2 years ago
La Belle et La Bete
or
Jules et Jim
Go to Comment