Anything by the talentless Kevin Smith. In revenge for having had to sit through Chasing Amy, I now picture his face at the bottom of each commode when watching The Phantom of Liberty.
Day of Wrath/ Le Corbeau
Stagecoach/ Citizen Kane
Maltese Falcon/ The Conversation
M/ Aguirre, Der Zorn Gottes
Lola (Demy)/ 2001: A Space Odyessey
Ugetsu Monogatari/ To Have and Have Not, (or, as I prefer to call it, “To Not Have, and To Not Not Have”)—On David Thomson’s Birthday
Being new to this site, I’ve just now scanned this entire forum. Adam Suraf’s list left me breathless, and I’d like to cast a vote for Ford’s The Informer, (which at present has been released in region 1 soley in a box set with much less worthy companions and little by way of bonus material), and two Clouzots: Assassin Habite… and Le Mystere Picasso.
But I’ll have to admitt, I’m dismayed that after 200 plus postings, and much favor directed towards films from the French New Wave that I came across not a single call for the work of Jacques Demy. Of all the works of all the French directors of his generation, his first three films are the only ones I hold as dear and rounded as the work of the ealier masters. (Resnais doesn’t count, as he was really a hangover from the previous guard, and simply suffered a late debut.)
I think that the majority of the directors in the NW tended to be inventive as formalists—and their energy is infectuous—but their insights on all things not cinema tend to range from the obtuse to the scatalogical. Demy was an exception, and his works have a delicate insight to human character that’s rare in any medium.
So, while I’m looking forward to Marienbad, Deserto Rosso and Odd Man Out, I’d love to see tribute paid to Demy by releasing at least his first three, (nigh-flawless) films, Lola, Bay of Angels, and Umbrellas of Cherbourg in a box set—and wouldn’t mind seeing the subsequent, (but less brilliant) Young Girls of Rochefort and Model Shop alongside them.
And is there anyone else out there who’d love to see a Criterion edition of A Boy Named Charlie Brown. With bonus archival footage and commentary tracks, I’d be in Peanut heaven.
PS: Yikes! Also no prior mention of Ophuls’ Letter From an Unknown Woman; a true must have for any real film collection. And let me just throw out Blue Dahlia, and the sweet B-flic Murder By Contract for consideration.
Beyond that, I’d have to say that Lynch gets a really bad shake from folks regarding Fire, Walk With Me. How anyone could have loved the series and not been blown away with what he did in the feature, (most especially his direction of Sheryl Lee and Ray Wise) is beyond me. I was pretty aghast to see it residing in people’s 10 Worst lists on Netflix. I’ve heard such negative reaction to that film, I’d start to doubt myself for holding it so highly, except that Lynch, (who has a very balanced view on his own work) considers it on par with his other work. (I feel the exact same way about Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut.) Go figger.
And to round the number out to three, I’d have to add Walter Hill’s Southern Comfort, just to see if there are any other takers out there. It’s been six or seven years since I’ve seen it, and my tastes and exposure have widened considerably, but I’ve loved it for years and never hear it talked about much.
I’ve seen only Fata Morgana, Aguirre, Enigma of Hauser, and Fitzcaraldo, (albeit the final three several times each). I’ve tried to get through my DVD copy of Nosferatu a couple of times, but to no avail, and I’m saving Woyzeck and Stroszek for when I learn how to pronounce them.
Of those I’ve seen, I just have to go with Aguirre; it has the mesmeric qualities of Fata, and similar narrative qualities to Fitz, so in my mind combines what I love about them both. Plus, while I love the films which came afterwards, I find a certain feeling of discovery on Herzog’s part that comes through in the filming of Aguirre. And that closing tracking shot—visually and thematically—is one of my favorite images in all of color cinema.
Of course, all that said, only a fool could fail to love My Best Fiend—whether a single word he says is true or not.
I think that Kurosawa favored Mifune for his natural explosiveness—and that by marrying Mifune’s innate machismo to complex storytelling, it was possible to bring something special to the screen. (And it’s much in this recipe that Kurosawa shows a strong kinship to John Ford.) So for continued partnership with Kurosawa, I can see how Mifune was pretty much irreplacable.
But on personal merits alone, I’d absolutely have to go with Takashi Shimura as an artist. There’s a range he displays in his major roles with Kurosawa that Mifune never came close to.
From gait, to posture, to facial expression there is hardly any similarity in his leading performances with Kurosawa, (I’m thinking specifically about Drunken Angel, Seven Samurai and Ikiru) and I doubt you’d be able to find an actor at any time on Earth that could bring anything applicable to any of those roles that Shimura hasn’t put in. Yes; in Ikiru, he is heartbreaking. And you feel his desperation—but you feel it overcome by his love for what he finds prescious about the world he’s about to leave behind. Finding someone who can pull that performance off without the slightest bit of melodrama is a really difficult task.
Likewise, in his portrayal as the experienced but patient leader of the Seven Samurai, you believe that his maturity and character leaves him capable of leading and inpiring such a rag-tag group.
And in Drunken Angel, he’s as harsh and obnoxious as Mifune ever gets.
Even using Mifune’s three most likewise dissimilar roles throughout the entire length of his partnership with Kurosawa—let’s say, Rashomon, High and Low and Redbeard, you don’t find such richness in varriation. He’s a harsh and loveless thief in Rashomon, a harsh but hardworking executive in H&L, and a harsh but caring doctor in Redbeard. I’d be a huger fan if he could once leave out the harsh.
So, all told, I feel that Mifune is great for what he does, and what he was able to bring to the table for Kurosawa (and I’ve just recently re-watched High and Low, and I love it dearly). He’s a top-tier leading man. But Shimura outstrips him in both range and depth, and is at the top of my list for artistry in acting for any country, genre or time period.
There are a dozen or so films from Seventh Seal to Fanny and Alexander that could be defended as his best. I’d have to say, personally I’m a bit more in the Seventh Seal camp—all it’s pretensions notwithstanding—rather than Persona group, (although I love that one as well). Seal’s photography is absolutely luminous, and the imagery throughout became iconic. But for me, choosing a favorite Bergman just depends on the mood of the day, and how much despair I’m able to endure.
I will go on record defending Serpent’s Egg, however—not as one of Bergman’s best, but at least as a movie worthy of serious consideration. Based on memory, I’d have to say that I found it a bit muddled but pretty strong. It came off to me like Cabaret, but with about 40 more IQ points and no crap show tunes. (I love Joel Grey, but Liza-With-A-Z in unendurable in any context. And Michael York, (whose work I’ve often enjoyed) seemed unable to distinguish between repressed and bloodless in the portrayal of his character.) Also, I found S.E. to be a bolder and broader take on human nature, and the then-nascent resentment that would grow into Nazi hatred, than Cabaret bothered to explore. Egg’s closing scene is the most harrowing take on humanity than I’ve found almost anywhere, and given the film’s milieu, not entirely unwarranted. I thought it showed the greatest marriage of honesty to cynicism Bergman ever allowed himself.
Can’t stand Bottle Rocket; enjoy Rushmore, really enjoy Tennenbaums, loved The Life Aquatic and have no fondness at all for Darjeeling Ltd. (I thought he was utterly lost with that last one—but the train attendant with the beard reminded me of a dear friend from college.)
I love his work for the tone and colors, but I wish he’d stop being so damned precious about everything. He could only benefit from a partial blood transfusion provided by Werner Herzog.
How does the saying go; An optimist is one who asserts that we live in the best of all possible worlds, whereas the pessimist is one who resigns himself to the fact that, sadly, this is true.
I’m sure that’s not verbatim, but accurate to the topic at hand. And as regards DK, consider me a pessimist.
I think that Tarantino’s a natural talent, and if he were at all capable of broadening his scope as a writer and storyteller I’d be inclined to label him a genuine virtuoso. His sense of timing, rhythm and composition are top notch—and outside of Woody Allen, I don’t think there’s an American-born Writer/Director living who has a keener sense of the overall pattern of his dialogue, and how to work it throughout the length of a film. (Although I’m begging for correction on that last point.)
. All that said, I think his sensibilities are irreversibly stunted, and he’s largely responsible for debasing the tastes of most movie-going males under the age of 40. Also, I’m pretty sure that if he had to go an entire film without a string of shock imagery, he’d be lost and without much of an audience at all.
To put it in terms that fans of comic-book movies would understand, I think that he’s the Wolverine of modern film-makers; he’s the best at what he does. But considering the nature of his work, I have to wonder if there’s any point to it?
I have to say, I respect Jarmusch as a film maker more than I enjoy the finished product, (especially after the first viewing). Still, I really love Down By Law quite a bit, and it’s charms don’t seem to diminsh through repeated viewings, (which is pretty much how I feel about Stranger Than Paradise and Dead Man—two films I enjoyed upon their initial release, but have a hard time sitting through today). Down, for me, is the quintessential Jarmusch; setting, cast, music, tone and timing.
Can any of you real Jarmusch enthusiasts provide others like me, (who are willing to like him more but could benefit from a bit of insight) with some comment of greater depth? Somethng along the lines as to what it is that makes particular works and his over-all style stand out for you. Generic praise is nice to hear, but doesn’t go too far into deepening one’s appreciation.
I suppose it can be argued that his top-drawer output is limited to two or three films, but I for one would support seeing Jacques Tourneur’s name added, (unless I’ve missed it). He was a director of genuine talent, and despite, (or perhaps because of) his inclination towards understatement, he deserves mention and rememberance on this site.
Somewhat likewise for Paul Leni.
And I realize it’s slightly off-topic, but regarding directors already mentioned here, I don’t quite understand why some directors have so few works represented in the library. Philip Kaufman’s The Right Stuff and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, at least, (and quite possibly The Wanderers and Quills as well) deserve to be listed alongside his single entry of The Unbearable Lightness of Being.
I understand that this is quite possibly due to the great amount of work required on this site, (which passive spectators like myself run the danger of taking for granted) and if that is the case, please take my comments in the context of humility, and great thanks for the vast work done already on this site.
Still, I can’t understand why John Huston is represented only by Treasure of the Sierra Madre and Under the Volcano. He’s a significant figure in American film who brought great character to play in pretty much everything he did. Both Maltese Falcon and Asphalt Jungle are HUGE influences on hundreds of films represented here. (Especially upon work of the aforementioned JP Melville.) I mean, come on; Maltese Falcon not even listed?!?!?!
If we amended the title of this forum by putting the word “Reputedly” in front of “Great”, then I’d cite Last Tango In Paris as my foremost addition to the list. I found it so repellant, I pitched my DVD after an attempt at a second viewing.
Also, Scorsese’s entire oeuvre, (aside from Who’s That Knocking and After Hours—and for some strange reason, Casino). There’s something at play in his style to which I’m unapologetically allergic. Despite his vast understanding of all things cinema, I think he opperates at a deficit as an artist, and incapable of conveying anything outside of brutality. Unlike genuine masters of cinema, (Kubrick, Renoir, Welles, Mizoguchi, Bresson, Dryer, Lang, Ford…) I don’t think Scorsese ever learned—or cared how to tie subtext into his delivery. So, no; I’m not lookin’ at him.
And since I’m in agreement on Salo, I’ll add The Archers’ The Red Shoes to the list, just so it doesn’t seem like I’m picking on the Italians. I’ve either enjoyed or deeply loved every other Criterion release of theirs, but I thought the Red Shoes’ take on the world of HIGH ART was astonishingly tatty. I mean no disrespect to the talented Powell and Pressburger team, but give me Black Narcissus or Tales of Hoffman over that any day.
Oh, silly Rodney; the past 150 years of modern philosophy would assert that your question can be asked of everyone, and answered by no one.
I can assert that my thoughts were at least pertainent to the topic at hand —more so than yours, since the title of this forum isn’t, “Take a Personal Shot At the Pervious Participant”.
But I’ve scanned your profile to get a sense of your tastes, and have read some of your previous posts. So out of respect to both you and people who’d like to keep this forum on topic, I’d prefer to continue this exchange as a private dialogue rather than a public spat. Feel free to PM me, and back up your assault with a bit more detail and cogency.
Sheryl Lee deserved both the Oscar AND a lifetime achievement award for what she and David Lynch managed to squeeze out of just that one performance. And on top of that, the rest of the film was of high caliber and deserves good standing in Lynch’s body of work.
Why Fire Walk With Me has been so under appreciated has befuddled me for years. I can understand the mainstream audience abandoning it, (it lacked the sheen of the TV show, which is probably what constituted the allure for most) but how anyone could enjoy Lynch for both Blue Velvet and the TP Television series, but dismiss the prequel is beyond me.
And as for overrated, I believe it’s time we added Pauline Kael to the list. (Critics should not be exempt from criticism on this site.) As a writer, she showed considerable and natural fluidity, but her gifts of perception were arguably far below her literary skills. The best of true film criticism, (pretty much defined by the vintage Cahiers assemblage) manages to identify and reveal the more hidden principles at work in cinema, and leaves the reader feeling they’ve learned something new. It builds insight.
With Kael, I don’t believe that anyone manages to learn anything other than what her personal tastes and vendettas tended to be. Her work operates as little more than second-tier literary criticism, and by the time she realized she had an audience, her criticism became more about a performance of style than it was about honestly and earnestly assessing the subjects at hand. . Her bad example of how frustrated English majors can turn to film criticism, for a feeling of empowerment over the genuinely talented, is evidenced by a single dedicated perusal through the Time Out Guide.
I believe in the importance of good criticism, but I don’t think Kael’s warrants any further attention. Her work of the 70’s has merit as an historical artifact alone, and I’d prefer to learn from actual practitioners of the form—or at least someone who’s earnest in their role as a critic.
Red thumbs and snide remarks, I await thee.
I wouldn’t propose it to be his best, but I’ve got to say that I really did enjoy Le deuxieme souffle a great deal.
I can’t help but see the plight of the Lino Ventura character (an old-style gangster working to maintain his credibility with a new generation—who show little by way of respect or intergrity) as anything but a parallel for Melville himself, who was the target of scorn and criticism to the writers and directors of the New Wave. I’ve said it before, but while I enjoy many of the films of that younger group, there is at least a dozen French directors directly preceeding them who remained their betters. Melville is one of them.
As far as personal favorite goes, for me it remains Bob le flambeur, simply because it combines his brilliance with an intoxicating sense of play. (I don’t think anything he did afterwards was anywhere near as much fun.) His skills would continue to ripen as he went along, but his filmography provides at least five or six legitimate choices for anyone’s favorite, ranging in merit mostly depending on personal taste and the story at hand. He was a craftsman of the first order.
I responded to Christopher’s remark personally, (and in a very friendly manner) just to keep things from going off topic. But since there’s another comment regarding what I said re: the New Wavers and Melville, I’ll reiterate here:
I believe that both the written and audio extras in the two latest Criterion Melvilles, (Le doulos, and Le deuxieme souffle) contain reference to the fact that, while Melville was a shining light to the Nouvelle Vague in the beginning, at some point as the sixties went on he fell into their great disfavor. Partly because, as they went to assert themselves as filmmakers their approach became increasingly “progressive”, whereas Melville continued to follow what they considered an outmoded, chiefly American approach to material. (I’ve read several other non-Criterion accounts that concur—although details seem scarce, and my Fracais no is so yes, which excludes researching original source material.)
There was also a disdain based on politics, as Melville’s own became evidently, (and admittedly) right wing. Additionally, Melville went on to become a member of the French censorship board, and took a stance against subsidies for filmmakers, (reasoning that he himself had dug his own way to success, so…). I’m sure that didn’t please them.
Lastly, as he continued to garner popular and commercial succsess in France throughout the 60’s, (and positive reviews in the mainstream press) this was seen as the result of pandering to the masses and further alienated Melville from his former admirers.
I’m fairly certain that by the time of Melville’s passing in ‘73, he and Godard were not on speaking terms, (“Mutually disdainful” would probably not be an overstatement) and Cahiers made no mention of Melville’s passing or considerable achievements in their publication—probably the loudest silence in its history. Melville was self-admittedly difficult to get along with; and when you add to that the fact that you had splinterings within the Nouvelle Vaugue itself, (to say nothing about the political situation in France at the time) it really becomes little surprise that what had begun as hero-worship ended pretty much in acrimony.
But if you don’t believe me, you can do the research for yourselves. Much interesting, if somewhat saddening, reading to be found. And, as I said in the earlier post, it really does put Le deuxieme souffle in a more profound light—whether that was Melville’s intent or not.
ADDENDUM: I began writing this post before Adam Suraf’s excellent, (and more mercifully brief) account. To Adam: il miglior fabbro
I’ll never forget seeing his Invasion of the Body Snatchers as a teenager during it’s initial theatrical release. What a great film—and what an ending! The original version is great, but Kaufman managed to pay it complete respect while both updating and surpassing it. What a feat. I wish there were more re-makes one could say that about.
Whichever film one calls the best is immaterial to me; what does matter is that he’s a genuine talent, and it’s a real shame that he hasn’t been able to do more.
Tom, everyone on this site is entitled to their opinion—and the directors you’ve listed as your personal faves are nearly all unimpeachable, (sorry, but while I’m a fan myself, many people are on the fence as to J. Tati nowadays—and after 40 mins of Hulot gags, he can get pretty dull himself).
I think you’re a bit harsher on Kaufman than his filmography would merit; all three of the films you’ve listed are excellent, if shy of perfect. If you feel otherwise, please inform those of us here so benighted where we should look to find the holes in his work. Acting, narrative, pacing and composition are all top rate, so far as I can tell. (The great Caleb Deschanell at the cams and lighting for The Right Stuff—and put to excellent use.) Likewise, his sensitivity to source literary material is far above the norm—by the standards of any film-producing nation, let alone Hollywood. So lighten up on the guy.
Or, I’m afraid for your sake you may receive a visit from tonight from the ghost of Jacob Marley. (Oh! If Alastair Sim is with him, PLEASE tell him I say hello. And not to wait for me.)
About 320 Criterions, (spine nos., really) and 300 to 400 non-Criterions, (counting TV boxes as one each). I consider it a library rather than a collection—although I’m seriously considering whether it should continue as one of the circulating variety.
I do believe in the Zen principle, “You can judge the wealth of a man by what he can afford to live without”. For this reason, I avoid buying too much more for fear of suffering from both fiscal and metaphysical bankruptcy. Likewise Blu-rays. (The difference is noticable, but not enough for me to warrant the investment.)
Well, from serious film folks, I’m under the gun for my unrelenting dislike of Scorsese—especially his big three of Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and Raging Bull. All I can say in my defense to his legion of admirers is, I’ve tried to give them each fair, honest viewings and still find myself repelled by both Scorsese’s style, and the characters on the screen. (I do care for him as a critic and popular figure; that camera commercial he did is one of my biggest laughs of the past ten years! (Only Yoko Ono’s singing in Rock And Roll Circus gets a bigger laugh out of me.) And no make-up team on Earth could fake those eye-brows!)
From people whose tastes run more along he lines of popular modern mainstream, I get lotsa flac for absolutely hating 300. Ancient Spartans with pirate accents, video game sensibilities, and executioner orcs!?!?!? Persian ninjas?!?!? During the speech towards the end of the movie, (given by the same pirate who narrated the entire film, but didn’t get his eye-patch until the end) I said audibly at the end of every statement, “On this, St. Crispin’s Day”! My girlfriend wasn’t too happy about that, but she did laugh the first couple of times and is still with me today. Plus, it was the only thing that made me feel I got my money’s worth.
Blades of Glory was a better film. (The decapitation scene ties with Scorsese and Yoko for laughs.)
From my girlfriend:
The Shop On Main Street
The Two Of Us
Three Films by Hiroshi Teshigahara (!!!!!!!!!)
All picked out under my instruction a month or more back when Criterion was having their 40% off sale.
My cousin bought me Bergman’s The Virgin Spring—but somehow, receiving a disc about the rape and murder of a teenage girl, and the father’s resultant despair when he acts in revenge…….well, not something I wanted to associate with either the holiday or my cousin.
I traded it in at Borders for the CC edition of Dazed and Confused; not at the top of my list, but he did mention liking both the movie and the packaging quite a bit, and I can feel good about loaning it to him.
(I bought him the 1001 movies you must see before you die. I thought it was a decent mid-point between a serious and popular film-related book, and a good help in prioritizing his Netflix queue. Anyone else have thoughts on it?)
If it wasn’t completely hand-drawn, it had to feel grown-up to me; no Mary Poppins or Bednobs and Broomsticks for this boy. So it was:
Yellow Submarine.
Dumbo, (re-release at the local Drive-In during very late 60’s or eary 70’s—my Dad grumbled like Darrin McGavin fixing a tire for the length of the feature.)
A Boy Named Charlie Brown, (same Drive-In, same Dad.)
Planet of the Apes (the real version)
and the Godfather Pt. I.
Well, I appreciate the title of this forum for starting off some discourse, but in the long run isn’t this question as silly as asking, “Painting; is it Fine Art, or just decoration”? It rather depends on the artist and painting in question, doesn’t it? And our ability to discern what’s on the canvas, (and whether or not we benefit) differs based on our individual levels of perception, learning, and earnest desire to investigate. And oftentimes, our personal perspective from where we stand while viewing it.
I really do believe that all arts boil down to one medium, and that medium is Language. The tools at hand vary from sound, to imagery, to motion and the verbal, (and film provides the means to combine them all) but ultimately it’s how and what they reveal in their subjects that determines whether or not it can be considered “Art”. And and also determines how a work effects us individually.
I don’t know that anyone’s bothered to get to the end of this posting, (my participation seem to kill a lot of forums these days) or if they’ll take anything new away from it. But I do believe that what people get out of various creative endeavors is a tandem process that includes both the artist and the audience equally. And I wish people in the viewer’s position would challenge themselves just a little bit more than what tends to be the norm.
Yeah. Like food; you can either eat it, or throw it acorss the room at someone. It’s what you make of it!
The best course of action is to seek out good food as a source of nourishment, and know how to enjoy dessert as well. How healthy you are is often determined by what you eat.
I mean that, when you look at the way all the Arts function, the process at play in all forms is very much the same as what we use in verbal language. Comic book art and film are good examples of how imagery can function in the same narrative way as…….uh, …narrative! There’s syntax, (think about tracking shots, close ups, jump cuts…) subject/verb relationships, rhythm, meter and other parallels at work. The same goes for music and dance.
I think it’s both ironic and limiting that, (at least in English) the visual, (painting, illustration) is termed as Art, and the verbal as language. Basically, each one has the ability to encompass both. (And as someone who tries to both write and draw, I’ve also got plenty of experience in how they share the dangerous inclination to fail as either.)
There’s a book by the title, Escher Bach Godel that outlines the correlations between drawing, music and mathematics. My assertion is fairly similar, but I guess I’m focusing on the principles of communication rather than structure.
And as a closing pretentious comment, I’ll point out that out of all the senses involved in being able to determine whether or not a work of literature, visuals, or music reaches the level of high art, the only one that doesn’t come in to play is….
the sense of taste. (Likely, the most subjective one of the five.)
Well, while I agree almost 100% with what Tony Stark has to say, I think that it’s silly to bring this into question. Take each work for what it’s worth. Besides, a film doesn’t have to be a deathless masterpiece to be good. It just has to be good. And personally, I think Lumet ranges from good to really good, but I don’t see him as an all-time great.
It is interesting to note the Ten Year prinicple that a cohort of Felini’s brought into mention; for the great masters of modern film, there does tend to be a span of ten years from their first unquestionable masterpiece to their last. And note: that’s not an absolute, just a barometer.
And for what it’s worth, RW Fassbinder was a director of extremely high facility and intelligence; he did dozens of astoundingly well made films in a sadly small amount of years. (His life-span was significantly shorter than either Kubrick’s or Coppola’s carreers. In fact, I haven’t done the math, but I think RWF lived only three-times the length of the average Tarkovsky film. Who made only a small amount of films. All of which are of an extremely high standard.)
Re: Musycks: Sorry Elton, but aside from Sandy Denny, no one deserves mention alongside Nick Drake.
And thanks for mentioning Jeff Buckley, whoever—because while everyone thinks of him as younger than his dad, as an artist Tim showed more maturity at the age of 22 than his son would at 27—to say nothing of all the ground Tim covered, (and created!) between Goodbye and Hello to Starsailor. Jeff did one GREAT album, and couldn’t deliver a second—within two years! I LOVE Jeff; but Tim went alot farther in much less time.
Movie's you just don't like. over 3 years ago
Anything by the talentless Kevin Smith. In revenge for having had to sit through Chasing Amy, I now picture his face at the bottom of each commode when watching The Phantom of Liberty.
Go to Comment
FANTASY ARTHOUSE DOUBLE FEATURE over 3 years ago
Day of Wrath/ Le Corbeau
Stagecoach/ Citizen Kane
Maltese Falcon/ The Conversation
M/ Aguirre, Der Zorn Gottes
Lola (Demy)/ 2001: A Space Odyessey
Ugetsu Monogatari/ To Have and Have Not, (or, as I prefer to call it, “To Not Have, and To Not Not Have”)—On David Thomson’s Birthday
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection over 3 years ago
Being new to this site, I’ve just now scanned this entire forum. Adam Suraf’s list left me breathless, and I’d like to cast a vote for Ford’s The Informer, (which at present has been released in region 1 soley in a box set with much less worthy companions and little by way of bonus material), and two Clouzots: Assassin Habite… and Le Mystere Picasso.
But I’ll have to admitt, I’m dismayed that after 200 plus postings, and much favor directed towards films from the French New Wave that I came across not a single call for the work of Jacques Demy. Of all the works of all the French directors of his generation, his first three films are the only ones I hold as dear and rounded as the work of the ealier masters. (Resnais doesn’t count, as he was really a hangover from the previous guard, and simply suffered a late debut.)
I think that the majority of the directors in the NW tended to be inventive as formalists—and their energy is infectuous—but their insights on all things not cinema tend to range from the obtuse to the scatalogical. Demy was an exception, and his works have a delicate insight to human character that’s rare in any medium.
So, while I’m looking forward to Marienbad, Deserto Rosso and Odd Man Out, I’d love to see tribute paid to Demy by releasing at least his first three, (nigh-flawless) films, Lola, Bay of Angels, and Umbrellas of Cherbourg in a box set—and wouldn’t mind seeing the subsequent, (but less brilliant) Young Girls of Rochefort and Model Shop alongside them.
And is there anyone else out there who’d love to see a Criterion edition of A Boy Named Charlie Brown. With bonus archival footage and commentary tracks, I’d be in Peanut heaven.
Go to Comment
Movies That Should Be In the Criterion Collection over 3 years ago
PS: Yikes! Also no prior mention of Ophuls’ Letter From an Unknown Woman; a true must have for any real film collection. And let me just throw out Blue Dahlia, and the sweet B-flic Murder By Contract for consideration.
Go to Comment
Underrated Films... over 3 years ago
Uhhhh……Attack of the Puppet People?
Beyond that, I’d have to say that Lynch gets a really bad shake from folks regarding Fire, Walk With Me. How anyone could have loved the series and not been blown away with what he did in the feature, (most especially his direction of Sheryl Lee and Ray Wise) is beyond me. I was pretty aghast to see it residing in people’s 10 Worst lists on Netflix. I’ve heard such negative reaction to that film, I’d start to doubt myself for holding it so highly, except that Lynch, (who has a very balanced view on his own work) considers it on par with his other work. (I feel the exact same way about Kubrick’s Eyes Wide Shut.) Go figger. And to round the number out to three, I’d have to add Walter Hill’s Southern Comfort, just to see if there are any other takers out there. It’s been six or seven years since I’ve seen it, and my tastes and exposure have widened considerably, but I’ve loved it for years and never hear it talked about much.Go to Comment
Favorite Werner Herzog Film over 3 years ago
I’ve seen only Fata Morgana, Aguirre, Enigma of Hauser, and Fitzcaraldo, (albeit the final three several times each). I’ve tried to get through my DVD copy of Nosferatu a couple of times, but to no avail, and I’m saving Woyzeck and Stroszek for when I learn how to pronounce them.
Of those I’ve seen, I just have to go with Aguirre; it has the mesmeric qualities of Fata, and similar narrative qualities to Fitz, so in my mind combines what I love about them both. Plus, while I love the films which came afterwards, I find a certain feeling of discovery on Herzog’s part that comes through in the filming of Aguirre. And that closing tracking shot—visually and thematically—is one of my favorite images in all of color cinema.
Of course, all that said, only a fool could fail to love My Best Fiend—whether a single word he says is true or not.
Go to Comment
Favorite Kurosawa lead actor? over 3 years ago
I think that Kurosawa favored Mifune for his natural explosiveness—and that by marrying Mifune’s innate machismo to complex storytelling, it was possible to bring something special to the screen. (And it’s much in this recipe that Kurosawa shows a strong kinship to John Ford.) So for continued partnership with Kurosawa, I can see how Mifune was pretty much irreplacable.But on personal merits alone, I’d absolutely have to go with Takashi Shimura as an artist. There’s a range he displays in his major roles with Kurosawa that Mifune never came close to.
From gait, to posture, to facial expression there is hardly any similarity in his leading performances with Kurosawa, (I’m thinking specifically about Drunken Angel, Seven Samurai and Ikiru) and I doubt you’d be able to find an actor at any time on Earth that could bring anything applicable to any of those roles that Shimura hasn’t put in. Yes; in Ikiru, he is heartbreaking. And you feel his desperation—but you feel it overcome by his love for what he finds prescious about the world he’s about to leave behind. Finding someone who can pull that performance off without the slightest bit of melodrama is a really difficult task. Likewise, in his portrayal as the experienced but patient leader of the Seven Samurai, you believe that his maturity and character leaves him capable of leading and inpiring such a rag-tag group. And in Drunken Angel, he’s as harsh and obnoxious as Mifune ever gets. Even using Mifune’s three most likewise dissimilar roles throughout the entire length of his partnership with Kurosawa—let’s say, Rashomon, High and Low and Redbeard, you don’t find such richness in varriation. He’s a harsh and loveless thief in Rashomon, a harsh but hardworking executive in H&L, and a harsh but caring doctor in Redbeard. I’d be a huger fan if he could once leave out the harsh. So, all told, I feel that Mifune is great for what he does, and what he was able to bring to the table for Kurosawa (and I’ve just recently re-watched High and Low, and I love it dearly). He’s a top-tier leading man. But Shimura outstrips him in both range and depth, and is at the top of my list for artistry in acting for any country, genre or time period.Go to Comment
What Is Your Ultimate Bergman Film & Why?? over 3 years ago
There are a dozen or so films from Seventh Seal to Fanny and Alexander that could be defended as his best. I’d have to say, personally I’m a bit more in the Seventh Seal camp—all it’s pretensions notwithstanding—rather than Persona group, (although I love that one as well). Seal’s photography is absolutely luminous, and the imagery throughout became iconic. But for me, choosing a favorite Bergman just depends on the mood of the day, and how much despair I’m able to endure.
I will go on record defending Serpent’s Egg, however—not as one of Bergman’s best, but at least as a movie worthy of serious consideration. Based on memory, I’d have to say that I found it a bit muddled but pretty strong. It came off to me like Cabaret, but with about 40 more IQ points and no crap show tunes. (I love Joel Grey, but Liza-With-A-Z in unendurable in any context. And Michael York, (whose work I’ve often enjoyed) seemed unable to distinguish between repressed and bloodless in the portrayal of his character.) Also, I found S.E. to be a bolder and broader take on human nature, and the then-nascent resentment that would grow into Nazi hatred, than Cabaret bothered to explore. Egg’s closing scene is the most harrowing take on humanity than I’ve found almost anywhere, and given the film’s milieu, not entirely unwarranted. I thought it showed the greatest marriage of honesty to cynicism Bergman ever allowed himself.
Go to Comment
Do You Like Wes Anderson? over 3 years ago
Can’t stand Bottle Rocket; enjoy Rushmore, really enjoy Tennenbaums, loved The Life Aquatic and have no fondness at all for Darjeeling Ltd. (I thought he was utterly lost with that last one—but the train attendant with the beard reminded me of a dear friend from college.)
I love his work for the tone and colors, but I wish he’d stop being so damned precious about everything. He could only benefit from a partial blood transfusion provided by Werner Herzog.
Go to Comment
How Many of You Think That Batman Movie Was the Best Movie of the Year? over 3 years ago
How does the saying go; An optimist is one who asserts that we live in the best of all possible worlds, whereas the pessimist is one who resigns himself to the fact that, sadly, this is true.
I’m sure that’s not verbatim, but accurate to the topic at hand. And as regards DK, consider me a pessimist.
Go to Comment
Quentin Tarantino over 3 years ago
I think that Tarantino’s a natural talent, and if he were at all capable of broadening his scope as a writer and storyteller I’d be inclined to label him a genuine virtuoso. His sense of timing, rhythm and composition are top notch—and outside of Woody Allen, I don’t think there’s an American-born Writer/Director living who has a keener sense of the overall pattern of his dialogue, and how to work it throughout the length of a film. (Although I’m begging for correction on that last point.)
. All that said, I think his sensibilities are irreversibly stunted, and he’s largely responsible for debasing the tastes of most movie-going males under the age of 40. Also, I’m pretty sure that if he had to go an entire film without a string of shock imagery, he’d be lost and without much of an audience at all.
To put it in terms that fans of comic-book movies would understand, I think that he’s the Wolverine of modern film-makers; he’s the best at what he does. But considering the nature of his work, I have to wonder if there’s any point to it?
Go to Comment
Why I Love Jim Jarmusch over 3 years ago
I have to say, I respect Jarmusch as a film maker more than I enjoy the finished product, (especially after the first viewing). Still, I really love Down By Law quite a bit, and it’s charms don’t seem to diminsh through repeated viewings, (which is pretty much how I feel about Stranger Than Paradise and Dead Man—two films I enjoyed upon their initial release, but have a hard time sitting through today). Down, for me, is the quintessential Jarmusch; setting, cast, music, tone and timing.
Can any of you real Jarmusch enthusiasts provide others like me, (who are willing to like him more but could benefit from a bit of insight) with some comment of greater depth? Somethng along the lines as to what it is that makes particular works and his over-all style stand out for you. Generic praise is nice to hear, but doesn’t go too far into deepening one’s appreciation.
.
Go to Comment
Auteus missing from theTalent section over 3 years ago
I suppose it can be argued that his top-drawer output is limited to two or three films, but I for one would support seeing Jacques Tourneur’s name added, (unless I’ve missed it). He was a director of genuine talent, and despite, (or perhaps because of) his inclination towards understatement, he deserves mention and rememberance on this site.
Somewhat likewise for Paul Leni.
And I realize it’s slightly off-topic, but regarding directors already mentioned here, I don’t quite understand why some directors have so few works represented in the library. Philip Kaufman’s The Right Stuff and Invasion of the Body Snatchers, at least, (and quite possibly The Wanderers and Quills as well) deserve to be listed alongside his single entry of The Unbearable Lightness of Being.
I understand that this is quite possibly due to the great amount of work required on this site, (which passive spectators like myself run the danger of taking for granted) and if that is the case, please take my comments in the context of humility, and great thanks for the vast work done already on this site.
Still, I can’t understand why John Huston is represented only by Treasure of the Sierra Madre and Under the Volcano. He’s a significant figure in American film who brought great character to play in pretty much everything he did. Both Maltese Falcon and Asphalt Jungle are HUGE influences on hundreds of films represented here. (Especially upon work of the aforementioned JP Melville.) I mean, come on; Maltese Falcon not even listed?!?!?!
Go to Comment
Great movies that you never want to see again over 3 years ago
If we amended the title of this forum by putting the word “Reputedly” in front of “Great”, then I’d cite Last Tango In Paris as my foremost addition to the list. I found it so repellant, I pitched my DVD after an attempt at a second viewing.
Also, Scorsese’s entire oeuvre, (aside from Who’s That Knocking and After Hours—and for some strange reason, Casino). There’s something at play in his style to which I’m unapologetically allergic. Despite his vast understanding of all things cinema, I think he opperates at a deficit as an artist, and incapable of conveying anything outside of brutality. Unlike genuine masters of cinema, (Kubrick, Renoir, Welles, Mizoguchi, Bresson, Dryer, Lang, Ford…) I don’t think Scorsese ever learned—or cared how to tie subtext into his delivery. So, no; I’m not lookin’ at him.
And since I’m in agreement on Salo, I’ll add The Archers’ The Red Shoes to the list, just so it doesn’t seem like I’m picking on the Italians. I’ve either enjoyed or deeply loved every other Criterion release of theirs, but I thought the Red Shoes’ take on the world of HIGH ART was astonishingly tatty. I mean no disrespect to the talented Powell and Pressburger team, but give me Black Narcissus or Tales of Hoffman over that any day.
Go to Comment
Great movies that you never want to see again over 3 years ago
From a defender of a crank like Pauline Kael, I’d almost consider that a compliment.
If I thought she mattered.
Go to Comment
Great movies that you never want to see again over 3 years ago
Oh, silly Rodney; the past 150 years of modern philosophy would assert that your question can be asked of everyone, and answered by no one.
I can assert that my thoughts were at least pertainent to the topic at hand —more so than yours, since the title of this forum isn’t, “Take a Personal Shot At the Pervious Participant”.
But I’ve scanned your profile to get a sense of your tastes, and have read some of your previous posts. So out of respect to both you and people who’d like to keep this forum on topic, I’d prefer to continue this exchange as a private dialogue rather than a public spat. Feel free to PM me, and back up your assault with a bit more detail and cogency.
Go to Comment
Underrated / overrated over 3 years ago
Sheryl Lee deserved both the Oscar AND a lifetime achievement award for what she and David Lynch managed to squeeze out of just that one performance. And on top of that, the rest of the film was of high caliber and deserves good standing in Lynch’s body of work.
Why Fire Walk With Me has been so under appreciated has befuddled me for years. I can understand the mainstream audience abandoning it, (it lacked the sheen of the TV show, which is probably what constituted the allure for most) but how anyone could enjoy Lynch for both Blue Velvet and the TP Television series, but dismiss the prequel is beyond me. And as for overrated, I believe it’s time we added Pauline Kael to the list. (Critics should not be exempt from criticism on this site.) As a writer, she showed considerable and natural fluidity, but her gifts of perception were arguably far below her literary skills. The best of true film criticism, (pretty much defined by the vintage Cahiers assemblage) manages to identify and reveal the more hidden principles at work in cinema, and leaves the reader feeling they’ve learned something new. It builds insight. With Kael, I don’t believe that anyone manages to learn anything other than what her personal tastes and vendettas tended to be. Her work operates as little more than second-tier literary criticism, and by the time she realized she had an audience, her criticism became more about a performance of style than it was about honestly and earnestly assessing the subjects at hand. . Her bad example of how frustrated English majors can turn to film criticism, for a feeling of empowerment over the genuinely talented, is evidenced by a single dedicated perusal through the Time Out Guide. I believe in the importance of good criticism, but I don’t think Kael’s warrants any further attention. Her work of the 70’s has merit as an historical artifact alone, and I’d prefer to learn from actual practitioners of the form—or at least someone who’s earnest in their role as a critic. Red thumbs and snide remarks, I await thee.Go to Comment
What's your favorite Jean-Pierre Melville film? over 3 years ago
I wouldn’t propose it to be his best, but I’ve got to say that I really did enjoy Le deuxieme souffle a great deal.
I can’t help but see the plight of the Lino Ventura character (an old-style gangster working to maintain his credibility with a new generation—who show little by way of respect or intergrity) as anything but a parallel for Melville himself, who was the target of scorn and criticism to the writers and directors of the New Wave. I’ve said it before, but while I enjoy many of the films of that younger group, there is at least a dozen French directors directly preceeding them who remained their betters. Melville is one of them.
As far as personal favorite goes, for me it remains Bob le flambeur, simply because it combines his brilliance with an intoxicating sense of play. (I don’t think anything he did afterwards was anywhere near as much fun.) His skills would continue to ripen as he went along, but his filmography provides at least five or six legitimate choices for anyone’s favorite, ranging in merit mostly depending on personal taste and the story at hand. He was a craftsman of the first order.
Go to Comment
What's your favorite Jean-Pierre Melville film? over 3 years ago
I responded to Christopher’s remark personally, (and in a very friendly manner) just to keep things from going off topic. But since there’s another comment regarding what I said re: the New Wavers and Melville, I’ll reiterate here:
I believe that both the written and audio extras in the two latest Criterion Melvilles, (Le doulos, and Le deuxieme souffle) contain reference to the fact that, while Melville was a shining light to the Nouvelle Vague in the beginning, at some point as the sixties went on he fell into their great disfavor. Partly because, as they went to assert themselves as filmmakers their approach became increasingly “progressive”, whereas Melville continued to follow what they considered an outmoded, chiefly American approach to material. (I’ve read several other non-Criterion accounts that concur—although details seem scarce, and my Fracais no is so yes, which excludes researching original source material.)
There was also a disdain based on politics, as Melville’s own became evidently, (and admittedly) right wing. Additionally, Melville went on to become a member of the French censorship board, and took a stance against subsidies for filmmakers, (reasoning that he himself had dug his own way to success, so…). I’m sure that didn’t please them.
Lastly, as he continued to garner popular and commercial succsess in France throughout the 60’s, (and positive reviews in the mainstream press) this was seen as the result of pandering to the masses and further alienated Melville from his former admirers.
I’m fairly certain that by the time of Melville’s passing in ‘73, he and Godard were not on speaking terms, (“Mutually disdainful” would probably not be an overstatement) and Cahiers made no mention of Melville’s passing or considerable achievements in their publication—probably the loudest silence in its history. Melville was self-admittedly difficult to get along with; and when you add to that the fact that you had splinterings within the Nouvelle Vaugue itself, (to say nothing about the political situation in France at the time) it really becomes little surprise that what had begun as hero-worship ended pretty much in acrimony.
But if you don’t believe me, you can do the research for yourselves. Much interesting, if somewhat saddening, reading to be found. And, as I said in the earlier post, it really does put Le deuxieme souffle in a more profound light—whether that was Melville’s intent or not.ADDENDUM: I began writing this post before Adam Suraf’s excellent, (and more mercifully brief) account. To Adam: il miglior fabbro
Go to Comment
Philip Kaufman's Greatest film to date: over 3 years ago
I’ll never forget seeing his Invasion of the Body Snatchers as a teenager during it’s initial theatrical release. What a great film—and what an ending! The original version is great, but Kaufman managed to pay it complete respect while both updating and surpassing it. What a feat. I wish there were more re-makes one could say that about.
Whichever film one calls the best is immaterial to me; what does matter is that he’s a genuine talent, and it’s a real shame that he hasn’t been able to do more.
Go to Comment
Philip Kaufman's Greatest film to date: over 3 years ago
Tom, everyone on this site is entitled to their opinion—and the directors you’ve listed as your personal faves are nearly all unimpeachable, (sorry, but while I’m a fan myself, many people are on the fence as to J. Tati nowadays—and after 40 mins of Hulot gags, he can get pretty dull himself).
I think you’re a bit harsher on Kaufman than his filmography would merit; all three of the films you’ve listed are excellent, if shy of perfect. If you feel otherwise, please inform those of us here so benighted where we should look to find the holes in his work. Acting, narrative, pacing and composition are all top rate, so far as I can tell. (The great Caleb Deschanell at the cams and lighting for The Right Stuff—and put to excellent use.) Likewise, his sensitivity to source literary material is far above the norm—by the standards of any film-producing nation, let alone Hollywood. So lighten up on the guy.
Or, I’m afraid for your sake you may receive a visit from tonight from the ghost of Jacob Marley. (Oh! If Alastair Sim is with him, PLEASE tell him I say hello. And not to wait for me.)Go to Comment
How Big Is Your DVD Collection? over 3 years ago
About 320 Criterions, (spine nos., really) and 300 to 400 non-Criterions, (counting TV boxes as one each). I consider it a library rather than a collection—although I’m seriously considering whether it should continue as one of the circulating variety.
I do believe in the Zen principle, “You can judge the wealth of a man by what he can afford to live without”. For this reason, I avoid buying too much more for fear of suffering from both fiscal and metaphysical bankruptcy. Likewise Blu-rays. (The difference is noticable, but not enough for me to warrant the investment.)
I own no Tom Hanks movies.
Go to Comment
What films do you always catch shit for for not liking? over 3 years ago
Well, from serious film folks, I’m under the gun for my unrelenting dislike of Scorsese—especially his big three of Taxi Driver, Goodfellas and Raging Bull. All I can say in my defense to his legion of admirers is, I’ve tried to give them each fair, honest viewings and still find myself repelled by both Scorsese’s style, and the characters on the screen. (I do care for him as a critic and popular figure; that camera commercial he did is one of my biggest laughs of the past ten years! (Only Yoko Ono’s singing in Rock And Roll Circus gets a bigger laugh out of me.) And no make-up team on Earth could fake those eye-brows!)
From people whose tastes run more along he lines of popular modern mainstream, I get lotsa flac for absolutely hating 300. Ancient Spartans with pirate accents, video game sensibilities, and executioner orcs!?!?!? Persian ninjas?!?!? During the speech towards the end of the movie, (given by the same pirate who narrated the entire film, but didn’t get his eye-patch until the end) I said audibly at the end of every statement, “On this, St. Crispin’s Day”! My girlfriend wasn’t too happy about that, but she did laugh the first couple of times and is still with me today. Plus, it was the only thing that made me feel I got my money’s worth.
Blades of Glory was a better film. (The decapitation scene ties with Scorsese and Yoko for laughs.)
Go to Comment
Criterion Christmas over 3 years ago
From my girlfriend:
The Shop On Main Street
The Two Of Us
Three Films by Hiroshi Teshigahara (!!!!!!!!!)
All picked out under my instruction a month or more back when Criterion was having their 40% off sale.
My cousin bought me Bergman’s The Virgin Spring—but somehow, receiving a disc about the rape and murder of a teenage girl, and the father’s resultant despair when he acts in revenge…….well, not something I wanted to associate with either the holiday or my cousin.
I traded it in at Borders for the CC edition of Dazed and Confused; not at the top of my list, but he did mention liking both the movie and the packaging quite a bit, and I can feel good about loaning it to him.
(I bought him the 1001 movies you must see before you die. I thought it was a decent mid-point between a serious and popular film-related book, and a good help in prioritizing his Netflix queue. Anyone else have thoughts on it?)
Go to Comment
TOP 5 Childhood Films over 3 years ago
If it wasn’t completely hand-drawn, it had to feel grown-up to me; no Mary Poppins or Bednobs and Broomsticks for this boy. So it was:
Yellow Submarine.
Dumbo, (re-release at the local Drive-In during very late 60’s or eary 70’s—my Dad grumbled like Darrin McGavin fixing a tire for the length of the feature.)
A Boy Named Charlie Brown, (same Drive-In, same Dad.)
Planet of the Apes (the real version)
and the Godfather Pt. I.
Go to Comment
Film: Is it art or entertainment? over 3 years ago
Well, I appreciate the title of this forum for starting off some discourse, but in the long run isn’t this question as silly as asking, “Painting; is it Fine Art, or just decoration”? It rather depends on the artist and painting in question, doesn’t it? And our ability to discern what’s on the canvas, (and whether or not we benefit) differs based on our individual levels of perception, learning, and earnest desire to investigate. And oftentimes, our personal perspective from where we stand while viewing it.
I really do believe that all arts boil down to one medium, and that medium is Language. The tools at hand vary from sound, to imagery, to motion and the verbal, (and film provides the means to combine them all) but ultimately it’s how and what they reveal in their subjects that determines whether or not it can be considered “Art”. And and also determines how a work effects us individually.
I don’t know that anyone’s bothered to get to the end of this posting, (my participation seem to kill a lot of forums these days) or if they’ll take anything new away from it. But I do believe that what people get out of various creative endeavors is a tandem process that includes both the artist and the audience equally. And I wish people in the viewer’s position would challenge themselves just a little bit more than what tends to be the norm.
Go to Comment
Film: Is it art or entertainment? over 3 years ago
Yeah. Like food; you can either eat it, or throw it acorss the room at someone. It’s what you make of it!
The best course of action is to seek out good food as a source of nourishment, and know how to enjoy dessert as well. How healthy you are is often determined by what you eat.
Go to Comment
Film: Is it art or entertainment? over 3 years ago
Hey, Ray.
I mean that, when you look at the way all the Arts function, the process at play in all forms is very much the same as what we use in verbal language. Comic book art and film are good examples of how imagery can function in the same narrative way as…….uh, …narrative! There’s syntax, (think about tracking shots, close ups, jump cuts…) subject/verb relationships, rhythm, meter and other parallels at work. The same goes for music and dance.
I think it’s both ironic and limiting that, (at least in English) the visual, (painting, illustration) is termed as Art, and the verbal as language. Basically, each one has the ability to encompass both. (And as someone who tries to both write and draw, I’ve also got plenty of experience in how they share the dangerous inclination to fail as either.)
There’s a book by the title, Escher Bach Godel that outlines the correlations between drawing, music and mathematics. My assertion is fairly similar, but I guess I’m focusing on the principles of communication rather than structure.
And as a closing pretentious comment, I’ll point out that out of all the senses involved in being able to determine whether or not a work of literature, visuals, or music reaches the level of high art, the only one that doesn’t come in to play is….
the sense of taste. (Likely, the most subjective one of the five.)
Go to Comment
Is being a prolific Director an impediment to critical acclaim? over 3 years ago
Well, while I agree almost 100% with what Tony Stark has to say, I think that it’s silly to bring this into question. Take each work for what it’s worth. Besides, a film doesn’t have to be a deathless masterpiece to be good. It just has to be good. And personally, I think Lumet ranges from good to really good, but I don’t see him as an all-time great.
It is interesting to note the Ten Year prinicple that a cohort of Felini’s brought into mention; for the great masters of modern film, there does tend to be a span of ten years from their first unquestionable masterpiece to their last. And note: that’s not an absolute, just a barometer.
And for what it’s worth, RW Fassbinder was a director of extremely high facility and intelligence; he did dozens of astoundingly well made films in a sadly small amount of years. (His life-span was significantly shorter than either Kubrick’s or Coppola’s carreers. In fact, I haven’t done the math, but I think RWF lived only three-times the length of the average Tarkovsky film. Who made only a small amount of films. All of which are of an extremely high standard.)
Go to Comment
Is being a prolific Director an impediment to critical acclaim? over 3 years ago
Re: Musycks: Sorry Elton, but aside from Sandy Denny, no one deserves mention alongside Nick Drake.
And thanks for mentioning Jeff Buckley, whoever—because while everyone thinks of him as younger than his dad, as an artist Tim showed more maturity at the age of 22 than his son would at 27—to say nothing of all the ground Tim covered, (and created!) between Goodbye and Hello to Starsailor. Jeff did one GREAT album, and couldn’t deliver a second—within two years! I LOVE Jeff; but Tim went alot farther in much less time.
Go to Comment