Am loving seeing so much support for Malick in one place – I owe the beginning of my true appreciation of the beauty of cinema to this man.
Not read all posts so not sure if this one has already been mentioned – but Tarkovsky’s The Mirror is the single most beautiful piece of cinema I have ever seen. I never would have believed I could be reduced to wracking sobs at the sight of a man turning the pages of a book. The Mirror is not a film – it is cinematic art of the highest order.
Malick’s New World – yet to meet anyone who even mildly enjoyed it, let alone thought it was one of the most moving films ever. Ok – got it – need new friends :)
@Amir Rodriguez – In terms of what makes a political film endure in terms of VIEWER popularity, I think it is simply a question of whether the film connects to its audience on an intimate, human level, rather than a politically ideological one. Political ideologies come and go, but the struggles and passions of the people involved in those movements are indelible and will never lose their pertinence. The best example that comes to mind of this ‘personalising the political’ is McQueen’s Hunger (2008) – it is missing the point to view the film as a political work at all I think, and is better viewed as a tale of leadership and sacrifice for one’s human (not political) principles – hence the film’s focusing so heavily on the connection with Sands and his son at its end.
edit* Robert’s statement of the universality of some elements of political art is a very good one too though – any film with a small few rising against an oppressive power is always going to be stirring amongst audiences facing a similar struggle, whether it’s in their country, city, community or family.
But, Amir, in your first post (re Eisenstein), you seem to be talking about enduring cinematic form rather than popularity of the movies themselves – I don’t think the political nature of a film is relevant to how its use of form endures in the work of later film makers. As an example – Joseph Losey was very much a socialist, but you see nothing of Eisensteinian formalism in his work.
The obvious answer (but by far not the only one) is that you’re paying for a good portion of the world to watch these films for free. Having lived in Russia and Turkey these last few years, I can say that film makers are seeing very little cash for their work in these two countries – piracy is rife with a capital R – or, better U, for unrestricted and unabated. In Russia, you have to look hard to find licensed DVDs, good quality copies in beautiful boxes are everywhere and not a penny goes to the film makers. And although Turkey has fallen in line recently in clamping down on pirate copies of films in the big cities, the majority of the populace have just switched to free internet downloads. And these are just the two eastern countries I know well…
As to the rest of the reasons – its not just paying the film makers that needs to be taken into account, if you look at distribution and advertising costs, film needs to gross a lot of money (from box office and then from DVD sales) to net very much at all. If/when the world turns to digital projectors (boo hiss), distribution will be cheaper because all the expensive printing of films will be removed from the equation – but with all the money needed for the switch to digital, there’s a good chance you won’t be seeing a drop in theatre ticket prices anytime soon, if ever.
Goodness – sounding like I’m an authority on this question here – which I am really not – just regurgitating what I’ve read elsewhere.
Cynic or not – Law is right – it’s a wider issue of our capitalist society you are complaining about rather than the movie industry specifically. In all industries we are only asked to pay what we have shown we are prepared to pay – this is the only dynamic that governs prices – be it to employ an A-list actor, go to the cinema, or buy bread and milk.
If it’s any consolation to you though, we are in fact lucky that most of us get to go to a cinema once a week, let alone twice or three times. I met a plumber from an ex-soviet country (can’t remember which), living in Istanbul, who told me he loved cinema but could almost never afford to take his family to a movie theatre – be it in Istanbul or, if he had stayed, in his home country. Us westerners have it pretty easy on the whole – and capitalism has in fact given us a shamefully high standard of living – even for our plumbers – it’s just tough to remember that all the time when we see others who are even richer. (Hope I’m not sounding patronizing or preachy here by the way).
And they are rich because we pay that much for what they do. A studio will pay Ridley Scott a ton to direct the next Alien flick simply because we as a collective audience will pay a ton to see the resulting movie – and he’s just one of a whole bunch of others who make the film a hit. The only way to stop this is for everyone to stop buying – and while we have lots of money and not the slightest idea of how to lead a meaningful existence without the spending of it, that doesn’t look like it’s any danger of happening (sorry – my turn to play cynic!).
Some interesting points here. I think the fact film is a moving, time-based art is getting a little forgotten though. It’s kind of like us discussing which notes of music have which kind of psychological effect on the listener – isn’t it much more about what was played before and will be after? – the rhythm too? I agree entirely with Chris Evans that one’s intuition should be the guiding force behind a film’s direction, and perhaps more importantly, its editing. Not to say intuition shouldn’t be educated and informed (I liked the Polanski and Hitchcock refs), but that education and information should be kept distrustfully at the back as very loose reference points in each directorial decision.
I watched Let The Right One In recently and was astonished at how emotionally charged a lot of the two-shots were when I was expecting cuts to extra close up; and then there is the scene in There Will Be Blood when Daniel Plainview’s ‘son’ returns from being abandoned to an institution – an extreme long shot shot across the pipeline and meadow that carried more emotive clout I’m sure than any extra close up could have. Am guessing great directors/DoPs feel rather than know how to get the most from a shot.
Robert – “See Plainview (the center-of-influence) in a power relationship with the source of his power (oil).” As I was typing about this scene it occurred to me that the oil pipeline might have lent to the emotional surge of the shot – by what it symbolised, like you say – but wasn’t sure – it felt more about father, son, guilt and hurt. Am still not entirely sure – but am damn curious. I think I’ll get a copy of the Arnheim book too – you’ve certainly piqued my curiosity, thanks.
Is kind of you Amir – but I am not sure my points were any more pertinent than the others’ on this question – and for certain mine were the less well-informed. As for Hunger, I do think it will endure – and not just because it breaks the mould of recent British realist stylistics – but most of all for the human element as you say. Time will tell though – and it will need for McQueen to follow this success up with some more great films to get his work more widely recognised. I’m sorry I can’t comment on State of Siege as I have not seen it but it sounds like it is also largely apolitical, at least in your memory of it.
About Eisenstein – I understood you – perhaps I wasn’t so clear myself. But is it a fact that Eisenstein is getting a lot more attention again recently? I hadn’t heard this to be the case before now to be honest. If so, perhaps his ‘rediscovery’ is more to do with cinema studies becoming so popular these days than any peculiar socio-political reason? Would just as well explain the Pet Shop Boys’ interest in B.Potemkin. (sorry – this answer is definitely not one you were looking for! :) And as to what Eisenstein is remembered for – I imagine everyone would agree it’s not so much his political messages as his pioneering use of cinematic form, and perhaps, though less so, his theories behind that use. Or do his political messages themselves garner interest in your country? If so, is very interesting to hear of.
I reckon you’ve got to ask yourself why you and your partner like the films you do to get an answer to this question. One’s tastes in films are both symptoms and signifiers of one’s sensibilities, values, fears, dreams, intelligence, culture of aesthetics and a whole bunch of other stuff; so if you have different tastes because you, as people, irreconcilably clash with one another, then the answer is of course a definitive no. I mean, I don’t think I could have a meaningful relationship with someone who exclusively loved rom-coms and Hollywood blockbusters, because it probably suggested that person didn’t have a very questioning mind. I couldn’t have a long-term relationship with someone who got bored any time I pondered or asked “But why?” (not to say they are lacking in any way, just we wouldn’t click)
In your example, however, you have two people who are very much devoted to ‘quality cinema’, just to different brands of film – to me that suggests you both have a good deal in common where it counts (inquisitiveness, imagination, empathy, aesthetic appreciation and just a sheer adoration of film as an art form), and any differences in taste would simply derive from some emotional, aesthetic or value-based variations. These variations may themselves represent a problem or may not – if your partner laps up Balabanov because he/she is a through and through nationalist, I personally would have problems admiring that person and therefore loving them (as admiration is key to love in my book); but if they loved the director for his dark cynicism or unique take on the crime genre, I wouldn’t see it as a danger to our togetherness at all.
Hey Chemical. I think Robert nailed it in saying this guy was talking about HOW thoughts are represented – not that they can’t be – just they can’t be in the same way they are in a novel.
As to the alternative ways in which film can express thoughts – it’s pretty hard for even the most expressive actors to convey everything going on in the character’s head, as not all thoughts manifest themselves externally at all (especially with inexpressive people) – and even when they do, we the viewer add our own lives when we interpret them. We do that much less in reading a novel. Sure, there is the flashback as you mentioned (and add to that prolepsis/fantasy), and then the Voice Over (Thin Red Line is my favourite for this). And also you’ve got the messages that are given from the display of two different images played in succession, as per structuralist film theory.
And, as Robert said, symbolism is often an effective way to get across meaning, but the famous dog in Stalker is perhaps not the best example – I heard it just followed the crew around during filming and just wandered into frame in the famous scene that you see on the front of the Artificial Eye DVD cover (sorry Robert, I know you want sources for info but at the moment I can’t give one – a Russian film magazine editor who works at my school related this story to my students and they excitedly to me – I’ll ask him when I see him next though). Of course the fact Tarkovsky put the shot in the film means he took ownership of the image, but I doubt very much he wanted it to speak directly to us about fidelity as he was against such rudimentary use of symbolism. I can give a source for this (from Tarkovsky’s Sculpting in Time, Uni of Texas Press, P. 72) – in his discussion on making all images “true to life, specific, factual,” he says, “By contrast, symbols are born, and readily pass into general use to become cliches when an author hits upon a particular plastic composition, ties it in with some mysterious turn of thought of his own, and loads it with extraneous meaning.” Not trying to be querulous here, Robert – just I don’t think Tarkovsky would like much to hear that he was using metaphors like this – sure we can take the dog to mean fidelity if that’s our personal association with the image, just not suggest that’s what he meant for it when making the film.
About the dog-wandering-on thing, like I said, I don’t know for sure if it’s true – shall find out more and post it when I do. But I wouldn’t be so hasty to debunk it as incredible – I am in Russia after all and though that of course doesn’t mean everything I hear about Russian cinema is true, I am surprised that you are so quick to write it off. And as for dog training – if you give a sausage to a street dog, you’ll be surprised how much it sits, even lays down, near you. And it doesn’t mean you’re embodying it with a symbol for simply letting it into frame. I’ve not seen Stalker for over two years, though I’m tempted to put it on now to answer your question about what the Stalker wanted from the two travellers as I simply don’t remember.
But I don’t need to – and this leads me to the other source of surprise – that you would sooner believe I hadn’t read my own quote properly than accept you might be wrong. I respect your intelligence a lot Robert, please return at least a little of the same courtesy to me.
Anyway – ties it in with some mysterious turn of thought of his own, and loads it with extraneous meaning. Without you seeing the whole context of this quote, it’s perhaps not clear what Tarkovsky meant. He wasn’t saying that some symbols are extraneous and some universal – he is saying all symbols are extraneous and when an author uses them he is drawing from irrelevant preconceptions/notions that are not inherent to the image.
I will give another quote from his book that attacks exactly the same type of symbolism that you are attributing to his work with the ‘dog = fidelity’ reference (from P.73): In the final scene of Give Anna Giacceia a Husband de Santis puts his hero and heroine on either side of a metal gate. The gate clearly states: now the couple are split up, they’ll never be happy, contact is impossible. And so a specific, individual, unique event is turned into something utterly banal because it has been forced to take on a trivial form. The spectator immediately knocks his head against the ‘ceiling’ of the director’s so-called thought. The trouble is that lots of audiences enjoy such knocks, they make them feel safe: not only is it ‘exciting’ but the idea is clear and there’s no need to strain the brain or the eye, there’s no need to see anything happening. And on that sort of diet the audience starts to degenerate. Yet similar gates, fences, hedges have been repeated many a time in many a film and always mean the same thing.
Now I think it’s fair to say that dog=fidelity would be an assumption that Tarkovsky would be similarly riled to hear, especially in regard to one of his own films. The dog was there because the dog was there and that was the reality of the image. If you are still not convinced though – from P.200, about Stalker again: People have often asked me what the Zone is, and what it symbolises, and have put forward wild conjectures on the subject. I’m reduced to a state of fury and despair by such questions. The zone doesn’t symbolise anything, any more than anything else does in my films: the zone is a zone…"
As to Nostalgia’s last scene, it was certainly the best image that you could have called up in support of your argument from Tarkovsky’s entire filmography: he wrote of it on P216 (am getting as tired of typing quotes here as you all are reading them, but needs must) I would concede that the final shot of Nostalgia has an element of metaphor, when I bring the Russian house inside the Italian cathedral. It is a constructed image which smacks of literariness: a model of the hero’s state, of the division within him which prevents him from living as he has up till now. Or perhaps, on the contrary, it is his new wholeness in which the Tuscan hills, and the Russian countryside come together indissolubly…(I’ll post the intermediate few lines if you want)…All the same, even if the scene lacks cinematic purity, I trust it is free of vulgar symbolism; the conclusion seems to me fairly complex in form and meaning, and to be a figurative expression of what is happening to the hero, not a symbol of something outside him which has to be deciphered.
Now I beg you not have the conceit to say either Tarkovsky was lying (to himself/us), or was not nearly as deep as he thought; that would offend me a good deal – I have infinite respect for this guy as a film maker and artist. Please instead sate your ‘hunger’ with just a small piece of humble pie. God knows I’m going to say a lot of erroneous crap on this site the more I post here (I’ve got a far smaller shorter arm of experience than most of you guys when it comes to cinema), but I’d like to think I will concede my mistakes when called on them.
@Robert. Ok – thanks. Sorry if I overreacted / mistook the tone of your message at all. And agreed that the way an artist perceives his own work can’t always be trusted – is rather like the way anyone remembers their own life: selectively and self-reflectingly. And indeed when I found the scene you asked about, from the way the dog joined the Stalker as he lay down resting on a dry spot in the water, it didn’t look like a dog he knew only from having handed a sausage to, let alone one that had just wandered in uninvited. Is difficult to resist trying to ‘decipher’ a message from its presence either. (you knew I’d have these two revelations didn’t you? :)
In answer to your question, if it was for more than just my own benefit in looking: it’s hard to make out but it seems to be The Stalker that the dog takes a place beside – if that’s the scene you meant. I flew through and didn’t find a ‘meadow shot’, just this watery one.
@Robert. I checked and it is a swamp – or more like a very shallow river (one shot shows water pouring in from a tributary stream) – and it is the Stalker himself whom the dog lies down beside. Is a dream I think (just before his main one) – probably of the strength he finds in his will to serve others, which Tarkovsky said was what made this character ‘invincible’ though he ‘seems weak’. Tarkovsky says his wife is the character who shows them all the power of faithfulness, at the film’s end – but it is not at all misplaced to interpret the dog as demonstrating this quality too.
Is interesting though – as dreams are built largely of symbols (I think both Freud and Jung agreed on this point) – I wonder whether, in the many dream sequences of his films, Tarkovsky therefore felt more liberated to free himself of his self-imposed rules of film art and to construct such symbols.
And going back to Chemical’s question, dream sequences are of course another way of representing the cerebral in film.
how does the subject itself and its particularities affect the expiration period of the movie…?
Hi Amir. I can’t comment on many of the specific films you’ve mentioned as I’ve not seen all of them, but to be honest I am beginning to think there may not be an answer to this question of yours. It could just be that it’s simply too ambitious to seek any direct connection between a films’ political message (or the way in which that message is given) and the film’s endurance through history. The variables at play in making a film memorable and returned to by future viewers are dependent on so many other factors, some of which we’ve already brought up here, that while deep analysis on the political subject of a film will perhaps bring you closer to understanding the merits of that one work, it might only lead you further away from understanding why it endures any more or less than the next politically driven film.
From all the input in this thread so far we have collectively proposed that a political film can endure because of: 1) its stylistic innovativeness (Eisenstein), 2) its relevance to contemporary political movements (Battle of Algiers), or 3) its intimate connection to universal and apolitical human experience (The Hunger) – with a good deal of overlapping of qualities of course – but only one of these three factors (no.2) is directly relevant to what you are looking to learn. The answer to your questions may be the same as why any film of any subject matter endures while the next one doesn’t, no? (We could go deeper into that if you like though).
About Munich – perhaps it’s because I am very much an outsider to the Israel-Palestine issue (and not a very informed one at that), but to me the story was only really about the personal cost that vengeance brings upon its dealer (the book it drew from was called Vengance), and is only political at all because it was a Jewish film maker who used this politically charged story-premise to make an apolitical statement. Though not amongst cinephiles, I feel the film may well endure for a while, and longer than Loach’s Wind That Shakes The Barley (which I believe will soon find itself stacked alongside non-political films in ‘Best of British Social Realism’ sections) simply because, as I said about Hunger, Munich is driven by a universal human didactic, albeit a rather simple one.
One poster said that LvT’s dedication to Tarkovsky was sincere and I agree. But most people seem to feel that it was some aesthetic reference, and I think that’s where we all get lost. If you read Tarkovsky’s book Sculpting in Time and watch his self-confessed best work The Mirror (not Solaris as I saw one Antichrist reviewer reference!), you get a bit closer to understanding both more about the dedication, and I think too, about Antichrist as a film.
I made some notes a few months ago before and after seeing Antichrist at the Russian premier in St Pete:
“It helps to try not to see Antichrist as hermeneutic – filled with symbols there for the deciphering – and instead a composition born of images and dynamics from within LvT’s psyche, ones that he himself would have a job understanding; this mode of creative expression is very Tarkovskyian and transcends the deliberately symbolic. The Mirror represented Tarkovsky’s great catharsis – he told all involved in the project that this film was purely for himself about himself, hence the title (see the interview with Aleksandr Misharin, his supporting writer, on Artificial Eye’s The Mirror DVD for more) – and indeed in watching the film, you can feel how he is, through dream rather than rationale, both celebrating the purity of his childhood, mourning its passing, and filling the film with apology for not having lived his adulthood with the love he learnt then. And with an indulgent release of guilt, sorrow and care, he builds a film entirely from his soul’s pangs more as a poet would build a work than a film-maker; and indeed the final result is a poem more than a film (something Tarkovsky felt the true language of film should be akin to – especially haikku). Now if one reads a poem and finds darkness as perturbing as Antichrist, one would think less of it (Georg Trakl is a good example that springs to mind but there are many more). I feel LvT was just drawing from the same, pain-filled, ‘poetic’ source of creativity.
Regarding the female element in both films: Tarkovsky’s mother is central to the emotion in The Mirror (and she even performs in it). Lars von Trier admits to having made Antichrist to help him get over his depression of 2 years ago – and it is known widely (in Denmark at least) that he had a torrid relationship with his mother during childhood – I would argue that during therapy a good deal of his childhood angst against his mother came to the surface and found its way into his art: making this film was central to his catharsis. Lars von Trier, I believe, understood what The Mirror represented to Tarkovsky, how no other consideration bore the film forward than the need to express all that one’s childhood carries into and through one’s adult life. He thanked Tarkovsky in his dedication for this insight.
It is also no accident that both The Mirror and Antichrist take place in a family house in the middle of a natural nowhere – indeed the house in the Mirror was a detailed reconstruction of the actual house Tarkovsky was raised in. LvT’s calling his house Eden, is as much a reference to the beginning of his life, as that of mankind’s – and his attacks on nature are reflective of his attacks on womankind (his mother), and not the other way round – at least that’s how I see it.
Of course, the similarities between The Mirror and Antichrist end pretty quickly when we move past the whole and into the details. I’d say that was simply because Tarkovsky’s childhood was a good deal more loving and supportive than Von Trier’s: in The Mirror we get a film of sentient beauty, in Von Trier’s one of rage and despair – indeed LvT says this is a scream in film form – and he means not of horror I believe, but of deep personal anguish. I applaud his honesty, and Tarkovsky I am sure would also, and though Tarkovsky abhorred excessive violence in film, he would understand why it came to Lars von Trier’s Antichrist better than many of us do."
Just my thoughts – feel free to attack/agree/ignore.
What is Antichrist about? Does it make it less of a film if noone can say? Can you say with surety what every great film you see is really about, or why it is ‘profound’? And I never heard LvT reference his film as profound – and neither should it need to be, honest is enough.
Self-indulgence is a point I can agree with – though wouldn’t you prefer a film-maker to indulge his own (inner)self than his viewers’? And I feel we should “enable” film makers who have the courage to do this, regardless of how distasteful the result may be at times (think Luis Bunuel’s Un Chien Andalou and even Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange): in demanding anything different we are denying them their honesty, and following that their freedom as artists – and god knows there are enough in the movie-industry trying to do that already.
Yeah – I was kind of wondering how a Russian surname ended up as a first! Hats off to you though Kenji – had me going too – and no tattered rep at all – I mean where would any of us be without story-tellers?!
Funnily enough – far from a good film but Alpha Dog had me wrenching inside – (SPOILERS) it shook me to the core when Timberlake’s character was comforting the kid just before they killed him, reassuring the terrified lad that all was going to be fine, convincing him to place his trust in him – which he does – and then bang, they waste him. I shudder recalling it even now. (Incidentally I have seen the poor kid’s Mum post on IMDB boards since the film – raising support to lengthen sentences of the convicted if I remember rightly – what a god-awful mess).
I’m a native English speaker and I watch all English lang films with subtitles too – hate missing a word. I honestly thought I was the only person who did this though – glad to know I’m not :)
How about this for a future scenario off the back of all the digital ‘progress’ -
First, video games become so film-like that they end up devouring the blockbuster movie market entirely: maybe even having ‘social’ interactive screenings of video-games at cinemas where all viewers’ inputs for what action the protagonist (and/or camera) takes next are moderated to affect exactly what comes up ‘on screen.’
This may sound horrific, but it could actually at last allow film to break away – led by auteur enthusiasts who support the traditional film form for its conveyance of a single artist’s visions.
Or then, the world might just flip its legs up in the air and kark it…
Well- I managed to find time for one film from the cup in time (Letter for my Children) so can vote for just one pair – is partly due to an incredibly slow internet connection (takes me 3 days for me to stream a whole film!). Sorry I couldn’t be of more use to this competition so far.
Any chance that there will be some voting in the first couple of weeks of the new year? Or will it all be finished by then? I ask because I’ll have oodles of time over that period and will be able to catch stuff from a different internet connection.
Considering Mirror is perhaps the best film I’ve ever seen by any country (and is Tarkovsky’s best as he’d probably say too), it was always going to be nigh on impossible for the film’s opponent to compete. Diary for my Children had its moments (visually) but sadly it was no contest at all – kind of Brazil vs Accrington Stanley if you’ll forgive the comparison: with Diary’s protagonist so completely bound up in her own wants and needs, it was hard to sympathise with her trials at all – or care when she at last ‘matured’. Sorry Hungary.
@Dmitris oh,and one comment against the Hungarian films was pretty mean-spirited…
errr..that’ll be mine :/ Sorry about that. Felt I was unnecessarily harsh after posting it but for somereason my posts never have an ‘edit’ option on my home computer anymore. Hope I offended noone – will try to be a little less condemning in future – is just I’ve been reading too much Sight & Sound magazine lately! Nice touch with the commentary Dmitris, btw :)
To the Hungarian manager (and supporters) – I promise to watch the other films competing from your country and give them due attention – sorry I couldn’t have done before this match – it takes 3 days to stream/download one film on my internet connection. Good luck with this match – is getting pretty close!
I don’t think American Beauty set out to be too serious a comment on either suburban life, or dysfunctional western middle-classism – and if one compares it with the likes of Little Children and The Ice Storm (two films I also love) – it’s of course going to seem affected and overplayed. I felt American Beauty only referenced social realist themes from a satirical standpoint – more akin to Edward Scissorhands than the others mentioned here – and this point is made clearer if you read Alan Ball’s screenplay – which actually has two scenes where Lester Burnham is flying over the streets in which he lives, swooping down to greet people – rather like Superman. American Beauty is about the pursuit of happiness – its backdrop hit close to home in its social commentary, but I don’t think should be boxed up as a social commentary ‘period’.
I loved Revolutionary Road too by the way – am surprised it got a negative reaction here – @ Fredo – I’m not sure it was supposed to be a straightforward social drama either – it would be commenting on 1950s American society, which is hardly a hotbed of controversy or too great an angle for instructive reflection on modern lifestyles and dilemmas. I think Mendes was drawing on some issues that are relevant today (ie. security vs dream fulfillment), but kept the story primarily character-focused rather than generic.
Perhaps because I’m a Brit too though, I just didn’t notice some lack of realism in the films that you guys did though – and all we’re really discussing is how much (or little) these movies connected with us on top of our own country-specific experiences. (Here’s when you all tell me you are Brits too!)
If you look at cinema as a stimulus – offering illumination to some, excitement to others, friends, or reminders of them to still more – it all just comes down to what you as a person need from cinema, and perhaps ultimately from life too. In my opinion we have a right to criticise a film only when it offers nothing to anyone at all – and saying no action films are good is one such criticism.
Intermissions – yes!! They still have them for all feature films in Turkey – I love going to the old cinemas in Taksim, Istanbul when I visit – enjoying smoky contemplations at the interval too :) Or is it just us smokers who want intermissions back?!
KJ – Even 90 minute films, yes. I’m pretty sure I never once watched a feature in Turkey that played right through without an intermission – that’ll be from some 100-150 showings.
Tom – one way a film is too short for me is when I get so attached to a character in the film that it pains me to break company with them at the end credits. This happened to me recently with Let The Right One In, and Malick’s New World – and, when I was a kid, Silent Runnings and Star Wars (for Princess Leia oddly enough!) – in all situations I could happily watch the film for weeks or months even I think!
The most beautiful films? over 2 years ago
Am loving seeing so much support for Malick in one place – I owe the beginning of my true appreciation of the beauty of cinema to this man.
Not read all posts so not sure if this one has already been mentioned – but Tarkovsky’s The Mirror is the single most beautiful piece of cinema I have ever seen. I never would have believed I could be reduced to wracking sobs at the sight of a man turning the pages of a book. The Mirror is not a film – it is cinematic art of the highest order.
Go to Comment
Movies you love, but everyone else hates. over 2 years ago
Malick’s New World – yet to meet anyone who even mildly enjoyed it, let alone thought it was one of the most moving films ever. Ok – got it – need new friends :)
Go to Comment
What makes Political Films Endure or Expire? over 2 years ago
@Amir Rodriguez – In terms of what makes a political film endure in terms of VIEWER popularity, I think it is simply a question of whether the film connects to its audience on an intimate, human level, rather than a politically ideological one. Political ideologies come and go, but the struggles and passions of the people involved in those movements are indelible and will never lose their pertinence. The best example that comes to mind of this ‘personalising the political’ is McQueen’s Hunger (2008) – it is missing the point to view the film as a political work at all I think, and is better viewed as a tale of leadership and sacrifice for one’s human (not political) principles – hence the film’s focusing so heavily on the connection with Sands and his son at its end.
edit* Robert’s statement of the universality of some elements of political art is a very good one too though – any film with a small few rising against an oppressive power is always going to be stirring amongst audiences facing a similar struggle, whether it’s in their country, city, community or family.
But, Amir, in your first post (re Eisenstein), you seem to be talking about enduring cinematic form rather than popularity of the movies themselves – I don’t think the political nature of a film is relevant to how its use of form endures in the work of later film makers. As an example – Joseph Losey was very much a socialist, but you see nothing of Eisensteinian formalism in his work.
Go to Comment
FIND AN EXPLANATION TO THE EXTORTIONATE PRICES OF DVDs AND MOVIE THEATERS' TICKETS over 2 years ago
The obvious answer (but by far not the only one) is that you’re paying for a good portion of the world to watch these films for free. Having lived in Russia and Turkey these last few years, I can say that film makers are seeing very little cash for their work in these two countries – piracy is rife with a capital R – or, better U, for unrestricted and unabated. In Russia, you have to look hard to find licensed DVDs, good quality copies in beautiful boxes are everywhere and not a penny goes to the film makers. And although Turkey has fallen in line recently in clamping down on pirate copies of films in the big cities, the majority of the populace have just switched to free internet downloads. And these are just the two eastern countries I know well…
As to the rest of the reasons – its not just paying the film makers that needs to be taken into account, if you look at distribution and advertising costs, film needs to gross a lot of money (from box office and then from DVD sales) to net very much at all. If/when the world turns to digital projectors (boo hiss), distribution will be cheaper because all the expensive printing of films will be removed from the equation – but with all the money needed for the switch to digital, there’s a good chance you won’t be seeing a drop in theatre ticket prices anytime soon, if ever.
Goodness – sounding like I’m an authority on this question here – which I am really not – just regurgitating what I’ve read elsewhere.
Go to Comment
FIND AN EXPLANATION TO THE EXTORTIONATE PRICES OF DVDs AND MOVIE THEATERS' TICKETS over 2 years ago
Cynic or not – Law is right – it’s a wider issue of our capitalist society you are complaining about rather than the movie industry specifically. In all industries we are only asked to pay what we have shown we are prepared to pay – this is the only dynamic that governs prices – be it to employ an A-list actor, go to the cinema, or buy bread and milk.
If it’s any consolation to you though, we are in fact lucky that most of us get to go to a cinema once a week, let alone twice or three times. I met a plumber from an ex-soviet country (can’t remember which), living in Istanbul, who told me he loved cinema but could almost never afford to take his family to a movie theatre – be it in Istanbul or, if he had stayed, in his home country. Us westerners have it pretty easy on the whole – and capitalism has in fact given us a shamefully high standard of living – even for our plumbers – it’s just tough to remember that all the time when we see others who are even richer. (Hope I’m not sounding patronizing or preachy here by the way).
Go to Comment
FIND AN EXPLANATION TO THE EXTORTIONATE PRICES OF DVDs AND MOVIE THEATERS' TICKETS over 2 years ago
And they are rich because we pay that much for what they do. A studio will pay Ridley Scott a ton to direct the next Alien flick simply because we as a collective audience will pay a ton to see the resulting movie – and he’s just one of a whole bunch of others who make the film a hit. The only way to stop this is for everyone to stop buying – and while we have lots of money and not the slightest idea of how to lead a meaningful existence without the spending of it, that doesn’t look like it’s any danger of happening (sorry – my turn to play cynic!).
Go to Comment
Psychological Effect of Different Shot Types over 2 years ago
Some interesting points here. I think the fact film is a moving, time-based art is getting a little forgotten though. It’s kind of like us discussing which notes of music have which kind of psychological effect on the listener – isn’t it much more about what was played before and will be after? – the rhythm too? I agree entirely with Chris Evans that one’s intuition should be the guiding force behind a film’s direction, and perhaps more importantly, its editing. Not to say intuition shouldn’t be educated and informed (I liked the Polanski and Hitchcock refs), but that education and information should be kept distrustfully at the back as very loose reference points in each directorial decision.
I watched Let The Right One In recently and was astonished at how emotionally charged a lot of the two-shots were when I was expecting cuts to extra close up; and then there is the scene in There Will Be Blood when Daniel Plainview’s ‘son’ returns from being abandoned to an institution – an extreme long shot shot across the pipeline and meadow that carried more emotive clout I’m sure than any extra close up could have. Am guessing great directors/DoPs feel rather than know how to get the most from a shot.
Go to Comment
Psychological Effect of Different Shot Types over 2 years ago
True true, it’s easy for me to throw around words like artistic intuition when I’ve never made a film! :)
Go to Comment
Psychological Effect of Different Shot Types over 2 years ago
Robert – “See Plainview (the center-of-influence) in a power relationship with the source of his power (oil).” As I was typing about this scene it occurred to me that the oil pipeline might have lent to the emotional surge of the shot – by what it symbolised, like you say – but wasn’t sure – it felt more about father, son, guilt and hurt. Am still not entirely sure – but am damn curious. I think I’ll get a copy of the Arnheim book too – you’ve certainly piqued my curiosity, thanks.
(incidentally – how do you do italics on here?)
Go to Comment
What makes Political Films Endure or Expire? over 2 years ago
Is kind of you Amir – but I am not sure my points were any more pertinent than the others’ on this question – and for certain mine were the less well-informed. As for Hunger, I do think it will endure – and not just because it breaks the mould of recent British realist stylistics – but most of all for the human element as you say. Time will tell though – and it will need for McQueen to follow this success up with some more great films to get his work more widely recognised. I’m sorry I can’t comment on State of Siege as I have not seen it but it sounds like it is also largely apolitical, at least in your memory of it.
About Eisenstein – I understood you – perhaps I wasn’t so clear myself. But is it a fact that Eisenstein is getting a lot more attention again recently? I hadn’t heard this to be the case before now to be honest. If so, perhaps his ‘rediscovery’ is more to do with cinema studies becoming so popular these days than any peculiar socio-political reason? Would just as well explain the Pet Shop Boys’ interest in B.Potemkin. (sorry – this answer is definitely not one you were looking for! :) And as to what Eisenstein is remembered for – I imagine everyone would agree it’s not so much his political messages as his pioneering use of cinematic form, and perhaps, though less so, his theories behind that use. Or do his political messages themselves garner interest in your country? If so, is very interesting to hear of.
Go to Comment
Could you be in love with someone who did not share your taste in films? over 2 years ago
I reckon you’ve got to ask yourself why you and your partner like the films you do to get an answer to this question. One’s tastes in films are both symptoms and signifiers of one’s sensibilities, values, fears, dreams, intelligence, culture of aesthetics and a whole bunch of other stuff; so if you have different tastes because you, as people, irreconcilably clash with one another, then the answer is of course a definitive no. I mean, I don’t think I could have a meaningful relationship with someone who exclusively loved rom-coms and Hollywood blockbusters, because it probably suggested that person didn’t have a very questioning mind. I couldn’t have a long-term relationship with someone who got bored any time I pondered or asked “But why?” (not to say they are lacking in any way, just we wouldn’t click)
In your example, however, you have two people who are very much devoted to ‘quality cinema’, just to different brands of film – to me that suggests you both have a good deal in common where it counts (inquisitiveness, imagination, empathy, aesthetic appreciation and just a sheer adoration of film as an art form), and any differences in taste would simply derive from some emotional, aesthetic or value-based variations. These variations may themselves represent a problem or may not – if your partner laps up Balabanov because he/she is a through and through nationalist, I personally would have problems admiring that person and therefore loving them (as admiration is key to love in my book); but if they loved the director for his dark cynicism or unique take on the crime genre, I wouldn’t see it as a danger to our togetherness at all.
Go to Comment
Is it possible to photograph thoughts ? over 2 years ago
Hey Chemical. I think Robert nailed it in saying this guy was talking about HOW thoughts are represented – not that they can’t be – just they can’t be in the same way they are in a novel.
As to the alternative ways in which film can express thoughts – it’s pretty hard for even the most expressive actors to convey everything going on in the character’s head, as not all thoughts manifest themselves externally at all (especially with inexpressive people) – and even when they do, we the viewer add our own lives when we interpret them. We do that much less in reading a novel. Sure, there is the flashback as you mentioned (and add to that prolepsis/fantasy), and then the Voice Over (Thin Red Line is my favourite for this). And also you’ve got the messages that are given from the display of two different images played in succession, as per structuralist film theory.
And, as Robert said, symbolism is often an effective way to get across meaning, but the famous dog in Stalker is perhaps not the best example – I heard it just followed the crew around during filming and just wandered into frame in the famous scene that you see on the front of the Artificial Eye DVD cover (sorry Robert, I know you want sources for info but at the moment I can’t give one – a Russian film magazine editor who works at my school related this story to my students and they excitedly to me – I’ll ask him when I see him next though). Of course the fact Tarkovsky put the shot in the film means he took ownership of the image, but I doubt very much he wanted it to speak directly to us about fidelity as he was against such rudimentary use of symbolism. I can give a source for this (from Tarkovsky’s Sculpting in Time, Uni of Texas Press, P. 72) – in his discussion on making all images “true to life, specific, factual,” he says, “By contrast, symbols are born, and readily pass into general use to become cliches when an author hits upon a particular plastic composition, ties it in with some mysterious turn of thought of his own, and loads it with extraneous meaning.” Not trying to be querulous here, Robert – just I don’t think Tarkovsky would like much to hear that he was using metaphors like this – sure we can take the dog to mean fidelity if that’s our personal association with the image, just not suggest that’s what he meant for it when making the film.
Go to Comment
Is it possible to photograph thoughts ? over 2 years ago
About the dog-wandering-on thing, like I said, I don’t know for sure if it’s true – shall find out more and post it when I do. But I wouldn’t be so hasty to debunk it as incredible – I am in Russia after all and though that of course doesn’t mean everything I hear about Russian cinema is true, I am surprised that you are so quick to write it off. And as for dog training – if you give a sausage to a street dog, you’ll be surprised how much it sits, even lays down, near you. And it doesn’t mean you’re embodying it with a symbol for simply letting it into frame. I’ve not seen Stalker for over two years, though I’m tempted to put it on now to answer your question about what the Stalker wanted from the two travellers as I simply don’t remember.
But I don’t need to – and this leads me to the other source of surprise – that you would sooner believe I hadn’t read my own quote properly than accept you might be wrong. I respect your intelligence a lot Robert, please return at least a little of the same courtesy to me.
Anyway – ties it in with some mysterious turn of thought of his own, and loads it with extraneous meaning. Without you seeing the whole context of this quote, it’s perhaps not clear what Tarkovsky meant. He wasn’t saying that some symbols are extraneous and some universal – he is saying all symbols are extraneous and when an author uses them he is drawing from irrelevant preconceptions/notions that are not inherent to the image.
I will give another quote from his book that attacks exactly the same type of symbolism that you are attributing to his work with the ‘dog = fidelity’ reference (from P.73): In the final scene of Give Anna Giacceia a Husband de Santis puts his hero and heroine on either side of a metal gate. The gate clearly states: now the couple are split up, they’ll never be happy, contact is impossible. And so a specific, individual, unique event is turned into something utterly banal because it has been forced to take on a trivial form. The spectator immediately knocks his head against the ‘ceiling’ of the director’s so-called thought. The trouble is that lots of audiences enjoy such knocks, they make them feel safe: not only is it ‘exciting’ but the idea is clear and there’s no need to strain the brain or the eye, there’s no need to see anything happening. And on that sort of diet the audience starts to degenerate. Yet similar gates, fences, hedges have been repeated many a time in many a film and always mean the same thing.
Now I think it’s fair to say that dog=fidelity would be an assumption that Tarkovsky would be similarly riled to hear, especially in regard to one of his own films. The dog was there because the dog was there and that was the reality of the image. If you are still not convinced though – from P.200, about Stalker again: People have often asked me what the Zone is, and what it symbolises, and have put forward wild conjectures on the subject. I’m reduced to a state of fury and despair by such questions. The zone doesn’t symbolise anything, any more than anything else does in my films: the zone is a zone…"
As to Nostalgia’s last scene, it was certainly the best image that you could have called up in support of your argument from Tarkovsky’s entire filmography: he wrote of it on P216 (am getting as tired of typing quotes here as you all are reading them, but needs must) I would concede that the final shot of Nostalgia has an element of metaphor, when I bring the Russian house inside the Italian cathedral. It is a constructed image which smacks of literariness: a model of the hero’s state, of the division within him which prevents him from living as he has up till now. Or perhaps, on the contrary, it is his new wholeness in which the Tuscan hills, and the Russian countryside come together indissolubly…(I’ll post the intermediate few lines if you want)…All the same, even if the scene lacks cinematic purity, I trust it is free of vulgar symbolism; the conclusion seems to me fairly complex in form and meaning, and to be a figurative expression of what is happening to the hero, not a symbol of something outside him which has to be deciphered.
Now I beg you not have the conceit to say either Tarkovsky was lying (to himself/us), or was not nearly as deep as he thought; that would offend me a good deal – I have infinite respect for this guy as a film maker and artist. Please instead sate your ‘hunger’ with just a small piece of humble pie. God knows I’m going to say a lot of erroneous crap on this site the more I post here (I’ve got a far smaller shorter arm of experience than most of you guys when it comes to cinema), but I’d like to think I will concede my mistakes when called on them.
Go to Comment
Is it possible to photograph thoughts ? over 2 years ago
@Robert. Ok – thanks. Sorry if I overreacted / mistook the tone of your message at all. And agreed that the way an artist perceives his own work can’t always be trusted – is rather like the way anyone remembers their own life: selectively and self-reflectingly. And indeed when I found the scene you asked about, from the way the dog joined the Stalker as he lay down resting on a dry spot in the water, it didn’t look like a dog he knew only from having handed a sausage to, let alone one that had just wandered in uninvited. Is difficult to resist trying to ‘decipher’ a message from its presence either. (you knew I’d have these two revelations didn’t you? :)
In answer to your question, if it was for more than just my own benefit in looking: it’s hard to make out but it seems to be The Stalker that the dog takes a place beside – if that’s the scene you meant. I flew through and didn’t find a ‘meadow shot’, just this watery one.
Go to Comment
Is it possible to photograph thoughts ? over 2 years ago
@Robert. I checked and it is a swamp – or more like a very shallow river (one shot shows water pouring in from a tributary stream) – and it is the Stalker himself whom the dog lies down beside. Is a dream I think (just before his main one) – probably of the strength he finds in his will to serve others, which Tarkovsky said was what made this character ‘invincible’ though he ‘seems weak’. Tarkovsky says his wife is the character who shows them all the power of faithfulness, at the film’s end – but it is not at all misplaced to interpret the dog as demonstrating this quality too.
Is interesting though – as dreams are built largely of symbols (I think both Freud and Jung agreed on this point) – I wonder whether, in the many dream sequences of his films, Tarkovsky therefore felt more liberated to free himself of his self-imposed rules of film art and to construct such symbols.
And going back to Chemical’s question, dream sequences are of course another way of representing the cerebral in film.
Go to Comment
What makes Political Films Endure or Expire? over 2 years ago
how does the subject itself and its particularities affect the expiration period of the movie…?
Hi Amir. I can’t comment on many of the specific films you’ve mentioned as I’ve not seen all of them, but to be honest I am beginning to think there may not be an answer to this question of yours. It could just be that it’s simply too ambitious to seek any direct connection between a films’ political message (or the way in which that message is given) and the film’s endurance through history. The variables at play in making a film memorable and returned to by future viewers are dependent on so many other factors, some of which we’ve already brought up here, that while deep analysis on the political subject of a film will perhaps bring you closer to understanding the merits of that one work, it might only lead you further away from understanding why it endures any more or less than the next politically driven film.
From all the input in this thread so far we have collectively proposed that a political film can endure because of: 1) its stylistic innovativeness (Eisenstein), 2) its relevance to contemporary political movements (Battle of Algiers), or 3) its intimate connection to universal and apolitical human experience (The Hunger) – with a good deal of overlapping of qualities of course – but only one of these three factors (no.2) is directly relevant to what you are looking to learn. The answer to your questions may be the same as why any film of any subject matter endures while the next one doesn’t, no? (We could go deeper into that if you like though).
About Munich – perhaps it’s because I am very much an outsider to the Israel-Palestine issue (and not a very informed one at that), but to me the story was only really about the personal cost that vengeance brings upon its dealer (the book it drew from was called Vengance), and is only political at all because it was a Jewish film maker who used this politically charged story-premise to make an apolitical statement. Though not amongst cinephiles, I feel the film may well endure for a while, and longer than Loach’s Wind That Shakes The Barley (which I believe will soon find itself stacked alongside non-political films in ‘Best of British Social Realism’ sections) simply because, as I said about Hunger, Munich is driven by a universal human didactic, albeit a rather simple one.
Go to Comment
ANTICHRIST (Lars von Trier, 2009) over 2 years ago
One poster said that LvT’s dedication to Tarkovsky was sincere and I agree. But most people seem to feel that it was some aesthetic reference, and I think that’s where we all get lost. If you read Tarkovsky’s book Sculpting in Time and watch his self-confessed best work The Mirror (not Solaris as I saw one Antichrist reviewer reference!), you get a bit closer to understanding both more about the dedication, and I think too, about Antichrist as a film.
I made some notes a few months ago before and after seeing Antichrist at the Russian premier in St Pete:
“It helps to try not to see Antichrist as hermeneutic – filled with symbols there for the deciphering – and instead a composition born of images and dynamics from within LvT’s psyche, ones that he himself would have a job understanding; this mode of creative expression is very Tarkovskyian and transcends the deliberately symbolic. The Mirror represented Tarkovsky’s great catharsis – he told all involved in the project that this film was purely for himself about himself, hence the title (see the interview with Aleksandr Misharin, his supporting writer, on Artificial Eye’s The Mirror DVD for more) – and indeed in watching the film, you can feel how he is, through dream rather than rationale, both celebrating the purity of his childhood, mourning its passing, and filling the film with apology for not having lived his adulthood with the love he learnt then. And with an indulgent release of guilt, sorrow and care, he builds a film entirely from his soul’s pangs more as a poet would build a work than a film-maker; and indeed the final result is a poem more than a film (something Tarkovsky felt the true language of film should be akin to – especially haikku). Now if one reads a poem and finds darkness as perturbing as Antichrist, one would think less of it (Georg Trakl is a good example that springs to mind but there are many more). I feel LvT was just drawing from the same, pain-filled, ‘poetic’ source of creativity.
Regarding the female element in both films: Tarkovsky’s mother is central to the emotion in The Mirror (and she even performs in it). Lars von Trier admits to having made Antichrist to help him get over his depression of 2 years ago – and it is known widely (in Denmark at least) that he had a torrid relationship with his mother during childhood – I would argue that during therapy a good deal of his childhood angst against his mother came to the surface and found its way into his art: making this film was central to his catharsis. Lars von Trier, I believe, understood what The Mirror represented to Tarkovsky, how no other consideration bore the film forward than the need to express all that one’s childhood carries into and through one’s adult life. He thanked Tarkovsky in his dedication for this insight.
It is also no accident that both The Mirror and Antichrist take place in a family house in the middle of a natural nowhere – indeed the house in the Mirror was a detailed reconstruction of the actual house Tarkovsky was raised in. LvT’s calling his house Eden, is as much a reference to the beginning of his life, as that of mankind’s – and his attacks on nature are reflective of his attacks on womankind (his mother), and not the other way round – at least that’s how I see it.
Of course, the similarities between The Mirror and Antichrist end pretty quickly when we move past the whole and into the details. I’d say that was simply because Tarkovsky’s childhood was a good deal more loving and supportive than Von Trier’s: in The Mirror we get a film of sentient beauty, in Von Trier’s one of rage and despair – indeed LvT says this is a scream in film form – and he means not of horror I believe, but of deep personal anguish. I applaud his honesty, and Tarkovsky I am sure would also, and though Tarkovsky abhorred excessive violence in film, he would understand why it came to Lars von Trier’s Antichrist better than many of us do."
Just my thoughts – feel free to attack/agree/ignore.
Go to Comment
ANTICHRIST (Lars von Trier, 2009) over 2 years ago
What is Antichrist about? Does it make it less of a film if noone can say? Can you say with surety what every great film you see is really about, or why it is ‘profound’? And I never heard LvT reference his film as profound – and neither should it need to be, honest is enough.
Self-indulgence is a point I can agree with – though wouldn’t you prefer a film-maker to indulge his own (inner)self than his viewers’? And I feel we should “enable” film makers who have the courage to do this, regardless of how distasteful the result may be at times (think Luis Bunuel’s Un Chien Andalou and even Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange): in demanding anything different we are denying them their honesty, and following that their freedom as artists – and god knows there are enough in the movie-industry trying to do that already.
Go to Comment
Newly discovered in Albania: the world's greatest film! over 2 years ago
Yeah – I was kind of wondering how a Russian surname ended up as a first! Hats off to you though Kenji – had me going too – and no tattered rep at all – I mean where would any of us be without story-tellers?!
Go to Comment
Most Disturbing Film Ever (strictly speaking) over 2 years ago
Funnily enough – far from a good film but Alpha Dog had me wrenching inside – (SPOILERS) it shook me to the core when Timberlake’s character was comforting the kid just before they killed him, reassuring the terrified lad that all was going to be fine, convincing him to place his trust in him – which he does – and then bang, they waste him. I shudder recalling it even now. (Incidentally I have seen the poor kid’s Mum post on IMDB boards since the film – raising support to lengthen sentences of the convicted if I remember rightly – what a god-awful mess).
Go to Comment
English Subtitles over 2 years ago
I’m a native English speaker and I watch all English lang films with subtitles too – hate missing a word. I honestly thought I was the only person who did this though – glad to know I’m not :)
Go to Comment
Like the demarcation between the silent and the sound era, should we separate the film and digital era? over 2 years ago
How about this for a future scenario off the back of all the digital ‘progress’ -
First, video games become so film-like that they end up devouring the blockbuster movie market entirely: maybe even having ‘social’ interactive screenings of video-games at cinemas where all viewers’ inputs for what action the protagonist (and/or camera) takes next are moderated to affect exactly what comes up ‘on screen.’
This may sound horrific, but it could actually at last allow film to break away – led by auteur enthusiasts who support the traditional film form for its conveyance of a single artist’s visions.
Or then, the world might just flip its legs up in the air and kark it…
Go to Comment
Thin Red Line- The Original Cut- RELEASE IT CRITERION?!!! over 2 years ago
Great link to the Nolte interview about Malick and TRL – thanks. For others, the exact url is:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-FOvt8iPi7M
Go to Comment
The Auteurs' World Cup: Comments and reviews over 2 years ago
Well- I managed to find time for one film from the cup in time (Letter for my Children) so can vote for just one pair – is partly due to an incredibly slow internet connection (takes me 3 days for me to stream a whole film!). Sorry I couldn’t be of more use to this competition so far.
Any chance that there will be some voting in the first couple of weeks of the new year? Or will it all be finished by then? I ask because I’ll have oodles of time over that period and will be able to catch stuff from a different internet connection.
Go to Comment
WORLD CUP: 1/8 FINAL VOTING- RUSSIA V HUNGARY over 2 years ago
Mirror 1 Diary for my Children 0
Considering Mirror is perhaps the best film I’ve ever seen by any country (and is Tarkovsky’s best as he’d probably say too), it was always going to be nigh on impossible for the film’s opponent to compete. Diary for my Children had its moments (visually) but sadly it was no contest at all – kind of Brazil vs Accrington Stanley if you’ll forgive the comparison: with Diary’s protagonist so completely bound up in her own wants and needs, it was hard to sympathise with her trials at all – or care when she at last ‘matured’. Sorry Hungary.
Go to Comment
WORLD CUP: 1/8 FINAL VOTING- RUSSIA V HUNGARY over 2 years ago
@Dmitris
oh,and one comment against the Hungarian films was pretty mean-spirited…
errr..that’ll be mine :/ Sorry about that. Felt I was unnecessarily harsh after posting it but for somereason my posts never have an ‘edit’ option on my home computer anymore. Hope I offended noone – will try to be a little less condemning in future – is just I’ve been reading too much Sight & Sound magazine lately! Nice touch with the commentary Dmitris, btw :)
To the Hungarian manager (and supporters) – I promise to watch the other films competing from your country and give them due attention – sorry I couldn’t have done before this match – it takes 3 days to stream/download one film on my internet connection. Good luck with this match – is getting pretty close!
Go to Comment
Suburbs in Film: In which the American dream is revealed to be the American nightmare over 2 years ago
I don’t think American Beauty set out to be too serious a comment on either suburban life, or dysfunctional western middle-classism – and if one compares it with the likes of Little Children and The Ice Storm (two films I also love) – it’s of course going to seem affected and overplayed. I felt American Beauty only referenced social realist themes from a satirical standpoint – more akin to Edward Scissorhands than the others mentioned here – and this point is made clearer if you read Alan Ball’s screenplay – which actually has two scenes where Lester Burnham is flying over the streets in which he lives, swooping down to greet people – rather like Superman. American Beauty is about the pursuit of happiness – its backdrop hit close to home in its social commentary, but I don’t think should be boxed up as a social commentary ‘period’.
I loved Revolutionary Road too by the way – am surprised it got a negative reaction here – @ Fredo – I’m not sure it was supposed to be a straightforward social drama either – it would be commenting on 1950s American society, which is hardly a hotbed of controversy or too great an angle for instructive reflection on modern lifestyles and dilemmas. I think Mendes was drawing on some issues that are relevant today (ie. security vs dream fulfillment), but kept the story primarily character-focused rather than generic.
Perhaps because I’m a Brit too though, I just didn’t notice some lack of realism in the films that you guys did though – and all we’re really discussing is how much (or little) these movies connected with us on top of our own country-specific experiences. (Here’s when you all tell me you are Brits too!)
Go to Comment
Yearh Right - The Problem with Action Films over 2 years ago
If you look at cinema as a stimulus – offering illumination to some, excitement to others, friends, or reminders of them to still more – it all just comes down to what you as a person need from cinema, and perhaps ultimately from life too. In my opinion we have a right to criticise a film only when it offers nothing to anyone at all – and saying no action films are good is one such criticism.
Go to Comment
movie running times too long over 2 years ago
Intermissions – yes!! They still have them for all feature films in Turkey – I love going to the old cinemas in Taksim, Istanbul when I visit – enjoying smoky contemplations at the interval too :) Or is it just us smokers who want intermissions back?!
Go to Comment
movie running times too long over 2 years ago
KJ – Even 90 minute films, yes. I’m pretty sure I never once watched a feature in Turkey that played right through without an intermission – that’ll be from some 100-150 showings.
Tom – one way a film is too short for me is when I get so attached to a character in the film that it pains me to break company with them at the end credits. This happened to me recently with Let The Right One In, and Malick’s New World – and, when I was a kid, Silent Runnings and Star Wars (for Princess Leia oddly enough!) – in all situations I could happily watch the film for weeks or months even I think!
Go to Comment